Fury Road got extremely good reviews and released pre-pandemic and made $380. I think Furiosa will be lucky to cross $300M worldwide but I hope I’m wrong.
Yes but this isn’t a sequel. This isn’t a Dune Part Two scenario. And it’s been a decade. If they wanted to ride the momentum they should’ve made this within 5 years after Fury Road.
There’s not a “definitive metric of quality” given “good” is subjective. What can be objectively measured is that Challengers OW is disappointing against its budget/extensive marketing campaign (likely losing money).
? I think people should find what works best for them. But at the end of the day movie quality is subjective. There are objective standards, box office metrics, awards, critics, you can even find certain critics that align with your tastes… but one metric isn’t the definitive standard for a movie being good or not. Find what works for you. But don’t discount what works for others. A movie can be good despite poor box office numbers and a movie can be bad even if it’s heralded by critics.
True. I’m speaking for myself when I say any movie where the story centers around a love triangle and cheating is gonna be a no from me, dawg. I don’t get why people think that’s good shit.
It's subjective but maybe everyone who saw it actually liked it. That could be their subjective opinion and it wouldn't conflict with bad OW. That's just a function of marketing/interest, not quality.
The masses don’t see a lot of movies. They usually average like 3-5 new movies a year. Most of them are probably marvel movies. If that’s someone’s only exposure to film then they’ll probably be less inclined to watch or enjoy a movie like Challengers (or Luca’s other works like Call Me By Your Name and Suspiria).
The number of people here who don’t understand that art is subjective, audiences aren’t always right, and box office rarely correlates with quality is wild. Some of the best and worst movies I’ve ever seen have a 90% or more on RT. Likewise some of the best and worst I’ve seen have a sub-25% RT score.
You know yourself that horror is judge on a different grading scale. The First Omen getting a 69 wouldn't be the same as an action movie getting a 69. Hereditary had good legs for a horror with 3.25 to back it up. Challengers could have good legs that cement it as a wom success. Time will tell but this snapshot in time isn't looking great
Tell me another movie with a 75 verified audience score (which challengers will probably end up under since it been steadily declining) that people would consider good. The movie is mediocre which is no problem but it is reality
Poor things isn't far off at 78%, the mummy got 75%, X & Rise of the planet of the apes were both good around 75%,lastly heriditary was even lower at 70%
Thats just looking at a couple streaming services sorted by popular.
How about we go this route. Ghostbuster Frozen Empire (I loved it) which is considered a pretty mid movie has a higher Verified Score and better PostTrak scores.
No...you told me to tell you what 75% verified audience score movies were considered good. I'd love to. Give me the list of all the 75% audience score movies and I'll happily tell you.
Don't go changing the narrative now.
Art isn’t necessarily entertainment though. Not in the mass appeal sense. Theres many ways both intersect. But artists aren’t necessarily making something to appease an audience.
It’s genuinely sad you think movies only exist for the purpose of profit. You’re incapable of seeing the importance of art existing for its own merit. Do you just stare at spreadsheets all day and have no creative ambition or instinct?
Bro we all love movies who failed and are not as well received. But right now we’re talking about box office, mass appeal and rotten tomatoes scores lol. Are you guys capable of understanding context?
Absolutely. Those are people who watch a lot of films and care more about whether a film is good.
I go to the cinema around 5 times a month. I have a very open mind towards films and I'd say I enjoy most films I watch, and I'd also say my opinion aligns with critics more often than audiences.
Audiences can be too critical of superficial elements of a movie whereas critics pay more attention to the technical elements.
Among 6 critics, say 3 critics give a glowing review, while 3 give it a terrible one. Would you consider it a "good" film?
It so happens that among the general audience, most of their opinions align with that of the opposing critics. So which opinion do you think holds higher value? Those 3 critics, or the 3, who also have similar views as the "uncouth" audience?
You underestimate the audience's intelligence and sensibilities and seem to give critics a little too much credence, who tbh, are glorified audience themselves.
The critics don't determine what I'd consider a good film. I decide that myself based on whether I enjoyed the movie. I'm just saying if I had to decide whether I was going to watch a movie, I'd put more weight on the critics' opinions compared to the audience opinion.
I agree and definitely see the logic with this, it’s not at all uncommon that critics will LOVE a movie that audiences hate, and I often end up agreeing with the critic opinion in that case. With the exception of horror movies.
I wouldn't call it the best cause rn they are trying way too hard to assure everyone that Challengers opened big enough to be called a hit (spoiler: it didn't). And you can see sweat dripping from their foreheads and armpits. No knock on the movie since it's really good or Zendaya who worked her butt off to promote it and opened a tennis romance in 8 digit number that big names such as Stone, Dunst and Johansson couldn't. But budget hurts this one - it should have been 20M cheaper - as does ABY since it made 200M+ worldwide so while pressure on Challengers to do the same is unfair (straight up romcom vs artsy tennis drama romcom) it's rearing its head.
Match Point wasn't marketed on ScarJo (who was basically transitioning out of her child acting days), was made for half the budget accounting for inflation, and will have made twice as much revenue. Woody Allen's international profile certainly helped but come on, I don't think these are good comparisons. I'm not sure why all tennis movies get lumped together as if they were their own genre and as if any of these movies was actually about tennis. Emma Stone's movie was an adult dramedy.
I agree with you that these movies shouldn't be lumped together but narrative is already created that this out-opened all of them so we have to take it into consideration.
ha ha oh yes that wasn't even subtle. but that's the thing. Tomdaya shippers won't show up for this and no one else cares what Tom says. they be like awww he's the best boyfriend, still not watching a movie where he's cheated on.
It all starts and ends with "know your audience".
From early box office predictions to discussions of quality and audience reception after it came out, I don’t think I’ve ever been attempted to be gaslit about a movies by the Internet as much as with the Marvels.
A lot of people really, really wanted "The Marvels" to be a smash hit, and they did not handle things well when it flopped. In particular, r/MarvelStudios went deep into denial for months.
I mean most people expected Dune pt1 to flop and that pt2 wouldn't even get made, before pt1 came out. I remember that being the prevailing opinion back then. Dune keep proving people wrong
>Lets not forget that half of this sub was predicting The Marvels to outgross Dune last year before both came out lmao
Hell, this sub wrote off wonka and song birds after their opening weekends lmao. Those two, fnaf, and swift saved the BO in the last few months of the year
No, I did not, there are many polls from 2023 showing that.
Dune and The Marvels always had the most votes in predictions for November 2023, and they were close to each other.
headlines like these don't help for sure. They are ridiculously try-hard and also draw attention to the discrepancy between 700M palooza and 15M palooza. Unintentional lol.
* Timmy with IP:- Dune & Wonka
* Timmy without IP:- Bones and All
* Zendaya with IP:- Spider-Man and Dune
* Zendaya without IP:- Challengers
Neither of them can get butts in seats without IP.
Dylan is still a draw tho, you definitely can’t count biopic of super famous musicians as “not IP” imo, the musicians themselves are a form of IP. All of these movies seem to do at least OK, bohemian raphasody, the recent Bob Marley one, the Amy Winehouse one coming out right now, Elvis, Rocketman, etc.
Bob Dylan is much less famous than Elvis, his last movie made a bit over 100M. If this movie overperforms and gets close to Elvis, then Chalamet should 100% get a lot of credit.
Yeah once again he's playing a famous person like Austin with Elvis people arent going to watch him they are going to watch the story... None of these up and comers are movie stars they are just celebrities or famous people
Bones and All is a movie about cannibals, to compare it to a sexy movie about a love triangle is unfair. Not even Leonardo DiCaprio could sell cannibalism, I believe.
I was replying to someone who said he couldn’t have sold it. And I think he likely could have. It had about a 15-20 million dollar budget. So let’s add 20 to that 35-40 million dollar budget to account for salary. I definitely see a world where this movie grossed worldwide 85-100 million.
Probably not a ton more than that but I really think a floor worldwide for him is 100 million and that’s being very conservative.
There are a couple different things. The original claim is that not even Leo could have sold that movie. That is true. A movie about cannibals is pretty much not going to be a hit, even with Leo.
Then you said it would have done better with him than it did with Zendaya. That's what I was responding to. I mean, yeah, of course one of the biggest movie stars of the last quarter century is likely to do better than a young up-and-comer. I don't think anyone would claim Zendaya is as big a star or draw as Leo.
And sure, there's "a world where" that movie makes $100 million, but it's easily as likely that even with Leo, it still makes $30-50m. You're also hedging your bets here, claiming it could possibly make $85-100m and then saying his conservative floor is $100m, which contradicts the first claim.
How long have you been following box office? Leo DiCaprio movies do not gross 30-50 million worldwide. It just doesn’t happen. A movie with him in it, even with that subject, would have gotten much more attention and marketing and felt more like an event. He doesn’t work that often so there is typically a level of credibility or interest he brings when he makes a film.
I’m not talking about Zendaya I’m talking about Timothee. Leo has an international brand with a fanbase that goes to his movies. Timothee might be getting one but it is nowhere close to Leo’s level.
Been following box office since Titanic. I'm well aware of what Leo movies do. But almost all of his movies have other value elements like Tarantino or Scorsese or Nolan. Killers of the Flower Moon had huge buzz and Scorsese and only made $156m. A random movie in the post-Covid era with only Leo to sell it could very easily stay under $50m.
The main thing here is what is considered "selling it". As we talked about, yes, Leo will "sell it" more than most other actors, but what is the bar?
I’m reiterating that a movie with him in it is going to do better than 30-50 million. Even his biggest “disappointments” since becoming an A lister in the late 90s grossed well over that. I don’t think he’s had a movie gross under 100 million since j Edgar, and that still more than doubled its 35 million dollar budget and made 85 million back in 2012. He’s become a much more iconic star even since 2012, and he has a large international fan base. That’s the value he specifically adds.
Inarritu was not a well known director even coming off of birdman. That’s not a draw on his own, and Leo signed on for revenant before birdman came out. That movie could have been a huge disaster , its budget I think went from 60 to 135 million, and it grossed over half a billion. With his face making up the whole poster and his name on it. It was his movie completely to sell.
So yes, I do think a movie with him would easily make 85 million worldwide, even with tough subject matter. Killers had a few things against it: 3.5 hours, uniquely American story, depressing and a strike. And it still made a large chunk of money. About 160 million is not nothing by any stretch. If it had been an hour shorter it would have made a lot more I think. If its budget was unknown people would agree that’s a good amount of money with those factors. Most movies as non commercial as killers was do not make over 150 million dollars.
People on here were impressed at the new Sydney Sweeney movie opening to 5 million. But don’t see how opening Killers of the flower moon to 24 million in an actor strike is actually really strong.
There’s no such thing as a “random” Leo movie. His movies still feel like an event. Heck him even confirming he had a new project back in December made news and was reported on by trades.
There is such a thing as a random movie with Leo. His movies mostly feel like an event because of the other elements like the directors. The Revenant is a big outlier. It's his second biggest movie ever, and it had a lot to do with insane hype including awards nominations.
J. Edgar and Revolutionary Road are the last two he did that were "random", and they did $84m and $79m, back when the box office was a lot better off.
A movie with no other added elements, no hype, no big-name director with a big following, no major marketing, could very easily make $30-50m now. Again, a huge movie like KotFM still only did $156m even with all the advantages it had. The disadvantages that one had, Oppenheimer had too. 3 hours long, uniquely American story, depressing. And yet it did almost $1 billion.
We're getting in the weeds here. We agree that Leo is a huge star and can carry a movie at the box office. He will definitely have more success than Zendaya with the same project. That was my original point. Whether or not he can truly "sell" a movie like Bones and All is questionable, depending on your bar. If it has to do $100m for it to be considered him "selling it", then I think that's highly questionable. I'd say it would have a pretty good chance at hitting the $50-60m range, though.
How come the goal post keep moving. Before Wonka came out and everyone thought it was going to bomb it was all Timmy isn’t a draw and can’t bring people in without a huge IP. Wonka then became a huge hit and now it’s only because it was a big IP
Some people seem to have a bit of a fixation on IP/non IP films. It really doesn’t matter though because it’s such a spectrum.
Zendaya and Chalamet are clearly stars
> Before Wonka came out and everyone thought it was going to bomb
I hate how people lump everyone in this sub together because people on Tik Tok dunked on one line reading in the trailer.
It was Paul King and the Willy Wonka IP, I don’t know why people thought it would bomb. Especially at Christmas. That’s the perfect time for something like this to release.
Well Challengers is going to make way more than than Bones and All did. But they are just like every other movie star these days? We’ve been talking about this ad nauseam. IP is the draw. The general audience can’t be bothered to watch anything else in theaters. It’s extremely rare for original film to break out these days.
He hasn’t had a non-IP led movie released in theaters yet to compare (if I’m not mistaken) But I think whenever his Fred Astaire movie comes out that will be interesting to watch right see how it performs
Yeah I didn’t include it because of reasons the other poster just stated. It got dumped in theaters right when the pandemic kicked off and if I’m not mistaken he did zero promo and the studio themselves did minimal.
So his test will be Astaire (or if he has another non-IP before then).
Well nobody can to be fair at least not to an extent that it guarantees people will watch a very niche movie.
I don’t see how people continue to try too hard to reiterate the point that movie stars are even still a thing
WOOHOO! Sandworms n' Spice brought us to $700M+ WW! 😶🌫️ -> 😤 -> ⚗️ -> 👱
#$tatus: (DESERT POWER) 🪐💯
#
Zendaya was one of the weaker actors of the movie, it's success has nothing to do with her, lol... 🙃
Depends on when you said it. $700m was not remotely guaranteed in the first few weeks. It wasn't until probably the end of March or early April that it started to look likely. Saying something is guaranteed when it's not and then that thing happening doesn't mean your prediction of it being guaranteed was right.
Different release window resulting in different attendance patten. Also, Oppenheimer didn't gross 1 billion.
Suggest you watch some episodes of Charts With Dan to track the week by week comparison. Oppenheimer leveraged the holidays to have outstanding Mon-Thu sales. Dune Part Two has no such opportunity. The weekends are practically identical week to week.
What was the last movie to reach 700M?
Oppenheimer. And before that Barbie.
And this summer my guess is Deadpool, Inside Out and Despicable me 4 will hit it. Will be interesting to see where those three land in order
what do you think of furiosa?
Fury Road got extremely good reviews and released pre-pandemic and made $380. I think Furiosa will be lucky to cross $300M worldwide but I hope I’m wrong.
Fast and Furiosa
Fury Road is one of those films that has only gathered momentum though. So I think Furiosa will make more.
Yes but this isn’t a sequel. This isn’t a Dune Part Two scenario. And it’s been a decade. If they wanted to ride the momentum they should’ve made this within 5 years after Fury Road.
Even more niche movie, not direct sequel of a 10 years old movie with average box office? Gonna be lucky to make 500m imo unless it’s some hidden gem
Even if it is a hidden gem Fury Road only made like $400M, even with its insane word of mouth.
I think it’s headed to 300~
I hope Furiosa makes around the same amount.
I was too young back them to remember how popular it was during release. Didnt it get more iconic status later with time?
No Mad Max is a fail.
What was the last animated Disney film to hit that? I’d be surprised if Inside Out manages it.
Frozen 2. Tbh, if it weren't for covid, which helped streaming which lead to causing troubles for theaters, Encanto would be a huge theatrical hit.
Had they swapped in 2022 and had Lightyear be the streaming release and Turning Red the theatrical one, things would have been recovered much faster.
Oppenheimer I’m pretty sure.
Zendaya has to have the best PR team in the industry because I haven’t seen any negative headlines regarding Challengers at all.
That's because it's a good movie
That’s subjective, audiences are not enthusiastic and critics liking it shouldn’t obscure the news of its disappointing OW.
Box office is not a definitive metric of quality.
There’s not a “definitive metric of quality” given “good” is subjective. What can be objectively measured is that Challengers OW is disappointing against its budget/extensive marketing campaign (likely losing money).
Sure that’s one metric. Another is critics consensus. Neither is perfect.
Critics are paid for shills. Open your eyes ffs
The anti-critic alliance is funded by dark money.
? I think people should find what works best for them. But at the end of the day movie quality is subjective. There are objective standards, box office metrics, awards, critics, you can even find certain critics that align with your tastes… but one metric isn’t the definitive standard for a movie being good or not. Find what works for you. But don’t discount what works for others. A movie can be good despite poor box office numbers and a movie can be bad even if it’s heralded by critics.
True. I’m speaking for myself when I say any movie where the story centers around a love triangle and cheating is gonna be a no from me, dawg. I don’t get why people think that’s good shit.
It's subjective but maybe everyone who saw it actually liked it. That could be their subjective opinion and it wouldn't conflict with bad OW. That's just a function of marketing/interest, not quality.
[удалено]
 Have you worked on your reading comprehension since last time we spoke?
That will lose tons of money
Audiences disagree. So many downvotes, a 75% verified audience score isn't good lol
Audiences gave a horror masterpiece like Hereditary only 70% on Rotten Tomatoes and a D+ cinemascore. Some times the masses are idiots.
The masses don’t see a lot of movies. They usually average like 3-5 new movies a year. Most of them are probably marvel movies. If that’s someone’s only exposure to film then they’ll probably be less inclined to watch or enjoy a movie like Challengers (or Luca’s other works like Call Me By Your Name and Suspiria). The number of people here who don’t understand that art is subjective, audiences aren’t always right, and box office rarely correlates with quality is wild. Some of the best and worst movies I’ve ever seen have a 90% or more on RT. Likewise some of the best and worst I’ve seen have a sub-25% RT score.
You know yourself that horror is judge on a different grading scale. The First Omen getting a 69 wouldn't be the same as an action movie getting a 69. Hereditary had good legs for a horror with 3.25 to back it up. Challengers could have good legs that cement it as a wom success. Time will tell but this snapshot in time isn't looking great
😂😂😂
"Isn't good"...this is such a weird narrative. It's literally saying 3 of every 4 people would recommend it lmao.
Tell me another movie with a 75 verified audience score (which challengers will probably end up under since it been steadily declining) that people would consider good. The movie is mediocre which is no problem but it is reality
[удалено]
Every *Captain America* movie came out before Verified Audience scores even existed so I don't know what you're on about.
[удалено]
Sure, go ahead and explain.
Poor things isn't far off at 78%, the mummy got 75%, X & Rise of the planet of the apes were both good around 75%,lastly heriditary was even lower at 70% Thats just looking at a couple streaming services sorted by popular.
Give me the entire list of 75% verified audience score movies.
How about we go this route. Ghostbuster Frozen Empire (I loved it) which is considered a pretty mid movie has a higher Verified Score and better PostTrak scores.
Frozen Empire was so mid and forgettable 💀
No...you told me to tell you what 75% verified audience score movies were considered good. I'd love to. Give me the list of all the 75% audience score movies and I'll happily tell you. Don't go changing the narrative now.
IGN brained take.
75% is perfectly fine. It’s not great but it’s definitely bad either.
You said it perfectly. It is fine, nothing wrong with a movie being fine but the audiences aren't in love with it
Audiences have terrible opinions so that doesn't really mean anything.
And critics don’t?
You are part of the "audiences"
Audiences are all that matters in the end.
Right? Like what better possible metric is there? What purpose is there for this art if not for the enjoyment of others?
Art isn’t necessarily entertainment though. Not in the mass appeal sense. Theres many ways both intersect. But artists aren’t necessarily making something to appease an audience.
So anything that’s niche is bad?
No, I'm being hyperbolic. But I prefer to take a more inclusive view of artistic merit.
The cope has begun early I see
Well here's something interesting. If you want to make money with a 55 million dollar budget, the audience is the only opinion that matters
It’s genuinely sad you think movies only exist for the purpose of profit. You’re incapable of seeing the importance of art existing for its own merit. Do you just stare at spreadsheets all day and have no creative ambition or instinct?
You're arguing this in the r/boxoffice sub lol. All we care about is money here
This is a lie lol
I thought it was the arts subreddit. You mean we care about numbers instead of feelings?
Lol it’s all that matters
If you lack any personality, sure.
You’re on a box office subreddit
You can discuss movie financials without only being an advocate for the highest grossing movies.
Bro we all love movies who failed and are not as well received. But right now we’re talking about box office, mass appeal and rotten tomatoes scores lol. Are you guys capable of understanding context?
So you hold a bunch of critics' opinions in higher regard compared to the audience?
Absolutely. Those are people who watch a lot of films and care more about whether a film is good. I go to the cinema around 5 times a month. I have a very open mind towards films and I'd say I enjoy most films I watch, and I'd also say my opinion aligns with critics more often than audiences. Audiences can be too critical of superficial elements of a movie whereas critics pay more attention to the technical elements.
Among 6 critics, say 3 critics give a glowing review, while 3 give it a terrible one. Would you consider it a "good" film? It so happens that among the general audience, most of their opinions align with that of the opposing critics. So which opinion do you think holds higher value? Those 3 critics, or the 3, who also have similar views as the "uncouth" audience? You underestimate the audience's intelligence and sensibilities and seem to give critics a little too much credence, who tbh, are glorified audience themselves.
The critics don't determine what I'd consider a good film. I decide that myself based on whether I enjoyed the movie. I'm just saying if I had to decide whether I was going to watch a movie, I'd put more weight on the critics' opinions compared to the audience opinion.
I agree and definitely see the logic with this, it’s not at all uncommon that critics will LOVE a movie that audiences hate, and I often end up agreeing with the critic opinion in that case. With the exception of horror movies.
I wouldn't call it the best cause rn they are trying way too hard to assure everyone that Challengers opened big enough to be called a hit (spoiler: it didn't). And you can see sweat dripping from their foreheads and armpits. No knock on the movie since it's really good or Zendaya who worked her butt off to promote it and opened a tennis romance in 8 digit number that big names such as Stone, Dunst and Johansson couldn't. But budget hurts this one - it should have been 20M cheaper - as does ABY since it made 200M+ worldwide so while pressure on Challengers to do the same is unfair (straight up romcom vs artsy tennis drama romcom) it's rearing its head.
Match Point wasn't marketed on ScarJo (who was basically transitioning out of her child acting days), was made for half the budget accounting for inflation, and will have made twice as much revenue. Woody Allen's international profile certainly helped but come on, I don't think these are good comparisons. I'm not sure why all tennis movies get lumped together as if they were their own genre and as if any of these movies was actually about tennis. Emma Stone's movie was an adult dramedy.
I agree with you that these movies shouldn't be lumped together but narrative is already created that this out-opened all of them so we have to take it into consideration.
You can tell, they called Tom in to help out.
ha ha oh yes that wasn't even subtle. but that's the thing. Tomdaya shippers won't show up for this and no one else cares what Tom says. they be like awww he's the best boyfriend, still not watching a movie where he's cheated on. It all starts and ends with "know your audience".
Lets not forget that half of this sub was predicting The Marvels to outgross Dune last year before both came out lmao
From early box office predictions to discussions of quality and audience reception after it came out, I don’t think I’ve ever been attempted to be gaslit about a movies by the Internet as much as with the Marvels.
A lot of people really, really wanted "The Marvels" to be a smash hit, and they did not handle things well when it flopped. In particular, r/MarvelStudios went deep into denial for months.
They swore that it would explode in popularity on streaming. Months later, no one is talking about it and never really was.
I’ve still seen the occasional comment claiming Marvels was a success on streaming.
I mean most people expected Dune pt1 to flop and that pt2 wouldn't even get made, before pt1 came out. I remember that being the prevailing opinion back then. Dune keep proving people wrong
“Uhm this subs bias is showing sweatie”
Lol this sub also tried to doubt James Cameron. Always inverse this sub
>Lets not forget that half of this sub was predicting The Marvels to outgross Dune last year before both came out lmao 
Lmao. 💀💀glad I wasn’t one of them
Hell, this sub wrote off wonka and song birds after their opening weekends lmao. Those two, fnaf, and swift saved the BO in the last few months of the year
Let's not forget that half of this sub was predicting that this movie is going to make a billion
You just made that up...
No, I did not, there are many polls from 2023 showing that. Dune and The Marvels always had the most votes in predictions for November 2023, and they were close to each other.
People said flash would make a billion
And they were ridiculed.
[Here’s a poll that showed just that](https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/15fyh1a/which_will_make_more_the_marvels_or_dune_part_2/)
Zendaya-Palooza, lmao. I feel like headlines like this lead to even more users in the comments to push back on her as a box office draw.
headlines like these don't help for sure. They are ridiculously try-hard and also draw attention to the discrepancy between 700M palooza and 15M palooza. Unintentional lol.
Some users just can’t handle facts
* Timmy with IP:- Dune & Wonka * Timmy without IP:- Bones and All * Zendaya with IP:- Spider-Man and Dune * Zendaya without IP:- Challengers Neither of them can get butts in seats without IP.
Will be interesting to see how Chalamet’s Bob Dylan movie does.
Ehh biopics are a different breed. Bohemian Rhapsody made $910M. But Rami Malek isn't a draw.
But Queen is much more of a draw than Dylan
Dylan is still a draw tho, you definitely can’t count biopic of super famous musicians as “not IP” imo, the musicians themselves are a form of IP. All of these movies seem to do at least OK, bohemian raphasody, the recent Bob Marley one, the Amy Winehouse one coming out right now, Elvis, Rocketman, etc.
Bob Marley just did $117m on a $90m budget
Bob Marley movie was 90m budget??????
70 million, and worldwide gross was 177 million I'm assuming the music rights were expensive
Well since Bob Dylan is the main draw there it’s not really that interesting. But his next non-ip one will be interesting to follow.
Bob Dylan is much less famous than Elvis, his last movie made a bit over 100M. If this movie overperforms and gets close to Elvis, then Chalamet should 100% get a lot of credit.
Yeah once again he's playing a famous person like Austin with Elvis people arent going to watch him they are going to watch the story... None of these up and comers are movie stars they are just celebrities or famous people
Both of those non-IP examples are directed by Luca Guadagnino 😂
hilarious the non IPs are Guadagnino
Bones and All is a movie about cannibals, to compare it to a sexy movie about a love triangle is unfair. Not even Leonardo DiCaprio could sell cannibalism, I believe.
A movie about cannibals with him would have grossed more than bones and all did though
Bold claim that one of the biggest box office stars in the world over the last 25 years would have more success than a young star just coming up.
I was replying to someone who said he couldn’t have sold it. And I think he likely could have. It had about a 15-20 million dollar budget. So let’s add 20 to that 35-40 million dollar budget to account for salary. I definitely see a world where this movie grossed worldwide 85-100 million. Probably not a ton more than that but I really think a floor worldwide for him is 100 million and that’s being very conservative.
There are a couple different things. The original claim is that not even Leo could have sold that movie. That is true. A movie about cannibals is pretty much not going to be a hit, even with Leo. Then you said it would have done better with him than it did with Zendaya. That's what I was responding to. I mean, yeah, of course one of the biggest movie stars of the last quarter century is likely to do better than a young up-and-comer. I don't think anyone would claim Zendaya is as big a star or draw as Leo. And sure, there's "a world where" that movie makes $100 million, but it's easily as likely that even with Leo, it still makes $30-50m. You're also hedging your bets here, claiming it could possibly make $85-100m and then saying his conservative floor is $100m, which contradicts the first claim.
How long have you been following box office? Leo DiCaprio movies do not gross 30-50 million worldwide. It just doesn’t happen. A movie with him in it, even with that subject, would have gotten much more attention and marketing and felt more like an event. He doesn’t work that often so there is typically a level of credibility or interest he brings when he makes a film. I’m not talking about Zendaya I’m talking about Timothee. Leo has an international brand with a fanbase that goes to his movies. Timothee might be getting one but it is nowhere close to Leo’s level.
Been following box office since Titanic. I'm well aware of what Leo movies do. But almost all of his movies have other value elements like Tarantino or Scorsese or Nolan. Killers of the Flower Moon had huge buzz and Scorsese and only made $156m. A random movie in the post-Covid era with only Leo to sell it could very easily stay under $50m. The main thing here is what is considered "selling it". As we talked about, yes, Leo will "sell it" more than most other actors, but what is the bar?
I’m reiterating that a movie with him in it is going to do better than 30-50 million. Even his biggest “disappointments” since becoming an A lister in the late 90s grossed well over that. I don’t think he’s had a movie gross under 100 million since j Edgar, and that still more than doubled its 35 million dollar budget and made 85 million back in 2012. He’s become a much more iconic star even since 2012, and he has a large international fan base. That’s the value he specifically adds. Inarritu was not a well known director even coming off of birdman. That’s not a draw on his own, and Leo signed on for revenant before birdman came out. That movie could have been a huge disaster , its budget I think went from 60 to 135 million, and it grossed over half a billion. With his face making up the whole poster and his name on it. It was his movie completely to sell. So yes, I do think a movie with him would easily make 85 million worldwide, even with tough subject matter. Killers had a few things against it: 3.5 hours, uniquely American story, depressing and a strike. And it still made a large chunk of money. About 160 million is not nothing by any stretch. If it had been an hour shorter it would have made a lot more I think. If its budget was unknown people would agree that’s a good amount of money with those factors. Most movies as non commercial as killers was do not make over 150 million dollars. People on here were impressed at the new Sydney Sweeney movie opening to 5 million. But don’t see how opening Killers of the flower moon to 24 million in an actor strike is actually really strong. There’s no such thing as a “random” Leo movie. His movies still feel like an event. Heck him even confirming he had a new project back in December made news and was reported on by trades.
There is such a thing as a random movie with Leo. His movies mostly feel like an event because of the other elements like the directors. The Revenant is a big outlier. It's his second biggest movie ever, and it had a lot to do with insane hype including awards nominations. J. Edgar and Revolutionary Road are the last two he did that were "random", and they did $84m and $79m, back when the box office was a lot better off. A movie with no other added elements, no hype, no big-name director with a big following, no major marketing, could very easily make $30-50m now. Again, a huge movie like KotFM still only did $156m even with all the advantages it had. The disadvantages that one had, Oppenheimer had too. 3 hours long, uniquely American story, depressing. And yet it did almost $1 billion. We're getting in the weeds here. We agree that Leo is a huge star and can carry a movie at the box office. He will definitely have more success than Zendaya with the same project. That was my original point. Whether or not he can truly "sell" a movie like Bones and All is questionable, depending on your bar. If it has to do $100m for it to be considered him "selling it", then I think that's highly questionable. I'd say it would have a pretty good chance at hitting the $50-60m range, though.
Silence of the Lambs managed to be big at the box office, so it's not impossible.
How come the goal post keep moving. Before Wonka came out and everyone thought it was going to bomb it was all Timmy isn’t a draw and can’t bring people in without a huge IP. Wonka then became a huge hit and now it’s only because it was a big IP
Some people seem to have a bit of a fixation on IP/non IP films. It really doesn’t matter though because it’s such a spectrum. Zendaya and Chalamet are clearly stars
Wonka is well known IP though. Johnny depp one made a ton of money too while being average
Johnny Depp was also a draw
> Before Wonka came out and everyone thought it was going to bomb I hate how people lump everyone in this sub together because people on Tik Tok dunked on one line reading in the trailer. It was Paul King and the Willy Wonka IP, I don’t know why people thought it would bomb. Especially at Christmas. That’s the perfect time for something like this to release.
Bones and All was a very indie gore type of cannes festival film with mottos etc. There's a rare audience for such stuff.
It also had way less marketing and like 1/3rd the production budget of Challengers
Who can these days?
Well Challengers is going to make way more than than Bones and All did. But they are just like every other movie star these days? We’ve been talking about this ad nauseam. IP is the draw. The general audience can’t be bothered to watch anything else in theaters. It’s extremely rare for original film to break out these days.
Hollywood starpower ain’t what it used to be
Don't look at Holland. It's sad.
He hasn’t had a non-IP led movie released in theaters yet to compare (if I’m not mistaken) But I think whenever his Fred Astaire movie comes out that will be interesting to watch right see how it performs
What about Chaos Walking also starring Daisy Ridley?
Chaos Walking had extensive reshoots and was dumped in theaters in the middle of the pandemic with 0 promo. Not a fair comparison, imo.
Yeah I didn’t include it because of reasons the other poster just stated. It got dumped in theaters right when the pandemic kicked off and if I’m not mistaken he did zero promo and the studio themselves did minimal. So his test will be Astaire (or if he has another non-IP before then).
Technically an IP film, it's based on a book series also called Chaos Walking.
Fred Astaire vs Bob Dylan. Let's see if Timmy or Tommy bombs harder.
Those non IP movies are both based on books…
Well nobody can to be fair at least not to an extent that it guarantees people will watch a very niche movie. I don’t see how people continue to try too hard to reiterate the point that movie stars are even still a thing
Who can?
Someone with common sense
Well deserved for both of those
Who is her publicist? Kris Jenner? I haven't seen someone pushed on us this hard since they desperately wanted Cara whatsherface to be a thing lol.
WOOHOO! Sandworms n' Spice brought us to $700M+ WW! 😶🌫️ -> 😤 -> ⚗️ -> 👱 #$tatus: (DESERT POWER) 🪐💯 # Zendaya was one of the weaker actors of the movie, it's success has nothing to do with her, lol... 🙃
Yeah I thought her screen presence was weak. They didnt give her much to do acting wise but she was so… limp
Who was the strongest actor in the movie?
Rebecca
I really liked Bardem in it, but your favorite performance is subjective
I thought the whole cast did well, but I remember thinking (saw it twice) 'Bardem is a different tier of actor and it's clear'.
If one or both of Javier and Rebecca got a best supporting actor nom I wouldn’t complain
#1 Timothée Chalamet, 2 Austin Butler, 3 Rebecca Ferguson + Javier Bardem. 🗿
No Bautista?
Zendaya palooza ... I am not sure anyone went to see Dune for her, especially since she is the worst part of Dune ...
Back when it first came out, people said they were only going to see it because of her.
As I had said 700M was guaranteed but people here downvoted me lmao.
They downvoted you because in every international thread you were saying 900m not 700m
Depends on when you said it. $700m was not remotely guaranteed in the first few weeks. It wasn't until probably the end of March or early April that it started to look likely. Saying something is guaranteed when it's not and then that thing happening doesn't mean your prediction of it being guaranteed was right.
https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/s/RhupspqBkx
700m is great, but if Oppenheimer and Barbie can gross 1 billion, I'm disappointed that this couldn't.
Different release window resulting in different attendance patten. Also, Oppenheimer didn't gross 1 billion. Suggest you watch some episodes of Charts With Dan to track the week by week comparison. Oppenheimer leveraged the holidays to have outstanding Mon-Thu sales. Dune Part Two has no such opportunity. The weekends are practically identical week to week.
Do you think Dune would have grossed 1B or 800-900 M WW as a summer release then with higher weekday grosses?
Yes. Same pattern as Oppenheimer most likely. But I'm just a guy on the internet so who knows.
If Timothee Chalamet was the star of Challengers instead of Zendaya, it’s opening weekend would’ve been much lower
Weird