2025 movies

[Brobocop]

Originally Posted by jdandns

It'll be tough for it to beat the live-action "Aladdin" in terms of quality, but with "Mickey 17" still holding on to 1st place after two weeks despite only 7.5 million in its second weekend, "Snow White" is set up to do very well indeed its premiere week.

After "Snow White And The Three Stooges", "Mirror Mirror" with Julia Roberts, and "Snow White and the Huntsmen" with Kristen Stewart, it's about time the animated Disney version is finally getting the live-action treatment.

It's not the kind of movie I usually go to the cinema for, but I like the previous work from its songwriters ("La La Land", "Greatest Showman", "Dear Evan Hansen", and the terrific "Aladdin" mentioned above) so I might see it on the big-screen as opposed to catching it on Disney+ like I normally would.

I'll give a review here if I actually do.

Mickey 17 was third in North America this weekend, movie is DOA. Going to streaming next week I think.

[Ty Hope]

Originally Posted by rms13

ye

Yes. But I still think parents with young kids and adult Disney fans will see it and it will make at least enough to not be a flop.

Break-even is estimated at 650 million. We’ll see but all signs point to a flop.

[bblair_2002]

Originally Posted by Ty Hope

Break-even is estimated at 650 million. We’ll see but all signs point to a flop.

Agree and wouldn't have been that way if Rachel Ziegler just kept her mouth shut.

[Ty Hope]

Originally Posted by bblair_2002

Agree and wouldn't have been that way if Rachel Ziegler just kept her mouth shut.

Not only her but if Disney decided on a faithful adaptation instead of “she doesn’t find true love, she’s a strong independent leader!” they would have had an EASY hit. They went all in on ideology and cast an extremely unlikeable lead. Perhaps they’ll prove me wrong.

[Corporal Lance]

Orr they could have stuck to the original story. But did it live-action.

[Ty Hope]

Originally Posted by Corporal Lance

Orr they could have stuck to the original story. But did it live-action.

That’s exactly what I said. Faithful adaptation.

[patchgenie]

Originally Posted by Brobocop

Mickey 17 was third in North America this weekend, movie is DOA. Going to streaming next week I think.

it seems like the out of the box movies that are good are flopping. I guess it seems like everything comes to streaming a month later, so people can wait if they're on the fence.

September 5th just came out in Jan and is on prime now.

I liked the blockbuster/dvd era better than streaming.

[jdandns]

Originally Posted by Brobocop

Mickey 17 was third in North America this weekend, movie is DOA. Going to streaming next week I think.

They might let it play a little longer. It's been #1 in the U.S. every day since it opened except last Friday when "Novocaine" and "Black Bag" finished above it, but it was able to get back to #1 on Saturday and Sunday. (Not sure about yesterday as they haven't posted it yet.)

"Mickey 17" is from Warner Brothers, so it'll be on Max when the time comes, although I saw it at the movies and don't plan to see it again. "Novocaine" will be on Paramount+ and "Black Bag" will be on Peacock+, which is where I'll catch those two. The only major service I don't have is Prime. With NetFlix, we only have the cheap version, so some of their theatrical movies are blocked.

I do miss RedBox. We could see pretty much anything for a buck or two.

[rms13]

Originally Posted by Ty Hope

Not only her but if Disney decided on a faithful adaptation instead of “she doesn’t find true love, she’s a strong independent leader!” they would have had an EASY hit. They went all in on ideology and cast an extremely unlikeable lead. Perhaps they’ll prove me wrong.

Apparently they let her rewrite the movie because she refused to do the love story. I can't believe Disney would let her have that much control over a movie. Ryan Reynolds is probably the only one star that they've let have that much creative control.

[rms13]

Originally Posted by Brobocop

Mickey 17 was third in North America this weekend, movie is DOA. Going to streaming next week I think.

Not looking great for theaters. Novacaine #1 with $8.8 million. This is still a slow time of the year for box office historically but these numbers seems super low. The top 3 movies this weekend all hit streaming withing 17 days of release so there is very little reason to go to the theater.

It seems like Nolan's The Odyssey could be the last big hurrah for theatrical based movies if it isn't already dead before that movie comes out. But that seems like a fitting end to the theatrical experience.

[Brobocop]

Originally Posted by rms13

Not looking great for theaters. Novacaine #1 with $8.8 million. This is still a slow time of the year for box office historically but these numbers seems super low. The top 3 movies this weekend all hit streaming withing 17 days of release so there is very little reason to go to the theater.

It seems like Nolan's The Odyssey could be the last big hurrah for theatrical based movies if it isn't already dead before that movie comes out. But that seems like a fitting end to the theatrical experience.

I think theaters will always have a place as long as Hollywood is putting out big movies. Theaters just need to figure out how to fill in the gaps.

Novocain or Mickey 17 are good examples of theaters and production companies needing to reconsider how much it truly costs to go to the movies. When I saw BNW, I was shocked to see that a medium popcorn and pop cost $20, and this is a Cleveland suburb where cost of living is pretty low.

Hell, I saw that now, when you buy one of those collector popcorn buckets, that it doesn't always include the damn popcorn. Criminal.

What scares me is if Superman doesn't perform, that could be a wrap for Warner Bros. from what I've heard.

[rms13]

Originally Posted by Brobocop

I think theaters will always have a place as long as Hollywood is putting out big movies. Theaters just need to figure out how to fill in the gaps.

Novocain or Mickey 17 are good examples of theaters and production companies needing to reconsider how much it truly costs to go to the movies. When I saw BNW, I was shocked to see that a medium popcorn and pop cost $20, and this is a Cleveland suburb where cost of living is pretty low.

Hell, I saw that now, when you buy one of those collector popcorn buckets, that it doesn't always include the damn popcorn. Criminal.

What scares me is if Superman doesn't perform, that could be a wrap for Warner Bros. from what I've heard.

So theatrical will only be for big budget super hero movies. Unless it's the Captain America movie which had production values on par with a Disney+ show so there isn't as much incentive to seeing it in the theatre. The bottom line is studios have killed theaters with the shorter and shorter theatrical windows. Nobody is going to pay to see smaller movies in the theater when tbey can wait 2.5 weeks and watch it on their 70" TV. There was a time when people had 30" 4x3 tvs and there was a big difference in seeing a movie in the theater but that has long been over. And if you go to a theater now you pay a lot of money and probably have people talking and looking at their phones during the entire thing. Disney is the only real hold out because they still wait several months before putting the movie on + but once they get into the 2.5 week cycle it will be a wrap. Sure there will always be film nerds like Tarantino and Sean Baker who will want to see movies in theater but I think it will be niche art house type theaters that will survive for that but I can't see the multiplexes lasting too long. I was listening to a critic who went to see Novacaine at a theater in LA on the opening weekend and she said there was only 1 other person in the theater when she went. I don't see how theaters can keep paying rent if that is the new normal. Not to mention that the movie theater is about the only business left at my local mall outside of restaurants. People used to go to the mall as something to do and then go to a movie while they were there. Now there is no stores at the mall so there is no foot traffic and people have to decide to that they are going to the movie theater and it seems less and less are doing that.

There was a time when people thought there would always be a place for drive in theaters, second run theaters, video stores etc until technology and culture made them obsolete. So I'm not sure there will always be a place for theaters, at least not in the sense that we've known them for the past several decades.

[mmbtvs]

Originally Posted by rms13

So theatrical will only be for big budget super hero movies. Unless it's the Captain America movie which had production values on par with a Disney+ show so there isn't as much incentive to seeing it in the theatre. The bottom line is studios have killed theaters with the shorter and shorter theatrical windows. Nobody is going to pay to see smaller movies in the theater when tbey can wait 2.5 weeks and watch it on their 70" TV. There was a time when people had 30" 4x3 tvs and there was a big difference in seeing a movie in the theater but that has long been over. And if you go to a theater now you pay a lot of money and probably have people talking and looking at their phones during the entire thing. Disney is the only real hold out because they still wait several months before putting the movie on + but once they get into the 2.5 week cycle it will be a wrap. Sure there will always be film nerds like Tarantino and Sean Baker who will want to see movies in theater but I think it will be niche art house type theaters that will survive for that but I can't see the multiplexes lasting too long. I was listening to a critic who went to see Novacaine at a theater in LA on the opening weekend and she said there was only 1 other person in the theater when she went. I don't see how theaters can keep paying rent if that is the new normal. Not to mention that the movie theater is about the only business left at my local mall outside of restaurants. People used to go to the mall as something to do and then go to a movie while they were there. Now there is no stores at the mall so there is no foot traffic and people have to decide to that they are going to the movie theater and it seems less and less are doing that.

There was a time when people thought there would always be a place for drive in theaters, second run theaters, video stores etc until technology and culture made them obsolete. So I'm not sure there will always be a place for theaters, at least not in the sense that we've known them for the past several decades.

This is discounting the fact that not that long ago the movie Wicked made a billion dollars in the theater.

[cdub6238]

Originally Posted by Brobocop

I think theaters will always have a place as long as Hollywood is putting out big movies. Theaters just need to figure out how to fill in the gaps.

Novocain or Mickey 17 are good examples of theaters and production companies needing to reconsider how much it truly costs to go to the movies. When I saw BNW, I was shocked to see that a medium popcorn and pop cost $20, and this is a Cleveland suburb where cost of living is pretty low.

Hell, I saw that now, when you buy one of those collector popcorn buckets, that it doesn't always include the damn popcorn. Criminal.

What scares me is if Superman doesn't perform, that could be a wrap for Warner Bros. from what I've heard.

Well to be fair..concessions is the only way movie theaters make their $$

They only get something like 10% of ticket sales for the first 2 months of a movies release or something...

Now, this might have changed, seeing it's been 20 years since I was a manager..

As far as WB..they'll still at least chunk their stuff on MAX, as they've sunk a lot of $$ into that...including a big wrestling contract for AEW and trying to get more "live sports"

[rms13]

Originally Posted by mmbtvs

This is discounting the fact that not that long ago the movie Wicked made a billion dollars in the theater.

Sure. The Wicked box office I see is $740 global and $433 for the US. Total box office is still down about 25% compared to 2019. Is 1-4 blockbusters a year enough to sustain the theatrical business in the U.S.? 2025 will be a big year because we get Avatar 3, Zootopia 2, another Jurassic World, Wicked 2, Superman, MI, Lilo and Stitch and Fantastic Four. Current projections have the total box office for 2025 being the highest since the pandemic. If that holds true there is less concern right now but if it doesn't then we could be in trouble. For disclosure I work at a major studio and I can tell you the amount of projects being green lit is still declining. But that's just more indication that studios are just going to put all their eggs into big blockbuster movies and making much less of other types of movies.

[jdandns]

"Ne Zha 2", an animated sequel, has made 2 billion in China alone since opening on January 29th, the first day of Chinese New Year. It needs another 850m to become the #1 grossing movie in history and already sits at #5 on the all-time worldwide list after only 6 weeks.

Of the Top 20 worldwide grosses list (which cut off at 1.34B), the only movies on it that are over 10 years old are Avatar 1, Titanic, Avengers 1, and the final Harry Potter movie (and the recent Deadpool/Wolverine movie finished only 4 million behind that one). So when the blockbusters hit, they do hit bigger than ever, but it does feel like there's more and more time between the biggest winners, particularly with what's being spent in hopes of finding the next one.
Modern audiences are also largely comprised of people tired of remakes and sequels, but who also are generally unwilling to take a chance on seeing a movie they've "never heard of".

The multiplexes (out here, at least) are doing a pretty good job of playing a lot of different movies at once, which I'm guessing is a whole lot easier with digital projectors, and the theaters not having to handle a whole bunch of film cannisters. I've noticed some of them even have digital posters in the lobby, as opposed to the regular paper kind.

I remember during the heyday of the blockbusters, it wasn't unusual for theaters with even 16 screens to be playing only 3 or 4 different movies. At the local Harkins 16 today, there are 17 different movies playing, including "Batman Begins" as part of the continuing Tuesday Night $5 classic movies series. "Novocaine" even gets two showings in Spanish.

We're fortunate to have two different 3-screen drive-ins nearby, and we love them, but we haven't gone as much to those lately as we used to. Those cinemas have the swap meet, though, which provides some extra revenue and something of a bulwark for the land to not be used for something else.

[rms13]

Nobody else has dared to watch The Electric State yet? The critics all seem to think it's in the running for the worst movie ever made. The audience scores on RT and IMDB are much more forgiving. It definitely felt like many other movies I've already scene mashed together and like everyone involved was just there for their share of the $320 million budget. Woody Harrelson doing the voice of a giant robotic Mr Peanut was the high point for me.

[Brobocop]

Lilo & Stitch reportedly has a budget of $150 million. The money that movie makes will make people forget about the money Snow White will probably lose. COVID protocols really inflated a lot of these movies that were shot a while ago. No way does Disney let movies go over $200 million anymore, unless it's the surest of sure things.

[rms13]

Originally Posted by Brobocop

Lilo & Stitch reportedly has a budget of $150 million. The money that movie makes will make people forget about the money Snow White will probably lose. COVID protocols really inflated a lot of these movies that were shot a while ago. No way does Disney let movies go over $200 million anymore, unless it's the surest of sure things.

A lot of VFX workers including Marvel just joined IATSE at the end of 2023. Production staff got into IATSE last year. That alone will raise cost of productions by a lot now that they will have to pay all of those workers at union rates and contribute to the health insurance and retirement for those workers. On big Disney movies that probably effects half the crew so I wouldn't expect big budget live action stuff to be done for under $300 million in the future.

[Brobocop]

Originally Posted by rms13

A lot of VFX workers including Marvel just joined IATSE at the end of 2023. Production staff got into IATSE last year. That alone will raise cost of productions by a lot now that they will have to pay all of those workers at union rates and contribute to the health insurance and retirement for those workers. On big Disney movies that probably effects half the crew so I wouldn't expect big budget live action stuff to be done for under $300 million in the future.

Did not know that, feels like it's a very difficult time for these production studios given how hot and cold box office can run. Back in 2019, it felt like everything was making all kinds of bank, today, you almost need a perfect storm to recoup your costs.

[rms13]

WB in negotiations to sell Coyote vs Acme so we may actually get to see it one day.

[jmarascojr]

Watched Den of Thieves 2 last night, was pretty meh...

I didn't like the ending either, who ended up in jail and who got away...

[Corporal Lance]

Where are the reviews?

[blackvodka]

I've seen that Marcus Cinema is trying a 9.99 a month subscription service to get more regular traffic. Me personally it's too little too late.

[rms13]

Snow White on pace for about $40-45 million. IMDB score is 2.2/10 with 32k reviews. But as with any Disney movie/show everyone will say user reviews are all fake if they are bad.