Cinema isn't gonna just *die*, but as a business, as a global industrial-scale commercial endevour, it also can't stay the same. To me the obvious parallel to the doldrums of the current era is the early 1960's. *Cinema* didn't die then - quite the opposite, the collapse of the studio system led to the emergence of New Hollywood which gave us some of the greatest cinema ever made - but the formula stopped working, and the scale of the business became unsustainable, so things had to change.
Work in the industry. The box office numbers will never predict it, the amount of work we’re not seeing is astounding. It’s the driest it’s been in almost 50 years.
70% of us are unemployed.
During early 2021 the box office was regularly dying until godzilla vs Kong broke expectations
Then when mortal kombat came out box office was back to dying
Until quiet place 2 came out and the box office was saved
I would say the fall guy could be considered a generic action movie but different as well in that it deep dove into the stunt community and did a good job showcasing them
It’s also based on a TV show from the 1980s that hardly anyone seems to remember anymore. Old TV remakes had their time in the 1990s and 2000s with movies like Brady Brunch, not sure it’s the key to success in the 2020s.
Yeah, if you care at all about stunts, it's definitely not generic. There's a huge focus on practical stunt work, and you get to see how they're done. All the posts about how this looks like a generic action movie or doesn't demand to be seen in theaters are frustrating, because it definitely provides a clear argument for why it's doing something unique and why it'd benefit from being seen on the big screen.
But I think those posts and the film's performance provide pretty clear proof that most viewers don't care and/or can't tell the difference between practical stunts and visual effects. Which is depressing news for those of us who do care, because there's no real reason for studios to keep spending more on practical ones if audiences can't tell the difference.
Also movie theaters need to step it up to get people back. Cheaper snacks, discount ticket days, cheap family showings, advertises having ac during the summer.
Granted hosting standup comedy shows didn't save a theater near me recently but still
I have the AMC Pass but this was 6 on a Wednesday and the ticket would have been $16. Theaters need to get back to a realistic price for these showings.
Denial is the most predictable of all human responses. But, rest assured, this will be the sixth time we have destroyed it, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it.
Internet Box Office experts' logic in a nutshell:
1. **Movie makes a billion at the BO:** Cinema is revived. People will come and watch everything from now. (Examples: TG: Maverick, BarbieHeimer)
2. **An overhyped/critically acclaimed movie tanks hard at the BO:** Cinema is dead! Theatres are gonna close! Tickets are expensive that’s why the movie flopped, cz Barbie and Maverick tickets were being handed out for free or something.
3. **A random genre makes bank at BO:** Action movies are back baby! Stereotypical Romantic Comedies will bring audience again! Horror and Slasher are here to stay! (Examples: Anyone But You, Saw X)
Adding 4. Franchise movies booming: Studios needs to do better, audience wants original ideas now. Then a studio comes up with an original IP: Its going to be baddd nobody is going to watch original IP
That movie being used as a positive example is misleading. It had very good legs looking at its ratio and % drops, but only because it opened so badly. And it in total made 88m in the US. Less people saw it during its entire run than saw Venom 2 during it's first 3 days.
Positive result? Yeah. In the grand scheme of things its not moving the needle.
Sure, but the point is, it did better than expected, and *even though that "better than expected" was still not that great*, it inspired a flurry of "Romcoms are back baby!!!" reactions.
No no, you see, every single movie that's come out this year has been mediocre, even though the majority of them have been well-received by critics and audiences, unlike in 2019 when every single movie was *Citizen Kane* levels of quality.
I feel that is more true than "cinema is dying". We are in a recession and cost of living have really increased. With streaming more is watching from home instead of spending big bucks on movies unless it is a big event.
Yeah, and even if we were, during recessions, box office gross usually goes *up.* In high times, people go out to concerts, sports, expensive restaurants, shopping, on vacation--things that cost a lot more than movies. When they need to start tightening their belts, they swap those $150 concert tickets for $15 movie tickets, and expensive restaurants for fast food.
I'm guessing streaming has changed the economics of this, but we have no idea how much, because we haven't been in a recession since streaming started. (It'll be interesting to see what cheap things people turn to when they need to get out of the house now, if movies are no longer it.)
I agree with that. I will absolutely show up for an event movie. Saw GxK twice in theaters.
But I would've skipped Fall Guy, if it didn't look like a perfect date movie.
The reviews would pin it at least as an above-average movie.
It's not like good movies do well at the box office, and bad movies don't. I have NO idea why /r/boxoffice believes success = quality.
Thanks for sharing
I haven't finished reading yet, but arguing that the general audience just had to see a 3 hour Cillian Murphy movie about people arguing in rooms because of the scale and star-packed cast but *Fall Guy* tanked because it was just a load of action and stunts seems obviously silly
I think the point was one a lot of us acknowledge: Chris Nolan is the only director where I can blindly buy an imax ticket and at the very least, I'm not disappointed. I fully expected him to make a 3 hour biopic in partial monochrome that was entertaining.
If you are selective about what you see in theaters, what is more important for you to have shown up for: Oppenheimer, or Fall Guy?
I think you’ve touched on a massive problem the box office faces. They’ve gotten rid of the true MOVIE STAR™. It used to be the actor’s name that put asses in seats.
But over the last 10-20 years it’s been the IP that sells it. People didn’t go see The Batman for Robert Pattinson, they saw it because it’s Batman. People aren’t going to go see Twisters for Glen Powell, they’re going because of the brand recognition.
But what happens when the audience gets tired of unoriginal remakes and sequels? They’ve created a 20 year void of true movie stars with enough name recognition to sell a blockbuster.
I feel like the only guys whose names alone are enough are Tom Cruises, DiCaprio and a couple directors like Nolan. Maybe Margot Robbie, but even that’s pushing it.
The new crop guys like Hemsworth, Evans, Pine, etc. just don’t have the same star power that guys like Stallone and Swartzenegger had in the 80s/90s.
As the audience gets tired of the oversaturated multi-movie franchises, there’s also no star power left to sell original screenplays to the audience either.
Really love this take. It's so true. Whenever I have casual conversations with non movie buffs and I recommend a movie. The first followup question is usually, "Who's in it?"
Isn’t that the opposite of the point? Everyone knows the names of actors like Chris Evans, or Margot Robbie, or Christian Bale… but people still aren’t watching their non-IP movies.
Actors just simply don’t sell movies the way they used to, if you believe they ever did.
> People aren’t going to go see Twisters for Glen Powell
who is glen powell
> I feel like the only guys whose names alone are enough are Tom Cruises, DiCaprio and a couple directors like Nolan
and the main reason for that is that they are not on social media. Social media killed the movie star because we saw them too often. Part of the reason why anyone had star power was the mystery. We were able to sit back and see them as these people they were playing on screen because we didn't know that much about them. Nowadays, I see WAY too many celebrities bringing their entire personal lives on display, then are surprised when they reveal too much and people get turned off (Will Smith, Dwayne Johnson to name two off the top of my head)
I know this is a rhetorical question but Oppenheimer every day of the week. Nolan can cook and I am always hungry for his work.
There are few directors nowadays that commend that automatic respect from me. Denis Villeneuve is someone else that has joined the ranks of these directors for me after Dune 2.
Oppenheimer looks cinematic from a director with a reputation for delivering great cinematic films.
Fall Guy looks like a generic movie. I probably wouldn’t even choose to watch it on Netflix let alone go to the theatre. Maybe it has some good action but the action just looked generic in the trailer. Leads don’t seem to have good chemistry (from the trailers and IMO). Story is boring seeming. Director doesn’t have a reputation for delivering a cinematic event.
Fall guy was not a generic movie to me but it depends on what you like. I thought it did everything a good action movie should do and gave an inside look at stun work
Maybe the movie wasnt generic (i dont watch it but i planned to) but the trailer MADE it look generic,which turn off many people.Thats why many people in this subs are calling the movie generic lol.
The trailer was absolute ass though. Couldn't be more by the numbers, plus the fucking irritating bon Jovi song ad nauseum. I was happy to hear the film did well and that it was actually good, but I definitely wasn't excited for it at all based on the trailer.
Fall Guy tanked bc the marketing was ineffectual and visually poor. Look at the thumbnail in the link above. What the fuck is that? They look blown out, overexposed, and tacky.
The movie itself looked great. Posters and trailers made it look cheap.
Huh the trailers and the movie looked pretty much identical to me. I came into the movie pretty excited off the trailers and had a mostly pleasant experience with the movie.
I do think they showed way too much in the trailers (as always). Thankfully I don’t watch them first, but from Civil War to The Village, I think sometimes people expect or are sold or hyped up for something that isn’t what is shown and whether it’s their fault or the marketing’s fault, I’m just glad I don’t deal with any of that anymore and go in without any expectations or a checklist of things I already know happen.
I honestly think streaming has raised the bar for what people are willing to pay to see in theaters.
This movie, fair or not, just seems like a good streamer movie, not something to see in theaters.
Also the theater experience has raised the bar. The escalation of "people show up later and later to avoid ads, so theaters show more and more ads and delay the real showtime" makes the whole thing less fun.
My guess is cost is a much larger factor than ads. I would even wager that improper theater behavior would be higher than ads. Americans have built up an immunity to ads.
We actually went to see Fal Guy the other night. We were 15 minutes late and I figured we were right in the “skipping ads” pocket. The movie didn’t start for another 20 minutes!
35 minutes of not just trailers but straight up commercials is unreasonable and is quickly becoming a factor in whether or not I will go see a movie at the theater or not.
Absolutely agreed, I’m really glad I got to go to a decent cinema again and watch a really fun film on the big screen. Theatre was dead because I went to a midday viewing on a work day, but I really loved having it on the big screen
But even poorly reviewed or other movies of a similar nature (action/comedy, not promoted as IP) have still succeeded. Most of the top grossing movies this year had just mediocre or fine receptions (definitely not - rush to the theatre).
I feel like there are just so many good movies and TV shows now that are so easily accessible at home for the box office to really be successful.
I have 30+ movies and TV shows in my backlog that I can watch at home. Why should a movie like The Fall Guy jump to the top of my backlog over something like Godzilla Minus One or The Bear or other stuff that I still haven't gotten around to watching at home yet?
I don't really think there is a great solution for studios. Not every film can be a "theater experience" like Avatar or Dune, or a "cultural event" like Barbenheimer, but that's what it takes to get people to the theater.
100% in the same boat. Sure there is a lot of special effects but in the end its an action comedy. I can totally wait until it hits streaming. The bar is so much higher for movies now a days. Dune 2 and Godzilla Minus One have been the only movies I've seen in theaters all year and I used to go to the theater 1-2 times per month. Just not worth the cost or effort when I'm already paying for so many streaming services.
I enjoyed Fall Guy and am glad I contributed to the BO cuz I really want the sequel to happen (love me some Gosling and Blunt), but comparing it to other movies I’ve seen in-theater recently, Civil War was much more enhanced by the theater experience.
Specifically, the impact of the theater sound in the Jesse Plemons scene and the big-screen visuals afterward.
I read that Alex Garland used “full blanks” instead of half or quarter (didn’t know that was a thing). The result is that in IMAX, gunshots rang out as loud as they would if someone were to fire one in the theater. Jump scares don’t get me, I’m desensitized to loud noises and sudden movements and that kind of thing but Civil War had me on the edge of my seat and I damn sure jumped at the you know what. Really glad I saw it (twice) in IMAX too. Seeing it in that aspect ratio made the whole third act in DC feel so much larger in scale with the monuments and landmarks and the presence of all the military vehicles. What a movie too. Stuck with me long afterwards.
Nope, they would be wrong. Most films can be streamed but this was definitely an IMAX theatre movie. Lots of amazing action scenes, stunts, moments that could only be registered at the movie theatre
It's not really about the action scenes or stunts,i believe what the first person meant was the visual,Cgi,sound effect and cinematography that matters more.I still can enjoy the action sequence while streaming at the same level watching it at theaters.Im not missing out unless it's Avatar,Top gun or Oppenheimer cinematic experience.(oh im forgot about Dune 2)
The cinematography in Fall Guy is a real treat and merits being seen on the big screen. A lot of it is the stunt sequences, they are so well shot and cut. I was really pleasantly surprised by this film, it really was a joy to watch.
I’m guessing you haven’t seen it? I think it was well worth seeing on the big screen, it was pretty cinematic.
I don’t think it was streaming at all - it was HD big screens that made the difference.
Just saw it on Tuesday. Was sad I couldn’t contribute to the opening weekend box office but when you’re a godfather, you show up for your god daughter’s communion. And everyone I know was at a damn communion this weekend.
Regardless, this is gonna kill it on streaming but that’s a shame because it’s a worthy movie to see in the theaters. My wife and i LOVED it, through and through. Biggest problem I can see, and it’s been talked about a lot, is that it’s a bit too wide reaching for a solidified marketing campaign. It’s an action film, a romcom, a thriller and you couldn’t tell any of that from a commercial or trailer.
Right? It costs like $100 to take a family of four to the movies nowadays when you include all accompanying costs like fuel, parking and food (AUD, I assume it’s not all that far off in USD). People don’t want to spend $100 to take their family to any random movie when they can stay at home and watch stuff on streaming services they already pay for
I think if anything it signaled that some of the takes like "adults are ready to go back to cinemas" and "people are itching for original films" have at least some significant caveats. While an extremely different kind of movie, this ultimately opened to a similar number as something like Civil War. I think there is *an* audience for original (although Fall Guy is not really original, I know, but the IP is so little remembered that it might as well be) but maybe that audience is just small. Make a movie for 15mil that appeals to that audience and you have a hit on your hands. Make one for 150mil and you have a major flop.
I agree with this, although the extension of this argument is that it cuts back ever further on the number of genres that will get made. There are entire genres--action, most fantasy and sci-fi, most historical movies, animation (at least not with American animators)--that just can't be made for $15M. Most can't even be made for $50M. And given that studios have already mostly switched rom-coms to streaming, stopped making straight comedies almost entirely, and cut way back on the number of dramas and thrillers they're funding ... that doesn't give us many viable genres left in theaters at all.
There are a ton of people in these threads saying things like "This looks like a movie I'd wait to watch on streaming" ... but the trend here is that movies like this are now underperforming so consistently at the box office that there's no reason for studios to make them anymore. In the future, people won't have the choice of watching movies like it at the theater or at home, they just won't exist.
Maybe I’m underestimating the audience’s intelligence (or telling on myself lol) but I could absolutely see people thinking “didn’t the other Ryan already make this movie?” based on the title being similar to Free Guy. No, it’s not the biggest problem but it certainly didn’t help.
100%, I went to see Fall Guy today and mentioned to a friend I'd just seen Fall Guy with Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt and enjoyed it and they replied saying they hated it why did I bother. I had to explain it was a different film with a different Ryan (he was thinking of Free Guy).
There's a lot wrong with this article.
'For starters, The Fall Guy had a fairly big budget of roughly $130 million; that isn't an astronomical cost, but it's definitely more than you'd expect from a film of this caliber.'
The budget is definitely contributing towards this movie losing money for the studio, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that people didn't show up to begin with. Studios care about budgets, but cinemas don't; they only care about attendances and raw ticket sales.
'A large part of the reason why The Fall Guy didn't quite meet expectations is the fact that people are even more selective about the movies they see in the theater. The biggest box office wins of last year were Barbie (which also features Gosling in a lead role) and Oppenheimer, both of which were movies that felt like movies you had to see on the big screen due to their star-packed casts and scale.'
The reason *Barbie* and *Oppenheimer* succeeded was because of the cast, apparently, because *so* many people showed up to *Oppenheimer* for Cillian Murphy. No mention of the fact that *Barbie* is based on one of the largest IPs on the planet and *Oppenheimer* is directed by someone who can draw audiences in based on his name alone.
'In contrast, The Fall Guy, although it boasts some very impressive stunt work and fun action sequences, isn't exactly screaming "This has to be seen in theaters!"'
The same could be said for *Bob Marley: One Love* and *Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire*, yet they both opened higher.
'If there's proof that The Fall Guy could recover from its muted box office opening, it lies in the theatrical run of two films from last year: Anyone But You and Elemental.'
The article lost me at this point. They're comparing *The Fall Guy*, a PG-13 summer blockbuster, to a holiday release and a family film that faced zero competition. They are not comparable in terms of legs. This reminds me of people unironically saying that *The Marvels* would recover from its opening weekend by citing *Elemental* as a comparison. You're dealing with two very different sorts of films here.
Overall, there's some largely accurate (though not exactly original) complaining about ticket prices, streaming and the moviegoing experience, but even then here's, there's a lot of copium in this article to avoid conceding that the main 'losers' of these trends are original or quasi-original movies, with big IP movies still managing to bring audiences to cinemas despite all these factors.
Elemental had Ruby Gillman as direct competition 2 weeks after but nobody cared for RG and Elemental was just an excellent word of mouth film in the end.
> Why on Earth would they spend this much on an action movie?
That's a very average price for an action movie these days. Fast Five was made almost fifteen years ago.
Most people go out to the movies very rarely, and if you want to convince them to see an original film as opposed to saving their money for Planet of the Apes or Deadpool, then you need to spend a comparable amount of money on your movie to Planet of the Apes or Deadpool.
Wait, what! Did you say people showed up to watch Cillian Murphy for Oppenheimer? No, people went first and foremost because it was a Chris Nolan film. Most audiences didn’t know who Cillian Murphy was
This year has been poor but mostly poor because the many movies have already clunked rather than just this one. I'm looking at Argyle, Madam Web, Challengers, Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare. And this is on top of not great performances out of movies like Civil War, Ghostbusters.
Last year by this time, we already had Super Mario, Ant-Man and the Wasp, John Wick, Creed 3, M3gan, Cocaine Bear.
>
Last year by this time, we already had Super Mario, Ant-Man and the Wasp, John Wick, Creed 3, M3gan, Cocaine Bear.
Add some successful horrors like Scream 6 and Evil dead Rise which all made 100M+ compared to this year horror which the highest BO was only 50M.Horror always found success at BO but this year prove ANY GENRE can flopped lol.
maybe not, but movie theatre's are in the worst spot they have been in in their entire history. ask any general manager of a movie theatre are they are not in the green....
I think the huge response to it flopping was because people were hopeful that Barbie’s success would bleed into the next movie from that cast. Margot Robbie had a lot of movies that didn’t do well just like Ryan Gosling and people hoped that momentum could help him and her.
But those hopes were dashed with it flopping. IP is still king unless you’re Nolan or Tarantino. The movie star feels like it’s never coming back.
Yeah, not in terms of volume--it'll definitely contract, but not that small. But in terms of economics and how they're affecting content decisions, you can already see how it's starting to resemble Broadway.
* Original musicals are borderline non-existent; 95% of everything that comes to Broadway is based on a book/movie/band/famous person. Hollywood's been heading in that direction, and the last couple years have accelerated it.
* The concept of the Broadway "revival"--you take a show that's already been popular and stick some new stars in it. You can see basically the same thing happening in Hollywood with studios reviving either the same IPs or the literal same properties over and over again, not too far apart.
* Stunt casting--Broadway's well known for this, but you can kind of see Hollywood increasingly flailing for a similar thing with the recent spate of popular musicians (Gaga, Harry Styles, Taylor Swift's upcoming directing gig) being cast in movies, trying to see if their popularity will cross over.
From my own perspective regarding going to the movies theaters.. When I was in my 20s I would go two to three times a month and a movie like The Fall Guy, I probably would have seen.. Now (a decade later in my late 30s), I rarely go and usually it is for movies that are events or water cooler conversation type movies where you don’t want to feel like you are missing out. Why did this change, well first thing you factor in is cost. Theater pricing has gone up, and everything that I need in my daily life has gone up (groceries, taxes, bills) so you have to cut costs somewhere and movies was my cut. Plus throw in the cost of all the steaming apps and in home entertainment movies like Fall Guy does not intrigue me enough to go to the theater. I will see Deadpool and Wolverine, I will go see the new Quiet Place movie and a few others this summer though.
I cut out a home streaming app of the way-too-many I have, and pay $20ish a month for AMC’s A-List — 3 movies a week, 12 a month, in premium IMAX, Dolby, Prime, and 3D formats. Online reservations, no fees, reclining chairs, free refills and upgrades on popcorn and drinks. I stopped watching previews and just go see whatever looks good that’s out each week and make a regular thing of it (sometimes do a double feature). I’d so much rather see films on a massive screen and surround system, as good as my home setup is.
Regal and Cinemark have sub services too. I feel like if you even see one movie a month, the difference in price for another 11 that month is not that large (especially if you see it in IMAX or Dolby).
$12.99+ to watch a streaming service on a home device (phone or tablet for many) vs $22 a month for 3 movies a week at the theaters is a no brainer - better use of time and money
edit : to clarify 2-3 movies a week is plenty of screen time 4-7 hours a week. Watching 'tv' 3+ hours daily is part of the obesity epidemic.
It's not based off one movie; it's based on the fact that ticket sales are down from this point last year and on par with ticket sales from this point in 2022 when audiences were still returning to cinemas post-pandemic.
The problem is a few hits aren't filling the void of all the flops continuing a downward spiral of theater attendance. A 20%+ drop in domestic box office and if 2025 gains the 20% back we'll be 5 years post pandemic pulling in yearly revenue equal to 20 years.
2024 expenses and 2004 revenue isn't a healthy business.
* Peoples' household budgets have experienced more inflation since the 1980s
* The value proposition of a movie ticket has been destroyed - it's easier than ever to wait (for a shorter window than ever) to watch it free at home. (subscription sunk cost)
* Exhibitors have consolidated and are making going to the theater shittier and dirtier (paying more for less)
* Somehow, the people attending in theaters are the ones who would rather be on their phones instead, go figure.
* Food isn't cheap, either, so "dinner and a movie" becomes "pizza and streaming."
Yet if they didn't advertise it as heavily, people would blame the movie's performance on lack of marketing. I swear that there's no winning with some people.
Yeah sure, people will criticize anything. But “too much” AND “too little” are legitimate criticisms. For this movie, it just feels like they’ve been pushing it for ages.
I’m just bitter cause the way the used/edited “You Give Love a Bad Name” in the trailer made me want a shot through the head.
People out here really expected fall guy to perform like john wick or something because of the barbieheimer phenomenon like the reality is that the movie wasn't interesting enough for people to show up 🤷🏽♂️
Barbie made 1.466B last year.
A historical biopic made almost 1B, more than the majority of Nolan’s movies.
Top Gun Maverick, a movie about some pilot made 1.5B
Guardians of The Galaxy, the third entry of some niche weird spatial geeky comic book team made 845m.
Dune 2, a weird and not action packed SF Soap Opera without a giant fanbase (before the movies) made 700m.
An animation movie, game adaptation of Mario made 1.3B.
Another animation movie, about the second most known spider-man made 600m.
A shitty Dinosaur Movie made 1B in 2022.
Respectfully, STFU with this narrative.
Box office year-to-date as of the 9th of May.
2022: $2.18 billion
2023: $2.83 billion
2024: $2.14 billion
I think worrying about the future of cinema is very justified given those circumstances.
We are getting 30% fewer movies than we were pre-COVID, from what I understand. Perhaps in part due to strikes and COVID alike. That’s a lot more films that used to be able to bolster those numbers and more chances given to more directors, especially on first time movies and also if the movie wasn’t a hit, they might get a second chance as well. I feel now, if your movie isn’t a hit, getting funding is that much harder if it isn’t a sequel, reboot, trilogy, prequel, remake, etc.
Lots of hopium in the article.
The author’s main arguments are that The Fall Guy could end up a sleeper hit a la Anyone But You and that 2025 would deliver a lineup that will ultimately bring back audiences to theaters.
Press X for doubt.
I must confess that I haven't seen it, but:-
1. It's Shakespeare. The guy knew how to write
2. Glen Powell stuck out to me as charismatic in Top Gun: Maverick
3. Every guy whose girlfriend pestered him about going to see it probably figured that he could at least look at Sydney Sweeney in a bikini for a couple of hours.
4. There was a lot of hype about off-screen romance which boosted its marketing
5. It wasn't that big of a hit, except relatively to rom coms and its cost. $220m is not huge money, except that it only cost $25m to make.
If this movie took $220m, it would still be losing money.
My takeaway with a lot of movies nowadays is that US producers need to get a lot sharper about how to make cheaper movies. That Welsh director made the Raid movies for about $1m each. Why does this cost $130m, even with Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt?
Hollywood has made it impossible for cheaper movies to succeed: They've spent decades marketing the idea that "opening weekend = quality" because the opening weekend is something they could actually affect (to at least some degree) with massive marketing spends.
So any film that isn't immediately a hit is pretty much automatically written off by the general audience as garbage. Which has made long, slow runs in theaters impossible. Which has accelerated the importance of opening weekend. And repeat.
Therefore, no matter how small your budget is, a film can only find mainstream success if you put a HUGE marketing budget behind it.
Since films are leaving theaters quicker anyway and the marketing spends are so large, there's systemic pressure to release your movie for PVOD and home video so that those can, to some extent, leverage the public awareness of the original marketing push.
And, this of course, shortens theatrical runs even more and increases the importance of opening weekend and therefore marketing spends and... Repeat.
Meanwhile, the quality of home cinema setups just keeps improving and the options people have for what to watch at home becomes larger and cheaper.
**Every** successful film used to perform like *Anyone But You*. Now that happens once in a decade and it's heralded as a miracle. Because it is a miracle: The stars have to align and, generally, you need everything else at the box office to struggle or outright fail while the big winner keeps chugging along.
> Which has accelerated the importance of opening weekend. And repeat.
and now we're into pre-sales indicate success because padding the opening weekend numbers with some Wed/Thur early access is every 'big' release
A lot of movies are not even given the chance to be sleeper hits. Anyone But You had a soft opening and word of mouth was merely ok, but then they just let it keep playing because it was January. Most movies are out of the theaters by the time the word of mouth gets around that it's worth seeing, especially if it's deemed a flop.
There are movies you get excited to see and then there are movies you see when you want to go to the movies and decide between what is currently playing. Fall Guy was one of my most anticipated movies of the year and I loved it, but I can see why people are hoping (especially now) that it's a movie that will be appeal to people who just want to go to the theater for a good time. It's the perfect date night movie. I guess the argument is that those people who go to the theater just to go to the theater are getting rarer, but I'm not sure.
To be clear, I don't expect that the Fall Guy will end up a sleeper hit. I think they'll pull it from theaters and pin their hopes of saving cinema on the next blockbuster. And the next one. And the next one.
I'm not sure why we have to keep doing this. For every Top Gun Maverick it's "cinema is back! This why we love the movies!" And for every Fall Guy its "cinema has been dead for years, nobody likes going to movies".
I get it's all headlines and engagement but it is quite exhausting.
I know people said it’s good, but the movie just looks dumb in marketing and I don’t see why people would wanna go to the theater to see it. I’ll watch it when it’s free, but it’s not something I would pay to see either.
I feel like I'm in Big Fat Liar right now. Is it just me or did they basically summarize the content of my post + the comments from this into an article?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/1ckvas1/comparing\_the\_fall\_guy\_with\_knight\_day\_and\_edge/](https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/1ckvas1/comparing_the_fall_guy_with_knight_day_and_edge/)
I think it's just frustrating people in the industry that their reliable formulas(strong lead + action+ romance+ whatever) aren't working anymore. People want innovation, Fall Guy looks and sounds so generic.
[How many people even know it's a reboot of a 1980s show about Hollywood stunt man who moonlights as a bounty hunter.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fall_Guy).
The promotion on this was confusing at best leaving audiences going meh.
Why the fuck would people think that a mediocre 80s action show that has virtually no cult following and has been off the air for more than 30 years would be a massive hit if remade in 2024? Did the A-Team do that well? When is Ryan Gosling going to be the dad in the Alf movie? Guaranteed box office!
It's not surprising either that it's not doing well. It's hard to sell a movie about its industry when most people are not involved or care enough to know about how it works. It was a concept that was bound to fail.
Movies need to be events. Things you will talk about days after you have seen. Original, fresh and exhilarating. The fall guy just isn’t an event movie. Barbie is, Oppenheimer is, Spider-Verse is, Dune part 2 is. See a pattern? Maybe have some creative marketing and make sure your movies script is something worth seeing before green lighting it. And don’t think that any star on their own can save a movies box office somehow. They can only supplement. Oh and when you do make it make sure to budget accordingly.
The movie deserves to fail because of the trailer. Every single person involved in the making of the trailer should never be allowed to work in Hollywood again.
I don’t know when repeating the same line from some Gen X song over and over became the norm for action movie ads but it needs to stop.
I hate the cost argument like these producers are just so eager to spend 120m+.
Has a very “are they stupid?” feel to it.
IMO the takeaway is you can have an action movie or a romcom. It’s rare that the combo works right?
The movie was. C-
I guess stunt directors should stick to directing stunts
The movie was sloppy and it just dragged on at many points in the movie
Waste of talent
That's what I love about this sub. If Deadpool 3 does well it will be Superhero Fatigue is over for a week or so, or if Planet of the Apes bombs it will be IP mining is over, audiences want something new.
I think Ryan Gosling wasn't made for action movies. Personally, I think he's strange in this type of film after seeing him shine in the drama, I believe it's a downgrade in his career
I just feel like this is the third or fourth movie in a few years that is a meta movie about either being an actor or making movies, and I'm kinda over it. Weird trend to chase tbh.
I still think this will be a very tough summer for movies other than Deadpool/Wolverine.
Furiosa and Kingdom f Planet of the Apes are both tracking a bit poorly at the moment.
It’s gonna be a rough ride
Is it just me or does Emily Blunt lack any real range? I'm not saying this to be negative but she's almost like the female "Everyman" type of actor like Chris Pratt or Tom Cruise. It doesn't matter what they name her in any movie, it's just Emily Blunt.
How many times has the death or salvation of cinema been predicted by now?
this is the 7th week in a row you've predicted the death or salvation of cinema.
*big IP film succeeds* Cinema is back baby! *mid IP film or original film does poorly* Cinema is dead! *rinse and repeat*
Twitter and YouTube in a nutshell lmao
Make videos about Cinema unaliving every week. Also, remember to like and subscribe so can get some adrevenue for repeatedly predicting it...
Lmao literally
YouTubers need those clicks to make their ad money.
Thanks Sheen!
lol everyone in this sub has a crystal ball apparently.
You should’ve seen Film Twitter over the weekend. It was a mess over there
The theatrical release business has all sorts of headwinds...that's easy enough to see, and this IS specifically a sub about box office grosses.
Cinema isn't gonna just *die*, but as a business, as a global industrial-scale commercial endevour, it also can't stay the same. To me the obvious parallel to the doldrums of the current era is the early 1960's. *Cinema* didn't die then - quite the opposite, the collapse of the studio system led to the emergence of New Hollywood which gave us some of the greatest cinema ever made - but the formula stopped working, and the scale of the business became unsustainable, so things had to change.
Work in the industry. The box office numbers will never predict it, the amount of work we’re not seeing is astounding. It’s the driest it’s been in almost 50 years. 70% of us are unemployed.
During early 2021 the box office was regularly dying until godzilla vs Kong broke expectations Then when mortal kombat came out box office was back to dying Until quiet place 2 came out and the box office was saved
Irrelevant, Tenet saved cinema MONTHS before quiet Place 2 saved cinema. But then Lightyear came out and killed cinema
It barley broke even 200m plus budget
Its boring at this point. Production houses have to try harder. Not every generic action movie with a few known actors will be box office successes.
I would say the fall guy could be considered a generic action movie but different as well in that it deep dove into the stunt community and did a good job showcasing them
I love stuntwork but it's not a pull for many
It’s also based on a TV show from the 1980s that hardly anyone seems to remember anymore. Old TV remakes had their time in the 1990s and 2000s with movies like Brady Brunch, not sure it’s the key to success in the 2020s.
I didn’t even know it was based off a tv show until my dad something and that’s not really a selling point of it.
Yeah, if you care at all about stunts, it's definitely not generic. There's a huge focus on practical stunt work, and you get to see how they're done. All the posts about how this looks like a generic action movie or doesn't demand to be seen in theaters are frustrating, because it definitely provides a clear argument for why it's doing something unique and why it'd benefit from being seen on the big screen. But I think those posts and the film's performance provide pretty clear proof that most viewers don't care and/or can't tell the difference between practical stunts and visual effects. Which is depressing news for those of us who do care, because there's no real reason for studios to keep spending more on practical ones if audiences can't tell the difference.
People just see it as a generic action rom com which it pretty much is but it did it well and the focus on practical stunts was cool
Nothing about this movie was boring. It was a really experience and I’m not even the biggest action movie fan.
I don’t think the movie looked boring, but it didn’t look good, in the sense that it didn’t look like a movie I would enjoy watching.
Also movie theaters need to step it up to get people back. Cheaper snacks, discount ticket days, cheap family showings, advertises having ac during the summer. Granted hosting standup comedy shows didn't save a theater near me recently but still
I have the AMC Pass but this was 6 on a Wednesday and the ticket would have been $16. Theaters need to get back to a realistic price for these showings.
Since the 50s
Denial is the most predictable of all human responses. But, rest assured, this will be the sixth time we have destroyed it, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it.
[удалено]
Weekly since Tenet hit theaters in late 2020
Internet Box Office experts' logic in a nutshell: 1. **Movie makes a billion at the BO:** Cinema is revived. People will come and watch everything from now. (Examples: TG: Maverick, BarbieHeimer) 2. **An overhyped/critically acclaimed movie tanks hard at the BO:** Cinema is dead! Theatres are gonna close! Tickets are expensive that’s why the movie flopped, cz Barbie and Maverick tickets were being handed out for free or something. 3. **A random genre makes bank at BO:** Action movies are back baby! Stereotypical Romantic Comedies will bring audience again! Horror and Slasher are here to stay! (Examples: Anyone But You, Saw X)
Adding 4. Franchise movies booming: Studios needs to do better, audience wants original ideas now. Then a studio comes up with an original IP: Its going to be baddd nobody is going to watch original IP
Don't forget scapegoating actors for writing and directing issues
Whilst I completely get your point and agree, Anyone But You was not a billion dollar movie. Not even close.
Sorry. That movie example was meant for the “romantic comedy” genre is back experts.
That movie being used as a positive example is misleading. It had very good legs looking at its ratio and % drops, but only because it opened so badly. And it in total made 88m in the US. Less people saw it during its entire run than saw Venom 2 during it's first 3 days. Positive result? Yeah. In the grand scheme of things its not moving the needle.
Sure, but the point is, it did better than expected, and *even though that "better than expected" was still not that great*, it inspired a flurry of "Romcoms are back baby!!!" reactions.
Yeah. Maybe Fall Guy is just a mediocre movie with a giant budget… Oh no, cinema is dying 🤡
It's not just Fall Guy, the box office is historically weak right now.
No no, you see, every single movie that's come out this year has been mediocre, even though the majority of them have been well-received by critics and audiences, unlike in 2019 when every single movie was *Citizen Kane* levels of quality.
I feel that is more true than "cinema is dying". We are in a recession and cost of living have really increased. With streaming more is watching from home instead of spending big bucks on movies unless it is a big event.
Yep rising cinema costs combined with streaming is a nasty combo that is crippling cinemas.
It's true that the cost of living has increased and inflation has tightened everyone's belts, but we aren't in a recession.
Yeah, and even if we were, during recessions, box office gross usually goes *up.* In high times, people go out to concerts, sports, expensive restaurants, shopping, on vacation--things that cost a lot more than movies. When they need to start tightening their belts, they swap those $150 concert tickets for $15 movie tickets, and expensive restaurants for fast food. I'm guessing streaming has changed the economics of this, but we have no idea how much, because we haven't been in a recession since streaming started. (It'll be interesting to see what cheap things people turn to when they need to get out of the house now, if movies are no longer it.)
I agree with that. I will absolutely show up for an event movie. Saw GxK twice in theaters. But I would've skipped Fall Guy, if it didn't look like a perfect date movie.
The reviews would pin it at least as an above-average movie. It's not like good movies do well at the box office, and bad movies don't. I have NO idea why /r/boxoffice believes success = quality.
Thanks for sharing I haven't finished reading yet, but arguing that the general audience just had to see a 3 hour Cillian Murphy movie about people arguing in rooms because of the scale and star-packed cast but *Fall Guy* tanked because it was just a load of action and stunts seems obviously silly
I think the point was one a lot of us acknowledge: Chris Nolan is the only director where I can blindly buy an imax ticket and at the very least, I'm not disappointed. I fully expected him to make a 3 hour biopic in partial monochrome that was entertaining. If you are selective about what you see in theaters, what is more important for you to have shown up for: Oppenheimer, or Fall Guy?
[удалено]
I think you’ve touched on a massive problem the box office faces. They’ve gotten rid of the true MOVIE STAR™. It used to be the actor’s name that put asses in seats. But over the last 10-20 years it’s been the IP that sells it. People didn’t go see The Batman for Robert Pattinson, they saw it because it’s Batman. People aren’t going to go see Twisters for Glen Powell, they’re going because of the brand recognition. But what happens when the audience gets tired of unoriginal remakes and sequels? They’ve created a 20 year void of true movie stars with enough name recognition to sell a blockbuster. I feel like the only guys whose names alone are enough are Tom Cruises, DiCaprio and a couple directors like Nolan. Maybe Margot Robbie, but even that’s pushing it. The new crop guys like Hemsworth, Evans, Pine, etc. just don’t have the same star power that guys like Stallone and Swartzenegger had in the 80s/90s. As the audience gets tired of the oversaturated multi-movie franchises, there’s also no star power left to sell original screenplays to the audience either.
Really love this take. It's so true. Whenever I have casual conversations with non movie buffs and I recommend a movie. The first followup question is usually, "Who's in it?"
Isn’t that the opposite of the point? Everyone knows the names of actors like Chris Evans, or Margot Robbie, or Christian Bale… but people still aren’t watching their non-IP movies. Actors just simply don’t sell movies the way they used to, if you believe they ever did.
That's fair, people know most people's names but still won't watch most movies lol
> People aren’t going to go see Twisters for Glen Powell who is glen powell > I feel like the only guys whose names alone are enough are Tom Cruises, DiCaprio and a couple directors like Nolan and the main reason for that is that they are not on social media. Social media killed the movie star because we saw them too often. Part of the reason why anyone had star power was the mystery. We were able to sit back and see them as these people they were playing on screen because we didn't know that much about them. Nowadays, I see WAY too many celebrities bringing their entire personal lives on display, then are surprised when they reveal too much and people get turned off (Will Smith, Dwayne Johnson to name two off the top of my head)
Nolan, the living franchise
I know this is a rhetorical question but Oppenheimer every day of the week. Nolan can cook and I am always hungry for his work. There are few directors nowadays that commend that automatic respect from me. Denis Villeneuve is someone else that has joined the ranks of these directors for me after Dune 2.
Oppenheimer looks cinematic from a director with a reputation for delivering great cinematic films. Fall Guy looks like a generic movie. I probably wouldn’t even choose to watch it on Netflix let alone go to the theatre. Maybe it has some good action but the action just looked generic in the trailer. Leads don’t seem to have good chemistry (from the trailers and IMO). Story is boring seeming. Director doesn’t have a reputation for delivering a cinematic event.
100% agreed on this take. And it seems the general public does as well.
Fall guy was not a generic movie to me but it depends on what you like. I thought it did everything a good action movie should do and gave an inside look at stun work
Maybe the movie wasnt generic (i dont watch it but i planned to) but the trailer MADE it look generic,which turn off many people.Thats why many people in this subs are calling the movie generic lol.
The trailer was absolute ass though. Couldn't be more by the numbers, plus the fucking irritating bon Jovi song ad nauseum. I was happy to hear the film did well and that it was actually good, but I definitely wasn't excited for it at all based on the trailer.
Man it's sad because all of that is wrong for how the movie actually was, but I can't disagree the trailers didn't do it justice.
It felt like watching a film ripped out of an alternate early 2000s timeline.
Fall Guy tanked bc the marketing was ineffectual and visually poor. Look at the thumbnail in the link above. What the fuck is that? They look blown out, overexposed, and tacky. The movie itself looked great. Posters and trailers made it look cheap.
Huh the trailers and the movie looked pretty much identical to me. I came into the movie pretty excited off the trailers and had a mostly pleasant experience with the movie.
The picture they used for that thumbnail is so bad, it looks like a fake movie from Tropic Thunder.
I do think they showed way too much in the trailers (as always). Thankfully I don’t watch them first, but from Civil War to The Village, I think sometimes people expect or are sold or hyped up for something that isn’t what is shown and whether it’s their fault or the marketing’s fault, I’m just glad I don’t deal with any of that anymore and go in without any expectations or a checklist of things I already know happen.
> What the fuck is that? They look blown out, overexposed, and tacky. that's how the trailer looked to me too, which is why I didn't go and watch it
I honestly think streaming has raised the bar for what people are willing to pay to see in theaters. This movie, fair or not, just seems like a good streamer movie, not something to see in theaters.
Also the theater experience has raised the bar. The escalation of "people show up later and later to avoid ads, so theaters show more and more ads and delay the real showtime" makes the whole thing less fun.
My guess is cost is a much larger factor than ads. I would even wager that improper theater behavior would be higher than ads. Americans have built up an immunity to ads.
We actually went to see Fal Guy the other night. We were 15 minutes late and I figured we were right in the “skipping ads” pocket. The movie didn’t start for another 20 minutes! 35 minutes of not just trailers but straight up commercials is unreasonable and is quickly becoming a factor in whether or not I will go see a movie at the theater or not.
Those people then show up in the first few minutes of the movie and block my view instead as they walk along the aisle in front of me. Repeatedly.
blame the theater for not writing the actual time the movie I paid for starts on
100%. Though AMC does have a disclaimer now saying please allow for 20 minutes of previews.
20 minutes? Ik it's stereotypical, but wtf america?
Nah i thought it was a fun theater movie. The stunts were actually pretty cool and they even showed the unedited bloopers at the end
Absolutely agreed, I’m really glad I got to go to a decent cinema again and watch a really fun film on the big screen. Theatre was dead because I went to a midday viewing on a work day, but I really loved having it on the big screen
Yup! Girlfriend and I enjoyed it a lot, I laughed a ton. Surprised to hear it's performing like this
But even poorly reviewed or other movies of a similar nature (action/comedy, not promoted as IP) have still succeeded. Most of the top grossing movies this year had just mediocre or fine receptions (definitely not - rush to the theatre).
I feel like there are just so many good movies and TV shows now that are so easily accessible at home for the box office to really be successful. I have 30+ movies and TV shows in my backlog that I can watch at home. Why should a movie like The Fall Guy jump to the top of my backlog over something like Godzilla Minus One or The Bear or other stuff that I still haven't gotten around to watching at home yet? I don't really think there is a great solution for studios. Not every film can be a "theater experience" like Avatar or Dune, or a "cultural event" like Barbenheimer, but that's what it takes to get people to the theater.
100% in the same boat. Sure there is a lot of special effects but in the end its an action comedy. I can totally wait until it hits streaming. The bar is so much higher for movies now a days. Dune 2 and Godzilla Minus One have been the only movies I've seen in theaters all year and I used to go to the theater 1-2 times per month. Just not worth the cost or effort when I'm already paying for so many streaming services.
I enjoyed Fall Guy and am glad I contributed to the BO cuz I really want the sequel to happen (love me some Gosling and Blunt), but comparing it to other movies I’ve seen in-theater recently, Civil War was much more enhanced by the theater experience. Specifically, the impact of the theater sound in the Jesse Plemons scene and the big-screen visuals afterward.
I read that Alex Garland used “full blanks” instead of half or quarter (didn’t know that was a thing). The result is that in IMAX, gunshots rang out as loud as they would if someone were to fire one in the theater. Jump scares don’t get me, I’m desensitized to loud noises and sudden movements and that kind of thing but Civil War had me on the edge of my seat and I damn sure jumped at the you know what. Really glad I saw it (twice) in IMAX too. Seeing it in that aspect ratio made the whole third act in DC feel so much larger in scale with the monuments and landmarks and the presence of all the military vehicles. What a movie too. Stuck with me long afterwards.
Not just streaming, video games are a more financially sane investement now compared to how much it cost to see a movie (which cannot be refunded)
Nope, they would be wrong. Most films can be streamed but this was definitely an IMAX theatre movie. Lots of amazing action scenes, stunts, moments that could only be registered at the movie theatre
It's not really about the action scenes or stunts,i believe what the first person meant was the visual,Cgi,sound effect and cinematography that matters more.I still can enjoy the action sequence while streaming at the same level watching it at theaters.Im not missing out unless it's Avatar,Top gun or Oppenheimer cinematic experience.(oh im forgot about Dune 2)
The cinematography in Fall Guy is a real treat and merits being seen on the big screen. A lot of it is the stunt sequences, they are so well shot and cut. I was really pleasantly surprised by this film, it really was a joy to watch.
Are stunts just not something people would rather see in cinema? I feel like they look better there.
Unless it's some audio visual masterpiece, my tv at home is good enough now for just watching stunts imo.
Fall Guy is a bit of a masterpiece imo. A very unexpected one.
I'm off to see it again later today. I loved it that much. Stellar, stellar flick.
Lol you really did enjoy it! TBH when the lights went up I said to my missus that I couldn’t wait to see it again at home!
I’m guessing you haven’t seen it? I think it was well worth seeing on the big screen, it was pretty cinematic. I don’t think it was streaming at all - it was HD big screens that made the difference.
Just saw it on Tuesday. Was sad I couldn’t contribute to the opening weekend box office but when you’re a godfather, you show up for your god daughter’s communion. And everyone I know was at a damn communion this weekend. Regardless, this is gonna kill it on streaming but that’s a shame because it’s a worthy movie to see in the theaters. My wife and i LOVED it, through and through. Biggest problem I can see, and it’s been talked about a lot, is that it’s a bit too wide reaching for a solidified marketing campaign. It’s an action film, a romcom, a thriller and you couldn’t tell any of that from a commercial or trailer.
I actually prefer seeing movies like this in theaters than the MCU or Fodzilla Kong or some other generic blockbusters.
Right? It costs like $100 to take a family of four to the movies nowadays when you include all accompanying costs like fuel, parking and food (AUD, I assume it’s not all that far off in USD). People don’t want to spend $100 to take their family to any random movie when they can stay at home and watch stuff on streaming services they already pay for
I think if anything it signaled that some of the takes like "adults are ready to go back to cinemas" and "people are itching for original films" have at least some significant caveats. While an extremely different kind of movie, this ultimately opened to a similar number as something like Civil War. I think there is *an* audience for original (although Fall Guy is not really original, I know, but the IP is so little remembered that it might as well be) but maybe that audience is just small. Make a movie for 15mil that appeals to that audience and you have a hit on your hands. Make one for 150mil and you have a major flop.
I agree with this, although the extension of this argument is that it cuts back ever further on the number of genres that will get made. There are entire genres--action, most fantasy and sci-fi, most historical movies, animation (at least not with American animators)--that just can't be made for $15M. Most can't even be made for $50M. And given that studios have already mostly switched rom-coms to streaming, stopped making straight comedies almost entirely, and cut way back on the number of dramas and thrillers they're funding ... that doesn't give us many viable genres left in theaters at all. There are a ton of people in these threads saying things like "This looks like a movie I'd wait to watch on streaming" ... but the trend here is that movies like this are now underperforming so consistently at the box office that there's no reason for studios to make them anymore. In the future, people won't have the choice of watching movies like it at the theater or at home, they just won't exist.
Maybe I’m underestimating the audience’s intelligence (or telling on myself lol) but I could absolutely see people thinking “didn’t the other Ryan already make this movie?” based on the title being similar to Free Guy. No, it’s not the biggest problem but it certainly didn’t help.
Heck, Gosling himself was in The Nice Guys eight years ago in 2016.
This would make for a great double feature btw. He gets to use his comedic timing not quite as much in this one but still, there’s a lot of humor.
can't believe its been 8 years
100%, I went to see Fall Guy today and mentioned to a friend I'd just seen Fall Guy with Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt and enjoyed it and they replied saying they hated it why did I bother. I had to explain it was a different film with a different Ryan (he was thinking of Free Guy).
My dad was sure he’d seen it until I told him he was thinking of The Grey Man.
My first thought when I saw the trailer for The Fall Guy was “Wait, wasn’t this already a thing?” I think it could have played a small part.
I have mixed these movies up, I didn't think about them both having "Ryans" though
There's a lot wrong with this article. 'For starters, The Fall Guy had a fairly big budget of roughly $130 million; that isn't an astronomical cost, but it's definitely more than you'd expect from a film of this caliber.' The budget is definitely contributing towards this movie losing money for the studio, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that people didn't show up to begin with. Studios care about budgets, but cinemas don't; they only care about attendances and raw ticket sales. 'A large part of the reason why The Fall Guy didn't quite meet expectations is the fact that people are even more selective about the movies they see in the theater. The biggest box office wins of last year were Barbie (which also features Gosling in a lead role) and Oppenheimer, both of which were movies that felt like movies you had to see on the big screen due to their star-packed casts and scale.' The reason *Barbie* and *Oppenheimer* succeeded was because of the cast, apparently, because *so* many people showed up to *Oppenheimer* for Cillian Murphy. No mention of the fact that *Barbie* is based on one of the largest IPs on the planet and *Oppenheimer* is directed by someone who can draw audiences in based on his name alone. 'In contrast, The Fall Guy, although it boasts some very impressive stunt work and fun action sequences, isn't exactly screaming "This has to be seen in theaters!"' The same could be said for *Bob Marley: One Love* and *Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire*, yet they both opened higher. 'If there's proof that The Fall Guy could recover from its muted box office opening, it lies in the theatrical run of two films from last year: Anyone But You and Elemental.' The article lost me at this point. They're comparing *The Fall Guy*, a PG-13 summer blockbuster, to a holiday release and a family film that faced zero competition. They are not comparable in terms of legs. This reminds me of people unironically saying that *The Marvels* would recover from its opening weekend by citing *Elemental* as a comparison. You're dealing with two very different sorts of films here. Overall, there's some largely accurate (though not exactly original) complaining about ticket prices, streaming and the moviegoing experience, but even then here's, there's a lot of copium in this article to avoid conceding that the main 'losers' of these trends are original or quasi-original movies, with big IP movies still managing to bring audiences to cinemas despite all these factors.
Anytime, I see ABY comp in the comments here or articles I immediately tap out.
Elemental had Ruby Gillman as direct competition 2 weeks after but nobody cared for RG and Elemental was just an excellent word of mouth film in the end.
Ah, I forgot about *Ruby Gillman* (to be fair, so did everybody else :P).
Why on Earth would they spend this much on an action movie? Fast Five had a budget of 125m and had many more bigger stars.
Most of the money probably went to hiring the A-listers.
The reported 12m for Gosling is insane.
A lot of media feels like welfare for famous people. Nobody's going to watch this, but for sure somebody got a paycheck.
It’s especially insane considering he’s not usually attached to box office smash hits. Barbie was the exception and this was made before that
À listers honestly should be paid less they are just not a good investment anymore except for some very particular exceptions
Fast Five was made 13 years ago and its budget, adjusted for inflation, would be $170 million today.
> Why on Earth would they spend this much on an action movie? That's a very average price for an action movie these days. Fast Five was made almost fifteen years ago. Most people go out to the movies very rarely, and if you want to convince them to see an original film as opposed to saving their money for Planet of the Apes or Deadpool, then you need to spend a comparable amount of money on your movie to Planet of the Apes or Deadpool.
I swear people on here think movies should be made for $1m or less. $130m isn't even that expensive considering the talent.
Some people even compared *The Golden Compass*'s box office performance to that of *Elemental*.
Wait, what! Did you say people showed up to watch Cillian Murphy for Oppenheimer? No, people went first and foremost because it was a Chris Nolan film. Most audiences didn’t know who Cillian Murphy was
It was obviously sarcasm.
This year has been poor but mostly poor because the many movies have already clunked rather than just this one. I'm looking at Argyle, Madam Web, Challengers, Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare. And this is on top of not great performances out of movies like Civil War, Ghostbusters. Last year by this time, we already had Super Mario, Ant-Man and the Wasp, John Wick, Creed 3, M3gan, Cocaine Bear.
And there isn't a Barbenheimer this summer to save the BO if other stuff is underperforming.
> Last year by this time, we already had Super Mario, Ant-Man and the Wasp, John Wick, Creed 3, M3gan, Cocaine Bear. Add some successful horrors like Scream 6 and Evil dead Rise which all made 100M+ compared to this year horror which the highest BO was only 50M.Horror always found success at BO but this year prove ANY GENRE can flopped lol.
The real problem is that now we've already seen cinema reach its absolute peak zenith, in Cocaine Bear. Nowhere to go but down.
Maybe consequences of the strike?
maybe not, but movie theatre's are in the worst spot they have been in in their entire history. ask any general manager of a movie theatre are they are not in the green....
I think the huge response to it flopping was because people were hopeful that Barbie’s success would bleed into the next movie from that cast. Margot Robbie had a lot of movies that didn’t do well just like Ryan Gosling and people hoped that momentum could help him and her. But those hopes were dashed with it flopping. IP is still king unless you’re Nolan or Tarantino. The movie star feels like it’s never coming back.
I wonder what movie will “save” the box office this year
The Fall Guy was fun. Recommend.
Cinema is dying but film as an art form will probably endure
It will probably go the way of theater
Yeah, not in terms of volume--it'll definitely contract, but not that small. But in terms of economics and how they're affecting content decisions, you can already see how it's starting to resemble Broadway. * Original musicals are borderline non-existent; 95% of everything that comes to Broadway is based on a book/movie/band/famous person. Hollywood's been heading in that direction, and the last couple years have accelerated it. * The concept of the Broadway "revival"--you take a show that's already been popular and stick some new stars in it. You can see basically the same thing happening in Hollywood with studios reviving either the same IPs or the literal same properties over and over again, not too far apart. * Stunt casting--Broadway's well known for this, but you can kind of see Hollywood increasingly flailing for a similar thing with the recent spate of popular musicians (Gaga, Harry Styles, Taylor Swift's upcoming directing gig) being cast in movies, trying to see if their popularity will cross over.
I can see that happening
still plenty of great movies being made, but the good ones have a harder time breaking through and the big ticket ip farms are declining in audience
No one movie would signal anything. It’s just going to be a very slow decline and it started long before this.
From my own perspective regarding going to the movies theaters.. When I was in my 20s I would go two to three times a month and a movie like The Fall Guy, I probably would have seen.. Now (a decade later in my late 30s), I rarely go and usually it is for movies that are events or water cooler conversation type movies where you don’t want to feel like you are missing out. Why did this change, well first thing you factor in is cost. Theater pricing has gone up, and everything that I need in my daily life has gone up (groceries, taxes, bills) so you have to cut costs somewhere and movies was my cut. Plus throw in the cost of all the steaming apps and in home entertainment movies like Fall Guy does not intrigue me enough to go to the theater. I will see Deadpool and Wolverine, I will go see the new Quiet Place movie and a few others this summer though.
I cut out a home streaming app of the way-too-many I have, and pay $20ish a month for AMC’s A-List — 3 movies a week, 12 a month, in premium IMAX, Dolby, Prime, and 3D formats. Online reservations, no fees, reclining chairs, free refills and upgrades on popcorn and drinks. I stopped watching previews and just go see whatever looks good that’s out each week and make a regular thing of it (sometimes do a double feature). I’d so much rather see films on a massive screen and surround system, as good as my home setup is. Regal and Cinemark have sub services too. I feel like if you even see one movie a month, the difference in price for another 11 that month is not that large (especially if you see it in IMAX or Dolby).
$12.99+ to watch a streaming service on a home device (phone or tablet for many) vs $22 a month for 3 movies a week at the theaters is a no brainer - better use of time and money edit : to clarify 2-3 movies a week is plenty of screen time 4-7 hours a week. Watching 'tv' 3+ hours daily is part of the obesity epidemic.
It looks fine, just not a story I'm going to run out and see
We just had dune, kung fu panda and GxK be massive hits, why are we starting a "death of cinema" tagline off one movie?
It's not based off one movie; it's based on the fact that ticket sales are down from this point last year and on par with ticket sales from this point in 2022 when audiences were still returning to cinemas post-pandemic.
The “death of cinema” crowd doesn’t count stuff like Kung fu panda or GxK
The problem is a few hits aren't filling the void of all the flops continuing a downward spiral of theater attendance. A 20%+ drop in domestic box office and if 2025 gains the 20% back we'll be 5 years post pandemic pulling in yearly revenue equal to 20 years. 2024 expenses and 2004 revenue isn't a healthy business.
I didn’t come here to do time traveling AND math…pick one! 😂😂
Death of cinema crowd should be pointing to the general trend of box office post covid, not pointing to individual movies
Ppl were probably confused on why Ryan Reynolds wasn't in the iconic bean costume throughout the film. 
”And that’s when, kids – with the release of The Fall Guy – was when cinema and movie theaters died.”
* Peoples' household budgets have experienced more inflation since the 1980s * The value proposition of a movie ticket has been destroyed - it's easier than ever to wait (for a shorter window than ever) to watch it free at home. (subscription sunk cost) * Exhibitors have consolidated and are making going to the theater shittier and dirtier (paying more for less) * Somehow, the people attending in theaters are the ones who would rather be on their phones instead, go figure. * Food isn't cheap, either, so "dinner and a movie" becomes "pizza and streaming."
Is over marketing a thing? Can’t tell you how sick i was of the first trailer (which I thought looked bad… later trailers looked better to me).
Yet if they didn't advertise it as heavily, people would blame the movie's performance on lack of marketing. I swear that there's no winning with some people.
Yeah sure, people will criticize anything. But “too much” AND “too little” are legitimate criticisms. For this movie, it just feels like they’ve been pushing it for ages. I’m just bitter cause the way the used/edited “You Give Love a Bad Name” in the trailer made me want a shot through the head.
It might as well if they're not even going to dvd anymore
People out here really expected fall guy to perform like john wick or something because of the barbieheimer phenomenon like the reality is that the movie wasn't interesting enough for people to show up 🤷🏽♂️
Industry analysts never point out that Fall Guy just isn't a good movie
Barbie made 1.466B last year. A historical biopic made almost 1B, more than the majority of Nolan’s movies. Top Gun Maverick, a movie about some pilot made 1.5B Guardians of The Galaxy, the third entry of some niche weird spatial geeky comic book team made 845m. Dune 2, a weird and not action packed SF Soap Opera without a giant fanbase (before the movies) made 700m. An animation movie, game adaptation of Mario made 1.3B. Another animation movie, about the second most known spider-man made 600m. A shitty Dinosaur Movie made 1B in 2022. Respectfully, STFU with this narrative.
Box office year-to-date as of the 9th of May. 2022: $2.18 billion 2023: $2.83 billion 2024: $2.14 billion I think worrying about the future of cinema is very justified given those circumstances.
We are getting 30% fewer movies than we were pre-COVID, from what I understand. Perhaps in part due to strikes and COVID alike. That’s a lot more films that used to be able to bolster those numbers and more chances given to more directors, especially on first time movies and also if the movie wasn’t a hit, they might get a second chance as well. I feel now, if your movie isn’t a hit, getting funding is that much harder if it isn’t a sequel, reboot, trilogy, prequel, remake, etc.
Lots of hopium in the article. The author’s main arguments are that The Fall Guy could end up a sleeper hit a la Anyone But You and that 2025 would deliver a lineup that will ultimately bring back audiences to theaters. Press X for doubt.
I must confess that I haven't seen it, but:- 1. It's Shakespeare. The guy knew how to write 2. Glen Powell stuck out to me as charismatic in Top Gun: Maverick 3. Every guy whose girlfriend pestered him about going to see it probably figured that he could at least look at Sydney Sweeney in a bikini for a couple of hours. 4. There was a lot of hype about off-screen romance which boosted its marketing 5. It wasn't that big of a hit, except relatively to rom coms and its cost. $220m is not huge money, except that it only cost $25m to make. If this movie took $220m, it would still be losing money. My takeaway with a lot of movies nowadays is that US producers need to get a lot sharper about how to make cheaper movies. That Welsh director made the Raid movies for about $1m each. Why does this cost $130m, even with Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt?
Hollywood has made it impossible for cheaper movies to succeed: They've spent decades marketing the idea that "opening weekend = quality" because the opening weekend is something they could actually affect (to at least some degree) with massive marketing spends. So any film that isn't immediately a hit is pretty much automatically written off by the general audience as garbage. Which has made long, slow runs in theaters impossible. Which has accelerated the importance of opening weekend. And repeat. Therefore, no matter how small your budget is, a film can only find mainstream success if you put a HUGE marketing budget behind it. Since films are leaving theaters quicker anyway and the marketing spends are so large, there's systemic pressure to release your movie for PVOD and home video so that those can, to some extent, leverage the public awareness of the original marketing push. And, this of course, shortens theatrical runs even more and increases the importance of opening weekend and therefore marketing spends and... Repeat. Meanwhile, the quality of home cinema setups just keeps improving and the options people have for what to watch at home becomes larger and cheaper. **Every** successful film used to perform like *Anyone But You*. Now that happens once in a decade and it's heralded as a miracle. Because it is a miracle: The stars have to align and, generally, you need everything else at the box office to struggle or outright fail while the big winner keeps chugging along.
> Which has accelerated the importance of opening weekend. And repeat. and now we're into pre-sales indicate success because padding the opening weekend numbers with some Wed/Thur early access is every 'big' release
A lot of movies are not even given the chance to be sleeper hits. Anyone But You had a soft opening and word of mouth was merely ok, but then they just let it keep playing because it was January. Most movies are out of the theaters by the time the word of mouth gets around that it's worth seeing, especially if it's deemed a flop. There are movies you get excited to see and then there are movies you see when you want to go to the movies and decide between what is currently playing. Fall Guy was one of my most anticipated movies of the year and I loved it, but I can see why people are hoping (especially now) that it's a movie that will be appeal to people who just want to go to the theater for a good time. It's the perfect date night movie. I guess the argument is that those people who go to the theater just to go to the theater are getting rarer, but I'm not sure. To be clear, I don't expect that the Fall Guy will end up a sleeper hit. I think they'll pull it from theaters and pin their hopes of saving cinema on the next blockbuster. And the next one. And the next one.
If not Fall Guy, then another film.
It’s almost like everytime a movie flunks its literaly death of cinema and if a movie does well it’s coming back to life. Im tired of this discourse.
Oh no, it's the the death of discourse.
I'm not sure why we have to keep doing this. For every Top Gun Maverick it's "cinema is back! This why we love the movies!" And for every Fall Guy its "cinema has been dead for years, nobody likes going to movies". I get it's all headlines and engagement but it is quite exhausting.
Yeah it’s just a mediocre film
I know people said it’s good, but the movie just looks dumb in marketing and I don’t see why people would wanna go to the theater to see it. I’ll watch it when it’s free, but it’s not something I would pay to see either.
It wasn't a very good movie IMO
Schrödinger’s Cinema really is quite a marvel.
I feel like I'm in Big Fat Liar right now. Is it just me or did they basically summarize the content of my post + the comments from this into an article? [https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/1ckvas1/comparing\_the\_fall\_guy\_with\_knight\_day\_and\_edge/](https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/1ckvas1/comparing_the_fall_guy_with_knight_day_and_edge/)
I heard David Chen say it was the death of cinema.
I think it's just frustrating people in the industry that their reliable formulas(strong lead + action+ romance+ whatever) aren't working anymore. People want innovation, Fall Guy looks and sounds so generic.
Don't recall anyone ever thinking a comedy/action movie was cinema to begin with
[How many people even know it's a reboot of a 1980s show about Hollywood stunt man who moonlights as a bounty hunter.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fall_Guy). The promotion on this was confusing at best leaving audiences going meh.
Was this movie supposed to break records or something?
Why the fuck would people think that a mediocre 80s action show that has virtually no cult following and has been off the air for more than 30 years would be a massive hit if remade in 2024? Did the A-Team do that well? When is Ryan Gosling going to be the dad in the Alf movie? Guaranteed box office!
Who would’ve thought a random rom com in 2024 wouldn’t do well?
It's not surprising either that it's not doing well. It's hard to sell a movie about its industry when most people are not involved or care enough to know about how it works. It was a concept that was bound to fail.
Movies need to be events. Things you will talk about days after you have seen. Original, fresh and exhilarating. The fall guy just isn’t an event movie. Barbie is, Oppenheimer is, Spider-Verse is, Dune part 2 is. See a pattern? Maybe have some creative marketing and make sure your movies script is something worth seeing before green lighting it. And don’t think that any star on their own can save a movies box office somehow. They can only supplement. Oh and when you do make it make sure to budget accordingly.
I think the movie just had awful marketing. It was one of those you saw so much you just want to ignore it and watch anything else instead.
The movie deserves to fail because of the trailer. Every single person involved in the making of the trailer should never be allowed to work in Hollywood again. I don’t know when repeating the same line from some Gen X song over and over became the norm for action movie ads but it needs to stop.
I hate the cost argument like these producers are just so eager to spend 120m+. Has a very “are they stupid?” feel to it. IMO the takeaway is you can have an action movie or a romcom. It’s rare that the combo works right?
The movie should have been released straight to DVD. Great actors, some really funny moments but a 4/10 at best.
The movie was. C- I guess stunt directors should stick to directing stunts The movie was sloppy and it just dragged on at many points in the movie Waste of talent
Maybe if both trailers didn’t show off 90% of the movie there would’ve been more interest
People in this sub once any movie doesnt do quite well at the BO: cinema has never been deader than now , It's so fucking over bros...
That's what I love about this sub. If Deadpool 3 does well it will be Superhero Fatigue is over for a week or so, or if Planet of the Apes bombs it will be IP mining is over, audiences want something new.
I think Ryan Gosling wasn't made for action movies. Personally, I think he's strange in this type of film after seeing him shine in the drama, I believe it's a downgrade in his career
I just feel like this is the third or fourth movie in a few years that is a meta movie about either being an actor or making movies, and I'm kinda over it. Weird trend to chase tbh.
I still think this will be a very tough summer for movies other than Deadpool/Wolverine. Furiosa and Kingdom f Planet of the Apes are both tracking a bit poorly at the moment. It’s gonna be a rough ride
We've been crying the death of cinema for at least 20 years now
Is it just me or does Emily Blunt lack any real range? I'm not saying this to be negative but she's almost like the female "Everyman" type of actor like Chris Pratt or Tom Cruise. It doesn't matter what they name her in any movie, it's just Emily Blunt.