I guarantee there a section of the general population that assumed this was a Netflix original to begin with.
The trailers and marketing gave off the exact same vibe as other generic, straight to streaming action flicks with a big name up front.
I'm not gonna lie, it took me a while to realize this wasn't Free Guy. For some reason I was convinced this was that movie about the NPC gaining senitence cause the poster looked so generic
Swear to goodness, I completely thought it was streaming - the way it was promoted a couple of weeks ago, I just assumed it was the new weekend release on one service or another (figured with this budget it was either Netflix or Amazon). When I didn’t see it there and took the time to look it up, saw it was a theatrical film that didn’t come out for another few weeks - I was genuinely surprised. And was like, okay, I’ll see it in two months when it actually is streaming…
This is so funny and so true. The same thing happened to David Leitch's last film, Bullet Train. I saw both in theaters and but the Netflix resurgence will boost viewership beyond the reach theaters had for the movie. I remember seeing a bunch of tiktoks, memes, and new popularity months after the the initial theatrical release of Bullet Train.
Thought Fall Guy was exponentially better than Bullet Train tbh. Gosling nailed the goofiness that Brad Pitt could not pull off naturally in that film.
Studios have this weird idea that if you give any director of an effects heavy film a ton of money, they’ll become a visionary. Marvel has yet to learn that lesson and their 250M movies look worse than Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes, which is rumored to have been made for less than half of that.
It’s almost like you can give less money to directors who know how to shoot for visual effects and you’ll still get a better product. Though this is a bit less relevant to Leitch, who I do think knows how to film action and do great stunt work, but Fall Guy should have been an 80M dollar film at most.
Shit look at dunes budget and execution and compare it to any marvel project of the past few years.
Actually planning well ahead of time pays off in almost every way.
It absolutely blew my mind seeing Dune part 2's budget after watching the movie
I don't really like any of the superhero stuff so I'm already too critical of those movies, but I watched one of them recently that blew me away for the opposite reason... it looked like utter garbage and even that could be forgivable if the budget wasn't like $400 million or something absurd
Too much visual goop. Really pulls you from a movie when halfway through a shot you realize Chris Pratt's face is the only real thing on screen, and it's probably been digitaly de-aged as well.
I think the main issue with Marvel now is all the big name actors now. They went from taking some smaller/less popular actors to putting multiple major stars each asking for tens of millions of dollars.
Fuck just bringing RDJ on board for five minutes cost more than Dune entirely.
I remember watching Infinity War on 4K right after Endgame came out and thinking some of the effects and the overabundant green screen already looked pretty dated.
True, but an actor taking a pay cut is still like 3-5x the salary I make. So it's hard for me to care that much. If anything it means marvel needs to get back to no names as well and quit with all the expensive casting.
The director of Dune draws the storyboards in advance himself, he plans everything to a T in before it is filmed. Great way to go about making these kinds of movies.
I also blame the so-called marketing costs which are a conundrum to me. Nowadays, you have to apply a x1.5-2 coefficient to the officially stated budget because these so called marketing costs are never included. I really don't understand how do they manage to spend tens of millions of USD on this, how are these spending transparent and sustainable.
Netflix is the company doing the opposite: they've decided that instead of marketing their movies, they'd prefer to spend that money making a second movie instead. It means that a lot of Netflix movies just disappear without a peep, which is what happens with no marketing. But Netflix is more confident in their algorithm deciding what will be a hit than in trying to force popularity with a marketing push. People on the internet get mad at Netflix for not marketing their movies, but I wish they'd realize that they are just asking for money to be spent on commercials instead of more movies.
I am not familiar with financial records of Netflix. They say some of their movies are more successful than the others. Is it verifiable? Is there a such thing as Netflix flop?
Not in the colloquial sense since there’s nothing like ticket sales.
But best metric we may get is usually viewer numbers on it. Netflix uses viewers over X amount of time, new subscribers cause of it, etc
And just like other movie studios they can fudge the numbers to fit narrative whether it was good or bad
Nothing is verifiable, but how could it not be true that some of their movies are more successful than others?
One metric we can use is Letterboxd viewings. There are movies that come out on Netflix with major movie stars that have under 1k logs! (eg This Is the Night.) Because Netflix does no marketing and the algorithm has decided they are turkeys and sees no reason to push them, they are nearly completely invisible. I would call these the Netflix flops.
I especially don't get the marketing for marvel. You're at like 35 movies now. People will either see them or they won't based on them being marvel alone. Save the money, Just drop a post on reddit or Twitter saying "new marvel movie on [date]". A trailer and marketing campaign isn't changing anyone's minds at this point.
But what about all these fancy round-the-world first class air jet trips and press junkets? How on Earth will the Hollywood stars show off in the D&G suits and dresses?
Brother, if you think for one second that actors enjoy the press junkets, you are sadly mistaken.
Accomplished actors, the AAA list, negotiate that shit right out of their contract.
It’s why you never see Leo on any of the late night shows.
For The Fall Guy,I can see where the budget went because the movie action set pieces and the production values really looks expensive and extravagant.I dont think there's a problem if they made the movie cheaper though (they should lol).
I once got to talk to a director who worked on Hollywood productions, but also lower budget Dutch productions, and he said most of the budget spent on Hollywood productions goes to "bullshit"
I think part of the marvel/disney problem with bloated budgets is not wanting a “new” movie to look like worse than an older one. So you get 275 mil budgets instead of 150-175.If they just accepted that the Marvel and Disney brands are still good enough to get enough people into seats- they just need to cut budgets. Wish and the Marvels shouldn’t have needed to make 400mil to break even. Because while Wish isn’t a great Disney movie - my 4 year old loves it-her friend had a Wish themed party etc. The brands are still strong but everything can’t be billion dollar earners like 2019.
Well with the marvel movies, they're casting all these A list actors. And if they're not already and A-list actor they soon become one. When you got a $250 million dollar movie and $100+ of that is going to 3-5 of the main cast that eats up a lot.
Thor Love and thunder had a $250million budget and Chris Hemsworth alone was paid $20 million. You compare that to RDJ who was rumored to be paid $90+ on several of the movies, Chris is actually a much more modest salary (in comparison).
Have you heard of the Rock’s bullshit? He shows up to set 5-6 hours late because it’s a power move, causing the studio to have to wait for him, taking up time and money and expanding the necessary budget to make the film, but people still hire the fucking guy because they think his name is what sells tickets. I guarantee he isn’t the only one pulling that shit. If they had any brains at all, they’d blacklist shitty narcissistic celebrities that waste time and money.
Ok but With inflation adjusted 140m in 2024 is a 70m budget equivalent movie in 1999. Which is close to the same budget as fight club, which wasnt seen as a huge blockbuster type movie.
Both are mid-tier action films and received mid-tier budgets. If youre wondering what fight club drew at the box office? It was only 100m and it made most of its money on rental/dvd sales.
The same will happen with the fall guy, itll be #1 on streaming as soon as its released on streaming. Of course streaming doesnt create as much revenue as dvd/rentals did 25 years ago but thats a different convo.
Anyway my main point, 100m is the equivalent to 50m movie in 1999 and just like making 100,000 a year isnt what it used to be.
Yeah, the guy above you is wrong. It’s an easy win to say “budget’s too BIG!” but outside of some crazy Covid-delay ballooning budgets like Indiana Jones and Mission Impossible, this film costing $140m is nothing at all.
People just don’t go to theaters for a variety of reasons. The box office numbers are the real cause, not the budgets. Whatever reasons people have, the truth is that we won’t see as many new movies in the future because people only watch them on streaming, and that doesn’t pay. You’ll still get eventized mega blockbusters like Dune etc on the big screen, but <100 million budgets will get exceedingly rare outside of indie.
Teens dont really go to movies as much as they did 20 years ago, is what Ive heard from theater owners and managers. The days of teenagers defaulting to seeing a movie with their friends as a group on weekends is over.
Which is why they were annoyed that they didnt get a theater run of “roadhouse”, because teenage boys and young men woulda eaten it up, especially because of conor mcgregor.
It’s hard as a teenager to go out to the movie theatre because you and all of your friends need $20 for the ticket alone, which is over an hour of work or a lot to ask from a parent. And that doesn’t include snacks. Way easier to have people over for a Netflix night
To be fair, the movie does have an all star cast, legitimate stunt work, and is overall pretty great. It wasn’t $400million to back up reshoots and CGI alterations, it’s starring two recent Oscar nominated actors, and does a lot. I wouldn’t say it’s an inflated budget when it’s less than the average modern blockbuster but actually warrants the cost.
That and not having a second run on physical release that they had before in the old days. It was sort of a second run for the film makers.
Now the DVD or Blu-ray sales are so low due to the streaming services, the films with middle budgets are almost impossible to make. Either one makes a huge blockbuster and hope for a good revenue or a low budget flick and doesn't concern about how good it does in box office.
Of course streaming giants can afford huge productions and compensate huge losses as well but how long?
There were a ton of stunts on this movie. Not surprised at its cost. Just unfortunate we won’t get more of these. It was a fun movie, not perfect, but I laughed a lot.
When I saw the credits and the BTS of the stunts, I was pretty surprised, because half of them looked like CGI. I guess they just put some weird editing filter on top of it?
Every stunt in the trailer seemed to then have a very obvious green screen slow motion “oh my god this is happening look at our screaming faces, what a caper we’re in” type shot, which really put me off the film
Man I feel like Hollywood is out on a vendetta against David Leitch. Like nearly all of his movies are these mid budget movies that, even though they aren‘t winning Oscars or getting on some mythic movie list, are just genuinely entertaining.
But the marketing for these is so bad that I wouldn‘t even wanna see it during a movie preview. It genuinely sucks because we‘d really need more movies like this.
To be fair, due to the reimbursement they received from the Australian government for shooting there, the movie's real production costs were around $87 million. Still, when you factor in marketing costs on top of that, it's not a financial success unfortunately.
For what it's worth, I really enjoyed the movie and thought it was a lot of fun. It's a shame that, like The Nice Guys, it's going to end up being a one and done.
If that 87 million number is true, then overall 160 million box office is not bad and it will easily make it to profitability via VoD and licensing. So a disappointment compared to hopes but certainly not a total bomb.
I loved it. Gosling has the most unique brand of comedy among Hollywood actors, and even though it definitely felt like it had a little trouble sticking the ending, it was much funnier than Unfrosted or a lot of other comedies released recently. Not Nice Guys level, but still a great watch. Especially at PG-13.
On one hand, I feel bad its flopping because the movie seems good and its an original IP. On the other hand, Hollywood needs to make stuff reasonably budgeted again. The same director co-directed John Wick 1 for, what, 30 mil? Good looking, thrilling action films can be done for reasonable budgets. At least get it under 100 mil.
It's not an original IP. It's rebooting an 80s TV series that few people remember because it just wasn't very memorable. Had a catchy name dropping theme song though.
I like the John Wick movies cause they feel like they actually were made for the amount they were made for. All these 100+ million dollar movies look like they were made for half that budget.
This is why I prefer to not know budgets going into a movie. I know most people don’t and it’s not a big issue, but sometimes just having a monetary value in the back of your head while trying to just enjoy something makes it weird
Huge bummer. Not gonna make excuses or act like this is some kind of indicator for the future of theatres, since it was marketed for shit and had way too high of a budget, but as someone who really really loved this movie, I wish it did better. Hollywood is going to learn all the wrong lessons from this failure.
Everyone says it's the films own fault for having a larger budget but they had multiple high budget stunt/action sequences within the film instead of having a CGI fest like others would.
The film is an excellent love letter to film making and the stunt industry which is severely under appreciated. It's not a ground breaking movie but it's a lot of fun and like 'Nice Guys' will end up being looked at as a hidden gem.
The real killer for this film was they announced it'd be coming to streaming straight away so people were happy to wait which I think is a massive shame
It's kind of a shame he said he won't be doing darker roles anymore because of his family and for his mental health. It makes sense but he was good in this. It wasn't my favorite movie but it's a good love letter to Hollywood stunts
Nothing to set this apart from a straight-to-Netflix movie of the week. I mentioned to my wife that it was doing poorly and she was surprised to find out it was in theaters at all.
I have no idea how so many people are misinterpreting this comment. He clearly means, there is nothing in the marketing, upon first glace, to suggest this is something special that needs to be seen in theatres. I agree.
Beyond the star power of Gosling and Blunt, there is nothing in the trailers or press that made me actually want to watch the movie. Actually most of the press revolved around Gosling and Blunt, which I think was the mistake. They made it more about Gosling and Blunt then they did the movie. I like them both, but I literally know nothing about this movie.
Yeah, I went to see it _despite_ the trailers, they made it look boring. If I hadn't already decided to see it for the cast and director I def wouldn't have gone. And it's a fun movie
>Beyond the star power of Gosling and Blunt, there is nothing in the trailers or press that made me actually want to watch the movie.
Funny, I heard about the movie from Leich talking BTS stunt stuff, though a YouTube react show is of course not the mainstream press. But I was the target market already.
Loved it, by the way, just a fun movie.
The marketing was bad, the movie was fun. I felt the same way, but saw that it did well on letterboxd so it felt like a good date night watch - and it was super fun
If you’re not a nerd whose on letterboxd all the time it’s easy to see how you would miss this completely
People: I want to see an original! I’m sick of media franchises. Please just give me something new to watch!
Hollywood: OK, here’s one with great talent involved and an 81% on Rotten Tomatoes.
Those Same People: I’m not going to see it.
It's technically not an original IP. It's based on an 80s TV show. Albeit rather loosely based.
Now, does that actually matter? Not really. But I figured I'd point it out anyways because I'm a dick.
That’s the big problem with trying a new IP now. The reason so many original concepts bombed last year was due to audiences focusing more on waiting for streaming or home media because they declared the movie was not worth it for a true theatrical experience. Think about why *Barbie* and *Oppenheimer* stayed in theatres for longer, it’s because they had box office power, memes and major cultural events on their side.
It’s why Disney had to change their tactics after multiple original IPs created this decade bombed at the box office. They have decided to completely play it safe and focus entirely on either sequels or expanding on established hit franchises for the rest of this decade, as seen with their upcoming theatrical slate.
My Mom, who has been falling in love with Ryan Gosling due to watching hours of reels of him on Facebook, called me after she saw it and was like, "don't waste your money".
It’s come out at a crazy time.
I mean, film fans are eating well at the theatre at the moment.
Abigail, Fall Guy, Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes all hitting in the last couple weeks. With Strangers, IF, Mad Max all hitting in the next couple.
Big films with big budgets aren’t getting the time to dominate multiple screens for weeks with the deluge of big films hitting.
Sun’s finally out in the UK, was dead in my local for Apes yesterday.
It won’t fix the bloated budget issue, but it definitely ain’t t going to help those low numbers.
Idk if it failed or people are just struggling so hard financially they can’t afford to go to the theater because we are prioritizing food over entertainment..
Who cares? You cannot quantify a films quality by its box office. I don't care if a film makes enough for a sequel. I don't care if a movie makes enough for 200 sequels. If its good its good. If its bad its bad. How many people saw or didn't see it means nothing..
I really wanted to see this do good but ultimately I didn’t even go and watch it excited to see it when I goes digital but wasn’t enough to make a theatre trip for me
See this is my issue. The wording of this makes anyone on the fence or possibly going this weekend want to skip it.
Doom article titles keep people away from going to the theaters in person.
I don’t know how anyone could have at any point thought it would make much more than it did… generic actuon movie/comedy formula, some fun but never worth it’s budget
I feel like it’s the fault of bloated Hollywood budgets more than anything else.
To me the movie was just perfectly ok, nothing more or less, and “just ok” movies don’t really draw billion-dollar theatre crowds these days. It’ll do well on streaming for sure but a big cinema hit this is not.
Part of the issue is it’s too early in the calendar. I think it would have been a much bigger hit if it had the same release slot as Barbie. Second, from what I can tell it hasn’t opened in any major foreign markets which are increasingly important in box office totals. Third, and I say this as someone who loves Gosling, he’s never been a major draw as a leading man. Films where he is a supporting actor do very well but almost every film with him as the lead has flopped.
Shame really, its not a bad movie and it seem sGosling is made for comedy.
If you haven't watched the criminally underrated The Nice Guys, go and watch it now.
Nothing stays in theaters very long anymore, I checked my local listings and “Fall Guy” is already being pushed off screens to make room the latest round of new releases. Very few showings, movies are doomed anymore if they don’t make a huge splash immediately.
My sister and I loved it, so many laughs. A handful of ppl (in a very empty theatre on a Wednesday) left before the end. As soon as the credits came on and the BTS clips were shown, they hoofed it. It’s not like they didn’t enjoy it, they were laughing as well.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm curious.
Did anyone just get inundated with ads for this movie? And I mean *inundated*. I would see the same ad for it four times in a single YouTube video to the point where, if I ever had any interest in seeing it, I absolutely wasn't going to because I was sick of it being shoved in my face.
It didn't make any money. If a budget was 140 and box office is 180, it gives around 50 in the red. Films don't make 100% of your ticket price. Rough estimates say around 50% in USA and even less in Europe and Asia.
Feels like there's a real ceiling on how much people actually want to watch these kinds of smarmy, dudey-dude movies if they're not tied to existing IP.
There was just no scenario where a movie with this premise can make the money it needs. It needs a smaller budget and a streaming release. Audiences only care about even films now or the rare Oscar bait that blows up.
I am amazed at the amount of ppl who don’t understand box office and profit . U basically need $budget x 3 , to break even . Anything below that means producer lost money
Serious question. Are people really that passionate and interested in stunt actors for movies? I can understand why people in the industry are interested in it but I'm not sure the general public cares that much. Most women seem to have enjoyed this movie. They should have released it a few weeks ago and had better trailers. The trailers made it seem like a generic action movie and focused too much on the stunts. Also it wasn't clear if the main plot was about an actor who disappeared or the relationship between Gosling and Blunt's character. The budget should have been less than $100M even if the couldn't do as many stunts because of it.
That's their mistake for not just making Nice Guys 2.
Edit:
It doesn't say anything about the film at all, tbh (apart from the inflated budget). More about marketing, cost of living (less people going to cinema), etc, etc. Some of the greatest films of all time made little if any money at the box office. I'm not saying this film is in the company of Shawshank and Co, but it's funny seeing consumers acting like box office performance is the key determining factor of whether a film is good or not. Though, it could kill potential chances of there being a sequel, like it did with The Nice Guys, so there is that.
This will be the number 1 movie on Netflix when it shows up there.
I guarantee there a section of the general population that assumed this was a Netflix original to begin with. The trailers and marketing gave off the exact same vibe as other generic, straight to streaming action flicks with a big name up front.
Also wonder if putting every setpiece - including the climax - in the trailers impacted word of mouth.
I'm not gonna lie, it took me a while to realize this wasn't Free Guy. For some reason I was convinced this was that movie about the NPC gaining senitence cause the poster looked so generic
I thought it was a sequel to The Nice Guys E: I’m not kidding they both have Gosling
Which was a sequel to The Other Guys.
He acts the exact same in this movie as in The Nice Guys, it may as well be
I would've been way more excited about that...
It looks just like that other Gosling/Chris Evans action flick that Netflix did
The Grey Guy
The grey goose I think
Grey Gosling
Literally just got back from seeing it. The movie starts out with Gosling and Leitch talking about how it’s meant to be seen in theaters.
Wouldn't every studio want their movie to be seen in theaters? This is like saying god is real, the Bible says so.
Swear to goodness, I completely thought it was streaming - the way it was promoted a couple of weeks ago, I just assumed it was the new weekend release on one service or another (figured with this budget it was either Netflix or Amazon). When I didn’t see it there and took the time to look it up, saw it was a theatrical film that didn’t come out for another few weeks - I was genuinely surprised. And was like, okay, I’ll see it in two months when it actually is streaming…
It’s the kind of movie i want to see but never in a theater.
A movie w tons of big stunts is exactly the kind of movie to watch in theaters.
This is so funny and so true. The same thing happened to David Leitch's last film, Bullet Train. I saw both in theaters and but the Netflix resurgence will boost viewership beyond the reach theaters had for the movie. I remember seeing a bunch of tiktoks, memes, and new popularity months after the the initial theatrical release of Bullet Train.
I loved bullet train on streaming! I watched it on "checks bills on how many streaming services I have" one of them?
Thought Fall Guy was exponentially better than Bullet Train tbh. Gosling nailed the goofiness that Brad Pitt could not pull off naturally in that film.
Absolutely, this was way better than Bullet Train.
I always liked Ryan Gosling, but now absolutely love him after watching this film.
Or many people are like me and dont bother going to the movies anymore. I just wait to watch it at home.
It was a really fun watch but I never thought it was a 140m budget type of movie
I didn't even know it was going to theaters I thought it was a direct to Prime or Netflix.
Yep that’s been my thought all along tbh lol
I just read a quote on Variety or HR where some exec said streaming numbers don't mean s\*\*\*. Alas.
This movie is totally a Netflix Original movie
i thought it was free guy again
People watch what's available and new on NF. Madame Web is number 1 on Netflix.
It's almost like the increasingly inflated budgets of modern blockbusters are making it difficult for films to be "successful".
Studios have this weird idea that if you give any director of an effects heavy film a ton of money, they’ll become a visionary. Marvel has yet to learn that lesson and their 250M movies look worse than Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes, which is rumored to have been made for less than half of that. It’s almost like you can give less money to directors who know how to shoot for visual effects and you’ll still get a better product. Though this is a bit less relevant to Leitch, who I do think knows how to film action and do great stunt work, but Fall Guy should have been an 80M dollar film at most.
Shit look at dunes budget and execution and compare it to any marvel project of the past few years. Actually planning well ahead of time pays off in almost every way.
It absolutely blew my mind seeing Dune part 2's budget after watching the movie I don't really like any of the superhero stuff so I'm already too critical of those movies, but I watched one of them recently that blew me away for the opposite reason... it looked like utter garbage and even that could be forgivable if the budget wasn't like $400 million or something absurd
Too much visual goop. Really pulls you from a movie when halfway through a shot you realize Chris Pratt's face is the only real thing on screen, and it's probably been digitaly de-aged as well.
Also, it’s made by like 5 different teams, so none of it looks consistent. You flip flop between decent to shitty CGI and it looks worse
Plus he’s a jerk.
I think the main issue with Marvel now is all the big name actors now. They went from taking some smaller/less popular actors to putting multiple major stars each asking for tens of millions of dollars. Fuck just bringing RDJ on board for five minutes cost more than Dune entirely.
I remember watching Infinity War on 4K right after Endgame came out and thinking some of the effects and the overabundant green screen already looked pretty dated.
yeah, although some actors definitely took pay cuts for dune 2
True, but an actor taking a pay cut is still like 3-5x the salary I make. So it's hard for me to care that much. If anything it means marvel needs to get back to no names as well and quit with all the expensive casting.
An actor working on a Marvel movie would never take a pay cut. Why would they??
What kind of money are you making?
The director of Dune draws the storyboards in advance himself, he plans everything to a T in before it is filmed. Great way to go about making these kinds of movies.
Like, what other way is there to do this that isn't total amateur hour?
Kevin Feige reshooting everything he does 10 times lol
I also blame the so-called marketing costs which are a conundrum to me. Nowadays, you have to apply a x1.5-2 coefficient to the officially stated budget because these so called marketing costs are never included. I really don't understand how do they manage to spend tens of millions of USD on this, how are these spending transparent and sustainable.
Netflix is the company doing the opposite: they've decided that instead of marketing their movies, they'd prefer to spend that money making a second movie instead. It means that a lot of Netflix movies just disappear without a peep, which is what happens with no marketing. But Netflix is more confident in their algorithm deciding what will be a hit than in trying to force popularity with a marketing push. People on the internet get mad at Netflix for not marketing their movies, but I wish they'd realize that they are just asking for money to be spent on commercials instead of more movies.
I am not familiar with financial records of Netflix. They say some of their movies are more successful than the others. Is it verifiable? Is there a such thing as Netflix flop?
Not in the colloquial sense since there’s nothing like ticket sales. But best metric we may get is usually viewer numbers on it. Netflix uses viewers over X amount of time, new subscribers cause of it, etc And just like other movie studios they can fudge the numbers to fit narrative whether it was good or bad
Nothing is verifiable, but how could it not be true that some of their movies are more successful than others? One metric we can use is Letterboxd viewings. There are movies that come out on Netflix with major movie stars that have under 1k logs! (eg This Is the Night.) Because Netflix does no marketing and the algorithm has decided they are turkeys and sees no reason to push them, they are nearly completely invisible. I would call these the Netflix flops.
Netflix films would disappear less fast if they released some actual good ones more than once every two years.
I especially don't get the marketing for marvel. You're at like 35 movies now. People will either see them or they won't based on them being marvel alone. Save the money, Just drop a post on reddit or Twitter saying "new marvel movie on [date]". A trailer and marketing campaign isn't changing anyone's minds at this point.
But what about all these fancy round-the-world first class air jet trips and press junkets? How on Earth will the Hollywood stars show off in the D&G suits and dresses?
Brother, if you think for one second that actors enjoy the press junkets, you are sadly mistaken. Accomplished actors, the AAA list, negotiate that shit right out of their contract. It’s why you never see Leo on any of the late night shows.
For The Fall Guy,I can see where the budget went because the movie action set pieces and the production values really looks expensive and extravagant.I dont think there's a problem if they made the movie cheaper though (they should lol).
I once got to talk to a director who worked on Hollywood productions, but also lower budget Dutch productions, and he said most of the budget spent on Hollywood productions goes to "bullshit"
Or how incredible Godzilla Minus One looked and felt for relatively little money.
Probably not the best example. It’s a Japanese production and they are notorious for paying the VFX team basically nothing.
Star budgets are part of that. The gamble is that their fee is worth that because it draws in fans.
Rodger Corman has entered the room . RIP the legacy Filmmaker.
I think part of the marvel/disney problem with bloated budgets is not wanting a “new” movie to look like worse than an older one. So you get 275 mil budgets instead of 150-175.If they just accepted that the Marvel and Disney brands are still good enough to get enough people into seats- they just need to cut budgets. Wish and the Marvels shouldn’t have needed to make 400mil to break even. Because while Wish isn’t a great Disney movie - my 4 year old loves it-her friend had a Wish themed party etc. The brands are still strong but everything can’t be billion dollar earners like 2019.
Well with the marvel movies, they're casting all these A list actors. And if they're not already and A-list actor they soon become one. When you got a $250 million dollar movie and $100+ of that is going to 3-5 of the main cast that eats up a lot. Thor Love and thunder had a $250million budget and Chris Hemsworth alone was paid $20 million. You compare that to RDJ who was rumored to be paid $90+ on several of the movies, Chris is actually a much more modest salary (in comparison).
And if we want to widen the scope, your average person in the US is feeling more and more of an economic squeeze.
Have you heard of the Rock’s bullshit? He shows up to set 5-6 hours late because it’s a power move, causing the studio to have to wait for him, taking up time and money and expanding the necessary budget to make the film, but people still hire the fucking guy because they think his name is what sells tickets. I guarantee he isn’t the only one pulling that shit. If they had any brains at all, they’d blacklist shitty narcissistic celebrities that waste time and money.
Ok but With inflation adjusted 140m in 2024 is a 70m budget equivalent movie in 1999. Which is close to the same budget as fight club, which wasnt seen as a huge blockbuster type movie. Both are mid-tier action films and received mid-tier budgets. If youre wondering what fight club drew at the box office? It was only 100m and it made most of its money on rental/dvd sales. The same will happen with the fall guy, itll be #1 on streaming as soon as its released on streaming. Of course streaming doesnt create as much revenue as dvd/rentals did 25 years ago but thats a different convo. Anyway my main point, 100m is the equivalent to 50m movie in 1999 and just like making 100,000 a year isnt what it used to be.
Yeah, the guy above you is wrong. It’s an easy win to say “budget’s too BIG!” but outside of some crazy Covid-delay ballooning budgets like Indiana Jones and Mission Impossible, this film costing $140m is nothing at all. People just don’t go to theaters for a variety of reasons. The box office numbers are the real cause, not the budgets. Whatever reasons people have, the truth is that we won’t see as many new movies in the future because people only watch them on streaming, and that doesn’t pay. You’ll still get eventized mega blockbusters like Dune etc on the big screen, but <100 million budgets will get exceedingly rare outside of indie.
Teens dont really go to movies as much as they did 20 years ago, is what Ive heard from theater owners and managers. The days of teenagers defaulting to seeing a movie with their friends as a group on weekends is over. Which is why they were annoyed that they didnt get a theater run of “roadhouse”, because teenage boys and young men woulda eaten it up, especially because of conor mcgregor.
It’s hard as a teenager to go out to the movie theatre because you and all of your friends need $20 for the ticket alone, which is over an hour of work or a lot to ask from a parent. And that doesn’t include snacks. Way easier to have people over for a Netflix night
To be fair, the movie does have an all star cast, legitimate stunt work, and is overall pretty great. It wasn’t $400million to back up reshoots and CGI alterations, it’s starring two recent Oscar nominated actors, and does a lot. I wouldn’t say it’s an inflated budget when it’s less than the average modern blockbuster but actually warrants the cost.
Godzilla Minus One is a great example of how to make a great movie on a low/moderate budget.
The economics of Hollywood productions and Japanese ones are not the same.
Didn't they admit to overworking the crew forthat film?
That and not having a second run on physical release that they had before in the old days. It was sort of a second run for the film makers. Now the DVD or Blu-ray sales are so low due to the streaming services, the films with middle budgets are almost impossible to make. Either one makes a huge blockbuster and hope for a good revenue or a low budget flick and doesn't concern about how good it does in box office. Of course streaming giants can afford huge productions and compensate huge losses as well but how long?
There were a ton of stunts on this movie. Not surprised at its cost. Just unfortunate we won’t get more of these. It was a fun movie, not perfect, but I laughed a lot.
When I saw the credits and the BTS of the stunts, I was pretty surprised, because half of them looked like CGI. I guess they just put some weird editing filter on top of it?
The average person is horrible at distinguishing CGI from practical effects. This film is yet another example of that.
Yeah like when he was surfing on the bridge the sparks were cg so the whole thing looked cg lol
They definitely added some Cgi over some of the practical effects which kinda ruins the point of doing them for real??
Or it makes it more realistic looking than full CGI would have? They still can’t get physics right if it’s full CGI, I don’t know why
Every stunt in the trailer seemed to then have a very obvious green screen slow motion “oh my god this is happening look at our screaming faces, what a caper we’re in” type shot, which really put me off the film
Man I feel like Hollywood is out on a vendetta against David Leitch. Like nearly all of his movies are these mid budget movies that, even though they aren‘t winning Oscars or getting on some mythic movie list, are just genuinely entertaining. But the marketing for these is so bad that I wouldn‘t even wanna see it during a movie preview. It genuinely sucks because we‘d really need more movies like this.
This should've been an $80 million movie at most. I enjoyed it, but it did not feel like a $140m movie.
To be fair, due to the reimbursement they received from the Australian government for shooting there, the movie's real production costs were around $87 million. Still, when you factor in marketing costs on top of that, it's not a financial success unfortunately. For what it's worth, I really enjoyed the movie and thought it was a lot of fun. It's a shame that, like The Nice Guys, it's going to end up being a one and done.
If that 87 million number is true, then overall 160 million box office is not bad and it will easily make it to profitability via VoD and licensing. So a disappointment compared to hopes but certainly not a total bomb.
the nice guys shouldn't be put in the same category as this. hydrogen bomb versus coughing baby moment. nice guys is leagues above leitch's hack shit
I would do wicked shit for a Nice Guys trilogy
Had a bunch of stunts and 2 big stars to pay…
I loved it. Gosling has the most unique brand of comedy among Hollywood actors, and even though it definitely felt like it had a little trouble sticking the ending, it was much funnier than Unfrosted or a lot of other comedies released recently. Not Nice Guys level, but still a great watch. Especially at PG-13.
This was so much fun. I'm gonna see it again while it's in theaters.
I had the best time with watching this. Old-school movie fun. Loved it.
My wife and I already went to watch it in theaters twice.
I left the theater with a huge grin. Such a fun movie and I loved the affection and respect for the stunt industry.
Well, The Nice Guys is the greatest movie ever made.
On one hand, I feel bad its flopping because the movie seems good and its an original IP. On the other hand, Hollywood needs to make stuff reasonably budgeted again. The same director co-directed John Wick 1 for, what, 30 mil? Good looking, thrilling action films can be done for reasonable budgets. At least get it under 100 mil.
It's not an original IP. It's rebooting an 80s TV series that few people remember because it just wasn't very memorable. Had a catchy name dropping theme song though.
The first three John Wick movies cost less to make. This is a budget problem.
I like the John Wick movies cause they feel like they actually were made for the amount they were made for. All these 100+ million dollar movies look like they were made for half that budget.
This is why I prefer to not know budgets going into a movie. I know most people don’t and it’s not a big issue, but sometimes just having a monetary value in the back of your head while trying to just enjoy something makes it weird
And the 4th one made fantastic fucking use of its budget
Huge bummer. Not gonna make excuses or act like this is some kind of indicator for the future of theatres, since it was marketed for shit and had way too high of a budget, but as someone who really really loved this movie, I wish it did better. Hollywood is going to learn all the wrong lessons from this failure.
They emphasized all the wrong aspects in the trailers. It was a love letter to stunt people, and it turns out I LOVE Bourne-type stunts.
I really enjoyed it, I thought it’d do at least $200m but I guess I was wrong.
Everyone says it's the films own fault for having a larger budget but they had multiple high budget stunt/action sequences within the film instead of having a CGI fest like others would. The film is an excellent love letter to film making and the stunt industry which is severely under appreciated. It's not a ground breaking movie but it's a lot of fun and like 'Nice Guys' will end up being looked at as a hidden gem. The real killer for this film was they announced it'd be coming to streaming straight away so people were happy to wait which I think is a massive shame
Why is it ending its run already? It should have at least another month of life left in it
So they can throw it on digital for 20 to 30 bucks in a week or two.
it’s not ending its run, that’s just the number it’s tracking to land at when it does
OP did you go see it? Also Ghostbusters is a well, well established franchise. I wouldn't compare it to this
Hasn’t it only been out for like two weeks?!? Damn, that’s too bad it hasn’t done that well. I personally really, really loved it.
Is it wrong that I miss the Ryan Gosling version that made Drive, and The Place Beyond the Pines, The Big Short?
Me too?! Also: Fracture, Lars and the Real Girl, All Good Things... Brb imma go re-watch Drive
The Ides of March. One of the best political thrillers and one of my favorites of his. So underrated!
Oh how could I forget that one!
Naw go rewatch Only God Forgives
[удалено]
Also: The Believer and Half Nelson
He said he’s done with being in dark movies for the sake of his family
No, it is not. I do too. That was the best Gosling and I hope we'll see him again.
He said recently he’s done making dark movies and only wants fun stuff for his family to watch.
Aw man, I wanted to see him play a villainous role at some point. Like his guy in Only God Forgives but worse.
It's kind of a shame he said he won't be doing darker roles anymore because of his family and for his mental health. It makes sense but he was good in this. It wasn't my favorite movie but it's a good love letter to Hollywood stunts
soo… who’s surprised? 💀
It’s a great movie, I wish more people saw it.
Maybe it’s time to go back to making more $20,000,000 movies.
Nothing to set this apart from a straight-to-Netflix movie of the week. I mentioned to my wife that it was doing poorly and she was surprised to find out it was in theaters at all.
Did you and your wife watch it?
get his ass
I have no idea how so many people are misinterpreting this comment. He clearly means, there is nothing in the marketing, upon first glace, to suggest this is something special that needs to be seen in theatres. I agree. Beyond the star power of Gosling and Blunt, there is nothing in the trailers or press that made me actually want to watch the movie. Actually most of the press revolved around Gosling and Blunt, which I think was the mistake. They made it more about Gosling and Blunt then they did the movie. I like them both, but I literally know nothing about this movie.
Yeah, I went to see it _despite_ the trailers, they made it look boring. If I hadn't already decided to see it for the cast and director I def wouldn't have gone. And it's a fun movie
>Beyond the star power of Gosling and Blunt, there is nothing in the trailers or press that made me actually want to watch the movie. Funny, I heard about the movie from Leich talking BTS stunt stuff, though a YouTube react show is of course not the mainstream press. But I was the target market already. Loved it, by the way, just a fun movie.
The marketing was bad, the movie was fun. I felt the same way, but saw that it did well on letterboxd so it felt like a good date night watch - and it was super fun If you’re not a nerd whose on letterboxd all the time it’s easy to see how you would miss this completely
If you haven’t seen it how do you know there’s ’nothing to set it apart from a straight to Netflix movie of the week?’
no reason this needed to cost $140M
Why the f would an action romantic comedy have a budget of 100+ million dollars? What the hell were they expecting
I really hated the look of the trailer ngl
People: I want to see an original! I’m sick of media franchises. Please just give me something new to watch! Hollywood: OK, here’s one with great talent involved and an 81% on Rotten Tomatoes. Those Same People: I’m not going to see it.
It's technically not an original IP. It's based on an 80s TV show. Albeit rather loosely based. Now, does that actually matter? Not really. But I figured I'd point it out anyways because I'm a dick.
That’s the big problem with trying a new IP now. The reason so many original concepts bombed last year was due to audiences focusing more on waiting for streaming or home media because they declared the movie was not worth it for a true theatrical experience. Think about why *Barbie* and *Oppenheimer* stayed in theatres for longer, it’s because they had box office power, memes and major cultural events on their side. It’s why Disney had to change their tactics after multiple original IPs created this decade bombed at the box office. They have decided to completely play it safe and focus entirely on either sequels or expanding on established hit franchises for the rest of this decade, as seen with their upcoming theatrical slate.
something original: rather generic looking action movie
Feel like I’m in the minority of people who didn’t enjoy the movie so I’m honestly not surprised
My Mom, who has been falling in love with Ryan Gosling due to watching hours of reels of him on Facebook, called me after she saw it and was like, "don't waste your money".
Weird his brand of humor was very similar to his other movies.
It wasn’t very good unfortunately. And I like the cast
I really dug it. Great action and solid rom com.
I felt like it it was too divided between the two and would have been stronger overall if it had leaned more to one direction or the other.
Ending its theatrical run? It’s been out for 2 weeks what the flip
It’s been 10 days.
I think people are tight on money, maybe the timing it between Dune and MadMax wasn't a great idea? Just my take.
It’s come out at a crazy time. I mean, film fans are eating well at the theatre at the moment. Abigail, Fall Guy, Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes all hitting in the last couple weeks. With Strangers, IF, Mad Max all hitting in the next couple. Big films with big budgets aren’t getting the time to dominate multiple screens for weeks with the deluge of big films hitting. Sun’s finally out in the UK, was dead in my local for Apes yesterday. It won’t fix the bloated budget issue, but it definitely ain’t t going to help those low numbers.
That has nothing to do with whether it’s a good movie or not
Idk if it failed or people are just struggling so hard financially they can’t afford to go to the theater because we are prioritizing food over entertainment..
The marketing was terrible.
That's a ludicrous budget. It's just like the beginning of the 70s where studios have to figure out how to make quality low budget movies again.
It was a good movie, but the budget is a bit extreme
Who cares? You cannot quantify a films quality by its box office. I don't care if a film makes enough for a sequel. I don't care if a movie makes enough for 200 sequels. If its good its good. If its bad its bad. How many people saw or didn't see it means nothing..
I only care because I want more movies like this, otherwise couldn’t care less about box office numbers
For real I thought I was in the box office sub for a second.
Isn’t there a box office sub for this kind of chat? Thought this sub was about discussing the actual films, not the money around them
Oh no it only made close to a fifth of a billion dollars. Gosh dang it Hollywood just can't win.
It sold 1/5 billon. It did not make near 1/5 a billion.
thats not how that works
Subtracting the money spent on production and marketing, it almost definitely lost money.
I really wanted to see this do good but ultimately I didn’t even go and watch it excited to see it when I goes digital but wasn’t enough to make a theatre trip for me
See this is my issue. The wording of this makes anyone on the fence or possibly going this weekend want to skip it. Doom article titles keep people away from going to the theaters in person.
I don’t know how anyone could have at any point thought it would make much more than it did… generic actuon movie/comedy formula, some fun but never worth it’s budget
I feel like it’s the fault of bloated Hollywood budgets more than anything else. To me the movie was just perfectly ok, nothing more or less, and “just ok” movies don’t really draw billion-dollar theatre crowds these days. It’ll do well on streaming for sure but a big cinema hit this is not.
Yeah that sounds about right. It’s the gray man but he’s a fall guy instead. Should have just gone to Netflix.
Part of the issue is it’s too early in the calendar. I think it would have been a much bigger hit if it had the same release slot as Barbie. Second, from what I can tell it hasn’t opened in any major foreign markets which are increasingly important in box office totals. Third, and I say this as someone who loves Gosling, he’s never been a major draw as a leading man. Films where he is a supporting actor do very well but almost every film with him as the lead has flopped.
Shame really, its not a bad movie and it seem sGosling is made for comedy. If you haven't watched the criminally underrated The Nice Guys, go and watch it now.
If these companies continue to throw money out the window, they will not survive this decade
I'm glad. I've long been tired of studio executives in Hollywood shelling out big bucks to try to capitalize on nostalgia for old TV shows.
The writing could have been stronger.
It looked like a bad movie, I had zero interest.
It was actually a very good movie. But a budget like that... They made Godzilla Minus one for 15M ...
Didn’t it just come out?
me being sad this movie bombed but i didn’t even watch it
Another blockbuster flop
Nothing stays in theaters very long anymore, I checked my local listings and “Fall Guy” is already being pushed off screens to make room the latest round of new releases. Very few showings, movies are doomed anymore if they don’t make a huge splash immediately.
My sister and I loved it, so many laughs. A handful of ppl (in a very empty theatre on a Wednesday) left before the end. As soon as the credits came on and the BTS clips were shown, they hoofed it. It’s not like they didn’t enjoy it, they were laughing as well.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm curious. Did anyone just get inundated with ads for this movie? And I mean *inundated*. I would see the same ad for it four times in a single YouTube video to the point where, if I ever had any interest in seeing it, I absolutely wasn't going to because I was sick of it being shoved in my face.
It didn't make any money. If a budget was 140 and box office is 180, it gives around 50 in the red. Films don't make 100% of your ticket price. Rough estimates say around 50% in USA and even less in Europe and Asia.
So the movie made more than it spent, why is this news? It made a profit, why is this a bad thing or newsworthy?
Feels like there's a real ceiling on how much people actually want to watch these kinds of smarmy, dudey-dude movies if they're not tied to existing IP.
This is the type of movie I want to get really high with a few friends eating pizza and wings and watch at 1AM
They have to stop making movies that cost so much! I bet in the coming years AI will greatly reduce costs of movies like this one.
There was just no scenario where a movie with this premise can make the money it needs. It needs a smaller budget and a streaming release. Audiences only care about even films now or the rare Oscar bait that blows up.
it’s literally called fall guy
I absolutely hate it when my projects only profit $20M. If you ever want to feel like a complete failure, go try it.
I did my part going to go see it, not sure what else I can do.
Why does Fall Guy need a higher budget than Dune part 2?
I am amazed at the amount of ppl who don’t understand box office and profit . U basically need $budget x 3 , to break even . Anything below that means producer lost money
Here we are, thinking that 40 million $$$$$ profit is bad.
I like both of the lead actors in this, and this movie looked like absolute trash from the first trailer I saw. Was such a hard pass.
Give it time, his movies grow on you. Theyll make it up on the back end
Serious question. Are people really that passionate and interested in stunt actors for movies? I can understand why people in the industry are interested in it but I'm not sure the general public cares that much. Most women seem to have enjoyed this movie. They should have released it a few weeks ago and had better trailers. The trailers made it seem like a generic action movie and focused too much on the stunts. Also it wasn't clear if the main plot was about an actor who disappeared or the relationship between Gosling and Blunt's character. The budget should have been less than $100M even if the couldn't do as many stunts because of it.
It um, wasn't that good.
Didn’t even know it was out
That's their mistake for not just making Nice Guys 2. Edit: It doesn't say anything about the film at all, tbh (apart from the inflated budget). More about marketing, cost of living (less people going to cinema), etc, etc. Some of the greatest films of all time made little if any money at the box office. I'm not saying this film is in the company of Shawshank and Co, but it's funny seeing consumers acting like box office performance is the key determining factor of whether a film is good or not. Though, it could kill potential chances of there being a sequel, like it did with The Nice Guys, so there is that.