MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > OT: Dismal Box Office (in the light of G...

OT: Dismal Box Office (in the light of Golden Globes)

posted a year ago by swanstep (2616)
6 replies | jump to latest

Movie theaters are almost exclusively for spectacle like Avatar, Top Gun Maverick, or superhero movies these days, so it's no shock-- it's like the pandemic killed any desire to see straightforward dramas in a theater. However, I do remember there being a lot of buzz about Everything, Everywhere, All at Once when it was released. That was relatively successful for a non-franchise movie.

[–] swanstep (2616) a year ago

@Eliz. I suspect that you're right. It is shocking though. Back when I lived in the US (as recently as 2004) and had a good sense of what sort of dough movies would make domestically, well, I'd say Fabelmans and Tar are both well-made, expensive-looking movies that should be good for at least $40-50 mill each domestically, which is really what their budgets of $40 mill and $30 mill respectively presume too. Banshees (whose Budget is unknown to me) feels like a $15 mill grosser in the US to me, but when I checked the director'sand other related films, well, In Bruges (to which Banshees is something of a spiritual sequel) only made $8 mill back in 2008 and the director's brother's somewhat similar Ireland set film Calvary only made $3.6 mill back in 2011. So I guess Americans don't have the soft spot for well-reviewed Irish films I thought they had! Maybe, then, Banshees Box Office isn't much down on what should have been expected, and perhaps my disappointment should be restricted to just The Fabelmans and Tar. (One complicating feature. I know that The Fabelmans is streaming and maybe Tar is too. Can that help enough to make these films get to break even?)

[–] ecarle (14979) a year ago

Consider your Golden Globe movie winners and contenders. As of Jan 11, The Fabelmans has grossed $13.4 mill domestic, Tar has grossed $5.7 mill, The Banshees of Innisherin has grossed $9.2 million, The Whale has grossed $8.6 million. The box office champ among multiple award winners at the GGs is therefore the weirdest/least conventional/most indie of the contenders, Everything Everywhere All At Once, which grossed $70 million, i.e., as much as the other 4 put together + the critically acclaimed though GG-ignored Aftersun ($2.5 million).

---

Interestingly low -- except for Everything Everywhere All At Once(I love that title) earning that much. There's always ONE even among the indies.

---

It's worth mentioning that things like Parasite and Moonlight made $60-70 million each and that even the highly unappealing Nomadland made $45 million.

--

Hmm...not gigantic Marvel numbers, to be sure, but hmm...well, Parasite had a strong reputation going in. I saw it with a full house in an old "palace theater" converted for art films. Where I had also seen The Hateful Eight with a full house -- the old palace theater had the right set up for QT's Super 70 projection. I suppose you could say that Parasite and The Hateful Eight were "violent art house thrillers."

The Nomadland gross astonishes me because...it was on streaming(Hulu) like .. at the same day as theatrical release.

---

I dare say that this the current group of Awards contenders must be among the least seen and least profitable (most are hugely money-losing at least in the short term) ever.

--

The ongoing argument resumes again about Oscar movies(presaged by the Golden Globes) being "movies nobody really sees."

But you know what? I loved Licorice Pizza last year(saw it at the movie theater TWICE before streaming) and its grosses were low, too. So I LOVED a "movie that nobody saw." (There's always a few of us fanatics for ANY movie.)

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) a year ago

Movie theaters are almost exclusively for spectacle like Avatar, Top Gun Maverick, or superhero movies these days, so it's no shock-- it's like the pandemic killed any desire to see straightforward dramas in a theater.

--

The COVID pandemic ended up being a huge blow to the "regularity of movie going," but the idea that Avatar(2) and Top Gun can EASILY fill theaters is rather a self-fulfilling prediction from DECADES ago, in two ways:

ONE: I think it was Spielberg himself who said, "movie theater tickets should be priced differently -- expensive for high budget blockbusters, cheap for small indiefilms.

To which somebody retorted, "but what happens when a little low budget movie -- like Rocky or ...PSYCHO...gets released and earns 100 times its cost? That's when movies pay off big for their makers...at the same ticket price.

Still, its sort of happening anyway. I don't think the movies will EVER die as long as there are Marvel movies, Avatars and Top Guns (or Mission Impossibles) in the pipeline. But more and more stuff is going to streaming in the main. Might not have Rocky or PSYCHO ended up there?

Hitchcock himself confronted this as far back as the 70's, when asked "You had a hit TV series. Have you ever though of making a movie for television?"

His response: "No, because then you are working for a price." As simple as that. He meant: no profitable earnings, just a fee.

Meanwhile, back at Spielberg. BEFORE the pandemic, he opined that Netflix and other streaming movies should NOT qualify for Oscars(even with a week's theatrical run) but for "Emmys only."

AFTER the pandemic, we've seen Spielberg flop two years in a row(West Side Story, The Fabelmans) but...streaming has saved him and gleaned Oscar cred(he WILL get it for The Fabelmans.)

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) a year ago

Quick recent personal story:

There are two major multiplexes near my home and I drove out to one to see The Fabelmans. At the ticket window they said "but we aren't showing The Fabelmans." Oops...I picked the wrong multiplex.

So I looked up the RIGHT multiplex and I was ready to go there the next week and..The Fabelmans was gone. So I watched The Fabelmans on streaming.

You can't say that I didn't TRY to see that movie at the theater.

Hey, that story is from a few weeks ago. Here is one from more than a few DECADES ago and my sharp memory for childhood learning experiences.

The year is 1964. Our family is heading out to see "Seven Days in May," and I'm actually excited about it. I'm TRYING to learn about US politics and this is a thriller with big stars in it.

The same day, the Los Angeles Times entertainment section has a front page article that says "Pay TV -- doom for the movie industry?"

I ask a parent: "What is Pay TV.?"

The response: "Well, it means you have to pay for what you watch on TV, but you would be paying for something big -- like this movie we are going to see, Seven Days in May."

Me: "So we could PAY and watch Seven Days in May like, right here at home?"

Yes.

I recall that conversation about "Pay TV" and I've always linked it to Seven Days in May.

And Pay TV CAME.

In Los Angeles alone, with something in the 70's called "The Z Channel."

Then nationwide: HBO. (70s)

Then Showtime. And The Movie Channel. (80s.)

And here we are at streaming...

[–] ecarle (14979) a year ago

I return to note that "in the news" recently is the bankruptcy of the Regal movie theater chain in the US(elsewhere?) and the closure of many of their movie theaters. I don't think that ALL of the Regals are closing, and there remain other chains (AMC, Cinemark, Century) but still...a "warning shot."

I recall that back in the 70's, noted critic Pauline Kael opined that ALL movie theaters would close and movies would be shown EXCLUSIVELY on television. I think she figured movies would revert to the primitive cheap budget style of "The ABC Movie of the Week." (Movies less than 90 minutes long made on budgets far less than $1 million per "movie.")

That hasn't happened. Broadcast TV shrunk, it didn't grow(Kael was never too savvy on the business side of movies) And movies "on TV"(streaming) can have budgets of $100 million, $200 million, and up.

Still, I think we are witnessing history here: the actual dismantling of theatrical distribution of movies with audiences "staying home to watch."

Which leaves me with some great memories of childhood and youth "not returning":

Going to the drive-in with my parents and sibs on a summer night.
Going to the drive-in with teenage friends on a summer night.
Going to the drive-in with a date on a summer night.

Going to an INDOOR theater with a date, any time of the year. (I don't require such anymore, but what of all the poor teenagers -- and older daters -- who NEED a movie theater for a first date?.)

The blow to the "community" aspect of movie going(drive-ins) and the "easy first date" mechanism of a movie theater date....seriously endangered and lost to the winds of time.

I guess everybody better be ready to watch Avatar 3, 4, 5 to keep movie theaters in business.