The 2024 Box Office thread

[909]

What do you expect to fill that void? (please have a better answer than "movies that aren't shit")

Also, since I inadvertently led the board off on this weird tangent, @909, when I asked you what meant when you said you'd like to see movies with more practical effects fill the void, I meant more along the lines of genre, like do you want to see the void filled by more generic action movies, like all the bullshit that Tom Cruise does? Or mob movies? Horror, comedy, Oscar bait?

If the market declares that the American moviegoer is "off" Comic Book Movies, what takes their place? Scorsese has all the hot takes about CBM, but we don't actually believe that if they stopped making them that we're all going to pack the AMC to go see his shit... or do we?

Scorsese didn't really say anything wrong, he said that comic book movies have become comfort food and aren't challenging. That's not always true but in the last two years arguably it has become more true. FWIW I'm going to see The Flash in like 30 minutes. Because what else am I gonna go see?

But I do think that what's needed is something more original, something that isn't borrowing from other people's work, and I think that's what cinema goers want. I think we hit the point where people are getting tired of adapted material, basically. It's hard to be absolutely sure of that because there's very little originality being pushed into theaters and it's impossible to compare as a result. I think people just want to watch good movies but studios are adapting material and playing it too safely, movies are starting to feel too similar to each other. And I don't think Indiana Jones is a comic movie but it's a followup to what was previously original material, but people decided that they don't want to see the old guy doing shit they saw him do 40 years ago.

I don't really have a favorite genre, I watch everything and decide whether or not I think something is good on its own merits so I can't really answer that question.

They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.

And if you’re going to tell me that it’s simply a matter of supply and demand and giving the people what they want, I’m going to disagree. It’s a chicken-and-egg issue. If people are given only one kind of thing and endlessly sold only one kind of thing, of course they’re going to want more of that one kind of thing.

But, you might argue, can’t they just go home and watch anything else they want on Netflix or iTunes or Hulu? Sure — anywhere but on the big screen, where the filmmaker intended her or his picture to be seen.

In the past 20 years, as we all know, the movie business has changed on all fronts. But the most ominous change has happened stealthily and under cover of night: the gradual but steady elimination of risk. Many films today are perfect products manufactured for immediate consumption. Many of them are well made by teams of talented individuals. All the same, they lack something essential to cinema: the unifying vision of an individual artist. Because, of course, the individual artist is the riskiest factor of all.

I’m certainly not implying that movies should be a subsidized art form, or that they ever were. When the Hollywood studio system was still alive and well, the tension between the artists and the people who ran the business was constant and intense, but it was a productive tension that gave us some of the greatest films ever made — in the words of Bob Dylan, the best of them were “heroic and visionary.”

Today, that tension is gone, and there are some in the business with absolute indifference to the very question of art and an attitude toward the history of cinema that is both dismissive and proprietary — a lethal combination. The situation, sadly, is that we now have two separate fields: There’s worldwide audiovisual entertainment, and there’s cinema. They still overlap from time to time, but that’s becoming increasingly rare. And I fear that the financial dominance of one is being used to marginalize and even belittle the existence of the other.

It's interesting to see how Hollywood will react to this. This year has had more large scale flops, more flops to the extent of losing gigantic amounts of money, than we've ever seen before. Quality of script is obviously the single biggest reason, but as is addressed by Scorsese these studios won't or can't make anything that doesn't fit into predefined standards. My favorite movie last year was the one where people got sucked up into a UFO's ass, diverse young cast which is what people claim they want to see now, originality off the charts, but not too many people went to go see that either. Maybe the movies are dead, because if Nope wasn't an unqualified financial success (it wasn't), maybe it's impossible to make movies that turn a profit.

 

[909]

Actually that’s not true my favorite genre is BIG BOATS ON WATER

This Kraven movie might single-handedly kill this genre though wow

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

But I do think that what's needed is something more original, something that isn't borrowing from other people's work, and I think that's what cinema goers want. I think we hit the point where people are getting tired of adapted material, basically. It's hard to be absolutely sure of that because there's very little originality being pushed into theaters and it's impossible to compare as a result. I think people just want to watch good movies but studios are adapting material and playing it too safely, movies are starting to feel too similar to each other. And I don't think Indiana Jones is a comic movie but it's a followup to what was previously original material, but people decided that they don't want to see the old guy doing shit they saw him do 40 years ago.

I feel like most reasonable people can agree that eighty-one is too old to be trying to be an action star, but how did we settle on sixty-one? And what makes the Mission Impossible franchise a well that no one objects going back to, over and over? Is the premise that CBMs would be okay, as long as there was only one every 3-5 years?

I disagree strongly with the premise that pre-existing IP is limiting creativity, or whatever. Now what I will stipulate is that Marvel's decision to make all of their properties maintain connectivity to each other stifles their ability to branch out into other genres, but you're not going to convince me that the problem is adapted material. There isn't a genre that you could name where there aren't at least three CB properties a good movie in that genre could be made from: you telling me that you would look down your nose at a western, just because the protagonist's name was Johnny Bart? I think that they could make great movies in whatever genre they wanted, if they didn't all have to tie into each other.

Now, don't get me wrong, it's working for me: I happen to be super-served by the MCU, but I also acknowledge that there aren't enough of me to keep that model viable in perpetuity. I just have a hard time believing that whatever people think the "cure" is wouldn't be worse than the "disease."

 

[cobainwasmurdered]

None of us are saying that Comic book movies are going to go away entirely. Most of us LIKE comic book movies. We're saying they're badly overexposed, as our giant budgeted CGI blockbusters and that Hollywood is going to have to dial back on them and concentrate on making movies that people want to see (aka that aren't shit).

 

[Dandy]

I’m reading hours after the discussion but practical versus CGI and how the movies are better for it with practical effects can be best answered by looking at Christopher Nolan. In The Dark Knight, Nolan wanted to have Batman flip a tractor trailer that The Joker was driving. How did he do that? He flipped a tractor trailer. In Interstellar, he wanted someone to drive through a massive cornfield so he planted a massive cornfield and then sold the corn for profit. He uses as little CGI as possible and also dedicated to film, iMax, etc versus digital movies. Nearly universally, Nolan is praised for it and his movies are well-loved.

This is not to say you can’t have a tremendous movie that is heavy CGI. Look no further than Endgame for something that had great emotion and wrapped up years of stories. Most of the CGI heavy movies are more like Batman v Superman though, where Snyder had the big fight background look like they were fighting on a volcano when they were in downtown Metropolis.

Movies have trended toward CGI because they can but that doesn’t mean they should. Miniatures and sets are still effects and shouldn’t be replaced by computers just because it is possible when it doesn’t look better most of the time.

 

[HarleyQuinn]

Give me an example of a TV show where they would have done the same thing: there's only about a five percent chance that I've ever seen any movie that would fit the criteria.

This is an example... take note of the way the wheel's moving while the background (green screened in probably) remains pretty static/centered.

 

[Fall of Epic]

Tom Cruise gets a pass for being an old man action hero because (for the most part) he does his own stunts and looks like he's dedicated as hell to his work rather than collecting a paycheck. I was rewatching "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" the other night and there was so many wide shots of Harrison Ford it was ridiculous (and he was just a few years older than Tom is now). I can't imagine how, other than de-aging, they hide the fact that he's 80 in this new flick.

I want more original films with great story and acting. Those aren't hard to find.

 

[AA484]

Another knock on Marvel is that they thought they could coast on the B-tier properties until they were ready to launch (re-launch?) X-Men and Fantastic Four. Well, those are still a couple years away and audiences have shown that they (a) care less about about the B-tier properties and (b) definitely don't care if the movies stink and (c) double-down on not caring if it requires them to watch TV shows to be up to speed on the movies. I'm sure the fanbase is also going to look kindly on them gutting Daredevil and rebooting what was probably the best Marvel show up to this point.

I don't follow the legal stuff all that much, but Spider-Man was and is great, but the future of that franchise (at least in the current Marvel) universe seems to be up in the air, which is disappointing. I've read that Tom Holland has met with Marvel execs but nothing is set in stone for his return, yet.

 

[Mickey Massuco]

Comic book movies suck but that 209 line about adapted material, this tweet from 2019 says it all:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1144012720204914696

 

[909]

Tom Cruise gets a pass for being an old man action hero because (for the most part) he does his own stunts and looks like he's dedicated as hell to his work rather than collecting a paycheck. I was rewatching "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" the other night and there was so many wide shots of Harrison Ford it was ridiculous (and he was just a few years older than Tom is now). I can't imagine how, other than de-aging, they hide the fact that he's 80 in this new flick.

I want more original films with great story and acting. Those aren't hard to find.

Mission Impossible also wasn't any good until the fourth one and these movies are super spaced out so that people won’t get tired of them.

 

[Fall of Epic]

We gotta throw the 3rd one in there. It was directed by JJ Abrams and Philip Seymour Hoffman (fresh off his Oscar win) played a superb villain. The 2nd one killed the franchise and 3 resurrected it.

 

[Cackling Co Pilot Kamala]

and Tom Cruise on his own isn’t a guaranteed box office success (see The Edge of Tomorrow and The Mummy although the last one can be blamed on too much CGI and no one wanting to see crappy reboots too.)

 

[Brocklock]

I think the first one is great because it's such a Brian De Palma movie and he does all his signature tricks. There's a tension that's not around in the later movies. It's one of my favorites of the series.

I like 3 as well and Hoffman is still the best villain of the series. The only bad movie is 2 because John Woo and Tom Cruise are a weird fit.

 

[909]

Now that I watched The Flash, and I can't believe I didn't already bring this up, but another very main reason these movies are bombing? The fucking multiverse. Who asked for this shit? That one word is repellent and I'm glad nobody else has time for that shit.

 

[Cackling Co Pilot Kamala]

I don't blame the multiverse necessarily. Spider-Man: No Way Home was a massive success a year and a half ago. But I think a lot of it boils down to MCU mostly does things right and DCEU mostly does things wrong. No Way Home worked because people wanted to see it. It's stars of two beloved versions of the same franchise from past 20 years (and a third who starred in the more divisive version but is also one of the great actors of the time, which really plays well into his redemptive arc) teaming up plus a plethora of great villains (again played by great actors) throughout the franchises' history. It managed to feel as organic as you can for a plot as convoluted as a multiverse story.

The Flash though (and I have only read the Wikipedia synopsis but from all accounts, it seems like a good summary) was just a complete grab bag of a bunch of different characters from a bunch of different franchises (including versions that never actually really happened) throughout the course of SEVENTY YEARS thrown together in a mediocre, everything but the kitchen sink soup.

Is it too early to admit that Top Gun: Maverick was the obvious exception to the rule and Indiana Jones and Keaton's Batman bombing are a sign that Xer nostalgia is dead?

 

[Brocklock]

I wonder how Beetlejuice 2 will do when it comes out next year. That has Jenna Ortega, so it might end up doing well with gen z.

 

[Cackling Co Pilot Kamala]

Yeah, ultimately, I think The Flash failed more despite old Batman not because of it. I think a straight up The Dark Knight Returns adaptation with Keaton could've been the Top Gun: Maverick of the superhero world. I don't think it's that no one wanted to see Michael Keaton as Batman again but no one wanted to see him as a sidekick to that piece of garbage Ezra Miller!

 

[HarleyQuinn]

Is it too early to admit that Top Gun: Maverick was the obvious exception to the rule and Indiana Jones and Keaton's Batman bombing are a sign that Xer nostalgia is dead?

Yes... you have one of the best movies of that year vs. two mediocre to 6/10 "good" movies at best by most accounts so of course the latter two bombed. Good movies will always matter regardless of whether it's catering to Gen X, Gen Y, Gen Z, etc.

At its core people want to see their heroes be heroes in good movies. Logan was a blueprint for how these "old/on the ropes" characters should be treated in action hero movies but studios refuse to just KISS and make it convoluted trying to shoe-horn in characters/plots that fans & casual viewers don't have any resonance with.

I'd also argue people are simply being more selective especially now. We've seen movies get a ton of $$ when people are willing to spend their money but they aren't going to 3-6 movies in a 2-month span like past years. If you're a family of 4 and you're spending $50+ minimum just to go out to the movies, how many of the following are you legitimately throwing that $$ at: Insidious: The Red Door, Mission: Impossible Dead Reckoning Part 1, Barbie, Oppenheimer, The First Slam Dunk, Haunted Mansion, TMNT: Mutant Mayhem, The Meg 2: The Trench, Gran Turismo, Blue Beetle, Retribution and that's before you get into September-December where there are more "big blockbuster" movies waiting.

Of the above group, I personally want to see 6 of those, and just by myself, that's almost $100-$120 between ticket price + concessions.

 

[Cackling Co Pilot Kamala]

Logan was a blueprint for how these "old/on the ropes" characters should be treated in action hero movies but studios refuse to just KISS and make it convoluted trying to shoe-horn in characters/plots that fans & casual viewers don't have any resonance with.

I mean Dial of Destiny literally brought in the guy from Logan and it still didn’t work. I feel like Indiana Jones is just a character best left in the ‘30s/‘40s. At least this one had the sense to bring in a Nazi.

 

[Gary]

1	N	Insidious: The Red Door	Sony Pictures	$32,650,000		3,188		$10,242	$32,650,000	1
2	(1)	Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny	Walt Disney	$26,500,000	-56%	4,600	n/c	$5,761	$121,205,329	2
3	N	Sound of Freedom	Angel Studios	$18,219,879		2,952		$6,172	$40,207,249	1
4	(2)	Elemental	Walt Disney	$9,600,000	-21%	3,650	n/c	$2,630	$109,191,880	4
5	(3)	Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse	Sony Pictures	$8,000,000	-33%	3,023	-382	$2,646	$357,668,000	6
6	N	Joy Ride	Lionsgate	$5,850,000		2,820		$2,074	$5,850,000	1
7	(4)	No Hard Feelings	Sony Pictures	$5,250,000	-33%	2,686	-522	$1,955	$40,412,000	3
8	(5)	Transformers: Rise of the Beasts	Paramount Pi…	$5,000,000	-32%	2,475	-377	$2,020	$146,723,000	5
9	(7)	The Little Mermaid	Walt Disney	$3,500,000	-35%	2,430	n/c	$1,440	$289,038,945	7
10	(6)	Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken	Universal	$2,800,075	-49%	3,408	+8	$822	$11,600,000	2
11	(9)	Asteroid City	Focus Features	$2,239,660	-48%	1,111	-790	$2,016	$23,994,000	4
12	(8)	The Flash	Warner Bros.	$2,215,000	-58%	1,723	-995	$1,286	$105,160,000	4
13	(12)	Past Lives	A24	$1,001,133	-40%	776	-130	$1,290	$8,384,303	6
14	(10)	Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3	Walt Disney	$1,000,000	-51%	1,165	n/c	$858	$357,577,614	10
15	N	Lost in the Stars	CMC Pictures	$820,000		62		$13,226	$820,000	1

-

N

The Lesson

Bleecker Street

$157,752

268

$589

$157,752

1

-

N

Biosphere

IFC Films

$34,000

48

$708

$34,000

1

-	N	Amanda	Oscilloscope…	$9,450		2		$4,725	$9,450	1
-	N	Once Upon a Time in Uganda	Yellow Veil …	$9,400		8		$1,175	$9,400	1

Ouch for "Joy Ride" and lol at "The Flash"

 

[HarleyQuinn]

Very good return for Insidious: The Red Door assuming it has a similar $10-$15 Million budget as its past two movies. Not to the same level but Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken is crashing as hard too as Indiana Jones given its $70 Million budget and it'll be lucky to get close to even worldwide.

 

[Dandy]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1679819363438809089

 

[Hawk 34]

that guy lied.

 

[Hawk 34]

It wasnt interesting.

 

[Dandy]

I found the comments that followed interesting where he posted a screenshot of an apparent crowdfunding ticket purchase deal. It seems that QAnon idiots have an endless source of cash since they can buy up millions of tickets and also wait on JFK Jr to show up in Dallas for months on end.

 

[cobainwasmurdered]

Is it really that weird for people to buy tickets and not go to movies guys? Just want to show support.

 

[Fall of Epic]

I had a friend who bought a ticket to the first X-Men film back in 2000 and never saw the movie because he wanted capeshit to succeed. He was ahead of the curve.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Is it really that weird for people to buy tickets and not go to movies guys? Just want to show support.

Probably? But I don't give a fuck. I've only been to the theater once since COVID. But, then again, I was never that big into movies, anyway; I can count the number of non-CBMs I've seen in the theater since 1999 on my fingers, without running out of fingers. Hell, I'm not too far away from being able to do that for non-CBMs I've seen since 1999, in total.

Were it not for COVID, I would have gone to see all of the Phase 4 movies in the theater, but the only one I actually went to was Wakanda Forever. I did, however, buy tickets to Shang-Chi and Eternals, anyway.

 

[Cackling Co Pilot Kamala]

Is it really that weird for people to buy tickets and not go to movies guys? Just want to show support.

CWM into QAnon confirmed.

 

[cobainwasmurdered]

CWM into QAnon confirmed.

Well ya know KOAB did vanish after contracting COVID, and he was a man not afraid to ask questions. We should ask ourselves "Cui Bono?" and the answer is: THE DEEP STATE