Raging Bull
Present
Sounds like it's every bit as good as Fury Road. 7 minute standing ovation at Cannes for Taylor-Joy.
Both critic and audience scores/reviews seem very good for it, though not as good as Fury Road. It's likely that it will not do great in theaters but do well on VOD and streaming.It's projected to make less than even The Fall Guy did in its opening weekend. Considering that it also cost more to make and likely more to market, it may end up an even bigger flop.
This is reminding me of Solo: A Star Wars Story. They have very similar titles, both are prequels that no one asked for, both feature new actors playing the titular characters and both greatly underperformed.
It would have been so much more interesting if this was a sequel.It's projected to make less than even The Fall Guy did in its opening weekend (not counting Memorial Day). That's not good, especially since it cost more to make and likely more to market.
This is reminding me of Solo: A Star Wars Story. Obviously, there's the similar title, but both are prequels that no one asked for, feature new actors playing the titular characters and greatly underperformed.
Fury Road, at best, only broke even at the box office. That's likely why a sequel was never made and makes it more puzzling that they decided to make a prequel (which are inherently less interesting, as johnjm22 just said) that cost the same and doesn't even feature Mad Max. It seems that they really banked on the growing reputation of the last movie to bring people out who didn't come out before and really misjudged.Fury Road didn't do great at the box office either really, though better than Furiosa so far.
Do I need to watch any of the mad max’s to watch this?
I'm sure that that's part of it, but it's also greatly underperforming compared to other recent movies. Dune: Part Two, Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire and Kung Fu Panda 4 have each made over $500M in the past few months. Even Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes and Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (which flopped) made about twice as much in their opening weekends as Furiosa. Interest in going to the theater is down overall, but interest in Furiosa is especially low for likely a variety of reasons (prequel, new actors, obvious CGI, demographics, etc.).I think the poor box office showing is primarily due to dwindling interest in going to the movie theater.
I bet lots of people saw the ads for this and thought: "That looks cool. I'll just watch it on streaming."
The Critical Drinker really enjoyed it, but also critiques it and speculates why it's not doing better.
I'm looking at it relative to its predecessor which did 45M (60M inflation adjusted) in a normal opening weekend. I think Furiosa underperforming it has mostly to do with consumer habits. The other reasons you mentioned probably contribute, but this movie still has way more hype than Fury Road did upon opening IMO.I'm sure that that's part of it, but it's also greatly underperforming compared to other recent movies. Dune: Part Two, Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire and Kung Fu Panda 4 have each made over $500M in the past few months. Even Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes and Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (which flopped) made about twice as much in their opening weekends as Furiosa. Interest in going to the theater is down overall, but interest in Furiosa is especially low for likely a variety of reasons (prequel, new actors, obvious CGI, demographics, etc.).
And I think it's worth taking into account that it's been ten years since Fury Road. I really believe that a big reason why films are struggling in the theaters is the over abundant access to movies available on streaming and how quickly films are streamable after its theatrical run. I mean Dune 2 was in theaters recently and it's already available at no extra cost if you have a Max account. The cost of a movie ticket these days before concessions could get you a month with any streaming service where you'll have access to a host of movies and shows to watch.I'm looking at it relative to its predecessor which did 45M (60M inflation adjusted) in a normal opening weekend. I think Furiosa underperforming it has mostly to do with consumer habits. The other reasons you mentioned probably contribute, but this movie still has way more hype than Fury Road did upon opening IMO.
Those other movies aren't rated R, so it's hard to compare them. A lot of them appeal to kids as well.
He mentions the title only twice and I think that his point is that audiences want to see Max in a "Mad Max" movie, not necessarily because it's in the title, but because it's in the name of the franchise.I find his takes hit or miss but I'd agree with most of what he said here. I think he's over focusing on the use of Mad Max in the title. Did it need to use the name of the franchise? No, Logan didn't need to rebrand to be called Logan: an X-Men Story. But at the end of the day it's just a moniker identifying it's part of the Mad Max franchise despite not being about Mad Max himself. I don't think the use of the brand name necessitates the story be about the titular character.
I think that it's the other way around, that the movie being less appealing has more to do with it underperforming. Consider that Godzilla (2014) made $529M, Kong: Skull Island (2017) made $568M, Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) made $387M, Godzilla vs Kong (2021) made $470M and Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire made $566M. Consumer habits seemingly haven't affected the Monsterverse all that much in the last decade. You can argue that it is going down when you factor in inflation, but those films have still maintained most of their appeal.I'm looking at it relative to its predecessor which did 45M (60M inflation adjusted) in a normal opening weekend. I think Furiosa underperforming it has mostly to do with consumer habits. The other reasons you mentioned probably contribute, but this movie still has way more hype than Fury Road did upon opening IMO.
I really believe that a big reason why films are struggling in the theaters is the over abundant access to movies available on streaming and how quickly films are streamable after its theatrical run. I mean Dune 2 was in theaters recently and it's already available at no extra cost if you have a Max account. The cost of a movie ticket these days before concessions could get you a month with any streaming service where you'll have access to a host of movies and shows to watch.
Pretty much unfortunately. Plus the better home projector systems get, the less the "big screen" is incentivized.
Two adult IMAX tickets at my theater cost $50.38
I read online that the average moviegoer spends $15 on concessions.
So $80 plus gas to see a movie that will be on streaming for free or a fraction of the cost in a few months.
His grievance sounded more like it was leveraged to draw in audiences to watch Mad Max but they weren't fooled and knew it would just be about Furiosa. But that's neither here nor there. I think at the end of the day I have to wholeheartedly agree that this was a well done movie with a story that didn't need to be told. I felt the same way about Solo but I'm one of the few that actually looked past the pointlessness of the story and am able to have fun with it on rewatches.He mentions the title only twice and I think that his point is that audiences want to see Max in a "Mad Max" movie, not necessarily because it's in the title, but because it's in the name of the franchise.
I think that it's the other way around, that the movie being less appealing has more to do with it underperforming. Consider that Godzilla (2014) made $529M, Kong: Skull Island (2017) made $568M, Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) made $387M, Godzilla vs Kong (2021) made $470M and Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire made $566M. Consumer habits seemingly haven't affected the Monsterverse all that much in the last decade. You can argue that it is going down when you factor in inflation, but those films have still maintained most of their appeal.
Also, it was only two years ago that a male-targeted movie with an emphasis on practical filmmaking (Top Gun: Maverick) grossed $1.5B. That's the type of movie that Fury Road was, so the appeal for that still seems to be there, perhaps even more than a decade ago. I think that a sequel starring Tom Hardy and emphasizing practical effects again would've done a lot better. Instead, they made a movie that seems to follow trends rather than buck them and, since it doesn't stand out as much, a lot of people are adding it to their "wait to stream" lists, IMO.
You have a point.I think that it's the other way around, that the movie being less appealing has more to do with it underperforming. Consider that Godzilla (2014) made $529M, Kong: Skull Island (2017) made $568M, Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) made $387M, Godzilla vs Kong (2021) made $470M and Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire made $566M. Consumer habits seemingly haven't affected the Monsterverse all that much in the last decade. You can argue that it is going down when you factor in inflation, but those films have still maintained most of their appeal.
Also, it was only two years ago that a male-targeted movie with an emphasis on practical filmmaking (Top Gun: Maverick) grossed $1.5B. That's the type of movie that Fury Road was, so the appeal for that still seems to be there, perhaps even more than a decade ago. I think that a sequel starring Tom Hardy and emphasizing practical effects again would've done a lot better. Instead, they made a movie that seems to follow trends rather than buck them and, since it doesn't stand out as much, a lot of people are adding it to their "wait to stream" lists, IMO.
So would I. You've probably seen this, especially if you watched the video that I linked above, but this concept art has been floating around in the last few days.Imagine if it was an all new Mad Max story staring Mel Gibson. I would've been excited as hell for that.
That's no surprise, since the vast majority of the fanbase is male. Hollywood has been doing this a lot lately, taking franchises that appeal mostly to men and thinking that opening them up to women will make them even more popular and profitable, but it tends to backfire when women don't show interest and men lose interest.I just watched Grace Randolph's box office analysis and she mentioned despite having a female action lead, women did not come out to see the movie. The vast majority of the audience was male.