this post was submitted on 01 May 2025
47 points (100.0% liked)

movies

3702 readers
297 users here now

Matrix room: https://matrix.to/#/#fediversefilms:matrix.org

Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.

πŸ”Ž Find discussion threads

A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome

Related communities:

Show communities:

Discussion communities:

RULES

Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.

Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title’s subject matter.

Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.

2024 discussion threads

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
  • Kraven the Hunter (net loss: $70 million)
  • Megalopolis (net loss: $75.5 million)
  • Borderlands (net loss: $80 million)
  • Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga (net loss: $119.6 million)
  • Joker: Folie Γ  Deux (net loss: $144.25 million)
top 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] tio_bira@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

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

[–] tankplanker@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 2 points 7 hours ago

You are not.

[–] Schal330@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] Wilco@lemm.ee -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

It lost at least 20 million.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 4 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

If you believe Wikipedia has incorrect information and the budget of the film was actually $120 Million then I encourage you to find a source and edit the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madame_Web_(film)

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 0 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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

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

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

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

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 2 minutes ago* (last edited 1 minute ago)

Well, whatever metric you're using isn't what this article is using because the budget and box office earnings of Kraven on Wikipedia match. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraven_the_Hunter_(film%29 it doesn't seem right to use a different metric just for Madame Web.

[–] JillyB@beehaw.org 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I know a lot of people didn't like it, but I loved Megalopolis. It's so ambitious, has great cinematography, and it's weird. I thought it was well acted and will be a cult classic in a decade. It is a little weird that the main character is the only person with a superpower (stopping time) and it has almost no impact on the story, but that just adds to the weird appeal for me.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Megaopolis and Babylon are weirdly similar to me and I can't really explain it. I enjoyed Megaopolis and would watch it again. Especially Wow Platinum lol. Such a weird movie. So many scenes were like "damn, I feel like this is supposed to be symbolic but I don't know for what." Sort of the opposite of "sometimes the curtains are just blue" lol.

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I really appreciate that he got a literal America's Got Talent star from the age of 12 to play the purity virgin.

I'm sure she felt that one in her bones and it's such a sharp blade I don't think a lot of people got it stabbing them

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Oh, don't get me wrong, some of them were obvious. Like when they threw the literal Make America Great Again hat.

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

LOL I loved the "on the point" robin hood stealing the life from the rich and giving to the poor.

Its so full of symbols and agreed that it's gonna be a where's Waldo hunt for the cult classic fans for years.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 18 hours ago

When someone says Megaopolis doesn't have obvious symbolism You believe that entitles you to the riches of my Emersonian mind?

[–] TheImpressiveX@lemm.ee 4 points 1 day ago

and will be a cult classic in a decade.

@remindme@mstdn.social dm 10 years

[–] HeyJoe@lemm.ee 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] musubibreakfast@lemm.ee 8 points 1 day ago

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

[–] simple@lemm.ee 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] TheImpressiveX@lemm.ee 7 points 1 day ago

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

[–] bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 28 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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

[–] Maven@lemmy.zip 16 points 2 days ago

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

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 9 points 1 day ago

That's usually what indicates a box office bomb.

[–] rei@piefed.social 17 points 2 days ago

Yeah, Furiosa really didn't deserve to flop.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Borderlands only lost $80 million???

[–] tio_bira@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, that's the power of a brand

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 3 points 22 hours ago

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

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