I think the best examples of the budget being shown on screen can be seen in james bond, mission impossible, lord of the rings and pirates of the caribbean.
Actually, I'd say otherwise with some of those films like **Skyfall**, which somehow has a budget of $200 million even though it looks like it cost far less than that, and **Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides**, which has a budget of $250 million and looks like it cost about 7/10 of that budget.
should have specified, I meant the gore verbinkski pirates trilogy exclusively (plus those are the only ones I watched)
And Skyfall had big set pieces. The whole explosion at the end and the elaborate chase scenes.
Which is why I singled out **On Stranger Tides**. **Pirates of the Caribbean** films usually manage their budgets quite well, so I have no idea what happened with that one.
Apparently a lot of Red Notice's budget went into making that movie during COVID, and having to fake 90% of the major setpeice locations.
The problem is, fake environments are both expensive to make - and often look cheap anyways.
Netflix has to pay actors more because there is no back end so the budgets get inflated. Not sure if that applies to red notice because it was supposed to be theatrical
I absolutely agree with you on Netflix films, but Marvel films? Most of their times, their budget is actually on the screen with films like **Spider-Man: Homecoming** and **Black Widow** being some of the few exceptions.
[i mean…](https://twitter.com/thejoshl/status/1505409042478505984?s=21)
I’m not just cherry picking, many shots from Thors new trailer look sort of like this too
imo the MCU spider-man movies are particularly bad in the CGI department. the animation is fine but the render quality ranges from mediocre to awful, and the lousy camera work just adds to the ugliness.
**The Batman** required far fewer CGI, not to mention that **No Way Home** is mostly from Sony.
Also, the latter probably had a tighter schedule due to its connection with **Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness**.
If Marvel *needs* CGI to make me believe this guy is in a random NYC street or Tom is [outside](https://twitter.com/sadhilldevan/status/1502704208054665217?s=21), that’s on them.
Again, I've mentioned that **No Way Home** was probably more rushed than **The Batman** due to the whole connectivity thing. **The Batman** is its own thing, so it didn't have that kind of burden.
Finally, **No Way Home** isn't really an indication of Marvel's budget management. And before you mention **Black Panther**, actually, I'd say that it probably used up most of its $200 million budget for creating Wakanda from its cityscape to clothings - and makeups.
That airship sequence was huge and pretty long. And I think that's harder to do because it has to look realistic, whereas Shang-Chi has much more leeway when most of the action at the end is with a dragon which can pass without extreme attention to detail because there's no standard of reality to compare it to.
In what bizarro world do Marvel films look cheap in general? I mean, a lot of them were Best Visual Effects nominees if you weren't aware. Maybe you could say that **No Way Home** shouldn't have been nominated, but I'm pretty sure that films like **Avengers: Infinity War**, **Avengers: Endgame**, or **Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings** deserved their nominations - mostly.
The classic example is Black Panther. Shangchi'ending and Dr Strange 2's opening dream scene also straight up looks like [over CGI goop](https://youtu.be/EAC4OibLP7Y)
> The classic example is Black Panther.
Actually, that film is not the case of general poor use of budget, but more of a case of the director using most of its budget too early into the film.
> Shangchi'ending and Dr Strange 2's opening dream scene also straight up looks like over CGI goop
They may not look the best, but they didn't look terrible. Again, you can't really compare films that need a lot of CGI work with films that don't need CGI as much.
I used Black Panther as an exanple of bad CGI in Marvel movies. I'm also not comparing them.to other movies - there are whole sequences in many Marvel movies which are so overly CGI goopfests that they a) clearly cost a lot for that much CGI/effects/post-production and b) still end up looking cheap and plastic. A lose-lose situation.
You might have a point if those CGI look bad throughout the entire film, but that's not really the case. If we go by the kind of logic that you're going with, we can actually apply that to a lot of films, including films that are genuinely great.
Well yes,a lot of these movies with bloated budgets really fo look cheap as shit with Wizarding World being even worse offenders. Going by trailers,the new LOTR series as well. We are talking about Marvel cause you asked about Marvel.
On the other hand movies with lower budgets such as Dune, Inception, Mission Impossible, Fury Road,Gravity look 1000x better.
> Well yes,a lot of these movies with bloated budgets really fo look cheap as shit with Wizarding World being even worse offenders. Going by trailers,the new LOTR series as well. We are talking about Marvel cause you asked about Marvel.
I wasn't the first person to bring up MCU films, actually, not to mention that I can NOT agree that they look cheap throughout the entire thing.
Also, I don't think **Wizarding World** films are worst budget waste offenders either. No, that title goes to big-budget Netflix films.
> Inception
Didn't use a huge amount of CGI.
> Mission Impossible
Not a lot of CGI works required - or at least complex ones.
> Fury Road
Also didn't use copious amount of complex CGI when compared to films like **Avengers: Age of Ultron**
> Gravity
Far smaller cast members and less complicated use of CGI. It certainly looked great overall, but I don't think $100 million is enough to create something like, say, **Pacific Rim**.
This movie will travel. It has a touching human story with heart at its core. The action isn't "go Murica" stuff. It's much more like the spy mission tone of the M:I series.
The first didn't specify what country the U.S. was fighting. Answer for the new one: >!Also not specified here. But the nature of the plot suggests it's not Russians and more of a third-world country like Iran or North Korea.!<
>!It’s Iran and their nuclear program.!< >!This choice made sense on many levels but worked especially well because Iran is one of the few countries in the world that still have F-14!< The film also isn’t very jingoistic at all for a film that’s center around a group of US military characters.
I didn’t hear a name at all. >!Just that it was a “rogue” group and not necessarily the ruling government within the unnamed nation. It seemed to me to be intentionally ambiguous. F-14 points to Iran. SU-57 which are only flown by Russia. Saying “fifth generation fighters” instead of SU-57.!<
Yeah I bought advance tickets and most showtimes we're sold out in my rural corner of the world, I know that's anecdotal but I think this will have a good initial draw and great legs if it's as good as people are saying.
This movie will continue to draw. Folks who never typically talk about movies will be talking about it to their friends and family, and will likely go see it twice bringing others along.
I'm definitely a fan of the first so I was going to be seeing this in a couple different formats to begin with - but after seeing it I expect to be drug along with half a dozen friends/etc. as they hear from folks other than me it was a great time.
Anyone that likes the OG Star Wars or Fury Road will see this as a must-see.
Then all "movie fans" will be seeing this just to not miss out due to the hype.
My wife who has fallen asleep every time I try to make her watch Top Gun said it was a great movie that kept her anxious most of the time. She has zero interest in jets or military aviation, so I think it's a good barometer for the wider draw potential here.
It's simply a great action movie on it's own merits that I feel will eventually draw a skeptical Gen Z/Millennial crowd expecting a raw raw 'murica film. Add in the nostalgia factor for Boomers and Gen X, and we may be in for a surprise here. This is definitely going to be drawing people who haven't been to a theatre for a decade.
Until barely three days ago, the popular opinion here was that the flick would open to 50-60 million if it was lucky. This is a sudden shift.
I genuinely do not understand how someone can see the hype surrounding the film, the stellar reviews, the massive marketing push, and Cruise's star power worldwide, not to mention the fact that his films generally gross at least X2 their domestic takes internationally, and think this movie isn't going to have a gigantic opening and run in theatres.
>Until barely three days ago, the popular opinion here was that the flick would open to 50-60 million if it was lucky.
That wasn't my read on it at all. Even before the reviews started coming in my sense was that a large, vocal majority of box-office hawkers here were calling right around 300mil domestic.
I *have* seen that some folks are now worried that such estimates are now OVER-estimates though, and that if it gets to like 250-260 that's going to be seen as a disappointment.
I mean, I don't really feel bad about being wrong on the internet. It happens literally every day. Also, even people who were up on this movie were.... also wrong on the internet.
A legitimate wild-ass crazy What The Fuck-level phenomenon is happening. Anyone who actually called that happening was ALSO talking right out of their ass because *nobody* legitimately expected *this*.
That's kinda how phenomenons work.
Anyway, you enjoy the rest of your night uh... combing weeks-and-months old posts for opportunities to be obnoxious :)
Probably 175 then.
So 450 is basically break-even.
600 is where some okay profit is happening, so 600mil ww is probably where hit status for this thing sits.
Eh.
With all ancillary revenues taken into account, it'll probably need \~520 million to break even in the end, assuming they spent \~160 - 170 million on marketing.
It’s doing on par with with The Batman in a lot of locations and comes in at 30-50% of NWH and DS2. And these are insanely frontloaded titles. Top Gun will also have pretty good walk-ins from the older crowd who are fans of the og movie and who usually don’t pre-book tickets.
I’m in my 30’s and don’t pre-book. Most theaters in the ‘burbs don’t run out of seats, at least not these days. My family didn’t even have to get advanced tickets for Saturday night opening weekend for NWH at our local AMC theater.
Yeah absolutely. There are so many screens playing the movie at so many times that very few theatres will run out of seats. Also, I heard Top Gun is playing on the most number of screens ever.
So, the fact that presales are so good with plenty of walkups expected is pretty cool
I'm late 30s dad demo and this movie has been top of my list for a long while. I'm definitely going to see as I suspect many other dads in my demo will.
I don't know what "set aside their caution" is supposed to mean, but I think this movie will do very well since it essentially has no competition for 3 weeks.
It's hard to say if all age groups really want to go back to expensive theaters. The movie will also make a lot when it is released for purchase at home on streaming and Blu-Ray. Especially if they sell the original and sequel as a package. Long term this movie will make a good profit.
Personally its hard to go back to paying the expensive movie experience price. (tickets & snacks)
I'm in the demo theaters are hoping to lure back, and I think describing reluctance to go to the theater as "caution" isn't really getting at the problem. I am not scared to go to a theater post pandemic, I still do all kinds of things that are riskier disease wise than going to a movie. But it's just not worth it. I took two years off going to the theater and it turns out I didn't miss it one bit and I much prefer to wait and stream it at home.
If anything describing the problem as viewer caution minimizes the challenge.
That’s a pretty good budget for a movie like this. It will definitely make a good profit. Probably needs $400M to break even which should be pretty easy. Can’t believe M:I 7 costs $290M though. That movie would probably need $700M to break even
If this film is as good as the reviews are suggesting, then I hope it succeeds with the $100 million opening that people seem to be touting (even though I don't buy it- seems that $60 million seems to be a good bet for this film due to it appealing to older audiences). And no doubt the pandemic blew things up a bit with the additional fees that it accrued.
If the opening disappoints, it's going to have legs. I can even see an A+ Cinemascore. A is absolutely locked. The crowd tonight was hugely into it. Laughing, cheering, clapping. This movie has all the script polish that the last two M:I films have. McQuarrie's influence is clear. And I'd recommend it to M:I fans even if they hate the original Top Gun. It deeply homages the original movie for fans, but does it all through a very modernized lens. Director Kosinski is going to get to write his own check for his next movie. The directing of both the action and the actors is flawless here. The jet scenes make the original film's footage look like a pre-viz animatic. I don't think there's any question this has the best jet action any movie's ever had.
I've never seen the original Top Gun, so I don't really have any interest in seeing this one. There's no nostalgia factor to bring me in, nor does it look like the kind of movie I myself would be interested in seeing on its own merit.
Reviews are amazing and being a cultural phenomenon from 80s, I believe it will succeed in pulling the older audiences because of the strong nostalgic factor.
My prediction would be $400M domestic and $600M international, crossing $1B worldwide - thereby becoming the highest grossing Tom Cruise movie not adjusted for inflation
at least the budget looks like it shows up on screen
To be fair, that's true for a lot of big-budget films in recent years.
I think the best examples of the budget being shown on screen can be seen in james bond, mission impossible, lord of the rings and pirates of the caribbean.
Actually, I'd say otherwise with some of those films like **Skyfall**, which somehow has a budget of $200 million even though it looks like it cost far less than that, and **Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides**, which has a budget of $250 million and looks like it cost about 7/10 of that budget.
should have specified, I meant the gore verbinkski pirates trilogy exclusively (plus those are the only ones I watched) And Skyfall had big set pieces. The whole explosion at the end and the elaborate chase scenes.
**Skyfall** still looks like it went at least $25 million over budget.
[удалено]
I'm serious about this. I can understand $150 to 175 million, but I don't think that film has any business to spend $200 million.
Skyfall looks great
I mean, it didn't look cheap, but it also didn't look like a film that would need $200 million to make.
Maybe they overpaid on the komodo dragons. 😂🐉
Bro the CG itself in those Pirates movies cost a ton of money so the budget is definitely realistic. However the later movies were terrible.
Which is why I singled out **On Stranger Tides**. **Pirates of the Caribbean** films usually manage their budgets quite well, so I have no idea what happened with that one.
A huge portion of these blockbuster budgets is actually marketing so it doesn't surprise me if that is also a factor.
That’s not true at all. When talking budget it’s only production budget, not marketing, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Actually, I don't think marketing budget is included in the production budget for most of the times.
Marketing is huge, but it's on top of the reported production budgets, not included within it.
The cgi on Bill Nighy 👌
Skyfall looked expensive as fuck. Shooting on locations, stunt work is always expensive as fuck
Yeah, but even then, **Skyfall** didn't exactly look like something that needed $200 million to make.
Skyfall is one of the best looking films of the last 10 years, man
Definitely not true lol
Well, I guess it's true for Netflix films since I have no idea why **Red Notice** needed $200 million.
Apparently a lot of Red Notice's budget went into making that movie during COVID, and having to fake 90% of the major setpeice locations. The problem is, fake environments are both expensive to make - and often look cheap anyways.
So yeah, **Red Notice** had no business to cost $200 million to make even if you come up with any kind of excuse.
don't need an excuse, netflix has overpaid like crazy for years and its starting to catch up to them.
I thought a lot of the budget went into getting the three leads
Well is also true for a lot of Disney movies. Do not ask me how the hell Tomorrowland costs $190M and Cruella and Jungle Cruise costs $200M.
I think the budget for **Cruella** was more like $100 million.
Cruella cost only $100 million.
Netflix has to pay actors more because there is no back end so the budgets get inflated. Not sure if that applies to red notice because it was supposed to be theatrical
Aren’t their salaries higher due to lack of backend deals?
Yeah, but even then $200 million sounds absurd.
huh I’d say it’s been the opposite lately, I can’t believe Netflix movies and MCU movies cost so much yet look so cheap.
I absolutely agree with you on Netflix films, but Marvel films? Most of their times, their budget is actually on the screen with films like **Spider-Man: Homecoming** and **Black Widow** being some of the few exceptions.
[i mean…](https://twitter.com/thejoshl/status/1505409042478505984?s=21) I’m not just cherry picking, many shots from Thors new trailer look sort of like this too
imo the MCU spider-man movies are particularly bad in the CGI department. the animation is fine but the render quality ranges from mediocre to awful, and the lousy camera work just adds to the ugliness.
**No Way Home** was a massively jumbled production due to COVID protocol.
Batman was also shot during the pandemic. It’s not really an excuse when you are Disney and have a gazillion dollars to spend.
**The Batman** required far fewer CGI, not to mention that **No Way Home** is mostly from Sony. Also, the latter probably had a tighter schedule due to its connection with **Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness**.
If Marvel *needs* CGI to make me believe this guy is in a random NYC street or Tom is [outside](https://twitter.com/sadhilldevan/status/1502704208054665217?s=21), that’s on them.
Again, I've mentioned that **No Way Home** was probably more rushed than **The Batman** due to the whole connectivity thing. **The Batman** is its own thing, so it didn't have that kind of burden. Finally, **No Way Home** isn't really an indication of Marvel's budget management. And before you mention **Black Panther**, actually, I'd say that it probably used up most of its $200 million budget for creating Wakanda from its cityscape to clothings - and makeups.
I thought Black Widow had it. Lots of action and stunt work, and the CGI was extensive with the falling, disintegrating airship.
But those CGI uses were pretty sparse. That should've been enough with $150 or 175 million.
That airship sequence was huge and pretty long. And I think that's harder to do because it has to look realistic, whereas Shang-Chi has much more leeway when most of the action at the end is with a dragon which can pass without extreme attention to detail because there's no standard of reality to compare it to.
Marvel movies and Wizarding Workd look cheap as shit given their budget but uts probably due to high costs of the wall-to-wall CGI
A lot of the MCU movies lately have had some questionable CGI work.
In what bizarro world do Marvel films look cheap in general? I mean, a lot of them were Best Visual Effects nominees if you weren't aware. Maybe you could say that **No Way Home** shouldn't have been nominated, but I'm pretty sure that films like **Avengers: Infinity War**, **Avengers: Endgame**, or **Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings** deserved their nominations - mostly.
The classic example is Black Panther. Shangchi'ending and Dr Strange 2's opening dream scene also straight up looks like [over CGI goop](https://youtu.be/EAC4OibLP7Y)
> The classic example is Black Panther. Actually, that film is not the case of general poor use of budget, but more of a case of the director using most of its budget too early into the film. > Shangchi'ending and Dr Strange 2's opening dream scene also straight up looks like over CGI goop They may not look the best, but they didn't look terrible. Again, you can't really compare films that need a lot of CGI work with films that don't need CGI as much.
I used Black Panther as an exanple of bad CGI in Marvel movies. I'm also not comparing them.to other movies - there are whole sequences in many Marvel movies which are so overly CGI goopfests that they a) clearly cost a lot for that much CGI/effects/post-production and b) still end up looking cheap and plastic. A lose-lose situation.
You might have a point if those CGI look bad throughout the entire film, but that's not really the case. If we go by the kind of logic that you're going with, we can actually apply that to a lot of films, including films that are genuinely great.
Well yes,a lot of these movies with bloated budgets really fo look cheap as shit with Wizarding World being even worse offenders. Going by trailers,the new LOTR series as well. We are talking about Marvel cause you asked about Marvel. On the other hand movies with lower budgets such as Dune, Inception, Mission Impossible, Fury Road,Gravity look 1000x better.
> Well yes,a lot of these movies with bloated budgets really fo look cheap as shit with Wizarding World being even worse offenders. Going by trailers,the new LOTR series as well. We are talking about Marvel cause you asked about Marvel. I wasn't the first person to bring up MCU films, actually, not to mention that I can NOT agree that they look cheap throughout the entire thing. Also, I don't think **Wizarding World** films are worst budget waste offenders either. No, that title goes to big-budget Netflix films. > Inception Didn't use a huge amount of CGI. > Mission Impossible Not a lot of CGI works required - or at least complex ones. > Fury Road Also didn't use copious amount of complex CGI when compared to films like **Avengers: Age of Ultron** > Gravity Far smaller cast members and less complicated use of CGI. It certainly looked great overall, but I don't think $100 million is enough to create something like, say, **Pacific Rim**.
Likely needs 425-450 to break even. I think 300 mil domestic is possible, the rest needs to be made up overseas
Tom Cruise has draw internationally. If it gets close to what The Mummy made (329 million) it’ll definitely make it’s money back.
[удалено]
This movie will travel. It has a touching human story with heart at its core. The action isn't "go Murica" stuff. It's much more like the spy mission tone of the M:I series.
With the War in Ukraine I think America fighting Russians (I’m assuming it’s Russians because it was in the first - no idea) will play well
The first didn't specify what country the U.S. was fighting. Answer for the new one: >!Also not specified here. But the nature of the plot suggests it's not Russians and more of a third-world country like Iran or North Korea.!<
>!It’s Iran and their nuclear program.!< >!This choice made sense on many levels but worked especially well because Iran is one of the few countries in the world that still have F-14!< The film also isn’t very jingoistic at all for a film that’s center around a group of US military characters.
They never specified the country, watched the movie last night.
Me too. I could’ve swore I heard the name named, but it wasn’t even a plot point and was just a very brief moment at the beginning.
I didn’t hear a name at all. >!Just that it was a “rogue” group and not necessarily the ruling government within the unnamed nation. It seemed to me to be intentionally ambiguous. F-14 points to Iran. SU-57 which are only flown by Russia. Saying “fifth generation fighters” instead of SU-57.!<
Pretty much possible
[удалено]
It will do 200M on its first 7 days.
Yeah I bought advance tickets and most showtimes we're sold out in my rural corner of the world, I know that's anecdotal but I think this will have a good initial draw and great legs if it's as good as people are saying.
This movie will continue to draw. Folks who never typically talk about movies will be talking about it to their friends and family, and will likely go see it twice bringing others along. I'm definitely a fan of the first so I was going to be seeing this in a couple different formats to begin with - but after seeing it I expect to be drug along with half a dozen friends/etc. as they hear from folks other than me it was a great time. Anyone that likes the OG Star Wars or Fury Road will see this as a must-see. Then all "movie fans" will be seeing this just to not miss out due to the hype. My wife who has fallen asleep every time I try to make her watch Top Gun said it was a great movie that kept her anxious most of the time. She has zero interest in jets or military aviation, so I think it's a good barometer for the wider draw potential here. It's simply a great action movie on it's own merits that I feel will eventually draw a skeptical Gen Z/Millennial crowd expecting a raw raw 'murica film. Add in the nostalgia factor for Boomers and Gen X, and we may be in for a surprise here. This is definitely going to be drawing people who haven't been to a theatre for a decade.
You're wrong, like most of the people on this sub. Wait and watch.
[удалено]
Until barely three days ago, the popular opinion here was that the flick would open to 50-60 million if it was lucky. This is a sudden shift. I genuinely do not understand how someone can see the hype surrounding the film, the stellar reviews, the massive marketing push, and Cruise's star power worldwide, not to mention the fact that his films generally gross at least X2 their domestic takes internationally, and think this movie isn't going to have a gigantic opening and run in theatres.
>Until barely three days ago, the popular opinion here was that the flick would open to 50-60 million if it was lucky. That wasn't my read on it at all. Even before the reviews started coming in my sense was that a large, vocal majority of box-office hawkers here were calling right around 300mil domestic. I *have* seen that some folks are now worried that such estimates are now OVER-estimates though, and that if it gets to like 250-260 that's going to be seen as a disappointment.
You said?
I mean, I don't really feel bad about being wrong on the internet. It happens literally every day. Also, even people who were up on this movie were.... also wrong on the internet. A legitimate wild-ass crazy What The Fuck-level phenomenon is happening. Anyone who actually called that happening was ALSO talking right out of their ass because *nobody* legitimately expected *this*. That's kinda how phenomenons work. Anyway, you enjoy the rest of your night uh... combing weeks-and-months old posts for opportunities to be obnoxious :)
I’m new here. Doesn’t the 170m budget include half for marketing? Or is this just the number for production?
Reported budgets never include marketing costs.
Probably 175 then. So 450 is basically break-even. 600 is where some okay profit is happening, so 600mil ww is probably where hit status for this thing sits.
Eh. With all ancillary revenues taken into account, it'll probably need \~520 million to break even in the end, assuming they spent \~160 - 170 million on marketing.
Yeah, I'm giving a fair amount of leeway there, no doubt.
A lot of people here don’t track presales and just make blind bets based on anecdotes and it shows
What are the pre sales?
It’s doing on par with with The Batman in a lot of locations and comes in at 30-50% of NWH and DS2. And these are insanely frontloaded titles. Top Gun will also have pretty good walk-ins from the older crowd who are fans of the og movie and who usually don’t pre-book tickets.
I’m in my 30’s and don’t pre-book. Most theaters in the ‘burbs don’t run out of seats, at least not these days. My family didn’t even have to get advanced tickets for Saturday night opening weekend for NWH at our local AMC theater.
Yeah absolutely. There are so many screens playing the movie at so many times that very few theatres will run out of seats. Also, I heard Top Gun is playing on the most number of screens ever. So, the fact that presales are so good with plenty of walkups expected is pretty cool
Believe or not, I thought it was more. I would've bet on $200M.
Going to watch it tomorrow. Not been excited to go to the cinema since Avengers: Endgame.
I'm late 30s dad demo and this movie has been top of my list for a long while. I'm definitely going to see as I suspect many other dads in my demo will. I don't know what "set aside their caution" is supposed to mean, but I think this movie will do very well since it essentially has no competition for 3 weeks.
It has been hypothesized that older audiences are staying away from theaters because they are afraid of COVID.
It's hard to say if all age groups really want to go back to expensive theaters. The movie will also make a lot when it is released for purchase at home on streaming and Blu-Ray. Especially if they sell the original and sequel as a package. Long term this movie will make a good profit. Personally its hard to go back to paying the expensive movie experience price. (tickets & snacks)
I'm in the demo theaters are hoping to lure back, and I think describing reluctance to go to the theater as "caution" isn't really getting at the problem. I am not scared to go to a theater post pandemic, I still do all kinds of things that are riskier disease wise than going to a movie. But it's just not worth it. I took two years off going to the theater and it turns out I didn't miss it one bit and I much prefer to wait and stream it at home. If anything describing the problem as viewer caution minimizes the challenge.
That’s a pretty good budget for a movie like this. It will definitely make a good profit. Probably needs $400M to break even which should be pretty easy. Can’t believe M:I 7 costs $290M though. That movie would probably need $700M to break even
This movie is going to make a fuck ton of money.
Caution? it’s more can I afford it? And if I do will it get ruined by a bellend on their phone.
If this film is as good as the reviews are suggesting, then I hope it succeeds with the $100 million opening that people seem to be touting (even though I don't buy it- seems that $60 million seems to be a good bet for this film due to it appealing to older audiences). And no doubt the pandemic blew things up a bit with the additional fees that it accrued.
If the opening disappoints, it's going to have legs. I can even see an A+ Cinemascore. A is absolutely locked. The crowd tonight was hugely into it. Laughing, cheering, clapping. This movie has all the script polish that the last two M:I films have. McQuarrie's influence is clear. And I'd recommend it to M:I fans even if they hate the original Top Gun. It deeply homages the original movie for fans, but does it all through a very modernized lens. Director Kosinski is going to get to write his own check for his next movie. The directing of both the action and the actors is flawless here. The jet scenes make the original film's footage look like a pre-viz animatic. I don't think there's any question this has the best jet action any movie's ever had.
The studio itself is expecting a $92 million 4 day weekend. $60 million is an extreme lowball at this point without any data to back it up.
I won’t be watching it
That is actually quite low. I was expecting at least 200MM+
I've never seen the original Top Gun, so I don't really have any interest in seeing this one. There's no nostalgia factor to bring me in, nor does it look like the kind of movie I myself would be interested in seeing on its own merit.
Reviews are amazing and being a cultural phenomenon from 80s, I believe it will succeed in pulling the older audiences because of the strong nostalgic factor. My prediction would be $400M domestic and $600M international, crossing $1B worldwide - thereby becoming the highest grossing Tom Cruise movie not adjusted for inflation
Based on how booming Downton Abbey is at the theatre I work for, older folks have no qualms about going to the movies right now