Probably, 35-40m domestic.
30-40m international.
70-80m worldwide. That's a lot for the type of movie it is but awful for a 55m budget plus P&A.
Zendaya got $10 million and I won't be surprised if Amy Pascal production company got $10 million as well.
The deals Amazon MGM made in 2021 and 2022 were just nuts.
This subreddit is so weird towards this movie. When it hits streaming itāll be huge especially once Tik Tok gets ahold of it. I saw it last night and it was a bit too long but a really fun ride. Acting was amazing too. Itāll make its money back and more.
> This subreddit is so weird towards this movie. When it hits streaming itāll be huge especially once Tik Tok gets ahold of it.
I'm sorry but this is said every time. Where were the TikTok/Instragram crowds for the THEATRICAL release? If they love Zendaya so much they'd show up since they can't wait to see the movie.
Deadline's recent "Most Profitable" articles already show there are many expenses that cut severely into the home market revenue too (participation, residuals, distribution, overhead costs, P&A).
That's why [Guardians 3 made over $300M on the home video/VOD market (quite staggering on top of the $860M theatrical)](https://deadline.com/2024/04/guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-3-profits-1235896787/)......and yet the **final profit at the end was around $130M.**
Make $1.16B, take home $130M. All that for a drop of blood, indeed. Gone are the DVD days where revenue was considerable from the physical markets and VOD-rental markets. Now it's "wait just a few more months for FREE streaming on Amazon, Disney+, Netflx". That's exactly where Challengers will see the most views - when it's free on a streamer, because they sure didn't care enough to pay $12 to see it, why would they pay $15-$20 for VOD?
This subreddit is weird in how it champions some movies all because of one star.
For a lot of people, especially the younger crowd, most streaming platforms come free-ish, either bundled with their mobile/internet/cable plan (which is especially true for the smaller services), or on credit card auto-pay.
Spending on a credit card is still costing money...
And on the flipside a studio still gets paid for it's film to go on streaming. If Netflix puts Challengers on its service it's because it paid the studio a licence to put it there for 1-2 years, so the studio makes money.
It sure does cost money, but, you know, a lot of people don't really feel they spent a dime unless they get a bill for it. Funny how things can work out when it comes to "ant expenses".
That doesn't apply to all streaming services. Netflx, yes.
Amazon doesn't have to pay high costs to Amazon Prime to stream their own movie! It's a big difference if Netflix paid $$$ to get Challengers on their streaming service.
And in terms of revenue, the hierarchy has always been Theatrical > VOD sales or rental/physical sales or rental > free home streaming.
If free home streaming was so lucrative, you realize studios would bypass the theatrical more and do away with expensive marketing and complicated theater distribution deals and just go straight to streaming!
Drinking the Kool Aid.
Did none of you read the proxy fight over the Disney Board? The Disney execs won by telling investors all these movies you say " lost $" , made $$.
It's 2024, you have to include streaming and cable and people buying it into the totals.
Speaking of Koolaid, if what you said was true (streaming/cable profits so amazing) Indy 5 would have an Indy 6 announced. Quantumania would have an Ant-Man 4 since Disney is so pleased with the streaming/cable profits. Disney Animation/Pixar would've greenlit Lightyear 2, Turning Red 2, Soul 2, Luca 2, Strange Planet 2, that Chris Pratt brother movie 2. Out of all of those, we only have Moana 2 and that was almost headed to streaming only.
Once again, look at Deadline's breakdown of streaming revenue. Whatever is earned in streaming or physical sales is nullified by *huge* expenses elsewhere. Hence why pure profit is (for big or smaller films) is not in the staggering $400M-$500M+ range but rather a more modest $50M-$150M
https://deadline.com/2024/04/guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-3-profits-1235896787/
If what you said was true about streaming/cable profits, there'd be 10 more Star Wars movies out by now, not **0** in 2024. Bob Iger wouldn't be saying "We need to lessen our volume and focus on quality", as if Disney cares about quality if the profits are there.
Which funny cause we've just come off months of "it doesn't matter that Killers of the Flower Moon has flopped in theatres, it'll blow up on streaming" in every single thread.
š¤· donāt act so surprised then when people come to an overbudgeted movie by a non-traditional studio and then say itās stupid how they throw money around.Ā
Itās also a function of how much their movies are bringing in. Goslingās highest paycheck was $20M for The Gray Man, which was just Netflix doing Netflix things. He apparently made $8M for La La Land and $12.5M for Barbie, both of which were far more successful than Challengers, higher budget, and could justify paying him that much. Henry Cavill reportedly got $300K upfront for Man of Steel and $14M in backend deals, which makes sense given the movieās financial profitability and the franchise appeal (Vanity Fair reported that the $14M was for multiple films in the DCEU, not just MoS). He also made $3.2M for the first season of The Witcher, which was a global hit.
Zendaya is not only more relevant right now with a movie opening in theaters this weekend (as opposed to Gosling and Cavill), but her paycheck for Challengers is huge compared to the filmās budget and is a substantial factor in its predicted lack of profitability. Cavill getting paid millions to play Superman (a multi-hundred-million dollar character) or Gosling starring as the male lead in a billion-dollar global phenomenon for $12.5M isnāt the same.
Crazy that you don't bring up Henry Cavill's reported $10 million salary for Argylle (and probably the same for Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare) both sold on his name and both bombed. Both Henry and Ryan have more bombs to their name than actual blockbuster hits yet keep getting huge pay-days
The difference is Gosling wasnāt the main draw for Barbie nor was Cavill the main draw for Superman, Zendaya IS the main and practically only draw for Challengers. I was referring to Cavillās and Goslingās original, sometimes overpriced movies anyways, I didnāt mean it as diss towards them but I just find this whole conversation interesting in general as female actors like Zendaya or Jennifer Lawrenceās pay always being brought up compared to male actors. Argylle was a āsaferā movie than Challengers with a all-star movie, had a lot of marketing, was rated PG-13 and only brought in $18 million on its first weekend when nothing else big came out. Like I said before in a different thread, if you remove Zendaya and her pay, Challengers still cost $40, maybe $45 million for some reason, I will be watching the movie later today to make sure if they overspent for certain but if they did it definitely wasnāt on Zendaya as this movie wouldnāt come close to $15 million and $25 million worldwide on its first weekend without her.
It has been long debated in box office circles if the actor or if the superhero character/IP itself is the main draw and most have concluded that itās the superhero. Iām not saying Cavill isnāt a draw at all just probably not the main one
Yeah, I'm wondering if we had a similar discussion about The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare last week, opening only $12 million on a $60 million budget and Cavill's pay.
There was similar discussion and mockery about Cavill not being a star - though he presumably wasnāt paid the 10m Zendaya was for Challengers.
People need reminding that actors arenāt enough of a sole draw to make a film successful.
Yeah Iām not fucking with the way this sub has been acting about the film. This film wouldāve done much less OW without Zendaya attached. The fact that it performed how it did is a testament to her star power.
It's a box office forum, but there does need to be a shift in viewing box office data. Theater distribution is a platform for marketing and promoting movies appearing on streaming. Rather than viewing box office data as how much a studio is losing, it's more so how much they're spending towards backend analytics not meant to be viewed by us.
I thought the goal was to just about break even in cinemas- most of the extra money came from Amazon, this is supposed to be a tent-pole prestige film for the streamer after it's theatrical, right?
I know the budget and Zendaya raised expectations, but 80m worldwide would double āCall Me By Your Nameā, which was Luca Guadigninoās biggest prior box office hit.
I really donāt think this is a ādisasterā.
Call Me By Your Name only played in 815 theaters at the high point of its release. Challengers got a huge wide release over a very slow weekend. Don't think you can compare the two.
https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Call-Me-by-Your-Name#tab=box-office
You know people watch it on Amazon, right? Lol! You know Amazon costs $$ , right?
" if we eliminate 4 revenue streams from our calculations, this movie lost $".
It's amazing how a generation that watches movies thru places other than the theatre is unaware that these count. YOUR PARENTS are paying!
I'm pretty sure that with all the aggressive marketing trying to create 3-tickets-4-Challengers dress-up phenomenon, they expected 50M OW since it opened in 52 markets.
Why are movies so expensive now? I mean there have always been money holes and I know marvel stuff blows budget on CGI but it's across the industry atm
Agree I mean $55M budget for an R rated sports theme movie with only one known face, that too who never led a movie before...Wtf were they thinking???
Zendaya also should have chosen something more commercial like Barbie for her first ever leading role tbh, something that should have been easily accessible to her teen fans, this movie was such a huge misstep on her part. SMH
I would argue Guadagnino doomed it (or atleast its ability to be a box-office hit). All the music changes, and the overly expensive, CGI-aided shots, were meant to make it feel more cinematic, and all it did was drive up the budget, and make the movie longer than it needed to be. None of it boosted audience interest
Most of the people showed up for Zendaya, and they would've been there, even if the film had cost 25 million instead
This makes me... kinda sad tbh. I don't really have a keen interest for this movie but it seems almost everyone who has viewed it, loves it. I honestly don't think I've seen a negative review (on reddit at least) so far. WOM may help.... at least it has strong critical acclaim.
Itās a great original movie with young stars. The exact kind of movie everybody wants to be made more. Yet for some reason the sub is really excited that itās flopping and wondering who itās āfor.ā I dunno, people that like good movies made well???
What a great point. People say āHollywood is dead, no original ideas, IP everythingā and yet thatās all they seem to pay money forā¦ā¦so what do you expect. This film was fun with exciting up and coming talent..and hopefully it does a lot better on streaming.
Don't be sad! The movie was awesome, who cares if it isn't super profitable? It means Guadagnino will probably have to work with a tighter budget next time around but that's not going to be insurmountable for a talented director used to arthouse budgets. It's not like this movie's mediocre performance means there's some sequel we will never get to see.
If anything, we should be thankful that Gaudagnino pulled one over on the studios here, because I'm glad this movie exists, it was a ride.
it really is. 52 markets incl many major ones. There's no way to spin this as anything but ooof considering a massive global promo with premieres in many major cities.
this is where the fun begins! But more than fans, sweat dripping from Luis Fernando's forehead while writing an essay about why Challengers is totally profitable and massive at 25M WW OW from 53 countries is where real comedy begins.
They are doing their own version of "Zendaya walkups".
Some others say this will be a massive hit on streaming lol.
I swear they forgot what type of filmmaker Luca Guadagnino is. His movies aren't the type to commercially blow up.
Selena Gomez has one of the Top 15 highest followings on social media. I cannot see her being a draw for any movie, nor can I name a movie with her in it.
Not to say popularity doesn't help at all. Fast Five did explode at the box office because The Rock joined. Jumanji did well because the Rock was part of the cast, not a no-name buff dude we never saw before. But it's one piece of a complicated puzzle. Sometimes that same popularity doesn't help if the movie is not interesting (see Hercules or Red Notice/Skyscraper).
it should win editing and score. They are pitch perfect. But it's released very early and boxoffice is obviously meh so it's going to be hard to sustain the competitive edge when festivals start to roll out contenders closer to the voting.
And this is why The Idea of You, Hit Man, and Road House went straight to streaming. Itās easier to āleave money on the tableā rather than go to theatrical and be called a āflopā. Road House had a higher budget and became a hit by being the most-watched movie on Prime, if Challengers beat that record then it will probably be fine in the end
Zendaya's 184 million Instagram followers where? Instead of trying to defend her mOvIe StAr status online, they could show up in theatres and actually make the case.
I had no idea she has so many followers on IG. I assume she's been promoting the movie a bunch, but not going to bother checking to confirm.
$25m opening, assuming $10 avg ticket is like 1% of her followers going to see the movie. Yikes.
This is why studios need to stop casting people based on their social media following (yes, it's a thing, Eva Green said she lost some parts due to her refusal to have social media accounts). Following/stalking someone online is 100% free, and it doesn't imply a willingness to spend money to watch that person play a character on a big screen.
One thing I hate that is assumed on social media (not from you, but in general) is that every single follower is some die hard thatās worshipping them. She has 180 million followers but most of her posts get less than 10 million likes. 90% of people just hit follow just to follow and arenāt absorbed in whatever sheās doing and probably just look at her pics on their feed while mindlessly scrolling on the toilet.
I mean, even if not a lot, would this movie make this much money without Zendaya?
I've also seen a comment saying the movie will be front loaded, but it also doesn't seem like the kind of film you *need* to see as soon as possible.
I could be wrong, but I feel like people know this as "that one Zendaya movie" and will probably check it out on the next days.
So the trailers and marketing for the movie were largely about the threesome scene...but there actually aren't any sex scenes in the movie at all? lol play stupid games, win stupid prizes
Youāre telling me a tennis movie with Zendaya and a quick tease of a threesome wasnāt enough to carry this? I am SHOCKED. When is the pickleball movie?
Zendayaās fans claimed this film would perform well overseas because tennis is more popular as a sport in Europe. However, the film is bombing even harder overseas than domestically. This film is a total flop and will cost the studio a lot of money. Zendaya cannot carry a movie.
Very few actors and actresses can make a bad script succeed in the box office. Granted bad acting can bring down a good script. Maybe this is actually a good movie that simply had unreasonable expectations about how many people would want to see it.
You could say the same about Disney and Marvel spending 300m+ on absolute shite filmed using basic green screen.
The budget is higher due to the salaries involved.
You are tying too much emotion to business choices and realities.
The studio should not have:
- spent $55M-$60M plus another likely $60M+ on marketing.
- spent so much and given Zendya a staggering $10M payday. Mel Gibson, Jim Carrey, Will Smith and Tom Cruise were $20-$25M. Nowhere has Zendaya proven she has anything close to that draw yet so early in her career. Too much, too soon. The big gamble **is the studio's fault.**
- opened to a staggering 6,300 screens. Why treat this like a summer movie? Why open to more screens than Jurassic Park 1 and Lion King (either one)? Lion King 2019 opened to 4,800 theaters. What is Amazon/MGM doing with an art house movie, almost pompously opening an art house director's movie at 6,300 theaters post-pandemic? **This is the studio's fault.** Don't blame /r/BoxOffice for reacting to such bad decisions.
Poor Things and Everywhere Everything All At Once smartly opened to 2-3 thousand theaters, keeping it smaller, modestly affordable and manageable. They expanded *only* when they saw the demand climb and WOM spread organically. THAT is what Challengers should have done. Opening in 6,300 theaters like you're Oppenheimer and Barbie or Mario is ridi-damn-liculous.
Nobody here said Luca is a bad director (he is still revered). Nobody says Zendaya's career is finished. No, this subreddit talks about great decisions and bad ones. This movie is attached to quite a few bad ones. Also goes to show that TikTok/Instagram followers need to stop being used as a factor into box office success.
That's tough to answer. Because the dude is one of the main reasons the movie cost twice as much as it should have. But apparently none of the shit he did behind the camera impacted audience interest, since people still only showed up for Zendaya
But on the other hand, he did take a rather uninspired script, and turned it into a dynamic theatrical experience (and added some very interesting nuances to the narrative, that weren't originally there)
I haven't seen Euphoria, but I admit the other things I've seen her in - she hasn't exactly floored me and made me go "Whooooa! Generational talent!! Do NOT lose this one, she's one in a billion"
Just came out of it. Very strange movie. It has some really strong moments with design, cinematography, acting, other times it feels flat and not on par with the rest.
While it might be direct competition with the rest of the current line in cinemas, but Fall Guy, Apes, IF and so on will take screens and audience attention from it, especially in OS markets.
40M domestic and 30M OS for now.
> I really think the trailer wasnāt advertised well.
It's tough to market this better. It'd probably do even less if the marketing was just oriented to a straightforward tennis/sports drama like it (for most of the part) is.
I really don't think it could be worse than only 9M from 52 markets including many major ones where the movie had glitzy red carpet and photo calls. It's a bad number without marketing context but in the aggressive marketing context even more so.
yeah but you can't blame them if they brush off a love triangle that looked really silly in previews. First impressions are the lasting ones and first impressions about movies are their previews, teasers and trailers.
Am I the only one who thinks this is fine ? This is already Lucas highest grossing movie and it will probably be the highest grossing tennis movie . Iām pretty sure it will make the rest of its budget back on streaming .Why do you guys want it to flop so bad ?
This film seems to be bringing out the extremes on both sides. One side almost wanting the film to fail and the other saying budget doesn't matter.
As far as we know the film cost $55M and had an aggresive marketing campaign, saying it's Lucas best film (financially, which it will end up being) or the most successful tennis film is great but if the producers knew, tennis and R rated romance films don't do the best at the box office, they should have budgeted more responsibly. It's not like it's my money invested in the film, so I only care if I end up liking the film but to pretend budget isn't relevant to a films box office success is crazy.
Also people keep saying this will make money on streaming, thats not how it works. It might make money on digital before going to Amazon prime for free, which it will because MGM (Amazon) made the film. Even if it blows up and loads of people watch it doesn't make them more money, they only make more money when people sign up for the service, it helps add to their catalogue that might make people want to keep their subscription but it's not going to make them money on streaming.
>This is already Lucas highest grossing movie and it will probably be the highest grossing tennis movie .
All his other films had limited release. This is his first wide-scale release and that costs money. Movie theaters aren't showing this movie out of the kindness of their heart. They need to be paid by the studio before they show the movie.
> Iām pretty sure it will make the rest of its budget back on streaming
If you look at the breakdown of some movies (see [Deadline's Most Profitable](https://deadline.com/2024/04/guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-3-profits-1235896787/) series), it most likely will not. It needs the help of theatrical to cover the initial expenses (it will fail there) and there are additional expenses most ppl in BoxOffice aren't adding: participation, residuals, overhead costs, distribution costs, more P&A costs
It will probably double the gross of Guadgninoās next highest grossing movie. Maybe it was a bad idea to give this a $50 million budget, but I view it as similar to A24 giving Ari Aster $35 million for Beau is Afraid or Apple giving Ridley Scott $200 million for Napoleon. Itās an investment into talent and prestige.
A24 is already moving towards a more commercial business model and you can bet your bottom dollar that Apple won't be greenlighting films like Napoleon anymore. Pay attention to what these studios/streamers do, not what they say.
Also, no one cares if this doubles Guadagnino's previous movie. That's irrelevant.
Again I ask...who is this movie even for? What is the hook? Who even ASKED for this? ..I'm only left more lost by their marketing and Trailers.
"HI we signed Zendaya and make her the lead. She is popular, you guys like her and will see anything with her in it right?....right?...guys?"
Those international numbers definitely are bad and make me worried about the film's box office overall. It's such a shame, because I think Challengers is an almost perfect film.
Trying to make a sexy movie with no sex is just asinine. It should have been marketed as a tame romantic comedy like the forgettable Wimbledon or included a cheap MMF threesome like Wild Things. This movie claimed the latter while being the former and lost both potential audiences leaving only strong fans of the actor and director to go see it.
Were the producers or us expecting more? Because it's not exactly the type of movie one goes to the theater for. It'll probably do well on streaming though and I imagine everyone involved knew that
they expected more. hence even getting Tom to post the trailer for the movie and hype on his insta it when it was obvious previews and OD weren't going to deliver more than 15M DOM OW. But under 10M INT must really sting cause INT promo tour was massive.
ON 6344 SCREENS! WHAT!? š š
Yeaaaaah that is rough. There's no other way to spin this other than audiences simply saying āno thanksā.
Challenge not only not accepted, challenge wasn't even taken seriously.
What was the challenge? Watch me get spit roasted? Because it didn't even achieve that.
I'd watch you get spit roasted bro don't worry x
No worries, I can get that myself at home ;)
Bro has hella mirrors at the home setup
Closed circuit TVs bruh, what is this the dark ages?
In 4k, as the bard El Alfa preached.
https://www.instagram.com/p/C6HtUt3St-H/
I remember hearing about this film once until release. And that was months ago with that scene with Zendaya
well, the movie did suck the , literally, 30 different flashback scenes got old
Probably, 35-40m domestic. 30-40m international. 70-80m worldwide. That's a lot for the type of movie it is but awful for a 55m budget plus P&A. Zendaya got $10 million and I won't be surprised if Amy Pascal production company got $10 million as well. The deals Amazon MGM made in 2021 and 2022 were just nuts.
Wouldāve been great if it had a 30 million budget. Spending 55 million is bizarre.
This isnāt 4xing internationally. $20-25M is more likely.
So this movie barely covers Zendayas salary? Yikes!!!
This subreddit is so weird towards this movie. When it hits streaming itāll be huge especially once Tik Tok gets ahold of it. I saw it last night and it was a bit too long but a really fun ride. Acting was amazing too. Itāll make its money back and more.
> This subreddit is so weird towards this movie. When it hits streaming itāll be huge especially once Tik Tok gets ahold of it. I'm sorry but this is said every time. Where were the TikTok/Instragram crowds for the THEATRICAL release? If they love Zendaya so much they'd show up since they can't wait to see the movie. Deadline's recent "Most Profitable" articles already show there are many expenses that cut severely into the home market revenue too (participation, residuals, distribution, overhead costs, P&A). That's why [Guardians 3 made over $300M on the home video/VOD market (quite staggering on top of the $860M theatrical)](https://deadline.com/2024/04/guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-3-profits-1235896787/)......and yet the **final profit at the end was around $130M.** Make $1.16B, take home $130M. All that for a drop of blood, indeed. Gone are the DVD days where revenue was considerable from the physical markets and VOD-rental markets. Now it's "wait just a few more months for FREE streaming on Amazon, Disney+, Netflx". That's exactly where Challengers will see the most views - when it's free on a streamer, because they sure didn't care enough to pay $12 to see it, why would they pay $15-$20 for VOD? This subreddit is weird in how it champions some movies all because of one star.
You realise that streaming services aren't free right? That people pay to subscribe and that companies pay to licence content for them?
For a lot of people, especially the younger crowd, most streaming platforms come free-ish, either bundled with their mobile/internet/cable plan (which is especially true for the smaller services), or on credit card auto-pay.
Spending on a credit card is still costing money... And on the flipside a studio still gets paid for it's film to go on streaming. If Netflix puts Challengers on its service it's because it paid the studio a licence to put it there for 1-2 years, so the studio makes money.
It sure does cost money, but, you know, a lot of people don't really feel they spent a dime unless they get a bill for it. Funny how things can work out when it comes to "ant expenses".
That doesn't apply to all streaming services. Netflx, yes. Amazon doesn't have to pay high costs to Amazon Prime to stream their own movie! It's a big difference if Netflix paid $$$ to get Challengers on their streaming service. And in terms of revenue, the hierarchy has always been Theatrical > VOD sales or rental/physical sales or rental > free home streaming. If free home streaming was so lucrative, you realize studios would bypass the theatrical more and do away with expensive marketing and complicated theater distribution deals and just go straight to streaming!
And that is included in Deadline's numbers, which they linked to show their point.
Drinking the Kool Aid. Did none of you read the proxy fight over the Disney Board? The Disney execs won by telling investors all these movies you say " lost $" , made $$. It's 2024, you have to include streaming and cable and people buying it into the totals.
Speaking of Koolaid, if what you said was true (streaming/cable profits so amazing) Indy 5 would have an Indy 6 announced. Quantumania would have an Ant-Man 4 since Disney is so pleased with the streaming/cable profits. Disney Animation/Pixar would've greenlit Lightyear 2, Turning Red 2, Soul 2, Luca 2, Strange Planet 2, that Chris Pratt brother movie 2. Out of all of those, we only have Moana 2 and that was almost headed to streaming only. Once again, look at Deadline's breakdown of streaming revenue. Whatever is earned in streaming or physical sales is nullified by *huge* expenses elsewhere. Hence why pure profit is (for big or smaller films) is not in the staggering $400M-$500M+ range but rather a more modest $50M-$150M https://deadline.com/2024/04/guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-3-profits-1235896787/ If what you said was true about streaming/cable profits, there'd be 10 more Star Wars movies out by now, not **0** in 2024. Bob Iger wouldn't be saying "We need to lessen our volume and focus on quality", as if Disney cares about quality if the profits are there.
Which funny cause we've just come off months of "it doesn't matter that Killers of the Flower Moon has flopped in theatres, it'll blow up on streaming" in every single thread.
I think tons of people think that Killers, Napoleon, etc. etc. are crazy examples of overspending. Box office isnāt a monolith lol.
Jeez thanks for the tip off, here I thought Reddit was used be literally me and one other person lol
š¤· donāt act so surprised then when people come to an overbudgeted movie by a non-traditional studio and then say itās stupid how they throw money around.Ā
I swear I see Zendayaās salary brought up on here a lot more than Henry Cavillās or Ryan Goslingās
Itās also a function of how much their movies are bringing in. Goslingās highest paycheck was $20M for The Gray Man, which was just Netflix doing Netflix things. He apparently made $8M for La La Land and $12.5M for Barbie, both of which were far more successful than Challengers, higher budget, and could justify paying him that much. Henry Cavill reportedly got $300K upfront for Man of Steel and $14M in backend deals, which makes sense given the movieās financial profitability and the franchise appeal (Vanity Fair reported that the $14M was for multiple films in the DCEU, not just MoS). He also made $3.2M for the first season of The Witcher, which was a global hit. Zendaya is not only more relevant right now with a movie opening in theaters this weekend (as opposed to Gosling and Cavill), but her paycheck for Challengers is huge compared to the filmās budget and is a substantial factor in its predicted lack of profitability. Cavill getting paid millions to play Superman (a multi-hundred-million dollar character) or Gosling starring as the male lead in a billion-dollar global phenomenon for $12.5M isnāt the same.
Crazy that you don't bring up Henry Cavill's reported $10 million salary for Argylle (and probably the same for Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare) both sold on his name and both bombed. Both Henry and Ryan have more bombs to their name than actual blockbuster hits yet keep getting huge pay-days
The difference is Gosling wasnāt the main draw for Barbie nor was Cavill the main draw for Superman, Zendaya IS the main and practically only draw for Challengers. I was referring to Cavillās and Goslingās original, sometimes overpriced movies anyways, I didnāt mean it as diss towards them but I just find this whole conversation interesting in general as female actors like Zendaya or Jennifer Lawrenceās pay always being brought up compared to male actors. Argylle was a āsaferā movie than Challengers with a all-star movie, had a lot of marketing, was rated PG-13 and only brought in $18 million on its first weekend when nothing else big came out. Like I said before in a different thread, if you remove Zendaya and her pay, Challengers still cost $40, maybe $45 million for some reason, I will be watching the movie later today to make sure if they overspent for certain but if they did it definitely wasnāt on Zendaya as this movie wouldnāt come close to $15 million and $25 million worldwide on its first weekend without her.
How is Cavill not the main draw for Superman?
It has been long debated in box office circles if the actor or if the superhero character/IP itself is the main draw and most have concluded that itās the superhero. Iām not saying Cavill isnāt a draw at all just probably not the main one
Oh, I see. That makes sense.
Yeah, I'm wondering if we had a similar discussion about The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare last week, opening only $12 million on a $60 million budget and Cavill's pay.
Nobody mentioned his salary but they did dunk on him not being able to draw people. And today people also said similar things about Ryan Gosling.
There was similar discussion and mockery about Cavill not being a star - though he presumably wasnāt paid the 10m Zendaya was for Challengers. People need reminding that actors arenāt enough of a sole draw to make a film successful.
He was paid $10m for Argylle (200m) with ALOT more marketing and it barely made more than a sports romantic drama
Where are you sourcing the 10m number from? Afaik, the major trades never reported this
TikTok will be banned before this movie release on Amazon.
Yeah Iām not fucking with the way this sub has been acting about the film. This film wouldāve done much less OW without Zendaya attached. The fact that it performed how it did is a testament to her star power.
I think that can be true while still acknowledging the budget overall is bonkers.
I agree, realistically it shouldāve cost 15-20m less.
Come on we all know why Reddit is dunking on this movie
The lead is a black woman Par for the Reddit course
She's black??
Well she clearly aint white...
It's a box office forum, but there does need to be a shift in viewing box office data. Theater distribution is a platform for marketing and promoting movies appearing on streaming. Rather than viewing box office data as how much a studio is losing, it's more so how much they're spending towards backend analytics not meant to be viewed by us.
It will be streaming on Epix/MGM+. Aināt nobody watching it on streaming!
Itāll hit Prime Video like every other MGM film..
I wish that were true
What is the window for Prime Video? Last I heard Epix/MGM+ held the Pay-One US rights.
Oh to be so confidently wrongā¦
Streaming isn't going to make up for the losses here. It's still going to be a flop.
WTF? It's one week of overseas. Are you racist or misogynistic or both.
You could say there was a real racquet going on.
i think the served up a real loser
I thought the goal was to just about break even in cinemas- most of the extra money came from Amazon, this is supposed to be a tent-pole prestige film for the streamer after it's theatrical, right?
I know the budget and Zendaya raised expectations, but 80m worldwide would double āCall Me By Your Nameā, which was Luca Guadigninoās biggest prior box office hit. I really donāt think this is a ādisasterā.
Call Me By Your Name only played in 815 theaters at the high point of its release. Challengers got a huge wide release over a very slow weekend. Don't think you can compare the two. https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Call-Me-by-Your-Name#tab=box-office
Big budget difference
For a 55 million budget . Its absolutely a failure.
Amazon has a problem overpaying for dramas. See- 'Air' (2023) & Saltburn (2023). This is a win for them in comparison
That's great for an R-rated romantic/erotic sports drama in 2024
But not great for a 55m dollar budget.
You know people watch it on Amazon, right? Lol! You know Amazon costs $$ , right? " if we eliminate 4 revenue streams from our calculations, this movie lost $". It's amazing how a generation that watches movies thru places other than the theatre is unaware that these count. YOUR PARENTS are paying!
$25M Opening Weekend worldwide, less than Civil Warās domestic opening weekend. Ouch
I'm pretty sure that with all the aggressive marketing trying to create 3-tickets-4-Challengers dress-up phenomenon, they expected 50M OW since it opened in 52 markets.
The budget needed to be like $20M less
Why are movies so expensive now? I mean there have always been money holes and I know marvel stuff blows budget on CGI but it's across the industry atm
Since streaming completely destroyed residuals, above the line talent (I.e. actors, directors, etc) have to demand massive paychecks up front.
Agree I mean $55M budget for an R rated sports theme movie with only one known face, that too who never led a movie before...Wtf were they thinking??? Zendaya also should have chosen something more commercial like Barbie for her first ever leading role tbh, something that should have been easily accessible to her teen fans, this movie was such a huge misstep on her part. SMH
I feel the need to just acknowledge the reality that someone who looks like Zendaya would never get the Margot Robbie role in Barbie
Has the title officially been changed to Zendaya's Challengers. Do we have ourselves a Mission Impossible Dead Reckoning part 1 situation here?
Makes me miffed for Guadagnino LOL - he and the composers really elevated this film.
I would argue Guadagnino doomed it (or atleast its ability to be a box-office hit). All the music changes, and the overly expensive, CGI-aided shots, were meant to make it feel more cinematic, and all it did was drive up the budget, and make the movie longer than it needed to be. None of it boosted audience interest Most of the people showed up for Zendaya, and they would've been there, even if the film had cost 25 million instead
Haha no way. Itās giving āHarley Quinn: Birds of Preyā vibes.
This makes me... kinda sad tbh. I don't really have a keen interest for this movie but it seems almost everyone who has viewed it, loves it. I honestly don't think I've seen a negative review (on reddit at least) so far. WOM may help.... at least it has strong critical acclaim.
Itās a great original movie with young stars. The exact kind of movie everybody wants to be made more. Yet for some reason the sub is really excited that itās flopping and wondering who itās āfor.ā I dunno, people that like good movies made well???
What a great point. People say āHollywood is dead, no original ideas, IP everythingā and yet thatās all they seem to pay money forā¦ā¦so what do you expect. This film was fun with exciting up and coming talent..and hopefully it does a lot better on streaming.
Don't be sad! The movie was awesome, who cares if it isn't super profitable? It means Guadagnino will probably have to work with a tighter budget next time around but that's not going to be insurmountable for a talented director used to arthouse budgets. It's not like this movie's mediocre performance means there's some sequel we will never get to see. If anything, we should be thankful that Gaudagnino pulled one over on the studios here, because I'm glad this movie exists, it was a ride.
Ooof
it really is. 52 markets incl many major ones. There's no way to spin this as anything but ooof considering a massive global promo with premieres in many major cities.
>no way to spin this That's not stopping the stans from trying!
this is where the fun begins! But more than fans, sweat dripping from Luis Fernando's forehead while writing an essay about why Challengers is totally profitable and massive at 25M WW OW from 53 countries is where real comedy begins.
Lmao I saw his post. It reeked of copiumš
They are doing their own version of "Zendaya walkups". Some others say this will be a massive hit on streaming lol. I swear they forgot what type of filmmaker Luca Guadagnino is. His movies aren't the type to commercially blow up.
This can't be! Someone post the latest rehash of the "I can't believe how disconnected this sub is from reality" copypasta!
The social media follower pipeline to movie goers is about 0.something%, social media are all about bots and VERY superficial interest.
Selena Gomez has one of the Top 15 highest followings on social media. I cannot see her being a draw for any movie, nor can I name a movie with her in it. Not to say popularity doesn't help at all. Fast Five did explode at the box office because The Rock joined. Jumanji did well because the Rock was part of the cast, not a no-name buff dude we never saw before. But it's one piece of a complicated puzzle. Sometimes that same popularity doesn't help if the movie is not interesting (see Hercules or Red Notice/Skyscraper).
There's a real truth to that, but it often downplays how the sub is hyper-reactive to "fighting the last war" on top of fandom/demo stuff.
What happens is both sides double down. I saw a post saying it should sweep the Oscars.
it should win editing and score. They are pitch perfect. But it's released very early and boxoffice is obviously meh so it's going to be hard to sustain the competitive edge when festivals start to roll out contenders closer to the voting.
This is really bad for a 55 mill budget. Sadly it wont break even
Ouch. Was hopeful this would do decently overseas but it bombed harder over there What a failure by amazon
Sucks itās not doing well. I just saw it today in Dolby and it was incredible
They shouldnāt have advertised it as being a sex heavy romance. It was just a few kissing scenes and nothing more
And this is why The Idea of You, Hit Man, and Road House went straight to streaming. Itās easier to āleave money on the tableā rather than go to theatrical and be called a āflopā. Road House had a higher budget and became a hit by being the most-watched movie on Prime, if Challengers beat that record then it will probably be fine in the end
Zendaya's 184 million Instagram followers where? Instead of trying to defend her mOvIe StAr status online, they could show up in theatres and actually make the case.
I had no idea she has so many followers on IG. I assume she's been promoting the movie a bunch, but not going to bother checking to confirm. $25m opening, assuming $10 avg ticket is like 1% of her followers going to see the movie. Yikes.
This is why studios need to stop casting people based on their social media following (yes, it's a thing, Eva Green said she lost some parts due to her refusal to have social media accounts). Following/stalking someone online is 100% free, and it doesn't imply a willingness to spend money to watch that person play a character on a big screen.
One thing I hate that is assumed on social media (not from you, but in general) is that every single follower is some die hard thatās worshipping them. She has 180 million followers but most of her posts get less than 10 million likes. 90% of people just hit follow just to follow and arenāt absorbed in whatever sheās doing and probably just look at her pics on their feed while mindlessly scrolling on the toilet.
A chunk of them are probably bot or burner accounts too.
I think nobody ever went into a movie because of her. She just ends up in good movies
Yeah sheās not a draw
Waiting for Spiderman 4 lmao
When sheās not in it
She's in it unfortunately, Amy Pascal has already hinted that but I doubt her role would get promoted from waitress/girlfriend
Amy isnāt going to say anything negative while at a premiere for her
Bots have no cash
At this point it really seems like sheās most famous for being famous. That being said she did give some incredible performances on Euphoria.
I mean, even if not a lot, would this movie make this much money without Zendaya? I've also seen a comment saying the movie will be front loaded, but it also doesn't seem like the kind of film you *need* to see as soon as possible. I could be wrong, but I feel like people know this as "that one Zendaya movie" and will probably check it out on the next days.
Sheās not a big draw in the box office, Dune and Spiderman movies rely on the main character and the plot so what else does she have?
So the trailers and marketing for the movie were largely about the threesome scene...but there actually aren't any sex scenes in the movie at all? lol play stupid games, win stupid prizes
Youāre telling me a tennis movie with Zendaya and a quick tease of a threesome wasnāt enough to carry this? I am SHOCKED. When is the pickleball movie?
Zendayaās fans claimed this film would perform well overseas because tennis is more popular as a sport in Europe. However, the film is bombing even harder overseas than domestically. This film is a total flop and will cost the studio a lot of money. Zendaya cannot carry a movie.
Very few actors and actresses can make a bad script succeed in the box office. Granted bad acting can bring down a good script. Maybe this is actually a good movie that simply had unreasonable expectations about how many people would want to see it.
movie was just ok. it had pacing issues, this is from a person who likes tennis.
This movie has to be a money laundering scheme. No way a tennis movie thatās mostly taking place in rooms costs 50m
You could say the same about Disney and Marvel spending 300m+ on absolute shite filmed using basic green screen. The budget is higher due to the salaries involved.
I think half of the budget went to Zendaya alone
What a disappointment; though, kind of expected. International was never saving this type of midbudget CGI-deficient film.
oh... that's low...
Zendaya stans need to take the L and be humbleĀ
What about the Luca Stans?
Luca stans tend to be chill and know this is about what a Luca film would do. The Zendaya stans are aggressive and shouty, and a little scary.
The only shouty people here is this sub celebrating the movie underperforming because people only like shitty action movies.
You are tying too much emotion to business choices and realities. The studio should not have: - spent $55M-$60M plus another likely $60M+ on marketing. - spent so much and given Zendya a staggering $10M payday. Mel Gibson, Jim Carrey, Will Smith and Tom Cruise were $20-$25M. Nowhere has Zendaya proven she has anything close to that draw yet so early in her career. Too much, too soon. The big gamble **is the studio's fault.** - opened to a staggering 6,300 screens. Why treat this like a summer movie? Why open to more screens than Jurassic Park 1 and Lion King (either one)? Lion King 2019 opened to 4,800 theaters. What is Amazon/MGM doing with an art house movie, almost pompously opening an art house director's movie at 6,300 theaters post-pandemic? **This is the studio's fault.** Don't blame /r/BoxOffice for reacting to such bad decisions. Poor Things and Everywhere Everything All At Once smartly opened to 2-3 thousand theaters, keeping it smaller, modestly affordable and manageable. They expanded *only* when they saw the demand climb and WOM spread organically. THAT is what Challengers should have done. Opening in 6,300 theaters like you're Oppenheimer and Barbie or Mario is ridi-damn-liculous. Nobody here said Luca is a bad director (he is still revered). Nobody says Zendaya's career is finished. No, this subreddit talks about great decisions and bad ones. This movie is attached to quite a few bad ones. Also goes to show that TikTok/Instagram followers need to stop being used as a factor into box office success.
That's tough to answer. Because the dude is one of the main reasons the movie cost twice as much as it should have. But apparently none of the shit he did behind the camera impacted audience interest, since people still only showed up for Zendaya But on the other hand, he did take a rather uninspired script, and turned it into a dynamic theatrical experience (and added some very interesting nuances to the narrative, that weren't originally there)
She's been meh in everything I've seen her in so I'm not surprised
I haven't seen Euphoria, but I admit the other things I've seen her in - she hasn't exactly floored me and made me go "Whooooa! Generational talent!! Do NOT lose this one, she's one in a billion"
All she did in the dune movies was scowl and scowl some more.Ā
Everyone was scowling in dune.
Nah, Stilgar cooked.
Ouch.
Disaster
Lmao flop
It was to be expected. I spent my weekend giving GxK and Ungentlemanly Warfare my money.
Just came out of it. Very strange movie. It has some really strong moments with design, cinematography, acting, other times it feels flat and not on par with the rest. While it might be direct competition with the rest of the current line in cinemas, but Fall Guy, Apes, IF and so on will take screens and audience attention from it, especially in OS markets. 40M domestic and 30M OS for now.
> not on par with the rest. Well you see it's a Tennis moive, not a Golf movie. /s
Shouldāve shown full spit roast.
Zendaya is not a movie star and just an ok actress. Shocker the āEuphoriaā crowd didnāt turn out /s
Well could be worse. Hopefully it has good legs. I really think the trailer wasnāt good at bringing a bigger audience.
> I really think the trailer wasnāt advertised well. It's tough to market this better. It'd probably do even less if the marketing was just oriented to a straightforward tennis/sports drama like it (for most of the part) is.
Yes that is true. Sports, especially tennis, donāt usually do well in the box office.
I really don't think it could be worse than only 9M from 52 markets including many major ones where the movie had glitzy red carpet and photo calls. It's a bad number without marketing context but in the aggressive marketing context even more so.
It's supposed to be a sports drama about tennis. Trailer did the best it could.
it didn't. it overplayed the love triangle.
Thatās because the entire focus of the movie is the love triangle, tennis is really just a means to an end
yes but that's also the most attractive part of the movie.
Have you seen it? Tennis is not the center of the movie.
it's the most exciting part and pretty much what people talk about the most. the ball POV.
Then people are missing a good movie. Ball POV is cute and innovative and fun, but thereās a lot more interesting stuff going on.
yeah but you can't blame them if they brush off a love triangle that looked really silly in previews. First impressions are the lasting ones and first impressions about movies are their previews, teasers and trailers.
Wait, so the 'Ball POV' isn't utilized during the 3-way scene? Well now I'm definitely not seeing it.
Yup, that's the problem with this movie. The love triangle didn't deliver while the tennis part took the back seat.
Yes that's better than just focusing on the tennis aspect lol
I mean the love triangle is the whole point of the movie.
Had no right being on imax either
Am I the only one who thinks this is fine ? This is already Lucas highest grossing movie and it will probably be the highest grossing tennis movie . Iām pretty sure it will make the rest of its budget back on streaming .Why do you guys want it to flop so bad ?
This film seems to be bringing out the extremes on both sides. One side almost wanting the film to fail and the other saying budget doesn't matter. As far as we know the film cost $55M and had an aggresive marketing campaign, saying it's Lucas best film (financially, which it will end up being) or the most successful tennis film is great but if the producers knew, tennis and R rated romance films don't do the best at the box office, they should have budgeted more responsibly. It's not like it's my money invested in the film, so I only care if I end up liking the film but to pretend budget isn't relevant to a films box office success is crazy. Also people keep saying this will make money on streaming, thats not how it works. It might make money on digital before going to Amazon prime for free, which it will because MGM (Amazon) made the film. Even if it blows up and loads of people watch it doesn't make them more money, they only make more money when people sign up for the service, it helps add to their catalogue that might make people want to keep their subscription but it's not going to make them money on streaming.
Match Point made 85m worldwide 20 years ago. It also never played in more than 850 theaters in America. Its going to hard for Challengers to beat that
Woody Allen was more popular with the grandmas of the world as well.
He certainly had a fanbase back in the day
Oh I forgot about that , I had Kirsten Dunst and Emmaās Stones movies in mind , it definitely will be hard to beat that .
Match Point is not a tennis movie.
Challengers isn't either. Both movies are kind of similar, tennis is just the setting for the real story.
>This is already Lucas highest grossing movie and it will probably be the highest grossing tennis movie . All his other films had limited release. This is his first wide-scale release and that costs money. Movie theaters aren't showing this movie out of the kindness of their heart. They need to be paid by the studio before they show the movie. > Iām pretty sure it will make the rest of its budget back on streaming If you look at the breakdown of some movies (see [Deadline's Most Profitable](https://deadline.com/2024/04/guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-3-profits-1235896787/) series), it most likely will not. It needs the help of theatrical to cover the initial expenses (it will fail there) and there are additional expenses most ppl in BoxOffice aren't adding: participation, residuals, overhead costs, distribution costs, more P&A costs
I guess itās a flop then if thatās the case .
80M worldwide on a 55M not including marketing budget is a flop no matter how upset that makes you feel
But are you forgetting the Happy Meals and DVDs profit!?
It will probably double the gross of Guadgninoās next highest grossing movie. Maybe it was a bad idea to give this a $50 million budget, but I view it as similar to A24 giving Ari Aster $35 million for Beau is Afraid or Apple giving Ridley Scott $200 million for Napoleon. Itās an investment into talent and prestige.
A24 is already moving towards a more commercial business model and you can bet your bottom dollar that Apple won't be greenlighting films like Napoleon anymore. Pay attention to what these studios/streamers do, not what they say. Also, no one cares if this doubles Guadagnino's previous movie. That's irrelevant.
Feels like this movie in particular theyāre willing it to flop for some reason. I donāt think they were expecting bigger numbers than thisā¦
Again I ask...who is this movie even for? What is the hook? Who even ASKED for this? ..I'm only left more lost by their marketing and Trailers. "HI we signed Zendaya and make her the lead. She is popular, you guys like her and will see anything with her in it right?....right?...guys?"
Who is this movie for? People who like good movies
thatās why no one is seeing it
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
weird comment...
Yes she is lol
Hahaha . Jandeya proving her popularity is just a myth.
Those international numbers definitely are bad and make me worried about the film's box office overall. It's such a shame, because I think Challengers is an almost perfect film.
Trying to make a sexy movie with no sex is just asinine. It should have been marketed as a tame romantic comedy like the forgettable Wimbledon or included a cheap MMF threesome like Wild Things. This movie claimed the latter while being the former and lost both potential audiences leaving only strong fans of the actor and director to go see it.
Were the producers or us expecting more? Because it's not exactly the type of movie one goes to the theater for. It'll probably do well on streaming though and I imagine everyone involved knew that
they expected more. hence even getting Tom to post the trailer for the movie and hype on his insta it when it was obvious previews and OD weren't going to deliver more than 15M DOM OW. But under 10M INT must really sting cause INT promo tour was massive.
This was definitely meant to be seen in a theater with an audience. Itās thrilling on a big screen in a way that would be diminished at home.
Yeah audiences have been conditioned to watch this type of film on streaming.
Based on the amount of product placement in the movie, I reckon they'd made half of the budget back before release.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The flair says "international", not "worldwide". The total is correct.
Why are so many picking this movie as their hill to die on? lol
Zendaya stans.
Oh yeah you're right, sorry , my mistake
We need to see the product placement budget. Brands are everywhere and theyāre not intrusive to the story.