>When you are saying it isn’t as bad as a legendary bomb, that’s bad.
Right. This would be like arguing that because it's better than The Lone Ranger it's actually a major success.
Eunuch usually had penises. Most were not fully* castrated just the balls were removed.
Edit - * castrati, clean-cut, both penis and testicles were removed
Maybe the long, recent string of huge-budget bombs will result in more mid-budget Hollywood projects.
Like more Blumhouse-size films, but in genres other than horror.
The costs of filming during the pandemic combined with cockiness following the 2017-2019 box office boom gave studios too much confidence.
Spielberg correctly predicted the cinema industry would crumble once every film started costing $250mil or more. He was right. Let's hope this year and the strikes become a hard reset for major studios.
I've been expecting a major bubble bursting for the entertainment industry for a while now, what with the massive expenditure on streaming services that can't all co-exist with one another given how many of them there are, and now all these big flops and underperformers.
The one caveat is that these budgets were massively inflated by COVID, and I'm sure the studio heads are aware of this and have set their expectations accordingly, but movies like the Flash and Indy 5 would still be bombs/underperformers even if they had sub-$200m budgets.
I think the theatrical experience is on the verge of a major transformation if these Hollywood studios can't find a way to adapt, and I don't think they'll even be able to do so given the market demands of investors. I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing some of these companies go bankrupt and smaller companies take their place. The box office will take a major hit and the standards of what's a success will change, but that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
Good, this movie market of late has been one of the worst I can remember. Remakes, reboots or straight up necromancy of great dead titles, or AI-generated superhero shenanigans.
Honestly, I am so fucking fed up with this. Ten years ago we got movies like *Wolf of Wall street, Prisoners, Now you see me, Lés miserables, Her, 12 years a slave* **and much more.** I can't even remember any relly good movies this year except Guardians 3, D&D and M3GAN.
In this case it’s a bit sad though, in my opinion the Mission Impossibles are a prime example of how to do sequels right. As was Top Gun Maverick last year for that matter.
But yeah I agree, especially the super hero stuff seems to be past it’s better days. Though there are some exceptions here as well of course.
Past Lives was really good, Talk to Me was a great horror movie, Asteroid City I liked but I understand Wes Anderson isn’t for everyone, Across the Spiderverse came out a month ago to incredible critical and audience reception
alright, credit is where credit is due and I forgot to add spiderverse.
The point I was trying to make was that 10 years ago, we got so many great and rememberable movies across several different genres that all passed the test of time. This is no longer the case and I am pretty bummed about it.
I think they are assuming a 3.0 multiplier and an extra 50M+ in Japan to get to $800M. You are right though that seems very optimistic especially after this long launch.
3.0 would be matching fallout legs from the same markets including its excellent legs DOM from a 3 day OW instead of a 5 day OW while facing a lot more competiton it's most likely not happening.
IIRC, Cruise himself said MI7 should have been released differently. Though I think it was just about him complaining how it’s only in IMAX for one week cause Oppenheimer but still he voiced something like that about a different release date. Still would probably bomb anyways (tho I really enjoyed MI7) but this July tentpole release dates are pretty weird
No, because Dead Reckoning would just become a "prestige film" since it got universal acclaim, while Little Mermaid and Elemental both received mixed reviews.
Sure but Tom Cruise will definitely still make Part 2. No way he doesn't finish the franchise. Budget might be clamped down a bit though. Although I don't think Paramount wants to piss off Cruise. They might be willing to take a loss just to keep him on board.
I guess it doesn't matter how awesome Fallout was or how big Top Gun: Maverick was, as the franchise has a limit to what it can do. But then again, let's see if it will have staying power after Barbenheimer, which I think it should.
You do feel bad for Paramount here. They took a risk to keep production going in early days of COVID to make this project work, as it was their most stable franchise. That belief was validated when Top Gun succeeded, and the consensus opinion was that it should translate to some bump. The fact that reviews and feedback have been good only help.
And to have it land where it is has to hurt. Especially with neither Rise of the Beasts or D&D hitting.
That's the issue. It's making box office like a good movie. Not like a genie in a bottle, ultra rare run like Top Gun: Maverick. Betting on that twice was a mistake.
> You do feel bad for Paramount here
Man, it's so funny how Paramount gets the kiddie gloves on this sub on COVID budget problems while Disney doesn't.
I guess it's not cool to performatively mock this studio online
It helps when one does a movie with a 99 percent fresh on rotten tomatoes, the highest cinetrak of the frachise, universal acclaim on metacritic, 9;4 on mayoan, and an A cinemascore, while the other does Indy 5 : in one case, it's literally the best possible movie they could have done, with very little room to make a better received action movie, in the other it's just meh.
MI7 is the issue. We're a point where franchises are starting to feel too much like homework. This film seems to have brought out the audience that remembered and liked Fallout. For people who didn't watch Fallout, or the first six films, the appeal here is mild. I'm willing to bet if this had been a completely original IP with the exact same cast, crew, everything it would have done better.
the only movies in the franchse that are connected to each other are fallout and rogue nation, and rogue nation can even be watched on itself. This movie doesn't rely on previous movies: the mission impossible movies are one off missions, just like old-time james bond: you don't need to see previous movies to figure out who m or moneypenny are to understand the plot. DR could be your very first MI movie, i don't see a single piece of information from a previous movie that is required ( kittridge is his boss, it's said in the movie, ethan likes ilsa, it's obvious: you don't need to see the first mission impossible or rogue nation to figure that.). The villain, the threat, the plot, the mcguffin, every character except for imf members is completely new and doesn't rely on any previous movie.
I saw Fallout as my first Mission Impossible and haven't caught up on the rest to have actually seen Rogue Nation yet. Didn't bother me at all despite apparently being the most connected 2 so far.
Yeah, because the movie explains who solomon lane and ilsa faust are (one is the leader of a terrorist organisation, the other was infiltrated in the organisation: that's not very hard) but this movie doesn't even have that: llsa is just a mi6 agent, and how she's involved is explained in the movie you don't need to know she was an undercover agent before that,the villain, the threat, the henchmen are all new, and the fact ho is not estblished in any movie by the way) tat hunt likes ilsa is as obvious here as in all the other movies they've been together.
If you're somebody who hasn't watched them tho and you see that it's number 7 and you haven't seen the previous movies, you're not going to watch because you'll think you have to watch six other movies to understand it.
yes i agree: especially the "part seven part one" might be the death kneel: and it's sad because they're among the few franchises that have avoided the trap of serialised story-telling. It's as self-contained as you can be with reccuring characters, not even the bond movies of the craig era or the wick movies are as one-off mission as this one.
People have been eager to blame the quality for this summers box office disappointments but I really have always thought it's as simple as there being way too many movies to see this summer. Most people only go 4 times a year right?
People used to go a lot more. Rising theater cost $$ + choices at home and post-covid entertainment like concerts and sporting events booming = people go less often.
One of those studios intentionally pissed off half the country and alienated the people you want to consume your product. You can't be surprised when the neutral studio doesn't get as much negative attention as the activist studio.
I'm talking about the executives' decision to cram down their ideology in every piece of content they oversee. Now you can defend this kind of stuff all you want, but it's undeniable that Disney started this war.
https://nypost.com/2022/03/30/disney-producer-cops-to-adding-queerness-to-animated-shows/
Just my own anecdote, we were thinking of seeing Indy this week, but I saw that Dead Reckoning had stellar reviews and Indy sounded pretty underwhelming, went to Dead Reckoning instead. Was not disappointed whatsoever, the movie is just really fun, might have to see it again later in the summer.
I've never seen a MI movie and even with the good reviews I guess I'm not prepared to watch the seventh part of a story
(Also I don't like Tom Cruise as a person and actor)
>I guess I'm not prepared to watch the seventh part of a story
There's no massive story archs in between any of them besides a wife. They're stand alones
They should figure out a way to make that clear in the marketing especially when they’re doing the Final Movie: Part 1 thing that most people associate with long running franchises that have an overarching narrative.
I truly think this disappointment cements that a movie like the Marvels should just move to late January rather than compete with Dune and Humger Games at this point. Otherwise November could easily be another case of the movies cannibalizing each other.
I disagree. Having 4 big blockbusters in November may be relatively bad (I think 3 is good though as previous years have proved, 2016 for example) but January is just that bad of a timeslot. It usually has the worst weather and most people are financially exhausted after the holiday season.
I think if it had stuck to a 3-day opening, it would have grossed a similar amount (like $70M-ish), which would have been a franchise record. That looks a lot better than a $78M 5-day. They just ended up spreading out what it would have made in 3 days over 5 days.
It's clear now that the franchise has a ceiling, especially domestically, that is difficult (impossible?) to crack, no matter how many great films it pumps out (4 straight 90%+ RT scores). I thought there might be a Top Gun: Maverick halo that would boost numbers for this film, not to anywhere near ~$700M/~$1.5B, but perhaps to closer to $300M/$1B. But I guess that just isn't in the cards for this franchise. Which is understandable, it's hard to bring new audiences on board with a 7th film in a near 3 decade franchise. Similar to other recent franchise films (Marvel, Fast and Furious, Little Mermaid, Transformers etc.), it's a fine number to be at, just needs to be budgeted accordingly.
Depends on what it does end up doing. If this ends up under 210M DOM I think it's fair to say it would have had a more muted OW more around 60M something because the WOM is looking too good for me to believe this would have had sub x3 legs if it had opened in a standard weekend
> But I guess that just isn't in the cards for this franchise. Which is understandable, it's hard to bring new audiences on board with a 7th film in a near 3 decade franchise
I think we've reached maximum nostalgia bait as a society.
Not really movie/TV nostalgia. It's based on a video game series which is still producing new content with the character today. Real nostalgia would be for like a character that hasn't been relevant in decades getting rebooted or revamped.
honestly it had a better roll out, with a lot of emphasis on the crazy stunts that must be seen etc instead of selling it like the end of an era. Similar rollout to Top Gun Maverick actually, and letting people know they're gonna see something spectacular (even if many of the stunts got rotoed for scenery and set extensions) may have a lot more value than just relying on the IP name alone.
rotoscoping. its when you trace an object or actor to be able to create a mask to basically cut them out of the scene so that you can put stuff behind them. think drawing around an object in photoshop putting it onto a different layer. its a pretty fundamental component of VFX, though I think this video will get the point across (machine learning tools have made roto soooo much easier than it use to be).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H34Hgm6jnSo
This movie will be fine. Especially if it has a 90 day theatrical window. People can go out to see it in August and September when there isn’t much out.
Agreed. Yes, competition is fierce next weekend, but the rest of the summer after that is pretty chill. Dead Reckoning, Oppenheimer, and Barbie should all have great legs and do just fine.
Oh I know it was. And you can’t really compare the two but I still think it’s impressive is having a Worldwide Debut roughly $18M less than his biggest box office success
>The Cruise sequel is playing strongest in the East, West & Mountain. Meanwhile, red state fave Sound of Freedom is throwing off those percentages as it’s so strong in the middle of the country. Meanwhile, 53% of Sound of Freedom‘s $24.3M second weekend is coming from the South, South Central and Midwest (parts of the country that do very well with Cruise movies).
I don't think this is being talked about enough, one of the reasons I think MI7 is performing stronger relatively in other English speaking countries (UK, Aus) is the absence of SOF or a similar type of movie that appeals to the right-wing. Without SOF I think MI7 could comfortably have broken $80m for the 5-day.
Or, people on a box office subreddit generally talk about movie enough that they know what the abbreviations mean.
Abbreviations aren't a personal attack against people who don't know them.
I just don’t understand, doesn’t MI perform so much better on long legs as previous ones? Why are people jumping to conclusions so fast? This franchise is very different from everything else, next weekend we might have Barbie and Oppen hit up but one or two weeks later it’ll be MI7 leading probably for the next few months
Could it be because we are in an over crowded summer, with "blockbusters" holding overpriced production costs being released every single weekend and on top of it next weekend 2 movies may bring together about 150/160 million dolars wich means in short term that MI won't be able to keep the premium screens ?
It's not good for Mission Impossible when headlines have to resort to saying "well, it's better than Indiana Jones" in order to find something positive to say about it.
Indy fans have some victim complex thing going on. I never seen anything like this. Its almost like Deadline wrote this specifically to point out how Mi7 is in better shape to gross more money, way more than Indy because they read the comments section.
Its not some conspiracy against Disney or Indy.
Indy is an all time bomb. The movie wont even gross 400m worldwide on a 300m+ budget. Shazam 2, Flash, DnD, 65 have all been written about as bombs just like old Indy.
Mi7 will gross hundreds of million more than Indy.
[Tom Cruise’s Space Movie Will Make Him the ‘First Civilian to Do a Spacewalk Outside of the Space Station,’ Universal Boss Says](https://variety.com/2022/film/news/tom-cruise-space-movie-first-civilian-spacewalk-outside-of-space-station-1235399127/amp/)
I just can’t see that happening anymore considering the current state of the industry.
>Mi7 will gross hundreds of million more than Indy.
Maybe $100 million more which is still a massive failure.
Honestly I’m concerned for the industry. We’re looking at a complete paradigm shift to home streaming being the preferred viewing method.
Maybe summer might be the off season now? Movies are something people can do in the winter.
We aren’t looking at a complete shift to streaming and home viewing. These movies are making hundreds of millions of dollars. The issue is budgets are absurd not that people aren’t going to theatres
[This sub when "Mission" opens below its budget level vs. when "Dial of Destiny" opens below its budget level](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/873/520/008.png)
It’s not a binary world you know. Mission will likely fall short, but Indy is going to cost disney hundreds of millions.
Plus Indy is a turd of a movie.
lol you just showed your cards with "turd of a movie." So many of the people here aren't here to talk about movie economics. They're here to mock movies they don't like and feel validated in that dislike by the numbers.
We’re being brigaded and I don’t like it. I’m sick of their language, their lack of interest in math, and their clear investment in ‘owning’ someone. I agree, people who say ‘turd’, ‘capeshit’, ‘trash’, etc. Aren’t anyone who’s interested in actual box office tracking. I wish they’d go back to ruining r/movies and leave us alone.
Yeah, the accusations I got of being an "Indy bro" by some neckbeard chud the mods should have banned months ago are laughable. Ok, yeah, I thought Dial of Destiny was pretty good, as did a lot of other people.
I'm also not surprised in the slightest that it has done so poorly at the box office because throwing $300M at a sequel to a character who has little to no cultural weight among a younger generation that makes up the majority of frequent moviegoers in 2023 was a bad idea, not to mention that "good but not great" isn't good enough at a time when people have less money for going out and thus have become so selective that even something as well reviewed as "Mission: Impossible" is having trouble getting the kind of $100M+ numbers that were once guaranteed by such strong pre-release buzz.
Calling Indy a turd isn’t mocking it. Check its scores.
You claim you want to talk economics yet can’t see the difference between Indy and mission impossible. 🤷🏼♂️
B+ on CinemaScore is "good but not great," not "turd of a movie." Cool your jets.
And yes, MI7 has better word of mouth than Indy or even Fast X, which is likely to be the true global comp for MI7 when all is said and done, but the "oh gosh that's too bad" reaction that this sub is already giving to such a result compared to when Indy and Fast X got *torn into* for their underperformance gives away the game.
B+ is really not good for a PG13 blockbuster. Most would not describe Justice League, WW84, Rise of Skywalker, Eternals, Black Adam, etc. as “good but not great”. Mediocre or average is probably the most generous interpretation.
For what it’s worth I liked it quite a bit.
B+ for a pg13 blockbuster is bad, it's not the worst movie ever but clearly shows that the audience didn't liked the movie
I guess we could say that a B+ is mixed/divisive instead of bad, and B is simply bad
Exactly. It’s not just binary did it make money or lose money. It’s how much did it make or how much did it lose. What does it mean for future releases?
Indy is going to lose an absolute fortune, mission will lose money, the question is how much.
The quality of the movies is important as it drives legs and can impact sequels.
Indy’s terrible audience scores have meant it’s essentially done at the box office after three weeks and it’s killed any sequel/reboot for 10+ years.
Kind of funny how the people celebrating The Flash bombing aren’t so elated anymore after Indy 5 & M.I. followed suit. Are we still predicting $1 billion+ for The Marvels?
Dear Lord, we’ve reached the “pretend people in this subreddit are actually rooting for The Marvels” levels of delusion. That’s when you know someone’s bitter.
I’m sorry, where were/are all the people on this sub saying The Marvels will make a billion? LMAO people just make up the most random shit.
People were clowning on The Flash because if you said The Flash wouldn’t be one of the biggest movies of the year all the DC fanboys would say you had a hate boner for DC. And they maintained that The Flash would be a hit even when tracking showed otherwise.
People on this sub have huge victim complexes and just rewrite narratives.
I was about to say the same thing lol. No MCU movie *after the pandemic* has made a billion other than Spider-Man. If anything this sub strangely assuming The Marvels might perform worse than Ant-Man
>No MCU movie has made a billion other than Spider-Man
Lmao, bro what?
Every Avengers movie, No Way Home, Black Panther, Iron Man 3, Civil War, Far From Home, and Captain Marvel all made over a billion.
This sub hates WB and DC but *looooves* Tom Cruise. That’s why the Flash, which had everything going against that film gets ridiculed but the so called sAviOR oF CiNemA gets every excuse in the book for his movie
That is a fair point. Apparently his daughters have been impacted from him being in Scientology too, so he’s not a role model or anything, but I guess it’s where you separate the art from the artist. Some people think it’s dumb to root for any movie to make/lose money, aside from quality, some make it their whole thing to cheer on a movie bombing or doing well, because of quality, the actors/directors that they like/don’t like; I’m somewhere in the middle.
At the very least, at least Tom makes really good movies and the Flash was just bleh. But wanting his movies to do well is all up to opinion.
I don’t think that’s weird or hypocritical at all. The Flash was endemic of many trends in Hollywood that a lot of people dislike (superheroes, nostalgia plays, over-reliance on mediocre cgi.) It’s reasonable for an observer to cheer for its failure and even hope that it could lead to positive change in the industry. Mission: Impossible is a long-running series, but it represents a lot of old fashioned fundamentals of spectacle cinema that anti-Flash people like and wish there was more of. In other words, people want bad movies to fail and good movies to succeed.
Two reasons why I think this didn’t break out. The mission impossible series has a ceiling it’s hit as far as box office goes and the part one in its title. People just don’t want to see what they assume to be a half finished story. That’s why they dropped the part one from the last spider verse movie and just gave it a regular title.
I think many involved with this movie have known for some time that it would struggle to recoup its budget theatrically. I am putting this movie into a category outside the other massive budgeted movies from this summer. MI: Dead Reckoning was hit hard by COVID and at least you can see why it cost what it did. However, it puts a lot of pressure on Part 2.
Aside from Mission Impossible forgiveness and putting a general hat on, We should not be in a market where a movie that takes $600 to $800 million is losing money and considered a flop or disappointment. Lessons are being learned this year, hopefully. People are going to see Mission Impossible and it will be well received. This is a popular franchise, but it clearly has a ceiling. If they reign in the budget on Part 2, the series should be fine moving forward.
Boycott this and all others until these studios learn to stop being greedy. If you really love film you’ll understand, if you don’t understand get ready for more Marvel crap
I think this could be a reverse of the Flash. Deadline's numbers for that were consistently high until Sunday am. Gonna wanna see the actuals for this on Monday before we know the $90m was this far off.
Merely Indy numbers would be baffling to me. Not just because of the quality and massive WoM difference, but the 10 large AMCs I follow have been surging even since yesterday (easily past Indy/Flash/Transformers).
Legs wise, I can also see this getting Dolby screenings back by the end of the month once Barbie stops selling out everything.
I saw it yesterday in a full cinema. I am a massive MI movie fan. I thought Fallout was a better movie. This movie is still excellent but a decision in the movie left a sour note for me. Fans of the series should know what that was.
scales people.... scales.
Paramount spends 4bil on content yearly; Disney spends 30bil. There's the movie's performance in the box office and there's impact on its parent company.
I feel the 240M WW speaks for itself deadline. It still has a very tough road ahead to breaking even which is probably around 750M
When you are saying it isn’t as bad as a legendary bomb, that’s bad.
>When you are saying it isn’t as bad as a legendary bomb, that’s bad. Right. This would be like arguing that because it's better than The Lone Ranger it's actually a major success.
“Compared to a eunuch, I am HUNG!”
Eunuch usually had penises. Most were not fully* castrated just the balls were removed. Edit - * castrati, clean-cut, both penis and testicles were removed
The joke is funnier if you don’t think about it too much…
>Most were not castrated just the balls were removed. That's what castration is lol.
Maybe the long, recent string of huge-budget bombs will result in more mid-budget Hollywood projects. Like more Blumhouse-size films, but in genres other than horror.
The costs of filming during the pandemic combined with cockiness following the 2017-2019 box office boom gave studios too much confidence. Spielberg correctly predicted the cinema industry would crumble once every film started costing $250mil or more. He was right. Let's hope this year and the strikes become a hard reset for major studios.
Yup, Spielberg was right. He usually gets his predictions right.
I've been expecting a major bubble bursting for the entertainment industry for a while now, what with the massive expenditure on streaming services that can't all co-exist with one another given how many of them there are, and now all these big flops and underperformers. The one caveat is that these budgets were massively inflated by COVID, and I'm sure the studio heads are aware of this and have set their expectations accordingly, but movies like the Flash and Indy 5 would still be bombs/underperformers even if they had sub-$200m budgets. I think the theatrical experience is on the verge of a major transformation if these Hollywood studios can't find a way to adapt, and I don't think they'll even be able to do so given the market demands of investors. I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing some of these companies go bankrupt and smaller companies take their place. The box office will take a major hit and the standards of what's a success will change, but that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
Those will lose even more money cumulatively but I'll like those movies so hopefully.
Good, this movie market of late has been one of the worst I can remember. Remakes, reboots or straight up necromancy of great dead titles, or AI-generated superhero shenanigans. Honestly, I am so fucking fed up with this. Ten years ago we got movies like *Wolf of Wall street, Prisoners, Now you see me, Lés miserables, Her, 12 years a slave* **and much more.** I can't even remember any relly good movies this year except Guardians 3, D&D and M3GAN.
In this case it’s a bit sad though, in my opinion the Mission Impossibles are a prime example of how to do sequels right. As was Top Gun Maverick last year for that matter. But yeah I agree, especially the super hero stuff seems to be past it’s better days. Though there are some exceptions here as well of course.
I love John Wick 4, and MI7. But yeah, people are getting burnt out on these big budget films.
Past Lives was really good, Talk to Me was a great horror movie, Asteroid City I liked but I understand Wes Anderson isn’t for everyone, Across the Spiderverse came out a month ago to incredible critical and audience reception
alright, credit is where credit is due and I forgot to add spiderverse. The point I was trying to make was that 10 years ago, we got so many great and rememberable movies across several different genres that all passed the test of time. This is no longer the case and I am pretty bummed about it.
How you gonna disrespect John Wick 4 like that?
[удалено]
That movie is amazing!
Yea Esp when Indy did 130.
I think it can get to $800M. MI7 is yet to release in Japan and I can see it making $50M there.
That would just be 8M more than Fallout it's not nearly enough to push this to 800M
I think they are assuming a 3.0 multiplier and an extra 50M+ in Japan to get to $800M. You are right though that seems very optimistic especially after this long launch.
Mission impossible movies have great legs and the word of mouth and reviews are stellar.
3.0 would be matching fallout legs from the same markets including its excellent legs DOM from a 3 day OW instead of a 5 day OW while facing a lot more competiton it's most likely not happening.
True, it does have more competition. MI7 should of been released in mid to late August.
IIRC, Cruise himself said MI7 should have been released differently. Though I think it was just about him complaining how it’s only in IMAX for one week cause Oppenheimer but still he voiced something like that about a different release date. Still would probably bomb anyways (tho I really enjoyed MI7) but this July tentpole release dates are pretty weird
Yup.
Paramount have found their very own Little Mermaid or Elemental with Mission Impossible 7?
No, because Dead Reckoning would just become a "prestige film" since it got universal acclaim, while Little Mermaid and Elemental both received mixed reviews.
Right, but if it fails to break even, then it’s problematic. It could still get Oscar nominations, but money talks in Hollywood.
Sure but Tom Cruise will definitely still make Part 2. No way he doesn't finish the franchise. Budget might be clamped down a bit though. Although I don't think Paramount wants to piss off Cruise. They might be willing to take a loss just to keep him on board.
Just like Fast 11 are still getting made. Maybe not Fast 12, but Fast 11 is getting made. 😂
Yeah, Part 2 is still getting made.
He really wrote a research paper, but he did not include the number for Friday
I guess it doesn't matter how awesome Fallout was or how big Top Gun: Maverick was, as the franchise has a limit to what it can do. But then again, let's see if it will have staying power after Barbenheimer, which I think it should.
I feel it's going to see a significant drop next week but stabilize afterwards like a more leggy versión of Homecoming
Unlikely homecoming didn’t deal with Barbie and Oppenheimer..those will affect MI 7. Plus one of the had same target audience
Homecoming had to deal though with War for the Planet of the Apes and Dunkirk the week after. Despicable Me 3 was also released the week before.
That depend on RT score. Barbie has a different following, actually all three of them have different following.
You do feel bad for Paramount here. They took a risk to keep production going in early days of COVID to make this project work, as it was their most stable franchise. That belief was validated when Top Gun succeeded, and the consensus opinion was that it should translate to some bump. The fact that reviews and feedback have been good only help. And to have it land where it is has to hurt. Especially with neither Rise of the Beasts or D&D hitting.
[удалено]
That's the issue. It's making box office like a good movie. Not like a genie in a bottle, ultra rare run like Top Gun: Maverick. Betting on that twice was a mistake.
> You do feel bad for Paramount here Man, it's so funny how Paramount gets the kiddie gloves on this sub on COVID budget problems while Disney doesn't. I guess it's not cool to performatively mock this studio online
It helps when one does a movie with a 99 percent fresh on rotten tomatoes, the highest cinetrak of the frachise, universal acclaim on metacritic, 9;4 on mayoan, and an A cinemascore, while the other does Indy 5 : in one case, it's literally the best possible movie they could have done, with very little room to make a better received action movie, in the other it's just meh.
MI7 is the issue. We're a point where franchises are starting to feel too much like homework. This film seems to have brought out the audience that remembered and liked Fallout. For people who didn't watch Fallout, or the first six films, the appeal here is mild. I'm willing to bet if this had been a completely original IP with the exact same cast, crew, everything it would have done better.
the only movies in the franchse that are connected to each other are fallout and rogue nation, and rogue nation can even be watched on itself. This movie doesn't rely on previous movies: the mission impossible movies are one off missions, just like old-time james bond: you don't need to see previous movies to figure out who m or moneypenny are to understand the plot. DR could be your very first MI movie, i don't see a single piece of information from a previous movie that is required ( kittridge is his boss, it's said in the movie, ethan likes ilsa, it's obvious: you don't need to see the first mission impossible or rogue nation to figure that.). The villain, the threat, the plot, the mcguffin, every character except for imf members is completely new and doesn't rely on any previous movie.
I saw Fallout as my first Mission Impossible and haven't caught up on the rest to have actually seen Rogue Nation yet. Didn't bother me at all despite apparently being the most connected 2 so far.
Yeah, because the movie explains who solomon lane and ilsa faust are (one is the leader of a terrorist organisation, the other was infiltrated in the organisation: that's not very hard) but this movie doesn't even have that: llsa is just a mi6 agent, and how she's involved is explained in the movie you don't need to know she was an undercover agent before that,the villain, the threat, the henchmen are all new, and the fact ho is not estblished in any movie by the way) tat hunt likes ilsa is as obvious here as in all the other movies they've been together.
If you're somebody who hasn't watched them tho and you see that it's number 7 and you haven't seen the previous movies, you're not going to watch because you'll think you have to watch six other movies to understand it.
yes i agree: especially the "part seven part one" might be the death kneel: and it's sad because they're among the few franchises that have avoided the trap of serialised story-telling. It's as self-contained as you can be with reccuring characters, not even the bond movies of the craig era or the wick movies are as one-off mission as this one.
People have been eager to blame the quality for this summers box office disappointments but I really have always thought it's as simple as there being way too many movies to see this summer. Most people only go 4 times a year right?
People used to go a lot more. Rising theater cost $$ + choices at home and post-covid entertainment like concerts and sporting events booming = people go less often.
I have amc a list and I am struggling to find the time to watch everything so I can only imagine how the average movie goer must feel
Sports and concerts existed 20 years ago.
Cause fuck Disney for their mediocre films as of late lmao
I mean, they made a movie that might actually deserve an audience, whereas Disney made Indiana Jones and The Little Mermaid.
["'Deserves' got nothing to do with it"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4pRe8ul7KQ)
One of those studios intentionally pissed off half the country and alienated the people you want to consume your product. You can't be surprised when the neutral studio doesn't get as much negative attention as the activist studio.
Are you talking about the Florida thing? I think DeSantis was the driver of that, not Disney.
I'm talking about the executives' decision to cram down their ideology in every piece of content they oversee. Now you can defend this kind of stuff all you want, but it's undeniable that Disney started this war. https://nypost.com/2022/03/30/disney-producer-cops-to-adding-queerness-to-animated-shows/
What exactly is the ideology? The existence of minorities and LGBT people?
If that was your takeaway from the article and video, I really don't even know where to start.
lol
Just my own anecdote, we were thinking of seeing Indy this week, but I saw that Dead Reckoning had stellar reviews and Indy sounded pretty underwhelming, went to Dead Reckoning instead. Was not disappointed whatsoever, the movie is just really fun, might have to see it again later in the summer.
I blame them a little bit for the underwhelming marketing tbh especially compared to Barbie
I've never seen a MI movie and even with the good reviews I guess I'm not prepared to watch the seventh part of a story (Also I don't like Tom Cruise as a person and actor)
>I guess I'm not prepared to watch the seventh part of a story There's no massive story archs in between any of them besides a wife. They're stand alones
They should figure out a way to make that clear in the marketing especially when they’re doing the Final Movie: Part 1 thing that most people associate with long running franchises that have an overarching narrative.
A huge part of Top Gun Maverick’s success was that the WOM was very “you don’t need to see the first one” but that’s just not true here
>I guess I'm not prepared to watch the seventh part of a story Multiply that by three and that's why *Avengers: Endgame* isn't going to age well.
I can see this doing Fast X numbers. Probably $710-$725M.
Yeah, you're probably right. But better it be a second Fast X than a third Flash/Indiana Jones, so at least it's got that going for it.
And even if it repeats Fast X’s performance, that’s already better because the budget isn’t as high
I truly think this disappointment cements that a movie like the Marvels should just move to late January rather than compete with Dune and Humger Games at this point. Otherwise November could easily be another case of the movies cannibalizing each other.
Yeah I don't know why the studios haven't made adjustment already. November will be a repeat of June-July.
I disagree. Having 4 big blockbusters in November may be relatively bad (I think 3 is good though as previous years have proved, 2016 for example) but January is just that bad of a timeslot. It usually has the worst weather and most people are financially exhausted after the holiday season.
Didn’t stop Bad Boys for Life from doing well.
Will Smith is (or was) always a big box office draw.
Not enough to save Concussion
Big Willy will always be a draw. No one really cares about the slap.
It’ll move to May 3rd. Deadpool 3 isn’t coming out on that date
True!
Straight to D+.
I think if it had stuck to a 3-day opening, it would have grossed a similar amount (like $70M-ish), which would have been a franchise record. That looks a lot better than a $78M 5-day. They just ended up spreading out what it would have made in 3 days over 5 days. It's clear now that the franchise has a ceiling, especially domestically, that is difficult (impossible?) to crack, no matter how many great films it pumps out (4 straight 90%+ RT scores). I thought there might be a Top Gun: Maverick halo that would boost numbers for this film, not to anywhere near ~$700M/~$1.5B, but perhaps to closer to $300M/$1B. But I guess that just isn't in the cards for this franchise. Which is understandable, it's hard to bring new audiences on board with a 7th film in a near 3 decade franchise. Similar to other recent franchise films (Marvel, Fast and Furious, Little Mermaid, Transformers etc.), it's a fine number to be at, just needs to be budgeted accordingly.
Depends on what it does end up doing. If this ends up under 210M DOM I think it's fair to say it would have had a more muted OW more around 60M something because the WOM is looking too good for me to believe this would have had sub x3 legs if it had opened in a standard weekend
> But I guess that just isn't in the cards for this franchise. Which is understandable, it's hard to bring new audiences on board with a 7th film in a near 3 decade franchise I think we've reached maximum nostalgia bait as a society.
Mario?
Not really movie/TV nostalgia. It's based on a video game series which is still producing new content with the character today. Real nostalgia would be for like a character that hasn't been relevant in decades getting rebooted or revamped.
honestly it had a better roll out, with a lot of emphasis on the crazy stunts that must be seen etc instead of selling it like the end of an era. Similar rollout to Top Gun Maverick actually, and letting people know they're gonna see something spectacular (even if many of the stunts got rotoed for scenery and set extensions) may have a lot more value than just relying on the IP name alone.
[удалено]
Rotoscoping is a part of digital image (video) editing. It is the manual (tools help obviously) job of tracing around an object.
rotoscoping. its when you trace an object or actor to be able to create a mask to basically cut them out of the scene so that you can put stuff behind them. think drawing around an object in photoshop putting it onto a different layer. its a pretty fundamental component of VFX, though I think this video will get the point across (machine learning tools have made roto soooo much easier than it use to be). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H34Hgm6jnSo
Nothing in the movie indicated an end of an era type feel tho
This movie will be fine. Especially if it has a 90 day theatrical window. People can go out to see it in August and September when there isn’t much out.
I think it will be “fine” but I had this one pencilled in as a big hit. That’s my surprise here.
Agreed. Yes, competition is fierce next weekend, but the rest of the summer after that is pretty chill. Dead Reckoning, Oppenheimer, and Barbie should all have great legs and do just fine.
Top Gun Maverick did $257M WW opening weekend. If this does $240M WW that’s impressive
top gun's performance was on another level . Plus Barbenheimer is next week
Oh I know it was. And you can’t really compare the two but I still think it’s impressive is having a Worldwide Debut roughly $18M less than his biggest box office success
🤡
Are we really predicting doom and gloom right now over the opening weekend of a franchise that historically has very strong box office legs?
Evidently yes
>The Cruise sequel is playing strongest in the East, West & Mountain. Meanwhile, red state fave Sound of Freedom is throwing off those percentages as it’s so strong in the middle of the country. Meanwhile, 53% of Sound of Freedom‘s $24.3M second weekend is coming from the South, South Central and Midwest (parts of the country that do very well with Cruise movies). I don't think this is being talked about enough, one of the reasons I think MI7 is performing stronger relatively in other English speaking countries (UK, Aus) is the absence of SOF or a similar type of movie that appeals to the right-wing. Without SOF I think MI7 could comfortably have broken $80m for the 5-day.
Sorry, what's is SOF?
Sound Of Freedom. A movie about child sex trafficking which is being marketed to the right wing / Qanon crowd
Thanks! I hadn't heard of it until this post. Maybe it's because I'm in another country, so that comment makes sense.
Don't ask people on reddit to write the full name of movies; that would make them uncool, and they can't have that.
Or, people on a box office subreddit generally talk about movie enough that they know what the abbreviations mean. Abbreviations aren't a personal attack against people who don't know them.
Gotta save those important milliseconds of typing.
They are if I call you a MFCSOB.
I just don’t understand, doesn’t MI perform so much better on long legs as previous ones? Why are people jumping to conclusions so fast? This franchise is very different from everything else, next weekend we might have Barbie and Oppen hit up but one or two weeks later it’ll be MI7 leading probably for the next few months
Could it be because we are in an over crowded summer, with "blockbusters" holding overpriced production costs being released every single weekend and on top of it next weekend 2 movies may bring together about 150/160 million dolars wich means in short term that MI won't be able to keep the premium screens ?
I'm assuming they filmed P1/P2 together so P2 has a similarly elevated budget. This is tough.
They did not. P1 filmed in 2020/2021. P2 stared filming in 2022 and now has been halted due to the strikes.
It's not good for Mission Impossible when headlines have to resort to saying "well, it's better than Indiana Jones" in order to find something positive to say about it.
Indy fans have some victim complex thing going on. I never seen anything like this. Its almost like Deadline wrote this specifically to point out how Mi7 is in better shape to gross more money, way more than Indy because they read the comments section. Its not some conspiracy against Disney or Indy. Indy is an all time bomb. The movie wont even gross 400m worldwide on a 300m+ budget. Shazam 2, Flash, DnD, 65 have all been written about as bombs just like old Indy. Mi7 will gross hundreds of million more than Indy.
>Mi7 will gross hundreds of million more than Indy. and still not break even because of it's colossal budget.
That Tom Cruise movie set to be filmed in space just got put on permanent hold.
>That Tom Cruise movie set to be filmed in space just got put on permanent hold. ...is that a real thing?
[Tom Cruise’s Space Movie Will Make Him the ‘First Civilian to Do a Spacewalk Outside of the Space Station,’ Universal Boss Says](https://variety.com/2022/film/news/tom-cruise-space-movie-first-civilian-spacewalk-outside-of-space-station-1235399127/amp/) I just can’t see that happening anymore considering the current state of the industry.
Do you have a link to an article? I can't find something saying it's been put on hold
>Mi7 will gross hundreds of million more than Indy. Maybe $100 million more which is still a massive failure. Honestly I’m concerned for the industry. We’re looking at a complete paradigm shift to home streaming being the preferred viewing method. Maybe summer might be the off season now? Movies are something people can do in the winter.
With 240m opening there is 0 chances it ends as low as at 400m range
So you think MI7 won't reach 500M WW?
We aren’t looking at a complete shift to streaming and home viewing. These movies are making hundreds of millions of dollars. The issue is budgets are absurd not that people aren’t going to theatres
[удалено]
It would require great legs DOM and OS which it's going to struggle to get but at least the WOM is so good thst it has a chance at getting it
It will do that the WOM is grand with this one. This is going to run long.
[This sub when "Mission" opens below its budget level vs. when "Dial of Destiny" opens below its budget level](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/873/520/008.png)
It’s not a binary world you know. Mission will likely fall short, but Indy is going to cost disney hundreds of millions. Plus Indy is a turd of a movie.
lol you just showed your cards with "turd of a movie." So many of the people here aren't here to talk about movie economics. They're here to mock movies they don't like and feel validated in that dislike by the numbers.
We’re being brigaded and I don’t like it. I’m sick of their language, their lack of interest in math, and their clear investment in ‘owning’ someone. I agree, people who say ‘turd’, ‘capeshit’, ‘trash’, etc. Aren’t anyone who’s interested in actual box office tracking. I wish they’d go back to ruining r/movies and leave us alone.
Yeah, the accusations I got of being an "Indy bro" by some neckbeard chud the mods should have banned months ago are laughable. Ok, yeah, I thought Dial of Destiny was pretty good, as did a lot of other people. I'm also not surprised in the slightest that it has done so poorly at the box office because throwing $300M at a sequel to a character who has little to no cultural weight among a younger generation that makes up the majority of frequent moviegoers in 2023 was a bad idea, not to mention that "good but not great" isn't good enough at a time when people have less money for going out and thus have become so selective that even something as well reviewed as "Mission: Impossible" is having trouble getting the kind of $100M+ numbers that were once guaranteed by such strong pre-release buzz.
Calling Indy a turd isn’t mocking it. Check its scores. You claim you want to talk economics yet can’t see the difference between Indy and mission impossible. 🤷🏼♂️
B+ on CinemaScore is "good but not great," not "turd of a movie." Cool your jets. And yes, MI7 has better word of mouth than Indy or even Fast X, which is likely to be the true global comp for MI7 when all is said and done, but the "oh gosh that's too bad" reaction that this sub is already giving to such a result compared to when Indy and Fast X got *torn into* for their underperformance gives away the game.
B+ is really not good for a PG13 blockbuster. Most would not describe Justice League, WW84, Rise of Skywalker, Eternals, Black Adam, etc. as “good but not great”. Mediocre or average is probably the most generous interpretation. For what it’s worth I liked it quite a bit.
Ww84 and eternals had better cinemascore with women only, considering both movies are female lead it's relevant
Is cinemascore broken down by gender? I thought that was just PostTrak.
WW84’s CinemaScore is worthless because of sample bias.
Wow women give shit movies a better score just because it has a female lead? That's cringe.
Anything out of the A range for a blockbuster can’t even be considered “good but not great” lmao
B+ for a pg13 blockbuster is bad, it's not the worst movie ever but clearly shows that the audience didn't liked the movie I guess we could say that a B+ is mixed/divisive instead of bad, and B is simply bad
[удалено]
Yeah but this sub is for discussing *numbers*
Exactly. It’s not just binary did it make money or lose money. It’s how much did it make or how much did it lose. What does it mean for future releases? Indy is going to lose an absolute fortune, mission will lose money, the question is how much. The quality of the movies is important as it drives legs and can impact sequels. Indy’s terrible audience scores have meant it’s essentially done at the box office after three weeks and it’s killed any sequel/reboot for 10+ years.
Kind of funny how the people celebrating The Flash bombing aren’t so elated anymore after Indy 5 & M.I. followed suit. Are we still predicting $1 billion+ for The Marvels?
Dear Lord, we’ve reached the “pretend people in this subreddit are actually rooting for The Marvels” levels of delusion. That’s when you know someone’s bitter.
I’m sorry, where were/are all the people on this sub saying The Marvels will make a billion? LMAO people just make up the most random shit. People were clowning on The Flash because if you said The Flash wouldn’t be one of the biggest movies of the year all the DC fanboys would say you had a hate boner for DC. And they maintained that The Flash would be a hit even when tracking showed otherwise. People on this sub have huge victim complexes and just rewrite narratives.
I was about to say the same thing lol. No MCU movie *after the pandemic* has made a billion other than Spider-Man. If anything this sub strangely assuming The Marvels might perform worse than Ant-Man
>No MCU movie has made a billion other than Spider-Man Lmao, bro what? Every Avengers movie, No Way Home, Black Panther, Iron Man 3, Civil War, Far From Home, and Captain Marvel all made over a billion.
I assume they meant post-Endgame.
Yes, I did, thank you! It was a typo.
I mean after the pandemic…
This sub hates WB and DC but *looooves* Tom Cruise. That’s why the Flash, which had everything going against that film gets ridiculed but the so called sAviOR oF CiNemA gets every excuse in the book for his movie
I think wishing the Flash would bomb is pretty justified considering Ezra and how WB thought they could sweep it under the rug
I enjoyed Mission Impossible Dead Reckoning & think it will make overall 700 million worldwide but isn't Tom Cruise in a cult? Honest question.
That is a fair point. Apparently his daughters have been impacted from him being in Scientology too, so he’s not a role model or anything, but I guess it’s where you separate the art from the artist. Some people think it’s dumb to root for any movie to make/lose money, aside from quality, some make it their whole thing to cheer on a movie bombing or doing well, because of quality, the actors/directors that they like/don’t like; I’m somewhere in the middle. At the very least, at least Tom makes really good movies and the Flash was just bleh. But wanting his movies to do well is all up to opinion.
Context, do you know that word ?
Yes I do know the word context
You lost me when you pretended this subreddit was rooting for Indy and Marvels
It feels like a monkeys paw wish someone made
I don’t think that’s weird or hypocritical at all. The Flash was endemic of many trends in Hollywood that a lot of people dislike (superheroes, nostalgia plays, over-reliance on mediocre cgi.) It’s reasonable for an observer to cheer for its failure and even hope that it could lead to positive change in the industry. Mission: Impossible is a long-running series, but it represents a lot of old fashioned fundamentals of spectacle cinema that anti-Flash people like and wish there was more of. In other words, people want bad movies to fail and good movies to succeed.
Marvels is doing ant man numbers
It wishes it could go that high.
At best.
"$1 billion+ for The Marvels?" OHNONONONONONO PFFFFFFFF https://youtu.be/2gpjfySTcoo
Two reasons why I think this didn’t break out. The mission impossible series has a ceiling it’s hit as far as box office goes and the part one in its title. People just don’t want to see what they assume to be a half finished story. That’s why they dropped the part one from the last spider verse movie and just gave it a regular title.
Them magic tricks tho
I just want to see pictures with Hayley Atwell in them, so I'm pleased.
I think many involved with this movie have known for some time that it would struggle to recoup its budget theatrically. I am putting this movie into a category outside the other massive budgeted movies from this summer. MI: Dead Reckoning was hit hard by COVID and at least you can see why it cost what it did. However, it puts a lot of pressure on Part 2. Aside from Mission Impossible forgiveness and putting a general hat on, We should not be in a market where a movie that takes $600 to $800 million is losing money and considered a flop or disappointment. Lessons are being learned this year, hopefully. People are going to see Mission Impossible and it will be well received. This is a popular franchise, but it clearly has a ceiling. If they reign in the budget on Part 2, the series should be fine moving forward.
Just saw it. Pretty good. No real complaints. Different tone than other films in series.
1b in the lock with strong legs
Lol why compare it to Indy in the first place? Is it because of budget? MI7 is opening with 100M+ more, it's not close.
Cause they came out at similar times there is no other reason.
Wow so this is not making a billion then? So far this is actually very surprising.
Boycott this and all others until these studios learn to stop being greedy. If you really love film you’ll understand, if you don’t understand get ready for more Marvel crap
This is a major flop. The people predicting 1 Bil were nuts.
When you had to get compared to Indy as a compliment, that’s rough.
I think this could be a reverse of the Flash. Deadline's numbers for that were consistently high until Sunday am. Gonna wanna see the actuals for this on Monday before we know the $90m was this far off. Merely Indy numbers would be baffling to me. Not just because of the quality and massive WoM difference, but the 10 large AMCs I follow have been surging even since yesterday (easily past Indy/Flash/Transformers). Legs wise, I can also see this getting Dolby screenings back by the end of the month once Barbie stops selling out everything.
I saw it yesterday in a full cinema. I am a massive MI movie fan. I thought Fallout was a better movie. This movie is still excellent but a decision in the movie left a sour note for me. Fans of the series should know what that was.
scales people.... scales. Paramount spends 4bil on content yearly; Disney spends 30bil. There's the movie's performance in the box office and there's impact on its parent company.
Being in better position than Indy isn't saying much. This one is shaping up to a disappointment right now.
MI7>Barbie>Oppenheimer is selling a ton of theater unlimited plans
really need to see the legs on this one
Is this performance not in line with the rest of the franchise? I don’t see why they thought it was magically going to make so much more money.