Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

FURIOSA Box Office

This one I think is going to make Hollywood nervous. I think this one will miss its $40 million tracking (which is not even very good, since Fury Road opened to $45 million a decade ago ).

The reason: Two hour 28 minute runtime. This should have been under two hours, maybe even 90 minutes.

I think Miller should have just made another sequel, there’s really not a lot of need-to-know about Furiosa’s past. The character was wafer thin. Do you care how she lost the arm?

Prediction: $34 million opening, $80 million domestic run, $180 million worldwide.

(Mad Max Fury Road: 45 million domestic opening, 153 million domestic run, $380 million worldwide)

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 239June 3, 2024 2:33 AM

[quote]Do you care how she lost the arm?

I don't care if she lives or dies OP so no.

by Anonymousreply 1May 24, 2024 1:02 AM

I think this franchise has pretty much run its course.

by Anonymousreply 2May 24, 2024 2:12 AM

It needs a star. Charlize or Sigourney or Angelina Jolie.

by Anonymousreply 3May 24, 2024 2:18 AM

He really should have made a Furiosa sequel with Charlize. I would have been interested in Furiosa’s further adventures. I connected to Charlize as Furiosa, because the character is so bare bones.

Ellen Ripley was also thinly drawn in Alien, but Sigourney gave her the humanity that made the character so powerful. I would not have wanted to see a prequel to Alien where Ripley was played by another actress and we get to learn how she became the warrant officer on the Nostromo.

by Anonymousreply 4May 24, 2024 3:01 AM

Good LORD, just stop with these 2+ hour time hogs...especially the ones that demand you want to see it on the big screen (to be clear, I don't care about this movie, nor most, to see them on a big screen).

It's really just a way to drive people to spend more when they're in the actual theaters.

Beyond that, if you have something that's going to run well over 2.25 hours, maybe consider breaking it up or editing it.

by Anonymousreply 5May 24, 2024 3:09 AM

You may be right, OP but I saw it today and it is a joy (no pun intended) to see a movie as well directed and impeccably designed and crafted as this one is. It has grandeur, great beauty (though every image looks digitally altered) and reinforces that Miller is a great storyteller, and has no competition as a director of action sequences. It’s endlessly inventive, even witty, and it’s stolen by Chris Hemsworth as a peacocking villain (though his pretty nose is disguised his pretty torso isn’t). And it’s chock full of good character actors having a great time.

But yeah, this is yet another trip to a familiar well, it’s dark and — yes, 2 1/2 hours long. But I loved it and think it’s a great summer movie and it’s epic scope and physical gorgeousness mean it should be seen on a big screen,, preferably in Dolby or IMAX.

by Anonymousreply 6May 24, 2024 3:12 AM

I don't know I think Warner Brothers is smart in lowballing it. It was bewildering when Paramount kept telling everyone that IF would do $40+ million, when projections were coming in much lower.

by Anonymousreply 7May 24, 2024 3:13 AM

A $40 million opening weekend is great in today's Hollywood but people just want to stay stream. There's no reason a movie ticket should cost more than a monthly streaming subscription.

by Anonymousreply 8May 24, 2024 3:15 AM

R8: Stay home and stream.

by Anonymousreply 9May 24, 2024 3:16 AM

A Mad Max reboot for Memorial Day weekend. Sad state of cinema in 2024.

by Anonymousreply 10May 24, 2024 3:16 AM

[quote]You may be right, OP but I saw it today and it is a joy (no pun intended) to see a movie as well directed and impeccably designed and crafted as this one is.

But it looks just like the previous one. You have to give the audience something new. Simply limiting to James Cameron, look how different Aliens was from Alien (which he did not direct), or Terminator 2 was from Terminator. Avatar 2 was pretty similar to Avatar 1, but he went underwater so it was something new.

They could have gone any number of creative direction with this, but they needed to make it feel new.

by Anonymousreply 11May 24, 2024 3:24 AM

You’re not wrong, R 11, but “Fury Road” was nine years ago, which seems like a lifetime. It’s a real question whether people will feel they have to go to a theater to see it.

But if they do, they’ll see a damn well-made movie.

by Anonymousreply 12May 24, 2024 1:16 PM

I remember back in the day when Spielberg would release a big summer movie. I have no desire to see this on the big screen. I may watch it when it streams, but it isn't something I "can't wait" to see. I like Hemsworth. Can't warm up to Anna Taylor Joy. It's her bulging eyes.

by Anonymousreply 13May 24, 2024 1:35 PM

I hope she cuts off all the guys dicks

by Anonymousreply 14May 24, 2024 1:39 PM

Memorial Day used to be the kickoff of the huge summer movie season. Where are the blockbuster movies this summer?

Like Dune 2, this looks dour and joyless.

by Anonymousreply 15May 24, 2024 1:41 PM

These threads are pointless. OP is just pulling numbers out of his ass.

by Anonymousreply 16May 24, 2024 1:41 PM

There was no demand for a female Mad Max.

by Anonymousreply 17May 24, 2024 1:46 PM

[quote] These threads are pointless. OP is just pulling numbers out of his ass.

Correct. OP is the box-office doomsayer troll. He does it every week.

And he has the nerve to talk about unwanted sequels.

by Anonymousreply 18May 24, 2024 2:08 PM

R17 there was no demand for one when Charlize came out with hers, but she blew it out of the water. I loved that movie. Such a bad ass. And Tom Hardy! That movie was fun. But this one is not compelling enough for me to want to see it. I would have if Charlize were in it. And Hemsworth is fine, just not a huge draw for me.

by Anonymousreply 19May 24, 2024 2:12 PM

Hollywood feverishly trying to make female action heroes appeal to the paying customer.

by Anonymousreply 20May 24, 2024 2:16 PM

I was definitely going to see this until I saw the runtime.

by Anonymousreply 21May 24, 2024 3:23 PM

Is this the actress who got kicked in the head by a mule?

by Anonymousreply 22May 24, 2024 3:29 PM

[quote] I was definitely going to see this until I saw the runtime

Sure you were.


by Anonymousreply 23May 24, 2024 4:00 PM

Tom Hardy really blew it. This should have been his franchise. He must have been a nightmare to work with.

by Anonymousreply 24May 24, 2024 4:03 PM

It will meet expectations, and that's about it. The franchise doesn't have enough mainstream appeal to be a blockbuster. Word of mouth will help.

by Anonymousreply 25May 24, 2024 4:52 PM

It needs to make about $670 million to break even. I think it will break even but yes I don't think it will go on and do gangbusters numbers.

by Anonymousreply 26May 24, 2024 4:55 PM

Now it’s tracking $40 million for the FOUR-DAY. (I DK if the estimates were for 3-day or 4-day in the OP).

This is terrible. It means it’s a thirty million three-day film, like Fall Guy.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 27May 24, 2024 5:39 PM

Cinemark Orlando 7PM tonight

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 28May 24, 2024 5:45 PM


Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 29May 24, 2024 5:48 PM

Holy Shit


31-34 million 4 day, may be beaten by Garfield

Worst Memorial Day weekend in decades

Holy fucking shit, this is terrible

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 30May 25, 2024 1:02 AM

R30: And it’s not due to a lack of marketing. They’ve been promoting it and people know it exists. Holy fuck this is even worse than The Fall Guy.

by Anonymousreply 31May 25, 2024 1:05 AM

The big thing that sticks out to me

Three flops in a role - Ryan Gosling (43), Ryan Reynolds (47), Chris Hemsworth (40)

These are all guys of the same generation

The audience who went to see these guys in movies from the late aughts up until the pandemic - people at the end of Gen X up to the youngest millennials - is not going to theaters.

AND all three actors were among the most notable cashers of Netflix checks

The trained their audience to stay at home.

by Anonymousreply 32May 25, 2024 1:19 AM

But....but....the Hollywood Reporter just told me that Anya Taylor Joy was the new IT Girl. I'm confused.

by Anonymousreply 33May 25, 2024 1:41 AM


by Anonymousreply 34May 25, 2024 2:31 AM

Anya is a good actress but she lacks gravitas. It should have been with Charlize. And frankly the trailers were lacking and too green screeny. Chris seemed “out of his depth to be a villain.

by Anonymousreply 35May 25, 2024 2:51 AM

Here’s the deal with Anya Taylor Joy.

She is like Andrea Riseborough or Rooney Mara.

An unusual-looking woman who is an effective chameleon. An actor in the truest sense of the word. But movies like this need stars. Charlize Theron is a star, that was why Fury Road worked. You don’t NEED to know too much about the character because their star quality fills in the blanks. That’s why Fury Road got away with such thinly drawn characters.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 36May 25, 2024 3:27 AM

R32 And that’s a major reason why Disney franchises and Marvel movies are flopping at the box office. When they started making TV shows out of movie franchises, people stopped going to the movies. If you want to see Star Wars or Marvel, there’s 800 new shows on Disney to choose from.

by Anonymousreply 37May 25, 2024 3:37 AM

One more thing about Anya Taylor-Joy

She appears to have spent a large portion of the Furiosa press blitz complaining

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 38May 25, 2024 3:38 AM

Movie stars don’t do this

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 39May 25, 2024 3:40 AM

Chris Hemsworth has never been a box office draw. I don’t think he’s ever had a hit movie in theaters outside of Thor.

Hemsworth is very much like Brad Pitt. He’s famous for his movie star looks but he’s actually a great character actor. He was brilliant in “Bad Times at the El Royale”.

But the problem with Hemsworth is he’s also a cash star. He wants it both ways. He wants to show his range as an actor but he also wants like $20 million a movie and the salaries he demands aren’t about exploring character acting.

Brad Pitt wasn’t afraid to take a pay cut to take on a good role.

by Anonymousreply 40May 25, 2024 3:46 AM

R40: You lost me at great character actor. He's a talentless piece of eye candy who got very lucky with boring superhero films.

by Anonymousreply 41May 25, 2024 3:54 AM

I’m surprised but not surprised by the Furiosa numbers.

There is a huge fatigue of women lead action movies. Men, who make up like 75% of action and sci-if audiences, are sick of watching them.

“Fury Road” actually TRICKED male audiences into seeing it in that it was a Mad Max film but was truly a female driven action movie at heart.

by Anonymousreply 42May 25, 2024 3:57 AM

Chris Hemsworth got cast in two films which never got made which would probably have been hits.

The first was Robopocalypse from Steven Spielberg. One of the many victims of Spielberg’s ADHD (the latest one appears to be Bradley Cooper’s Bullitt remake, with Spielberg opting to do an alien movie at Universal)

The second was called Down Under Cover, which would have been a gender-swapped Miss Congeniality with Hemsworth playing a cop who has to go undercover as a male stripper. This was a victim of the pandemic.

by Anonymousreply 43May 25, 2024 4:00 AM

R41 That’s not true. Chris is actually a great actor. He’s not Henry Cavill. He’s even great as Thor.

by Anonymousreply 44May 25, 2024 4:00 AM

I just loved him in “Bad Times at the El Royale”. He played this sexy cult leader villain and could have been cliche but he played it as this California hippie surfer that I just thought was brilliant. He was sexy as fuck but he was also unpredictably frightening and funny at the same time.

by Anonymousreply 45May 25, 2024 4:05 AM


Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 46May 25, 2024 4:09 AM

Hemsworth is like Dwayne Johnson, not a great actor but has genuine charisma which has propelled him quite far.

I feel bad for him because it was quite obvious he was very proud of the work he did here, which is supposed to be very good. At the end of the day though, the movie’s marketing campaign failed to establish what his role was in the movie, and why we should be invested in him. Is this a villain? An antihero? A comic villain? What is the point of putting him in Bradley Cooper’s Maestro nose?

by Anonymousreply 47May 25, 2024 4:13 AM

The movie is ok. Too long and Hemsworth is a pain in the ass. It’s a crap performance from him and his character gets too much screen time, despite being fairly one dimensional.

by Anonymousreply 48May 25, 2024 4:19 AM

[quote]Like Dune 2, this looks dour and joyless.

'Woke' progressives are a gloomy, humorless bunch, so with them usurping control of Hollywood/Broadway in recent years, we've been getting a lot of ugly, pessimistic fare.

Moderates need to take back control of the entertainment industry and give us joyful, hopeful movies again.

And pretty actors.

Especially in this day and age, a little escapism is greatly appreciated.

by Anonymousreply 49May 25, 2024 4:21 AM

R49 I’m sorry but with the death of Arthur Freed, they’re never going to revive the mincing prisspot genre for you.

by Anonymousreply 50May 25, 2024 4:29 AM

Can I just say to R16 / R18

Fuck you you fucking fuck, I nailed it.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 51May 25, 2024 4:54 AM

Hollywood seems in denial that movies are no longer escapism, at least not on the scale as before. The movie audience is consistently dwindling.

by Anonymousreply 52May 25, 2024 4:56 AM

I've said it before, people aren't as interested in movies and TV shows anymore. The entertainment one would get from a movie or show can now be experienced on TikTok or Instagram. Hollywood is slowly accepting this reality. They're making less content and drastically cutting budgets for TV shows. Studios are being consolidated. People just don't care/have the attention span to invest their time in movies/shows. They know how each one will eventually resolve, so why waste any time watching? Social media content is killing the industry. Horroe movies are about the only reliable genre today. Adult dramas are dead. Comedies are just about there. Action genre is uninspired - those choices are killing it. Who the f wants to see a new Bad Boys movie?! There was definitely some greed behind the length of the strikes, but it was also because actors/writers wanted wages that studios knew wouldn't be realistic given the decline in audience interest. It'll be interesting to see the ramifications for the LA economy.

by Anonymousreply 53May 25, 2024 11:28 AM

The fragmentation of show business consumption due to a la carte over the counter direct to consumer changed much of entertainment consumption from a communal thing to a personalized one and destroyed the necessity of seeing something the moment it was released. It has nothing to do with social media because social media has existed since America Online. This very website has been around for over two decades.

Television shows used to be something you had to make an appointment to watch. I Love Lucy famously impacted the nation’s plumbing infrastructure with millions of people going to the bathroom at the same time the show went to commercial. Blockbuster Video was a someplace you had to go to to rent a movie and it was a packed to the gills on weekends. “Summer movies” existed as a thing because the network television season ended in May and began in September. Memorial Day was the start of summer movie season because by then almost all network programs had had their season finalés and people could turn their attention elsewhere.

Hollywood decided it could make a year round tentpole strategy and abandoned the summer movie. Marvel began this by launching its tentpoles at the beginning of May instead of ending it. Then they started opening films at the beginning of November instead of the traditional holiday launch date of Thanksgiving (November was a Sweeps month and television programs typically offered new shows up until Thanksgiving). Then Captain America the Winter Solider opened at the beginning of April. Black Panther opened in February which was once considered a graveyard because February was Sweeps month, and became a record breaking blockbuster.

And then of course Netflix came, destroyed network television and destroyed all patterns of consumption by giving everyone everything instantaneously. New shows launched every week of the year instead of September, January and June. All episodes of a new show dropped at once. They want you to watch it all at once so they reduce episode counts to 8. They don’t want you to go to the movies so they launch their own movies and destroy theatrical action movies, romcoms and prestige pictures. Then half a dozen other streaming services pop up and you don’t know where to look for anything.

Netflix made things so unpredictable they even screwed themselves. They spent $80 million on Maestro and it won no awards. They spent $166 million on Zack Snyder’s Rebel Moon which featured slumming Anthony Hopkins and Charlie Hunnam, and everyone hated it. What was their big hit? Baby Reindeer. No stars. A strange looking leading man. I couldn’t even find production budget information but it couldn’t have cost much more than 10 million. I haven’t even watched Baby Reindeer and even I know what “the real Martha” means.

Hits happen now completely by accident, and the organic nature of how hits happen now - begun and distilled through social media discourse - is the only remainder of the communality of mass entertainment. Barbenheimer and Baby Reindeer are exactly the same. Social media finds something and makes it important. Andy Warhol said that a bottle of Coke becomes important once Elizabeth Taylor is photographed holding it. That’s what social media is right now - the arbitrator of what is or is not important. Which is wonderfully democratic, but horrible for an industry which must commit enormous sums of money for something they no longer have any control over - public taste.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 54May 25, 2024 12:59 PM

[quote]Anya Taylor-Joy said an interview with British GQ that she has often fought for her characters to express rage on screen. It turns out there have been several films where in the script her character is supposed to cry, but Taylor-Joy just didn’t think that was the right emotional beat. She decided to speak up for herself and successfully convinced her directors to let her character have more rage.

Anya Taylor-Joy has apparently never heard the adage, "Women cry when they are angry, and men shout when they are sad." It's true. A woman shaking with anger will often start crying, or be forced to fight back tears. She's not doing it for effect, it's just a natural way women express rage. They also cry when they're extremely moved by a good gesture or a romantic movie. It's a response to any kind of being overwhelmed.

Whereas [certainly straight] men often respond to being overwhelmed by shouting or punching something.

by Anonymousreply 55May 25, 2024 1:00 PM

Since the bitch was whining about the job, good.


by Anonymousreply 56May 25, 2024 1:10 PM

I'm very pleased to see that the film is a total flop. Even women don't want to see another woman star in an action movie.

by Anonymousreply 57May 25, 2024 1:53 PM

They REALLY missed the mark putting Anya and Chris in lead roles. Plus the franchise is stale (who wants to see another car chase film in the desert?).

The giant budgets are the problem. They need to reevaluate the entire business model.

by Anonymousreply 58May 25, 2024 2:02 PM

Furiosa budget: $168 million

by Anonymousreply 59May 25, 2024 2:04 PM

It’s not a shitty movie, it’s a really good and well-made one. (R48 is a fucking ass if he/she even saw the movie as they pretend).

The posters here who question the old movie model have gotten it right. It’s the old-fashioned business of making and exhibiting movies that has stopped being reliable.

Though it’s also possible that people are tired of Dystopian Future movies — we’ve had twenty years of them, good bad and indifferent. This one happens to be good. So I guess you all can stream it by July/August.

by Anonymousreply 60May 25, 2024 2:06 PM

R53 That’s not entirely true.

People are interested in TV, it’s just that shows take too long to make now and some hit shows can be cancelled due to budget issues.

The investment in a TV show doesn’t pay off today.

“Stranger Things”’s 5th season will be released in 2025. It has been on Netflix since 2016! So almost a 10 year series that has 5 seasons! And each season under 9 episodes!

“Euphoria”! Most watched TV series on HBO. First season was 2019. Third season probably won’t even happen.

Those are just some examples.

I mean I don’t think anyone at any age has the attention span to deal with this.

They’re like British TV shows, like “Mr Bean” and “Ab Fab” that ran for like 15 years and they have like 20 episodes total lol.

It’s frustrating if you invest in a TV show today.

by Anonymousreply 61May 25, 2024 2:22 PM

Given films like Anyone But You are making $200million+ I wonder if the problem is that people are over these bombastic and over-the-top action/superhero films and just want some light entertainment.

The world is so grim these days, do you want to pay to spend time in a dark room watching some dark dystopian movie, or a uplifting film that doesn't require knowledge of a bunch of prequels?

by Anonymousreply 62May 25, 2024 2:25 PM

R62 but romantic comedy Fall Guy and family film IF also flopped. And ponderous overlong Dune 2 did very well.

by Anonymousreply 63May 25, 2024 2:30 PM

Dune 2 was a genuine movie event.

IF and The Fall Guy were mediocre to poor.

by Anonymousreply 64May 25, 2024 2:41 PM

Glen and Sydney did A LOT of marketing. They tried really hard on social media to make the movie an “event”. Using that stupid 2000s song, promoting the movie as a girls night event.

by Anonymousreply 65May 25, 2024 2:42 PM

I think the reliance on intellectual property creates passiveness

The top five movies at the domestic box office so far

1. Dune 2 - sequel to movie that was first made 40 years ago based on book published 60 years ago

2. Godzilla X Kong - Godzilla is 70 years old and has appeared in 38 movies; Kong is 90 years old and has appeared in 13 movies. The movie is the fifth in a ten year old “Monsterverse” series.

3. Kung Fu Panda 4 - fourth film in a 15/year old series

4. Ghostbusters Frozen - sequel to a second reboot of a forty year old movie

5. Planet of the Apes - tenth film based on a 55 year old film, and the fourth sequel to an almost 15 year old film

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 66May 25, 2024 2:44 PM

I think the campaigns really do matter. The marketing for The Fall Guy never made clear what the movie was about or who it was for. Therefore, you had a lot of straight guys who were turned off at the romantic comedy aspects in the film. Also, I'm not saying Furiosa wasn't promoted but compare its campaign to Dune Part Two's campaign. You literally couldn't escape the Dune 2 campaign; it would never end.

by Anonymousreply 67May 25, 2024 2:45 PM

R65: Furthermore, they faked a "relationship" for PR.

by Anonymousreply 68May 25, 2024 2:47 PM

I think the discussion of the success of Anyone But You overlooks the fact that sometimes the audience wants to just see two pairs of really great tits.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 69May 25, 2024 2:58 PM

Lowest Memorial Day in 41 years per Deadline.

by Anonymousreply 70May 25, 2024 4:32 PM

1. It is too fucking expensive to go to the movie theater. People don't want to pay full price for a ticket unless it's a must see event or has to be seen on IMAX or Dolby.

2. People want to stream from the comfort and privacy of their own homes. Why see a film in a theater when it will be released digitally in 17 days and at a low cost?

3. The movies suck. Sorry they do. Hollywood doesn't understand that middle America watches movies too and they are turned off by the woke undertones.

I agree until either the moderates take back control or wokeness recedes, the decline of Hollywood will continue.

by Anonymousreply 71May 25, 2024 5:10 PM

Word on the street is that Garfield scratched the shit out of Anus Taylor-Joy.

Morris mentioned that Garfield was FURIOUS-OSA

by Anonymousreply 72May 25, 2024 5:12 PM

Again the crap writers who write for Deadline suck

It’s not the lowest opening in forty one years because they didn’t adjust for inflation. The record they’re referring to was Return of the Jedi which made 30 million over the four day in 1983. But with inflation adjusted, that’s over 90 million dollars.

With inflation adjustment, and not counting 2020, Furiosa is the lowest grossing opening movie at the Memorial Day box office since the year 1981 and the Richard Pryor movie Bustin Loose, which would have made around $23 million in today’s dollars. The next lowest would be 1990’s Backdraft which made the equivalent of $38 million today, which Furiosa will fall short of.

by Anonymousreply 73May 25, 2024 5:27 PM


by Anonymousreply 74May 25, 2024 5:27 PM

[quote] The movies suck. Sorry they do. Hollywood doesn't understand that middle America watches movies too and they are turned off by the woke undertones. I agree until either the moderates take back control or wokeness recedes, the decline of Hollywood will continue.

I love how a white woman starring in an action movie is now considered woke, what would you like them to do r71, churn butter?

by Anonymousreply 75May 25, 2024 5:29 PM

[quote]Even women don't want to see another woman star in an action movie.

Maybe we just don't like that bug-eyed whiner. If Theron had been cast in it, I'm betting there would have been more butts in seats.

by Anonymousreply 76May 25, 2024 5:35 PM

“Furiosa” is a prequel, so there’s no way Theron was going to be in it. Plus at 48, she very likely didn’t want to do a film so physically arduous again — and what’s she been in lately, anyway? She doesn’t work regularly at all.

And given that director George Miller is 79 there aren’t likely to be any more in the “Mad Max” genre unless there is a reboot a decade or so from now.

by Anonymousreply 77May 25, 2024 5:47 PM

R74. That shaky old bat. Never fails to make me laugh.

by Anonymousreply 78May 25, 2024 6:02 PM

Would Liza have been better in Tina Turner's role in Beyond Thunderdome?

by Anonymousreply 79May 25, 2024 6:16 PM

r77, she did sequel to , "The Old Guard" where she kicks ass, and is in development for<"Atomic Blonde 2", which I think is the female equivalent to, "John Wick".

Someone upthread mentioned how SM esp. Tiktok and it got me thinking why production companies are insisting on making 2+ hour long movies when the collective attention span has gone down to 1-4 minute videos.

by Anonymousreply 80May 25, 2024 6:59 PM

I hope this bombs big time along with both the Horizon films. WB/Discovery is the most hated corporation in the industry and David Zaslav is undoubtedly the most hated CEO. He fucked up both CNN and HBO.

by Anonymousreply 81May 25, 2024 7:08 PM

Omg I just looked it up! It’s $21 a ticket at my closest movie theater.

Like a family of 4 would be $80 dollars without food and drinks.

by Anonymousreply 82May 25, 2024 7:26 PM

R75 Female action and sci-fi movies were never popular. They still aren’t but Hollywood keeps pushing them.

It’s not about churning butter, it’s about appealing to female audiences.

There’s barely anything for women at the movie theaters anymore. That’s why “Barbie” was so big.

by Anonymousreply 83May 25, 2024 7:27 PM

The Alien movies were very popular with women and men, due to Sigourney Weaver.

The problem is that they make these very expensive but very poor films. On top of the large budget, they spend millions to promote them and then they still lose money like Challengers, IF and The Fall Guy. Now Furiousa.

by Anonymousreply 84May 25, 2024 7:31 PM

R84 Alien and ………..? Linda Hamilton …… and ….?

I believe Ellen Ripley was originally a man in the first script. I think it was all men and then they switched it to 2 women.

by Anonymousreply 85May 25, 2024 7:36 PM

[quote]It’s not about churning butter, it’s about appealing to female audiences.

Apparently, females don't find it at all appealing.

by Anonymousreply 86May 25, 2024 8:07 PM

R83 makes a good point that there has been an extremely concerted effort to make female action movies - often very expensive ones - even though it no one anyone actually wants them. Again, Zack Snyder’s 166 million dollar attempt at trying to make Sofia Boutella happen. The Star Wars sequels obviously centered around a character and actress the public never warmed to. Also Rogue One. Also Dial of Destiny. Like Furiosa they put a thin British woman at the center. So has the upcoming Twisters movie. I bet Daisy Ridley and Daisy Edgar-Jones could alternate scenes in Twisters and no one would know the difference. I think Hollywood often just wants an empty blank canvas for an action heroine which is why they choose these interchangeable British actresses.

Anyway, women don’t appear to really want that. I don’t think it’s sexist to say there was nothing wrong in making movies like Pretty Woman or Devil Wears Prada which offered aspirational escapism. Going out in to the desert and kicking ass is not something women find entertaining; it’s men who like this and even then they prefer to see their own sex doing the ass kicking.

Look at a simple thing like the shopping scene from Pretty Woman, probably filmed in two afternoons with no special effects. What was wrong with this? This doesn’t exist in Hollywood any more. Pretty Woman would never get made today.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 87May 25, 2024 8:10 PM

[quote] WB/Discovery is the most hated corporation in the industry and David Zaslav is undoubtedly the most hated CEO. He fucked up both CNN and HBO.

Oh, just give him a few. He’ll top that.

Furiosa bombed so badly Memorial Day plans are being canceled and flights are being booked to Philadelphia.

by Anonymousreply 88May 25, 2024 8:54 PM

The campaigns matter now more than ever in the streaming age. WB gave Dune Part Two a Barbie-esque campaign in the hopes that like Barbie it would make a billion dollars. Although in today's Hollywood $700-800 million is basically equivalent to $1 billion and a $40 million opening weekend is considered a success.

by Anonymousreply 89May 25, 2024 11:18 PM

It's only a matter of time before the budgets will be capped at $20 million and the actors will get $100K a movie.

by Anonymousreply 90May 25, 2024 11:20 PM

On the contrary

You are going to see more “Dune poster movies”

Here’s the deal - we are very certainly going to see the consolidation of the remaining studios. So what we will start to see are very big event films with very big casts with everybody’s head on the poster, each studio rotating about three BIG movies a year. And the studios will all start splitting them up into two or even three parts.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 91May 26, 2024 12:42 AM

Hollywood set themselves up by mixing streaming with theatrical. Plus a whole generation or more has come to expect superhero or cartoon films. I don’t see how the studios or theaters can survive.

by Anonymousreply 92May 26, 2024 12:47 AM

Donna Langley who may soon be running Hollywood has made Wicked the centerpiece of Universal’s theatrical calendar for TWO consecutive years. Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande were already presenting at the Oscars in March in their characters colors. The movie opens at Thanksgiving!

This is what Hollywood will be now. These gigantic events with campaigns that run for months. But only for about ten to twelve films a year.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 93May 26, 2024 12:50 AM

Actually scratch that , it’s too generous. Seven to nine events per year. The big event films will have 60 or maybe even 90 theatrical exclusivity. Everything else will be made much more cheaply and be on PVOD after three weekends.

by Anonymousreply 94May 26, 2024 12:52 AM

By the way… this strategy is not new. This was how movies saved themselves in the fifties and sixties when television destroyed moviegoing.

That was why you had films like Doctor Zhivago. Which hard to believe but is still among the highest grossing films ever adjusted for inflation.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 95May 26, 2024 12:59 AM

Of course the problem with this will be the expense of these event movies, as it was then, when 20th Century Fox had to sell its backlot to pay for Cleopatra.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 96May 26, 2024 1:02 AM

Unfortunately now, there is no incentive to seek out a smaller film. You can wait to find it on streaming for $5.99.

by Anonymousreply 97May 26, 2024 1:03 AM

…and all these films will be ridiculously overstuffed.

Case in point, “My Fair Lady.” The original trailer begins by telling you how much Warner Bros. paid for the rights. At 170 minutes I think everyone agrees that this film goes on forever.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 98May 26, 2024 1:16 AM

[quote]Donna Langley who may soon be running Hollywood has made Wicked the centerpiece of Universal’s theatrical calendar for TWO consecutive years

Notable product collaborations for the ‘Wicked’ films (via License Global):

- Mattel








-Vera Bradley



-Random House

-Spin Master

-Beekman 1802



and MANY more 💚

I'm getting a Jonathan Bailey teddy bear to snuggle with at night.

by Anonymousreply 99May 26, 2024 1:22 AM

I saw it today, and it's piece of shit. No redeeming qualities. a couple of late-in-the-game speeches trying for gravitas and failing miserably.

Dementia opining there is no hope and that Furiosa should join him in laying waste to what's left of the world.

Just one set piece after another strung together. Violence, endless violence.

Charlize should have been hired for this installment.

by Anonymousreply 100May 26, 2024 1:40 AM

…and by the way, the return of the 50s/60s style spectacle - which in many was what “Barbenheimer” was - will probably result in some fantastic films. We have “Lawrence of Arabia” and “2001: A Space Odyssey” because studios were forced to come up with new ways to entertain television-besotted audiences (television more than halved moviegoing.) These movies were treated as events, with reservations and souvenir programs. They also had higher ticket prices than other films.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 101May 26, 2024 1:46 AM

And overtures! God can you imagine if they brought back overtures?

Three solid minutes of sound to get you in the mood.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 102May 26, 2024 1:50 AM

People will buy into female action heroes, but they are few and far between.

Charlize -2 Days in the Valley, Aeon Flux, Atomic Blonde, 'The Old Guard, MM Fury Road, Fast X, Dr. Strange

Angelina -Tomb Raider, Gone in 60 Seconds, Salt, Eternals, Mr. & Mrs. Smith

Milla Jovovich- The Fifth Element, 1000 Resident Evil movies, Ultraviolet

Michelle Yeoh-Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon; Shang Chi, and a ton of other movies involving kung fu

Noomi Rapace: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo trilogy, Alien: Prometheus, Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows, Whatever Happened to Monday, Assassin Club, Bright

Aside from Milla and Noomi, they are all Oscar winning actresses. You don't expect that from your male equivalents.

by Anonymousreply 103May 26, 2024 2:22 AM

Ryan Gosling needs to be brought down a peg. I don't know why he's gotten so arrogant and lazy lately. He didn't campaign for The Fall Guy and he thought goodwill from Barbie would be enough. It wasn't.

by Anonymousreply 104May 26, 2024 2:28 AM

R103: Aeon Flux is considered one of the biggest critical and commercial disasters ever.

by Anonymousreply 105May 26, 2024 2:28 AM

Furiosa is a flop. It won't even make expectations. This weekend will be the worst in decades. Hollywood is dead. The strikes were the killing blow.

by Anonymousreply 106May 26, 2024 2:39 AM

The whole movie going experience - with rare exceptions - is just so fucking annoying and unpleasant before the film starts these days. The films themselves are mostly meh. And then there's the crazy prices. WTF are these theater chains thinking?

by Anonymousreply 107May 26, 2024 3:02 AM

Will Twisters and Deadpool & Wolverine suffer the same fate come July?

by Anonymousreply 108May 26, 2024 3:34 AM

I think those two have a good Hanse of doing well. Also, Inside Out 2. But everything else ….

by Anonymousreply 109May 26, 2024 4:15 AM

That Scarlett Jihansson/Channing Tatum fake moon landing movie looks like it will bomb big time.

by Anonymousreply 110May 26, 2024 4:18 AM

We also have Bad Boys 4 and Despicable Me 4 in June and July respectively.

by Anonymousreply 111May 26, 2024 4:21 AM

I hope Will Smith bombs

by Anonymousreply 112May 26, 2024 4:33 AM

I think it will, R112.

by Anonymousreply 113May 26, 2024 4:48 AM

[quote] People will buy into female action heroes, but they are few and far between.

Weirdly, though, MADAME WEB has been a big hot on Netflix, for whatever reason.

by Anonymousreply 114May 26, 2024 4:52 AM

Anya Taylor-Joy is not a star. Whatever her talents as an actress may be, she’s always struck me as more of a model, someone who poses their way through a film or, in the case of The Queen’s Gambit, a limited series (where she was particularly guilty of this). As noted, the ONLY press I heard about this film was how lonely and isolated she was making it. She made it sound more like evidence in an abuse trial. I thought she was promoting a civil suit.

Chris Hemsworth is Thor. Outside of Thor movies, I don’t know what he’s supposed to be - some dag who doesn’t where a tie at Cannes. Promoting this film at Cannes is like promoting it in a black hole - they were never going to each a blockbuster audience there. Hemsworth is too laid back to promote non-Marvel IP (which basically promotes itself). Having these two front this film is a disaster.

Fury Road was a bit of a box office sleeper, it benefitted from word of mouth. I’m not sure anyone asked for Furiosa but positioning it to open a movie season was a mistake. It needed to be released mid-season when filmgoers were in the swing of going to the cinema. It would’ve done better in the shadow of something popular, as another reason to go to the cinema.

The Fall Guy never looked any good. Gosling and Blunt generated about as much heat as a popsicle. Talk about a film nobody asked for! A big budget “film within a film”. Hollywood will never learn. That one was ALWAYS going to be a flop. (It also completely missed its moment - nowhere to be seen at the height of its promotion as if it were going to sustain interest for three more weeks before it hits cinemas. And Emily Blunt should just STFU about her kids already. She is not a box office draw and has never opened a film on her own. Ever.)

But mostly, Hollywood has claimed to be on life support for decades. Everyone’s always so quick to call the time of death on Hollywood. And the industry has had its challenges. COVID was certainly one of them. But the biggest one now is the collapse of Marvel, whose successes artificially bolstered the industry and made Hollywood - which is essentially a creative industry - lazy. They conditioned like 2 generations of filmgoers to expect a specific thing and kept them on a strict diet of it until they couldn’t take it anymore. It built to a climax, of sorts, with Avengers 3 or whatever and they couldn’t wait to get off the ride. And they’re done with it. And they have little to no appetite for anything else. You reap what you sow.

That said, the art of good storytelling will always be a draw. It’s just going to take some time. And there will be failures because as William Goldman said, in his still pretty astute book Adventures in the Screenwriting Trade, “Nobody knows nothing.” The hits will come from the outsiders. From the rebels, as was the case at its dawn and more recently on the ‘70s and ‘90s. Cinema will be alive and well as a mode of expression. This is just the inevitable lull after the boom of Marvel and what is now a lost generation of filmgoers.

by Anonymousreply 115May 26, 2024 5:43 AM

Correction: I think it’s “Nobody knows anything” but I guess I’ve proved his point.

And also, the Hemsworth as a cop undercover as a male stripper does sound like a missed opportunity, even though the male stripper thing always makes me cringe. Maybe he should be undercover in a gay club, for maximum “fish out of water” contrast.

by Anonymousreply 116May 26, 2024 5:49 AM

Watched 15 minutes of the Mexican cam version and gave up. Every scene is green-screened to hell, young Furiosa has the cheapest looking wig I have ever seen, and Hemsworth has the cheapest looking nose prosthetic I have ever seen. Why does this movie look so much cheaper and nastier than Fury Road?

It's a shame because I was intrigued by the story.

by Anonymousreply 117May 26, 2024 5:56 AM

[quote] This weekend will be the worst in decades. Hollywood is dead. The strikes were the killing blow.

With any luck, Hollywood will do what it did in reaction to the epics of the 50s and 60s, and turn to small, interesting and original movies like The Conversation or Annie Hall. You know, with scripts. If they all end up on streaming services, so be it. The fact that the cinema declines no longer has to mean Hollywood is over.

I'm not sure women are crazy about any type of movie where it's all about the action. I don't think the solution is starring women in them. You only have to listen to a group of women round a lunch table to know that they communicate with each other in stories, so it's not surprising that what they're looking for in a movie or TV series is a good story. They love the shopping scenes in Pretty Woman (the two on Rodeo Drive and the one where she is sent to see Barney's shopgirl friend) partly because of the clothes, but mostly because those three scenes together form a fable about what true classiness is and is not.

by Anonymousreply 118May 26, 2024 12:32 PM

[quote]The whole movie going experience - with rare exceptions - is just so fucking annoying and unpleasant before the film starts these days.

I totally agree. I expect a few minutes of previews before the show begins. What I didn't expect was 15 minutes of commercials ( the kind you see on tv) before the previews. A 1:30 showing actually begins around 2 pm. I realize the theaters are trying to recoup money, but is this the way to do it? Alienating customers and having them rather wait to stream? If a show is to start at 1:30, have your commercials before and start the previews at 1:30. people will still see the precious advertising and not get as annoyed.

by Anonymousreply 119May 26, 2024 12:48 PM

R106: Well if this bland crew is in charge, Hollywood certainly is over.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 120May 26, 2024 1:17 PM

[quote] I'm very pleased to see that the film is a total flop.

How sad to seek pleasure in the failure of total strangers.

Says a lot about your life.

by Anonymousreply 121May 26, 2024 1:30 PM

I feel bad for Hemsworth because he certainly tried with this movie from his performance to the promoting.

by Anonymousreply 122May 26, 2024 1:45 PM

I[quote] I feel bad for Hemsworth

Feel bad for single-mothers working two jobs, sick children, the homeless and the lonely.

Rich, famous movie stars don’t need your -or anyone’s - sympathy.

by Anonymousreply 123May 26, 2024 1:49 PM

I don’t know why Hollywood doesn’t focus on a few tent poles and then a bunch of quality movies. They can use film festivals to pick up quality films. Instead they release a bunch of big budget disasters every weekend, and movie goers have to search out quality films which is getting harder and harder to do. SF has one art house cinema left (Opera Plaza) and it’s in ugly Civic Center. There also is Alamo Mission but it’s slim pickings for a major film city.

by Anonymousreply 124May 26, 2024 2:02 PM

BO revised to low end at $31 million; will likely be beaten by Gazorpazorpfield

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 125May 26, 2024 2:39 PM

OP has a very big problem with women..


by Anonymousreply 126May 26, 2024 3:12 PM

Use Ignore and you will see that the OP is an anti-Biden dissension troll, working hard to make DL-ers despondent about the Presidential election and just give up.

by Anonymousreply 127May 26, 2024 3:13 PM

And r127 is the author of

“Cute Grifter Dad had an OnlyFans

And now it’s gone!

We could have supported him and helped him buy more Christmas presents for his kids this year.

His X account does seem to look like he’s gone gay. Or “queer.””

by Anonymousreply 128May 26, 2024 3:53 PM


Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 129May 26, 2024 4:02 PM

Men and boys who fuel every blockbuster will not come out for action films with female leads.

In other news, water is wet.

by Anonymousreply 130May 26, 2024 4:17 PM

Another thing I notice

Men who make these women-starring action movies appear to want to isolate the woman

Even in Fury Road, where the woman was actually liberating other women, there was no sense of her trying to bond with them

If you look at successful female-led action movies, the woman becomes a hero because she uses her stereotypical “feminine” traits like empathy to motivate her

Aliens only works because of Newt. If there was no Newt in Aliens, Ripley would have been a boring character. And the fact that Alien3 did not work because it was set in a planet with just men (see above) is proof of this.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 131May 26, 2024 4:38 PM

r128 r129 r130 r131

by Anonymousreply 132May 26, 2024 4:40 PM


Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 133May 26, 2024 4:54 PM

Braindead Hemsworth gets a walk of fame star but nobody wants to see him in movies 🤣

by Anonymousreply 134May 26, 2024 5:14 PM

[quote] the return of the 50s/60s style spectacle - which in many was what “Barbenheimer” was - will probably result in some fantastic films.

I'm all for it. An old-fashioned spectacle is the ONLY thing getting me to a theater right now. I miss the Spielberg, James Cameron spectacles from summers past. The TVs now are just as good as theater screens from a few years ago.

by Anonymousreply 135May 26, 2024 5:16 PM

Great, yeah, use a 40+ year old franchise as your example!

Got anything else?

by Anonymousreply 136May 26, 2024 7:05 PM

R124 “The Fall Guy” and “Furiosa” were critically acclaimed. No one has said they’re bad movies but no one wants to watch them.

by Anonymousreply 137May 27, 2024 6:42 AM

The Fall Guy and Furiosa had good reviews but hardly qualified as critically acclaimed.

by Anonymousreply 138May 27, 2024 11:58 AM

Yawn and for future reference, no one wants to see a movie with an ugly upped Chris Hemsworth.

by Anonymousreply 139May 27, 2024 12:05 PM

No one wants to see a female-centered action movie with a star no one knows. Why not Helen Mirren? Dame Judi? Lizzo?

by Anonymousreply 140May 27, 2024 1:01 PM

Furiosa did so poorly that it made $20 million (almost 50%) less than Fury Road did in its Fri-Sun (Fury Road didn’t open on a 4-day)

There’s a strong comparison to be made here with Zack Snyder’s Rebel Moon, which cost the same amount of money.

#1. The Internet does not reflect reality. These fanboy boosters on Twitter and reddit cannot influence Hollywood business decisions.

#2. Zack Snyder and George Miller have shown many times that they have a poor understanding of making films for popular tastes. George Miller’s Justice League would have been just as bad as Zack Snyder’s.

#3. The absolute worst thing you can do with one of these guys is give them a pile of money and tell them “just do whatever.” They are very autistic, self-indulgent filmmakers. Successful filmmakers of genre pieces (Christopher Nolan, Steven Spielberg, James Cameron, most of Marvel before Phase Four) have populist instincts. They make films with the idea of them as “entertainment.” Miller and Snyder have fallen into the same trap as Marvel and Peter Jackson: the film exists for world-building. Not entertainment. Worlds must be built. That’s why these films go on and on and on and nobody wants to go to them anymore. They have become CHORES, homework.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 141May 27, 2024 1:22 PM

If you have chance, there are about a dozen Youtube videos going over the failure of Rebel Moon. You can watch them at 2x speed. Many of them are quite funny. And it’s clear that this only got made because Netflix assumed the Internet reflected reality and let Zack Snyder do whatever he wanted. Snyder had tried to make this with Disney (as a Star Wars film) and Warner Bros and they both said no, because it was transparently awful.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 142May 27, 2024 1:27 PM

NY Times has declared it a box office dud

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 143May 27, 2024 2:15 PM

The crazy part is they’re STILL going to try and female female lead action movies. Flops won’t stop them.

by Anonymousreply 144May 27, 2024 2:25 PM

[quote]NY Times has declared it a box office dud

Have they stated that the failure of the film is a metaphor for the failure of the Biden campaign?

by Anonymousreply 145May 27, 2024 2:31 PM

Wow I'm so out of the movie loop nowadays I have never even heard of "Rebel Moon".

Just watched the trailer, boy it's all over the place.

by Anonymousreply 146May 27, 2024 3:32 PM

R144: They will never admit that "woke" films don't work.

by Anonymousreply 147May 27, 2024 3:57 PM

Latest BO numbers

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 148May 27, 2024 3:59 PM

I’m surprised that they don’t have any new product for next weekend. It means all the bombs will be sitting in the toilet.

by Anonymousreply 149May 27, 2024 4:06 PM

Here's what all the adolescent fan boys and grown up adolescent fan boys who now make movies and run (what's left of) Hollywood: We're done with this ultra violent shit. There's an international war going on and every day we're bombarded with explosions, refugees, burned out hospitals, and torn children. Yeah, like I want to go see Furiosa....The Hollywood boy/comic mentality has such a hold, that they think anyone cares about this shit anymore. Netflix is killing them all by showing a huge variety of films from all over the world, and finally, we don't have to resort to all this crap. Couldn't happen to a nicer group of stupid boys.

by Anonymousreply 150May 27, 2024 4:16 PM

Excuse me, R140?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 151May 27, 2024 4:20 PM

Anya Taylor-Joy, Zendaya and Emily Blunt are not box-office stars. They're supporting players.

by Anonymousreply 152May 27, 2024 4:28 PM

Maybe it’s easier to diagnose from the outside, but they seem to put together these big budget films that are of poor quality. Something like IF just doesn’t seem funny or touching, but instead merely creepy. And The Fall Guy has leads in their 40’s who have never been box office stars.

For Furiosa, they seemed to think there was a demand for a prequel. Who asked for that? Plus, again, they put leads that are not box office.

They say Bad Boys is tracking at $50M but it’s probably going to also struggle in this marketplace where audiences are not showing up.

by Anonymousreply 153May 27, 2024 4:42 PM

The problem isn't so much miscast stars or stale IP or audience demographics, although those are part of it. The main problems, to me anyway, are bloated budgets and streaming. Hollywood can't continue to make $200M+ movies that are going to show up on streaming two weeks later. It's not a sustainable model. Something has to give.

by Anonymousreply 154May 27, 2024 4:55 PM

Maybe people are just tired of girl boss movies? You would not read that in the NYTimes.

by Anonymousreply 155May 27, 2024 4:58 PM

I agree with R152. AT-J is not a box office draw at all for an action flix. The problem is I can't think of any other 20/30 something actress that is.

by Anonymousreply 156May 27, 2024 5:12 PM

This need to cater to the female empowerment movement is everywhere, so why should anyone ( especially men) pay money to see it? By nature, action movies are for males, not women. So, why try to force it down the throats of the audience? Hopefully, producers will come to their senses and stop trying to put a SJW spin on everything; the SJWs don't go to these films anyway.

by Anonymousreply 157May 27, 2024 5:17 PM

Here’s how bad this year will be

There will only be one hit film in June: Inside Out 2. I don’t expect Bad Boys 4 to do well. I don’t expect Quiet Place Day One to do well.

There will only be one hit film on July 4 weekend: Despicable Me 4.

For God knows whatever reason, Universal slotted Twisters for July 19. This is one weekend before the guaranteed blockbuster Deadpool and Wolverine. Twisters should have opened alongside Despicable Me, even if it’s the same studio, it’s different audiences. It’s happened before.

Disney, for whatever reason, put Alien Romulus for August 16. No one goes to the movies mid August.

Warner Bros., for whatever reason, but Beetlejuice Beetlejuice for Labor Day. This should have been a Fourth of July event film. Or, should have opened Barbenheimer style alongside Deadpool.

Joker Folie a Deux should have gone for early August. It’s going October 4 like the first one. The first one was considered a risk. This one isn’t.

Paramount has Gladiator 2 slotted for 5 days before Wicked. Disney has Moana 2 opened alongside Wicked. I don’t know what the hell they were thinking.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 158May 27, 2024 5:26 PM

Actually that’s not the depressing part

The depressing part is that because Hollywood has killed movie stars, they only make Intellectual Property movies because that’s the only thing you can sell to the public now

People used to criticize “high concept films” like Twister, Independence Day and Armageddon for being mindless drivel

At least those were new concepts! They don’t even make those anymore!

by Anonymousreply 159May 27, 2024 5:36 PM


Bad Boys 4: Two words: Will Smith.

Twisters: The big budget studio films always get released the third weekend in July. However, I don't understand why it has a $200 million budget. I think it will at the very least break even. Furthermore, this is a Glen Powell vehicle so the studio will be pushing it relentlessly.

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice: Either the studio is trying to dump it or get Halloween audiences to come. If the studio wants Halloween audiences, they should've released it in October. September 6th isn't even Labor Day weekend.

Joke Folie a Deux: The trailer got at least 160 million views. I think it will do well. I don't mind the October release date. I think the film has an autumn vibe to it. The one thing it has going against it is it is a musical. That may be a problem or it may not look at Wonka and Mean Girls.

Gladiator 2 & Wicked: This potentially could be Barbenheimer 2.0. Wicked has been promoted since February and its campaign makes Barbie's campaign look like nothing in comparison. Wicked is a guaranteed blockbuster and I think Gladiator 2 is almost close to being a lock at the box office.

by Anonymousreply 160May 27, 2024 5:56 PM

There’s a big problem with Gladiator 2.

It cost $300 million.

It will never make that much money. It should have been split into two films, like Wicked (both Wickeds cost $300 million together.)

Gladiator also opened in May. It was successful in part because it did not have to compete with “prestige season films” for adult audiences. It was summer counter programming. Now films that are vying for awards season will get more attention.

Also, Ridley Scott has done several fourth quarter films in the past couple of years - House of Gucci, All the Money in the World, The Last Duel, Napoleon, Exodus Gods and Kings, The Counselor. They all flopped. (The sole exception is The Martian which opened at the beginning of October). And they didn’t get the awards nominations he wanted (Martian again being the exception. The Golden Globe winning comedy!)

by Anonymousreply 161May 27, 2024 6:17 PM

OP is a psychopath. Who despises Emily Blunt.

by Anonymousreply 162May 27, 2024 6:47 PM



Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 163May 27, 2024 6:52 PM

[quote] By nature, action movies are for males, not women

Hi Fred Flintstone! How’s life in your cave?

by Anonymousreply 164May 27, 2024 6:52 PM

OP is a psychopath. And he knows it.

Very dangerous.

by Anonymousreply 165May 27, 2024 6:53 PM

OP really hates women.

Because he can’t be one.

by Anonymousreply 166May 27, 2024 7:03 PM

You you r165 have about twenty posts in the thread about Jennifer Lopez’s child including:

[bold]Jennifer Lopez's child Emme, 16, shows off a FLESH TUNNEL in their ear with a large round black piercing during a trip to Paris[/bold]

Such a beautiful five-o-clock shadow.

[bold]Jennifer Lopez's child Emme, 16, shows off a FLESH TUNNEL in their ear with a large round black piercing during a trip to Paris[/bold]

She looks like any Puerto Rican working the customer service desk at Walmart. All she needs is sideburns.

[bold]Jennifer Lopez's child Emme, 16, shows off a FLESH TUNNEL in their ear with a large round black piercing during a trip to Paris[/bold]

Do you think she wears Ben's jockstrap when he's passed out drunk in the garage?

[bold]Jennifer Lopez's child Emme, 16, shows off a FLESH TUNNEL in their ear with a large round black piercing during a trip to Paris[/bold]

She reminds me of a young Paul Rodriguez.

[bold]Jennifer Lopez's child Emme, 16, shows off a FLESH TUNNEL in their ear with a large round black piercing during a trip to Paris[/bold]

It's always wrong to make fun of any child. Unless it's J.Lo's.

[bold]Jennifer Lopez's child Emme, 16, shows off a FLESH TUNNEL in their ear with a large round black piercing during a trip to Paris[/bold]

If Emme really wants attention, she should start dating her dad.

by Anonymousreply 167May 27, 2024 7:06 PM

Now what’s interesting r166 is that you are posting all of those insults almost sequentially, in the attempt to look like multiple people.

So tell me,

How long have you known you were autistic?

by Anonymousreply 168May 27, 2024 7:11 PM

OP hates women because his mother did unspeakable things to him.

by Anonymousreply 169May 27, 2024 7:13 PM

R169 it’s also fascinating how quickly your thoughts turn to incest.

by Anonymousreply 170May 27, 2024 7:16 PM

OP would see a therapist but most turn him away because his mind is too diseased.

by Anonymousreply 171May 27, 2024 7:22 PM

Mah cooter itches real bad, y'all!

by Anonymousreply 172May 27, 2024 8:36 PM

They tried making tiny Alicia Vikander an action star, and it was laughable, but was somewhat successful with Zoe Saldana.

They tried making Sofia Boutella an action star, but she's inherently unlikable. And difficult to work with.

Michelle Rodriguez and Gina Carano are too butch.

My guess is that Sydney Sweeney will cash in on an action IP, maybe Tomb Raider or Marvel/DC, as she has the boobs.

by Anonymousreply 173May 27, 2024 9:09 PM

[quote] They tried making Sofia Boutella an action star, but she's inherently unlikable. And difficult to work with.

Don’t forget. I can’t act.

by Anonymousreply 174May 27, 2024 9:14 PM

[quote] My guess is that Sydney Sweeney will cash in on an action IP, maybe Tomb Raider or Marvel/DC, as she has the boobs.

Sydney Sweeney is Pamela Anderson with better breeding.

by Anonymousreply 175May 27, 2024 9:16 PM

Hollywood getting fucked.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 176May 27, 2024 9:19 PM

R173 Sydney Sweeney is remaking Barbarella.

by Anonymousreply 177May 27, 2024 9:34 PM

R173: Alicia was a Harvey girl.

by Anonymousreply 178May 27, 2024 9:47 PM

The hybrid model never made any sense. Why spend $17.00 (practically $80.00 for a family of four) when you can stream from the comfort and privacy of your home in as little as two weeks? Moreover, a lot of people who used to be regular movie theatergoers think the movies are woke, recycled, and garbage. Not to mention the theater patrons are incredibly rude and entitled. If Hollywood wants the whole movie playing in the theater for six months thing back, they will have to make some fundamental changes to the movies. Bring back legitimate stars and put them in original, entertaining films. People aren't spending $15.00 on something unless it's the best of the best. Also, sorry but I just don't think the "woke" films are a winning issue for the studios. Middle America goes to the movies as well and they still have this perception that the films are too liberal or political.

by Anonymousreply 179May 27, 2024 10:02 PM

[quote]Hi Fred Flintstone! How’s life in your cave?

Can you, in all seriousness, state that action movies were/are not produced for and dependent on male attendance? Of course you can, but you would be lying.

by Anonymousreply 180May 27, 2024 10:15 PM

No one considers The Fall Guy woke. They just didn’t want to see it.

by Anonymousreply 181May 27, 2024 10:22 PM

[quote]A lot of people who used to be regular movie theatergoers think the movies are woke

Remember Bob Dole? Bob Dole was complaining about Hollywood movies being “too liberal” (before woke was invented) in 1996. They used to complain about too much violence, language, sex, smoking, children being disrespectful to adults, too much “hip hop” (Blacks), too much glorification of crime, too anti religious, too feminist, too immoral, any rightwing bête noire was scapegoated on Hollywood. People who used to be regular movie goers did not stop going to the movies because they became “woke.” The minority who cite that stopped going to the movies because their values became so reactionary that they could only enjoy old movies or Hallmark channel movies.

Someone who went to see at least one quarter of the top grossing films of 1999 wouldn’t have any problems with any of the releases today.

The problem is that most of these types of films would simply not be made today.

Of the top 20 films, The Sixth Sense, The Matrix, Big Daddy, Runaway Bride, The Green Mile, American Beauty, Double Jeopardy, Notting Hill, Analyze This, The General’s Daughter, and American Pie would not be made today.

The Sixth Sense, The Matrix - Big Budget genre films not based on pre-existing IP, sold on the star power of the lead

Big Daddy, American Pie - Raunchy comedies based on original concepts

Runaway Bride, Notting Hill - mid budget romantic comedies with stars

The Green Mile, American Beauty- mid budget prestige pictures with stars

Analyze This - high concept midbudget comedies with stars

Double Jeopardy, The General’s Daughter - midbudget legal/crime thrillers with stars

The only films that would have been made today would be Phantom Menace (Star Wars), Toy Story 2 (Pixar sequel), Austin Powers 2 (sequel), Tarzan (Disney animation based on classic IP), The Mummy (remake of classic Universal IP), The Blair Witch Project (A24 or Blumhouse horror), Stuart Little (well known IP), The World is Not Enough (Bond), and Wild Wild West (gimmicky IP with special effects)

If you eliminate half of the inventory, there simply will be less customers.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 182May 27, 2024 11:41 PM

Don't blame the star for the lack of box office. People are just tired of the Mad Max world. Simple as that. Plus, there's are wars going on, so they want escape, not more stupid violence.

by Anonymousreply 183May 28, 2024 1:47 AM

I just saw it and enjoyed it - it was well done and went quickly. I thought the Chris H showed humor that I hadn’t seen from him before. I love going to the movies, by myself, and usually go once a week if there’s something new to see. I go to an AMC multiplex with the best seats and it’s clean and well-managed.

by Anonymousreply 184May 28, 2024 1:54 AM

I go along with the idea that ticket prices are high for a family of four, etc.

But are tickets for “Garfield” and all the animated juvenile nonsense that comes out every week any cheaper? The Netflix Top Ten in the U.S. is always filled with animated kiddie crap. Are parents shelling out to take their kids to this shit in movie theaters too?

by Anonymousreply 185May 28, 2024 2:38 AM

Chase movies have been done to death and maybe this will signal their end. The last Bond was a series of chases. Same with Mission Impossible. Enough already.

by Anonymousreply 186May 28, 2024 3:11 AM

They need to reduce the number of trailers. At AMC in NYC there are at least seven before every film.

by Anonymousreply 187May 28, 2024 3:11 AM

Wonder if it should have gone to a big streaming platform. The movie is supposed to be great, but bad box office gives people the opposite impression.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 188May 28, 2024 4:25 AM

R182 The problem with today is the Hollywood agenda has been “let’s erase male heroes and replace them with women”

Let’s take what men have over over the last 40 years and make them watch invincible women that are smarter and stronger than any of their heroes.

Luke Skywalker, Indiana Jones, James Bond, John Connor, Lord of the Rings, etc etc.

“Furiosa” is not a “woke” movie. But having a Mad Max sequel with no Mad Max and a woman as the lead could make it seem “woke”.

by Anonymousreply 189May 28, 2024 4:50 AM

But 182 But yes you’re absolutely right.

Over half of those movies would be on streaming services if they were released today. A movie like “Runaway Bride” would be a Netflix film.

I think the movie experience has changed.

When I was younger, I would just GO to the movies. Whether it was with my Dad or when I was older my friends or a date or co-workers, we’d go to the cinema and pick out what we wanted to see when we were there.

That has definitely changed. You have to want to see something to go the movies now.

by Anonymousreply 190May 28, 2024 5:01 AM

The wokeness controversy is bullshit. Furiosa’s world is run by white males. The film is a total testosterone-fest. There are few men of color, and only 3 women warriors (2 are killed off, of course). The other 99.9 percent of women live in harems or stay in the colonies while the men fight and engage in political negotiations. Furiosa is an oddity among women, which is made clear throughout the film and her uniqueness is an essential part of the narrative.

by Anonymousreply 191May 28, 2024 5:13 AM

R191 There’s no wokeness controversy with Furiosa. I listen to a lot of review guys on YouTube and no one has called it woke. She’s not a “girl boss” character.

I simply think using a woman for the Mad Max series turned people off and it could have been misinterpreted as a woke movie.

by Anonymousreply 192May 28, 2024 5:18 AM

Hollywood has definitely traumatized people in the last 10 years.

I blame “Game of Thrones”. The shock from killing off main characters people were rooting for made people tune in.

So Hollywood followed it.

The ISSUE was these were characters on Game of Thrones we invested in for a couple of years, not 40.

I remember in a review someone described Luke Skywalker’s death in “The Last Jedi” as a “fart in the wind”.

Luke and Han were irreplaceable. They’re not Batman or Spider Man, you can’t just kill them off and hire a new actor for a next movie.

I’m not a Star Wars fan but I’ve been a Scream fan since I was 10 years old. To go to the movie theaters and watch them kill Dewey who I’ve loved since my childhood was just gut wrenching. It was like a bully stomping on your sandcastle at the beach.

I remember leaving the theater like I can’t believe I paid money for them to spit on my childhood nostalgia.

So with these big movies and reboots, audiences don’t trust Hollywood.

by Anonymousreply 193May 28, 2024 5:29 AM

Oh and add Jurassic Park and The Exorcist. People were upset about when they brought back the original cast of both those movies.

by Anonymousreply 194May 28, 2024 5:30 AM

I’m sure Hollywood was like let’s make a Goonies sequel and kill off the main cast in the first 10 minutes and make room for an inclusive racial cast of strong minded young girls who kick ass!

I bet there was a script made for Goonies 2 just like that.

by Anonymousreply 195May 28, 2024 5:32 AM

Going to the cinema can be an ordeal these days. From the price, to the people talking, texting, videoing, etc. I have to REALLY want to see a film in the cinema to put up with all that. The days of turning up and choosing a film to see are definitely over for me.

by Anonymousreply 196May 28, 2024 6:37 AM

Men won't watch a woman-centred film. They also won't read a book with a female protagonist or written by a female author.

We have to accept this - men won't be saved from their narrow-minded immaturity. The whiny pissbabies will always be catered to.

by Anonymousreply 197May 28, 2024 6:45 AM

Ahem, R197

Once again...Four films, $3.3B gross box office. Starring a female lead based on the books written by a female author.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 198May 28, 2024 7:26 AM

I refuse to watch any more movies with bisexual female propaganda.

Done with it after so many years.

by Anonymousreply 199May 28, 2024 12:36 PM

Reminder that the OP is a Trump-loving dissension troll. His latest anti-Biden/anti-Democratic Party thread is titled:

Low-trust voters (especially young people of color) are drifting towards the right

He weaves in his Biden hatred among his MANY threads about pop culture.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 200May 28, 2024 12:44 PM

But the difference between Katniss Everdeen is that her strength comes from qualities associated with women

Furiosa removes that an creates the isolated “girlboss hero” who is basically a “boy hero with breasts” (apologies to Tom Wolfe)

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 201May 28, 2024 12:46 PM


by Anonymousreply 202May 28, 2024 12:47 PM

[quote] I’m not a Star Wars fan but I’ve been a Scream fan since I was 10 years old. To go to the movie theaters and watch them kill Dewey who I’ve loved since my childhood was just gut wrenching. It was like a bully stomping on your sandcastle at the beach. I remember leaving the theater like I can’t believe I paid money for them to spit on my childhood nostalgia.


by Anonymousreply 203May 28, 2024 12:52 PM

I mean if you come right down to there’s a lot in common between Katniss Everdeen and Dorothy Gale

Dorothy has appealed to young women for nearly a century

She’s a very female character but those qualities help her in her journey, like her compassion towards the lion even though it attacked her

George Miller would have had a mute Dorothy shoot the lion.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 204May 28, 2024 12:53 PM

[quote] Reminder that the OP is a Trump-loving dissension troll. His latest anti-Biden/anti-Democratic Party thread is titled: Low-trust voters (especially young people of color) are drifting towards the right He weaves in his Biden hatred among his MANY threads about pop culture.

He really hates me, too.

by Anonymousreply 205May 28, 2024 12:54 PM

R200 is this person

“FURIOSA Box Office

I refuse to watch any more movies with bisexual female propaganda.

Done with it after so many years.”

Note that this is the only thing R200 has contributed to the thread other the post R… posts, meaning he blocks people who’s opinions offend him.

He is incapable of having opinions other than telling people what needs to be avoided.

It would suggest, among other things, a high degree of autism.

by Anonymousreply 206May 28, 2024 1:00 PM

People here seem to be forgetting that Furiosa is a prequel to another Mad Max-less Mad Max movie with a female star. It sold tons of tickets.

by Anonymousreply 207May 28, 2024 1:10 PM

[Quote] Once again...Four films, $3.3B gross box office. Starring a female lead based on the books written by a female author.

Apples and oranges. The HG movies are kids movies that kids (more girls than boys) went to see over and over, and that was before the dominance of streaming, and before covid changed the way we watch movies.

by Anonymousreply 208May 28, 2024 1:45 PM

[quote] Also, sorry but I just don't think the "woke" films are a winning issue for the studios.

Barbie was the biggest movie of the year, by a mile, and it was the wokest movie ever made. Avatar 2 was also woke and it had the highest gross of any movie of the past 10 years.

by Anonymousreply 209May 28, 2024 3:19 PM

Barbie was hyped to the nines to make a statement and will be completely forgotten in 20 years. Because it was a boring movie.

by Anonymousreply 210May 28, 2024 3:25 PM

Yet it still made over a billion dollars. So "woke" and "boring" didn't seem to cause it to fail.

by Anonymousreply 211May 28, 2024 3:31 PM

[quote]People here seem to be forgetting that Furiosa is a prequel to another Mad Max-less Mad Max movie with a female star.

Mad Max-less? Tom Hardy played Max in [bold]Fury Road[/bold].

by Anonymousreply 212May 28, 2024 3:31 PM

Tom Hardy really was terribly passive in Mad Max so there was no emotional connection to the character or anything that made you feel like his character was the star.

by Anonymousreply 213May 28, 2024 4:15 PM

[quote]But the difference between Katniss Everdeen is that her strength comes from qualities associated with women


R 201, I know you haven’t seen the movie, but….

Furiosa’s reverence for mothers and motherhood is made clear throughout the film. She falls in love with a man and plans to escape the wars and run off with him to start a new life, but it’s thwarted by a warlord. Another warlord, Joe of the Citadel, keeps sex slaves, but they keep producing deformed children because he’s literally toxic from nuclear war. The dominance of masculinity created the wasteland in the first place, with numerous women who are barren or have stillborn children.

Frankly, the film’s subtext is that disrespect for female virtues such as motherhood and compassion for others are main contributors to Furiosa’s predicament of being a girl warrior, and to the Wasteland’s predicament of not having enough healthy children with healthy moms to survive and build a better future.

by Anonymousreply 214May 28, 2024 4:16 PM

I disagree with the idea that the latest “Avatar” movie was in any way ‘woke.’

On the contrary, it supported the paternalistic idea of the nuclear family with a steong-to-the-point-of-harsh father figure who is very strict with his two testeosterone-laden sons, while the mother stands by wringing her hands and making supportive noises, subtly trying to soften the father’s authoritarianism toward his sons. The daughter is an afterthought, her father’s darling.

It’s a very regressive movie in its gender politics and I fear this was the secret of its worldwide success — the family dynamic was easily understood in cultures everywhere, especially reactionary ones.

by Anonymousreply 215May 28, 2024 6:02 PM

I assume they were referring to the anticolonialist, environmentalist themes.

by Anonymousreply 216May 28, 2024 6:04 PM

It deserves to be a flop with such a stupid title.

by Anonymousreply 217May 28, 2024 7:31 PM

R197 Men play female characters in video games all the time.

You think women were playing Tomb Raider and Resident Evil among many other female character driven video games? Lol

by Anonymousreply 218May 28, 2024 8:50 PM

Adjusted for inflation, Fury Road would have made $60 million today. Which means half the opening weekend audience from 2015 disappeared.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 219May 29, 2024 1:25 AM

[quote]He is incapable of having opinions other than telling people what needs to be avoided. It would suggest, among other things, a high degree of autism.

Not really.

by Anonymousreply 220May 29, 2024 2:04 AM

Deadpool and Wolverine will do well.

by Anonymousreply 221May 30, 2024 6:04 AM

Someone put the fear of God into Hemsworth.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 222May 31, 2024 1:55 AM

The crazy part is the exit polls said 34% and 35% went to see it because of George Miller and Ana Taylor Joy and 25% went to see it because of Chris Hemsworth,

I’m really surprised by that because Marvel has made him such a well known name.

by Anonymousreply 223May 31, 2024 9:01 PM

R222 He should take on some indie movies.

He always complains about not being able to land serious roles or get Tarantino or Scorsese to pay attention to him but he refuses to take a salary cut for a good film. And the more big budget films he takes that suck or flop, the lower his status gets.

Taking on GI Joe is a stupid idea.

by Anonymousreply 224May 31, 2024 9:03 PM

I love "Fury Road." It's an A-plus picture.

"Furiosa" was a bit of a dud. I give it a B-minus.

by Anonymousreply 225May 31, 2024 9:21 PM

Prettyboys only get taken seriously when they do indie martyrhood. Chris Pine wasn't taken seriously until Hell or High Water ($12 million budget), Armie Hammer wasn't taken seriously until Call My By Your Name ($3.5 million budget), Jamie Dornan wasn't taken seriously until Belfast (budget $15 million). All those pictures ended up getting Best Picture nominations.

Per IMDB, Chris Hemsworth hasn't even attempted this. He doesn't make indie movies at all.

Does he just expect people to hand him things?

Maybe when you've been a good looking blond adonis your whole life you just sort of expect things to fall in your lap.

by Anonymousreply 226May 31, 2024 10:08 PM

Hemsworth might go the Arnie route and do some family films between his blockbusters

by Anonymousreply 227May 31, 2024 10:19 PM

Hemsworth should go the Channing Tatum route- he's heavy into producing now, as well as investing in food/beverage ventures, and writing a kid's book.

by Anonymousreply 228May 31, 2024 11:25 PM

He already does that. Doesn't get him what he wants - cred. He can cry in his money.

by Anonymousreply 229May 31, 2024 11:55 PM

[Quote] Because it was a boring movie.

Not really — it was gorgeous and many parts of it were extremely amusing. It did go off the rails a bit at the end. Gerwig freighted too much on a small plastic figurine. There were messages flying in every direction, sometimes colliding with each other.

People want to watch a story at the movies, not a lesson. All those gripes aside, I liked it.

by Anonymousreply 230June 1, 2024 12:00 AM

Hemsworth is now appearing in an ad for a mobile game.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 231June 1, 2024 11:55 AM

Furiosa falls to third place in week 2. Domestic cume should be around $65-75 million. Now at $50 million.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 232June 2, 2024 4:04 PM

R230: Barbie will not become a cult classic like 13 Going on 30, Mean Girls, and The Devil Wears Prada.

by Anonymousreply 233June 2, 2024 5:20 PM

Barbie’s already forgotten. Zero memorable lines or memes.

The “meh” Dua Lipa song still gets a reaction on the dance floor, though.

by Anonymousreply 234June 2, 2024 5:34 PM

Wonka was slightly more enjoyable than Barbie, but they were both pretty awful. It just goes to show you that audiences are hungry for fun, whimsical and colorful movies.

by Anonymousreply 235June 2, 2024 5:47 PM

Say what you will about Weinstein and Rudin but when they were in power Hollywood was thriving. Of course they are ugly scumbags but they knew how to pick good projects. Since their downfall, the box office keeps bombing, the movies keep getting shittier, and the Oscar ratings keep going down the toilet.

by Anonymousreply 236June 3, 2024 1:11 AM

I liked the Witch but this chick isn’t even a very good actress

by Anonymousreply 237June 3, 2024 1:15 AM

r236, back then films weren't really made by giant corporations, but by people who really loved to make films.

by Anonymousreply 238June 3, 2024 2:07 AM

Weinstein worked for Disney for a decade after selling Miramax to them

Rudin worked for Viacom for fifteen years and then was based at Disney

Why do people like to create an imaginary past which never existed

Films were made by giant corporations since Coca Cola bought Columbia Pictures in 1982. Subsequent years saw Rupert Murdoch buy Fox, the creation of Time Warner, Paramount acquired by Viacom, Columbia and Universal acquired by the Japanese, and the ascendency of Disney under Eisner. Those all happened in an extremely brief time period between 1985 and 1993. Everything from a major studio since 1993 has been made by giant corporations.

by Anonymousreply 239June 3, 2024 2:33 AM
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.


Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!