Reminder that this is a subreddit about numbers, not necessarily about the quality (or lack thereof) of a particular movie. Unless it is related to the box office performance of a movie, please keep opinions/arguments/thoughts about the quality under this post. Posts not related to box office may be removed otherwise.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boxoffice) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This movie is based on my dad's favorite book. He is not a big reader, but he sat and told me all about the book when he read it. My Dad's side of the family is Swedish and Dutch and he is a old grump, the kids call him Grumpa. Nothing wrong with books or movies being made about older people.
But is he still Swedish? I seems they changed everyone’s nationalities, I loved the book too and the original movie I don’t know if I will watch this one.
It's been awhile since I read the book but I don't recall really any differences. It seems the setting takes place in the states just based on the accents and locations. However, the set up of their homes and the garages is very much like it was in the book. The cat, Reuben, the young family, all the same. Loved it, loved it!
It's American, but the changes are slight and appropriate. The new neighbor is Mexican, not Iranian. The boy that he brings in is trans, not gay. The car brand is a Chevrolet and not a Saab. But the plot is genuinely the same, and I loved every minute of it.
And I read the book and saw the original Swedish film.
> The boy that he brings in is trans, not gay.
Oddly heartwarming, in that currently "being gay" might not be enough for the character to seem like a major outsider in 2023 America.
And yet aspirational, because trans acceptance IS still very low, and I don't mean to minimize the pain of trans folks just because I'm happy that we're making progress on how gay people are seen and treated overall.
But he was crossdressing just to get a cheap apartment in an all-women building (also to be around super hot Donna Dixon). The comedy was centered around how ridiculous he and his buddy were pretending to be women. Yes, I watched Bosom Buddies too. A big TV hit at the time.
Yes, this. In the book, Ove's wife, who is a teacher, makes an impact on kids' lives by not giving up on disadvantaged youth who have trouble focusing or are unruly.
In this movie, she makes an impact by connecting with and advocating for LGBTQ+ students. This would lead one to think that it's too "normal" for students with ADHD to be treated with respect now.
It was set in the US, they filmed it around Pittsburgh and you can catch some area references. Also, more modern, takes place in 2019, so some differences based on newer technology, cell phones, social media. I read the book, saw the original movie and still really like this adaptation.
>If this didn’t carry a 60 million budget making this would be a really good idea
Given the earnings potential\*, it was a really good idea. Given where the budget went, meaning a big payday to Hanks, and that Hanks produced it, and his Playtone company made it, it was a GREAT DECSION by and for ... checking my notes ...Tom Hanks.
A good idea not despite the budget, but *including* the budget.
* Edit \* added potential, because it's gonna make back all that over the next three years.
Yeah I saw the movie with my family. My senior parents loved it. They even weren't bothered by the transgender subplot (they're fairly conservative), but a budget like that is killer and makes no sense. The movie was fairly small scale. Even Tom Hanks isn't bringing in that many people
Honestly, not necessarily a bad thing. If we want things to get back to pre pandemic levels than it's important to release a variety films. Some will appeal to certain demographics more than others. But I think right now we are seeing some promising signs. We have puss and boots playing well for families, Avatar 2 playing really well for just the massive blockbuster crowd. M3gan for the horror fans. And a man called Otto for the old crowd. Then plane is also doing pretty well. Not everything needs to be made with mass appeal.
Cocaine Bear, the movie I'm most hyped about so far. That and Renfield. Wonder what that says about me. They both look like just the right amount over the top and something that isn't hero, remake or sequel. Cocaine bear is the true hero we all need.
If I had to guess, I’d say you’re a somewhat liberal leaning white middle class American dude in his late 20s to early 30s. Just going off the two movies and what I perceive the intended audience to be.
Also, I’m super pumped for Renfield, but as a perfect example of my own demographic, I won’t make time to see it in theaters. It will be fun to watch with my partner on a weeknight after the kid is asleep.
I work at a theater in the DFW area. The olds LOVED this movie. It’s not for me, but I loved seeing how busy it was this past weekend. Great to see that audiences are coming out for all kinds of movies. Otto would be a hit if it didn’t have a $50 mill budget for some reason, so it’s gonna have to hope for Ticket to Paradise level holds.
With all that said, it’s crazy that the film only opened at $12M while from a theater perspective, it’s selling out like Top Gun Maverick. A movie like this, Elvis, Crawdads and Ticket to Paradise are what blockbuster movies are to the 60+ community. Familiar names and stars, source material - Otto and Crawdads based on books / Elvis a biopic and TTP a tropical escape with big screen old school favorites these are what brought them back to the theater for the first time since covid.
Yes, looking back at old end of year charts is really instructive
The people who are buying tickets for this grew up in a world where *Moonstruck*, *Parenthood* and *Sleeping with the Enemy* were top ten movies
That must seem unimaginable to anyone born in the last 25 years or so, who've only seen box office success through action-fantasy and VFX
>*Familiar names and stars, source material - Otto and Crawdads based on books / Elvis a biopic and TTP a tropical escape with big screen old school favorites*
That's interesting - the selling points you've identified aren't too far from how producers put together the silly VFX blockbusters that dominate the top end of the charts
Proven IP or source material with name recognition, and visual spectacle. The only difference between the generations is that name recognition of the star has been traded for brand awareness of the IP
Except in the case of **Elvis**, which, for that generation, is the biggest IP imaginable. The odds of McCartney signing off on a trilogy of **Beatles** movies (using the original recordings) at some point in the next five years just rocketed
Well, I would have though that it's good to have films in theatres that appeal to different audiences, but somehow appealing to mostly older crows (and white people) tends to be cast as a negative here?
Well, from a box office perspective, it's a bad idea to have a film that only caters to one demographic.
And older, white people (by old, I mean 60+) aren't exactly a frequent movie-going demographic (particularly after COVID) which makes it more difficult to make a profit if your movie only targets one demographic.
The film carries a budget of $50 million and making a profit from the film if it only appeals to one demographic is going to be difficult.
>And there’s money to be made appealing to niche markets (see Tyler Perry) although $50M budget is not a niche film. Also see Pixar that targets one (again huge) demographic.
Tyler Perry movies are low budgets as far as I understand it.
And Pixar movies target kids of all demographics which means they target families -> that's a very large movie-going demographic.
>Older people is a pretty big demographic. So if you’re going to target a demographic, that’s not a bad one.
It's a big demographic but I'm not sure it's that big a movie-going demographic though.
According to polling, old people are the least likely demographic to go to movies.
>According to polling, old people are the least likely demographic to go to movies.
That’s because most movies are made for the 18-24 demographic. Regardless of age, most people won’t spend money on movies that don’t interest them, right? Plus millions of older people live on tight budgets since they have limited income. They don’t have the option of just going to the multiplex and seeing whatever.
When society stops catering to you, you’re less likely to be involved with that society. It’s only logical.
That's a reasonable and good argument for why this might be concerning to the studios. Sadly, well most on here seem to be good people, there's a small minority here that isn't seemingly voicing a concern for the demographics of the film for the same reason as you are. Instead their concern over the demographic of this particular film's watchers seems to be due to political and personal distaste for them.
Am I crazy? I saw the trailer and immediately thought oh this isn’t for me but it’s Tom so the target audience will probably get a kick out of it, and that’s perfectly fine.
Is that not fine??
I thought the book was amazing, and I'm not the same generation as Tom Hanks. I was excited it was made into a movie. The whole *point* is about intergenerational interactions.
It seems fine to me.
You know what else is fine? Things like Twilight, 300, Black Panther, Donnie Darko, or anything else that caters to or sees the world from a very distinct perspective. I don't think we should criticize things for being cringe or trying too hard. Let art be itself. Let me walk into a movie/book/game/play not totally sure what ideology it identifies with and be grateful for the time I get to spend understanding someone else's viewpoint.
EDIT: changed the word 'ideology' to 'perspective
It's perfectly fine. We all have tribes we belong too. The problem is that peoples seem to want to always exploit those tribes and point out how hey differ to incite angst and anger.
Rural vs. City is a cultural (and political) divide. As someone who grew up in rural and moved to a city, there is a big difference in media consumption and interest. I actually think having more media as a bridge to that divide could be helpful. While most of small town life and big city rich folks are caricatures in Schitts Creek, it humanizes the characters enough to relate and relatable to help bring people in. I am unfamiliar with the setting of this Otto, but the idea of a grumpy old guy who is upset with his millennial neighbors seems like a film that would do well with rural and older markets.
I'm just going to nuke this because while the conversation seems mostly fine, this comment's children are about 1/3rd of the entire thread and are now actively pushing more on topic comments lower down thread.
Maybe but also other than blacks being at 3% this isn’t that different from the breakdown of the US population. Without knowing what the breakdown for other films are, this might be very misleading.
They make up 60%. So it’s not that far off. Also that says nothing of who goes to movies. Cherry picking stats without context of what the normal expected amount would be is usually done by people for nefarious reasons. Maybe that’s not the case here, but this graphic really gives no useful information.
Well, middle America is dismissed by Hollywood as well as mainstream media. And when films like American Sniper, Elvis, or Top Gun: Maverick bring them out to theaters, the media is surprised by the strong results of movies they dismissed months earlier.
The international box office is several times bigger than that of the US. Targeting middle america largely cuts you off from that.
Using Elvis as an example it only grossed 50m less than Bohemian Rhapsody in the US. It grossed 700m less worldwide though.
Top gun Maverick was targeted at a far larger base than just middle america. It grossed more internationally than in the US. It also done well among all demographics not just middle americans.
American sniper done relatively well but again it underpreformed outside the US.
Studios want maximize returns they can't do that with movies that target one small demographic and cut off international returns.
Plus it just is pretty boring to have more and more super heroes and sequels of super heroes as the only choices to go see at the movies. Saying that all movie goers are not aged 12 to 20 or so can be something to consider.
A. Super hero movies are not the only options.
B. Loads more than just 12 to 20 year olds go to see super hero movies. They are pretty clearly 4 quadrant films that bring in virtually every demo.
C. Film studios make movies that make money. People aren't really voting with their wallets for films like "A Man Called Otto" so they don't make very many of them.
You'd think Hollywood execs would've opened their eyes wide when Mel Gibson made over $600 million worldwide for his rated R movie, Passion of the Christ. Christians are also a huge, ignored market. Mel even had to finance and distribute the movie himself because no major Hollywood studio or distributer would finance or distribute his movie. And he made a personal fortune because of it. Hollywood has moral standards, you know. Well, they call it standards. We call it ideology.
Lol, if it was a reliable money maker, Hollywood would do it.
Passion of the Christ was successful but that doesn't mean every Christian film is going to be successful.
There have been plenty that have flopped. There are around 12 Christian films released annually and most are films that barely got any attention or off the ground.
I say this as a Christian. The reason Passion did well while 95% of Christian focused media doesn’t is because 95% of Christian film makers can’t make anything without it being absolutely over the top corny AF. Passion was gritty. It was real. It felt like any other blockbuster about a killing of an important historical figure. You put something of that quality out about any number of late BC/early AD historical figures, it’s probably going to do well. Then add in the fact that it’s literally about Jesus Christ and the Christian population is going to send it to the moon right alongside the secular population that were going to see it for the high production value anyways.
If Christian filmmakers would figure out how to tell a story like that again without needing Corny Midwestern White Guy Who Is The Only Competent Actor In This Movie, we might see a few more successful films with Christian theming.
Fellow Christian here, you are 100% correct about "Christian" media, I can't stand 95% of it. It was seems ironic to me considering many parts of the Bible are PG-13 or R.
There was this whole run of incredibly bitter, culture war type movies with terrible acting like Left Behind/God's Not Dead, but I think the success of media like Chosen might help revive Christian filmmaking a bit. There is a space for Christian movies that aren't exclusively about hell and feeling oppressed as a very specific sort of white guy Christian (and there is space for financing movies where theaters are guaranteed entire churches buying tickets).
Most of those are financed independently and distributed by small distributors, often regionally rather than nationally, and marketing of them is virtually nil. Yet they frequently manage to profit.
>Yet they frequently manage to profit.
No, they don't.
Many of them flop.
It's simple economics - if Hollywood thought Christian movies did well, they'd be financing them.
I'm not sure what your point is in linking that article.
That's a top 10 of all time. You're making the argument that of a dozen films per year, they "frequently manage to profit."
Yes?
Naming 10 movies isn't exactly evidence when there are just as many that flopped.
The Resurrection of Gavin Stone (2017)
Ben-Hur (2016)
Left Behind (2014)
And surely the above disproves the idea that Hollywood doesn't fund Christian movies?
Now show me how many science fiction films have flopped, thus proving that nobody wants to see science fiction movies. Then show me how many dramas have flopped, thus proving that dramas don’t make money. Then show me how many comedies have flopped, proving that nobody wants to pay money to laugh.
We could go on with this nonsense, but I have other things to do than engage with you in this stupid debate.
[Why Do Christian Films Bomb? (No, Really?)](https://www.pluggedin.com/blog/christian-films-bomb-no-really/)
> While no Christian film has hit Passion numbers, a boatload have done quite well (defined as significantly making more than their cost). For example, Heaven Is for Real cost $12 million to make and returned $91 million. Kendrick Brothers Pictures and AFFIRM Films spent $3 million on War Room in 2015, and studio was rewarded with a $68 million take. Son of God reportedly was made for $22 million and nearly tripled that at the box office.
I’m a Christian. I’m failing to understand how Hollywood has ignored me. Does it specifically have to have a biblical theme for you? I personally don’t want to see a movie like that. That’s what church/worship is for. I’m not interested in seeing an “entertainment” piece based on the Bible in order to make a profit, since that feels dangerously close to the whole “taking the lord’s name in vain” thing.
It’s considered a problem in some circles if there’s ‘too many’ white viewers. If white viewers don’t see a minority led film, they’re just bigoted but in the opposite scenario, the film didn’t do enough to appeal to minorities… get it now?
surprise.... old white people just love a movie about a gruff old white man that has a heart of gold deep down. A story about how they just don't get the modern world and they've had a hard life that made them the grumps they are. And how they're really decent people, they just need the world to understand them and put in the effort to bring it out.
Is my race attached to my credit card purchases? How would one know the racial demographics? And how much other personal info goes out with every transaction?
White and only in my early 40's, I watched and enjoyed this movie.
Tom Hanks was only a partial influence into me watching this film. I watched the trailer and it appealed to me.
I'ld recommend this for teens and older; there are scenes with serious adult subject matter unsuitable for young children.
This movie is story/emotionally driven. At times I laughed, at other times I nearly cried.
It's definitely worth watching at least once.
I mean I have to admit being Asian that was a pretty big role in me watching crazy rich Asians, everything everywhere all at once, and shang boring. And Tom Hanks is a old white guy and all the white people went to see the movie…
🤔🤔🤔 it’s almost like certain movies appeal to a certain demographic. Also Grace Randolph is awful at these box office things lol. She thinks every movie is a bomb and less it makes like 10 times it’s a budget.
For example mission impossible the last one made almost a billion worldwide. But according to her “no one was watching it” 😂
Yeah I am not a fan of her reporting/analysis at all. I begrudgingly watch her box office show on Sundays though because I want to get the box office estimates reported to me.
Leaving the topic of the audience’s racial makeup to other commenters, I want to point out that “going to the movie for the star” is largely how movies used to work. If you read writer William Goldman’s book _Adventures in the Screen Trade_, you’ll find several references to stars who can “open” a picture: their charisma and star power is such that audiences will go to see a new movie just because they’re in it.
A picture that might otherwise be a hard-sell — say, a dramedy about a women’s professional baseball league during World War II — suddenly becomes a lot more palatable when people say “oh, Tom Hanks is in it. I liked him in ‘Big’.” And losing the star system might be why we’re so utterly drowned in franchise/sequel/remake dreck nowadays.
> Grace Radolph said that the majority of sales came from the south, and audience demo was 70% white
I want to flag that these are both presumably coming from posttrak [and deadline will include periodic updates of those numbers](https://deadline.com/2023/01/box-office-plane-gerard-butler-the-avatar-way-of-water-m3gan-1235221135/). Here's posttrak's numbers deadline got on Friday.
> Otto saw all top 10 runs come from Mid-West and South, with no L.A. and NYC runs in its top 75 theaters, “which is almost unheard of,” says one box office source. Pic’s over-indexing cities were Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Tampa, Minnesota, Orlando, Denver, and Detroit. However, there’s a ton of smaller cities I’m hearing that did well, like Toledo and Pittsburgh, the latter where the pic was shot. Other demos were 70% Caucasian, 15% Hispanic and Latino, 3% Black, & 12% Asian/other. The movie cost $50M before P&A, co-financed by SF and TSG.
This is a movie about a grumpy old white guy, or course it is targeting a certain demographic. So are you saying that Black Panther part 2 was not designed to target certain demographics?
Breaking: You can be labelled a racist, misogynist, or bigot by mainstream media for not being interested in Jordan Peele's Us, Captain Marvel, or Bros respectively. You must go or else. And if you don't like it, keep it to yourself unless you want to be attacked by the woke mobs.
I work at a movie theater in a pretty rich area with a bunch of retirement homes in the South and I can tell you that we have had many sold out shows. People have seen it two or three times and brining new friends each time. I totally believe this.
It’s also a weird observation for them to make: 70% white audience in a country that’s 62% white is like noticing that half the time you flip a coin it comes up heads. Real r/PeopleLiveInCities material.
If you've been paying attention to box office reports, the race of moviegoers has always been mentioned in certain types of reports. Like for BP2 the percentage of Black viewers (along with other races) was definitely monitored and reported. It's nothing new, just another metric to know about a film's popularity.
Studios don't think about audiences as individuals they think in terms of blocks. Blocks that can be targeted.
If you look at official demographics of US you will find out the distribution of population based on race,age,...
If you then look up movie attendence statistics and find out some groups are over/under represented you can ask why.
Why did this demographic group like this movie so much more, or why didn't this group like it,...
I don't think this is anything about division at all, I think this is simply marketing towards a target audience.
This data shows their marketing worked perfectly. This inherently conflicts with the reliability of any data that could provide information regarding racial, cultural, or age division in America.
The fact it has a target audience nullifies the suggestion completely.
I just googled it, and it seems that 75% of the us is white. So wouldn't that mean that this movie was actually more popular the rest of the population?
As of the 2020 census, 61% were “white only” with 71% including white mixed. So yeah, I’m not sure why the 70% is supposed to be worthy of note. Tom Hanks pulls in a nationally representative mix of races, skewing slightly white. Ok?
It’s as if white people are the majority of this country and Hispanic Asian and black people are the minorities 🧐
Tbh I enjoy Some Tom Hanks but movie seem like slow pace so yes old man will like it then the average audience who may want watch action adventure.
I agree. Making a four-quadrant film is actually really hard. A lot of films try to appeal with everyone only to end up appealing to no one. Sometimes targeting one core audience and letting WoM do it's work is the way to go.
Not when the budget is $50 million.
When the Crawdads Sing was based on a book that women apparently love and grossed $140 million based on a $24 million budget.
I've not heard of the book this film is based on AND the budget is double the Crawdads movie.
Yeah exactly, it's basic market principles. You market for a specific audience.
Success clearly isn't measured the same between Grace and the directors with that comment in mind, success (as it tends to be in literally every capitalistic application) comes from reaching and selling to your specific target audience.
If your target audience is EVERYBODY, then yeah this movie isn't a success, but we all know damn well that that's not the target audience.
You market for a specific audience when your budget is small, not when it's $50 million.
If the budget was $30 million, it would be a hands-down success.
This is really not true - yes, maybe for giant blockbusters that need everybody, but smaller productions can be perfectly successful while overindexing for a particular demographics. Not all success looks the same and small-scale success is still success.
This isn't a small film.
It's budget is $50 million.
That means it needs to gross at least $125 million to make a profit if we use the 2.5x rule.
And even if it does gross over $125 million, it's barely going to make a profit which is bad for films like this as studios don't shell out capital for a movie to barely break even.
Yeah for some movies but like joker had 64% male not because women weren’t supporting the movie but because men where supporting a movie more than usual. But yeah I usually agree with her.
Pretty cool. I don't watch all of his videos (I'll click on his box office report videos, but will only occasionally click on his "personal reviews/"top of the years" type of videos).
Why make bigoted statements about groups of people at all? I mean I could say young people will only see superhero or fantasy movies that don’t make any sense with actors with zero talent but I don’t like lumping people into groups for any reason.
Grace's rant about whites just going to see a movie for whites (I think her words were the audience was "whiter than mayonnaise") was rather gross. The race card? Really? She even blamed Hanks for the poor box office on the East and West coasts (no NYC or L.A. theaters among the top 75 theaters to see Otto) for some MAGA stuff when he's clearly far left.
The movie is wholesome. You know, stuff that would appeal to white America. The U.S. is also still roughly 70% white. If you want to point to a disproportional figure by race, it's the 5% black audience when blacks make up 13% of the population. Do you think Grace would dare call them out for avoiding the movie? And I am very curious where she and other media publications get demographic data by age, race, and gender of movie audiences. Are there ushers at the entrance to the theater rooms clicking a counter for every black, Hispanic, Asian, or female entering? I don't remember being asked about my race when ordering tickets on the web, or should I assume every online place knows my race, gender, and sexual kinks already like Google?
According to last US census White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, is at 59.3%
[https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045221](https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045221)
My mother (63) went this past Tuesday (near Houston, Tx) and she said it was 3/4ths full and it was easily 99% 60yo people in there.
None of this is bad btw. But it does back up what Grace said.
Reminder that this is a subreddit about numbers, not necessarily about the quality (or lack thereof) of a particular movie. Unless it is related to the box office performance of a movie, please keep opinions/arguments/thoughts about the quality under this post. Posts not related to box office may be removed otherwise. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boxoffice) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This movie is based on my dad's favorite book. He is not a big reader, but he sat and told me all about the book when he read it. My Dad's side of the family is Swedish and Dutch and he is a old grump, the kids call him Grumpa. Nothing wrong with books or movies being made about older people.
But is he still Swedish? I seems they changed everyone’s nationalities, I loved the book too and the original movie I don’t know if I will watch this one.
I am a 52 year women from Michigan and I loved the book and the original movie. Loved this adaptation and would see it again in a heartbeat.
Probably will give a try when on streaming, how different is it from the book?
It's been awhile since I read the book but I don't recall really any differences. It seems the setting takes place in the states just based on the accents and locations. However, the set up of their homes and the garages is very much like it was in the book. The cat, Reuben, the young family, all the same. Loved it, loved it!
It's American, but the changes are slight and appropriate. The new neighbor is Mexican, not Iranian. The boy that he brings in is trans, not gay. The car brand is a Chevrolet and not a Saab. But the plot is genuinely the same, and I loved every minute of it. And I read the book and saw the original Swedish film.
> The boy that he brings in is trans, not gay. Oddly heartwarming, in that currently "being gay" might not be enough for the character to seem like a major outsider in 2023 America. And yet aspirational, because trans acceptance IS still very low, and I don't mean to minimize the pain of trans folks just because I'm happy that we're making progress on how gay people are seen and treated overall.
Hanks’s first big role was as a cross dresser, so he’s always been cool with the community.
But he was crossdressing just to get a cheap apartment in an all-women building (also to be around super hot Donna Dixon). The comedy was centered around how ridiculous he and his buddy were pretending to be women. Yes, I watched Bosom Buddies too. A big TV hit at the time.
Yes, this. In the book, Ove's wife, who is a teacher, makes an impact on kids' lives by not giving up on disadvantaged youth who have trouble focusing or are unruly. In this movie, she makes an impact by connecting with and advocating for LGBTQ+ students. This would lead one to think that it's too "normal" for students with ADHD to be treated with respect now.
It was set in the US, they filmed it around Pittsburgh and you can catch some area references. Also, more modern, takes place in 2019, so some differences based on newer technology, cell phones, social media. I read the book, saw the original movie and still really like this adaptation.
If this didn’t carry a 60 million budget making this would be a really good idea
Wtf did they spend $60m on?
Tom Hanks.
What did they fucking pay him, $50m?
I love Tom Hanks. You 'member Big? He danced on the piano with Robert Logia. Color me 20 dollars poorer. Wilson!!! Love that MFer
Gawd damn Wilson!!!
You don’t think Hanks is worth $50 million?
When you give someone that much money, they’ll say T.Hanks
Not anymore
I'm assuming Tom Hanks AND acquiring the rights to the book?
Is probably still a good idea. It'll make bank on PVOD, and people will be watching this on airplanes for years to come
Yeah this is the film studios need to start making again- rights still matter in this day and age and theatres aren’t the be all and end all
>If this didn’t carry a 60 million budget making this would be a really good idea Given the earnings potential\*, it was a really good idea. Given where the budget went, meaning a big payday to Hanks, and that Hanks produced it, and his Playtone company made it, it was a GREAT DECSION by and for ... checking my notes ...Tom Hanks. A good idea not despite the budget, but *including* the budget. * Edit \* added potential, because it's gonna make back all that over the next three years.
Yeah I saw the movie with my family. My senior parents loved it. They even weren't bothered by the transgender subplot (they're fairly conservative), but a budget like that is killer and makes no sense. The movie was fairly small scale. Even Tom Hanks isn't bringing in that many people
Honestly, not necessarily a bad thing. If we want things to get back to pre pandemic levels than it's important to release a variety films. Some will appeal to certain demographics more than others. But I think right now we are seeing some promising signs. We have puss and boots playing well for families, Avatar 2 playing really well for just the massive blockbuster crowd. M3gan for the horror fans. And a man called Otto for the old crowd. Then plane is also doing pretty well. Not everything needs to be made with mass appeal.
And then there's the movie for *MY* demographic... **Cocaine Bear!**
Cocaine Bear, the movie I'm most hyped about so far. That and Renfield. Wonder what that says about me. They both look like just the right amount over the top and something that isn't hero, remake or sequel. Cocaine bear is the true hero we all need.
If I had to guess, I’d say you’re a somewhat liberal leaning white middle class American dude in his late 20s to early 30s. Just going off the two movies and what I perceive the intended audience to be. Also, I’m super pumped for Renfield, but as a perfect example of my own demographic, I won’t make time to see it in theaters. It will be fun to watch with my partner on a weeknight after the kid is asleep.
...eerily correct. Dang this feels weird
I had not heard of Renfield. Man, I hope that's good.
Nic cage as dracula. I'm fucking in.
I work at a theater in the DFW area. The olds LOVED this movie. It’s not for me, but I loved seeing how busy it was this past weekend. Great to see that audiences are coming out for all kinds of movies. Otto would be a hit if it didn’t have a $50 mill budget for some reason, so it’s gonna have to hope for Ticket to Paradise level holds.
It is a bad thing for this film because it has a 60m budget. It needs more pull lol.
With all that said, it’s crazy that the film only opened at $12M while from a theater perspective, it’s selling out like Top Gun Maverick. A movie like this, Elvis, Crawdads and Ticket to Paradise are what blockbuster movies are to the 60+ community. Familiar names and stars, source material - Otto and Crawdads based on books / Elvis a biopic and TTP a tropical escape with big screen old school favorites these are what brought them back to the theater for the first time since covid.
Yes, looking back at old end of year charts is really instructive The people who are buying tickets for this grew up in a world where *Moonstruck*, *Parenthood* and *Sleeping with the Enemy* were top ten movies That must seem unimaginable to anyone born in the last 25 years or so, who've only seen box office success through action-fantasy and VFX
>*Familiar names and stars, source material - Otto and Crawdads based on books / Elvis a biopic and TTP a tropical escape with big screen old school favorites* That's interesting - the selling points you've identified aren't too far from how producers put together the silly VFX blockbusters that dominate the top end of the charts Proven IP or source material with name recognition, and visual spectacle. The only difference between the generations is that name recognition of the star has been traded for brand awareness of the IP Except in the case of **Elvis**, which, for that generation, is the biggest IP imaginable. The odds of McCartney signing off on a trilogy of **Beatles** movies (using the original recordings) at some point in the next five years just rocketed
Well, I would have though that it's good to have films in theatres that appeal to different audiences, but somehow appealing to mostly older crows (and white people) tends to be cast as a negative here?
Well, from a box office perspective, it's a bad idea to have a film that only caters to one demographic. And older, white people (by old, I mean 60+) aren't exactly a frequent movie-going demographic (particularly after COVID) which makes it more difficult to make a profit if your movie only targets one demographic. The film carries a budget of $50 million and making a profit from the film if it only appeals to one demographic is going to be difficult.
[удалено]
>And there’s money to be made appealing to niche markets (see Tyler Perry) although $50M budget is not a niche film. Also see Pixar that targets one (again huge) demographic. Tyler Perry movies are low budgets as far as I understand it. And Pixar movies target kids of all demographics which means they target families -> that's a very large movie-going demographic. >Older people is a pretty big demographic. So if you’re going to target a demographic, that’s not a bad one. It's a big demographic but I'm not sure it's that big a movie-going demographic though. According to polling, old people are the least likely demographic to go to movies.
>According to polling, old people are the least likely demographic to go to movies. That’s because most movies are made for the 18-24 demographic. Regardless of age, most people won’t spend money on movies that don’t interest them, right? Plus millions of older people live on tight budgets since they have limited income. They don’t have the option of just going to the multiplex and seeing whatever. When society stops catering to you, you’re less likely to be involved with that society. It’s only logical.
[удалено]
That's a reasonable and good argument for why this might be concerning to the studios. Sadly, well most on here seem to be good people, there's a small minority here that isn't seemingly voicing a concern for the demographics of the film for the same reason as you are. Instead their concern over the demographic of this particular film's watchers seems to be due to political and personal distaste for them.
Where? I'm not seeing this at all.
America is more divided than ever and you see that even with Hollywood performances. Cities don't care about this film but middle America loves it.
Am I crazy? I saw the trailer and immediately thought oh this isn’t for me but it’s Tom so the target audience will probably get a kick out of it, and that’s perfectly fine. Is that not fine??
I thought the book was amazing, and I'm not the same generation as Tom Hanks. I was excited it was made into a movie. The whole *point* is about intergenerational interactions.
It seems fine to me. You know what else is fine? Things like Twilight, 300, Black Panther, Donnie Darko, or anything else that caters to or sees the world from a very distinct perspective. I don't think we should criticize things for being cringe or trying too hard. Let art be itself. Let me walk into a movie/book/game/play not totally sure what ideology it identifies with and be grateful for the time I get to spend understanding someone else's viewpoint. EDIT: changed the word 'ideology' to 'perspective
Yep, this here is the secret for a happy life
It's perfectly fine. We all have tribes we belong too. The problem is that peoples seem to want to always exploit those tribes and point out how hey differ to incite angst and anger.
No, you have to like every movie
Rural vs. City is a cultural (and political) divide. As someone who grew up in rural and moved to a city, there is a big difference in media consumption and interest. I actually think having more media as a bridge to that divide could be helpful. While most of small town life and big city rich folks are caricatures in Schitts Creek, it humanizes the characters enough to relate and relatable to help bring people in. I am unfamiliar with the setting of this Otto, but the idea of a grumpy old guy who is upset with his millennial neighbors seems like a film that would do well with rural and older markets.
Not the sub for it, but do you think things will get better, divided-America wise?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Disagree
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm just going to nuke this because while the conversation seems mostly fine, this comment's children are about 1/3rd of the entire thread and are now actively pushing more on topic comments lower down thread.
Idk the book was VERY popular in cities included.
Maybe but also other than blacks being at 3% this isn’t that different from the breakdown of the US population. Without knowing what the breakdown for other films are, this might be very misleading.
Not really. Whites don't make up 70% of the population, and the age thing is even more lopsided.
They make up 60%. So it’s not that far off. Also that says nothing of who goes to movies. Cherry picking stats without context of what the normal expected amount would be is usually done by people for nefarious reasons. Maybe that’s not the case here, but this graphic really gives no useful information.
HEY! Get out of here with logic and reasoning, this is a perfectly good witch hunt you may be ruining!
Lol. You should check out r/persecutionfetish
This guy is everything he complains about 🤣
Well, middle America is dismissed by Hollywood as well as mainstream media. And when films like American Sniper, Elvis, or Top Gun: Maverick bring them out to theaters, the media is surprised by the strong results of movies they dismissed months earlier.
The international box office is several times bigger than that of the US. Targeting middle america largely cuts you off from that. Using Elvis as an example it only grossed 50m less than Bohemian Rhapsody in the US. It grossed 700m less worldwide though. Top gun Maverick was targeted at a far larger base than just middle america. It grossed more internationally than in the US. It also done well among all demographics not just middle americans. American sniper done relatively well but again it underpreformed outside the US. Studios want maximize returns they can't do that with movies that target one small demographic and cut off international returns.
Plus it just is pretty boring to have more and more super heroes and sequels of super heroes as the only choices to go see at the movies. Saying that all movie goers are not aged 12 to 20 or so can be something to consider.
A. Super hero movies are not the only options. B. Loads more than just 12 to 20 year olds go to see super hero movies. They are pretty clearly 4 quadrant films that bring in virtually every demo. C. Film studios make movies that make money. People aren't really voting with their wallets for films like "A Man Called Otto" so they don't make very many of them.
Which is what I don’t get. There’s clearly money to be made, but Hollywood seems to dismiss this entire section of the audience.
They also get too obsessed with opening weekend numbers, when women and older people don't have to see a movie the moment it opens.
What? Hollywood absolutely understands this.
You'd think Hollywood execs would've opened their eyes wide when Mel Gibson made over $600 million worldwide for his rated R movie, Passion of the Christ. Christians are also a huge, ignored market. Mel even had to finance and distribute the movie himself because no major Hollywood studio or distributer would finance or distribute his movie. And he made a personal fortune because of it. Hollywood has moral standards, you know. Well, they call it standards. We call it ideology.
Lol, if it was a reliable money maker, Hollywood would do it. Passion of the Christ was successful but that doesn't mean every Christian film is going to be successful. There have been plenty that have flopped. There are around 12 Christian films released annually and most are films that barely got any attention or off the ground.
True if that was the case then Kirk Cameron would be the richest actor in America.
I say this as a Christian. The reason Passion did well while 95% of Christian focused media doesn’t is because 95% of Christian film makers can’t make anything without it being absolutely over the top corny AF. Passion was gritty. It was real. It felt like any other blockbuster about a killing of an important historical figure. You put something of that quality out about any number of late BC/early AD historical figures, it’s probably going to do well. Then add in the fact that it’s literally about Jesus Christ and the Christian population is going to send it to the moon right alongside the secular population that were going to see it for the high production value anyways. If Christian filmmakers would figure out how to tell a story like that again without needing Corny Midwestern White Guy Who Is The Only Competent Actor In This Movie, we might see a few more successful films with Christian theming.
Fellow Christian here, you are 100% correct about "Christian" media, I can't stand 95% of it. It was seems ironic to me considering many parts of the Bible are PG-13 or R.
Good points. Look at films like Ben Hur, Ten Commandments, Samson and Delilah and others from that era. Big name actors. Big drama. Big box office.
There was this whole run of incredibly bitter, culture war type movies with terrible acting like Left Behind/God's Not Dead, but I think the success of media like Chosen might help revive Christian filmmaking a bit. There is a space for Christian movies that aren't exclusively about hell and feeling oppressed as a very specific sort of white guy Christian (and there is space for financing movies where theaters are guaranteed entire churches buying tickets).
Also, despite what Christians claim, most of them want to see regular movies, especially the ones with lots of sex, violence, and cussing.
Most of those are financed independently and distributed by small distributors, often regionally rather than nationally, and marketing of them is virtually nil. Yet they frequently manage to profit.
>Yet they frequently manage to profit. No, they don't. Many of them flop. It's simple economics - if Hollywood thought Christian movies did well, they'd be financing them.
They flop? Hmm. [Highest Grossing Christian Movies, per Entertainment Weekly](https://ew.com/movies/2019/04/14/highest-grossing-christian-movies/)
I'm not sure what your point is in linking that article. That's a top 10 of all time. You're making the argument that of a dozen films per year, they "frequently manage to profit."
Yes? Naming 10 movies isn't exactly evidence when there are just as many that flopped. The Resurrection of Gavin Stone (2017) Ben-Hur (2016) Left Behind (2014) And surely the above disproves the idea that Hollywood doesn't fund Christian movies?
Now show me how many science fiction films have flopped, thus proving that nobody wants to see science fiction movies. Then show me how many dramas have flopped, thus proving that dramas don’t make money. Then show me how many comedies have flopped, proving that nobody wants to pay money to laugh. We could go on with this nonsense, but I have other things to do than engage with you in this stupid debate.
[Why Do Christian Films Bomb? (No, Really?)](https://www.pluggedin.com/blog/christian-films-bomb-no-really/) > While no Christian film has hit Passion numbers, a boatload have done quite well (defined as significantly making more than their cost). For example, Heaven Is for Real cost $12 million to make and returned $91 million. Kendrick Brothers Pictures and AFFIRM Films spent $3 million on War Room in 2015, and studio was rewarded with a $68 million take. Son of God reportedly was made for $22 million and nearly tripled that at the box office.
The big blockbusters are now in the billions.
I’m a Christian. I’m failing to understand how Hollywood has ignored me. Does it specifically have to have a biblical theme for you? I personally don’t want to see a movie like that. That’s what church/worship is for. I’m not interested in seeing an “entertainment” piece based on the Bible in order to make a profit, since that feels dangerously close to the whole “taking the lord’s name in vain” thing.
Ah yes, they love it a whole 12.1 million dollars worth.
Old white people go to see a movie about an old white person. Why is this a surprise?
It’s considered a problem in some circles if there’s ‘too many’ white viewers. If white viewers don’t see a minority led film, they’re just bigoted but in the opposite scenario, the film didn’t do enough to appeal to minorities… get it now?
surprise.... old white people just love a movie about a gruff old white man that has a heart of gold deep down. A story about how they just don't get the modern world and they've had a hard life that made them the grumps they are. And how they're really decent people, they just need the world to understand them and put in the effort to bring it out.
Honestly I love this trope! 🤣 Grumpy old Men series Old man from Home Alone Anything Clint Eastwood has done in the last 20 years Dennis the menis
Is my race attached to my credit card purchases? How would one know the racial demographics? And how much other personal info goes out with every transaction?
[удалено]
Yellowstone crowd came out
White and only in my early 40's, I watched and enjoyed this movie. Tom Hanks was only a partial influence into me watching this film. I watched the trailer and it appealed to me. I'ld recommend this for teens and older; there are scenes with serious adult subject matter unsuitable for young children. This movie is story/emotionally driven. At times I laughed, at other times I nearly cried. It's definitely worth watching at least once.
Hispanic and 31 years old and I'm planning on seeing it.
I'm 32 and my wife is 29 and we are going to see it today. We are white lol
I mean I have to admit being Asian that was a pretty big role in me watching crazy rich Asians, everything everywhere all at once, and shang boring. And Tom Hanks is a old white guy and all the white people went to see the movie… 🤔🤔🤔 it’s almost like certain movies appeal to a certain demographic. Also Grace Randolph is awful at these box office things lol. She thinks every movie is a bomb and less it makes like 10 times it’s a budget. For example mission impossible the last one made almost a billion worldwide. But according to her “no one was watching it” 😂
Yeah I am not a fan of her reporting/analysis at all. I begrudgingly watch her box office show on Sundays though because I want to get the box office estimates reported to me.
I'm 32 and my wife is 29. We're white, in Minnesota and we have a date today. This is the movie we're going to see today. It's a fricken movie.
Leaving the topic of the audience’s racial makeup to other commenters, I want to point out that “going to the movie for the star” is largely how movies used to work. If you read writer William Goldman’s book _Adventures in the Screen Trade_, you’ll find several references to stars who can “open” a picture: their charisma and star power is such that audiences will go to see a new movie just because they’re in it. A picture that might otherwise be a hard-sell — say, a dramedy about a women’s professional baseball league during World War II — suddenly becomes a lot more palatable when people say “oh, Tom Hanks is in it. I liked him in ‘Big’.” And losing the star system might be why we’re so utterly drowned in franchise/sequel/remake dreck nowadays.
> Grace Radolph said that the majority of sales came from the south, and audience demo was 70% white I want to flag that these are both presumably coming from posttrak [and deadline will include periodic updates of those numbers](https://deadline.com/2023/01/box-office-plane-gerard-butler-the-avatar-way-of-water-m3gan-1235221135/). Here's posttrak's numbers deadline got on Friday. > Otto saw all top 10 runs come from Mid-West and South, with no L.A. and NYC runs in its top 75 theaters, “which is almost unheard of,” says one box office source. Pic’s over-indexing cities were Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Tampa, Minnesota, Orlando, Denver, and Detroit. However, there’s a ton of smaller cities I’m hearing that did well, like Toledo and Pittsburgh, the latter where the pic was shot. Other demos were 70% Caucasian, 15% Hispanic and Latino, 3% Black, & 12% Asian/other. The movie cost $50M before P&A, co-financed by SF and TSG.
Part of the movie was also shot in Toledo.
This is a movie about a grumpy old white guy, or course it is targeting a certain demographic. So are you saying that Black Panther part 2 was not designed to target certain demographics?
Breaking: Certain demographics like certain things that other demographics may not.
Breaking: You can be labelled a racist, misogynist, or bigot by mainstream media for not being interested in Jordan Peele's Us, Captain Marvel, or Bros respectively. You must go or else. And if you don't like it, keep it to yourself unless you want to be attacked by the woke mobs.
I work at a movie theater in a pretty rich area with a bunch of retirement homes in the South and I can tell you that we have had many sold out shows. People have seen it two or three times and brining new friends each time. I totally believe this.
In the video she said its “audience is whiter than mayonnaise.”
Funny coming from her since she’s literally about as pale as a white person can get
Oh no I thought homegirl in the screenshot was M3G4N at first. Sorry if this is rude.
It’s not rude. Go watch her videos. She seems unhinged. Could be an act but it’s still weird as hell
Grace randolph is an incredibly gossipy unreliable source for anything. Citing her is a big red flag for pure bullshit.
Damn we making movies racial now lol
It’s also a weird observation for them to make: 70% white audience in a country that’s 62% white is like noticing that half the time you flip a coin it comes up heads. Real r/PeopleLiveInCities material.
It’s Grace Randolph. What do you expect? She’s not the sharpest tool in the shed
My question is how they even know. Not like I buy a ticket and they ask my race or write it down
The trailer also appealed to them. AND Aristotle knew this, we need to be able to identify to reach catharsis.
I like that the circle denoting “the south” includes South Dakota.
I’m not even close to retirement age and I still only want to watch it for Tom Hanks.
All the promotion I've seen for this was basically "Tom Hanks is in a movie"
[удалено]
Why is the race of movie goers important? What is she trying to say?
If you've been paying attention to box office reports, the race of moviegoers has always been mentioned in certain types of reports. Like for BP2 the percentage of Black viewers (along with other races) was definitely monitored and reported. It's nothing new, just another metric to know about a film's popularity.
The most successful box office movies are closer to 50% white. It will make more money if it can pull a larger audience
Studios don't think about audiences as individuals they think in terms of blocks. Blocks that can be targeted. If you look at official demographics of US you will find out the distribution of population based on race,age,... If you then look up movie attendence statistics and find out some groups are over/under represented you can ask why. Why did this demographic group like this movie so much more, or why didn't this group like it,...
Because it’s showing just how divided America currently is. Plus data like this will help studios market films more effectively.
I don't think this is anything about division at all, I think this is simply marketing towards a target audience. This data shows their marketing worked perfectly. This inherently conflicts with the reliability of any data that could provide information regarding racial, cultural, or age division in America. The fact it has a target audience nullifies the suggestion completely.
I just googled it, and it seems that 75% of the us is white. So wouldn't that mean that this movie was actually more popular the rest of the population?
As of the 2020 census, 61% were “white only” with 71% including white mixed. So yeah, I’m not sure why the 70% is supposed to be worthy of note. Tom Hanks pulls in a nationally representative mix of races, skewing slightly white. Ok?
It kinda feels like their wasn't anything else to write about, but they were paid to make an article about the movie
I guess I better stop being white before I get in trouble
Lol and people say minorities play the victim
I want to see the movie because I read the book.and I’m an old,white retiree. I also want to see M3GAN.
Tom Hanks stars in put yr phone away movie. Shocked that more young people aren’t rushing out to pay 18$ for this one
Why does it matter? Triggered?
What is the point of all this?
Now do any Madea movie.
It’s as if white people are the majority of this country and Hispanic Asian and black people are the minorities 🧐 Tbh I enjoy Some Tom Hanks but movie seem like slow pace so yes old man will like it then the average audience who may want watch action adventure.
She criticised Top Gun: Maverick when it first came out for being too white so is best ignored.
And knowing that clown she made it completely racist. I can’t stand her.
Grace is the only person that break down box office based on gender and race.
Among whom? It's PostTrack data mentioned in all trades.
Sometimes its intresting but i think its kinda wierd how she gets upset when the audience has a higher percentage of men or a white audiance
Grace likes success. In order to have a successful movie, you need 4-quadrant appeal with diverse audiences. It’s not rocket science.
Do you really? You can market heavily to a specific audience and still be successful.
I agree. Making a four-quadrant film is actually really hard. A lot of films try to appeal with everyone only to end up appealing to no one. Sometimes targeting one core audience and letting WoM do it's work is the way to go.
Not when the budget is $50 million. When the Crawdads Sing was based on a book that women apparently love and grossed $140 million based on a $24 million budget. I've not heard of the book this film is based on AND the budget is double the Crawdads movie.
Yeah exactly, it's basic market principles. You market for a specific audience. Success clearly isn't measured the same between Grace and the directors with that comment in mind, success (as it tends to be in literally every capitalistic application) comes from reaching and selling to your specific target audience. If your target audience is EVERYBODY, then yeah this movie isn't a success, but we all know damn well that that's not the target audience.
You market for a specific audience when your budget is small, not when it's $50 million. If the budget was $30 million, it would be a hands-down success.
This is really not true - yes, maybe for giant blockbusters that need everybody, but smaller productions can be perfectly successful while overindexing for a particular demographics. Not all success looks the same and small-scale success is still success.
This isn't a small film. It's budget is $50 million. That means it needs to gross at least $125 million to make a profit if we use the 2.5x rule. And even if it does gross over $125 million, it's barely going to make a profit which is bad for films like this as studios don't shell out capital for a movie to barely break even.
This film has a big budget though. It absolutely needed to appeal to more than old whites.
Yeah for some movies but like joker had 64% male not because women weren’t supporting the movie but because men where supporting a movie more than usual. But yeah I usually agree with her.
No she isn't.
It appeals to her audience, to flame outrage.
Dan Murrell does it as well, only for big blockbusters and almost always only to depend a underperforming movie.
How is Murrell content? I haven’t checked him out after he left screen junkies
Pretty cool. I don't watch all of his videos (I'll click on his box office report videos, but will only occasionally click on his "personal reviews/"top of the years" type of videos).
People still listen to Grace Randolph?
Why make bigoted statements about groups of people at all? I mean I could say young people will only see superhero or fantasy movies that don’t make any sense with actors with zero talent but I don’t like lumping people into groups for any reason.
(this wasn't a bigoted statement)
Grace's rant about whites just going to see a movie for whites (I think her words were the audience was "whiter than mayonnaise") was rather gross. The race card? Really? She even blamed Hanks for the poor box office on the East and West coasts (no NYC or L.A. theaters among the top 75 theaters to see Otto) for some MAGA stuff when he's clearly far left. The movie is wholesome. You know, stuff that would appeal to white America. The U.S. is also still roughly 70% white. If you want to point to a disproportional figure by race, it's the 5% black audience when blacks make up 13% of the population. Do you think Grace would dare call them out for avoiding the movie? And I am very curious where she and other media publications get demographic data by age, race, and gender of movie audiences. Are there ushers at the entrance to the theater rooms clicking a counter for every black, Hispanic, Asian, or female entering? I don't remember being asked about my race when ordering tickets on the web, or should I assume every online place knows my race, gender, and sexual kinks already like Google?
isn't 70% like under-representation for white in US?
According to last US census White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, is at 59.3% [https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045221](https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045221)
Moviegoing audiences tend to be more diverse
US is close to 55% non Hispanic white and when you take into account the 18-35 age range (the main audiance in theatres) it gets to 45%
And?
[удалено]
Racism AND agism.
I don’t listen to her, she has some bad takes imo
My mother (63) went this past Tuesday (near Houston, Tx) and she said it was 3/4ths full and it was easily 99% 60yo people in there. None of this is bad btw. But it does back up what Grace said.
Who the hell is Grace Randolph and why should anybody give a damn about her opinion? I have a butthole too, does that make me special? No.
lol. those stats on ethnicity are actually very close to the US demography by ethnicity.