With summer coming up, and with the entire theater industry in a death spiral, now seems like a good time to discuss the things happening at the box office, or that will happen.

For example, Sinners had an insane second weekend hold, dropping only 5% from last weekend, which is unheard of for a non-holiday weekend horror movie. Box Office tracking was way off, and theaters that had started dropping the film from this week’s listings last weekend brought it back in a big way this week.

Meanwhile, the “highly anticipated” Accountant 2 took third place after the rerelease of Revenge of the Sith. It feels like no one knows what will happen at the box office anymore.

Anyway, the summer season is coming up, and I thought it might be fun to speculate what will land and what will flop.

Which do you think will be bigger family movie hits, How To Train Your Dragon or Leelo and Stitch?

Do you expect Fantastic Four to outperform Superman?m

How do you see Mission Impossible doing against Jurassic World?

I personally expect the summer season to be a bloodbath for major tent pole films.

So, I think a big part of the problem is "the box office" and more specifically, this need for people to use financial success as an attempt to have an ultimate objective barometer of quality. It's lead to a lot of people dismissing great films for not being financially successful while also losing interest in films because they go to financially successful films that are not great. To put it bluntly, and I in no way mean this as a personal attack:

Do you expect Fantastic Four to outperform Superman?m

I HATE that this is somehow a contest. It's not one I win. A win for me is both movies being terrific films that give me two trips to the theater that I enjoy. Both being successful is what's good for me, but the narrative being established is one where one must "fail" no matter how good they both are. I'm rooting for both to be the best depictions of these characters I've gotten in decades. That to me, is a success.

The "casual" movie-goer is gone. The only ones who go are now "dedicated" movie-goers I.e. folks who are dedicated to the cinema experience for a variety of reasons. Therefore, opening weekend box office is no longer a useful metric. The real metric is what a movie can deliver with the "long tail", which the official metrics are very opaque and hazy to understand. Therefore, the lazy movie-journo's have defaulted to an out-of-date metric to assign success/failure to.

I also expect Super-hero movies to get killed this summer.

Meanwhile, Sinners is tapping a "new" cross-segment of demographics (Horror fans, black Americans, etc) that have barely been tapped before. Lovecraft Country. Get Out, and a handful of others have showed the way with this particular cross-segment. Movies that can tap into these cross-segments are the way forward, Barbie and even the OG Wonder Woman showed that it can apply to other cross-segments too.

I am personally hoping for a resurgence of action/rom-coms but I think a few movies killed that possibility over the last two years.

 LunarSol wrote:
So, I think a big part of the problem is "the box office" and more specifically, this need for people to use financial success as an attempt to have an ultimate objective barometer of quality. It's lead to a lot of people dismissing great films for not being financially successful while also losing interest in films because they go to financially successful films that are not great. To put it bluntly, and I in no way mean this as a personal attack:

Do you expect Fantastic Four to outperform Superman?m

I HATE that this is somehow a contest. It's not one I win. A win for me is both movies being terrific films that give me two trips to the theater that I enjoy. Both being successful is what's good for me, but the narrative being established is one where one must "fail" no matter how good they both are. I'm rooting for both to be the best depictions of these characters I've gotten in decades. That to me, is a success.

I mostly agree. Box office shouldn’t be as big a concern as storytelling or acting for movie fans. But unfortunately it is.


I would love if we could only had to care about the quality of films (and there are threads to discuss their quality), but now we’re more and more seeing only one type of success determine what movies get made or distributed. We’ve seen the death of the mid budget comedy, the rom com and the mainstream drama, and it’s all due to how they performed at the box office.

Now that the rental and TV markets are gutted, and ancillaries like merchandising are mere husks, mid and high budget movies can only turn a profit at the box office. Following what succeeds this year will tell us what we can expect to see two years from now, and what we shouldn’t expect to see. Even evergreen small studios like Blumhouse and A24 are looking at a future of financial instability. Major studios have spent decades crushing the creatives and taking more and more control of the process. It’s a pretty grim time to hope for good movies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The problem with the “long tail” or “legs” approach to success is it requires movies to stay in theaters for more than two weeks. Most movies are not given enough time to find that kind of audience, unless they come out in December.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

I mostly agree. Box office shouldn’t be as big a concern as storytelling or acting for movie fans. But unfortunately it is.

That's because we continue to engage with all this nonsense that mostly only serves to drive people to skipping experiences altogether in favor of reading the summary on Wikipedia or a two hour roast of a 100 minute film on YouTube. We don't need to feed the monster just because its hungry. Seeing every film on that list is a better use of your time than a minute of the "discourse" around them.

It was sometime in the late 70s that the studios realized that they could use sales as a marketing strategy thanks to the success of films like Jaws and Start Wars. We can talk about how silly it is to use Box Office as a metric for quality but it still works as a marketing device. We know bad films can make bank and quality films flounder but in the end it is to useful of a beatstick to not use to sell things.

Always worth keeping in mind that some now incredibly well regarded films were originally box office duds.

For instance? The Thing.

I’m also confident the majority of “professional” movie reviewers don’t have a great deal of media literacy.

But I do think consumer appetites are changing. The big films usually crop up on Amazon Prime in a matter of weeks. So you don’t need to rush out to the cinema or face a lengthy wait.

Me? I tend to save the cinema for Big Things. Like, I just booked to see Thunderbolts in about an hour. Whereas horror stuff I much prefer to wait for home media, so I can completely avoid shrieking morons.

We’ve also seen the studios trying to get their head round Streaming. Prey was straight-to-streaming, and was fantastic. So fantastic, its warm reception and success mean Alien Romulus got shifted to a cinematic release, and took quadruple its budget, making it a bona fide success. For me? Romcoms lose nothing from streaming, and the same for comedies. Just my personal taste and preference though.

You should definitely see Sinners in the theater, though, despite it being horror. See it in imax if you can.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
. For me? Romcoms lose nothing from streaming, and the same for comedies. Just my personal taste and preference though.

Same here. My wife and I both enjoy romcoms, but neither of us see any point in paying cinema prices to see them. Cinemas are, for us, for those movies where the big screen and the big sound system actually add something to the experience. For romcoms, we'll wait to catch them on streaming.

I'll also wait for horror movies and thrillers on streaming, but that's more because I don't particularly like going to the cinema by myself...


For the original topic... I do think the days of big budget action movies pulling in big money by being 'good enough' are gone. And, yes, it's well past time that studios and reviewers stopped using the box office as a metric for success, because it's not even remotely the whole story anymore. I mean, it really hasn't been ever since the explosion of DVD in the early 2000s, but it's exponentially more absurd now.

So Sinners continues to have a remarkable hold from weekend to weekend. Considering it lost all of its IMAX screens to Thunderbolts, it had a very mild drop. It indicates people who couldn’t see it in the premier screens decided to see it on regular screens rather than not at all.

Thunderbolts on the other hand will be lucky to break even. It’s not doing terribly, but considering the good reviews and word of mouth it ain’t doing great. The MCU might have a new ceiling at less than half what it was 5 years ago. And with almost no interest from Gen Z, it will die a slow death.

I saw both movies this weekend (Sinners for the second time). The prime time Thunderbolts theater was about 3/4ths full. In the midafternoon Sinners showing, every single seat was sold out.


In other news, we can look forward to tariffs on movies shot overseas in the near future.

Given Thunderbolts hasn’t even been out a week, and slightly exceeded its expected opening box office, and currently stands as the eighth highest grossing movie of 2025, it seems to be doing fine.

Some distance to go to break even of course, but doesn’t seem to be a cause for concern?

I guess it depends on its week to week holds. However, with likely 50% or greater drop offs and major competition in two weeks, it doesn’t have a lot of space to leg out.

I'm curious, Bob - do you want to fail?

 Dysartes wrote:
I'm curious, Bob - do you want to fail?

Want me to fail? Or do you mean want the movie to fail?


I want the movie to succeed. I want good quality to be rewarded. But I am also exasperated at the studio system that wrecked the theater economy for everything but big IP movies and then cultivated their Ips the way Lenny cultivates rabbits.

It’s just been officially renamed “*The New Avengers”

Likely a well planned bit of clever marketing to boost second week takings.

I was a fairly regular cinema goer pre-covid, but then we had a kid and I've rarely been back since - both Dune movies and the LOTR anime were my only cinema trips.

I used to rewatch films quite a lot and collect DVDs. I still do buy the odd DVD (I'm just not into streaming) but I rarely find myself in the mood to watch a film these days. Probably to do with having a small kid running around, maybe I'll get back into it. But given the choice to spend my limited free time watching a film or listening to an audiobook while doing some modelling or painting, the latter wins nearly 100% of the time.

I know my situation isn't applicable to everyone but if similar things have happened I can't see cinemas lasting too long anyway.

When I was at the cinema for the last couple of times I paid for a "luxury" cinema seat because my friend has back trouble and it suits him to sit in those recliners. I ordered some popcorn and it was absolutely crap both times - kinda stale, full of the dregs of broken kernels and just little bits. And because it was "luxury" it was also a smaller portion served in a little bowl.

So I dunno I don't feel my local cinema even really deserves to survive with that approach. There was a nice family run international cinema I used to go to but they went under during covid, only the big chain has survived and it's kind of unpleasant.

Thunderbolts had an incredibly low opening in China, one of the MCUs lowest. I wonder what made them not what to see an American film like they have in the past?

truly one of life's great mysteries

 Da Boss wrote:
I was a fairly regular cinema goer pre-covid, but then we had a kid and I've rarely been back since - both Dune movies and the LOTR anime were my only cinema trips.

I used to rewatch films quite a lot and collect DVDs. I still do buy the odd DVD (I'm just not into streaming) but I rarely find myself in the mood to watch a film these days. Probably to do with having a small kid running around, maybe I'll get back into it. But given the choice to spend my limited free time watching a film or listening to an audiobook while doing some modelling or painting, the latter wins nearly 100% of the time.

On the 'watching at home' front, I found it helped a lot once the kids got old enough to start introducing them to some old favourites...

We're also planning (any week now, for sure) to get the girls out to the drive-in now that they're old enough to stay awake.

 Da Boss wrote:
I was a fairly regular cinema goer pre-covid, but then we had a kid and I've rarely been back since - both Dune movies and the LOTR anime were my only cinema trips.

I used to rewatch films quite a lot and collect DVDs. I still do buy the odd DVD (I'm just not into streaming) but I rarely find myself in the mood to watch a film these days. Probably to do with having a small kid running around, maybe I'll get back into it. But given the choice to spend my limited free time watching a film or listening to an audiobook while doing some modelling or painting, the latter wins nearly 100% of the time.

I know my situation isn't applicable to everyone but if similar things have happened I can't see cinemas lasting too long anyway.

Your situation is not unique. People have been finding their cinema time & interest curtailed because of having kids as long as there's been cinema.... and cinema is still here.

Historically, though, that's been partly because once the kids reach the right age, the cinema visits start up again.

I can't speak for other families, but my kids have only been to the cinema a handful of times, because it's just not an affordable family outing anymore. And I suspect that kids growing up with streaming at home and without those regular cinema trips in their formative years are going to grow up into teenagers and young adults who just don't feel strongly enough about going to the cinema to pay cinema ticket prices...

It’s also a different world from when I grew up.

80’s and 90’s, you saw it in the cinema, because it would take months to come to VHS/DVD, and a year or more to come on the telly.

But over time, that gap has grown narrower and narrower. Not just as a piracy preventative, but because getting the film to the cinemas is cheaper and easier, and you’re not relying on countries taking it in turns to have in theatres, as they had to share limited print copies.

And, at the same time, home equipment has improved and typically become cheaper. It’s a rare household that doesn’t have a digital widescreen by default, as the days of crappy wee CRTs has passed entirely. That’s eaten into the cinema experience too.

Even a cinephile of modest means can get a decent setup for a reasonable price.

I don't mind the price as a one off outing if the experience is gonna be good. But if I've got sticky floors, dirty seats, poor quality snacks and obnoxious patrons in my showing that cost me an arm and a leg I'm just not encouraged to do it again.

If you've got that kind of set up you need to lower the price to make up for it. And throw people out if they're acting up.

I don’t have kids, but I also find myself watching less films than I used to. Part of it is a lack of time / energy from life in general, but I think part of it is…cynicism, for want of a better word? I have seen my favourite films so many times I could probably recreate the script from memory, so my time between rewatches has extended so that I still enjoy the experience when I do watch them, and I find a lot of new films to be generic and uninteresting. Not because they’re bad, per se, but just because they’re using tropes and cliches I’ve seen before. So now I only get excited about something new and different.

Once they stopped making Francis the Talking Mule movies the inevitable decay of film viewership was a given.

 Jadenim wrote:
and I find a lot of new films to be generic and uninteresting. Not because they’re bad, per se, but just because they’re using tropes and cliches I’ve seen before. So now I only get excited about something new and different.

I find this is happening to me too.

One of the worst things I ever did in life was taking a bunch of courses on writing and script-writing. Now, I can not see some show without seeing a lot of the tricks-of-the-trade.

This has led me to be more interested in "live" non-scripted things like sports than I ever did before. I am too familiar with the tricks and story beats of most common scripted shows now. I can still appreciate a solid show, but very rarely am I "blown away" by anything I watch anymore.

I can only imagine how terrible actual film critics have it. The boredom they must face.

Ouch.

Apparently, if your film is produced (in any part - including special effects) outside the US. It's gonna get more expensive to... uhmm... How do you put a tariff on a film?

Trump's plan for movie tariffs leads to global confusion

May 5, 20254:48 PM ET
The film and TV industry around the world is reeling from President Trump's announcement that he plans to impose a 100% tariff on movies produced outside the U.S.

On his social media platform Truth Social on Sunday, Trump declared that America's movie industry is "dying a very fast death," arguing that Hollywood is being "devastated" by other nations that draw filmmakers and studios away from the U.S. with incentives.

Many American films and TV shows are shot entirely or at least partially outside the U.S. The upcoming movie, Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning, was shot on a Norwegian archipelago, among many other locales.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Ouch.

Apparently, if your film is produced (in any part - including special effects) outside the US. It's gonna get more expensive to... uhmm... How do you put a tariff on a film?

Trump's plan for movie tariffs leads to global confusion

May 5, 20254:48 PM ET
The film and TV industry around the world is reeling from President Trump's announcement that he plans to impose a 100% tariff on movies produced outside the U.S.

On his social media platform Truth Social on Sunday, Trump declared that America's movie industry is "dying a very fast death," arguing that Hollywood is being "devastated" by other nations that draw filmmakers and studios away from the U.S. with incentives.

Many American films and TV shows are shot entirely or at least partially outside the U.S. The upcoming movie, Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning, was shot on a Norwegian archipelago, among many other locales.

Dude doesn't understand how movies are made.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Ouch.

Apparently, if your film is produced (in any part - including special effects) outside the US. It's gonna get more expensive to... uhmm... How do you put a tariff on a film?

Trump's plan for movie tariffs leads to global confusion

May 5, 20254:48 PM ET
The film and TV industry around the world is reeling from President Trump's announcement that he plans to impose a 100% tariff on movies produced outside the U.S.

On his social media platform Truth Social on Sunday, Trump declared that America's movie industry is "dying a very fast death," arguing that Hollywood is being "devastated" by other nations that draw filmmakers and studios away from the U.S. with incentives.

Many American films and TV shows are shot entirely or at least partially outside the U.S. The upcoming movie, Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning, was shot on a Norwegian archipelago, among many other locales.

Dude doesn't understand how movies are made.

There's a lot the Dude doesn't understand....

The Dude doesn't deserve that comparison - he simply abides.

Gotta limit Americans' ability to know the world exists beyond what they're told.

I used to go the cinema a lot. But my salary is static and the cost of cinema isn't.

Going back to the impact of streaming?

We’re hardly hurting for content. Like the days of Cable/Satellite, far from all of it good. But there’s almost always something new to watch. And of pretty much cinematic quality.

Now I know it eventually crashed and burned, but think the production quality of Game of Thrones, especially in its heyday. We just didn’t have that sort of stuff before.

Streaming has also kind of done away with “We Need A Minimim Of X Episodes For Syndication”. Which, again not universally, has meant slicker shows with less abject filler. The writers need only write the main story, with perhaps a bit of fleshing out.

It’s a very different discipline, falling somewhere comfortably between traditional Cinema and Telly. As in, you can now write and make a 6 hour Epic, broken up into 6-8 episodes. And we the audience seem to have a growing appetite for it, even as those making it continue to refine it, and studios start to get to grips with “more isn’t always better”.

But some of the wild west mentality of the early days of streaming are gone.

They are now closer to the cutthroat world of broadcast.

I was watching a program yesterday about Peacock, NBCs streaming platform and them canceling shows that were already filmed, due to poor ratings.

It takes time for the tiger to change its stripes. Evolution isn’t a swift process.

The expansion of streaming to studio specific services feels kind of inevitable. And I think it’s also inevitable many will fall away.

Disney+ I expect to survive, because the House of Mouse bought so many properties before launch. Certainly I watch it far more than Netflix.

I also forgot my conclusion. With a wealth of streaming offerings, I feel less compulsion to go to the cinema to see something of cinema quality that’s new. And I’ve the double benefit of many classics at the touch of a button.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
I used to go the cinema a lot. But my salary is static and the cost of cinema isn't.

This is an excellent point, and one I feel most “why cinema is dying” articles downplay. Unfortunately, I think the studios have trapped themselves in a place where they are pricing their audience out but can’t just cut prices to affordability and assume the audience they’ve lost will return.

I random dream (that I will never act on) is to go buy one of those 1-screen movie theatres in a rural town, live above it, and run the theatre. Or possibly a drive-in where I live at the premises.

It will never happen, but I can dream about it.

I’d love to do that too. A lottery win dream, when money is no object, and passion can be everything.

Streaming bundles are becoming pretty common. We've ALMOST reinvented cable.

Kinda?

Cable/Satellite not only tied you to a bundle, but also a minimum term contract (at least in the UK, natch I can’t accurately speak for anywhere else).

Streaming? Sure things are getting more spread out. But so far, I’m not aware of any with any more than a month’s contract.

It is a pain in the balls to be sure, but there’s so far sod all apart from pretty mild inconvenience in the grand scheme of things to do one or two per month, consume all you want to consume, the leave that particular table. Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat.

I’m not having a pop at anyone, because whichever deity you do or don’t believe in knows I’m lazy there, but streaming is only as expensive each month as we the individual allow it to be.

And yes, I’m aware and make use of discounted annual subscriptions, but that’s not the same as “you must subscribe for at least 12 months”.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Evolution isn’t a swift process.

Unless you're a Pokemon master and you want to be the best there ever was.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Going back to the impact of streaming?

We’re hardly hurting for content. Like the days of Cable/Satellite, far from all of it good. But there’s almost always something new to watch. And of pretty much cinematic quality.

Now I know it eventually crashed and burned, but think the production quality of Game of Thrones, especially in its heyday. We just didn’t have that sort of stuff before.

Streaming has also kind of done away with “We Need A Minimim Of X Episodes For Syndication”. Which, again not universally, has meant slicker shows with less abject filler. The writers need only write the main story, with perhaps a bit of fleshing out.

It’s a very different discipline, falling somewhere comfortably between traditional Cinema and Telly. As in, you can now write and make a 6 hour Epic, broken up into 6-8 episodes. And we the audience seem to have a growing appetite for it, even as those making it continue to refine it, and studios start to get to grips with “more isn’t always better”.

The other thing with streaming, which Disney seems to have embraced more than others, is the ability to vary episode length icy more than broadcast TV. Have a nice self-contained 35 minute episode? No need to pad it out with a B-story. Need an hour to really explore something deep or interesting? No need to cut it down to 45 minutes.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
I used to go the cinema a lot. But my salary is static and the cost of cinema isn't.

This is an excellent point, and one I feel most “why cinema is dying” articles downplay. Unfortunately, I think the studios have trapped themselves in a place where they are pricing their audience out but can’t just cut prices to affordability and assume the audience they’ve lost will return.

I don't think it's really the studios that are the main force in pricing people out, that's more down to the cinemas and the general economy of how much space (and energy) costs in this day and age.... otherwise if the actual print and licence to show it was the major cost element cinemas would never had had the incentive to convert themselves into those annoying multiscreen places where they franticly try and cram as many screens as they can into what used to be an attractive, spacious cinema

I seem to recall Lucas pushing for more money per ticket when the prequels came out causing an instant price increase. Yes, costs are increasing to keep theaters open, but the studios also played a role.


On a different note, Sinners has expanded to more than 150 more theaters. It’s a rare movie that plays on more screens in its fourth week of wide release than its first.

 Jadenim wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Going back to the impact of streaming?

We’re hardly hurting for content. Like the days of Cable/Satellite, far from all of it good. But there’s almost always something new to watch. And of pretty much cinematic quality.

Now I know it eventually crashed and burned, but think the production quality of Game of Thrones, especially in its heyday. We just didn’t have that sort of stuff before.

Streaming has also kind of done away with “We Need A Minimim Of X Episodes For Syndication”. Which, again not universally, has meant slicker shows with less abject filler. The writers need only write the main story, with perhaps a bit of fleshing out.

It’s a very different discipline, falling somewhere comfortably between traditional Cinema and Telly. As in, you can now write and make a 6 hour Epic, broken up into 6-8 episodes. And we the audience seem to have a growing appetite for it, even as those making it continue to refine it, and studios start to get to grips with “more isn’t always better”.

The other thing with streaming, which Disney seems to have embraced more than others, is the ability to vary episode length icy more than broadcast TV. Have a nice self-contained 35 minute episode? No need to pad it out with a B-story. Need an hour to really explore something deep or interesting? No need to cut it down to 45 minutes.

Very true. Not always used wisely like (a 25 minute episode just doesn’t satisfy me in itself), but again another relatively new development it’ll take time for writers to adapt to and fully embrace.

Sinners is in my area, for a 9:15 showing on a single screen. So far, I have been unsuccessful in lobbying my wife to go see it.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I seem to recall Lucas pushing for more money per ticket when the prequels came out causing an instant price increase. Yes, costs are increasing to keep theaters open, but the studios also played a role.

I think you're thinking of when he refused to put Attack of the Clones of film, which forced theaters to move towards digital projectors.

 Easy E wrote:
Sinners is in my area, for a 9:15 showing on a single screen. So far, I have been unsuccessful in lobbying my wife to go see it.

Have you tried saying to her

[whispers from stage left]

What? Really? Actionable? Grounds for divorce?

[whispers from stage left]

Ooh, that does sound nasty

[whispers from stage left]

I’ll….I’ll get my coat.

[exits thread right, but not too far right]

 Jadenim wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Going back to the impact of streaming?

We’re hardly hurting for content. Like the days of Cable/Satellite, far from all of it good. But there’s almost always something new to watch. And of pretty much cinematic quality.

Now I know it eventually crashed and burned, but think the production quality of Game of Thrones, especially in its heyday. We just didn’t have that sort of stuff before.

Streaming has also kind of done away with “We Need A Minimim Of X Episodes For Syndication”. Which, again not universally, has meant slicker shows with less abject filler. The writers need only write the main story, with perhaps a bit of fleshing out.

It’s a very different discipline, falling somewhere comfortably between traditional Cinema and Telly. As in, you can now write and make a 6 hour Epic, broken up into 6-8 episodes. And we the audience seem to have a growing appetite for it, even as those making it continue to refine it, and studios start to get to grips with “more isn’t always better”.

The other thing with streaming, which Disney seems to have embraced more than others, is the ability to vary episode length icy more than broadcast TV. Have a nice self-contained 35 minute episode? No need to pad it out with a B-story. Need an hour to really explore something deep or interesting? No need to cut it down to 45 minutes.

It's more than that. With streaming series, you don't have to build your storytelling around scheduled commercial breaks. Well, in the US at least...not sure how those work in other countries.

Having said that, let's not act like streaming revolutionized *everything*. Premium channels existed long before streaming that had series that didn't need to play by broadcast rules.

 Easy E wrote:
Sinners is in my area, for a 9:15 showing on a single screen. So far, I have been unsuccessful in lobbying my wife to go see it.

Did you tell her it has not one but two Michael B Jordans? There’s some romance, although it is also a horny movie. And the music is fantastic.

Depending on if she shares your political frustrations, some of the action may also be cathartic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I seem to recall Lucas pushing for more money per ticket when the prequels came out causing an instant price increase. Yes, costs are increasing to keep theaters open, but the studios also played a role.

I think you're thinking of when he refused to put Attack of the Clones of film, which forced theaters to move towards digital projectors.

Maybe. I remember tickets jumping to roughly twice the price of a book (back when MMPBs were cheaper), and it causing some ruckus. He got the blame at the time.

Final Destination: Bloodlines is going to surpass all the previous films in the franchise very quickly. It made more than 50 million domestic and 100 million worldwide in its opening weekend. So, look for lots of nostalgia/legacy horror movies over the next few years.

Sinner is still gaining theaters, holding really well week after week. Thunderbolts, not so much.

The Weeknd’s new movie, Hurry Up Tomorrow, is a bomb. Some have dubbed it this year’s Megalopolis.

AMC are expanding half-price Tuesday to half-price Tuesdays and Wednesdays in mid June.

To be fair to Megalopolis..... it never even came to many areas. I never had the chance to see it on a big screen, and I am still kinda' pissed about it.

Surprisingly, Sinners has survived into a fourth week here. I saw it the last night of week three, expecting it to be the last showing; but it is still here and even expanded the number of viewings. It has been in the Luxury theatre the whole time too.

My wife was interested in seeing Thunderbolts* this weekend when it was raining, but just lost interest the closer we got to show time. Her quote was, "It will be on D+ in a few weeks anyway....." Another sign that streaming is actually bad for the movie industry.

I love the cinema, and don't mind paying to go. But the real issue isn't the price, it's the behaviours of others in the cinema. This has pretty much stopped me attending; it's been months since the last time I went when I used to go regularly.
Cinema etiquette seems to have died as a thing.

grahamdbailey wrote:
I love the cinema, and don't mind paying to go. But the real issue isn't the price, it's the behaviours of others in the cinema. This has pretty much stopped me attending; it's been months since the last time I went when I used to go regularly.
Cinema etiquette seems to have died as a thing.

It might just be a location or show time problem.
I hardly ever go to a movie during peak show times. Most things I've seen opening weekend in recent years have been on Thur evening about 7/8pm, earliest showing Sat morning (because there's gaming to be done later ), or late afternoon/evening Sunday.
Virtually no audience issues.

Other stuff I'll catch a week or so later & the crowds will have moved on.

The big theater near me that always shows the indie films is the same one where every mainstream audience texts and shouts the whole film. But the crowds for Neon films and such are perfectly well behaved there.

But down the street is the theater where all the old people go. That’s where we watch the big mainstream movies, because is olds don’t text.

Snow White is ending its run with less than 90 million domestic, a shockingly small number. That’s less than Captain America 4’s opening weekend, and about half as much as Snow White and the Huntsman made domestically.

On the other side of things, Sinners had 41 consecutive days earning more than $1million.

Sinners keeps moving up in the lists for highest grossing Horror and R-rated movies. Meanwhile, 28 Years Later had a slightly disappointing opening weekend but a very positive hold for its first Monday, better than M3gan’s hold.

The real story is Pixar’s newest film, Elio, bombing hard. It had Pixar’s worst opening ever, and its first Monday worse than Elemental’s second Monday.

Bride Hard also dropped this last weekend, to less than $1 million. That has to hurt.

Must go see 28 Years Later. Well I say must. Might be one better suited to home viewing.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Must go see 28 Years Later. Well I say must. Might be one better suited to home viewing.

Hopefully it's more intelligent than the last film, which everyone's brain was destroyed by the stupid virus.

---

I just saw an ad for M3GAN 2.0 - WTF is this movie supposed to be? The first one was a cringy horror-comedy, this one made me do the dog head tilt and say, "Huh?" at the sceeen.

It’s Campy Terminator 2. As a big fan of Adam West Batman and The Apple, I’m quite looking forward to it. Hopefully it will be as ridiculous as it looks.

Superman is doing fine domestically, not great but not terrible. Internationally, it’s a disaster. The most common comparisons are The Flash, The Marvels and The Eternals. Apparently international markets right now aren’t interested in a DC (boo!) comic book movie (boo!) about America’s most American (booo!) hero. Gunn’s DCU may be DOA. (Sorry. I had to.)


Also, M3gan 2.0 somehow bombed huge.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Also, M3gan 2.0 somehow bombed huge.

Boo!

ccs wrote:

grahamdbailey wrote:
I love the cinema, and don't mind paying to go. But the real issue isn't the price, it's the behaviours of others in the cinema. This has pretty much stopped me attending; it's been months since the last time I went when I used to go regularly.
Cinema etiquette seems to have died as a thing.

It might just be a location or show time problem.
I hardly ever go to a movie during peak show times. Most things I've seen opening weekend in recent years have been on Thur evening about 7/8pm, earliest showing Sat morning (because there's gaming to be done later ), or late afternoon/evening Sunday.
Virtually no audience issues.

Other stuff I'll catch a week or so later & the crowds will have moved on.

I went with my daughter on Saturday to watch the live-action 'How to Train Your Dragon' and we had the screen to ourselves! It was great, thoroughly enjoyed it.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Superman is doing fine domestically, not great but not terrible. Internationally, it’s a disaster. The most common comparisons are The Flash, The Marvels and The Eternals. Apparently international markets right now aren’t interested in a DC (boo!) comic book movie (boo!) about America’s most American (booo!) hero. Gunn’s DCU may be DOA. (Sorry. I had to.)

Without commenting on Superman specifically, is this actually a good time to launch a movie? Most of Germany is one or two weeks into the school summer holidays. I imagine a fair few people that might have gone seen a movie are too busy lying on a beach right now.

Indoor hobbies take a nose-dive at this time of year. Eg for model sales right now is the nose-dive region where sales are really at their lowest point.

Of course there's a flipside to this which is to do big marketing pushes for large things like major sales and new editions of games around now to try and push those sales up higher.

So there's a flipside to it IF you can get it to work




For hollywood and superheroes I would hazard that perhaps people are just burned out on them. Every major film craze has its end-point and I feel like superheroes are into that period where they are potentially starting to wind down. Not that they aren't still popular, just that they are no longer the new-hotness. That all it will take is one landmark film or short series of films to kick-start the next film craze.

Personally I think that for the superhero films all the different interconnected films; multiple restarts; meta-verse and tied in TV series has worked great for die-hard fans; but is terrible for casual fans. Casual fans but out; get confused and fed up.

I know I can't get excited about "oh its another restart of X superhero" or "oh its another metaverse one where a few key actors changed/costume changed; I need to go watch 3 TV series on another character to catch up and then there's 4 other films I need to see to flesh out the backstory so that this new film doesn't feel watered down and hollow and and and...

Also worth noting there are now genre defining classics that initially bombed.

The Thing sticks in my mind the most as an example. Big Trouble in Little China, too.

 Geifer wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Superman is doing fine domestically, not great but not terrible. Internationally, it’s a disaster. The most common comparisons are The Flash, The Marvels and The Eternals. Apparently international markets right now aren’t interested in a DC (boo!) comic book movie (boo!) about America’s most American (booo!) hero. Gunn’s DCU may be DOA. (Sorry. I had to.)

Without commenting on Superman specifically, is this actually a good time to launch a movie? Most of Germany is one or two weeks into the school summer holidays. I imagine a fair few people that might have gone seen a movie are too busy lying on a beach right now.

In the US, parents can’t afford travel or air conditioning, so summer vacation is the best time for a movie aimed at all audiences. I guess studios don’t account for European vacations.

I thought in the USA they just packaged their kids to the woods for a week of outdoors learning; fun and being murdered by a local crazy person/wildbeast/monster/aliens

At least that's what decades of films have taught me

That was Gen X, my generation. From the TV, I gather todays kids are sealed in bubble wrap and given participation trophies. No one under 20 wants to see a dead body no more.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
That was Gen X, my generation. From the TV, I gather todays kids are sealed in bubble wrap and given participation trophies. No one under 20 wants to see a dead body no more.

My generation was the generation to hear a noise, grab a flashlight and go investigate.

The new generation hears a noise and turns up the volume on their headphones.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Superman is doing fine domestically, not great but not terrible. Internationally, it’s a disaster. The most common comparisons are The Flash, The Marvels and The Eternals. Apparently international markets right now aren’t interested in a DC (boo!) comic book movie (boo!) about America’s most American (booo!) hero. Gunn’s DCU may be DOA. (Sorry. I had to.)

It will be successful enough to keep Warner going with the DCU, at least for the projects that are already started. There's a quote from Warner CEO that they are excited about the reception its getting, but that might just be corporate positivity-speak, given that he's the head and all. From IGN:

Superman's early numbers also seem to have pleased DC Studios' parent company Warner Bros. Discovery, with CEO David Zaslav commenting he "couldn't be more excited" to now see the rest of Gunn's DCU plans unfold.

"This weekend, we watched Superman soar as James Gunn's passion and vision came to life on the big screen," Zaslav said, via Deadline. "Superman is just the first step.

"Over the next year alone, DC Studios will introduce the films Supergirl and Clayface in theaters and the series Lanterns on HBO Max, all part of a bold 10-year plan. The DC vision is clear, the momentum is real, and I couldn't be more excited for what's ahead."

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Also, M3gan 2.0 somehow bombed huge.

The trailers that I saw did the movie no favors.

 nels1031 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Also, M3gan 2.0 somehow bombed huge.

The trailers that I saw did the movie no favors.

I think most people were confused about what the movie was supposed to be.

Based on the trailer, my first thought was, "huh?"

The sad thing is the trailers don’t reflect on the actual movie. It’s got the same sense of humor as the first movie, but instead of horror has Upgrade-style fights and Mission Impossible-style spy/heisting. The trailer made it seem like there’d be a Britney Spears themed drag brunch, which there was not.

Lets be clear, no matter what its not the kind of movie you make to be a box office hit. It's a movie you release to the box office to market its eventual release for streaming and Blu-Ray.

 LunarSol wrote:
Lets be clear, no matter what its not the kind of movie you make to be a box office hit. It's a movie you release to the box office to market its eventual release for streaming and Blu-Ray.

Disagree. First one made near $200 million on a $15 million budget. With that kind of return, there is no way they weren't hoping to have lightning strike twice at the box office.

 Geifer wrote:

Without commenting on Superman specifically, is this actually a good time to launch a movie? Most of Germany is one or two weeks into the school summer holidays. I imagine a fair few people that might have gone seen a movie are too busy lying on a beach right now.

Family movies generally aim for holiday releases, so families can go see them. Although IIRC, closer to the start of the holiday is generally better.

School's just gone back, here. So nobody's going to the cinema.

For DC, I would agree with the suggestion that they're up against superhero fatigue, and the poor perception of DC as a result of the last few movies. (And internationally, the aforementioned poor perception of America generally at the moment) It's going to take time and a solid run of good movies to shift that... Superman was never going to do that on its own.

 LunarSol wrote:
Lets be clear, no matter what its not the kind of movie you make to be a box office hit. It's a movie you release to the box office to market its eventual release for streaming and Blu-Ray.

Not if you release it in a crowded summer, no. Maybe in January, like the first movie…

 insaniak wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

Without commenting on Superman specifically, is this actually a good time to launch a movie? Most of Germany is one or two weeks into the school summer holidays. I imagine a fair few people that might have gone seen a movie are too busy lying on a beach right now.

Family movies generally aim for holiday releases, so families can go see them. Although IIRC, closer to the start of the holiday is generally better.

School's just gone back, here. So nobody's going to the cinema.

For DC, I would agree with the suggestion that they're up against superhero fatigue, and the poor perception of DC as a result of the last few movies. (And internationally, the aforementioned poor perception of America generally at the moment) It's going to take time and a solid run of good movies to shift that... Superman was never going to do that on its own.

Which does open a window for non-family movies. I see limited appeal in most family movies, so am unlikely to go see them. But. Offer me a horror or a sci-fi? Now you’ve got my attention. And, perhaps for parents of older kids? Something for them to go see whilst the kids see the family fare.

Fantastic Four saw a significant drop (66%) in its second weekend pulling in $40 million.

After a healthy $117.6 million debut, “The Fantastic Four” suffered a hefty 66% drop in its sophomore outing with $40 million from 4,125 theaters. Heading into the weekend, box office analysts anticipated a decline of 55% to 60% from its opening. (By comparison, “Superman” dropped by 53% in its second weekend after launching to $125 million earlier in July.) This painful fall is surprising because the Marvel tentpole has the benefit of positive reviews and word-of-mouth, as well as a clear runway in terms of competition.

Also

At No. 3, Paramount’s slapstick comedy “The Naked Gun” debuted to $17 million from 3,344 theaters, right in line with projections. The film earned another $11.5 million at the international box office, bringing its global tally to $28.5 million. It’s a promising start given the dearth of theatrical comedies. Akiva Schaffer of the Lonely Island fame directed the film, which carries a $42 million price tag.

Comedies tend to let out better. And this one has good word of mouth.

Weapons:

As of August 10, 2025, Weapons has grossed $43.5 million in the United States and Canada, and $28.3 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $71.8 million.

Pretty decent win on a budget of 38 million and its only going to go up.

Doubt it will go on a Sinners type run, as that was pretty unprecedented, but this movie was so hyped that I worried it wouldn't live up to its buzz and end up as a bust. Particularly because it was somewhat rushed into a 2025 release rather than 2026 as initially planned.

Off to see it in about half an hour.

I hope it’s as promising as the trailer made it look.

The new Conjuring movie made almost $200 million in its opening weekend, which makes it the largest opening for an R rated horror movie, beating out It Chapter One. This also pushed Warner Brothers into a record breaking 7 releases in a row to bring in over $40 million OW. It’s also the big conclusion to the Summer of Horror, which saw several massive hits (for horror movies), such as Sinners, Final Destination Bloodlines, 28 Years Later, and Weapons.


I think it’s biggest competition for this upcoming weekend is One Battle After Another, which is getting dynamite reviews and film-circle praise but seems poised to flop with general audiences.

I see marketing for One Battle After Another but have no idea what it is about.

I also heard good buzz about Caught Stealing, but that is out now I think.

I can’t remember seeing any trailers for Caught Stealing. I hear it’s good, but the moviegoing part of my brain has memory holed it.

OBAA’s advertising strategy is baffling to me. It just makes the film look more opaque every time they cut a new trailer. It’s an action movie where Leo wants his daughter back. It’s a stoner comedy where Dude Leo is too fried to do basic spy gak. It’s a quirky indie-comedy where Leo acts all quirky and calls your favorite character actors “sensei” to be quirky. It’s a literary achievement where Leo expresses the depth of the human soul in desperation. It’s a political commentary movie where Leo the revolutionary Everyman is an idiot.


I have no idea what to expect from the movie or why I should see it, other than the absurdly high critical rating, the dangerously-close-to Oscar-bait circlejerk critical rating.

Speaking of new movies, anyone else hear about Brad Pitt (but not Leo DiCaprio) being in the sequel to Tarintino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood ?

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Speaking of new movies, anyone else hear about Brad Pitt (but not Leo DiCaprio) being in the sequel to Tarintino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood ?

Heard that it was being kicked about but don't know what kind of money it has made at the box office yet.

Well, I heard it was a Cliff Prequel, so probably his time before he met Leo's character?

I hope everyone is preparing their bomb or flop puns for The Smashing Machine and the Rock, because you’re going to need them.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I hope everyone is preparing their bomb or flop puns for The Smashing Machine and the Rock, because you’re going to need them.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this film gets nominated for an award this year.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I hope everyone is preparing their bomb or flop puns for The Smashing Machine and the Rock, because you’re going to need them.

No, all I need to do concerning content I'm not interested in is ignore it.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I hope everyone is preparing their bomb or flop puns for The Smashing Machine and the Rock, because you’re going to need them.

Most of the media headlines that I saw are remarkably tame, given that so many puns are there for the taking.

Shame about the movie, as the documentary that its based on is pretty dope if you are a fan of the early days of UFC/Pride. But that's a very very niche audience who probably already watched the doc.

With that said, the disclosed $50 million budget for this movie is insane.

But the real question is.... will it be better than Tron: Ares?

Which, much like the last Tron, should have a kick ass soundtrack.

 nels1031 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I hope everyone is preparing their bomb or flop puns for The Smashing Machine and the Rock, because you’re going to need them.

Most of the media headlines that I saw are remarkably tame, given that so many puns are there for the taking.

Shame about the movie, as the documentary that its based on is pretty dope if you are a fan of the early days of UFC/Pride. But that's a very very niche audience who probably already watched the doc.

With that said, the disclosed $50 million budget for this movie is insane.

Dunno. $50m is pretty modest for a big star movie.

Seems it’s getting reasonable reviews, too. Mayhaps a movie that will find its audience on streaming?

It is just not the type of "spectacle" movie people go to the cineplex to see.

These types of movies can be absorbed just as well at home. Too bad really.

 nels1031 wrote:
Shame about the movie, as the documentary that its based on is pretty dope if you are a fan of the early days of UFC/Pride

Unfortunately it is difficult to find with the best option being to sail the high seas. For those who don't know it was an HBO documentary from 2002, or about ten years ago, and the title is The Smashing Machine: The Life And Times Of Extreme Fighter Mark Kerr. There are scenes in the film lifted directly from the documentary.

 Ahtman wrote:

 nels1031 wrote:
Shame about the movie, as the documentary that its based on is pretty dope if you are a fan of the early days of UFC/Pride

Unfortunately it is difficult to find with the best option being to sail the high seas. For those who don't know it was an HBO documentary from 2002, or about ten years ago, and the title is The Smashing Machine: The Life And Times Of Extreme Fighter Mark Kerr. There are scenes in the film lifted directly from the documentary.

I had watched it probably 10 years ago when I was knee deep in my MMA/UFC fandom phase. I had heard that it was getting gobbled up in the digital space after the movie was nearing its release. Shame! (edit: it could also not be a nefarious reason, like a licensing expiration or deal didn't get renewed for distribution)

Seeing reports that this Halloween weekend box office was the worst in around 30 years.

Per Forbes:

revenues between Friday and Sunday amounted to just $49 million, marking the worst weekend of the entire year, according to Comscore

This closes out the lowest-grossing October in 27 years with domestic earnings stalling at an abysmal $425 million, the poorest haul since October 1997 with $385 million, not adjusted for inflation. This ignominious record doesn’t include 2020, when theaters hadn’t rebounded from the pandemic.

Honestly talk to anyone in any industry and its tough times right now. Even those that are having expansion/growth are seeing no where near normal levels and are often doing more to achieve that than in the past.

Cost of Living has the issue that even though its a disaster, people simply are running out of cash. You can't jack the prices up on every single thing in life and expect people to consume at the rates they were before. Esp when jobs are reducing and wages stagnant/reducing.

Were there any suitably halloweeny movies this season that were expected to perform well?

 Geifer wrote:
Were there any suitably halloweeny movies this season that were expected to perform well?

I think Predator: Badlands was it.

All the horror movies came out during the summer. Except Shelby Oaks. Poor, dumb Shelby Oaks.

I can’t say it’s a bad strategy since so many of them made a ton of money, but it saddens me to have a horror-free Halloween weekend.

I do wonder if Cinemas might make more Halloween money screening the classics, than new ones.

I mean, spooky/horror is a wide genre. The existence of Goosebumps up to Deeply Unpleasant And Zero Artistic Merit Only There To Shock drivel like Human Centipede 2* are both Horror, but at wildly different ends of the genre.

And to be honest, some of the best regarded horror movies and franchises took some time to get their legs under them.

So new films are always an uncertain quality. They can be incredibly innovative works of art (The Thing), and not initially find their audience.

So for Spooky Season? Get the reels in for the classics. They’re cheaper to rent, and reliably get bums on seats.

*The entire series is vile drivel, but that one really tried hard at it.

Our local, family-owned theatre read the tea leaves and just closed down for October and November instead of bothering to screen anything at all.

My favorite theater sadly closed down though it seems to be more of a corporate thing so it may reopen under new management eventually. It definitely makes it harder to get to the movies though at a time in which its already hard to convince people to.

Cost and convenience are the real enemies here and I'm not really sure how to solve either. People are generally just enamored with a steady drip of content rather than needing big spikes quality. It's something I'd like to be better about myself. I just feel better when I get caught up and really focus on something rather than wasting time on drivel that piles up in the background.

Man, movies must be dire right now.

I have a local 5 screen theatre, which is only playing 3 movies and a two-screen theatre which is playing a movie from October!

They’re dire for anything that isn’t a mega-event film, like Wicked 2, Zootopia 2, and presumably Avatar 3.

Every medium or low budget movie that isn’t horror has underperformed, even for their humble expectations.


Movies used to be an escape from one’s woes. In this economy, movies are less an escape than a harsh reminder, especially when cheaper entertainment has never been easier to find or more addictive.

It's not just that there are cheaper options its that so much in life has jumped up so much in cost so sharply.

Even something super cheap like a cup of tea and a slice of cake is now pretty serious cash. I'm genuinely surprised that we aren't seeing a massive revival of thermos flasks and picnics being a thing.

I mean, insulated Stanley coffee cups have become a fashion statement, and probably a meme…

For picnics you need public spaces that don't cost money. That is in surprisingly short supply as well.

The public space can still cost money - they just have to let you take your own food (or not be able to stop you taking your own).

At that point there are loads of places you can go too with a picnic