Weekend Numbers [June 07-09, 2024] | actuals | 56.5M BAD BOYS: RIDE OR DIE | 10.0M GARFIELD | 7.8M IF | 7.0M THE WATCHERS

[wildphantom]

12 minutes ago, AniNate said:

 

The sad truth is Ted Sarandos is not romantic for the theatrical experience like this. He's all too happy to destroy the industry, only reason anything they might pick up would get a theatrical exhibition is so it can qualify for the academy's now stricter awards criteria.

I know. He’s literally Mr Wall Street.  It’ll only take a couple of quarters that come under expectation to pile the pressure on them to change tact. 
 

That said, they’re not spending anywhere near what they were on their own new films. Realising they’re better off just licencing from everyone else. 

[baumer]

1 hour ago, filmscholar said:

Look I like Glen Powell and hope "Twisters" does well (Watched the original in 96 on the Big Screen) but he still has some work to become a proven draw.  I get it, he has the "Leading Man" look thing down.  I'll give him that but I understand "Hit Man" going to streaming, in this market it probably would have had lukewarm box office.   With that said, "Anything But You" put up respectable numbers.  He's on the right track.

 

 

To be fair, you think the cast of twisters is going to be the main selling point? I mean I love Bill Paxton and Phillip Seymour Hoffman but I don't think anybody was going to see Twister because they were in it. 

[kayumanggi]

 

[kayumanggi]

 

[filmlover]

Obviously going to see Twisters but have to admit the rather massive predictions for it in certain corners (like I've seen some compare it to Top Gun: Maverick, which...why? Because they both have Glen Powell in them lol?) have left me perplexed. The marketing for this is promising nothing more than goofy disaster movie spectacle, which there has been plenty of since 1996 and became passe a while ago (Geostorm, anyone?). If it makes similar numbers to San Andreas I would be impressed, especially facing a guaranteed juggernaut in its second weekend.

[cannastop]

9 minutes ago, kayumanggi said:

 

Going to end at $115m dom I guess. Pretty good run for it. I guess family movies might just have these leggy runs from now on.

[titanic2187]

 

 

 

[titanic2187]

 

 

 

[filmscholar]

15 minutes ago, baumer said:

 

 

To be fair, you think the cast of twisters is going to be the main selling point? I mean I love Bill Paxton and Phillip Seymour Hoffman but I don't think anybody was going to see Twister because they were in it. 

 

Oh no I agree that "Disaster Movie" element is the biggest selling point.  And yes the Visual effects and Tornados really sold "Twister" back in 96.  With that said, I do think Bill and Helen had some drawing power back then that helped for sure since "Mad about You" was popular at the time and Bill was in a ton films.   Philip was more supporting character so no I don't think he necessarily sold it.   There were so many disaster films back then that had big Stars attached.  "Volcano", "Dante's Peak", "Armageddon, Deep impact" etc.  But "Twister" remains one of the bigger successes of the Genre. 

[JimmyB]

16 minutes ago, wildphantom said:

I know. He’s literally Mr Wall Street.  It’ll only take a couple of quarters that come under expectation to pile the pressure on them to change tact. 
 

That said, they’re not spending anywhere near what they were on their own new films. Realising they’re better off just licencing from everyone else. 

This isnt true. Netflix is spending more on original content than ever before and did this to build its own library of films and tv series.  They are spending less and less on licensing. Netflix sees theaters as competition and film makers have no problem taking Netflix's money knowing the films won't play in theaters.  Netflix isnt a new company.  A couple bad quarters wont make them change their entire business model.  They have 270 million worldwide subs.  IDK, I feel like some people here think Blockbuster stores could make a comeback....the line of thinking about Netflix will put films in theaters feel like something from 15 years ago.

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/netflix-spend-vast-majority-17-110000596.html

[Eric is Quiet]

1 hour ago, Eric Burnett said:

You just made me realize the huge pressure Bad Boys is under. If it opens under Apes…is it because of Mickey’s Law? 🤔 

Yep. The law's returned. I'm calling it! (yes I know it could beat it in actuals lol)

[kayumanggi]

 

[AniNate]

The je ne sais quoi of the Crichton/Spielberg team I think was a factor also. Even if the audience didn't consciously realize it or could only articulate it as "the effects", the cumulative impact of their pedigrees and resources made the movie feel like a much bigger event than those lesser disaster movies.

[Eric is Quiet]

30 minutes ago, baumer said:

 

 

To be fair, you think the cast of twisters is going to be the main selling point? I mean I love Bill Paxton and Phillip Seymour Hoffman but I don't think anybody was going to see Twister because they were in it. 

I mean I think Anthony Ramos and Glen Powell are cute, so I guess the cast is the main selling point for me 🙃

[AniNate]

Twisters does have a good director to its credit and Spielberg is still putting money into it for what that's worth.

[wildphantom]

1 minute ago, JimmyB said:

This isnt true. Netflix is spending more on original content than ever before and did this to build its own library of films and tv series.  They are spending less and less on licensing. Netflix sees theaters as competition and film makers have no problem taking Netflix's money knowing the films won't play in theaters.  Netflix isnt a new company.  A couple bad quarters wont make them change their entire business model.  They have 270 million worldwide subs.  IDK, I feel like some people here think Blockbuster stores could make a comeback....the line of thinking about Netflix will put films in theaters feel like something from 15 years ago.

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/netflix-spend-vast-majority-17-110000596.html

Having Beverly Hills Cop 4 in cinemas wide for two weeks is not changing their entire business model. 
 

 

[excel1]

20 hours ago, AMC Theaters Enjoyer said:

I think it doesn’t help that so much of the 2010s is about recreating the 80s, 90s, etc. it didn’t form its identity when it comes to mainstream cinema (for the most part).

 

20 hours ago, grim22 said:

I think there's definitely a thing where everyone had the same cultural experience till around 2012-14. Everyone watched the same few channels, the same movies for the most part, same big sporting events and so on because that's all that was programmed. After the smartphone made streaming more accessible, and apps like Instagram and TikTok made people create their information siloes, the cultural experience is a lot more fragmented.

 

Two people can go their entire lives without ever consuming the same media as the other. Like for example, I haven't seen a single minute of Yellowstone which I know is a huge show for some people because it's just not been available to watch in a convenient manner. I'm reminded of this every time Netflix cancels a show I literally didn't know existed till the cancellation and that show has enough fans to start a renewal hashtag campaign.

 

20 hours ago, Cmasterclay said:

I've been playing movie trivia at my local pub (kick ass of course), and they do it by decade - 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, 10s. It's been making me thinking alot about the cultural canon. Every time is a mix of huge hits, cult classics, and comedies - but the mix gets really.....off in 2010s. When we talk about a cultural canon, aka the lines, the moments, and the characters that are so culturally recognizable that they can be turned into trivia and debates, there's something really lacking in the 2010s. In the 1970s, so many of the biggest box office hits they ask about are also filled with instantly recognizable characters and lines (Jaws, Star Wars, Godfather, etc). In the 80s, same thing with Top Gun, Batman 89, Back to the Future, etc. 90s, same deal with Lion King, Forrest Gump, Sixth Sense, ID4, etc. In the 2000s, there's a little more separation between the hits and the canon, but there's still easy questions about LOTR, TDK, Harry Potter, and POTC. In the 2010s, there starts to be a hugeeeee chasm between the things that make money and the things that enter the cultural canon. Sure, the early part of the decade had things like Avengers and Hunger Games that had enough cultural cache to make it to trivia. But by the mid-part of the decade, all the questions are about movies like Get Out and Wolf of Wall Street and stuff like that. There certainly isn't any questions about Incredibles 2 or Frozen 2 or Finding Dory or Jurassic World or frankly most of the money making movies post-2013. Who remembers a line from those movies?? (sorry @Brainbug).  The cultural canon has always welcomed cult classics and late breakouts, and some moneymakers have been forgotten, but my point is that the chasm has never, ever been as large between money and cultural impact as in the last decade or so. That's part of why studios are really struggling for banger product.

 

The good news, in Top Gun Maverick, Barbie, Oppenheimer, NWH, and Dune 2, it does feel like a larger number of recent hits have penetrated the cultural canon. But then you have things like Minions 2 and Doctor Strange 2 and Jurassic World: Dominion that made a shit ton of money and left zero cultural mark. 

 

 

1 billion percent confirmed. Particularly among comedies. In the 1990s and 2000s, many of the most quotable lines were from the iconic comedies which everyone saw, think anything from Austin Powers or Anchorman, McLovin, that's so Fetch, etc.

 

True megahit comedies seem to penetrate pop culture the most.  Austin Powers sequel, Bruce Almighty, Meets The Parents, Meet the Fockers, The Hangover 1 and 2, Bridemaids, Wedding Crashers, Taladega Nights, many Adam Sandler films, Elf were almost all in the yearly top 10, some in the top 5. Obviously going back into the 2000 or the early, you get into Rush Hour 1 and 2, Scary Movie, prime Julia Roberts romcoms, prime Jim Carrey and Adam Sandler tentpoles, Dr Doolittle and The Nutty Professor.

 

They all feel like a products of a bygone era. In the mid 2010s onwards, the tentpole comedy kind of died. I don't think an outright comedy has been in a years top 10 since Ted in 2012, unless we want to view Barbie as one?

 

One could reasonable argue that 'action comedy' is still a thing ala Bad Boys- many Marvel films border on outright comedy, the first Transformers is legit hilarious, but the concept itself isn't a comedy.

Edited June 9 by excel1

[titanic2187]

 

 

 

 

[Eric is Quiet]

 

Anyone know how these markets compare to For Life?

[excel1]

19 hours ago, Cmasterclay said:

moments from the post 2015 blockbuster scene with a few exceptions like the Snap or BB-8.

 

Wakanda Forever is the only line that really fits that bill in the last 10 years.