MovieChat Forums > Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga (2024) Discussion > "It's not the film's fault, people just ...

"It's not the film's fault, people just don't go to theaters anymore"

posted a month ago by ReelReviews14 (1176)
33 replies | jump to latest

I see the studio bosses and their apologists for this turkey are ALREADY recycling this excuse they used LAST year during the summer of the "flopbuster". You know, all their planned "tentpole" movies that were SUPPOSED to make zillions like The Little Mermaid remake, Indiana Jones 5, Elemental, Transformers: Rise of the Beasts, Aquaman 2, The Flash, Wish, etc., crashed and burned at the box office.

But, OF COURSE, it couldn't possibly be BECAUSE those movies sucked! NOPE! According to them, the simple solution is "audiences just don't see films at the theater anymore". Culture had changed, "Everyone" is streaming now at home, physical theater attendees are a thing of the past, and the movie itself is simply a VICTIM of those circumstances... blah blah blah...

Unfortunately for them, a month or two later, the "Barbenheimer" phenomena happened and blew their little "theory" out of the water. THOSE films easily SOLD OUT and had record-breaking profits IN THEATERS during their premiere, people who wanted to see them did so AT A THEATER, and didn't "wait for streaming" to check it out. The combined films made over TWO AND A HALF BILLION dollars AT the box office! The Super Mario Bros. movie also came out in 2023, and it also made OVER a billion AT THE BOX OFFICE, being one of only a handful of animated films in the ENTIRE history of cinema to reach that benchmark. Nobody "waited for streaming" to see Mario Bros, it's theatrical release didn't cause ticket sales to nosedive. Hmmm!

Same thing with the box office failures in 2022 and 2021. NOT the movie's fault! Nope, it was due to "Covid" scaring away the public and keep people away from theaters because they didn't feel it was "safe" to go back to watching movies in a large crowd. In 2022: Lightyear, Strange World, Moonfall, Bros, Fantastic Beasts 3, Black Adam, etc., were all poor widdle victims of "Covid" causing people to NOT go see them.

Same thing in 2021: Snake Eyes, The Matrix Resurrections, Space Jam: A New Legacy,
West Side Story failed. OBVIOUSLY "Covid" did it!

But unfortunately, we had the pesky historical facts that Top Gun: Maverick AND Jurassic World Dominion each grossed OVER $1 BILLION in 2022. And Spider-Man: No Way Home made OVER
$1 BILLION in 2021, when it was released DURING the pandemic, it was STILL one of the top 10 highest grossing films OF ALL TIME. Gosh, where was "Covid" then, as audiences packed in theaters DURING a pandemic to go see the film IN PERSON?

These studios will NEVER admit failure or accept resposiblity for putting out a product that audiences DON'T want to see, so they're falling back on their old spin that was already disproven. They can't just admit that audiences aren't interested in seeing a Mad Maxless "Mad Max Saga", so it's all the fault of "streaming". Until, of course, Deadpool and Wolverine is released in a few months, and people will magically show up in a theater again, long AFTER they claimed it was "dead".

Funny how that works!

[–] DoctorThirteen (11490) a month ago

Yep, 'it's Covid', 'it's viewing habits', 'it's misogyny', etc. Everyone's fault except their own.

[–] ReelReviews14 (1176) a month ago

Studio shills pointing the finger at everyone else and REFUSING to accept responsibility when THEY put out an inferior product is part of the reason why stuff like this fails, regardless of how many "good" reviews it gets.

Remember, The Flash had absolutely glowing reviews on opening weekend, too.

We are tired of the one-sided propaganda.

[–] moviechatterer (14111) a month ago

theres no doubting less people went to a theater to see this than other films ...

Bit *is* theatre attendance actually falling generally?

I would imagine , given that you can buy a state of the art 70 inch TV for about $500 that it is.

[–] ebhaynz (3611) a month ago

Not only can you buy a LARGE TV under 500(EUR or USD) you can watch everything at home in High Def.

I remember in 2005 it was hard to find High Def TV programming. By 2010 it was almost on every channel. Plus high def discs became widespread around 2007-2008.

I mean, you got a large screen with High Def at home you don't need to go to another theater ever, unless the movie is REALLY, REALLY special. and only then, maybe.

[–] 123Guy (6472) a month ago

- big sci fi apocolyptic flick
- lots of cgi
- cool stunts and action.....

should be my thing.

...yet NOTHING in the trailer appealed to me.

I think it came down to not liking seeing women acting like men.
In the same way I would hate to see men acting like women and staring in "The Ya Ya Brotherhood of traveling pants" or whatever chick flick. I mean seriously... has that ever happened and been successful? I don't think so.
Just makes no sense, and ends up appealing to nobody.

Die Hard... but with a woman. Nope.

But, "Diversity, Equality, Inclusion..." yeah the fucking failing scurge on society.

[–] emori (3332) a month ago

Both are true

- people just don't go to theaters anymore because of high prices and movie is on streaming in 2 weeks

- movies are bad

There were bad movies back in a day too. But still people went to see them. Now people know it will be out for free soon and just don't go. And go only on 1-2 big movie a year like Barbie. This year it will be Deadpool.

Streaming killed movie theater grosses. Why studios allowed it in the first place I don't know.

I wanted to go to Fall Guy, Furiosa and Apes movie. But was busy and then bam - Fall Guy is already on streaming so why spend money? Furiosa is like 2+ hours. It will be exausting to sit there. Apes just doesn't look good in trailer. I feel like movie will be boring. So I will wait

[–] FilmBuff (6846) a month ago

If you look at actual box office numbers, you'll see that you're wrong.

Look at the total box office gross for the past 10 years. Do you notice a change in recent years?

2024 - 2,560,074,393 so far
2023 - 8,908,261,473
2022 - 7,369,521,886
2021 - 4,483,010,556
2020 - 2,113,846,800
2019 - 11,363,364,666
2018 - 11,892,160,011
2017 - 11,075,387,520
2016 - 11,375,225,455
2015 - 11,148,780,747

Throw out 2020 and 2021 because of Covid. What do you see? People are not going to the movies the way they used to.

This is not to say no one is going at all. People still go, but their viewing pattern has radically shifted. In the past, going to the movies was a common pastime. Many people went almost every weekend. Most people went 25-30 time per year. Teens went on dates to movies all the time. Movies were a big deal, and the only place to see them was in a theater. If you didn't go see a film, you had to wait sometimes 6 months or longer for the film to come out on video.

Streaming started to change that.

Look at the box office gross from 2004, the year before YouTube launched. Adjusted for inflation, it was $15,527,408,217.53.

Neftlix launched their streaming service in January 2007. Let's look at the 2006 box office. Adjusted for inflation: $14,313,469,218.83.

In 2024, people no longer go to the movies except to see one or two Big Event Movies. Each year a couple films capture the zeitgeist, and it becomes a thing to do. Movies aimed at kids sometimes do well, but even there it's changed. Where it used to be that parents took kids to see a dozen or more films a year, now they might go once.

I don't think a case can be made at all that the quality of films matters. Bad movies have been making big money since the dawn of cinema. That hasn't changed. The only difference is now that streaming is commonplace, fewer films will draw an audience, so fewer bad films will make money. Look at the films you referenced. Barbie, Jurassic World Dominion, Super Mario Bros... Are you arguing that they were so great that they drew audiences despite the trend? Of course not! They're just as lousy as most films that make bank, they just happened to capture the public's attention and became the films to see at that moment.

Expect more of the same until theaters become scarce, and streaming is our only option.

[–] Ripkens25 (1952) a month ago

FilmBuff....you're exactly right.
It's a paradigm change. Streaming has murdered the cinemas, the same way it killed the record store. And the same way Amazon killed the book store. The same way the Internet killed the malls.

It's kinda sad all these bygone experiences have faded away, in favor of everyone doing everything from home, instead of out socially, as a shared public experience. As you've stated, going to the movies was a date night. It was an event. You couldn't wait until Friday, when that next big film made it's debut. All that is just about gone.

I don't care how large a TV someone can get for their basement, and how high def it is.....it's still just you sitting in your basement, at home. It doesn't compare to the shared experience of being out socially in a cinema. But we might be the last generation to appreciate the difference.

[–] ReelReviews14 (1176) a month ago

>> Streaming has murdered the cinemas, the same way it killed the record store. <<

Yeah...yeah...yeah... this is actually an old argument being recycled from over FORTY years ago, where the Hollywood studios were screaming bloody murder at VCRs becoming a commonplace item in every household, and predicting it would very quickly KILL cinemas if it were allowed to continue. Why would people BOTHER to drive all the way to a theater anymore, when they could NOW very easily see the film in the convenience of their OWN home, literally ANY time they wanted to. It's KILLING theaters! Just look at the terrible box office numbers for Jaws 3, having to compete with VHS, compared to the HUGE numbers that Jaws 1 grossed during the pre-VHS era! It's OBVIOUSLY the fault of VCRs! It can't POSSIBLY be because Jaws 3 sucks!

"'I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.' Jack Valenti said this in 1982 in testimony to the House of Representatives on why the VCR should be illegal. He also called the VCR an "avalanche" and a "tidal wave", and said it would make the film industry "bleed and bleed and hemorrhage".

[–] Ripkens25 (1952) a month ago

It took movies 6-8 months to hit video stores. Now it’s 3 weeks. And the fallout is already apparent in empty theaters.

[–] ReelReviews14 (1176) a month ago

I'm betting the studios putting out awful films and punting the blame with "gosh, its not our fault, nobody is seeing movies in theaters anymore" will be strangely silent when Deadpool & Wolverine is SOLD OUT to packed theater rooms in a few months. It's ALREADY making huge $$$ on pre-release sales. People want to see it IN THEATERS, not "wait a few weeks to stream it at home". Funny how that works when they give audiences a product they WANT...

[–] ReelReviews14 (1176) a month ago

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2024/05/23/deadpool-and-wolverine-has-set-an-all-time-pre-sales-ticket-record/?sh=4fc4ba615e24

"Fandango is reporting the R-rated record, which is obviously the best for the Deadpool franchise, and it’s also the best of 2024 in total. AMC reports 200,000 sales and estimates are $8-9 million from that even two months ahead of launch here. The previous two Deadpool movies did huge numbers with $132 and $126 million, the biggest R-rated openers at the time. Now, Deadpool and Wolverine seems poised to blow by that."

[–] FilmBuff (6846) a month ago

I don't think that's the case at all.

Audiences want to see many films, but they now prefer to see them at home. The new norm is to go to the movies a couple times per year. Because of Deadpool's track record, that's become the film many are choosing to see in 2024. It may end up being a great film or an awful film, but that isn't going to affect the box office. It never has, and it never will.

Since almost the beginning of cinema, there has been nearly no correlation between the quality of a film and the amount of money it earns (or loses).

[–] ReelReviews14 (1176) a month ago

>> Because of Deadpool's track record, that's become the film many are choosing to see in 2024. <<

And what about Mad Max's track record? People keep swearing up and down about how mind-boggling awesome Fury Road was, and one of the best action flicks ever made, blah blah blah. Shouldn't IT'S "track record" get people to flock to see "another installment" in THE SAGA? That's what George Miller certainly hoped when he subtitled this trash "A Mad Max Saga" hoping in the vain the words "Mad Max" would convince gullible people to buy tickets for it...

[–] FilmBuff (6846) a month ago

I wouldn't expect that to be the case. The Mad Max films have always been for a niche audience. The first 3 films were all what you would call a flop: 8 million, 23 million, and 36 million at the box office respectively. Fury Road, by the far the best film and the most successful still barely made a dent at the box office, bringing in $380 million. To put that in perspective, each of the first two Deadpool films made almost double what all 4 of the Mad Max films made combined.

The Mad Max films aren't the kinds of films that attract a broad audience the way superhero films do, especially Marvel superhero films. So no, in an era when no one goes to the movies anymore a Mad Max film is the last thing you'd expect to become the big everyone-is-seeing-it film of the year. Maybe Deadpool & Wolverine will be that film, maybe something else will, but if you couldn't predict from a mile away that Furiosa was going to fail at the box office then you haven't been paying attention to what's been going on for he past 5 years, and really for the past decade.

[–] Bateman (570) a month ago

Sorry, but calling them flops is just incorrect; taking budgets and inflation into account, all of the three original films made money.

In fact, the first film was for a long time the Guinness record holder for the most profitable film ever, until The Blair Witch Project outdid it.

[–] FilmBuff (6846) a month ago

Now you're talking about making a profit. We were talking about filling theaters. None of the original Mad Max films earned much at the box office. So yes, The Road Warrior only cost $2 million to make, meaning the $23 million it made was a large profit percentage-wise, a total global box office of $23 million is very low, even by 1981-82 numbers.

The early Mad Max films may have turned a profit due to low production costs, but they never packed theaters.

[–] Tongue (449) 23 days ago

Yep. I thought Fury Road was great but I feel no need to go to the theater for Furiosa - it will be streaming in a handful of weeks.

I haven’t felt a strong urge to go the theaters in many years

[–] Ripkens25 (1952) 23 days ago

Tongue....do you have any great memories of going out to the movies, maybe on a date or with friends...and having a shared experience, in a darkened theater full of people as excited as you are to see an event-level movie?

If so, would you like to experience that again? And, would you like to still have the OPTION to do that again? Or....is sitting at home in your basement even remotely the same? That option....is going away, because of people like you who grunt that they can just stay home and stream movies in their underpants.

[–] Tongue (449) 23 days ago

Ahh it is sad that malls, record stores, and book stores are all disappearing.. theaters added to this list. I can’t imagine what society will look like in 40 years - folks won’t even have to leave their house .. not good

[–] Gd5150 (11300) 25 days ago

Yes there is more competition for people’s attention

Thus, people have lost interest in paying for…

- lazy writing
- lazy cheap cgi
- production companies lying about the cost of production
- lazy sequels
- endless comic/super hero trash

Compare say, a compilation of the last 15 years, to just 1 slow summer, 1995.

Apollo 13
Crimson Tide
Braveheart
Seven
Showgirls
Bridges of Madison County
Dangerous Minds
Clueless
Friday
Bad Boys
Tommy Boy

That’s 1 summer. There haven’t been that many good films in 15 years. There haven’t even been 5 good films in 15 years.

Sorry Hollywood, the days is mailing it in with wedged in political agendas are over. No one wants your crap.

[–] einstein (2439) a month ago

The amount of cope, that went into this whole "people just don't go to the movies anymore" is 100 Copium! We still want to watch movies on the big screen, just not this.

[–] ReelReviews14 (1176) a month ago

They've been trying a variation of this argument for years to deny the film ITSELF is flawed when it tanks at the box office.

For example, when Men of Steel underperformed a decade ago and immediately plummeted in ticket sales after the first two weeks (due to bad word of mouth), the Snyderites defending how "good" the movie was tried to come up with another scapegoat: it wasn't the MOVIE'S fault, it was merely "Superman fatigue" in general. "Gosh darn, guess the public just isn't interested in the CHARACTER of Superman anymore", they'd bemoan, trying to explain why the film quickly fell off the radar, while Superman the Movie was #1 at the box office for THIRTEEN straight weeks in a row back in 1978.

The reality is that if Zack Snyder had given us a GOOD Superman movie, it would have dominated the box office just like the 1978 film did, and broke records. Similar things happened during so-called "superhero fatigue" when Batman, Spider-Man and Avengers movies shattered box office records in the past decade, and each grossed over a billion dollars. People wanted to see a Superman movie in theaters, but they didn't want to see THAT Superman movie in theaters!

Similar spin when Alex Kurtzman's "Mummy" remake bombed at the box office: It was "Tom Cruise's fault" the movie crashed and burned. Tom Cruise turned away audiences in droves (nevermind the fact that OTHER Tom Cruise movies made during the SAME TIME PERIOD were huge hits). It couldn't possibly be that the movie ITSELF sucked!

I would have been first in line to see a REAL Mad Max movie at the cinemas. This movie ain't it!

[–] einstein (2439) a month ago

Very good arguments, especially the part about the "fatigue" framing. Funny how blaming and gaslighting your paying audience, does not work out in the box office.

[–] Grifterhunter (993) a month ago

So this brings up an interesting question. So a movie that is good can't do poorly at the box office? Quality is tied to how much money a movie makes? This isn't surprising coming from the guy who told me Jurassic World Dominion is a better film than Fury Road...Fury Road bests Dominion in every way imaginable except for money. Which is why you cling to that because it's all you have.

Just for insight Blade Runner, Blade Runner 2049, Shawshank Redemption, It's a wonderful life, Children of Men, and The Iron Giant were all box office bombs. I could go on but the way you attempt to always attribute quality to box office success is ignorant and lame. You do you though.

[–] ReelReviews14 (1176) a month ago

>> I could go on but the way you attempt to always attribute quality to box office success is ignorant and lame. You do you though. <<

EXCUSE ME? You seem to be setting up a straw man argument and attempting to “debate” me over a position I NEVER took. My thread was simply pointing out the FACT that Furiosa apologists claiming the movie failed because “people don’t go to theaters anymore” is wrong, and that PLENTY of films DID make a huge profit FROM theatrical box office sales in recent years. I took NO position on whether those films that earned tons of $$$ were actually “good” or not, I simply observed that people DID go see the films, and did NOT go to see Flopiosa.

It is a simple FACT that oodles of people went to see Barbie last year, probably 20X the number that went to see Flopiosa. Does that mean Barbie is “good”? I don’t think so. I never cared for the movie and I had issues with the fact Ryan Gosling was horribly miscast as “Ken” and way too old for the part. However, I don’t speak for the general public, and there is no denying that WAY more people wanted to see a live action movie about “Barbie” than people who wanted to see a “Mad Max” movie without Mad Max. As for it, I have no interest in seeing EITHER, but those are my own personal tastes.

[–] ReelReviews14 (1176) a month ago

The reverse is also true. Flopiosa’s predecessor (Faux Max: Furiosa Road) DID make a profit at the theater and plenty of people DID go see it IN THEATERS, but that does NOT prove that Tom Hardy’s Faux Max is “good” and Flopiosa is not. Quite the opposite, AND I have been arguing so on this board. I have been saying REPEATEDLY that Faux Max: Furiosa Road is trash and I have zero interest in watching Tom Hardy play Faux Max. In fact, I think the previous Mad Max movies from the 1980s that made LESS money than Faux Max are WAY BETTER. So your delusional claim that “always attribute quality to box office success” is baseless. It would be like me attacking you and claiming your threads “always cite Tom Hardy as the best actor in Hollywood”, when you made no such claim whatsoever.

Flopiosa is trash and a “Mad Max Saga” in name only. That fact would remain true whether it was a big financial success, OR NOT. However, I can’t deny that the movie bombing horribly IS a nice bonus prize awarded to this turkey. It’s like the icing on the cake!

[–] Grifterhunter (993) a month ago

You said that fact would remain that it's trash whether it flopped or not? No that's your opinion that it's trash nothing more. I attributed you thinking that box office equated to quality because of your gloating. Anyone who enjoyed garbage like Jurassic world isn't going to align with my taste in cinema. I personally prefer recasting older characters as opposed to bringing them back just for a cheap nostalgia trick. Or deaging technology because they are too old for the part. Jurassic world Dominion and dial of destiny pull this trick and one heard nothing but awful things for both films. Anyways keep enjoying your films and I will enjoy my mad max movies.

[–] ReelReviews14 (1176) a month ago

>> Jurassic world Dominion and dial of destiny pull this trick and one heard nothing but awful things for both films <<

Au contrair, the exact opposite is true. BOTH films got an overwhelmingly POSITIVE response from "the fans" of those franchises. Jurassic World Dominion currently enjoys a 77% POSITIVE SCORE from audiences on Rotten Tomatoes. Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny has an 88% POSITIVE SCORE from audiences on Rotten Tomatoes. The "consensus opinion" from "the fans" of those respective franchises is the latest entry in the saga NAILED it and was a GREAT film. Dial of Destiny also has an overwhelmingly glowing score from professional critics as well, so its just a tad bit hypocritical of Flopiosa apologists to defend the film with "YOU may dislike it, but YOU don't speak for most people, the vast majority of reviews said its AWESOME!", while at the same time scoffing at similar feedback from Jurassic Park 6 and Indiana Jones 5.

And in case you and conflate MY own opinion with the "consensus" view on Indy 5 and Jurassic 6, I will point out for the record that my opinion on the Indiana Jones franchise is very similar to the Mad Max franchise. The TRILOGY was great in the 1980s, the series is OVER, Hollywood should LEAVE IT ALONE and STOP trying to squeeze more money out of the franchise by forcing new unnecessary "sequels" out in the 21st century. That being said, I did watch the opening scene of Indy 5, and I will have to say they did a fantastic job -- they managed to win me over despite the fact it was a nearly impossible bar since I considered the film non-canon to BEGIN with, and was against its very EXISTENCE. Overall I would say Indy 5 and Jurassic 6 are clearly superior to Flopiosa, if for no other reason they deliver what they promise and are a PROPER "installment" of the franchise. We didn't get "MAMMOTHS: A Jurassic Park Saga" film about cloned ice age animals and NO dinosaurs, starring Jack Black as "Dr. Alan Grant", for example.

[–] Grifterhunter (993) 25 days ago

Lol no. IMDb has the most user votes available. Therefore that's a far better indicator of what the mass majority think of the film. Dominion has a 5.6 on IMDb. That isn't a good, that's actually pretty bad to say the least. Dial of Destiny has a 6.5 on IMDb. That's better but that isn't that great considering all the original three rank higher than it. Even the temple of doom the black sheep of the original 3. Dial of Destiny was also a box office bomb. Then you proceed to say critics gave Dial of Destiny a glowing review? Due tell in what world are you living in? It's got a 70% on rottentomatoes with an average score of 6.4. On metacritic it has a 58. That is lukewarm at best. Mad Max fury road had 90% on metacritic, a 97% on rottentomatoes with an average score of 8.6. That is a glowing review. Stark difference.

I didn't scoff at the feedback. You created a narrative that didn't exist. Critics did not give glowing reviews to Dominion or Dial of Destiny. Dominion got completely trashed by critics and Dial of Destiny was lukewarm by critics. Fury Road beat them both in terms of reception by a landslide. So no your lie is noted and dismissed.

[–] kenburke (2308) 25 days ago

I've heard of "blaming the victim", but "blaming the consumer"? That don't sound no right no way no how. Somehow.