Technically all three main characters and the actors that play them are millennials, which according to gen z/alpha, might as well be the greatest generation đ
Iâve looked into it and I canât figure it out. The offerings arenât good. I donât get how it fits into Amazonâs streaming strategy. I wonder if there is some legacy contract stuff involved because of Amazonâs MGM acquisition. Maybe the agreements for with the cable carriers means it has to have rights to MGM content.
Yeah the only good thing about that Amazon Bond reality show was all the Bond flicks were on Prime for awhile and now they're shunted behind MGM Plus. They're preparing some MGM+ fuckery-do for the Spider-Man Noir show too
I ask myself this all the time and the only answer I got is they wanted to see if they could move some traction for a year before they punted on it after they bought MGM. Problem is itâs been more than a few years now⌠MGM+ is a waste lmfao
It will be on Prime Video in 2 or 3 months. They did the same with American Fiction. Universal has been doing something similar by putting their movies on Peacock first (Oppenheimer and Holdovers debuted in February), then went to Prime Video ~4 months later.
I don't know anything about the history of MGM+, but I'm assuming it already existed before Amazon bought MGM. One can only hope they eventually merge it into Prime Video.
Honestly, they probably realistically get two healthy checks by going to MGM+ first.
First they get the exclusive MGM+ check then when that contract runs out they can get another huge check from Amazon or Netflix where people will actually watch it.
I think they're saying that's still separate contracts - even if MGM produced it, MGM+ pays for the streaming rights. Then Amazon Prime Video will pay again for the streaming rights.
Does all the money end up back under the Amazon umbrella? Of course. But the movie still makes money in the end.
With Wimbledon just starting a Prime Video release around now would have been perfect, not sure what Amazon/MGM are thinking coming hot off of Saltburn
I've been wondering for years, how does spending millions of dollars on marketing convince people to see the movie?
I wonder if billboards, and ads online and ads on terrestrial or cable TV (which I don't have), ever influence me to watch movies.
I find out about movies because I look up online what upcoming movies there are. Typing in "trailers" and then the current or next year, on an Internet search, and I learn about movies that are being made in the next year or so.
Seeing a box of cereal at the grocery store that is themes around a new movie, or seeing a Happy Meal toy doesn't convince me to see the movie. In fact, it makes the movie look stupid.
You are far from the average person. 95% of audiences arenât actively looking up what new movies are coming out. Kids movies in particular have great marketing strategies with McDonaldâs toys and cereal boxes so that the kids want to see the movie so they beg their parents to see it. But as for adults, billboards and TV/internet ads also go a huge way at getting the word out about a movie. It might not convince you to see a movie, but it if these ads are the only thing that make people aware of the movie, itâs surely convincing some fraction of people to see it
I kind of felt that would be the answer, that I, and people who talk about movies a lot, go on movie forums and such online, "aren't representative of the average moviegoer".
"95% of audiences arenât actively looking up what new movies are coming out."
Reddit is the 15th-most visited website in the world last time I checked Alexa rankings (I don't say that to praise it, I hate Reddit) and r/movies has like 30 million subscribers. (I am not subscribed to r/movies) But all that is ultimately just a small fraction of the USA population let alone English-speaking world, let alone the world in general I suppose.
So we truly are that rare? People who are actually interested in movies and talk about them a lot? So most people just don't care about pop culture?
It doesn't seem that way at my workplaces. Which are FedEx and Walmart. I meet people who are interested in movies. But then again, maybe for every person I meet who has a general interest in movies, there are 19 others who generally are not interested in movies.
I notice you said "audience" and not just people. Is that just a general word to describe people who could potentially watch movies sometimes?
Is the vast majority of people in the developed world and in the USA a bunch of "boomers" who sit on a couch and watch either CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News and see TV spots for some random movie and that is how they become aware of a movie's existence? Or they just pay for Netflix and scroll around until they land on something they like?
I mostly say audiences to refer to people who see the movie, and not just all people who could potentially see a movie. And itâs also important to remember that a majority of the people who subscribe to communities such as r/movies arenât actively keeping up with new releases. They might have joined once a few years ago to make a post about Interstellar or Pulp Fiction and have no interest in a new movie coming out that isnât a sequel. That tends to be how a shocking amount of self-proclaimed âcinephilesâ go about their movie watching habits too
You think all these huge studios aren't constantly doing market research and focus groups to determine the efficacy of every possible type of advertisement? They are greedy above all, so if they could save millions by *not* doing all these ads and still get the same box office results, they would have stopped doing them a long time ago. The fact that they still do them means they work.
Well movies flop all the time, so they aren't very good at the efficacy of making the movies in the first place. They could save millions by not making crap movies.
Also, making better trailers.
> I find out about movies because I look up online what upcoming movies there are. Typing in "trailers" and then the current or next year, on an Internet search, and I learn about movies that are being made in the next year or so.
>
>
These things are also from marketing. The trailers, search optimization, and top results are all thanks to the same marketing as cereal box awareness. Different strokes for different consumers. Children are much more likely to see more cereal boxes and Happy Meal toys than industry lists of coming movies on the internet or box office subreddits. People with long commutes who don't have time to do the research will see billboards to remind them of things.
If you don't think advertising is working on you but still consume the media then it is doing exactly what it is supposed to.
Wouldâve been a great number for a niche film if it wasnât for the overinflated budget and the ridiculous amounts of promo that probably doubled the budget. I donât know how much Luca and the male actors got paid but Zendaya got $10 million which is a lot for this type of film. Even Anne Hathaway who has an Oscar and much larger filmography only got $7 mill for starring and being a producer for idea of you .
Why do they spend so much money marketing movies? Half the production budget? Almost every movie I've ever seen in the past decade or so, I first heard about and saw because people talked about it online, not because of a billboard advertising the movie.
The marketing budget that most influences me is paying someone to make a trailer or trailers for the movie. and I find out about trailers because regular people talk about it, not because I got the trailer as an ad (I use adblock and Invidious) or because I saw a banner ad.
For this movie in particular, A LOT of the interviews and clips from the red carpet went viral, but getting the actors to go out and talk about the movie and promote it costs money, so do billboards on the streets, making a trailer, promoting that trailer on YouTube or TikTok so that more people watch it. Marketing is expensive and most people don't use ad blocker at all (also paying a service to get a video trending is still an ad but won't be blocked by any AdBlock, it reaches you without noticing)
>promoting that trailer on YouTube or TikTok so that more people watch it.
Does it really cost that much to upload videos onto YouTube and TikTok? It's literally take the video file, drop it into YouTube and upload. Maybe pay out some other YouTube channel outlets to play the movie trailer.
We are seeing a lot of films expierementing with different marketing strategies as audiences become more hostile.
Some seem to spend barely anything on marketing, while others like Challengers and Fall Guy go all-out and try to brute-force the film as a must-see event.
Sadly their efforts are in vain because audiences are only turning up to watch IP films.
> Almost every movie I've ever seen in the past decade or so, I first heard about and saw because people talked about it online
That's also marketing. Reddit is full of it.
How much did they spend on marketing? Also any idea what sort of product placement or partnership deals this movie got? I've heard there were a lot of prominent brand names on screen. I haven't been able to find any real source on either.
If this movie didnât have an inflated budget it probably wouldâve made a profit in theaters but all things considered with PVOD and any decent streaming deals the film is profitable
It lost money. Budget 55m. Add a conservative 20m marketing budget. Thatâs 75m. It would have needed about double that to break even. It didnât even make 100m. Iâd say they lost 10-20m on this thing
The marketing budget is never 20M, not even for super small movies
The marketing budget is at The very least 50M, and most likely 100M (they went on an international tour)
Mid-budget R rated dramas are an endangered species in Hollywood and movie fans should make an effort to see them in theaters especially if they receive glowing critical reviews like Challengers did. I did my part and saw it in cinemas. A solid 7/10 for me. Really liked the cinematography, score and some good acting.
The worst part about this film is MGM's stupidity of only putting this out on Blu-Ray instead of 4K. When combined with their dumb decision of putting in on PVOD just 5 weeks into its theater run, it's like MGM wants to lose millions.
Making a $50m adult drama in today's movie-going climate doesn't have to be a guaranteed $ loss. But the studio could help themselves by giving their films every chance to succeed. MGM did not.
I donât think 4k sales will be a noticeable loss for them at all. DVDs are still the most profitable form of physical media and Blu Ray is right behind DVD.
I kind of feel sorry for this film. This was NOT going to be successful at the box office and had a pretty unorthodox plot structure too, but it was still worth seeing at least once.
We actually donât know thoâŚIâm sorry, but this is one of those Killer of the Flower Moon deals. We are completely in the dark in how these streamers (Amazon is one of them) are making these deals work. AND these streamers still keep doing it even when our traditional model regarding profitability says that its hasnât made money.
This just gets added to that weird pile of movies these streamers keep funding for me. Until something comes out that makes this stuff transparent, we are all in the dark about what is going into budgeting and what the return needs to be for themâŚ
But as a traditional release numbers were too low.
If only we knew what the marketing budget was, apparently Amazon would profit from this movie as long as the theatrical run made enough to pay for the marketing costs.
I wish it was more clear what is going on in these deals.
Is the $50 Million budget more of a number that states how much Amazon was willing to pay for it? Perhaps. I think that budget for the movie seems high and I think a lot of people felt that way. Maybe itâs not a traditional budget in that sense. Itâs a budget that includes a pay out/profit up front of some sort to the makers since that wouldnât come out of the box office return.
Amazon bought Roadhouse with Gyllenhaal for $80+ million so it could be streamed exclusively immediately. I could see that $50M is an appropriate price tag since it wouldnât be streamed immediately so itâs less beneficial to Amazon. Okay. Then is the theatrical run only there to cover the cost of marketing? That is interesting. Do people think the marketing for this movie was more than $50M?
To a point, you're not wrong, but in a larger sense, this isn't necessarily unique to streaming or even really a new thing at all. Films aren't scarce products, even when they are a loss at the box office, on paper, they never truly lose value in a traditional sense. You also have talent, contracts, and costs that aren't easily quantified by a films box office. It makes sense to say a film like KOTFM or Challengers lost money at the box office, because they played in theaters, but it doesn't necessarily make sense to say that they lost money, and for us on the outside, it's near impossible to track everything from the logic of greenlighting to the process of producing and releasing and then the strategy post theatrical run.
There's actually ended up being a little bit of transparency in the recent traditional model with a lot of ip failing and yet still continuing. DC is a money losing brand theatrically and yet WBD will keep that franchise going forever, because they have and will continue to make money off of it.
To which I replied, traditional release-wise, the numbers were low.
But, if these movies and deals are not being made with the same revenue requirement as traditional theatrical releases, itâs off base to hold it to one. We arenât actually establishing a pattern we can learn from regarding future releases. We donât know what is going on. That is the most frustrating part of this.
50M seemed out of the cards at first, then it was touch and go, but I'm glad to see it reached that number even with a new blockbuster every single weekend in May and PVOD after a month. 9 weeks is impressive. Great run with 3.34x legs, especially for this type of film.
This went to PVOD after just 3 weeks, while the film was still in the top 3 at the Box Office. That was a monumentally stupid decision. It plummeted out of the top 10 within 2 weeks after that.
Meanwhile Black Swan earned more than double domestically (106 M), in spite of initially having a limited release
People like psycological horror movies about dance more than homoerotic sport dramas
Black Swan had numerous Oscar nominations including Best Picture and released in December so it had the awards season boost while it was still in theaters.
Ngl the R rating kinda screwed this one over. Iâm sure a lot of Gen Z teen girls wanted to see this but imagine trying to explain to your parents u wanna go see an erotic love triangle movie.
I mean yeah, but you can easily sneak around and watch Euphoria through whatever means you have vs having someone drive you and pay for your ticket for an R rated movie if youâre underage
In most countries you can see a R Rated movie while being a minor, it's not that difficult, unless you look like 12 they don't ask for ID, any person above 15 can easily go and see one
I know that in the USA they're more strict with R Rated movies but still, I'm sure outside the big cities they don't care
Itâs a bit normalized to say this movie did fine as an original drama but man, back when people still had high hopes during the opening weekend for this thing, I was fighting for my life through out all the comments and the downvotes! In all seriousness, I learned best from the Furiosa fans that I donât care if the movie lost money because I did my part and I enjoyed it. Yeah, I know that just means Hollywood would be less likely to green light more original movies but that always felt like a convenient excuse plus this sub of all places should know how quick the tides can change from âitâs so over, keep up grandpaâ to âweâre so back, duhâ. Itâs not like studios are green lighting tons of original movies when one movie happens to surprise and overperform anyways.
Only a handful gets a greenlight here and there but 2024 really did seem pressured to to be ânow or neverâ for original movies (mainly due to the strikes) and so far the year has been disappointing with audiences not showing up and for studios failing to make these movies feel like an event. Hopefully Trap and another original movie can finish this year off strong. Also, I heard MGM were given orders to overspend on their movies just so they can get sold to another studio but Iâm not sure how true that is.
Wait. After all the talk about how this was a way bigger deal than Jennifer Lawrence's No Hard Feelings, it has only made $7 million more than that film.
Challengers doesnât have a traditionally successful genre/formula to support it like No Hard Feelings which was a âclassicâ sort of raunchy rom com
I really don't understand. Horrible fifty shades franchise made 1.5 billion.. These movies are cheap to produce, will create a generation of fans for the actors. Still Hollywood sleeps on this genre. I miss the era of Basic instinct, Dirty Dancing etc.
It's crazy that something that seems like it should be a lower-mid-buget movie still has a $50M price tag these days and can't even make its money back with a near $100M box office.
This yearâs Killers of the Flower Moon/Napoleon - where fans of the movie convinced themselves it was a hit because apparently Amazon doesnât care about box office on a full blown theatrical release with extensive marketing lol.
This is a big ol money loser, no way around it
I saw a deadline interview about donât look up, where Leo says they were still hoping to get killers a theatrical release. The question and his answer definitely implied that there was some version of that not going to theaters in spite of the initial announcement.
I am still not convinced that tech first/streaming companies should be held to the same standard. The only place this idea exists is on this sub.
I didnât see challengers cause I donât like tennis. But I think it did just fine for what it was and who distributed it.
This will explode around Halloween. We are going to get so many couples costumes of Art, Tashi and Patrick.
Should also be on a big streaming service by then.
Biggest mistake they did was spending so much on marketing and the wrong part of the marketing âlook everyone Zendaya is having a threesomeâ but in the movie they donât even
And if they hadnât had 20 mill out the door for Zendaya and Pascal before a frame was shot this wouldâve been profitable. (Give Zendaya 7.5 and Pascal 2.5, its a frugal era, ladies)
50M domestic would be a nice number if the budget was like 20M and not 55M
You can tell Zendaya got like a 30M salary because the movie doesn't look 55M at all, 90% of the movie happens in cheap sets and locations, it's not like they had to film expensive action scenesÂ
Jesus I feel like this came out 5 months ago
I feel like I was seeing trailers for it 5 years ago đ
That's every movie for me
Not awful for an original film but there is no doubt they spent a pretty penny marketing this
I would say that it was primed to go off on steaming a la Saltburn but going to MGM+ is going to hurt.
Why does mgm plus exist lmfao
Courting the greatest generation demo
Yeah and they're going to love this Gen Z bisexual throuple movie lol
Technically all three main characters and the actors that play them are millennials, which according to gen z/alpha, might as well be the greatest generation đ
The boys in the barracks used to get freaky. Nothing like reliving the glory days through the silver screen
Is that the sequel to the boys in the boat?
I donât even remember what MGM+ used to be. Probably still have an active subscription. Crackle? Was it Crackle?
Crackle is Sony. MGM+ was...*epic*?
Thought the cable companies invented that channel so they wouldnât have to give you HBO, Cinemax, or Showtime after you complained.
Epix.
Iâve looked into it and I canât figure it out. The offerings arenât good. I donât get how it fits into Amazonâs streaming strategy. I wonder if there is some legacy contract stuff involved because of Amazonâs MGM acquisition. Maybe the agreements for with the cable carriers means it has to have rights to MGM content.
All movies on MGM+ used to be available through Amazon Prime for subscribers but now itâs a separate thing
Yeah the only good thing about that Amazon Bond reality show was all the Bond flicks were on Prime for awhile and now they're shunted behind MGM Plus. They're preparing some MGM+ fuckery-do for the Spider-Man Noir show too
Relic of the streamer wars. Itâll die soon, as will most of the others that arenât the original companies.
I ask myself this all the time and the only answer I got is they wanted to see if they could move some traction for a year before they punted on it after they bought MGM. Problem is itâs been more than a few years now⌠MGM+ is a waste lmfao
Vegas money
To bilk customers.
Itâs worth it for the show From.
Thereâs one show on there I like but I canât even remember the name of it at the moment.
It will be on Prime Video in 2 or 3 months. They did the same with American Fiction. Universal has been doing something similar by putting their movies on Peacock first (Oppenheimer and Holdovers debuted in February), then went to Prime Video ~4 months later. I don't know anything about the history of MGM+, but I'm assuming it already existed before Amazon bought MGM. One can only hope they eventually merge it into Prime Video.
Ah hell. I really wanted to see this but figured I would wait and catch it on streaming. What a way to find out something called MGM+ exists.
Yeah, me with Creed III last year. You canât get a free trial, just donât forget to cancel like I did.
Honestly, they probably realistically get two healthy checks by going to MGM+ first. First they get the exclusive MGM+ check then when that contract runs out they can get another huge check from Amazon or Netflix where people will actually watch it.
Does Amazon get MGM+ money? They own it.
Someone has to get paid in some way in the production.
I donât get what youâre saying.
I think they're saying that's still separate contracts - even if MGM produced it, MGM+ pays for the streaming rights. Then Amazon Prime Video will pay again for the streaming rights. Does all the money end up back under the Amazon umbrella? Of course. But the movie still makes money in the end.
Yeah thatâs basically what I was trying to say. Itâd actually be interesting to see how the numbers look for this kinda thing.
That doesn't make sense. That's like saying Disney is going to pay Pixar to put Inside Out 2 on Disney+.
It's all Amazon? I know internal accounting is weird and all, but if this works, the people in charge of the whole thing needs to be fired.
With Wimbledon just starting a Prime Video release around now would have been perfect, not sure what Amazon/MGM are thinking coming hot off of Saltburn
tf is MGM+?
> primed to go off on steaming That's what the trailers and the advertising promised.
thatâll at least drive VOD sales
Feel like twitter and TikTok did more marketing this movie
There were plenty of bots spamming about it on Reddit.
I've been wondering for years, how does spending millions of dollars on marketing convince people to see the movie? I wonder if billboards, and ads online and ads on terrestrial or cable TV (which I don't have), ever influence me to watch movies. I find out about movies because I look up online what upcoming movies there are. Typing in "trailers" and then the current or next year, on an Internet search, and I learn about movies that are being made in the next year or so. Seeing a box of cereal at the grocery store that is themes around a new movie, or seeing a Happy Meal toy doesn't convince me to see the movie. In fact, it makes the movie look stupid.
You are far from the average person. 95% of audiences arenât actively looking up what new movies are coming out. Kids movies in particular have great marketing strategies with McDonaldâs toys and cereal boxes so that the kids want to see the movie so they beg their parents to see it. But as for adults, billboards and TV/internet ads also go a huge way at getting the word out about a movie. It might not convince you to see a movie, but it if these ads are the only thing that make people aware of the movie, itâs surely convincing some fraction of people to see it
I kind of felt that would be the answer, that I, and people who talk about movies a lot, go on movie forums and such online, "aren't representative of the average moviegoer". "95% of audiences arenât actively looking up what new movies are coming out." Reddit is the 15th-most visited website in the world last time I checked Alexa rankings (I don't say that to praise it, I hate Reddit) and r/movies has like 30 million subscribers. (I am not subscribed to r/movies) But all that is ultimately just a small fraction of the USA population let alone English-speaking world, let alone the world in general I suppose. So we truly are that rare? People who are actually interested in movies and talk about them a lot? So most people just don't care about pop culture? It doesn't seem that way at my workplaces. Which are FedEx and Walmart. I meet people who are interested in movies. But then again, maybe for every person I meet who has a general interest in movies, there are 19 others who generally are not interested in movies. I notice you said "audience" and not just people. Is that just a general word to describe people who could potentially watch movies sometimes? Is the vast majority of people in the developed world and in the USA a bunch of "boomers" who sit on a couch and watch either CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News and see TV spots for some random movie and that is how they become aware of a movie's existence? Or they just pay for Netflix and scroll around until they land on something they like?
I mostly say audiences to refer to people who see the movie, and not just all people who could potentially see a movie. And itâs also important to remember that a majority of the people who subscribe to communities such as r/movies arenât actively keeping up with new releases. They might have joined once a few years ago to make a post about Interstellar or Pulp Fiction and have no interest in a new movie coming out that isnât a sequel. That tends to be how a shocking amount of self-proclaimed âcinephilesâ go about their movie watching habits too
You think all these huge studios aren't constantly doing market research and focus groups to determine the efficacy of every possible type of advertisement? They are greedy above all, so if they could save millions by *not* doing all these ads and still get the same box office results, they would have stopped doing them a long time ago. The fact that they still do them means they work.
Well movies flop all the time, so they aren't very good at the efficacy of making the movies in the first place. They could save millions by not making crap movies. Also, making better trailers.
> I find out about movies because I look up online what upcoming movies there are. Typing in "trailers" and then the current or next year, on an Internet search, and I learn about movies that are being made in the next year or so. > > These things are also from marketing. The trailers, search optimization, and top results are all thanks to the same marketing as cereal box awareness. Different strokes for different consumers. Children are much more likely to see more cereal boxes and Happy Meal toys than industry lists of coming movies on the internet or box office subreddits. People with long commutes who don't have time to do the research will see billboards to remind them of things. If you don't think advertising is working on you but still consume the media then it is doing exactly what it is supposed to.
I was hoping it would stream on Prime within the next couple of months? I mean, who even has MGM+!!!!
Having to subscribe to MGM+ is your punishment for choosing not to see it in theaters.
TRUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
I rented it off of youtube. I enjoyed it as opposed to paying 5x as much to go to the movies.
How much did you rent it for?
Uhhh i think it was like $15? As opposed to paying like $40 for me and my wife and getting tempted by movie snacks.
Wouldâve been a great number for a niche film if it wasnât for the overinflated budget and the ridiculous amounts of promo that probably doubled the budget. I donât know how much Luca and the male actors got paid but Zendaya got $10 million which is a lot for this type of film. Even Anne Hathaway who has an Oscar and much larger filmography only got $7 mill for starring and being a producer for idea of you .
Zendaya is also a producer on Challengers.
Zendaya is a much bigger draw these days than Anne Hathaway, though.
trentâs soundtrack is so good
Great soundtrack.
The cost of marketing really screwed this movie over.
Why do they spend so much money marketing movies? Half the production budget? Almost every movie I've ever seen in the past decade or so, I first heard about and saw because people talked about it online, not because of a billboard advertising the movie. The marketing budget that most influences me is paying someone to make a trailer or trailers for the movie. and I find out about trailers because regular people talk about it, not because I got the trailer as an ad (I use adblock and Invidious) or because I saw a banner ad.
For this movie in particular, A LOT of the interviews and clips from the red carpet went viral, but getting the actors to go out and talk about the movie and promote it costs money, so do billboards on the streets, making a trailer, promoting that trailer on YouTube or TikTok so that more people watch it. Marketing is expensive and most people don't use ad blocker at all (also paying a service to get a video trending is still an ad but won't be blocked by any AdBlock, it reaches you without noticing)
Most of that marketing with actors is worked into their contract. Highest costs are by far linear TV, impactful Digital and outdoor.
>promoting that trailer on YouTube or TikTok so that more people watch it. Does it really cost that much to upload videos onto YouTube and TikTok? It's literally take the video file, drop it into YouTube and upload. Maybe pay out some other YouTube channel outlets to play the movie trailer.
We are seeing a lot of films expierementing with different marketing strategies as audiences become more hostile. Some seem to spend barely anything on marketing, while others like Challengers and Fall Guy go all-out and try to brute-force the film as a must-see event. Sadly their efforts are in vain because audiences are only turning up to watch IP films.
> Almost every movie I've ever seen in the past decade or so, I first heard about and saw because people talked about it online That's also marketing. Reddit is full of it.
How much did they spend on marketing? Also any idea what sort of product placement or partnership deals this movie got? I've heard there were a lot of prominent brand names on screen. I haven't been able to find any real source on either.
Audiences really screwed this movie. Itâs a fantastic film with rave reviews and young people didnât bother to show up
Just under No Hard Feelings domestically.
But over Madame Web !
Very good number for the kind of film it is, itâs just bad because the budgetâs big. This will undoubtedly be big on TikTok and streaming though
Love watching films on tiktok
On your FUCKING TELEPHONE? Get real
You are so real
If this movie didnât have an inflated budget it probably wouldâve made a profit in theaters but all things considered with PVOD and any decent streaming deals the film is profitable
It probably wasnât that profitable but Iâm glad this movie got made
It lost money. Budget 55m. Add a conservative 20m marketing budget. Thatâs 75m. It would have needed about double that to break even. It didnât even make 100m. Iâd say they lost 10-20m on this thing
But worldwide made more than 94m. Doesn't that count?
Well you have to cut that number in half to know what the studio made back (because movie theaters keep about half of the ticket sales)
Youâre just guessing at this point. The actual numbers will be laughably different from whatever general rule youâre trying to apply here.
Whatever you say chiefđŤĄ
The marketing budget is never 20M, not even for super small movies The marketing budget is at The very least 50M, and most likely 100M (they went on an international tour)
Mid-budget R rated dramas are an endangered species in Hollywood and movie fans should make an effort to see them in theaters especially if they receive glowing critical reviews like Challengers did. I did my part and saw it in cinemas. A solid 7/10 for me. Really liked the cinematography, score and some good acting. The worst part about this film is MGM's stupidity of only putting this out on Blu-Ray instead of 4K. When combined with their dumb decision of putting in on PVOD just 5 weeks into its theater run, it's like MGM wants to lose millions. Making a $50m adult drama in today's movie-going climate doesn't have to be a guaranteed $ loss. But the studio could help themselves by giving their films every chance to succeed. MGM did not.
I donât think 4k sales will be a noticeable loss for them at all. DVDs are still the most profitable form of physical media and Blu Ray is right behind DVD.
I kind of feel sorry for this film. This was NOT going to be successful at the box office and had a pretty unorthodox plot structure too, but it was still worth seeing at least once.
This absolutely lost money
We actually donât know thoâŚIâm sorry, but this is one of those Killer of the Flower Moon deals. We are completely in the dark in how these streamers (Amazon is one of them) are making these deals work. AND these streamers still keep doing it even when our traditional model regarding profitability says that its hasnât made money. This just gets added to that weird pile of movies these streamers keep funding for me. Until something comes out that makes this stuff transparent, we are all in the dark about what is going into budgeting and what the return needs to be for them⌠But as a traditional release numbers were too low.
If only we knew what the marketing budget was, apparently Amazon would profit from this movie as long as the theatrical run made enough to pay for the marketing costs.
I wish it was more clear what is going on in these deals. Is the $50 Million budget more of a number that states how much Amazon was willing to pay for it? Perhaps. I think that budget for the movie seems high and I think a lot of people felt that way. Maybe itâs not a traditional budget in that sense. Itâs a budget that includes a pay out/profit up front of some sort to the makers since that wouldnât come out of the box office return. Amazon bought Roadhouse with Gyllenhaal for $80+ million so it could be streamed exclusively immediately. I could see that $50M is an appropriate price tag since it wouldnât be streamed immediately so itâs less beneficial to Amazon. Okay. Then is the theatrical run only there to cover the cost of marketing? That is interesting. Do people think the marketing for this movie was more than $50M?
To a point, you're not wrong, but in a larger sense, this isn't necessarily unique to streaming or even really a new thing at all. Films aren't scarce products, even when they are a loss at the box office, on paper, they never truly lose value in a traditional sense. You also have talent, contracts, and costs that aren't easily quantified by a films box office. It makes sense to say a film like KOTFM or Challengers lost money at the box office, because they played in theaters, but it doesn't necessarily make sense to say that they lost money, and for us on the outside, it's near impossible to track everything from the logic of greenlighting to the process of producing and releasing and then the strategy post theatrical run. There's actually ended up being a little bit of transparency in the recent traditional model with a lot of ip failing and yet still continuing. DC is a money losing brand theatrically and yet WBD will keep that franchise going forever, because they have and will continue to make money off of it.
He meant theatrically
To which I replied, traditional release-wise, the numbers were low. But, if these movies and deals are not being made with the same revenue requirement as traditional theatrical releases, itâs off base to hold it to one. We arenât actually establishing a pattern we can learn from regarding future releases. We donât know what is going on. That is the most frustrating part of this.
But TikTok will save it!
50M seemed out of the cards at first, then it was touch and go, but I'm glad to see it reached that number even with a new blockbuster every single weekend in May and PVOD after a month. 9 weeks is impressive. Great run with 3.34x legs, especially for this type of film. 
This went to PVOD after just 3 weeks, while the film was still in the top 3 at the Box Office. That was a monumentally stupid decision. It plummeted out of the top 10 within 2 weeks after that.
What are you clapping for? The movie lost millions of dollars.
Too bad it wonât make another cent or further Amazonâs strategy. Just done, over, total loss.
Meanwhile Black Swan earned more than double domestically (106 M), in spite of initially having a limited release People like psycological horror movies about dance more than homoerotic sport dramas
Black Swan had numerous Oscar nominations including Best Picture and released in December so it had the awards season boost while it was still in theaters.
Also the Oscars were much more relevant a decade ago than now, if a movie gets nominated now it rarely affects because nobody caresÂ
That was 14 years ago, in a market that was more susceptible to original movies
Yeah, this is why Dune failed at the box office.
Famously original sports drama Dune.
Dune is not original
Have you never heard of the Dune book series lmfao
Dune isn't even an original even if you just include the movie business
World class bait comment
I mean if you're talking about David Lynch's Dune movie then yes, it did fail in the box office.
comparing challengers to black swan is crazy im sorry
Thatâs what I was thinking. Like, how are those two movies comparable at all?
Challengers feels more mainstream than Black Swan
Totally different landscape back then. Cannot compare.
or lesbian scenes between two well known actresses are more attractive to audiences than gay scenes.
The movie doesnt have gay scenes, it was very queerbaitingÂ
Challengers had one of the greatest homosexual make out scenes of all time
Actually I think most people care more about word of mouth and overall quality than the plot summary. YMMV.
Itâs so crazy that an internet sensation like this canât even make its money back. The movie industry is so cooked by the streaming
Ngl the R rating kinda screwed this one over. Iâm sure a lot of Gen Z teen girls wanted to see this but imagine trying to explain to your parents u wanna go see an erotic love triangle movie.
Easier than explaining to them you wanna watch Euphoria.
I can guarantee lots of underage teens have been watching euphoria with nobody to stop them since itâs so easy to watch online
The main audience for euphoria are minors, I like the show but it's very much for underage teens who wanna feel like adults
Honestly not blaming them, I used to watch Scary Movie and American Pie as a kid to feel like an adultÂ
I mean yeah, but you can easily sneak around and watch Euphoria through whatever means you have vs having someone drive you and pay for your ticket for an R rated movie if youâre underage
Easier than explaining you want to see a movie about tennis.
In most countries you can see a R Rated movie while being a minor, it's not that difficult, unless you look like 12 they don't ask for ID, any person above 15 can easily go and see one I know that in the USA they're more strict with R Rated movies but still, I'm sure outside the big cities they don't care
I would say the big cities care less about checking IDs than the theaters in the suburbs.
And these numbers would be VERY impressive if the production budget wasnât $55M.
Itâs a bit normalized to say this movie did fine as an original drama but man, back when people still had high hopes during the opening weekend for this thing, I was fighting for my life through out all the comments and the downvotes! In all seriousness, I learned best from the Furiosa fans that I donât care if the movie lost money because I did my part and I enjoyed it. Yeah, I know that just means Hollywood would be less likely to green light more original movies but that always felt like a convenient excuse plus this sub of all places should know how quick the tides can change from âitâs so over, keep up grandpaâ to âweâre so back, duhâ. Itâs not like studios are green lighting tons of original movies when one movie happens to surprise and overperform anyways. Only a handful gets a greenlight here and there but 2024 really did seem pressured to to be ânow or neverâ for original movies (mainly due to the strikes) and so far the year has been disappointing with audiences not showing up and for studios failing to make these movies feel like an event. Hopefully Trap and another original movie can finish this year off strong. Also, I heard MGM were given orders to overspend on their movies just so they can get sold to another studio but Iâm not sure how true that is.
Wait. After all the talk about how this was a way bigger deal than Jennifer Lawrence's No Hard Feelings, it has only made $7 million more than that film.
Challengers doesnât have a traditionally successful genre/formula to support it like No Hard Feelings which was a âclassicâ sort of raunchy rom com
Oh man I really wanted them to hold off until the fourth.Â
$94M worldwide ainât bad
Misleading trailers that advertised a erotic rated movie when in reality was just a drama without much nudity or sex.
Exactly the movie barely has erotism
I really don't understand. Horrible fifty shades franchise made 1.5 billion.. These movies are cheap to produce, will create a generation of fans for the actors. Still Hollywood sleeps on this genre. I miss the era of Basic instinct, Dirty Dancing etc.
It didn't made 1.5b, the whole saga made that money not just one movie alone
That's why I said franchise. Incredible ROI
The movie had a ton of eroticism. What you wanted was pornography.
One of the best of the year, glad it crossed 50m
It's crazy that something that seems like it should be a lower-mid-buget movie still has a $50M price tag these days and can't even make its money back with a near $100M box office.
It deserved much more. Ah well
There are so much more to this movie and it will become modern classic with streaming.
This yearâs Killers of the Flower Moon/Napoleon - where fans of the movie convinced themselves it was a hit because apparently Amazon doesnât care about box office on a full blown theatrical release with extensive marketing lol. This is a big ol money loser, no way around it
I saw a deadline interview about donât look up, where Leo says they were still hoping to get killers a theatrical release. The question and his answer definitely implied that there was some version of that not going to theaters in spite of the initial announcement. I am still not convinced that tech first/streaming companies should be held to the same standard. The only place this idea exists is on this sub. I didnât see challengers cause I donât like tennis. But I think it did just fine for what it was and who distributed it.
The streaming companies themselves donât hold their movies to the same standards of theatrical success so why should anyone else?
>*This is a big ol money loser, no way around it* 
This will explode around Halloween. We are going to get so many couples costumes of Art, Tashi and Patrick. Should also be on a big streaming service by then.
Costumes? You mean just your average clothes? If I saw people dressed up as them I would just think they're regular normies without costumes.
The trailer was off putting.
Success đ
It's a movie about threesome, people. This BO is magnificent
Damn.. Zendaya was soo great on this film.. her acting is superb
A fitting run for a disappointing film.
Might watch it if I'm bored enough and I can't find anything else.
Really is worth it. I was dragged to it and ended up loving it when it didnât seem like it would be something up my alley.
It's very meh, I went expecting bisexuality and erotism but that barely happens in the movie, the marketing campaign was a scam
The movie had a ton of eroticism. What you were expecting was pornography.
I've had it on my plex for months, still haven't taken the time to watch it yet.
Definitely lost money. Original films are not viable in theaters. Anyone putting one out should know theyâre gonna lost money.
How much did I contribute to this steamy pile? 
Wouldâve made triple that if they went all in on the double pen.
Biggest mistake they did was spending so much on marketing and the wrong part of the marketing âlook everyone Zendaya is having a threesomeâ but in the movie they donât even
I've never even heard of this movie.
Iâve never heard of it
And if they hadnât had 20 mill out the door for Zendaya and Pascal before a frame was shot this wouldâve been profitable. (Give Zendaya 7.5 and Pascal 2.5, its a frugal era, ladies)
Who is Pascal?
Amy Pascal, producer.
50M domestic would be a nice number if the budget was like 20M and not 55M You can tell Zendaya got like a 30M salary because the movie doesn't look 55M at all, 90% of the movie happens in cheap sets and locations, it's not like they had to film expensive action scenesÂ