Spyke
lemmy.blahaj.zone

I haven't seen the other movies, but Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga was actually pretty good, I'm glad it got made.

29

This movie had one of the worst marketing campaigns I've seen in a long time... Every trailer made it look like hot garbage and cash grab trash pumped out by Hollywood to fill a quota

16
Ledericasreply
lemm.ee

they probably dint have enough people buying tickets for it to overcome how much they spent.

5
lemmy.world

Meh. I like Anya Taylor-Joy in most things but she doesn't make a convincing action hero. Too skinny and small. She's supposed to be going hand-to-hand with bulky dudes 2/3 times her size? No.

2

Yeah, it was clear they just wanted a big name to have on the poster. The actress who played the child version of Furiosa was fantastic though.

1
lemm.ee

I'm glad to see i wasn't the only one saddened to see Mad Max on the list with all those other terrible movies... It wasn't the best one of the series, but it wasn't bad either. I enjoyed it a lot, and the funny thing is I wanna say it's 1 of only 2 movies I saw in the theater last year. I did my part, lol.

11

It was ok but it didn't feel like a film, it felt more like a couple of episodes of a big budget tv show stitched together.

8
lemmy.world

Furiosa didn't deserve, such a good movie, it fit so well as Mad Max prequel

9

Its also the power of a cheap production that was more an excuse for a bunch of rich people to skip out in covid restrictions so they could take a vacation in Hungary. If it's a "fix it in post" production and you never bother with the post production it actually ends up pretty cheap.

It feels their entire budget was spent up front and then when it was obvious it was garbage they stopped spending.

3
lemmy.world

So these costs do not appear to include the often massive marketing costs that can run into tens if not hundreds of millions for big blockbusters? Unless I am missing something.

6
lemm.ee

I knew Joker 2 didn't do well but I'm shocked it did this poorly. How was the budget that high anyway?

5

Likely due to Todd Phillips, Joaquin Phoenix, and Lady Gaga demanding huge salaries. Other than that, I'm not sure.

7
lemmy.world

Strange that they include Kraven Hunter in the list but not Madame Web which had a greater loss of like $100m?

5
JackbyDevreply
programming.dev

Wikipedia seems to imply Madame Web (which is indeed an early 2024 movie) made $500k.

2
Wilcoreply
lemm.ee

No way. It made 100 million worldwide on an 80 million budget. Advertising would have been 40 to 80 million.

It lost at least 20 million.

0
feddit.uk

You’re missing a few bits of knowledge that will help make sense of their comment:

  • BO numbers are the total takings, and of course the exhibitors take a cut of that. For a big tentpole it starts maybe a 70/30 split in favour of the distributor, but by the end of the run it will be much less. As a rough rule of thumb, we divide the box office by two to get roughly how much gets back to the studio.

  • When media and fans (and Wikipedia) quote a film’s “budget” they’re actually referring to the negative cost. This is the cost incurred in development, production and post-production, up to the point that the film exists in a full version ready for distribution (the negative). It does not include marketing and distribution costs (prints & advertising), such as posters, premieres, trailers, junkets, billboards, media campaigns, but also dubbing, subtitles and getting the files to the Theater (usually via costly satellite time). The rule of thumb for a major release is to say they spent at least the same again as the negative cost on P&A.

So if Madame Web had a budget around $100m, it cost the studio at least $200m. if it made $100m BO, then the studio got back $50m. So its a loss of around $150m.

-1

So you think they should include Madame Web in their list and use a different metric for it than the others? Or what?

1

You reached the end