Like a weak 'Fall Guy' 28m opening, 80m domestic total, 200m ww total
(MM:FR had 45m opening. 150m domestic total. 380m ww total)
For the 'average Joe' movie goers they might struggle with these:
-No Mad Max (in favour of female 'Mary Sue' badass 'Madame Max'?)
-No Charlize as Furiosa
-fake looking 'green screen' deserts in trailers (in contrast to real deserts in FR)
-Hemsworth sequel 'curse' (MiB, GB)
Might bomb in the States. International audiences love this stuff, i'm sure it will make money.
shareDoesn't everything nowadays? People stopped going to the movies after 2019, and nearly every film flops or bombs in terms of dollars earned at the box office. The new norm is that 2 or 3 films each year seem to capture the zeitgeist and become an event film that everyone sees, while the rest languish in streaming.
Movies that are well-received, highly rated, and have great word of mouth still end up going unseen in theaters, as people wait to stream it at home. You referenced The Fall Guy, which is a perfect example. Nearly everyone who has seen it seems to have loved it. 87% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, 7.3 rating on IMDB, A- Cinema Score, but less than $50 million at the box office after 10 days in theaters. Pre-2020 that would be a widely discussed anomaly, but in 2024, it's the norm.
You can list all the made-up reasons you want, and yours seem quite nonsensical, but if this film fails to fill theaters, it's not going to be because Chris Hemsworth is in it, or because Furiosa is the lead character, it's going to be because of the drastic change in audience behavior that has taken place post-Covid.
They may be nonsensical but I get the general feel 'average joe' audiences are sick to death of PC 'woke' stuff (so that could possibly affect what is essentially a 'female Mad Max' movie, or 'Madame Max' or 'Maxless Mad Max'.. 'a Mad Max movie without Mad Max' etc ) there was alot of criticism aimed at the fake video game looking FX in trailers, and yeh Hemsworth being in it isn't really a concern. its just most stuff he's done outside of Marvel has underperformed esp in other big franchises (likes his name is 'worth'less to other big franchises)
shareWe'll have to wait and see if it's woke, but the trailers don't suggest that to me. It looks like Furiosa spends her entire life preparing to avenge her mother, which isn't what a "Mary Sue" is at all, and this looks like something along the lines of Alien, or any other action film where the protagonist happens to be female.
If anything is going to draw people to the see the film, I think it's going to be the effects. In an age where everything is done with green screens and CGI, Fury Road, and now Furiosa, are a refreshing reminder of how great a film can look when the stunts are performed by real humans, and practical effects are used in lieu of digital effects.
I agree the female lead here is more akin to Alien and Terminator but to an outside non genre fanatic audience it seems that the franchise has switched from 'Mad Max' to the female badass from the last film (and not even Charlize Theron but a younger 120lbs version kicking Thors ass)
shareDo you even watch the trailers of Furiosa? It had bad CGI and ugly green screens.
shareOf course I've seen them. What in the trailers looks bad to you? I see a whole lot of actual actors on actual sets, in actual vehicles performing actual stunts. I assume that as in Fury Road, some of the backgrounds and peripheral imagery is computer-generated, but everything you see happening on screen actually happened. You can't say that about nearly any other modern action film.
Also, realize that trailers seldom show the finished product. Just as aspects of Fury Road's trailer looked quite different from the film, presumably so too does some of what we see in the Furiosa trailer.
That said, the Furiosa trailer looks great, and I see nothing jarring, or evidence of any CGI, badly done or otherwise. What exactly are you seeing that the rest of us aren't?
In this case is what exactly are you seeing that the rest of us aren't? A lot of people complain about the bad CGI in trailers for months, how can you miss it?
https://moviechat.org/tt12037194/Furiosa-A-Mad-Max-Saga/6613bc6febc58d34b64310a6/The-CGI-looks-so-cheap
https://www.reddit.com/r/Moviesinthemaking/comments/187zk7h/anyone_else_bummed_out_with_furiosa_lack_of/
The Reddit thread you linked seems to be mostly full of replies saying the trailer looks fine. Predictably, the thread here on Moviechat is mostly people arguing about woke.
What do YOU see in the trailer that looks like badly-done CGI?
If that's the frame that has you worried, you can put your fears to rest. Fury Road, and really most films, included unfinished shots like that in trailers. If anything, your takeaway should be the fact that you see a real actress in a real vehicle, pointing a real weapon. In most films we'd see an actress with all of the above CGI'ed in around her.
shareNot true. Name a shot in the trailer of Fury Road that done poorly compare to the final movie.
shareIt will do fine and probably make a profit.
I don't want to see it but that doesn't negate the good will people have for this because they loved Fury Road.
Fury Road… Even with great reviews, word of mouth, and trailers (I still vividly remember when the trailers debuted on the internet, everybody lost their freaking minds), Fury Road barely made profit: 150m budget, 370m box office worldwide.
What is the chance for Furiosa to get the same reviews and word of mouth? Nearly zero… actually, the only exception I can think of that got the same reviews and word of mouth was Top Gun 2. Not to mention Furiosa had god awful trailers.
Fury Road is one of those films that was mostly overlooked when it was in theaters, then later became revered as a masterpiece. I don't know if Furiosa will follow suit in terms of slowly generating a reputation as a great film, but I do expect it to do poorly in theaters. Hardly anyone goes to see movies anymore, and films like Furiosa aren't the ones that do garner an audience.
shareFury Road was a big summer release, they had a huge marketing campaign and George Miller, Tom Hardy, Charlize Theron went on an extensive press tour. It wasn't overlooked it was in all the theaters in Imax, 3D and standard formats. Because it had decent action it did ok at the box office.
Fury Road a masterpiece? No, if it was a masterpiece it would have made a TON of money. It's just so-so.
If your barometer for a masterpiece is the money a film makes, then you have a very different idea of what a masterpiece is than I do.
shareIkr? By that metric, the original Blade Runner is 'so-so' and "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" is a masterpiece.
shareThe Phantom Menace apparently was a masterpiece since it made $1 billion.
shareIt seems like it'll do the same BO numbers as Fury Road. If reviews are good it might draw good sizes crowds for imax screenings as a movie that needs to be seen on the big screen.
shareIt won't bomb but there's not a lot of buzz, the last one really was pretty weak and didn't make much money. If Fuirosa was truly a good movie it would make some serious coin but George Miller hasn't "directed" a great movie in decades. Byron Kennedy was the secret sauce and with him out of the picture theres, well, no picture.
share