Charts on MONDAYS is so good for me! I do a powerpoint presentation every Monday at 5PM at my theater for employees on how we did this past weekend and what's to come this weekend; and I do a box office round up nationally and Dan helps me so much!
Honestly watching Dan breakdown why a movie is a success or failure is more entertaining to me than having to go to the theatre to watch the movie itself
I think what we are seeing with Furiosa is that it is more of a Blade Runner 2049 status than Across the Spiderverse. From the way I have interacted with people about Fury Road not alot of people have seen it in my circle, which is a shame! But it reminds me of how Blade Runner 2049 was hyped up and fell flat at the box office due to the first being a cult classic for cinephiles, and not so much for the general audience. I think we are seeing the same thing repeat for these new Mad Max movies
Same. I was just thinking I wish there was a way to target those who HAVEN'T seen Fury Road because those that haven't should def watch Furiosa in theatres then go home and watch Fury Road. Unfortunately for us that have seen Fury Road while this is a good movie, it should've been a sequel.
Me too but the more we see people discuss it the more I realize that this is the Blade Runner 2049 of the decade so far. A film that is a continuation of a story (sequel or prequel) to an all time film (in this case Fury Road) that just didn’t hit for people to need to go see. Blade Runner felt that too and I also think both movies just weren’t marketed that well based off that notion. Blade Runner 2049 being a sequel to an all-time classic just wasn’t enough for people it seemed and that is the case here for Furiosa as a prequel to Fury Road.
@@OrionInSpaceHonestly, I think Furiosa’s marketing was fine, good even. They should have gone more crazy with it tbh. Driving war rigs in LA or Furiosa’s last car in some F1 race or something. They should have done the red bull thing. Instead they decided to partner with the nba or something
@@Joshcoshbagosh I won’t disagree with you when you say that they are probably two of the most niche sci-fi franchises out there and so to that point I almost wonder then if maybe the movie form of media entertainment is it worth it for these IP anymore. Perhaps a show or video game or book in these worlds would do better. After all, we are getting that Blade Runner 2099 show so maybe that could prove my point.
Remember when a movie destined to lose 100 million dollars at the box office was big news? I do! It was for Warcraft, Power Rangers, and Mortal Engines. Now it's just a normal day at the office for most studios.
Honestly this shows why even kids movie bombs like Lightyear and Strange World will keep getting made in abundance. If you get a huge hit like frozen, minions, or Mario, you are just printing money FOR YEARS AND YEARS. Sequels, toys, spin off, theme parks, other merch. If I were a movie investor, that’s where I would put every penny. Even moderate returns like Garfield or last years turtles mayhem still turn tidy profits.
I feel bad for Anya Taylor-Joy. Furiosa was supposed to be her second shot at mainstream event films after New Mutants which was left to die. Given how talented she is and how much work she put into the film, I hope studios give her another shot, or she really stands out in Dune 3.
She's kind of had a rough go of it with her blockbusters. New Mutants, Last Night in Soho, Furiosa. None of these were a reflection of her performances or abilities.
Will she be in dune 3? I assumed her character would be recast as a child actor. Otherwise they will need REALLY good makeup to age Paul up by the age of Anya Taylor-Joy.
she stood out in Emma, that's not nothing. and if anything, then I'd say the likes of Emily Blunt deserve super-stardom far more. Anya is still young, she has time.
I love that you break down the budget and marketing with what the film will net. It puts so much of the box office in perspective. It is grim that the big summer movie won't break even in the theatrical run.
@@waywardmind Indeed. At this point, we better hope it doesn't. If KOTPOTA wraps up around $200M domestic or just under, I really hope it ends up on the 2nd half of the summer box office top ten. And IF and The Fall Guy legging out as they are may land No. 9 or 10.
Your adjusted totals for the weekend on 1984 really REALLY highlights what damage the truncated home release window is doing! Redford's pic was essentially doing the same rate of business as a Furiosa/Garfield in its first few weeks... but look at it's final gross!! Just because it could hang around in cinemas and catch audience before it went to (pricey) home videos!
When I saw the poster for Furiosa I had made a prediction that it wouldn't do well, but my reasoning was because it was essentially connected to Fury Road and that it was coming out too late to maintain audience interest. Not really sure of the real reason why people aren't seeing it though. I was wrong about IF though, way more people are watching it than I anticipated as a person that works in a movie theater. I really don't know why people are seeing that movie in particular.
My local wrestling promotion (North Wrestling NCL) screened a documentary (Watch the Lights) several days ago about their biggest ever show last year and run up to it through the eyes of the owner, wrestlers and staff. It was filmed by a local filmmaker who works for North and screened at a local independent cinema (Tyneside Cinema). It was initially in the third biggest screen room then demand meant it was moved to the second biggest screen room. That still wasn't enough to meet the demand so it was moved to the biggest screen. The fans, the wrestlers, the staff and friends and family of those working for the wrestling company packed it out. Never doubt the passion of wrestling fans. I may be biased but I thought the documentary as fantastic. There was a Q&A as well. During which there was talk of maybe getting this film more widespread via a film festival or streaming service. Here's hoping we can do that. Definitely going to be on North's Patreon.
Dan- thanks for bringing back the profit breakdowns. They're my favorite part of the show and I liked how you showed it for the entire top 5 and streamlined the $ breakdown instead of saying how each line was calculated
I've been meaning to suggest this for a little while. Your "Road to Recovery" chart does give us a general picture of how the box offices are doing, but I don't know how well it captures the cumulative effect of a down year. You could (and I feel like you have in the past?) make a chart of year-to-date cumulative box office for each year. This would show you how the whole box office is doing rather than comparing individual weeks.
Definitely a low keyed weekend. Did enjoy the smaller releases which struggle for real estate at this time of year. Caught 'In A Violent Nature' on Thursday, and caught 'The Dead Don't Hurt' today... along with 'the Muppet Movie', quite the combo. Danny Huston was really channeling his father in 'The Dead Don't Hurt'. Really enjoyed it.
At least domestically, Furiosa (75M-85M) will finish below Garfield (95M-110M), IF (105M-115M), The Fall Guy (85M-95M) and Kingdom of The Planet of The Apes (160M-165M).
With the Summer starting proper now, the family stuff is going to get a lot more traction by comparison. I still hope Furiosa sticks around and possibly finds a little more steam in the office along with Kingdom of The Planet Of The Apes. If nothing else, I paid my ticket for both, so I can't be ashamed to say I didn't support them.
I wonder if it was a mistake to release "Furiosa" so close after "Dune 2." To some viewers the two might both look like "weird people running around in the desert. I saw that two months ago." Or perhaps it was not smart to release "Furiosa" after "Kingdom/Apes," which, in a way, is a post-apocalyptic film as is "Furiosa."
"Women swimming across the ocean" is a weird niche genre. Last year Annette Bening and Jodi Foster got oscar noms for Nyad, about a woman who swam from Cuba to Florida. There's this Young Woman and the Sea about the first woman to swim the English channel. And in googling to find Nyad (because I couldn't remember the name) it turns out another movie came out in Britain this year about the first British woman to swim the English Channel. It's kind of like when two movies came out close to eachother about the Olympic runner Steve Prefontaine
I'm almost impressed that 'Furiosa' cost $168 million when you've got movies like 'Fast X' and 'Dial of Destiny' costing upwards of $250-$300 million or more. It says that they looked at what the first one made and attempted to budget it around the same figuring that maybe it's original audience would show up and hopefully it wouldn't skew quite as male heavy with a female lead maybe bringing in some of that audience who didn't show up for 'Fury Road'. They had no way of knowing at the time that the cinemas would still be recovering. Having said that, it was filmed in Australia and even though it got a nice tax break, covid restrictions were probably still quite costly. I was reading the interview with Anya Taylor-Joy quite differently in that light where she said "George Miller kept a very safe set" and "it was the loneliest she's ever felt on a film set". That could very well be due to covid guidelines which, as someone who lived through the pandemic in Australia, were very strict. They'd shut down Sydney if one or two tests were positive. Behind the scenes do show George Miller wearing a mask. That, plus things I mentioned in another comment could have all had some kind of impact on the film and it's budget and/or box office.
I cant see the studios putting in this kind of money and being happy with the losses or SMALL gains. Your telling me they spent 120 mill on Garfield and might make 10 mill profit. Spending 120 to make 10 profit isnt good business.
The newest Mission Impossible budget has reported to balloon up to 400 mil now. The last one way underperformed and you think the studio would reign the budget in going forward but I guess now. Its like people betting $50 to make $55 back, makes no sense.
No, this is not how the studios look at it. They don’t look at box office numbers solely. They look at the total revenue a movie makes across theatrical releases and streaming platforms. For the production studios, think they must have largely perfected the revenue formula from streaming revenues by now and are able to make profits from these high-budget movies throughout the life of a movie across the different mediums
@VH07654 cool but even with great digital sales let's say taking Garfield to 30 mil profit which is a leap. spending 120 million and getting back 150 isn't great. better off spending 5 mil on a mediocre horror film and get back your 5 plus 50 profit at a minimum
@@travissmith6380 I agree. It is baffling how some Hollywood movies can be done with a budget of less than $10-15m while others have budgets above $100-150m. I get that wages and CGI are expensive but I doubt it is to that extent! These numbers are overly bloated. It would be interesting to see a cost breakdown / what costs constitute the bulk of these large budgets
@@griswoldclark6835 Yeah it's not good how high that budget has gone but I do wonder if splitting it into a Part 1 and Part 2 was part of the reason why Part 1 underperformed. I know some people would just prefer to have the whole story at once nowadays and I blame streaming services for that. Some have told me that they were just going to wait for Part 2 and then watch Part 1 beforehand. Not always the most logical option or the best for the studios but that's how some people think these days.
One revenue stream that’s difficult to quantify is how new franchise titles like Apes and Furiosa can boost revenue for all the movies in their respective series. Joe Drake (former head of motion pictures at Lionsgate) said on a podcast that they saw a surge in rentals/purchases for John Wick titles every time they put out a new one. Anecdotally I can say that after seeing both Apes and Furiosa, I went back and streamed numerous movies in both series. Just another reason why Hollywood continues to favor franchises and IP over big original swings like IF (even THE FALL GUY was a show so who knows, maybe those old episodes are getting a boost).
And even with originals, certain directors that are brands like Nolan and Peele likely see revenue boosts from their older films every time a new film comes out. Wouldn’t be surprised if Oppenheimers release coincided with some spikes for Inception, Interstellar, etc.
Am I the only one who thought IF was a streaming movie? I even saw the first trailer and everything. 😂 ETA: Oh and I just saw Patrick Willems talk about Streets of Fire so interesting seeing you talk about it in the flashbacks segment.
Dan, kudos for creating awareness for both Young Woman and the Sea's weird oscar eligibility run and its good reviews. I was gonna wait on it a week, but just in case, I flipped my Garfield for it instead as my 3rd A-list of the week. I'll get to Garfield eventually, probably this weekend... it'll be around
1984 - the best year in movies IMO (4 movies I love just in that top 5 for that particular week). It would be interesting if Dan did an episode on the 10 best movie years based on combined box office and adjusted for inflation, highlighting some of the biggest movies in those years.
I think Furiosa suffered for similar (but not the same) reasons as Solo. They are both films telling the origins of characters in beloved films, which were part of beloved franchises. Obviously Mad Max is a VERY different IP than Star Wars, but I think the reasoning behind greenlighting both projects were similar. The problem is that there wasn't really a demand for the backstories of these characters, in fact part of the reason they resonated so much with audiences originally was because of what was left unsaid. Plus I think both Anya Taylor Joy and Alden Ehrenreich were miscast, neither of them really resemble their predecessors and they both bring different things to the table acting wise as Charlize Theron or Harrison Ford.
I would go to your live chat in NYC if I lived on the east coast. I hope you would consider doing a west coast thing in the future. 🤞🙏 Great charts this week❤
Glad that The Garfield Movie & IF are holding strong but it’s overshadowing Furiosa that’s shows that family movies can do still be huge hits in theaters which is great for Inside Out 2 & Despicable Me 4!
New Chart - Top 10 movies that were able to stay on the 365 chart. Chart would have their gross to rank them, but will show what # they enter the chart at, and what number they exited the chart. And what period they were on the chart for.
I understand the show is packed and takes a lot of work, and I still enjoy it, but I have to say I miss the independant theatres segment. I was thrilled when you picked the Vogue in Manistee from my comment a few years ago, but I was hoping you might eventually get around to the Little or the Dryden in Rochester. Again, still love the show, want to emphasize that, and I definitely respect the work that goes into it.
Furiosa was disappointing for me, but it’s heartbreaking we’ll probably never get a proper sequel to Fury Road or another brand new Mad Max story from Miller.
A young woman and the sea not released anywhere in Canada. Looking forward to seeing it on Disney+ - although I thought the timing was odd with the Annette Benning swimming from Cuba movie on Netflix at the holidays.
Hey Dan, love your show. Can't wait to see the new show next Monday. Thursday, 6.13.24 box office numbers came in and Bad Boys looks solid. Hopefully it holds up and has a good Friday to add to its overall total. It appears Bad Boys opening really hurt Kingdom of Apes and Furiosa as both took drastic drops. Neither could muster-up much business. The new film, Watchers, looks D.O.A., another horror fail. Surprisingly, Garfield and IF, especially IF, are almost unchanged from last week. Both look to have strong holds once again this week. But anyway, can't wait to see what unfolds this weekend and your take on the box office performances.
Furiosa was a good movie, I liked it pretty equal to Fury Road. I think the problem is it's like 9 years too late. They announced a Furiosa movie before Fury road left theaters, and it just took too long. Strike while the iron is hot, not after it's cooled, been set aside and rusted in a corner for a decade.
Hey Dan, chart idea for next week (or when you have time) percentage of movies (in wide release) each year that opened to $100+ million vs opened lower. Maybe also average & median opening weekends for the year? I think people got too complacent with $100+ million opening weekends. I don't think they were ever as common as people seem to think. Also, as much as I'm tired of hearing the phrase I think it applies here: "This is the new normal."
Garfield is going to be the Maverick of 2024! Note: we wanted to see Kingdom/Apes but haven't seen the previous films in the series. They're not all streamable (on D+ or HBO-Max).
There are too many movies in that series now. I'm interested but it felt like homework, considering how long it's been since the first of the reboot was released.
@@Renoistic It's a fresh trilogy without much need to have seen the other 3 to get the gist of what's going on so stop it with that nonsense. The rebooted trilogy was entirely separate from the original POTA movies so there was no need to see any of them either. What feels like "homework" is trying to keep up with anything Marvel put out as there's half a dozen TV shows to keep track of between the movies which is no small wonder that franchise is dying fast.
I think studios need to gauge how their movie is doing for 3 weeks, then decide: -If after 3 weeks, the projected gross surpasses the Budget and Marketing and it will turn a profit = then that film stays in theaters for 90 days. -If after 3 weeks a film is projected to only make back its budget = then that film stays in theaters 30-45 days then goes to PVOD for the remaining 90 days of its run. -If after 3 weeks a film is not even going to make back its budget = then 30 days it hits PVOD for the remaining 90 days of its run. After all films have spent 90 days in a combined Theatrical and PVOD = then it goes to streaming. I think that’s the best way to handle it because it’s based on actual facts of how it’s grossing. I keep hearing many people say “go back to the old 90 day window” as if that’s the complete solve. It’s like people think- well if it stays in theaters longer, people are forced to see it in theaters - no, people will just wait til it comes on streaming. And if that logic were the case, no movie would have flopped prior to 2020. Also, if people recall pre-2020, when a movie didn’t do well in theaters and stayed in theaters for 90 days - that film got bad press for 90 days. There is a benefit to getting films not doing well OUT of theaters. The entire reputation of the film not doing well will be ruined so by the time it goes to PVOD- no one wants to see it. Which is why PVOD wasn’t as big back then as it is now. But I just think, instead of studios trying to do these “blanket” solutions - try understanding that every film is different and go off of the facts of how it’s doing in theaters to determine how long it stays.
I would like to see a deep dive video into the Lord of the Rings trilogy financial breakdown to see how ludicrous New Line Cinema's claims that the series never made any money and lost money to avoid paying royalties to Tolkien's family that were part of the contract.
I think Fall Guy still has a chance to be profitable. I might be biased coz I genuinely liked it as a really good Popcorn movie but given what I told or hear from others, there seems to be a will to go and see it or at least rent it. Thing I couldn t say about Furiosa, nobody seems to be interested in that one. I d say Fall Guy could turn out to be a slow burner so I wouldn t write it off as long as theaters show a bit of patience but yeah would give it better chances in the VoD/streaming market overall.
The Young Woman And The Sea isn't exactly setting the UK box office alight either. It scraped in at 13th place with a pathetic £64k, despite it getting a reasonable amount of publicity this side of the pond.
When it comes to the tie ins, I wonder how it works when films are delayed? My Daughter last month was collecting Happy Meal toys from a Captain America film that won't come out in 2024 at all. Now she is collecting Inside Out 2, a film that will at least come out in theaters soon.
Hey, Dan. Could theatrical releases be seen as giant promotions for these movies when they hit PVOD? I think I heard that movies that had theater runs always perform better on streaming. Or, is that only for when those movies hit services like Peacock or Paramount+?
These budget numbers are crazy high! Are these Hollywood budgets overbloated? It would be interesting to see the breakdown of these budgets, what is eating most of the cost as well as the growth/pace of budgets in the last 20 years
Besides wage increases I cant think of a-lot of stuff that would prevent most of these movies from having budgets no bigger then 150 mil. Spending 250 mil plus for movies to keep bombing will eventually cause these studios to go bankrupt. Godzilla Minus was 15 mil tops.
Besides wage increases I cant think of a-lot of stuff that would prevent most of these movies from having budgets no bigger then 150 mil. Spending 250 mil plus for movies to keep bombing will eventually cause these studios to go bankrupt. Godzilla Minus was 15 mil tops.
@@griswoldclark6835 it is baffling how some Hollywood movies can be done with a budget of less than $10-15m while others have budgets above $100-150m. I get that wages and CGI are expensive but I doubt it is to that extent! On another point, I don’t think the major studios will go bankrupt as these movies tend to eventually make money in the streaming platforms. The box office revenue of a theatrical release is just one source of revenue for those movies. I am guessing most of the revenue for these high budget movies must be coming from streaming, otherwise the studios wouldn’t have agreed to such large budgets. Tbh I don’t know what is the revenue sharing formula from the streaming platforms but it would be interesting if Dan can explain those or include in his calculations
Paramount and Skydance reach a deal on an $8 billion merger Will bring many iconic entertainment franchises under one roof, including Star Trek, Harry Potter, Looney Tunes, Transformers, Mission: Impossible, DC, and more. It would also likely see the two streaming services - Max and Paramount+ - combine in order to more effectively challenge Netflix and Disney+
I saw Young Woman and the Sea that past weekend because I have AMC A-list and was looking for something to see because I try to see a movie each week. I was surprised I had never heard of it or seen a trailer for it but saw it had good reviews and audience scores so I went for it and I really enjoyed it. Felt it was in a vein similar to The Boys in the Boat but I liked Young Woman and the Sea much better.
Hi Dave, love the show! Just one question. Is Argylle considered original IP? I know the movie is completely different than the books but technically speaking it’s not a 100% original IP.
I’m not sure how much money there is to be made from PVOD but I think Furiosa will do well in that space. I’m not so sure I agree with Dan’s assessment on Garfield. Who wants Garfield merch? It might do well on PVOD but… it’s not really connecting with kids so…
Streets of Fire is one of those movies I only bothered checking out because of the soundtrack. Two of Jim Steinman's best songs are on the OST, and those songs alone are worth buying a copy of the record. Tried watching the movie and it didn't do it for me, quit about 30 minutes in, but maybe one of these days I'll try watching the whole thing again. That said, those two Jim Steinman songs have been consistent parts of my music rotation for almost two decades at this point. Stone-cold classics.
Dan, I've seen people in the Max Max subreddit say that the Australian government paid a huge chunk of the Furiosa cost. One claimed it was around 40% of the budget. Could you potentially look into this and if there is any validity then update it into next week's charts?
Dan, just curious because I know you are thorough - for Garfield, how did you incorporate the previous month of international box office? Does the cut work the same since it’s now in week 6 or something now, depending on country (been here in the U.K. that long, it seems …)
Dan, did you hear the news that dropped on the CNBC website? Paramount and SkyDance have agreed to terms to launch their merger starting today. You need to do a new Charts With Dan video on that topic.
19:08 I know this will show a much more bleaker reality, but can you also do an inflation adjusted version of the Road to Recovery graph? It's numbers over 9 year span. Direct comparison without considering inflation is a bit pointless.
@@DanMurrellMovies Interesting! I had heard all the mystery behind not knowing who the author really was but didn’t realize it had just all been marketing for the movie lol
Fingers crossed for will smith and martin lawrence bad boys ride or die. I totally believe these bad boys movies are the profitable hits on all theatrical windows.
I'm sitting here watching you go over the top 1-5, then 6-10 and I just think "These movies are garbage! There's nothing in there I want to see in theaters." Even your predicted summer top 10 doesn't thrill me. I thought "Man, I bet 40 years ago had a great box office." 31:57 You didn't let me down! Look at those first 3! Come on now! I wondered what 6-10 were so I had to go look it up. 6. Once upon a time in America 7. Romancing The Stone 8. Police Academy 9. Sixteen Candles 10. Footloose 11. Splash 7-11 Those are bangers! 1, 2, 3, 7-11 are all movies to see in the theater. Compare those to 2024 and you see why theaters are struggling, studios are just shoveling out a load of poo expecting you to just be a robot and hand over 3 times what you used to pay for a bunch of crap.
No more Mad Max Movies? What went wrong??? Ummm..maybe if this movie had Mad Max in it! No- certainly that couldn't be it. Studio: Hey, just put his name in the title...movie goers (stayers) will never notice!
