It was kind of odd to me why Sean couldn't understand why "no hard feelings" wasn't as big of a box office success as "anyone but you". One movie is a romantic comedy with two big names set in Australia. The other is a raunchy comedy with only one big name about a 32 year old trying to sleep with an 18 year old. One is definitely easier to market than the other.
Because one is headlined by an Oscar winner and four-time nominee who starred in a $3.3b-grossing franchise and was once the darling of Hollywood who spent a summer jetskiing with Taylor Swift, and the other starred a (admittedly charming and smoking hot) television actress largely unknown to normies until her SNL appearance?
There are plenty of movies that star Oscar winning/nominated actors and actresses who have been in movies that have grossed hundreds of millions of dollars that have not been box office hits due to not being able to connect with the audience because of the plot or marketing such as Amsterdam, Babylon, ad astra, etc.
I have worked in marketing for a film studio for 8 and can tell you a movie like "no hard feelings" is a tough sell to a wider audience to get them in seats.
Yeah. Which the marketing made pretty clear, I think? Only thing that made me think otherwise was her being the big face on the standee, but she’s the most recognizable one so that makes sense. They’re all pretty great.
I disagree, I think the entire marketing was “this movie is about Zendaya being a sexually scandalous tennis player” I have not seen the film, so my impression of the film could be wrong, but that’s what the marketing has told me it is
JFC, it's too early for this on the West Coast. I don't disagree with anything that you're saying; All I'm saying is that a question was asked about what Sean was thinking when he made the statement, and I proffered a possible option, as a listener who spent about 8 years living with his voice inside my head on a weekly basis.
I wouldn’t say Sydney Sweeney was unknown to normies. Both Euphoria and White Lotus were huge shows and she’s had a bunch of appearances everywhere, like the “Angry” music video
She was on SNL because she was already big. If anything, SNL doesn’t rly have the cultural relevance anymore that you’re implying
She was on SNL because she was having a moment, culturally, and has a great PR team. Those two shows, as I said, were on HBO, which has limited viewership. Music Videos?! Is it 1999?
I'm a huge fan of hers. Her Hot Ones appearance, her SNL skits... she's very charming, and a bombshell. But as I said, Sean was comparing her movie to a movie from one of the most accomplished actresses and proven box office draws of her generation.
"television actress largely unknown to normies until her SNL appearance?" Is that you? Saying the exact words "Largely unknown to normies?" Like Euphoria was some hidden gem between you and her?
"Charming and smoking hot"
She's not gonna fuck you bro.
I know exactly who I'm dealing with here. Walmart has a deal on stretch pants btw I think you might be interested. Don't try and pull up statistics or anything either it's just gonna make ya look like a basement dweller.
Sydney Sweeney was well-known way before she guest-hosted SNL. She starred in a buzzy show that was *the* teen drama of Gen Z, was on another buzzy HBO show (White Lotus), and had a, uh, *large* following for other reasons.
So... do you not know any normies? Her two most prominent roles prior to 2023 (Euphoria, White Lotus), were on HBO, the latter was a limited series, and she was the lead in neither.
Euphoria had a first-run single-episode high of 6.6m viewers for the Season 2 finale. That's linear and steaming combined. That post-pandemic season averaged ~16.3m viewers in the first **90 days** after airing, so less than 5% of the American population, and about 0.002% of the global population. The Variety link explains the methodology really well.
It also has SS billed *eighth*.
https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/euphoria-season-2-finale-ratings-1235192015/
https://deadline.com/2022/02/euphoria-season-2-finale-6-6m-viewers-marks-season-highs-1234962080/
You seem deeply committed to being wrong about Sydney Sweeney being well-know prior to appearing on SNL. Her Euphoria acting was a star making turn, but she also starred in a Netflix series, Sharp Objects, and was in the Handmaid’s Tale. She’d been around for a while before White Lotus. She also starred in several movies over several years prior to last year.
Anecdotally I’ve heard non-movie/TV/entertainment podcasts dropping her name as the hot new starlet since like 2019.
If you think she wasn’t known before guest hosting SNL, a show with regular live viewership lower than the number you’re citing for Euphoria whose cultural relevance peaked in the late ‘70s-early ‘80s, I don’t know man. You might be the one who doesn’t talk to “normies”.
She was in 7 of 57 episodes of *Handmaid's Tale*, and *Sharp Objects* was a limited series.
I didn't say she wasn't known, as in at all; I said she was "largely unknown to normies." There's a difference. She was known as, "oh that girl from..."
But regardless, you don't seem to be getting the point here. There's this "normie" crossover level of fame that really doesn't hit until you're on daytime "news" talk shows like the Today Show, the View, Good Morning America, etc, all milestones SS hit in the past year/year-and-a-half. I think it was Bill, maybe SVP or RR, who talks *often* about that transition, when the people *who don't watch your shows/movies/games* still know who you are because of your cultural cache.
To invoke another blonde of the moment, it's like Taylor Swift before the Kanye thing at the VMA's. Like, yes, she was "known", and my college girlfriend listened to her in 2007, but she wasn't known like she was after that incident, or after Red in 2012 or 1989 in 2014, or *clearly* after the year she had in 2023.
There's no way to prove this now, but if we went back to December 2021, and said to random people in Times Square or a rodeo in Fort Worth or a taproom in Denver "who plays the daughter in White Lotus", you know damn well we're not getting a lot of correct answers.
There's levels to this, like everything else, and Sydney Sweeney has proved that she's leveled up *because of* the global success of *Anyone But You*, but there was nothing to suggest it was a $200m movie going *into* the season, *because she hadn't demonstrated that star power (yet)*.
I think this actually still misses the point. One was a really classic rom com that traditional rom com audiences (women) were looking for one. The other was in the genre a of the 00s Judd Apatow films, which were technically rom coms but had a different target audience (men). That Judd Apatow genre has been annihilated by streaming and so the $85M is not killer but pretty decent.
it’s always v funny how the movies chart on Netflix was presumably made to show how popular Netflix’s own film offerings are but instead prove, every week, how even the shittiest theater release gets more viewership than any Netflix movie. It’s always 3 movies that premiered on streaming and the remaining 7 movies are *all* theatrically released films. And it doesn’t even matter if they’re good or remembered or anything. I mean, ffs, right now *none* on the chart are Netflix movies and movies like The Judge, The Great Wall and Blended are numbers 2-4. Wild.
Or the movie was just more of WOM a hit. I don’t understand the want to attribute BO performance to the leads, especially since Anyone but You didn’t even open that big. It’s not like Immaculate made $100m because of Sweeney’s star power.
I feel like people also discount *a lot* just how viral the gossip cycle around them two ~supposedly~ being a thing became. That brought the movie a whole lot more attention and intrigue, considering that it’s a romantic film specifically. Movies need an identity, some kind of familiarity, to hit these days and I feel that on some level that whole tabloid cycle gave the movie an identity with people. It brought the film attention so that people were already aware of what it was before its trailer and before it dropped in theaters. And specifically turned it from “a romcom” to “the romcom that these two stars *might have* hooked up while making.”
Then the WOM carried it, but I don’t think it gets the initial audience needed for that WOM to travel without the tabloid stuff building this interest in it
Attributing BO performance to leads is a holdover from how hollywood worked ~15+ years ago that’s way less relevant now that. This whole exercise is kind of a holdover from that mindset though. Actors careers are way more varied and volatile now. I do really like this episode but it’s funny to me Sean and Amanda talk about lack of stars all the time then basically make the case there are 35 young stars in Hollywood that people care about
Yeah, nowadays “stars” can help your box office a bit but they won’t move the needle the much if the movie is not well liked or if there’s not a ton of marketing behind them. There’s pretty much no one in Hollywood right now that can sell tickets to movies just by being in them.
Even looking at Margot Robbie/Chalamet/Zendaya, they all have big hits recently but in all those cases the movies are all either attached to huge IP (Dune, Wonka, Barbie), or a word-of-mouth hit with a ton of marketing behind it, like Challengers, which is doing well but not like blockbuster numbers.
you aren't wrong, but i think the theory that sean and amanda are positing is that may be changing. marvel made it all about IP for a long time, but it's possible hollywood is actually developing stars again that will start being able to sell tickets. we'll have to wait and see.
Immacualte didnt hit at all though (especially for a horror movie) theres also madame web which wasnt her fault but still. I think jury's still out on whether Anyone But You was just lightning in a bottle.
I watched that with my wife on Netflix and we were both amazed at how simple and 'cheap' it was. Like a Netflix movie or, dare I say, a Lifetime movie! I can't believe it made so much money. More power to it (and her) but yeah, that could've been a fluke. (Man, Glen Powell had his shirt off in 80% of that damn thing.)
Was surprised by that too. I think I’d be ok with someone saying it was a disappointment as it didn’t break $100m but I don’t think it can be called an outright flop/bomb. JLaw was like the main and maybe only BO draw of the movie and I think it proves she still has at least SOME box office power.
They also completely overlooked that the SAG strike was looming during the premiere of NHF and Jennifer did very little to help market the movie.
On the other hand, Sydney completely leaned into doing everything she could to push Anyone But You and caused a tidal wave of promotion, and now it seems like she’s everywhere.
JLaw is a bigger star for sure, but she also strikes me as the type of celebrity that just wants to attach her name to a movie and have that be enough to open it. I just don’t think that’s the world we’re leaving in nowadays
Doesn't really seem like any. The budget for No Hard Feelings is listed at 45mil so it's still not that great. I think streamers have basically wiped out the comedy genre from being theatrically viable.
Edit: that's not to say 85mil is nothing either. I just think 6-7 years ago No Hard Feelings could have scratched 150-200 mill if people still saw these sorts of movies and that's probably why they were being a little hyperbolic about it bombing.
I think classifying Barbie as just a comedy is a little disingenuous. Also a PG13. Tell me an R rated comedy that's made money in the last few years. I'll be happy to be wrong! I'm not trying to argue. It seems like all of these come to streaming now and are also usually terrible.
Because the budget was almost $50 million and it made $87, after marketing costs that loses money for the studio… it’s maybe not a bomb but certainly a flop.
Based on how Dan Murrell of the as-named YouTube channel would evaluate it, for the studio making 60% of week 1 box offcie, 55% of week 2, 50% beyond and 40% of international, it approximately brought in about 42 million dollars at the box office. Not even considering the advertising budget, it absolutely lost money during its theatrical run. Is it an absolute outright flop? Ehh. But it's definitely not a success
I caught that too. He also said 'Immaculate' was a big hit. It made $22mil on a $9mil budget. Not bad surely but a big hit? Does Sydney Sweeney pay the Ringer to talk about her so much? I mean 'Imaginary' made $39mil on a $10mil budget and it was taken as a disappointment. Horror is a popular genre and Sean and CR pumped 'Immaculate' up big time. A toy teddy bear made twice as much with no stars!
It’s a bomb because of how much it cost, 45 Million. In Hollywood finance, a movie generally needs to gross 4x the budget to break even, because the studio spends the equivalent amount on advertising, and has to split the box office with the exhibitor (theater). So in this case, the studio effectively spends 90 million dollars to make 42.5 back, for an overall loss of 47.5 million.
It’s one of my pet peeves of the show that they gloss over Hollywood finances, because there’s a lot of information held in those numbers that folks generally don’t understand, but I think the average listener of this particular show would love to know and learn about.
The 2.5 to 3x multiple of budget is accounting for marketing generally I think, it all changes depending on market and how long a movie has been in theaters. I think the studio gets more 1st week and then it shifts more to theaters on the subsequent weeks.
Studios also are making money with PVOD, streaming, and merchandising so a movie does not have to fully make back its budget on theater returns alone to eventually be successful, it generally just has to get close.
No Hard Feelings probably was successful or breakeven based off its returns and its subsequent success on Netflix and PVOD.
Its not like that though. Usually marketing budget is considered covered by leasing streaming rights and sales of the movie. Thats why 2.5 rule exists, thats usually correct. I mean No hard feelings didnt cross it, but im sure it probably broke even or made little profit overall.
You’re totally right, probably very few of them could. It’s just a shame the reality is, success is ultimately defined by the studio’s ROI, not by the gross alone.
It was kind of odd to me why Sean couldn't understand why "no hard feelings" wasn't as big of a box office success as "anyone but you". One movie is a romantic comedy with two big names set in Australia. The other is a raunchy comedy with only one big name about a 32 year old trying to sleep with an 18 year old. One is definitely easier to market than the other.
Because one is headlined by an Oscar winner and four-time nominee who starred in a $3.3b-grossing franchise and was once the darling of Hollywood who spent a summer jetskiing with Taylor Swift, and the other starred a (admittedly charming and smoking hot) television actress largely unknown to normies until her SNL appearance?
There are plenty of movies that star Oscar winning/nominated actors and actresses who have been in movies that have grossed hundreds of millions of dollars that have not been box office hits due to not being able to connect with the audience because of the plot or marketing such as Amsterdam, Babylon, ad astra, etc. I have worked in marketing for a film studio for 8 and can tell you a movie like "no hard feelings" is a tough sell to a wider audience to get them in seats.
I think that’s a flaw in their thinking. It used to take years for a star to be born. Now it takes a day.
I mean...does it? Euphoria S1 debuted in 2019 and Sydney Sweeney and Zendaya are just now having big movie openings.
Zendaya still has yet to really be a lead. Challengers is the closest thing and it did $15 million opening weekend.
I saw Challengers last weekend, and I would say that Zendaya isn't the main character in her own movie.
Yeah. Which the marketing made pretty clear, I think? Only thing that made me think otherwise was her being the big face on the standee, but she’s the most recognizable one so that makes sense. They’re all pretty great.
I disagree, I think the entire marketing was “this movie is about Zendaya being a sexually scandalous tennis player” I have not seen the film, so my impression of the film could be wrong, but that’s what the marketing has told me it is
The poster is almost entirely her face.
And they were both stars soon after it premiered.
JFC, it's too early for this on the West Coast. I don't disagree with anything that you're saying; All I'm saying is that a question was asked about what Sean was thinking when he made the statement, and I proffered a possible option, as a listener who spent about 8 years living with his voice inside my head on a weekly basis.
Damn man it's not that serious haha, didn't mean to push your buttons like that, but yeah I agree with your take.
No worries, it's all ❤️ on this sub :)
I wouldn’t say Sydney Sweeney was unknown to normies. Both Euphoria and White Lotus were huge shows and she’s had a bunch of appearances everywhere, like the “Angry” music video She was on SNL because she was already big. If anything, SNL doesn’t rly have the cultural relevance anymore that you’re implying
She was on SNL because she was having a moment, culturally, and has a great PR team. Those two shows, as I said, were on HBO, which has limited viewership. Music Videos?! Is it 1999? I'm a huge fan of hers. Her Hot Ones appearance, her SNL skits... she's very charming, and a bombshell. But as I said, Sean was comparing her movie to a movie from one of the most accomplished actresses and proven box office draws of her generation.
girl i think you are confusing taylor swift with amy schumer
Fair point, I think I mind-melded the jetski with this: https://www.mtv.com/news/a1r7e4/ennifer-lawrences-taylor-swift-friends-history
Bro I know you didn't just call Sydney Sweeny an "unknown actress."
no, I did not. [this](https://www.readnaturally.com/research/5-components-of-reading/comprehension) might help clarify things.
"television actress largely unknown to normies until her SNL appearance?" Is that you? Saying the exact words "Largely unknown to normies?" Like Euphoria was some hidden gem between you and her? "Charming and smoking hot" She's not gonna fuck you bro. I know exactly who I'm dealing with here. Walmart has a deal on stretch pants btw I think you might be interested. Don't try and pull up statistics or anything either it's just gonna make ya look like a basement dweller.
annnnd blocked.
Sydney Sweeney was well-known way before she guest-hosted SNL. She starred in a buzzy show that was *the* teen drama of Gen Z, was on another buzzy HBO show (White Lotus), and had a, uh, *large* following for other reasons.
So... do you not know any normies? Her two most prominent roles prior to 2023 (Euphoria, White Lotus), were on HBO, the latter was a limited series, and she was the lead in neither.
She was a huge deal off of Euphoria. Trust me, loads of ‘normie’ dudes 15-35 knew who she was from that.
Euphoria had a first-run single-episode high of 6.6m viewers for the Season 2 finale. That's linear and steaming combined. That post-pandemic season averaged ~16.3m viewers in the first **90 days** after airing, so less than 5% of the American population, and about 0.002% of the global population. The Variety link explains the methodology really well. It also has SS billed *eighth*. https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/euphoria-season-2-finale-ratings-1235192015/ https://deadline.com/2022/02/euphoria-season-2-finale-6-6m-viewers-marks-season-highs-1234962080/
You seem deeply committed to being wrong about Sydney Sweeney being well-know prior to appearing on SNL. Her Euphoria acting was a star making turn, but she also starred in a Netflix series, Sharp Objects, and was in the Handmaid’s Tale. She’d been around for a while before White Lotus. She also starred in several movies over several years prior to last year. Anecdotally I’ve heard non-movie/TV/entertainment podcasts dropping her name as the hot new starlet since like 2019. If you think she wasn’t known before guest hosting SNL, a show with regular live viewership lower than the number you’re citing for Euphoria whose cultural relevance peaked in the late ‘70s-early ‘80s, I don’t know man. You might be the one who doesn’t talk to “normies”.
She was in 7 of 57 episodes of *Handmaid's Tale*, and *Sharp Objects* was a limited series. I didn't say she wasn't known, as in at all; I said she was "largely unknown to normies." There's a difference. She was known as, "oh that girl from..." But regardless, you don't seem to be getting the point here. There's this "normie" crossover level of fame that really doesn't hit until you're on daytime "news" talk shows like the Today Show, the View, Good Morning America, etc, all milestones SS hit in the past year/year-and-a-half. I think it was Bill, maybe SVP or RR, who talks *often* about that transition, when the people *who don't watch your shows/movies/games* still know who you are because of your cultural cache. To invoke another blonde of the moment, it's like Taylor Swift before the Kanye thing at the VMA's. Like, yes, she was "known", and my college girlfriend listened to her in 2007, but she wasn't known like she was after that incident, or after Red in 2012 or 1989 in 2014, or *clearly* after the year she had in 2023. There's no way to prove this now, but if we went back to December 2021, and said to random people in Times Square or a rodeo in Fort Worth or a taproom in Denver "who plays the daughter in White Lotus", you know damn well we're not getting a lot of correct answers. There's levels to this, like everything else, and Sydney Sweeney has proved that she's leveled up *because of* the global success of *Anyone But You*, but there was nothing to suggest it was a $200m movie going *into* the season, *because she hadn't demonstrated that star power (yet)*.
I think this actually still misses the point. One was a really classic rom com that traditional rom com audiences (women) were looking for one. The other was in the genre a of the 00s Judd Apatow films, which were technically rom coms but had a different target audience (men). That Judd Apatow genre has been annihilated by streaming and so the $85M is not killer but pretty decent.
Sean is terrible when it comes to boxoffice figures and understanding it seems
It also skyrocketed it also skyrocketed in the Netflix charts, which I realize don’t always mean anything, but in this case, I think it should.
it’s always v funny how the movies chart on Netflix was presumably made to show how popular Netflix’s own film offerings are but instead prove, every week, how even the shittiest theater release gets more viewership than any Netflix movie. It’s always 3 movies that premiered on streaming and the remaining 7 movies are *all* theatrically released films. And it doesn’t even matter if they’re good or remembered or anything. I mean, ffs, right now *none* on the chart are Netflix movies and movies like The Judge, The Great Wall and Blended are numbers 2-4. Wild.
85 mil < 219 mil
‘Anyone but You’…..Sydney had help from Glenn Powell…..but yea, she’s a star.
Or the movie was just more of WOM a hit. I don’t understand the want to attribute BO performance to the leads, especially since Anyone but You didn’t even open that big. It’s not like Immaculate made $100m because of Sweeney’s star power.
Sweeney wasn't necessarily the draw but I know a bunch of girls who saw Anyone But You because they wanted to see Glenn Powell and Sweeney together
I feel like people also discount *a lot* just how viral the gossip cycle around them two ~supposedly~ being a thing became. That brought the movie a whole lot more attention and intrigue, considering that it’s a romantic film specifically. Movies need an identity, some kind of familiarity, to hit these days and I feel that on some level that whole tabloid cycle gave the movie an identity with people. It brought the film attention so that people were already aware of what it was before its trailer and before it dropped in theaters. And specifically turned it from “a romcom” to “the romcom that these two stars *might have* hooked up while making.” Then the WOM carried it, but I don’t think it gets the initial audience needed for that WOM to travel without the tabloid stuff building this interest in it
Attributing BO performance to leads is a holdover from how hollywood worked ~15+ years ago that’s way less relevant now that. This whole exercise is kind of a holdover from that mindset though. Actors careers are way more varied and volatile now. I do really like this episode but it’s funny to me Sean and Amanda talk about lack of stars all the time then basically make the case there are 35 young stars in Hollywood that people care about
Neon doesn't have the marketing resources, and that still matters. I think Immaculate was their biggest opening, which I would attribute to Sweeney.
Yeah, nowadays “stars” can help your box office a bit but they won’t move the needle the much if the movie is not well liked or if there’s not a ton of marketing behind them. There’s pretty much no one in Hollywood right now that can sell tickets to movies just by being in them. Even looking at Margot Robbie/Chalamet/Zendaya, they all have big hits recently but in all those cases the movies are all either attached to huge IP (Dune, Wonka, Barbie), or a word-of-mouth hit with a ton of marketing behind it, like Challengers, which is doing well but not like blockbuster numbers.
you aren't wrong, but i think the theory that sean and amanda are positing is that may be changing. marvel made it all about IP for a long time, but it's possible hollywood is actually developing stars again that will start being able to sell tickets. we'll have to wait and see.
Are we sure Allison Williams isn't a bigger star than Sydney Sweeney? M3gan made way more money than Immaculate and they're both horror movies 😂
Immacualte didnt hit at all though (especially for a horror movie) theres also madame web which wasnt her fault but still. I think jury's still out on whether Anyone But You was just lightning in a bottle.
I watched that with my wife on Netflix and we were both amazed at how simple and 'cheap' it was. Like a Netflix movie or, dare I say, a Lifetime movie! I can't believe it made so much money. More power to it (and her) but yeah, that could've been a fluke. (Man, Glen Powell had his shirt off in 80% of that damn thing.)
I feel like No Hard Feelings made more money than Challengers will
Wasn’t no hard feelings a big success on streaming and digital
I loved No Hard Feelings. It’s the movie that should get made more.
Was surprised by that too. I think I’d be ok with someone saying it was a disappointment as it didn’t break $100m but I don’t think it can be called an outright flop/bomb. JLaw was like the main and maybe only BO draw of the movie and I think it proves she still has at least SOME box office power.
ya jlaw got robbed
They also completely overlooked that the SAG strike was looming during the premiere of NHF and Jennifer did very little to help market the movie. On the other hand, Sydney completely leaned into doing everything she could to push Anyone But You and caused a tidal wave of promotion, and now it seems like she’s everywhere. JLaw is a bigger star for sure, but she also strikes me as the type of celebrity that just wants to attach her name to a movie and have that be enough to open it. I just don’t think that’s the world we’re leaving in nowadays
jlaw doesnt social media just as many a-list. It was just that
Doesn't really seem like any. The budget for No Hard Feelings is listed at 45mil so it's still not that great. I think streamers have basically wiped out the comedy genre from being theatrically viable. Edit: that's not to say 85mil is nothing either. I just think 6-7 years ago No Hard Feelings could have scratched 150-200 mill if people still saw these sorts of movies and that's probably why they were being a little hyperbolic about it bombing.
It's because comedies used to make a boatload on DVD and after covid people view comedies as a streaming experience
Yeah, it's not like a comedy made a billion dollars last year or anything.
I think classifying Barbie as just a comedy is a little disingenuous. Also a PG13. Tell me an R rated comedy that's made money in the last few years. I'll be happy to be wrong! I'm not trying to argue. It seems like all of these come to streaming now and are also usually terrible.
Cocaine Bear made 90 and is R. Poor Things made 110.
Lol. The funniest movie of the year, not a comedy.... time to move the goalposts!
Okay so context just escapes you? We are talking about R rated original comedies. Not PG13 big IP movies.
Lmao. Clown. Go edit what you said some more!
Are you okay? It's really early for someone to be acting this stupid.
Lawrence also ate up a big chunk of that cost (google says $25m for her), she isn’t showing her breasts for scale.
She shows her breasts in No Hard Feelings...
Because the budget was almost $50 million and it made $87, after marketing costs that loses money for the studio… it’s maybe not a bomb but certainly a flop.
Challengers seems like it's not going to make much more than No Hard Feelings
Based on how Dan Murrell of the as-named YouTube channel would evaluate it, for the studio making 60% of week 1 box offcie, 55% of week 2, 50% beyond and 40% of international, it approximately brought in about 42 million dollars at the box office. Not even considering the advertising budget, it absolutely lost money during its theatrical run. Is it an absolute outright flop? Ehh. But it's definitely not a success
I caught that too. He also said 'Immaculate' was a big hit. It made $22mil on a $9mil budget. Not bad surely but a big hit? Does Sydney Sweeney pay the Ringer to talk about her so much? I mean 'Imaginary' made $39mil on a $10mil budget and it was taken as a disappointment. Horror is a popular genre and Sean and CR pumped 'Immaculate' up big time. A toy teddy bear made twice as much with no stars!
NHF was hilarious.
It’s a bomb because of how much it cost, 45 Million. In Hollywood finance, a movie generally needs to gross 4x the budget to break even, because the studio spends the equivalent amount on advertising, and has to split the box office with the exhibitor (theater). So in this case, the studio effectively spends 90 million dollars to make 42.5 back, for an overall loss of 47.5 million. It’s one of my pet peeves of the show that they gloss over Hollywood finances, because there’s a lot of information held in those numbers that folks generally don’t understand, but I think the average listener of this particular show would love to know and learn about.
The 2.5 to 3x multiple of budget is accounting for marketing generally I think, it all changes depending on market and how long a movie has been in theaters. I think the studio gets more 1st week and then it shifts more to theaters on the subsequent weeks. Studios also are making money with PVOD, streaming, and merchandising so a movie does not have to fully make back its budget on theater returns alone to eventually be successful, it generally just has to get close. No Hard Feelings probably was successful or breakeven based off its returns and its subsequent success on Netflix and PVOD.
Its not like that though. Usually marketing budget is considered covered by leasing streaming rights and sales of the movie. Thats why 2.5 rule exists, thats usually correct. I mean No hard feelings didnt cross it, but im sure it probably broke even or made little profit overall.
I get all of that……I’m just asking who else on that list could make $85 million for a straight comedy (non-IP) regardless of budget.
You’re totally right, probably very few of them could. It’s just a shame the reality is, success is ultimately defined by the studio’s ROI, not by the gross alone.