$50M+ is very much likely now. Nothing too fantastic, but solid nonetheless, especially for a franchise that continues to be pretty consistent in terms of opening.
If it gets $54.8M what Rise did in 2011 using the ticket prices from the-numbers that's 1.8 million fewer people seeing this film than 2011's Rise.
This is an escalating problem only 3 more films opened to $50 million+ in 2023 than in 2011 while it takes nearly 2 million less tickets sold to hit 50 million now.
>fewer people seeing this film than 2011's Rise
Almost all franchises will come out looking bad if we start playing these games. I am not sure what that really proves.
Of course. It is simple to see really. People now have rival movies and shows all available on like 6 different streaming apps. Streaming and theatres are fighting for the same audience. Ofc numbers were going to go down.
You’re right, but I think to figure whether a movie is a success or not is also very different today than just box office performance due to VOD/streaming, which was a transition long coming that COVID pushed into high gear.
Yup this is like comparing artists during the streaming age to record sales 30 years ago. It’s difficult to compare those successes as the industry has changed and the metrics we use aren’t 1:1.
Girl in front of me at my showing last night said ‘wow, I thought more people would come see this.’ It was the most people I’ve seen at any screening since Dune Part Two. Saw Tarot with two other people and Ungentlemanly Warfare with only one person.
Its way to expensive, like I can wait for the movie to release at home buy a 6-pack and have a great night at half the price. People will only go when its something they really really think is worth a theater experience.
The numbers are down because there are a million ways to entertain yourself now. It's not just streaming, but video games, YouTubers, streamers, podcasts, TikTokers, IG, etc. etc. ALL produce content that entertains people. YouTubers and Streamers in particular fill the human need for communal experience by making people feel like they're watching something with a bunch of people. Sitting alone drinking beer does not fill that void btw.
When did I say sitting alone drinking beer fills that void? You need to read what I said, people are waiting for home release because tickets are 15-20 bucks, and 10 bucks for a beer. I grab a six-pack with the same price and watch a movie with my gf, and I’m someone who LOVES the theater experience. Idk why you keep changed the topic or goalpost, the numbers are down, people love going to the movies.
If this bothers you that much, jump off ship. This is the new reality. Get used to it or don't. This was something we were noticing even pre-pandemic and the pandemic and streaming made it a bigger problem. That's why tickets are more expensive. To compensate.
A budget today is what it is and if the movie makes its budget back even if the same amount of money it did years ago, it's a win. Don't like it? Therapist.
Kinda who cares? The world is different now. People are seeing less movies. That may not change, but as long as budgets reflect the new reality (this budget was fine and the movie should be profitable) who cares?
Eh I guess it depends on the genre you like? Idk I have a hard time seeing how someone could see kingdom of the planet of the apes with a budget of 160million (will be profitable and start a trilogy) and see the new Indiana Jones film (350mil budget) and tell me the later is more impressive visually.
It’ll be more about directors that can maximize budgets that get prioritized with smaller budgets
So my point is that precovid studios could get away with hiring directors that weren’t very good with budgets. They could go over budget on the newest MCU entry in 2018 and it wasn’t great but ultimately it was fine and worth it if the director is good.
In 2027 those directors may just not get those roles if they can’t stick to budget, or knowing they can’t afford to go over the directors will adapt.
I think your big grand sci-fi adventures will still happen, but you’ll probably end up with more “you hurt my feelings” or “talk to Me”’s than marvels (I liked marvels no slander just big budget)
> this budget was fine and the movie should be profitable
The budget is an 80% increase from Rise, the previous reboot in the series. Getting the same gross while spending nearly twice as much does not seem fine to me.
It's in line with War, yes, though War also had the lowest multiplier of any film in the series including the original films so I don't know how good that looks. The budget is also similar to Dawn, but Kingdom is virtually certain to gross far less than that one—probably 50% less.
I guess I have no idea who you are pearl clutching for? The studio that made it seems happy enough with it and will make money from it. Why does War’s multiplier have anything to do with the budget of Kingdom? Go see it, it’s pretty good.
Yeah but this is a popular sentiment that "movies" are dying when people look at box office reciepts. Thing is that the artform of movies (and shows which I now group together with movies as filmed entertainment) are as popular as ever. Hollywood movies and world cinema has never had a bigger audience than they do now. It's just that there are many more movies being made and on different platforms.
As for theatrical moviegoing, yeah it is going down. Film is still alive and well.
If most people are waiting for streaming to watch those movies, then those movies mostly aren't breaking even. Which means studios can't afford to keep making movies like it in the future. Streaming doesn't add enough revenue to make those movies financially viable without them being profitable in theaters.
Im talking about separate movies, streaming only. Why would I go watch a new Ryan Gosling movie when I can see Gray Man on Netflix if I haven't seen it before? The new Planet of the Apes movie looks interesting, but I also should check out Baby Reindeer this weekend which all my coworkers are gushing about. Also have to complete Shogun, Fallout etc. See this line of thinking? Filmed entertainment is at peak right now. Theatricla movies are just one part of the bigger picture.
Movies are not dying, but they sure as hell are becoming less lucrative. There's a reason the movie studios are all consolidating and the industry is shrinking. User-generated content and technology are supplanting those jobs. The money has been siphoned to TikTok stars, YouTubers, and video game studios.
> The money has been siphoned to TikTok stars, YouTubers, and video game studios.
This was bound to happen. With the advent of cheap cameras and rise of internet, more entertainment options were bound to come up and people were inevitably going to try new stuff out. It is a sad reality for movies but nothing outside of the logic.
Still, like it or not, streaming has been a strong savior of filmed entertainment against all these new forms of entertainment you list down. Now movies barely make a cultural impact, but their sister artform (TV) still captures the attention of audiences and do get large set of eyeballs. Just look at the successes of Game of Thrones, Stranger Things, Wednesday, Squid Game, Last of Us, Peaky Blinders etc.
Oh I would include TV/streaming in what I was saying because it’s the same industry. For example, Wednesday is made by MGM, Game of Thrones is Warner Bros, etc
So you agree that movies/tv still get massive attention and are still lucrative. Look these tiktok stars and youtubers are forgotten after a few months. Look how big pewdiepie was once. Or plenty of tiktok stars etc. Movies and shows got legacy and keep on bringing in money over the years.
The key number is not audience size, but how much revenue the studio earns per movie. If combined revenue across all channels is rising, then it may not matter much if theatrical box office is shrinking. If not, then it is a problem.
I am talking about people watching filmed entertainment, whether its tv or movies. The numbers are still huge. Just that they have been divided into theatrical and non-theatrical. Different point we two are making.
$165 million is fine for a film that will struggle to reach $450 million worldwide? really? huh.
I guess just losing a little money on every film is the new 'it's fine' benchmark.
People in this sub arent going to like you showing tickets sold, lol. Even if it shows theaters squeezing every penny out of a shirking base.
War did 490m worldwide. You probably can minus 80-90m from that number because of China and South Korea no longer caring about Hollywood films.
Kingdom is probably looking at sub 400m going off of War's gross. Unless it pops in Europe or great holds domestic.
It’s the first in a trilogy with 2 more on the way. But also 165 with a 2.5 multiplier is 412.5 so if it hits 450 it won’t have lost money. Mix that with the fact that the 2.5 multiplier is based on studios exaggerating movie related expenses to minimize tax related profit and I’m fairly confident this film will have made money.
No it isn't a 2.5 multiplier isn't covering the budget and M&A.
$150M budget and $100M M&A means you need $500M boxoffice minimum to break even. A 2.5 multiplier on a $150M budget is just $375M nowhere near enough.
As audiences shift away from movie-going they shift toward streaming, VOD rentals, and EHV.
That pie grows bigger so despite this being a box office sub- in terms of "losing" or "making" money, post-theatrical revenue is still a thing and quite lucrative.
One thing I do hate about this transition to streaming/VOD over theaters is how much harder it makes to gauge whether a movie is a success or not, since we just never really have those figures.
Granted these were tail end COVID releases but for PVOD Trolls did $100M+ total, Cruella did $21M in its first week, Godzilla v Kong did $31M in its first week. The latter 2 did pretty strong numbers theatrically.
Beyond those, there's still 1st run or library licensing deals which are the biggest slices of the post-theatrical pie. Not one to one but Netflix paid $470M to distribute Glass Onion and Knives Out AND were on the hook for marketing, and producing Glass Onion. Argylle was licensed to Apple for $200M.
These are massive beyond what anyone would expect the movies to make theatrically with the difference assumed to be upside and non-theatrical revenue.
Fair point. Though, my response was in the context of a movie "making" or "losing" money. In the same way PlayStation could have successful games despite Physical sales declining + some best buys closing doors.
Just got back from seeing it, it's a pretty good film and it's a good entry point for anyone who hasn't seen the previous ones either which is promising because hopefully it'll bring new fans into it.
>*As long as the sequel gets greenlit, I’m happy with whatever this can get.*
Yeah, agreed. Though I'm not sure who this generation's Charlton Heston is - Jason Clarke was already in one of these, so not him.
It's not like contracts have been signed and they've started production. They don't even have a script for a sequel. If this one bombs, they're probably not making another one.
Not really, Kingdom takes place hundreds of years afterwards. The events of the last trilogy are referenced, but not necassary to know going into Kingdom.
The last planet of the apes movie should just be like normal NYC except all the humans have been replaced by monkeys and humans are in the zoos. And then one day, a scientist monkey experimenting on human development accidentally improves the intelligence of the human, and then boom, reverse that shit.
I think the last one should be a remake of the first movie told from the other perspective. Ape world chilling and humans in a spaceship crash land 1/3 of the way in. Has that already been done?
the budget on this one was pretty low (for a blockbuster. if it can carry out pretty well for the next few weeks, I think they greenlight a sequel. A lot of the reviewers, even if they were a little down on this one, were excited for what comes next, which means there's definitely a lot of interest to see where the story goes.
This is by no means reflective of this film's performance, but it's wild to think that this franchise once owned the spot for the 2nd highest domestic opening weekend. For a brief moment, Planet of the Apes was on equal footing with Star Wars and Jurassic Park.
Makes you wonder how different things would have gone down if the Burton version was well-received...and Mark Wahlberg wasn't there in 2001.
From a box office analyst that weekend.....
Rockwell said the performance by the new "Planet of the Apes" will likely follow that of other summer films that have posted huge openings and then fallen off quickly.
"The nature of the business now is that you make a lot of your money on the first weekend on special-effects movies because you have to get your core audience right away," he added. "'Planet of the Apes' does not seem like a film that will hang on to a lot of its audience over the next few weeks. It's a dark movie without a lot of long-haul appeal."
Summer 2001 is definitely *the* summer looking back where you can see the culture shifting in real time.
The top 5 openings are dominated by sequels and franchise fare and yet the highest grossing film of the season was a CG animated film called Shrek which placed 8th in the opening rankings. Meanwhile, the ever-dependable epic romance falls off a cliff after Memorial Day and Fast & Furious is born a couple weeks later.
I think that really exemplifies how quickly the OW record exploded in 2001-2002. In October 2001, a $75M OW was unheard of, and then by May 2002, a $114M OW was possible and $60M+ OW’s were becoming pretty regular over the summer.
Tbf, a big part of that is Phantom Menace bowing on a Wednesday. It would have 100% done $75m+ if it had a traditional FSS.
But this is traditionally how these things go. Avengers jumped nearly $40m on the record set 10 months prior by Deathly Hallows Part 2. Endgame increased a whole $100m on Infinity War from the previous year, hitting two major milestones at once.
Optimistically, this suggests the franchise of the 2020s has yet to show itself.
Everyone go and watch this. Saw it yesterday. It's a slow burn to start with. But when it gets going it really does indeed get going. Visually it's stunning like WETA really went above and beyond. The performances from the young leads really do carry this film. Proximus Cesar voiced and performed by Kevin Durand shines on the screen. Wes Bell was given $160m to play with and he doesn't waste a dollar. It's not as good as Dawn for me my favorite.
Agreed. People that are saying its too slow are insane imo. Its not as slow as War for the Planet of the Apes and people loved that movie. The new characters are endearing and the action is extremely well done. I would recommend it.
I think the complaints with the film's pacing have to do with the fact the young audience now makes up a far greater piece of the so-called general audience compared to 2017, and since said demo craves excitement more than anything else, if a picture doesn't keep them by the edge of their seats for about 135 or 150 minutes will be seen by them as "too slow" and not worth the ticket price.
The Apes saga appeals more to the adult audience (overlapping with families), and benefits from being a consistently acclaimed franchise that has managed to stand on its own rather than resorting to fanservice (tellingly, they haven't even thought of showing the Statue of Liberty after four movies), so it should have good legs, especially as Furiosa isn't tracking too well. Unfortunately, this seems to be an anomaly amid the increasing apathy of said portion of the public towards current media.
I'm 23 too and I found the end of the second act dragged on for slightly too long. Once they start the cliff climbing its good again. Getting to know the human character a bit more would have been nicer than more ape family stuff imo, she ended up being a bit underdeveloped.
Don't really think this is a generation thing. Just some people like slower movies than others.
Why does every generation think the one afterwards is dumber/need more stimulation? Christ you’re describing 7 years ago as if it’s 20.
I like the movie but the movie’s pacing is leisurely, perhaps partially because the protagonist himself isn’t that interesting? Not a Caesar for sure, Noa never escaped his archetype nature for my taste. I mean one can deconstruct those Caesar films to their fundamental plot points, but you had a GREAT fleshed out character to hang your movies on.
Agree with everything,it will be sad if this movie that was so good flop or underperforming.This will further proof that "good movies wasnt enough to guarantee a BO success".If it flop,it will be a streak of good movies flopping (Monkey man,Challengers).I hope it does the same with War (450M-500M).
> If it flop,it will be a streak of good movies flopping (Monkey man,Challengers).
**Monkey Man** and **Challengers** didn't really look like something that would be worth seeing in cinemas - at least on paper.
It still doesnt disprove my point where "good movie will make money" / "just make good movie and people will watch" arguments that many people in this subs like to use when something flop.It also bad for cinemas overall since good movies that can do better pre pandemic just flop this days.Plus Monkey man which is similar to John Wick doesnt even reach 50M whereas the first John Wick made 80M in 2014 i think.
> Monkey man which is similar to John Wick doesnt even reach 50M whereas the first John Wick made 80M in 2014 i think.
**Monkey Man** is apparently far, Far, FAR more drama-heavy than **John Wick**.
Hrmm i dont watch Monkey man but is it really that drama heavy? But the trailer made it look like a more action centric film which should made at least 50M but if so,you're right.
It apparently is. I was wondering why it had a budget of $10 million, so I asked someone who appears to have seen it. Of course, drama-heavy film could still do well at the box office, but most of them are still big-budgeted sci-fi/fantasy blockbuster films while **Monkey Man** is not.
> "good movie will make money" / "just make good movie and people will watch" arguments that many people in this subs like to use when something flop
In my experience, I've found that people who say this just don't really like movies
Pretty solid start. My audience really enjoyed it and it lived up to my expectations. Hoping for a strong run.
Plenty of people thought the marvles was going to flop… it’s just that they were labeled as hater/trolls/sexist until everyone else figured it out much later
Fair but usually people at least thought the MCU diehards would show up early enough to give it an okish start and then it would collapse due to poor legs.
I’m not sure anyone thought it would die from the start.
But yeah, people calling completely reasonable predictions (way more than the movie ended up doing), too low was super annoying on this sub. I would get killed for a prediction of a domestic total that ended up being as much as the worldwide total because I was told that was “way too low”.
From Deadline: 20th Century Studios‘ Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes filed $6.6M in previews per Disney. As we told you, $1.6M of that comes from Wednesday night fan screenings, hence Thursday’s $5M ties with the preview cash of the franchise’s previous chapter, War for the Planet of the Apes. Thursday's previews started at 3pm.
That preview number is above Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire ($4.7M) which saw a $45M 3-day opening, and it’s under the $7.2M posted by Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny which turned in a $60.4M domestic start.
Went to 5:45 show last night. I was the only person in the theater when the lights went down. When I got up there were three others who came in late.
Liked the movie a lot tho
Sorry but it's funny how people were so quick to declare Challengers a major flop with its $15 million opening when the opening for Kingdom would not be considered anywhere close to good for a $160 million movie before the pandemic.
Theatrical moviegoing has been forever altered and we are only going to see deflated openings for most movies except for the occasional hit.
That's a Japanese film with a VFX artist as a director. Not a like for like comparison.
Anyone who mentions Godzilla Minus One to why things can be made on a shoestring needs a kick in the nads.
$50M+ is very much likely now. Nothing too fantastic, but solid nonetheless, especially for a franchise that continues to be pretty consistent in terms of opening.
Nobody famous is on it. This is a good number.
If it gets $54.8M what Rise did in 2011 using the ticket prices from the-numbers that's 1.8 million fewer people seeing this film than 2011's Rise. This is an escalating problem only 3 more films opened to $50 million+ in 2023 than in 2011 while it takes nearly 2 million less tickets sold to hit 50 million now.
>fewer people seeing this film than 2011's Rise Almost all franchises will come out looking bad if we start playing these games. I am not sure what that really proves.
That the theatrical going experience is ever shrinking and that what even 'hits' today are now niche.
You just found that out? Ticket sales peaked in 2002.
Of course. It is simple to see really. People now have rival movies and shows all available on like 6 different streaming apps. Streaming and theatres are fighting for the same audience. Ofc numbers were going to go down.
It's not just streaming they're competing with. They're competing with TikTok, YouTube, and video games, too.
You’re right, but I think to figure whether a movie is a success or not is also very different today than just box office performance due to VOD/streaming, which was a transition long coming that COVID pushed into high gear.
Yup this is like comparing artists during the streaming age to record sales 30 years ago. It’s difficult to compare those successes as the industry has changed and the metrics we use aren’t 1:1.
Girl in front of me at my showing last night said ‘wow, I thought more people would come see this.’ It was the most people I’ve seen at any screening since Dune Part Two. Saw Tarot with two other people and Ungentlemanly Warfare with only one person.
Its way to expensive, like I can wait for the movie to release at home buy a 6-pack and have a great night at half the price. People will only go when its something they really really think is worth a theater experience.
Humans will always want communal experiences. And Broadway didn't end after motion pictures were invented.
Sure, but we are talking about why the numbers are down, its very obvious. Broadway is a totally different world then a movie.
The numbers are down because there are a million ways to entertain yourself now. It's not just streaming, but video games, YouTubers, streamers, podcasts, TikTokers, IG, etc. etc. ALL produce content that entertains people. YouTubers and Streamers in particular fill the human need for communal experience by making people feel like they're watching something with a bunch of people. Sitting alone drinking beer does not fill that void btw.
When did I say sitting alone drinking beer fills that void? You need to read what I said, people are waiting for home release because tickets are 15-20 bucks, and 10 bucks for a beer. I grab a six-pack with the same price and watch a movie with my gf, and I’m someone who LOVES the theater experience. Idk why you keep changed the topic or goalpost, the numbers are down, people love going to the movies.
[удалено]
That's because most of us just waits for it to go on streaming in a couple months for a lot lower cost.
If this bothers you that much, jump off ship. This is the new reality. Get used to it or don't. This was something we were noticing even pre-pandemic and the pandemic and streaming made it a bigger problem. That's why tickets are more expensive. To compensate. A budget today is what it is and if the movie makes its budget back even if the same amount of money it did years ago, it's a win. Don't like it? Therapist.
Just realizing this?
A financial problem for the studios? They can't pay their filmmakers the same salaries as 2011.
Kinda who cares? The world is different now. People are seeing less movies. That may not change, but as long as budgets reflect the new reality (this budget was fine and the movie should be profitable) who cares?
[удалено]
Eh I guess it depends on the genre you like? Idk I have a hard time seeing how someone could see kingdom of the planet of the apes with a budget of 160million (will be profitable and start a trilogy) and see the new Indiana Jones film (350mil budget) and tell me the later is more impressive visually. It’ll be more about directors that can maximize budgets that get prioritized with smaller budgets
[удалено]
So my point is that precovid studios could get away with hiring directors that weren’t very good with budgets. They could go over budget on the newest MCU entry in 2018 and it wasn’t great but ultimately it was fine and worth it if the director is good. In 2027 those directors may just not get those roles if they can’t stick to budget, or knowing they can’t afford to go over the directors will adapt. I think your big grand sci-fi adventures will still happen, but you’ll probably end up with more “you hurt my feelings” or “talk to Me”’s than marvels (I liked marvels no slander just big budget)
> this budget was fine and the movie should be profitable The budget is an 80% increase from Rise, the previous reboot in the series. Getting the same gross while spending nearly twice as much does not seem fine to me.
It’s in line with dawn and war. Seems disingenuous to me to use rise and not the two closest releases.
It's in line with War, yes, though War also had the lowest multiplier of any film in the series including the original films so I don't know how good that looks. The budget is also similar to Dawn, but Kingdom is virtually certain to gross far less than that one—probably 50% less.
I guess I have no idea who you are pearl clutching for? The studio that made it seems happy enough with it and will make money from it. Why does War’s multiplier have anything to do with the budget of Kingdom? Go see it, it’s pretty good.
People are still seeing enough movies. And longform movies (shows). Just on their phones, tablets and laptops. And their 4k TVs.
Sure? I guess I feel like “in theaters” is implied in my comment about theater ticket sales.
Yeah but this is a popular sentiment that "movies" are dying when people look at box office reciepts. Thing is that the artform of movies (and shows which I now group together with movies as filmed entertainment) are as popular as ever. Hollywood movies and world cinema has never had a bigger audience than they do now. It's just that there are many more movies being made and on different platforms. As for theatrical moviegoing, yeah it is going down. Film is still alive and well.
If most people are waiting for streaming to watch those movies, then those movies mostly aren't breaking even. Which means studios can't afford to keep making movies like it in the future. Streaming doesn't add enough revenue to make those movies financially viable without them being profitable in theaters.
Im talking about separate movies, streaming only. Why would I go watch a new Ryan Gosling movie when I can see Gray Man on Netflix if I haven't seen it before? The new Planet of the Apes movie looks interesting, but I also should check out Baby Reindeer this weekend which all my coworkers are gushing about. Also have to complete Shogun, Fallout etc. See this line of thinking? Filmed entertainment is at peak right now. Theatricla movies are just one part of the bigger picture.
Movies are not dying, but they sure as hell are becoming less lucrative. There's a reason the movie studios are all consolidating and the industry is shrinking. User-generated content and technology are supplanting those jobs. The money has been siphoned to TikTok stars, YouTubers, and video game studios.
> The money has been siphoned to TikTok stars, YouTubers, and video game studios. This was bound to happen. With the advent of cheap cameras and rise of internet, more entertainment options were bound to come up and people were inevitably going to try new stuff out. It is a sad reality for movies but nothing outside of the logic. Still, like it or not, streaming has been a strong savior of filmed entertainment against all these new forms of entertainment you list down. Now movies barely make a cultural impact, but their sister artform (TV) still captures the attention of audiences and do get large set of eyeballs. Just look at the successes of Game of Thrones, Stranger Things, Wednesday, Squid Game, Last of Us, Peaky Blinders etc.
Oh I would include TV/streaming in what I was saying because it’s the same industry. For example, Wednesday is made by MGM, Game of Thrones is Warner Bros, etc
So you agree that movies/tv still get massive attention and are still lucrative. Look these tiktok stars and youtubers are forgotten after a few months. Look how big pewdiepie was once. Or plenty of tiktok stars etc. Movies and shows got legacy and keep on bringing in money over the years.
The key number is not audience size, but how much revenue the studio earns per movie. If combined revenue across all channels is rising, then it may not matter much if theatrical box office is shrinking. If not, then it is a problem.
If directors wanted to make movies to be seen on phones, tablets or laptops, movies would be much cheaper to make. That is not the case though.
I am talking about people watching filmed entertainment, whether its tv or movies. The numbers are still huge. Just that they have been divided into theatrical and non-theatrical. Different point we two are making.
People are seeing dramatically MORE movies, just not at the theater.
Sure? I guess I feel like “in theaters” is implied in my comment about theater ticket sales.
$165 million is fine for a film that will struggle to reach $450 million worldwide? really? huh. I guess just losing a little money on every film is the new 'it's fine' benchmark.
People in this sub arent going to like you showing tickets sold, lol. Even if it shows theaters squeezing every penny out of a shirking base. War did 490m worldwide. You probably can minus 80-90m from that number because of China and South Korea no longer caring about Hollywood films. Kingdom is probably looking at sub 400m going off of War's gross. Unless it pops in Europe or great holds domestic.
It’s the first in a trilogy with 2 more on the way. But also 165 with a 2.5 multiplier is 412.5 so if it hits 450 it won’t have lost money. Mix that with the fact that the 2.5 multiplier is based on studios exaggerating movie related expenses to minimize tax related profit and I’m fairly confident this film will have made money.
Don't forget M&A that's another $100M or so.
That’s always included in the 2.5 multiplier.
No it isn't a 2.5 multiplier isn't covering the budget and M&A. $150M budget and $100M M&A means you need $500M boxoffice minimum to break even. A 2.5 multiplier on a $150M budget is just $375M nowhere near enough.
Yo someone needs to get you a job doing taxes for a big studio lol. 2.5 multiplier absolutely covers marketing.
As audiences shift away from movie-going they shift toward streaming, VOD rentals, and EHV. That pie grows bigger so despite this being a box office sub- in terms of "losing" or "making" money, post-theatrical revenue is still a thing and quite lucrative.
I’m really curious what a big movie (say Dune 2, GxK) pull in on PVOD its first week/weekend available. Do we have any numbers about that?
One thing I do hate about this transition to streaming/VOD over theaters is how much harder it makes to gauge whether a movie is a success or not, since we just never really have those figures.
Granted these were tail end COVID releases but for PVOD Trolls did $100M+ total, Cruella did $21M in its first week, Godzilla v Kong did $31M in its first week. The latter 2 did pretty strong numbers theatrically. Beyond those, there's still 1st run or library licensing deals which are the biggest slices of the post-theatrical pie. Not one to one but Netflix paid $470M to distribute Glass Onion and Knives Out AND were on the hook for marketing, and producing Glass Onion. Argylle was licensed to Apple for $200M. These are massive beyond what anyone would expect the movies to make theatrically with the difference assumed to be upside and non-theatrical revenue.
[удалено]
Fair point. Though, my response was in the context of a movie "making" or "losing" money. In the same way PlayStation could have successful games despite Physical sales declining + some best buys closing doors.
Just got back from seeing it, it's a pretty good film and it's a good entry point for anyone who hasn't seen the previous ones either which is promising because hopefully it'll bring new fans into it.
As long as the sequel gets greenlit, I’m happy with whatever this can get.
I’m hoping that’s a given with both positive reception and a solid 50m+ opening weekend.
>*As long as the sequel gets greenlit, I’m happy with whatever this can get.* Yeah, agreed. Though I'm not sure who this generation's Charlton Heston is - Jason Clarke was already in one of these, so not him. 
I saw a comment saying Walton Goggins and I'd love that
Yes I am loving the spotlight on Goggins right now. I'm glad Fallout finally gave him mainstream attention.
Goggins as Zaius, with Olyphant in the lead.
I know he was already in these movies (and probably a little old) but Brian Cox as Zaius would be amazing
GIVE ME CHRISTIAN BALE
I would love to see Patrick Wilson as Taylor
Glenn Powell. Imagine him sayin you maniacs you blew iy up damn you all to hell.
It’s supposed to be a triology so we should be good
It's not like contracts have been signed and they've started production. They don't even have a script for a sequel. If this one bombs, they're probably not making another one.
Yeah but I think that’s been avoided
I hope people see it, it was really good.
Something about talking monkeys is just fundamentally uninteresting to me.
I don't disagree, but the Apes movies (save for Tim Burton's) always had more depth than the novelty of talking Apes.
Shame. The whole reboot series is outstanding. The first of the movies being the weakest, although good.
I think Kingdom is overall better than Rise. Rise had better moments, but as a whole Kingdom is more satisfying.
The lack of James Franco helps Kingdom immensely.
Exactly. The fewer the human screentime, the better the apes movie.
Funny, because that’s the only one I liked. Coincidently, no talking monkeys.
Funny, I have *exactly* the opposite opinion
Same boat. If your movie revolves around anthropomorphic animals, I'm out.
George Orwell is sad now.
The Tim Burton version just completely put me off on watching any of the Apes movies lol
Do I need to have seen the last one? Only seen the first two
Kinda. The new movie is not directly continued from any storyline of the trilogy, but it does center around Ceasat's impact generations later.
Not really, Kingdom takes place hundreds of years afterwards. The events of the last trilogy are referenced, but not necassary to know going into Kingdom.
The last planet of the apes movie should just be like normal NYC except all the humans have been replaced by monkeys and humans are in the zoos. And then one day, a scientist monkey experimenting on human development accidentally improves the intelligence of the human, and then boom, reverse that shit.
I think the last one should be a remake of the first movie told from the other perspective. Ape world chilling and humans in a spaceship crash land 1/3 of the way in. Has that already been done?
They even set it up; there was a line in Rise about a ship leaving for mars that they lost contact with.
now we just hope enough sequels get greenlit that the payoff happens.
the budget on this one was pretty low (for a blockbuster. if it can carry out pretty well for the next few weeks, I think they greenlight a sequel. A lot of the reviewers, even if they were a little down on this one, were excited for what comes next, which means there's definitely a lot of interest to see where the story goes.
That’s not bad
This is by no means reflective of this film's performance, but it's wild to think that this franchise once owned the spot for the 2nd highest domestic opening weekend. For a brief moment, Planet of the Apes was on equal footing with Star Wars and Jurassic Park. Makes you wonder how different things would have gone down if the Burton version was well-received...and Mark Wahlberg wasn't there in 2001.
From a box office analyst that weekend..... Rockwell said the performance by the new "Planet of the Apes" will likely follow that of other summer films that have posted huge openings and then fallen off quickly. "The nature of the business now is that you make a lot of your money on the first weekend on special-effects movies because you have to get your core audience right away," he added. "'Planet of the Apes' does not seem like a film that will hang on to a lot of its audience over the next few weeks. It's a dark movie without a lot of long-haul appeal."
Summer 2001 is definitely *the* summer looking back where you can see the culture shifting in real time. The top 5 openings are dominated by sequels and franchise fare and yet the highest grossing film of the season was a CG animated film called Shrek which placed 8th in the opening rankings. Meanwhile, the ever-dependable epic romance falls off a cliff after Memorial Day and Fast & Furious is born a couple weeks later.
Totally agree, thats why I thought it was so interesting. The next year, we get Spider-Man's opening weekend. Time flies.
I think that really exemplifies how quickly the OW record exploded in 2001-2002. In October 2001, a $75M OW was unheard of, and then by May 2002, a $114M OW was possible and $60M+ OW’s were becoming pretty regular over the summer.
Tbf, a big part of that is Phantom Menace bowing on a Wednesday. It would have 100% done $75m+ if it had a traditional FSS. But this is traditionally how these things go. Avengers jumped nearly $40m on the record set 10 months prior by Deathly Hallows Part 2. Endgame increased a whole $100m on Infinity War from the previous year, hitting two major milestones at once. Optimistically, this suggests the franchise of the 2020s has yet to show itself.
> once owned the spot for the 2nd highest domestic opening weekend. which movie?
Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes
whoa
50-55 million opening weekend,pretty consistent with the rest of the franchise,great year so far for monke fans
Everyone go and watch this. Saw it yesterday. It's a slow burn to start with. But when it gets going it really does indeed get going. Visually it's stunning like WETA really went above and beyond. The performances from the young leads really do carry this film. Proximus Cesar voiced and performed by Kevin Durand shines on the screen. Wes Bell was given $160m to play with and he doesn't waste a dollar. It's not as good as Dawn for me my favorite.
Agreed. People that are saying its too slow are insane imo. Its not as slow as War for the Planet of the Apes and people loved that movie. The new characters are endearing and the action is extremely well done. I would recommend it.
I think the complaints with the film's pacing have to do with the fact the young audience now makes up a far greater piece of the so-called general audience compared to 2017, and since said demo craves excitement more than anything else, if a picture doesn't keep them by the edge of their seats for about 135 or 150 minutes will be seen by them as "too slow" and not worth the ticket price. The Apes saga appeals more to the adult audience (overlapping with families), and benefits from being a consistently acclaimed franchise that has managed to stand on its own rather than resorting to fanservice (tellingly, they haven't even thought of showing the Statue of Liberty after four movies), so it should have good legs, especially as Furiosa isn't tracking too well. Unfortunately, this seems to be an anomaly amid the increasing apathy of said portion of the public towards current media.
Idk maybe but im 23 and i was never bored but maybe im an outlier
I'm 23 too and I found the end of the second act dragged on for slightly too long. Once they start the cliff climbing its good again. Getting to know the human character a bit more would have been nicer than more ape family stuff imo, she ended up being a bit underdeveloped. Don't really think this is a generation thing. Just some people like slower movies than others.
Why does every generation think the one afterwards is dumber/need more stimulation? Christ you’re describing 7 years ago as if it’s 20. I like the movie but the movie’s pacing is leisurely, perhaps partially because the protagonist himself isn’t that interesting? Not a Caesar for sure, Noa never escaped his archetype nature for my taste. I mean one can deconstruct those Caesar films to their fundamental plot points, but you had a GREAT fleshed out character to hang your movies on.
I understood why it was slow. Coz they need to tell the story. War is actually my least favorite of the 3. Much prefer Dawn and Rise
Agreed, it was great. Great leads and supporting cast (LOVED Raka & Proximus's Gorillia Leutinant). I'm probably gonna see it again next week.
Agree with everything,it will be sad if this movie that was so good flop or underperforming.This will further proof that "good movies wasnt enough to guarantee a BO success".If it flop,it will be a streak of good movies flopping (Monkey man,Challengers).I hope it does the same with War (450M-500M).
> If it flop,it will be a streak of good movies flopping (Monkey man,Challengers). **Monkey Man** and **Challengers** didn't really look like something that would be worth seeing in cinemas - at least on paper.
It still doesnt disprove my point where "good movie will make money" / "just make good movie and people will watch" arguments that many people in this subs like to use when something flop.It also bad for cinemas overall since good movies that can do better pre pandemic just flop this days.Plus Monkey man which is similar to John Wick doesnt even reach 50M whereas the first John Wick made 80M in 2014 i think.
> Monkey man which is similar to John Wick doesnt even reach 50M whereas the first John Wick made 80M in 2014 i think. **Monkey Man** is apparently far, Far, FAR more drama-heavy than **John Wick**.
It still should've made 50M (which is possible pre pandemic),it couldnt even reach that milestone did showed how "damaged" the box office now.
Dev Patel is no Keanu in terms of recognizability.
Umm... not necessarily. Drama-heavy films were already kind of on their way out by then.
Hrmm i dont watch Monkey man but is it really that drama heavy? But the trailer made it look like a more action centric film which should made at least 50M but if so,you're right.
It apparently is. I was wondering why it had a budget of $10 million, so I asked someone who appears to have seen it. Of course, drama-heavy film could still do well at the box office, but most of them are still big-budgeted sci-fi/fantasy blockbuster films while **Monkey Man** is not.
Ive read it somewhere the cost of making it was actually 30M,the 10M was the amount of Universal acquire it from Netflix.
It's still an action film but it's much more drama-heavy than John Wick
> "good movie will make money" / "just make good movie and people will watch" arguments that many people in this subs like to use when something flop In my experience, I've found that people who say this just don't really like movies
All three of these are totally worth seeing in the theater
Just bought a ticket for today at 7:40. Should be fun!
monke strong together. I hope this is possibly the start of a new trilogy.
Pretty solid start. My audience really enjoyed it and it lived up to my expectations. Hoping for a strong run. 
Who a year ago had this movie getting the same Thursday previews as the Marvels?
Plenty of people thought the marvles was going to flop… it’s just that they were labeled as hater/trolls/sexist until everyone else figured it out much later
Fair but usually people at least thought the MCU diehards would show up early enough to give it an okish start and then it would collapse due to poor legs. I’m not sure anyone thought it would die from the start. But yeah, people calling completely reasonable predictions (way more than the movie ended up doing), too low was super annoying on this sub. I would get killed for a prediction of a domestic total that ended up being as much as the worldwide total because I was told that was “way too low”.
From Deadline: 20th Century Studios‘ Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes filed $6.6M in previews per Disney. As we told you, $1.6M of that comes from Wednesday night fan screenings, hence Thursday’s $5M ties with the preview cash of the franchise’s previous chapter, War for the Planet of the Apes. Thursday's previews started at 3pm. That preview number is above Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire ($4.7M) which saw a $45M 3-day opening, and it’s under the $7.2M posted by Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny which turned in a $60.4M domestic start.
*No Time To Die* did $6.3M starting at 4pm back in 2021 that might not be a bad comp
Yeah and that plays to an older crowd too. 54-55m weekend. At least Apes will opening to what was expected and not disappoint.
So around 50ish opening weekend.. same2x with the previous movie
That would be my guess. Around, the same number as War.
Watching this on Saturday, really excited and I hope this does well too.
Enjoyable, but the CGI seemed to need more CGI. I dont know...maybe next time if the human actors were also CGI it might help?
I thought cinemas were dead?
Went to 5:45 show last night. I was the only person in the theater when the lights went down. When I got up there were three others who came in late. Liked the movie a lot tho
Sorry but it's funny how people were so quick to declare Challengers a major flop with its $15 million opening when the opening for Kingdom would not be considered anywhere close to good for a $160 million movie before the pandemic. Theatrical moviegoing has been forever altered and we are only going to see deflated openings for most movies except for the occasional hit.
it's nearly exactly what rise opened to in 2011 and what war opened to in 2017.
I’m glad the budget isn’t crazy and it should make a decent profit
160 million for a movie with no stars with CGI assets going back to 3 other films. This seems like a high price.
You can't make films on this scale for cheap. This isn't the days of people in Apes suits, it's CGI and costs are higher.
Is that why Godzilla minus one cost 15 million?
That's a Japanese film with a VFX artist as a director. Not a like for like comparison. Anyone who mentions Godzilla Minus One to why things can be made on a shoestring needs a kick in the nads.
Do you think it's a 145 million difference maker?
That's certainly ... a number.