Movies: Mad Max: Furiosa (2024)

[alko]

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.

Movies like this, Godzilla, Openheimer .... are worth visit in IMAX. Simply because there you had this very wide screen with blasting sound effects.

To see movies like Kung Fu Panda, Barbie, Garfield... you can watch at home. There is no need for maximum experience...

 

[I am not exposed]

I feel that studios are shooting themselves in the foot by releasing movies so soon to VOD/streaming. They're reacting to their underperformance at the box office and trying to recoup their losses sooner, but it just encourages more moviegoers to wait to see them, which leads to more underperformance. It's a snowball effect. Despite how much I love being able to watch movies at home only a month or two later, I think that studios need to go back to making us wait a lot longer than that. If we knew that we wouldn't be able to watch Furiosa or any other upcoming Summer movie until Fall at the earliest, many of us would probably be a lot more inclined to go to the theater.

That's how it was when I was young. If I missed a movie in the theater, I had to wait 6 months before it came out on VHS and a whole year before it was on HBO or Showtime. Because of that, I tried to go to as many movies as I could. Also, I went to many more than once because I knew that I wouldn't get a chance to re-watch an awesome movie like T2 or Jurassic Park for at least 6 months. I'm not saying that studios should go back to wait times that are that long, but I think that, say, a 4-month wait between theater and streaming release dates might eventually help get people back into theaters.

The last movie I watched at the cinema was Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness which I found to be really medicore. The new Flash was miles better for this type of thing.

Anyway, just a couple of months later it was released on Disney+. Pissed me off. So much so I haven't been back to the cinema since, and me and my partner even have a $50 cinema voucher!

Don't want the hassle of going, dealing with people eating popcorn behind me, seeing a potential mediocre/crap movie, spending money on junk food (primarily for the partner), and then needing a pee break during the movie, but worried if I leave momentarily I will miss a key part. Watching at home on a big screen is so much better and convenient.

Mad Max 2 is one of my favourite films of all time, but I'll be waiting for Furiosa to be released on a streaming platform.

 

[SmytheKing]

It's hard to compare anything to Maverick or even Kong/Godzilla. Every franchise might be affected differently. After Top Gun Maverick did so well, we all thought Mission Impossible (also placing an emphasis on practical FX) was gonna kill it, and it ended up disappointing at the box office.

Especially when people are doing the equivalent of "stat watching" when it comes to box office. For Kong x Godzilla, it did $44 million on opening weekend in China. Furiosa hasn't even released in China. Will it? Don't know. It also opened in FAR more markets worldwide. You can't just randomly compare movie box office numbers and say "see?" when it's far more complex than that. Fury Road made $380 million worldwide (and never saw China). Furiosa has made $65 million worldwide after one weekend. The industry has changed quite a bit since Fury Road came out so it it hits $300 million worldwide, I'd say that's quite a success.

This is a prequel for an IP that has a movie once every decade or so. Godzilla and Kong are IP's that seem to have content coming out every several months. Everyone complains about Hollywood not making original films and then you get one like this, that has what seems to be the standard opening for big movies now (barring exceptions), and folks start talking about how it's just another Hollywood rehash and that's why it's not doing well...while at the same time talking about other movies that did really well that are Hollywood rehashes. It's wild.

I think you summed it up that people are just not going to the movies as often any longer and as Osprey said the studios have started shooting themselves in the foot by sacrificing box office for subscription numbers (which they're also not doing well with).

Also, how are they even calculating box office these days anyway? I don't know anyone who goes to the movies who doesn't have the equivalent of the AMC A-List. Do my three tickets a week count the same as someone who goes to the window and buys them? How can it even be an accurate accounting when I'm paying $25 a month and can see 12-15 movies a month but maybe I'm only seeing one?

 

[DaaaaB's]

The last movie I watched at the cinema was Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness which I found to be really medicore. The new Flash was miles better for this type of thing.

Anyway, just a couple of months later it was released on Disney+. Pissed me off. So much so I haven't been back to the cinema since, and me and my partner even have a $50 cinema voucher!

Don't want the hassle of going, dealing with people eating popcorn behind me, seeing a potential mediocre/crap movie, spending money on junk food (primarily for the partner), and then needing a pee break during the movie, but worried if I leave momentarily I will miss a key part. Watching at home on a big screen is so much better and convenient.

Mad Max 2 is one of my favourite films of all time, but I'll be waiting for Furiosa to be released on a streaming platform.

Yeah, I completely agree with your 3rd paragraph and that's a big part of the reason I haven't seen a movie in theaters since The Dark Knight back in 2008. The closest theater being 40km away and only having one screen doesn't help either. Closest big theater is over an hour away.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Box office is an interesting animal. It's obviously meaningful when you're a major hit. That is loud and clear regardless of decade.

But I'm not sure it means what it used to mean when you "flop." As many folks have pointed out here, many dynamics have changed and the way things work now isn't the way they did 10, 20, 30 years ago ... heck maybe even 5 years ago.

That shrinking of the window from theatrical release to home viewing is significant. The only incentives to go to the theater are 1) true immediacy and/or 2) the theater experience (the screen and sound, date night, a sick fetish for watching people f*** around on their phone in a dark theater for two hours, etc.)

If you don't care about either of those things there is no reason to go to a theater anymore. Wait a month and drop $20 to rent it at home — a figure that's all the more tempting the more people in your household.

And I'd put myself at least in the top 10% of people who are plugged into and watching movies. It's hard for me to get off my ass and I genuinely LOVE going to the movies.

Box office feels like it is increasingly becoming like TV ratings. It says something, but it doesn't say or mean as much as it did in simpler times. The situation is more complex.

 

[beowulf]

Interesting interview with Miller about the series etc.

https://www.cbc.ca/arts/q/george-miller-reveals-what-the-post-apocalyptic-mad-max-films-are-really-about-1.7213784

 

[Osprey]

Especially when people are doing the equivalent of "stat watching" when it comes to box office. For Kong x Godzilla, it did $44 million on opening weekend in China. Furiosa hasn't even released in China. Will it? Don't know. It also opened in FAR more markets worldwide. You can't just randomly compare movie box office numbers and say "see?" when it's far more complex than that. Fury Road made $380 million worldwide (and never saw China). Furiosa has made $65 million worldwide after one weekend. The industry has changed quite a bit since Fury Road came out so it it hits $300 million worldwide, I'd say that's quite a success.

It isn't just the worldwide numbers. Godzilla x Kong grossed $80M domestically in its opening 3-day weekend. So did Dune: Part Two. Furiosa grossed $26M. That's one third, and this is the start of Summer, not the middle of Spring.

If Furiosa hits $300M worldwide, it will have still lost at least $100M. We can't just call that a success because Fury Road grossed $380M and theater going is down. If the executives who greenlit it thought that, they would've given it a much smaller budget.

 

[johnjm22]

If Furiosa hits $300M worldwide, it will have still lost at least $100M. We can't just call that a success because Fury Road grossed $380M and the industry has changed. If the executives who greenlit it thought that, they would've given it a budget of $68M instead of $168M.

Australian films often get subsidized by the government. Typically 40% of the production budget.

In the case of Furiosa I think it qualified for additional subsidies on top of that.

That's probably the reason it got made. Doubt it would have been greenlit without.

 

[Osprey]

Australian films often get subsidized by the government. Typically 40% of the production budget.

In the case of Furiosa I think it qualified for additional subsidies on top of that.

That's probably the reason it got made. Doubt it would have been greenlit without.

Yeah, George Miller confirmed as much: "The support of the Federal and New South Wales Governments were pivotal. They made it possible for the film to be greenlit, shot in Australia and for the production to be based in our home state.”

I think that the reported $168M budget for it might be after the tax credits, though, because the budget was originally reported to be $230M. Also, the director of Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes had this to say earlier today:

https://x.com/i/web/status/1795362902490452342

 

[beowulf]

Yeah, George Miller confirmed as much: "The support of the Federal and New South Wales Governments were pivotal. They made it possible for the film to be greenlit, shot in Australia and for the production to be based in our home state.”

I think that the reported $168M budget for it might be after the tax credits, though, because the budget was originally reported to be $230M. Also, the director of Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes had this to say earlier today:

https://x.com/i/web/status/1795362902490452342

Like Canada, New Zealand and Australia are known for massive movie tax and other credits, at least they use to be.

 

[Kurtz]

The CGI was a little iffy and it didn't have me on the edge of my seat for the whole 2 hours like Fury Road did...but that was an impossible movie to live up to. Furiosa is very entertaining with some excellent acting performances - Anna Taylor Joy and especially Hemsworth were excellent; Dementus was an epic villain. I think people are doing themselves a disservice not seeing this in theatres.

 

[The Macho King]

Box office is an interesting animal. It's obviously meaningful when you're a major hit. That is loud and clear regardless of decade.

But I'm not sure it means what it used to mean when you "flop." As many folks have pointed out here, many dynamics have changed and the way things work now isn't the way they did 10, 20, 30 years ago ... heck maybe even 5 years ago.

That shrinking of the window from theatrical release to home viewing is significant. The only incentives to go to the theater are 1) true immediacy and/or 2) the theater experience (the screen and sound, date night, a sick fetish for watching people f*** around on their phone in a dark theater for two hours, etc.)

If you don't care about either of those things there is no reason to go to a theater anymore. Wait a month and drop $20 to rent it at home — a figure that's all the more tempting the more people in your household.

And I'd put myself at least in the top 10% of people who are plugged into and watching movies. It's hard for me to get off my ass and I genuinely LOVE going to the movies.

Box office feels like it is increasingly becoming like TV ratings. It says something, but it doesn't say or mean as much as it did in simpler times. The situation is more complex.

If I didn't have kids I'd probably go to the theater like four times a week. There wouldn't be an interesting movie I didn't watch in theaters.

But instead I see like 3 movies a year, and I have to plan for it (unless I'm taking my kid who also sees about a movie a quarter). It's tough. Also - like I would have f***ing loved to see The Killer in theaters, but it didn't play near me and it was on streaming a week later. And I live in a decent sized city - greater metro of like 1.5 million people. Just didn't come to my town. And this is a David f***ing Fincher movie that doesn't get a proper release.

Anyway - this is one of the movies I'm going to make time to see in theaters. George Miller is a top 10 director for me and when he makes a movie I watch it. Dude doesn't miss. The Box Office is a shame, but it also is what it is. Barbenheimer was a fluke - not the standard.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

If I didn't have kids I'd probably go to the theater like four times a week. There wouldn't be an interesting movie I didn't watch in theaters.

But instead I see like 3 movies a year, and I have to plan for it (unless I'm taking my kid who also sees about a movie a quarter). It's tough. Also - like I would have f***ing loved to see The Killer in theaters, but it didn't play near me and it was on streaming a week later. And I live in a decent sized city - greater metro of like 1.5 million people. Just didn't come to my town. And this is a David f***ing Fincher movie that doesn't get a proper release.

Anyway - this is one of the movies I'm going to make time to see in theaters. George Miller is a top 10 director for me and when he makes a movie I watch it. Dude doesn't miss. The Box Office is a shame, but it also is what it is. Barbenheimer was a fluke - not the standard.

I did get off my ass for this one. Definitely worth it.

 

[PeteWorrell]

I haven't watched the movie yet but i watched the Red Letter Media review and i like their enthusiasm about the movie and the franchise as a whole. Was this movie necessary? No. But it's always fun to revisit this mad universe and get more lore.

I always laugh at how little resources are available only to see the people use them in an incredibly inefficient manner like having some gas guzzlers that spit fire. You have all these freaks with weird names running around that are actually relevant in that universe instead of just being a bunch of sideshows. It's all just so fascinating to me and it never fails to make me smile.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

The fact that it looks like a remake of Fury Road in the trailers probably hurts it with the general movie going public as well

 

[trojansoilers]

This will be the first movie I’m seeing in theaters in 3 years. IMAX, plus the theater can order alcohol. Should be a wild ride.

 

[johnjm22]

I think you summed it up that people are just not going to the movies as often any longer and as Osprey said the studios have started shooting themselves in the foot by sacrificing box office for subscription numbers (which they're also not doing well with).

Also, how are they even calculating box office these days anyway? I don't know anyone who goes to the movies who doesn't have the equivalent of the AMC A-List. Do my three tickets a week count the same as someone who goes to the window and buys them? How can it even be an accurate accounting when I'm paying $25 a month and can see 12-15 movies a month but maybe I'm only seeing one?

One of the reasons studios are putting films on streaming so quickly is because of they get a higher portion of revenue from TVOD and PVOD sales than they do from the theatrical ticket sales.

I suspect Furiosa will do very well on VOD.

I would love to know what the T/P VOD revenue numbers are, but it's not public information.

So in theory these movies can not make money on their theatrical run, but still be profitable overall.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

One of the reasons studios are putting films on streaming so quickly is because of they get a higher portion of revenue from TVOD and PVOD sales than they do from the theatrical ticket sales.

I suspect Furiosa will do very well on VOD.

I would love to know what the T/P VOD revenue numbers are, but it's not public information.

So in theory these movies can not make money on their theatrical run, but still be profitable overall.

I was listening to something recently where they said The Northman apparently did gangbusters on VOD and streaming after what was seen as disappointing theatrical flop. So there does seem to be a road to success and profitability. It's just much more opaque and not as dramatic as weekend box office.

In some ways, that isn't new. 80s and 90s have plenty of theatrical disappointments that then became VHS/DVD/cable TV hits and recouped investment and then some. Of course even there that was all measurable and reported in terms of rentals, sales and ratings. Clearer to see then now.

 

[Osprey]

Furiosa may do well on VOD, but a loss of over $125M would be an awful lot to overcome. The Northman had it easier because it had less than half the production budget and probably less than half the marketing budget.

I would love to know what the T/P VOD revenue numbers are, but it's not public information.

Apparently, domestic rental revenue was $2B in 2021 (during the pandemic), $1.7B in 2022 (link) and $3B in 2023 (with the rise in people waiting for VOD), and is projected to be $3.2B in 2024 (link).

For comparison, last year's domestic box office was $8.9B, so earning potential is still mostly in ticket sales, even with the lower portion of revenue compared to rentals.

 

[johnjm22]

Furiosa may do well on VOD, but a loss of over $125M would be an awful lot to overcome. The Northman had it easier because it had less than half the production budget and probably less than half the marketing budget.

Apparently, domestic rental revenue was $2B in 2021 (during the pandemic), $1.7B in 2022 (link) and $3B in 2023 (with the rise in people waiting for VOD), and is projected to be $3.2B in 2024 (link).

For comparison, last year's domestic box office was $8.9B, so earning potential is still mostly in ticket sales, even with the lower portion of revenue compared to rentals.

I think you've gotta include those DTO numbers with the rentals. That 6.7B for 2024 (projection). Total domestic box office is 2.5B halfway through this year.

I'm shocked by those AVOD numbers. I knew it was a thing, but I didn't know it was that big.

It gets even more complicated with SVOD. If a film is on a studio's own streaming service you can't really calculate revenue from it, but if it's being streamed on other services I assume the studio is getting paid directly for it.

Total OTT of 80B is massive. But it includes every movie and TV show ever made.

I do think making up for a 120M shortfall (if it's that much) would be unlikely. But I also think we're going to get to a point where major films make more money off VOD than at the box office.

 

[Osprey]

But I also think we're going to get to a point where major films make more money off VOD than at the box office.

Possibly, but I imagine that the measurement of success will continue to be whether they make back their investment at the box office. Those that don't and need VOD may technically end up profitable, but won't seem very successful. Studios don't make major films to eek out minor profits over time. They want the $100M+ opening weekend and $1B+ worldwide total at the box office that makes the film profitable almost immediately, and then for all of the secondary VOD and sales revenue to be gravy on top of that. Those are the types of movies that make it all worth it, that quickly lead to sequels and keep the gravy train rolling. As long as there are hit movies like that, and I think that there always will be, the movies that make far less than that but still cost quite a bit likely will be considered flops and discourage future projects, even if they didn't technically lose money. So, even if VOD revenue eventually surpasses box office revenue, I think that the latter will continue to be very important to the studios and how the public perceives films.

 

[PeteWorrell]

Possibly, but I imagine that the measurement of success will continue to be whether they make back their investment at the box office. Those that don't and need VOD may technically end up profitable, but won't seem very successful. Studios don't make major films to eek out minor profits over time. They want the $100M+ opening weekend and $1B+ worldwide total at the box office that makes the film profitable almost immediately, and then for all of the secondary VOD and sales revenue to be gravy on top of that. Those are the types of movies that make it all worth it, that quickly lead to sequels and keep the gravy train rolling. As long as there are hit movies like that, and I think that there always will be, the movies that make far less than that but still cost quite a bit likely will be considered flops and discourage future projects, even if they didn't technically lose money. So, even if VOD revenue eventually surpasses box office revenue, I think that the latter will continue to be very important to the studios and how the public perceives films.

The old fossils at the top of the industry will have to accept the new reality that going to the movies will be more and more about productions that are seen as big events. Prices are just too high to justify going out to see the average movies outside of the comfort of your own home.

The state of the economy right now will help solidify this new reality. People have no money and that means that entertainment is usually the first thing that gets cut. They will go towards cheaper options like watching from home. Even if things get better, i really doubt people will be going back.

 

[Hierso]

Honestly i don't understand why they waited this long. Fury Road was one of those movies that had good word to mouth and pretty much all the hype for a sequel died after a couple of years.

 

[PeteWorrell]

Honestly i don't understand why they waited this long. Fury Road was one of those movies that had good word to mouth and pretty much all the hype for a sequel died after a couple of years.

They were stuck in a legal fight with Warner i believe. That pushed the release further down the road.

 

[Hierso]

They were stuck in a legal fight with Warner i believe. That pushed the release further down the road.

I'd just scrap it at that point. The movie was fine, but like i said waaay to late.