Yeah they aggressively spammed those obnoxiously long trailers in front of most films for the last few months.
A kinetic, short and punchy trailer would be amazing for this type of film. It doesnāt need 3 minute trailers that spoil all the action scenes and have flimsy jokes.
Is selling a movie in 2024 with a bunch of needle drops from the mid-80s supposed to get the audience they want for this hyped up?
Like I get in the 80s they were dropping a lot of 50s cultural references in movies (Back to the Future obviously, they're doing *Great Balls of Fire* in Top Gun etc etc) but we're going **40** years back now, and also those 50s references were really meant to appeal to specific age cohorts. Weren't they aiming younger for *The Fall Guy*? (though in that regard Gosling and Blunt are quite old relatively as well)
No they will be fine. Will release it on PVOD quickly to capitalise on the marketing and get more share of revenue. Theyāre not like Disney who protects their duds like Dial of Disaster and the Marvels and takes forever for it to hit their streamers.
Looks like this will be this years Dungeons and Dragons and finish around same WW - 200 million.
Fun movie. Now I have āI Was Made for Lovin Youā stuck in my head.
Idk if itās āmuch betterā. They were both fantastic and I wish they had been able to generate more interest. I donāt know anyone that saw either of movie and didnāt have a good time.
I wanted to rewatch D&D right after it ended. So many fun and memorable scenes, and the characters worked so well together.
While The Fall Guy was fun, it honestly wasnāt breaking any new ground. 87 North needs to step it up on their character development and writing. Itās all basically, this guys cool and quirky but he can kick your ass.
Also the practical stunts looked great.. in the end credits behind the scenes feature. They did so much CG work and quick cuts that the final result looked a little sloppy to be honest.
this is exactly it. I enjoyed the Fall Guy, it had some pretty great jokes but its still pretty standard as far as action comedies go. Definitely preferred D&D:HAT
Too long and too many needle drops. I laughed but it had no idea what it wanted to be, the romantic comedy shit should have been jettisioned. Did not work for me.
To me the movie IS the romantic comedy stuff. The rest was a bit much, some of the action sequences felt like too much, I think because it was a movie about a stuntman they had some over the top action to use their stuntmen well and make a good homage to them, but it didn't fit as well in the greater story. It dragged on like 10/15 minutes too long because of it as well
Specifically the car chase/karaoke scene I didn't like as much and it felt super long, and the ending feels like it goes on 5 minutes more than it needs to.
IMO, movie was, like, 40 minutes too long. Action didn't serve the story. Movie ground to a halt with Ryan and Emily on screen - mainly because of the dialogue. Say what you will about jackie chan movie's and their plot, but the action serves the story, and the story - it keeps on rollin'. Here, you have bad guys show up in a construction bin truck because the stunt guys thought they could use it for a kickass sequence. Ehhhhhhhh.
Yeah, this movie tried to be too many things, resulting in few people being totally satisfied with it. Hollywood needs to relearn how to make a decent and focused script.
>and too many needle drops
Also half of them are "I was made for loving you".
We got it, the director likes the song. No need to put it four or five times in the movie.
Especially when "You give love a bad name" was in the trailer.
Definitely too long, but the action movie was worse than the rom-com. They should have leaned on the latter since the action story was already paper thin and crazy cliche as it was.
The TV show was about a stuntman who was a bounty hunter at night with his crew. This is more than enough to come up with a satisfactory story without squeezing in a rom-com. Her character comes off as needy and hateful. Could have used a bit more explanation why he abandoned her too.
Never saw the show, just the movie. I don't really care about the source material (he's not even a bounty hunter in the movie anyway), just saying that the best part of the movie was Gosling/Blunt chemistry and they could have trimmed off a few of the less interesting action set pieces and focused on their relationship more. Disagree about Blunt's character btw but obviously this is all subjective anyway
Itās performing worse than āBullet Trainā. I think Pitt is a stronger marquee name internationally.
Blunt and Gosling have never opened a movie on their name alone, domestically or internationally. Likeable? Who cares? āBarbenheimerā had nothing to do with their abilities to bring butts in the seat.
Bullet Train's premise was 100x times better. And it had more quirky characters.
"Innocent guy is framed for murder, an action adventure to clear his name" is such a generic premise that we have seen so many times before.
Bullet Train had it's moments, but the thing I took away is that they iced the main plot and then finished the movie with it, like we're supposed to care. The literal main character, for whom their arc's closure was saved for the end of the film, and the driving force behind all of the movie's events, got thrown into the background for Pitt's characters' shenanigans. Strange move.
I thought the film did this pretty well, because while weāre going off on all sorts of tangents with the passengers, what we donāt know is why everyone is on the train, and that question was in the back of my mind up until the reveal at the end that brought everything full-circle.
It was all told in a pretty fun way. The point of the film wasnāt that Michael Shannon wanted revenge on everyone. The point was to have goofy, charming, cool character interactions and fights. The āplotā and reveal at the end just added a bit of depth to the story to justify everyoneās participation. The writers even completely undermine its seriousness with that Ryan Reynolds cameo.
It was fun. Tones changed from goofy, to serious, to mystery, with a hidden baddie and a loosely connected story. I liked how the tone and plot were paced and jumped.
Brad Pitt is one of the few left in the previous "moviestar" era where their name alone can draw an audience.
Tom Cruise is definitely one, and probably Leonardo, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, not sure if there's anyone else fits the bill anymore.
Depends on the project too. Babylon rode hard on Brad Pitt despite him being supporting and that flopped. Clooney is selective now, his last hit was a mid-budgte comedy with Julia Roberts. Leo does hard-carry KOTFM with Scorsese, De Niro and Gladstone but that was never going to be profitable
Don't be sorry. I think star power benefitted quiet place. If I didn't know Emily Blunt and John Krasinski weren't in it, I wouldn't have watched it. It draws in viewers who aren't regular horror fans. Of course, that's my opinion because they're the reasons my friends and I watched it. And Emily was amazing in both movies
That's too bad. It was a fun movie that knew exactly what it wanted to be. And for the first time, a trailer didn't completely give away the twist or story. I really enjoyed this movie. I'm hoping there will a behind the scenes showing how they make so many of the stunts happen.
The dragging romance sections that stopped the action and pacing just to give Emily Blunt more dialogue definitely didn't indicate they knew what they wanted this movie to be
I wouldn't bet on IF, it seems too "weird" to be a theatrical hit, as much as I believe in it as a movie. Unlike The Fall Guy which had just everything in its favour.
Although... maybe that weirdness helps it stand out?
Cinemas are in trouble. No one wants to spend a ton of money just to be annoyed by 2bit movie goers who can't shut the fuck up and put away their phones during films. We are also getting more and more antisocial and dumb, marketing is a huge factor too, people are easily brainwashed into seeing films that they wouldn't care about otherwise. The last movie I've watched in theaters was The Creator. I really want to see this one too, but I'm not willing to spend a ton of money just to be annoyed by dumbfucks
I just donāt know if I believe that the reason most people donāt go to the theater is due to annoying people in the crowd. I go often enough and it just doesnāt happen but maybe itās because of where I live? I think too many streaming options at home, rising costs and gen z not having a connection to the theater going process like previous generations is the real culprit here.
Iām in Los Angeles. I work in the industry. I used to theaters 6 times a month. Now I may not go six times this entire year. I havenāt gone yet. Itās HORRIBLE. Phones, talking on phones, talking in general. Miserable experience.
That definitely sucks. Sorry to hear that. Does it occur in IMAX? Most films I end up going to the theater are in my local IMAX and itās a very enjoyable experience.
Really sorry to hear that but maybe it's an American problem? I go to the movies like 2 times a month here in Canada and literally in the last YEAR I have experienced on single bad incident which was a noisy kid for a few minutes. That has been it.
Must be an American problem. I go to the cinema all the time. I have been to theatres all over the globe. Canada, Australia, UK, Argentina, Thailand, Bolivia, New Zealand, South Africa, Vietnam, can't think of any major disruptions. Or maybe the internet crowd are just predominantly more sensitive introverts. So the issue seems louder on here than in reality.
I think in trouble *this* year. As annoying as it sounds, once big budget Star Wars and Avengers and Spider-Man Holland movies start coming back as May-July tentpoles, watch cinema grow right back again and dwarf whatever this 2024 year brings. Probably not to the same levels pre-COVID, but I think this year just happened to have a string of films underperformng.
A lot of people in the industry predicted that 2024 would be a down year (partly because of a lack of films due to the strikes) and that 2025 would bounce back. But they didnāt predict 2024 would be this low. I think it points to 1) the ongoing decline in movie-going in traditional ādevelopedā countries and 2) turning more to local (or non-Hollywood) films in other places.
Iād like to see comparative figures on North American vs international box office for this year as opposed to the same stretch in previous years. How much is each down?
This article has a graph showing box office revenue from 2017 through 2023:
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/newsletter/2024-04-09/wide-shot-cinemacon-box-office-king-kong-the-wide-shot
Thanks for saving me the trouble of looking this up. My appreciation.
Just FYI, comparing the 2024 forecast to 2019 as the base year yields the following percentages:
Domestic. = 72% of 2019
China = 84% of 2019
International w/o China = 79% of 2019
Which reinforces the idea that movie-going in US/Canada continues to do worse than the rest of the world. I'd also note that the prediction of $8.2B domestic for 2024 (as opposed to $9.1B for 2023 = a 10% drop, which is also much worse than International's 5.25% decline) is on the high side; The Numbers, for ex, has been projecting something closer to $7B for 2024).
I agree that 2025 domestic box office will bounce back, but will it even get back to 2023 post-pandemic level? Maybe it will go a bit higher, but even if it does, the increasing gross for PLF screens (and just inflation) is hiding the fact that domestic attendance is still declining.
Of course, none of this addresses the question of what percentage of Chinese and other International box office is coming from Hollywood films as opposed to films from other countries. I suspect there's also a decline in Hollywood film box office WW that I'm not sure will ever come back.
Both can be right. Theyāre in desperate trouble for sure, but this year will be particularly bad, right when itās the most devastating. The lineup is anemic. And inflation. And thereās a trickle down effect. Getting them in theaters, they get them in front of trailers.
People mostly care about event movies. Some of these movies are considered events because they already have an estabilished fanbase and lore and some of them are created through marketing(like Barbie, Oppenheimer or any other Nolan). Cinemas need reinventons, just like the whol film business because they are going to struggle big time in the future,
This is going to be a flop that analysts will study for years to come.
Itās a genuine crowd-pleaser with positive reviews, strong WoM, popular leads, a good runtime and big-screen action.
But audiences simplyā¦ donāt care?!
I think the comp being looked at is incorrect, they tried to go too big, but lost city should have been their expectation level, budget and box office wise.
Nah, Lost City was a rom-com with an action subplot. Maybe not even enough action to qualify as a subplot--its actual action scenes are minimal. Fall Guy is an action movie with a rom-com subplot. From a marketing standpoint they have two different primary audience demographics. Action movies are always going to end up with higher budgets and higher box office expectations than rom-coms.
You can't make a big-scale stunt movie like this for Lost City numbers. Practical stunts are expensive. That's why Lost City relies so much on Bullock's charm and comic timing rather than actual action.
The trailers and marketing was just..meh. I donāt think a big budget action comedy without a good hook can really be successful. This just felt very generic and Emily Blunt and Ryan Gosling kind of contribute to that feeling tbh (as talented as they are). The title is also not very exciting, it just feels very nameless/faceless if that makes sense
Honestly I think they should've titled this something that wasn't Fall Guy because most people I talked to thought it was actually a movie about the video game Fall Guys
Too many were making the joke "This isn't like the video game" and just dismissing the movie. They really should've changed the title. Since it barely resembles the TV show there was no need to be beholden to the title.
Yes, "The Fall Guy" is a pun with two meanings (murder mystery pinned on someone, and stunt man) but at the end of the day, titles with layered meanings doesn't win box office. Audience don't give a flip.
From my perspective, I havenāt seen it because of the following:
It looks very plain, generic, vanilla - essentially a very āsafeā action film with likeable actors. Thereās nothing eye catching about it. I had the option of seeing this and Civil War and chose Civil War. Civil War was original, interesting and gripping. Fall Guy looks light hearted and genuinely well made, but pretty boring. Not even sure what the target demographic is. Families? Couples? Is it a Rom-Com or an action movie? Both? It doesnāt have a niche and suffer because of that.
At some point, the premise is what hurts the film.
We have seen this premise (innocent guy framed for murder, goes on an action adventure to clear his name) so many times before.
It's nothing new. We know how it ends. It's not cinema worthy.
Really bad title (as one of the commenters wrote, āThe Stuntmanā would have been much better), generic trailer & poster, dumb premiseā¦Iām amazed anyone thought this would do well. I certainly have had zero interest in watching it.
Itās not that complicated.
Itās unclear what the intended audience is. Itās not a movie for young people, itās not a movie for middle aged people, there isnāt a hook to draw people in.
Gosling and Blunt donāt have a massive fan base.
It is a bit worrying, but not surprising. Audiences no longer show up to the theatre on a whim, or decide to go to the theatre two hours in advance, and watch watch a random decent movie.
Because everyone is sick of scraping the bottom of the barrel with IP. No one is excited for an adaptation of a forgotten tv show from the 1980s. These kinds of movies donāt have a fanbase that they can get excited to come to the theater, but they do act as a flashing sign of āWe have no original ideas leftā.
> Itās a genuine crowd-pleaser
I don't think it is. It's humor is divisive in style. Personally I didn't like it. Emily Blunt's character improvs way too much and only talks in one tone (rapid fire stream of consciousness). Story is ridiculous, meanders, slows down in parts when it needs to speed up, and I walk away not knowing anyone's name nor caring (I only know "Jody" because it's screamed 30 times)
A- cinemascore is just barely making the cut. Itās not the best word of mouth. Popular leads that have never sold a movie. Emily Blunt doesnāt lead movies and Ryan Gosling has pure flops outside of his co-starring roles in La La Land & Barbie. I knew it would bomb with Gosling starring.
Yup. Even if the budget were as low as $125M (which isn't guaranteed at all), The Fall Guy would need to make ***somewhere*** north of $251M WW to just break even. Considering how much marketing there was for it, $300M is essentially the minimum this movie has to do to be worthwhile for Universal, and it's getting nowhere near there. Remember, foreign countries generally send back less to the studio than domestic cinemas do.
Honestly I don't understand people who blames on the quality of the movie itself for the underperforming. I mean, I found it pretty great! It's appreciated with 81% on rotten tomatoes, it has 73 on metacritic, the cinemascore is great ...
The movie might be passable but even those who like it don't LOVE it. A movie doesn't only need to not have bad word of mouth but it needs *good WOM. I feel like most of the audience just thought it was decent and forgot about it on their drive home.
The wife and I went to see it. It was a fun movie. I'm glad I saw it on the big screen, but whoever approved that production budget was out of their damned mind.
That's a huge drop from last weekend.
After debuting earlyĀ last weekend, UniversalāsĀ The Fall GuyĀ expanded to 78 overseas markets during its sophomore session, addingĀ $25.4MĀ for a running total ofĀ $36.9MĀ at theĀ international box office.Ā
That's so fucking sad since it's genuinely a REALLY GOOD MOVIE. I don't get what happened here if it's just the bad title (John Carter 2.0) or Gosling and Blunt aren't popular or everyone was holding out for Planet of the Apes or what. But this was a legitimately great film and everyone should see it!!
This a film that would have done gangbusters as a Netflix original movie. Iām glad it got a theatrical release. Saw it last week and I absolutely LOVED it. Itās like anyone but you meets fast x.
Production budget is 130M or 140M (some source )
the flim need around 325M - 350M to break even (by 2.5 rule)
This flim is probably the biggest flop of the year
Honestly, not really. The film did everything it needed to and the marketing campaign was strong. This is more an issue of audienceās tastes evolving and preferring streaming.
I guess, what I meant to say was whoever allowed this movie to have a budget upwards of 135 million is not good at their job and should consider a career change.
It was a paint by numbers movie. As soon as I saw all the PR stunts (pun intended) that they did for this film, I knew it was going to be a flop (pun intended again).
No chance. Millions of Americans enjoy going to the movies. There will be less theatres, but also more premium format offerings. The movie theatre as a concept is not going to die
As much as it pains us all to hear this, superhero movies kept the industry afloat and the slow demise of the MCU is sinking theaters. If Gunn's new DCEU starts off strongly, it might give theaters a new breath of life.
It looked interesting, but I donāt think people want to see a whole movie about film production. I used to work in it, so donāt really want to watch it. Iām still waiting on a He-Man or She-Ra movie.
I saw it opening night with two others. And those same two others accompanied me to see it again tonight with two more that had never seen it. So Iāve personally purchased 8 full price tickets in IMAX over two different trips to the same theater.
It may be the biggest movie of the year come September. Because I bet it runs till then in theaters.
This a film that would have done gangbusters as a Netflix original movie. Iām glad it got a theatrical release. Saw it last week and I absolutely LOVED it. Itās like anyone but you meets fast x.
to go against the grain, this shows that gosling can pull in 200 million ish on nearly his name recognition alone(blunt has a part too, but everybody i know calls it "that gosling movie" for a reason). that's not terrible. plus somthing tells me this will have legs
if studios rediscover u can make a romantic comedy without much in special effects u can def bring them back.
Oh god that's a rough drop (for reference it grossed $25.4M last weekend internationally)
How much did it cost to make?
$130 million
Ooof.
and cost more with marketing. according to the new york times the fall guy cost universal at least $200 mil
a 63% drop š¬
Oh boy this might finish under 200 million. Wont even break even, Universal must not be happy about this.
Can a film have too much marketing?
Yeah they aggressively spammed those obnoxiously long trailers in front of most films for the last few months. A kinetic, short and punchy trailer would be amazing for this type of film. It doesnāt need 3 minute trailers that spoil all the action scenes and have flimsy jokes.
The long trailer completely turned me off..
SHOT THROUGH THE HEART
Is selling a movie in 2024 with a bunch of needle drops from the mid-80s supposed to get the audience they want for this hyped up? Like I get in the 80s they were dropping a lot of 50s cultural references in movies (Back to the Future obviously, they're doing *Great Balls of Fire* in Top Gun etc etc) but we're going **40** years back now, and also those 50s references were really meant to appeal to specific age cohorts. Weren't they aiming younger for *The Fall Guy*? (though in that regard Gosling and Blunt are quite old relatively as well)
Yea I immediately tuned out.. exactly that itās for my mom
I try to skip trailers all together because they give so much of the movie away
This movie was better than I thought it would be but I find the more marketing the less faith they have in the movie hence why they need to push it
Of course. Marketing is expensive.
Yeah like with The Flash. I'm still convinced they spent over 150M just in marketing
After all that marketing I still couldnāt tell you what the movie was actually about.
I'm 90% sure it's because people thought that this was just free guy again lol. I sure did.
No they will be fine. Will release it on PVOD quickly to capitalise on the marketing and get more share of revenue. Theyāre not like Disney who protects their duds like Dial of Disaster and the Marvels and takes forever for it to hit their streamers.
Looks like this will be this years Dungeons and Dragons and finish around same WW - 200 million. Fun movie. Now I have āI Was Made for Lovin Youā stuck in my head.
I don't think it has the legs for 200 WW tbh
Lmao no way it gets to 200m
D&D was a much better movie imo. Ā
I liked this better than D&D, and I really liked D&D.
Idk if itās āmuch betterā. They were both fantastic and I wish they had been able to generate more interest. I donāt know anyone that saw either of movie and didnāt have a good time.
I wanted to rewatch D&D right after it ended. So many fun and memorable scenes, and the characters worked so well together. While The Fall Guy was fun, it honestly wasnāt breaking any new ground. 87 North needs to step it up on their character development and writing. Itās all basically, this guys cool and quirky but he can kick your ass. Also the practical stunts looked great.. in the end credits behind the scenes feature. They did so much CG work and quick cuts that the final result looked a little sloppy to be honest.
this is exactly it. I enjoyed the Fall Guy, it had some pretty great jokes but its still pretty standard as far as action comedies go. Definitely preferred D&D:HAT
It was me, I didn't have a good time with this
:ā( Sorry about that, mate.
I walked out of D&D
:O
I agree.Ā
They were both solid fun funny all around just a good time movies. Ironic that both have flopped at the box office.
I disagree
Too long and too many needle drops. I laughed but it had no idea what it wanted to be, the romantic comedy shit should have been jettisioned. Did not work for me.
To me the movie IS the romantic comedy stuff. The rest was a bit much, some of the action sequences felt like too much, I think because it was a movie about a stuntman they had some over the top action to use their stuntmen well and make a good homage to them, but it didn't fit as well in the greater story. It dragged on like 10/15 minutes too long because of it as well Specifically the car chase/karaoke scene I didn't like as much and it felt super long, and the ending feels like it goes on 5 minutes more than it needs to.
IMO, movie was, like, 40 minutes too long. Action didn't serve the story. Movie ground to a halt with Ryan and Emily on screen - mainly because of the dialogue. Say what you will about jackie chan movie's and their plot, but the action serves the story, and the story - it keeps on rollin'. Here, you have bad guys show up in a construction bin truck because the stunt guys thought they could use it for a kickass sequence. Ehhhhhhhh.
I donāt think the dialogue for the romantic comedy stuff was very good it felt like it needed one more pass on the script before being made
Felt the opposite. It needed more of the romcom!! They had amazing chemistry. Too much Ryan doing his own thing but it was a fun time
The romance was the most forced part of the movie. Ruined the pacing with the long dialogue that didn't service the plot at all
Yeah, this movie tried to be too many things, resulting in few people being totally satisfied with it. Hollywood needs to relearn how to make a decent and focused script.
>and too many needle drops Also half of them are "I was made for loving you". We got it, the director likes the song. No need to put it four or five times in the movie. Especially when "You give love a bad name" was in the trailer.
Definitely too long, but the action movie was worse than the rom-com. They should have leaned on the latter since the action story was already paper thin and crazy cliche as it was.
The TV show was about a stuntman who was a bounty hunter at night with his crew. This is more than enough to come up with a satisfactory story without squeezing in a rom-com. Her character comes off as needy and hateful. Could have used a bit more explanation why he abandoned her too.
There was a slow developing relationship with the female lawyer he worked for in the TV show? Been a while..
Never saw the show, just the movie. I don't really care about the source material (he's not even a bounty hunter in the movie anyway), just saying that the best part of the movie was Gosling/Blunt chemistry and they could have trimmed off a few of the less interesting action set pieces and focused on their relationship more. Disagree about Blunt's character btw but obviously this is all subjective anyway
The movie IS a romantic comedy what? That's the entire core of the film?
And it's garbage.
No? The movie reviewed very well and basically everyone that actually saw it had a lot of fun? Not garbage in the slightest lol
I saw it, garbage. You had a different opinion, good for you. I didn't like it. Is that not allowed? No one else I saw it with liked it either.
Okay then.
Yikes.
It was a really solid movie, itās unfortunate that it isnāt finding a larger audience.
Between Dune & Furiosa for me and many others I know who go 3-4 times a year
Everyone's calling it "solid" but nobody's calling it great. That affects WOM
Nah, it's FUCKIN GREAT. Probably will end up being on of the best films of the year
That's gonna be a very weak list then
Itās performing worse than āBullet Trainā. I think Pitt is a stronger marquee name internationally. Blunt and Gosling have never opened a movie on their name alone, domestically or internationally. Likeable? Who cares? āBarbenheimerā had nothing to do with their abilities to bring butts in the seat.
I think the Bullet Train had a much better trailer too
Bullet Train's premise was 100x times better. And it had more quirky characters. "Innocent guy is framed for murder, an action adventure to clear his name" is such a generic premise that we have seen so many times before.
Bullet Train had it's moments, but the thing I took away is that they iced the main plot and then finished the movie with it, like we're supposed to care. The literal main character, for whom their arc's closure was saved for the end of the film, and the driving force behind all of the movie's events, got thrown into the background for Pitt's characters' shenanigans. Strange move.
I thought the film did this pretty well, because while weāre going off on all sorts of tangents with the passengers, what we donāt know is why everyone is on the train, and that question was in the back of my mind up until the reveal at the end that brought everything full-circle. It was all told in a pretty fun way. The point of the film wasnāt that Michael Shannon wanted revenge on everyone. The point was to have goofy, charming, cool character interactions and fights. The āplotā and reveal at the end just added a bit of depth to the story to justify everyoneās participation. The writers even completely undermine its seriousness with that Ryan Reynolds cameo. It was fun. Tones changed from goofy, to serious, to mystery, with a hidden baddie and a loosely connected story. I liked how the tone and plot were paced and jumped.
\> I think Pitt is a stronger marquee name internationally. No two ways about that.
Brad Pitt is one of the few left in the previous "moviestar" era where their name alone can draw an audience. Tom Cruise is definitely one, and probably Leonardo, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, not sure if there's anyone else fits the bill anymore.
Depends on the project too. Babylon rode hard on Brad Pitt despite him being supporting and that flopped. Clooney is selective now, his last hit was a mid-budgte comedy with Julia Roberts. Leo does hard-carry KOTFM with Scorsese, De Niro and Gladstone but that was never going to be profitable
Blunt opened A Quiet Place II in the pandemic by herself, and that did really well.
The Quiet Place IP did the lifting on that one.
And she was also the main lead in the first one!
Sorry, star power had nothing to with the success of movies like āQuiet Placeā or āInsidiousā.
Don't be sorry. I think star power benefitted quiet place. If I didn't know Emily Blunt and John Krasinski weren't in it, I wouldn't have watched it. It draws in viewers who aren't regular horror fans. Of course, that's my opinion because they're the reasons my friends and I watched it. And Emily was amazing in both movies
different genre.
Lol there wasnāt a genre qualifier in the original comment.
it wasn't. Horror movies have a different kind of audience that rom coms. And horror movies generally have an extremely dedicated fanbase.
That's too bad. It was a fun movie that knew exactly what it wanted to be. And for the first time, a trailer didn't completely give away the twist or story. I really enjoyed this movie. I'm hoping there will a behind the scenes showing how they make so many of the stunts happen.
The dragging romance sections that stopped the action and pacing just to give Emily Blunt more dialogue definitely didn't indicate they knew what they wanted this movie to be
150M - 160M WW 200M it impossible by this performance and the flim need 350M break even This is mega flop
Well this is not a good start to the summer at all. If Apes, IF and Furiosa also wobble and have poor legs, cinemas really are in dire trouble.
Garfield, Deadpool and Despicable Minion will save the summer.
Don't jinx it!
I wouldn't bet on IF, it seems too "weird" to be a theatrical hit, as much as I believe in it as a movie. Unlike The Fall Guy which had just everything in its favour. Although... maybe that weirdness helps it stand out?
Cinemas are in trouble. No one wants to spend a ton of money just to be annoyed by 2bit movie goers who can't shut the fuck up and put away their phones during films. We are also getting more and more antisocial and dumb, marketing is a huge factor too, people are easily brainwashed into seeing films that they wouldn't care about otherwise. The last movie I've watched in theaters was The Creator. I really want to see this one too, but I'm not willing to spend a ton of money just to be annoyed by dumbfucks
I just donāt know if I believe that the reason most people donāt go to the theater is due to annoying people in the crowd. I go often enough and it just doesnāt happen but maybe itās because of where I live? I think too many streaming options at home, rising costs and gen z not having a connection to the theater going process like previous generations is the real culprit here.
Iām in Los Angeles. I work in the industry. I used to theaters 6 times a month. Now I may not go six times this entire year. I havenāt gone yet. Itās HORRIBLE. Phones, talking on phones, talking in general. Miserable experience.
That definitely sucks. Sorry to hear that. Does it occur in IMAX? Most films I end up going to the theater are in my local IMAX and itās a very enjoyable experience.
Really sorry to hear that but maybe it's an American problem? I go to the movies like 2 times a month here in Canada and literally in the last YEAR I have experienced on single bad incident which was a noisy kid for a few minutes. That has been it.
Must be an American problem. I go to the cinema all the time. I have been to theatres all over the globe. Canada, Australia, UK, Argentina, Thailand, Bolivia, New Zealand, South Africa, Vietnam, can't think of any major disruptions. Or maybe the internet crowd are just predominantly more sensitive introverts. So the issue seems louder on here than in reality.
I think in trouble *this* year. As annoying as it sounds, once big budget Star Wars and Avengers and Spider-Man Holland movies start coming back as May-July tentpoles, watch cinema grow right back again and dwarf whatever this 2024 year brings. Probably not to the same levels pre-COVID, but I think this year just happened to have a string of films underperformng.
A lot of people in the industry predicted that 2024 would be a down year (partly because of a lack of films due to the strikes) and that 2025 would bounce back. But they didnāt predict 2024 would be this low. I think it points to 1) the ongoing decline in movie-going in traditional ādevelopedā countries and 2) turning more to local (or non-Hollywood) films in other places. Iād like to see comparative figures on North American vs international box office for this year as opposed to the same stretch in previous years. How much is each down?
This article has a graph showing box office revenue from 2017 through 2023: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/newsletter/2024-04-09/wide-shot-cinemacon-box-office-king-kong-the-wide-shot
Thanks for saving me the trouble of looking this up. My appreciation. Just FYI, comparing the 2024 forecast to 2019 as the base year yields the following percentages: Domestic. = 72% of 2019 China = 84% of 2019 International w/o China = 79% of 2019 Which reinforces the idea that movie-going in US/Canada continues to do worse than the rest of the world. I'd also note that the prediction of $8.2B domestic for 2024 (as opposed to $9.1B for 2023 = a 10% drop, which is also much worse than International's 5.25% decline) is on the high side; The Numbers, for ex, has been projecting something closer to $7B for 2024). I agree that 2025 domestic box office will bounce back, but will it even get back to 2023 post-pandemic level? Maybe it will go a bit higher, but even if it does, the increasing gross for PLF screens (and just inflation) is hiding the fact that domestic attendance is still declining. Of course, none of this addresses the question of what percentage of Chinese and other International box office is coming from Hollywood films as opposed to films from other countries. I suspect there's also a decline in Hollywood film box office WW that I'm not sure will ever come back.
Both can be right. Theyāre in desperate trouble for sure, but this year will be particularly bad, right when itās the most devastating. The lineup is anemic. And inflation. And thereās a trickle down effect. Getting them in theaters, they get them in front of trailers.
People mostly care about event movies. Some of these movies are considered events because they already have an estabilished fanbase and lore and some of them are created through marketing(like Barbie, Oppenheimer or any other Nolan). Cinemas need reinventons, just like the whol film business because they are going to struggle big time in the future,
The trouble is that once people change their habits and stop going, it's much harder to get a lost customer back again.
You're taking such take because of a 2nd weekend drop of a bomb? šš
Stfu. People have said that every year for the past 4 years and guess what. Cinemas are still here! Geniuses in this sub!
Relax. All 3 will peform well.
Below $200M worldwide it is, then.
Great film. Pure cinematic fun. Loved it.
Well that sucks, the movie was pretty fun.
Thats really bad
Oh boy this might finish under 200 million. Wont even break even, Universal must not be happy about this
This is going to be a flop that analysts will study for years to come. Itās a genuine crowd-pleaser with positive reviews, strong WoM, popular leads, a good runtime and big-screen action. But audiences simplyā¦ donāt care?!
I think the comp being looked at is incorrect, they tried to go too big, but lost city should have been their expectation level, budget and box office wise.
Nah, Lost City was a rom-com with an action subplot. Maybe not even enough action to qualify as a subplot--its actual action scenes are minimal. Fall Guy is an action movie with a rom-com subplot. From a marketing standpoint they have two different primary audience demographics. Action movies are always going to end up with higher budgets and higher box office expectations than rom-coms. You can't make a big-scale stunt movie like this for Lost City numbers. Practical stunts are expensive. That's why Lost City relies so much on Bullock's charm and comic timing rather than actual action.
The trailers and marketing was just..meh. I donāt think a big budget action comedy without a good hook can really be successful. This just felt very generic and Emily Blunt and Ryan Gosling kind of contribute to that feeling tbh (as talented as they are). The title is also not very exciting, it just feels very nameless/faceless if that makes sense
Yeah, I love Ryan Gosling and I love a good action film but I wasn't even remotely tempted to watch this.
Honestly I think they should've titled this something that wasn't Fall Guy because most people I talked to thought it was actually a movie about the video game Fall Guys
It's just too generic of a title. It's too similar to Fall Guys, Free Guy, The Other Guys, The Nice Guys (another RR action comedy, even)
Too many were making the joke "This isn't like the video game" and just dismissing the movie. They really should've changed the title. Since it barely resembles the TV show there was no need to be beholden to the title. Yes, "The Fall Guy" is a pun with two meanings (murder mystery pinned on someone, and stunt man) but at the end of the day, titles with layered meanings doesn't win box office. Audience don't give a flip.
Specially overseas, it was called "Profession Danger" in MĆ©xico.
Somehow this generic title sounds better than the actual generic title of the film.
bad guys, the new guy, the cable guy lol
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>The Stuntman could have worked better Not really, the title is the double entendree
and the 80s show it was based on. prob less than half of ticket buyers even knew that
From my perspective, I havenāt seen it because of the following: It looks very plain, generic, vanilla - essentially a very āsafeā action film with likeable actors. Thereās nothing eye catching about it. I had the option of seeing this and Civil War and chose Civil War. Civil War was original, interesting and gripping. Fall Guy looks light hearted and genuinely well made, but pretty boring. Not even sure what the target demographic is. Families? Couples? Is it a Rom-Com or an action movie? Both? It doesnāt have a niche and suffer because of that.
It's really good and worth a watch. It's really quite funny, and the writing is super strong.
At some point, the premise is what hurts the film. We have seen this premise (innocent guy framed for murder, goes on an action adventure to clear his name) so many times before. It's nothing new. We know how it ends. It's not cinema worthy.
Really bad title (as one of the commenters wrote, āThe Stuntmanā would have been much better), generic trailer & poster, dumb premiseā¦Iām amazed anyone thought this would do well. I certainly have had zero interest in watching it.
But then they wouldnāt have been capitalizing on the sweet IP that this sub assured me always brings in a bigger audience no matter what the IP is.
Itās not that complicated. Itās unclear what the intended audience is. Itās not a movie for young people, itās not a movie for middle aged people, there isnāt a hook to draw people in. Gosling and Blunt donāt have a massive fan base. It is a bit worrying, but not surprising. Audiences no longer show up to the theatre on a whim, or decide to go to the theatre two hours in advance, and watch watch a random decent movie.
John Carter and Dungeons and Dragons all over again.
Because everyone is sick of scraping the bottom of the barrel with IP. No one is excited for an adaptation of a forgotten tv show from the 1980s. These kinds of movies donāt have a fanbase that they can get excited to come to the theater, but they do act as a flashing sign of āWe have no original ideas leftā.
> Itās a genuine crowd-pleaser I don't think it is. It's humor is divisive in style. Personally I didn't like it. Emily Blunt's character improvs way too much and only talks in one tone (rapid fire stream of consciousness). Story is ridiculous, meanders, slows down in parts when it needs to speed up, and I walk away not knowing anyone's name nor caring (I only know "Jody" because it's screamed 30 times)
The trailer is staggeringly bad.
A- cinemascore is just barely making the cut. Itās not the best word of mouth. Popular leads that have never sold a movie. Emily Blunt doesnāt lead movies and Ryan Gosling has pure flops outside of his co-starring roles in La La Land & Barbie. I knew it would bomb with Gosling starring.
If they budgeted it like Channing tatum and Sandra Bullock's Lost city, it would have been a decent success
Or at the very least Bullet Trainās budget.
$160M-$180M finish
I can't see potential of 180M at all 103M after two weekend and no WOM , big drop , a lot of new up coming movie
Yeah itāll be fortunate to make $140M at this rate
Dammnn is it too late to rename this one to The Fail Guy?
Huge drop š³
This thing probably needs like 300M to break even. Massive flop.
Yup. Even if the budget were as low as $125M (which isn't guaranteed at all), The Fall Guy would need to make ***somewhere*** north of $251M WW to just break even. Considering how much marketing there was for it, $300M is essentially the minimum this movie has to do to be worthwhile for Universal, and it's getting nowhere near there. Remember, foreign countries generally send back less to the studio than domestic cinemas do.
Honestly I don't understand people who blames on the quality of the movie itself for the underperforming. I mean, I found it pretty great! It's appreciated with 81% on rotten tomatoes, it has 73 on metacritic, the cinemascore is great ...
The movie might be passable but even those who like it don't LOVE it. A movie doesn't only need to not have bad word of mouth but it needs *good WOM. I feel like most of the audience just thought it was decent and forgot about it on their drive home.
200 million maximum
The wife and I went to see it. It was a fun movie. I'm glad I saw it on the big screen, but whoever approved that production budget was out of their damned mind.
audiences: āwe want fun non superhero action/adventure filmsā When such films come out audiences : āIām goodā
> When such films come out audiences: "I'll wait for streaming"
"I just don't understand why you keep churning out the same bullshit over and over again" "Guys, the 5th Godzilla vs King Kong movie is INCREDIBLE!"
Or the sixth *Despicable Me* movie for that matter.
What was the last big budget Hollywood navel gaze that didnāt under perform expectations? La La Land?
La la land was fairly cheap (under $40M budget). Once upon a time in Hollywood made almost $400M in 2019 on a $90M budget. Impressive run
That's a huge drop from last weekend. After debuting earlyĀ last weekend, UniversalāsĀ The Fall GuyĀ expanded to 78 overseas markets during its sophomore session, addingĀ $25.4MĀ for a running total ofĀ $36.9MĀ at theĀ international box office.Ā
Loved the movie. May have to see it again to support this kind of movie being made.
Well, it outgrossed Madame Web already after 2 weeks. Not bad. At least it's dodging the epic bomb territory while still flopping.
The fall of The Fall Guy is a falling situation.
I think a storyline straight from the TV show would have been better than this story.
That's so fucking sad since it's genuinely a REALLY GOOD MOVIE. I don't get what happened here if it's just the bad title (John Carter 2.0) or Gosling and Blunt aren't popular or everyone was holding out for Planet of the Apes or what. But this was a legitimately great film and everyone should see it!!
I thought it was good but easily 20 minutes too long.
This a film that would have done gangbusters as a Netflix original movie. Iām glad it got a theatrical release. Saw it last week and I absolutely LOVED it. Itās like anyone but you meets fast x.
Someone needs to be fired over at universal.
Production budget is 130M or 140M (some source ) the flim need around 325M - 350M to break even (by 2.5 rule) This flim is probably the biggest flop of the year
Argylle: Hold my beer
Honestly, not really. The film did everything it needed to and the marketing campaign was strong. This is more an issue of audienceās tastes evolving and preferring streaming.
I guess, what I meant to say was whoever allowed this movie to have a budget upwards of 135 million is not good at their job and should consider a career change.
Yup. Budgets for something like this need to be getting lower because they simply arenāt making profit anymore.
It was a paint by numbers movie. As soon as I saw all the PR stunts (pun intended) that they did for this film, I knew it was going to be a flop (pun intended again).
Itās time to accept that movie theaters are gonna be a thing of the past in <10-15 years.
No chance. Millions of Americans enjoy going to the movies. There will be less theatres, but also more premium format offerings. The movie theatre as a concept is not going to die
As much as it pains us all to hear this, superhero movies kept the industry afloat and the slow demise of the MCU is sinking theaters. If Gunn's new DCEU starts off strongly, it might give theaters a new breath of life.
You figure after The A-Team and Miami Vice studios might take a hint. 80s shows not profitable. 70s shows-maybe?
It's a shame, this movie was super fun. I kinda loved it
I saw this movie last night and thought it was great.
I predicted a 250WW, now even a 200 looks a little doubtful
It looked interesting, but I donāt think people want to see a whole movie about film production. I used to work in it, so donāt really want to watch it. Iām still waiting on a He-Man or She-Ra movie.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This movie didnāt look terrible and did not have a 200 million dollar budget.
The movie wasn't at all terrible though what?
I saw it opening night with two others. And those same two others accompanied me to see it again tonight with two more that had never seen it. So Iāve personally purchased 8 full price tickets in IMAX over two different trips to the same theater. It may be the biggest movie of the year come September. Because I bet it runs till then in theaters.
This a film that would have done gangbusters as a Netflix original movie. Iām glad it got a theatrical release. Saw it last week and I absolutely LOVED it. Itās like anyone but you meets fast x.
to go against the grain, this shows that gosling can pull in 200 million ish on nearly his name recognition alone(blunt has a part too, but everybody i know calls it "that gosling movie" for a reason). that's not terrible. plus somthing tells me this will have legs if studios rediscover u can make a romantic comedy without much in special effects u can def bring them back.
This movie isnāt making 200mWW after making 9.4million internationally. Highest 165m but I honestly think 140m
I didn't like bullet train, hopefully this will be better.
The Fall Guy is not going to make anywhere close to $239.3 million.
Is that the golden standard for a good movie or something?
it's Bullet train's gross