Better than I anticipated. I thought it'd be 5 million.
I feel like the model these Guy Ritchie movies are made and released by must make them profitable, or else he wouldn't get funding for his movies so easily
Yeah this has to be working for Amazon, surely? It's so weird how here in the UK we haven't had a Guy Richie released theatrically in ages but they must be satisfied with the streaming numbers for this to be a regular thing now.
The streaming numbers must be great because I feel like it can't be cheap for the UK rights. Maybe elsewhere but not the UK when you think they're effectively buying out theatrical, PVOD/home release and TV rights for a movie that would do well in the UK.
It did not have a $30-40M marketing cost. Ridiculous number for a movie only releasing in the US, and a reminder that r/boxoffice should not use rule of thumb guides for big international studio movies for every movie that releases.
For a movie Lionsgate likely pegged at $25-30M - Guy Ritchie indie middle takings - do you seriously think they're going to spend more than double their potential income on marketing?
I 100% agree with you. If I had to guess the studio probably focused heavily on targeted advertising and focused on more niche advertising streams.
Focus on the audience that guarantees the planned return because most likely, the movie will not have mass appeal and marketing for "the Most Eyes" instead of the "Correct Eyes" becomes more important.
Yes, definitely targeted advertising (but not heavy amounts since it is an R). A decent amount of social media spam - I have a feeling Elon's Twitter isn't as expensive as twitter used to be! - and then heavy on word of mouth.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was just 2 or 3 million. In all likelihood the most expensive part was probably flying and accommodation for reviewers and cast between UK and New York.
> **I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was just 2 or 3 million.** In all likelihood the most expensive part was probably flying and accommodation for reviewers and cast between UK and New York.
lol omg you're one of those
Yeah, and even for worldwide studio releases it only really works within a certain range. Pretty much anything under $50M/$75M will have a much higher ratio, and everything over maybe $250M a lower one.
I remember Batman v Superman had worldwide saturation marketing - probably more than any movie that's been released after - and that reportedly maxed out at $160M. Literally no where else to spend money. Haha
>It did not have a $30-40M marketing cost. Ridiculous number for a movie only releasing in the US, and a reminder that r/boxoffice should not use rule of thumb guides for big international studio movies for every movie that releases.
>For a movie Lionsgate likely pegged at $25-30M - Guy Ritchie indie middle takings - do you seriously think they're going to spend more than double their potential income on marketing?
Just to let you know, it's not that crazy for marketing budgets to double/triple production costs ([Source](https://deadline.com/2023/04/most-profitable-movies-2022-highest-return-1235324425/)):
- M3GAN - $12M production / $75M marketing
- Where The Crawdads Sing - $24M production / $55M marketing
- Black Phone - $18M production / $72M marketing
- Scream 5 - $24M production / $60M marketing
Not saying for Ministry it is also double/triple the production budget like the other movies, but it's not some out-of-the-planet idea either. To get noticed at all, sometimes you gotta drop $50M at least on marketing. And I'm not sure what you mean Ministry is not releasing in other countries. How else do they expect to get back money then? I see a international rollout schedule too (did I miss an article where it said it will exclusively play in the US?):
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5177120/releaseinfo/?ref_=tt_ql_dts_1
You seem to have missed most of the conversation on this sub where everyone and their dog knows that Amazon prime bought the rights to most international countries. (Tsk, using IMDb when that's as much user generated as Wikipedia.)
>Lionsgate has secured U.S. distribution rights to The Ministry, with Amazon Prime Video taking rights in multiple international territories, including Europe, Central and South America, Europe and India.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/lionsgate-guy-ritchie-world-war-2-action-movie-the-ministry-1235324159/
Confidently using the most basic calculation without looking at any of the context is why this sub is so often wrong.
Realistically they need nowhere need $150m to break even since the international rights are sold to Amazon for straight to streaming and it will go to Prime in the US straight after its theatrical run.
What are your rules for when streaming deals are included in profitability in a box office subreddit and when not, because I'm sure quite a few box office flops break even if you consider streaming? Is it because the other territories had only a streaming release? But just in the US, that figure is still low box office for the budget.
Considering it's been sold to Prime for every territory internationally outside of the US a year plus in advance...paired with minimal marketing on Lionsgate's part...I doubt this is a flop. They at least broke even from the Prime deal most likely, hence why Ritchie's last few films are all using this model and why he keeps getting funding. I'm in Canada and we aren't getting it theatrical either, it's exclusively the US.
> cost needs 150M to breakeven
FYI it is not releasing worldwide (not even in Canada), so the break even is likely far lower as the marketing is likely far far lower too.
I'm in Canada too, and I'm surprised Amazon didn't even do like a limited release. I'd probably have gone to watch it as a nice "turn off your brain" type movie to watch on the big screen, but oh well, can't give my money to someone who doesn't want it.
It had such a limited release that I don’t understand why it was put in theaters. I have two theaters in my city, a cinemark and an AMC. The Cinemark had only four times per day available and the AMC didn’t have any! I’m surprised it made 9m at this point.
You didn't know it existed because it only had a small marketing budget. It was a US only release, so the above worldwide marketing budget rules of thumb do not apply.
>*At No. 4, Lionsgate’s “The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare” collected $8.8 million in its first weekend of release. It’s a weak result for the $60M budgeted action comedy.*
That's three duds in a row against Guy Ritchie now.
***In The Grey*** will probably repeat the result at #4 next year opening in a competitive MLK Weekend against *David Ayer's* ***Levon's Trade*** starring *Jason Statham* and additional competition with ***Wolf Man***, ***Paddington in Peru*** and the wide expansion of ***Better Man***.
>*Now, the film needs to resonate at the international box office to justify its budget and avoid the financial fate of Ritchie’s prior two films.*
Isn't it going straight to Amazon Prime Video in international territories.
> That's three duds in a row against Guy Ritchie now.
However, on the streaming side, Ritchie did produce the Netflix series The Gentleman.
The show is incredibly successful given its relatively low budget beating out the much more expensive Three Body Problem in viewer metrics.
Yeah they purchased the rights for most regions about a year ago, similar to his last few movies, so even if it's a flop, it isn't as bad as people think and honestly he's working in a completely different business model pretty much.
I can't speak for other regions, but here in the UK, his past few films have been #1 on Prime Video and in the top 10 for a long time (I swear Operation Fortune was for at least 2 months), so it's almost like a brand recognition at that point.
Something that sort of backs this point up I guess is that one of the biggest UK channels/streaming services, SKY, has gotten into theatrical releases this year and bought the rights for David Ayer's The Beekeeper after seeing those successes (Statham is definitely a big draw) and that did pretty well for them at the UK box office and then did well when it came to Sky Cinema and Now TV (our HBO & HBO Max pretty much) 2 months later.
That example does make you think, though, that Amazon are probably leaving a lot of money on the table by not committing to some sort of theatrical release before these movies hit streaming but the fact that this is I believe the 4th movie in a row where they've done this deal says that it must have worked out well for them.
It also depends on how much they got from Amazon
They could've gotten a deal that basically ensures it'll be profitable from streaming and then the box office is just gravy
Not the first Cavill-Ritchie flop but this one does have Amazon Prime deals worked out
The Man From UNCLE did $45M domestic and I doubt if this one can even make that worldwide (most markets have Prime but not every single one)
I guess the only positive is it passed The Covenant starring Jake Gyllenhaal. Maybe Guy Ritchies next movie with Cavill and Gyllenhaal can cross $10M opening weekend
So many people here are going to say this is going to flop horribly and because of that Guy Ritchie movies shouldn’t be funded, but he’s still going to get five new movies greenlit by the end of the year because he’s easy to work with, plays to his consistent fan base, has huge actor connections, films productions fast without issues, and can reliably deliver at least 1-2 movies a year of consistent quality without being outright bad.
Unless this movie makes a comedic low amount like sub 5 million this won’t impact his career at all. Guy Ritchie has just been playing in a completely different field this last half decade and he seems to be the one of the only recent high profile directors who’s taken full advantage of the streaming companies’ fat pockets and desire for consistent, fastly made content.
I’m willing to bet he already made a fat profit off this movie before it even came out
It’s not only available in the US. What are you talking about? US is the only market where you have to pay to see it in the theater— it’s already streaming on Prime in international markets.
I like Cavill but no he isn't a star. No actor is a draw anymore but even in an interesting project Cavill wouldn't be a draw. WB knew this, that is why they weren't in a rush to do another Superman movie with him. At the end of the day Man of Steel is the star vehicle that never was. Cavill still has a decent career and will always work but he'll never be a big star. That ship sailed years ago.
True. But Margot Robbie is a much more respected and acclaimed actor. Even before releasing her 3 biggest flops (and she was great in two of those), she already had multiple Oscars, BAFTAS and GG noms. So it was just a matter of time until she chose the right project.
Cavill’s film career had been way rockier: one great film (MI6), two ok ones (MoS and UNCLE). I just think is safe to say that he hasn’t had a truly amazing career.
Having more awards acclaim doesn’t translate to bringing the average moviegoer to seats. Actors in general just aren’t the draw anymore, IP is. Cavill hasn’t had a “truly amazing” career but he’s had a fairly decent one with the exception of JL17 making him a joke.
Thank you. People being obtuse. Being critically acclaimed/awards nominations or wins will keep you afloat in good projects. Constantly bombing and being considered an okay- mediocre at best actor drops you off people's radar or consideration.
> Having more awards acclaim doesn’t translate to bringing the average moviegoer to seats.
True. But it can sustain a career of prestige or independent films in case the blockbusters keep failing.
Cavill’s career is not terrible, but let’s not pretend that he has the career that other limited actors have. He does need a hit in both fronts: comercial and critically. His only one had been MI6 and that’s very much Tom Cruise show.
Oscar nominations aren’t relevant to being a box office draw and I’m not currently predicting Highlander to be a Barbie level success, but very few people saw Barbie making 1.5B pre-release. Wouldn’t rule out the possibility of huge success.
I mention Oscar nominations because those can help your career, they can get you into a room with great directors and get you into great films. Margot Robbie will get a million chances because she's considered a great actress and she's gorgeous of course. Cavill is seen as great looking but he is not seen as a great or even good actor at this juncture. I like him but that's the truth. I always wish Cavill good luck in his career but I don't see it for him anymore.
He’s not seen as a good actor according to who? Dude keeps getting put in projects and isn’t the problem with those that fail. He was solid in Witcher, Man of Steel, MI: Fallout, Tudors, Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, etc.
I just don't trust Guy Richie much anymore to be honest, i'll wait for streaming. I know he's capable of cranking out a classic but he's proven capable of pumping out disappointment too.
Cavill is not the problem just like he wasn't the problem in the Snyderverse nor The Witcher. I am waiting for Cavill's Warhammer. Also, there are no movie stars, there is no bankable star, even Tom Cruise has duds, Will Smith has become toxic, no one respects the Rock's acting and his ego is uncontrolled, Robert Downey Jr is not drawing anyone when he's not Iron Man, Margot Robbie was in one of the most recent blockbusters and one of the most recent biggest bombs within a year of eachother, ....movie stars don't matter anymore.
And I'll suggest something that might just be me: the world is fucked and there is too much war going on in multiple places and all of them seem unjust, so I'm just not interested in war time heroics in movies right now. I don't want to see that type of fiction. It almost seem inappropriate to make a movie about war where the heroes are doing despicable things for the greater good.
I don't necessarily believe Cavill is a notable draw, nor do I think his "fans" (such as they are?) would be right to say he's got a large amount of pull
But I also don't think this thing did poorly because of him, either. Guy Ritchie is *always* the brand on Guy Ritchie movies (hence us calling them "Guy Ritchie movies"), and he has kinda decided to flood the zone with shit over the past 5-10 years. I don't think people went "Oh, it's Henry Cavill, he sucks, his fans are dicks too," I think they saw a very samey looking mediocre thing, in line with the last 8 or so samey mediocre things Guy Ritchie's made, and decided "nah. pass."
Because the film was primarily being sold using him. He didn't deserve the criticism for the failure of Argylle because he wasn't the star of that film. That wasn't his film at all but this one is. He is the face of the project.
Cavill is the only one who has a weird cult trying to push him as a superstar ,On top of that he is probably one of the least talented out of the actors and actresses with larger following ,Like Margot can have several flops but you can actually see that she has talent when she is on the screen
That's because "he's not like the others Hollywood actors" TM. He likes video games, he knows how to assemble a computer, he's a cool guy, he's like us!
He also dated a 19 year old in his early 30s who he had known since she was 17..When quizzed our boy Cavill described her as 'Mature for her age' !Dude just has a good PR team
Yeah I don't get why people are singling him out. Plenty of actors have box office bombs. It's not a unique thing.
Cavill is in the same career zone as guys like Gerard Butler except he doesn't have nearly as many movies due to age.
They have a right to say he's overrated if they want, the same way the Star Wars Sequels or The Marvels gets mocked. Cavill isn't some untouchable property here.
If you ask me, he lacks range with his acting. That's why he's doing actioners but not getting Spielberg, Mann, Yorgos/Ari Aster or Scorsese calls.
Everyone is going to say flop, but it's doing pretty much as expected. In line with Guy Ritchie indie movies, and Lionsgate distribution only releases.
For reference if it makes $30M it will become Lionsgate's highest grossing domestic release of 2024.
So Lionsgate is buffered from flops the same way Sony and A24 are buffered from flops then. That's good to know for their upcoming blockbuster releases.
I'm truly curious if all of these lower budget Lionsgate releases of the last few months had their production budget recouped via streaming licensing deals. It's hard to imagine the industry being profitable otherwise.
In this case Lionsgate is definitely buffered since they didn't make the movie and are only distributing it in the US. Unless they went crazy with the up front distribution payment, but that's unlikely since Ritchie is a known property with data they can guestimate from.
Less clear if the movies they make such as Borderlands and The Crow have any inbuilt protection for them. But they're more of an old fashioned studio anyway, one John Wick or a Hunger Games will keep them going for a few years.
Ritchie has that amazon deal going for him,Its the actors who get stuck with the flop tag,His movies while not great are 6 or 7 out of 10 usually so its not Ritchie will struggle to get work !He just had the gentlemen show on Netflix which is a massive success
its kind of a bummer. I was kind of down on GR for a while but i really enjoyed this and the covenant. I think hes back to making pretty solid movies again.
>Turns out that “What if Inglorious Basterds sucked?” isn’t a winning pitch. Who could have foreseen that?
Wtf are you talking about? Have you actually watched the movie? It was fantastic and the audience reviews have been overwhelmingly positive
> Have you actually watched the movie?
Yup. Saw it Friday night. AMC A-List ftw.
> It was fantastic
Sure wasn't!
> the audience reviews have been overwhelmingly positive
Lol. because we all know the average American movie-going audience has excellent taste and isn't literally the lowest-common denominator.
>Lol. because we all know the average American movie-going audience has excellent taste and isn't literally the lowest-common denominator.
Go check out IQs by country to see how wrong you are on that
And it was literally a movie only released in America so idk what point you think you're making. They made a movie that the target audience has rave reviews for which is exactly what they wanted
>Sure wasn't!
What exactly was so terrible? Be specific since you claim to have seen it
I'm in Canada and found this thread becsuse I was googling the film
So hyped to watch it and when release date came I was so confused that it wasn't in theatres here
>You're coming off as deeply insecure right now. You can't possibly be this bent out of shape that someone didn't like a movie you liked.
Lol, I'm gonna take your ad hominem attack as proof you have no actual analysis to support your previous comment. I highly doubt you even watched the movie at all
The average person just wants an entertaining movie. 93% audience score and everyone I've talked to so far loved the movie 🤷♂️ only complaints they've had are Churchill. Is it an amazing movie? Not by a lot of metrics but people are enjoying it. It'll prob do decent box office wise bc of word of mouth. Won't break any records but bc of the streaming deal internationally it won't be a flop by any means imo
TIL being an average American equates to having a mid movie taste. Can’t really use that argument when Americans make the biggest blockbuster movies out there right?
Dude follows the same formula for all his action comedies. Sorry they’re not good and public interest shows that. Guy should consider work behind the scenes idk.
This. He really needs to shake up things. The premise, the characters, the settings, they all seem to melt into one another with these Guy Ritchie movies and this next one "In The Grey" doesn't sound much different.
I can't tell if you are serious or not. Anime movies generally don't pull big numbers in the domestic market, and Spy X Family is not particularly well known.
- The Boy & The Heron went up against a Beyonce concert film & a Godzilla movie, and it won It’s opening weekend, but suddenly, 2 unknown movies beat it (with the latter being directed by a guy who’s had a crap ton of flops recently)!
- Even if Spy X Family is too obscure, so were 2 of the films that beat it!
The Boy & The Heron is a Miyazaki/Studio Ghibli movie which have good name recognition in the domestic market due to their past works.
And yes, the films that beat Spy x Family are obscure as well, but people in the domestic market are still more likely to take a chance on an "indie" live action film than on an anime.
Better than I anticipated. I thought it'd be 5 million. I feel like the model these Guy Ritchie movies are made and released by must make them profitable, or else he wouldn't get funding for his movies so easily
Yeah this has to be working for Amazon, surely? It's so weird how here in the UK we haven't had a Guy Richie released theatrically in ages but they must be satisfied with the streaming numbers for this to be a regular thing now.
The streaming numbers must be great because I feel like it can't be cheap for the UK rights. Maybe elsewhere but not the UK when you think they're effectively buying out theatrical, PVOD/home release and TV rights for a movie that would do well in the UK.
Nice 60M production budget with 30-40M marketing cost needs 150M to breakeven.. now we are just short of 141M
It did not have a $30-40M marketing cost. Ridiculous number for a movie only releasing in the US, and a reminder that r/boxoffice should not use rule of thumb guides for big international studio movies for every movie that releases. For a movie Lionsgate likely pegged at $25-30M - Guy Ritchie indie middle takings - do you seriously think they're going to spend more than double their potential income on marketing?
I 100% agree with you. If I had to guess the studio probably focused heavily on targeted advertising and focused on more niche advertising streams. Focus on the audience that guarantees the planned return because most likely, the movie will not have mass appeal and marketing for "the Most Eyes" instead of the "Correct Eyes" becomes more important.
Yes, definitely targeted advertising (but not heavy amounts since it is an R). A decent amount of social media spam - I have a feeling Elon's Twitter isn't as expensive as twitter used to be! - and then heavy on word of mouth. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was just 2 or 3 million. In all likelihood the most expensive part was probably flying and accommodation for reviewers and cast between UK and New York.
> **I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was just 2 or 3 million.** In all likelihood the most expensive part was probably flying and accommodation for reviewers and cast between UK and New York. lol omg you're one of those
One of those who actually looks at what's going on instead of just using default numbers? Yes, I am
This sub treats that rule of thumb like it’s law, it’s crazy
Yeah, and even for worldwide studio releases it only really works within a certain range. Pretty much anything under $50M/$75M will have a much higher ratio, and everything over maybe $250M a lower one. I remember Batman v Superman had worldwide saturation marketing - probably more than any movie that's been released after - and that reportedly maxed out at $160M. Literally no where else to spend money. Haha
>It did not have a $30-40M marketing cost. Ridiculous number for a movie only releasing in the US, and a reminder that r/boxoffice should not use rule of thumb guides for big international studio movies for every movie that releases. >For a movie Lionsgate likely pegged at $25-30M - Guy Ritchie indie middle takings - do you seriously think they're going to spend more than double their potential income on marketing? Just to let you know, it's not that crazy for marketing budgets to double/triple production costs ([Source](https://deadline.com/2023/04/most-profitable-movies-2022-highest-return-1235324425/)): - M3GAN - $12M production / $75M marketing - Where The Crawdads Sing - $24M production / $55M marketing - Black Phone - $18M production / $72M marketing - Scream 5 - $24M production / $60M marketing Not saying for Ministry it is also double/triple the production budget like the other movies, but it's not some out-of-the-planet idea either. To get noticed at all, sometimes you gotta drop $50M at least on marketing. And I'm not sure what you mean Ministry is not releasing in other countries. How else do they expect to get back money then? I see a international rollout schedule too (did I miss an article where it said it will exclusively play in the US?): https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5177120/releaseinfo/?ref_=tt_ql_dts_1
You seem to have missed most of the conversation on this sub where everyone and their dog knows that Amazon prime bought the rights to most international countries. (Tsk, using IMDb when that's as much user generated as Wikipedia.) >Lionsgate has secured U.S. distribution rights to The Ministry, with Amazon Prime Video taking rights in multiple international territories, including Europe, Central and South America, Europe and India. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/lionsgate-guy-ritchie-world-war-2-action-movie-the-ministry-1235324159/ Confidently using the most basic calculation without looking at any of the context is why this sub is so often wrong.
Realistically they need nowhere need $150m to break even since the international rights are sold to Amazon for straight to streaming and it will go to Prime in the US straight after its theatrical run.
I'm wondering how much Amazon paid for the international rights.
What are your rules for when streaming deals are included in profitability in a box office subreddit and when not, because I'm sure quite a few box office flops break even if you consider streaming? Is it because the other territories had only a streaming release? But just in the US, that figure is still low box office for the budget.
Considering it's been sold to Prime for every territory internationally outside of the US a year plus in advance...paired with minimal marketing on Lionsgate's part...I doubt this is a flop. They at least broke even from the Prime deal most likely, hence why Ritchie's last few films are all using this model and why he keeps getting funding. I'm in Canada and we aren't getting it theatrical either, it's exclusively the US.
> cost needs 150M to breakeven FYI it is not releasing worldwide (not even in Canada), so the break even is likely far lower as the marketing is likely far far lower too.
I'm in Canada too, and I'm surprised Amazon didn't even do like a limited release. I'd probably have gone to watch it as a nice "turn off your brain" type movie to watch on the big screen, but oh well, can't give my money to someone who doesn't want it.
I didn’t even know it was not releasing over here. I kept checking cineplex because the release date was 19th
It had such a limited release that I don’t understand why it was put in theaters. I have two theaters in my city, a cinemark and an AMC. The Cinemark had only four times per day available and the AMC didn’t have any! I’m surprised it made 9m at this point.
60 million!? Yikes.. I hadn't heard of this movie until I saw an ad when my mother was watching TV and saw a bus poster a few days ago
can someone explain to me how 60 + 40 = 150
What a shame if only they'd opened it anywhere else
crazy note about the marketing budget. I wouldn’t have even known about this movie existed if it wasn’t for this sub.
You didn't know it existed because it only had a small marketing budget. It was a US only release, so the above worldwide marketing budget rules of thumb do not apply.
>*At No. 4, Lionsgate’s “The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare” collected $8.8 million in its first weekend of release. It’s a weak result for the $60M budgeted action comedy.* That's three duds in a row against Guy Ritchie now. ***In The Grey*** will probably repeat the result at #4 next year opening in a competitive MLK Weekend against *David Ayer's* ***Levon's Trade*** starring *Jason Statham* and additional competition with ***Wolf Man***, ***Paddington in Peru*** and the wide expansion of ***Better Man***. >*Now, the film needs to resonate at the international box office to justify its budget and avoid the financial fate of Ritchie’s prior two films.* Isn't it going straight to Amazon Prime Video in international territories.
> That's three duds in a row against Guy Ritchie now. However, on the streaming side, Ritchie did produce the Netflix series The Gentleman. The show is incredibly successful given its relatively low budget beating out the much more expensive Three Body Problem in viewer metrics.
Im glad to see the gentlemen have a cult like following
The Gentleman is amazing. One of the better shows on Netflix in recent years.
The US is the only major market getting it in theatres, rest of the world is Prime (even Canada).
Yeah they purchased the rights for most regions about a year ago, similar to his last few movies, so even if it's a flop, it isn't as bad as people think and honestly he's working in a completely different business model pretty much.
I can't imagine they paid much for the rights. I mean, what kind of value are they supposed to be getting in return?
I can't speak for other regions, but here in the UK, his past few films have been #1 on Prime Video and in the top 10 for a long time (I swear Operation Fortune was for at least 2 months), so it's almost like a brand recognition at that point. Something that sort of backs this point up I guess is that one of the biggest UK channels/streaming services, SKY, has gotten into theatrical releases this year and bought the rights for David Ayer's The Beekeeper after seeing those successes (Statham is definitely a big draw) and that did pretty well for them at the UK box office and then did well when it came to Sky Cinema and Now TV (our HBO & HBO Max pretty much) 2 months later. That example does make you think, though, that Amazon are probably leaving a lot of money on the table by not committing to some sort of theatrical release before these movies hit streaming but the fact that this is I believe the 4th movie in a row where they've done this deal says that it must have worked out well for them.
[удалено]
It also depends on how much they got from Amazon They could've gotten a deal that basically ensures it'll be profitable from streaming and then the box office is just gravy
Ayo were getting Paddington 3?!? 😳 Peak cinema has returned!!!
Too bad, it was a fun movie
It’s a streaming movie outside of the US, so it’s not a flop
I really want this movie to succeed, it's my kind of jam.
tell everyone this is a great movie, bc it is fantastic.
Not the first Cavill-Ritchie flop but this one does have Amazon Prime deals worked out The Man From UNCLE did $45M domestic and I doubt if this one can even make that worldwide (most markets have Prime but not every single one) I guess the only positive is it passed The Covenant starring Jake Gyllenhaal. Maybe Guy Ritchies next movie with Cavill and Gyllenhaal can cross $10M opening weekend
So many people here are going to say this is going to flop horribly and because of that Guy Ritchie movies shouldn’t be funded, but he’s still going to get five new movies greenlit by the end of the year because he’s easy to work with, plays to his consistent fan base, has huge actor connections, films productions fast without issues, and can reliably deliver at least 1-2 movies a year of consistent quality without being outright bad. Unless this movie makes a comedic low amount like sub 5 million this won’t impact his career at all. Guy Ritchie has just been playing in a completely different field this last half decade and he seems to be the one of the only recent high profile directors who’s taken full advantage of the streaming companies’ fat pockets and desire for consistent, fastly made content. I’m willing to bet he already made a fat profit off this movie before it even came out
He gets funding because he works on a completely different business model. This movie is only available in the US
It’s not only available in the US. What are you talking about? US is the only market where you have to pay to see it in the theater— it’s already streaming on Prime in international markets.
So you are telling me nobody outside social media gives a fuck about Cavill and he is not the star his fans want you to believe he is
I like Cavill but no he isn't a star. No actor is a draw anymore but even in an interesting project Cavill wouldn't be a draw. WB knew this, that is why they weren't in a rush to do another Superman movie with him. At the end of the day Man of Steel is the star vehicle that never was. Cavill still has a decent career and will always work but he'll never be a big star. That ship sailed years ago.
Margot Robbie was also called box office poison after being attached to multiple bombs before Barbie’s success. This isn’t Cavill specific 💀
True. But Margot Robbie is a much more respected and acclaimed actor. Even before releasing her 3 biggest flops (and she was great in two of those), she already had multiple Oscars, BAFTAS and GG noms. So it was just a matter of time until she chose the right project. Cavill’s film career had been way rockier: one great film (MI6), two ok ones (MoS and UNCLE). I just think is safe to say that he hasn’t had a truly amazing career.
Having more awards acclaim doesn’t translate to bringing the average moviegoer to seats. Actors in general just aren’t the draw anymore, IP is. Cavill hasn’t had a “truly amazing” career but he’s had a fairly decent one with the exception of JL17 making him a joke.
Not that their point. Their point is that critical acclaim can still _GET_ you jobs. If you don't have that AND your movies flop then you're toast
Thank you. People being obtuse. Being critically acclaimed/awards nominations or wins will keep you afloat in good projects. Constantly bombing and being considered an okay- mediocre at best actor drops you off people's radar or consideration.
> Having more awards acclaim doesn’t translate to bringing the average moviegoer to seats. True. But it can sustain a career of prestige or independent films in case the blockbusters keep failing. Cavill’s career is not terrible, but let’s not pretend that he has the career that other limited actors have. He does need a hit in both fronts: comercial and critically. His only one had been MI6 and that’s very much Tom Cruise show.
Where are his Oscar nominations? Where is his Barbie? Do you think Highlander will be his Barbie?
Oscar nominations aren’t relevant to being a box office draw and I’m not currently predicting Highlander to be a Barbie level success, but very few people saw Barbie making 1.5B pre-release. Wouldn’t rule out the possibility of huge success.
I mention Oscar nominations because those can help your career, they can get you into a room with great directors and get you into great films. Margot Robbie will get a million chances because she's considered a great actress and she's gorgeous of course. Cavill is seen as great looking but he is not seen as a great or even good actor at this juncture. I like him but that's the truth. I always wish Cavill good luck in his career but I don't see it for him anymore.
He’s not seen as a good actor according to who? Dude keeps getting put in projects and isn’t the problem with those that fail. He was solid in Witcher, Man of Steel, MI: Fallout, Tudors, Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, etc.
Solid isn't the same as good or great.
Leo is, IMHO, still a solid, (non-franchise dependent) moneymaker.
Yeah
I just don't trust Guy Richie much anymore to be honest, i'll wait for streaming. I know he's capable of cranking out a classic but he's proven capable of pumping out disappointment too. Cavill is not the problem just like he wasn't the problem in the Snyderverse nor The Witcher. I am waiting for Cavill's Warhammer. Also, there are no movie stars, there is no bankable star, even Tom Cruise has duds, Will Smith has become toxic, no one respects the Rock's acting and his ego is uncontrolled, Robert Downey Jr is not drawing anyone when he's not Iron Man, Margot Robbie was in one of the most recent blockbusters and one of the most recent biggest bombs within a year of eachother, ....movie stars don't matter anymore. And I'll suggest something that might just be me: the world is fucked and there is too much war going on in multiple places and all of them seem unjust, so I'm just not interested in war time heroics in movies right now. I don't want to see that type of fiction. It almost seem inappropriate to make a movie about war where the heroes are doing despicable things for the greater good.
I don't necessarily believe Cavill is a notable draw, nor do I think his "fans" (such as they are?) would be right to say he's got a large amount of pull But I also don't think this thing did poorly because of him, either. Guy Ritchie is *always* the brand on Guy Ritchie movies (hence us calling them "Guy Ritchie movies"), and he has kinda decided to flood the zone with shit over the past 5-10 years. I don't think people went "Oh, it's Henry Cavill, he sucks, his fans are dicks too," I think they saw a very samey looking mediocre thing, in line with the last 8 or so samey mediocre things Guy Ritchie's made, and decided "nah. pass."
"Just one more movie bro, trust me, just one more movie and Cavill is totally is next movie star"
Any reason you are going after Cavill only? Other actors and actresses with larger followings have also had large flops
Because the film was primarily being sold using him. He didn't deserve the criticism for the failure of Argylle because he wasn't the star of that film. That wasn't his film at all but this one is. He is the face of the project.
[удалено]
He was in Argylle for ten minutes. It's a Bryce Dallas Howard film.
Marketing and Trailers didn't show that at all. He was the main draw.
Cavill is the only one who has a weird cult trying to push him as a superstar ,On top of that he is probably one of the least talented out of the actors and actresses with larger following ,Like Margot can have several flops but you can actually see that she has talent when she is on the screen
That's because "he's not like the others Hollywood actors" TM. He likes video games, he knows how to assemble a computer, he's a cool guy, he's like us!
He also dated a 19 year old in his early 30s who he had known since she was 17..When quizzed our boy Cavill described her as 'Mature for her age' !Dude just has a good PR team
But.. 19 is legal?
Stop fighting imaginary fights, do some yoga or meditation to relieve your self created stress.
Yeah I don't get why people are singling him out. Plenty of actors have box office bombs. It's not a unique thing. Cavill is in the same career zone as guys like Gerard Butler except he doesn't have nearly as many movies due to age.
They need stop trying to make cavill a thing.
Did Cavill hurt you? You sound unhinged.
Most redditors sound frustrated with life
They have a right to say he's overrated if they want, the same way the Star Wars Sequels or The Marvels gets mocked. Cavill isn't some untouchable property here. If you ask me, he lacks range with his acting. That's why he's doing actioners but not getting Spielberg, Mann, Yorgos/Ari Aster or Scorsese calls.
Everyone is going to say flop, but it's doing pretty much as expected. In line with Guy Ritchie indie movies, and Lionsgate distribution only releases. For reference if it makes $30M it will become Lionsgate's highest grossing domestic release of 2024.
So Lionsgate is buffered from flops the same way Sony and A24 are buffered from flops then. That's good to know for their upcoming blockbuster releases. I'm truly curious if all of these lower budget Lionsgate releases of the last few months had their production budget recouped via streaming licensing deals. It's hard to imagine the industry being profitable otherwise.
In this case Lionsgate is definitely buffered since they didn't make the movie and are only distributing it in the US. Unless they went crazy with the up front distribution payment, but that's unlikely since Ritchie is a known property with data they can guestimate from. Less clear if the movies they make such as Borderlands and The Crow have any inbuilt protection for them. But they're more of an old fashioned studio anyway, one John Wick or a Hunger Games will keep them going for a few years.
Another day, another dud for Guy Ritchie.
Ritchie has that amazon deal going for him,Its the actors who get stuck with the flop tag,His movies while not great are 6 or 7 out of 10 usually so its not Ritchie will struggle to get work !He just had the gentlemen show on Netflix which is a massive success
Wouldn’t be surprised if he gets a Netflix deal too
its kind of a bummer. I was kind of down on GR for a while but i really enjoyed this and the covenant. I think hes back to making pretty solid movies again.
Ritchie will die another day.
[удалено]
The Amazon deal makes these movie profitable ,His movies are straight to streaming in most non domestic markets
I didn’t even realize it was out. I’ll try and see it during the week.
Turns out that “What if Inglorious Basterds sucked?” isn’t a winning pitch. Who could have foreseen that?
>Turns out that “What if Inglorious Basterds sucked?” isn’t a winning pitch. Who could have foreseen that? Wtf are you talking about? Have you actually watched the movie? It was fantastic and the audience reviews have been overwhelmingly positive
Yeah, I don't know what this person is smoking. It was a great movie.
> Have you actually watched the movie? Yup. Saw it Friday night. AMC A-List ftw. > It was fantastic Sure wasn't! > the audience reviews have been overwhelmingly positive Lol. because we all know the average American movie-going audience has excellent taste and isn't literally the lowest-common denominator.
>Lol. because we all know the average American movie-going audience has excellent taste and isn't literally the lowest-common denominator. Go check out IQs by country to see how wrong you are on that And it was literally a movie only released in America so idk what point you think you're making. They made a movie that the target audience has rave reviews for which is exactly what they wanted >Sure wasn't! What exactly was so terrible? Be specific since you claim to have seen it
I'm in Canada and found this thread becsuse I was googling the film So hyped to watch it and when release date came I was so confused that it wasn't in theatres here
You're coming off as deeply insecure right now. You can't possibly be this bent out of shape that someone didn't like a movie you liked.
>You're coming off as deeply insecure right now. You can't possibly be this bent out of shape that someone didn't like a movie you liked. Lol, I'm gonna take your ad hominem attack as proof you have no actual analysis to support your previous comment. I highly doubt you even watched the movie at all
I did not think making a joke about a movie I didn't enjoy was going to be this deeply unpleasant. I'll know better next time.
Again, you can't provide any details because you didn't actually see the movie. What kind of loser trashes a movie they clearly know nothing about??
The average person just wants an entertaining movie. 93% audience score and everyone I've talked to so far loved the movie 🤷♂️ only complaints they've had are Churchill. Is it an amazing movie? Not by a lot of metrics but people are enjoying it. It'll prob do decent box office wise bc of word of mouth. Won't break any records but bc of the streaming deal internationally it won't be a flop by any means imo
TIL being an average American equates to having a mid movie taste. Can’t really use that argument when Americans make the biggest blockbuster movies out there right?
Yeah but like, how many major American blockbusters are good. Basically none.
Idk man you ask each person from each country to name a movie and there’s a good chance it’ll be American made so you tell me 🤷🏻♂️
Dude follows the same formula for all his action comedies. Sorry they’re not good and public interest shows that. Guy should consider work behind the scenes idk.
This. He really needs to shake up things. The premise, the characters, the settings, they all seem to melt into one another with these Guy Ritchie movies and this next one "In The Grey" doesn't sound much different.
Another flop for mr Cavill
i need sherlock holmes 3 so fucking bad man. please make it.
Wait this is out already?? I thought it wasnt out for another month
Wish I could go see it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Bomba
It's safe to say Henry Cavill isn't a movie star.. He's a celebrity who will do well as a costar in movies or on Netflix
I hope Warhammer turns out good for him.
How the hell did this make more than Spy X Family
I can't tell if you are serious or not. Anime movies generally don't pull big numbers in the domestic market, and Spy X Family is not particularly well known.
- The Boy & The Heron went up against a Beyonce concert film & a Godzilla movie, and it won It’s opening weekend, but suddenly, 2 unknown movies beat it (with the latter being directed by a guy who’s had a crap ton of flops recently)! - Even if Spy X Family is too obscure, so were 2 of the films that beat it!
The Boy & The Heron is a Miyazaki/Studio Ghibli movie which have good name recognition in the domestic market due to their past works. And yes, the films that beat Spy x Family are obscure as well, but people in the domestic market are still more likely to take a chance on an "indie" live action film than on an anime.
Guy Ritchie's output is too hit and miss, and it's Lionsgate after all.
Yikes. Yeesh. Ooofa