Amph The 2025 Box Office Blood Galaxy

So we're all very excited about Sith rereleae making 20 million (already got tix for a 4DX show. Disney would be dopey if they only ran it for a week, if it "takes away" from Thunderbolts* who cares? Its all your money, Disney!) with Accountant 2 basically beside it. But the real jaw dropper is Sinners basically making the exact same it did last week at 42-44 million which is what a %5 drop?

 

That doesn't surprise me at all. It's a cinematic experience that has earned its legs. A 10-20% drop in its second weekend kills any questions about its commercial viability.

Also if Accountant 2 only makes $20-25 against its $80 million budget, it's in a much worse position than Sinners was last Sunday.

 

It may be like Bettlejuice Bettlejuice or Twisters where it's like 80% North America and 20% overseas but it'll make enough cash in N.A.

 

'97 Star Wars SE made $35.9 million opening weekend which is pretty bonkers that'd be like 80-100 million now?

 

I'm not getting any money.

 

Well kick down the door at LFL and demand a cut!!!

 

If you take out Thursday previews, Sinner's Friday to Friday drop was only 10%. That's an extraordinary hold.

 

@BigAl6ft6,

I thought you might be interested in this article from Salon about the media bias against Sinners. It addresses what you had already noticed. I'll post some of highlights too.

The article:

In the days since its April 18 release, the film has become a massive box office achievement, one worthy of Coogler’s own success story. Stellar reviews and consistent word of mouth praise have sold out screenings days in advance, and the conversation surrounding the movie itself is on the tip of everyone’s tongue. “Sinners” is exactly the kind of dialogue-starter that Coogler hoped for on the eve of his first film debut: an entirely original movie that has put people in theater seats and shattered records in an age of never-ending remakes and reboots. By all metrics, “Sinners” is an industry-shaking triumph. So why are all the entertainment industry trades putting an asterisk on its success?

At the end of the film’s opening weekend, during which it earned an incredible $61 million worldwide, Variety’s box office summary concluded, “It’s a great result for an original, R-rated horror film, yet the Warner Bros. release has a $90 million price tag before global marketing expenses, so profitability remains a ways away.” Other responses, like the ones from the New York Times and Business Insider, had a similarly demeaning slant... Though “Sinners” is far from the determined indie film that “Fruitvale Station” was, trades are responding to Coogler’s latest as though the opening weekend is a make-or-break moment for the film. That narrative is just the latest in an unnerving trend that has seen leading sources of entertainment journalism pivoting toward conservative viewpoints and industry gatekeeping. And this direct and seemingly willful dissent from the larger cultural consensus only helps to keep power in the hands of those who already have it.

“Sinners” was a leap of faith for Warner Bros. that paid off immensely. To put the achievement into perspective, Warner Bros. has only co-produced and distributed an entirely original, non-biographical film that wasn’t a sequel to an existing property or simultaneously plopped onto streaming, three times in the last five years. Of the three, which include Clint Eastwood’s “Juror #2” and Christopher Nolan’s “Tenet,” Coogler’s film is the only one written and directed by a Black filmmaker.

So why frame these responses as a raised eyebrow instead of a celebration over the state of cinema? That’s where things become both intriguing and alarming. In an enlightening guest post for the newsletter Contraband Camp, critic Brooke Obie states that the reaction is just another instance of Hollywood changing the standards of success for Black cinema. “White media has always conspired to spin the narrative and move the goalposts about Black films, Black filmmakers and their successes,” Obie writes. She also references another unique element of the “Sinners” story: a deal carved out by Coogler that will allow him to own the rights to the movie after 25 years, an extremely unconventional industry practice. When a similar deal was cut with Quentin Tarantino for 2019’s “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood,” the headline from the Hollywood Reporter touted it as a “score” for the director. In an illuminating comparison, the Times’ box office report for “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” called that film’s opening weekend numbers a “hit,” while Coogler’s was met with doubt. But if you assess the numbers, Tarantino’s film actually made less money stateside than Coogler’s did during opening weekend. Yet it was “Sinners” that got slapped with an asterisk.

On the day “Sinners” was released, Vulture ran a piece detailing why Coogler’s deal with Warner Bros. was “scaring” studio executives. An anonymous source said that Coogler regaining the rights to “Sinners” after 25 years sets a “very dangerous” precedent that could topple the studio system as we know it. It stands to reason that, if studio execs are freaked out about the deal, the trade publications that function partially as an arm of Hollywood’s most powerful players would cover the indisputable success of “Sinners” with an apprehensive tone. Twelve years out from “Fruitvale Station,” with two major franchises under his belt and a surefire hit of an original film raking in the dough, Coogler’s story beckons other young filmmakers to try their hand at shaking up an industry set in its safe, risk-averse, white ways. Again, we can see that this isn’t just about money; it’s about power and who has it.

Trades aren’t known to be unbiased sources of information, but that doesn’t account for all those who may read these pieces and take them at face value... Their articles affect how the common person spends their money, and the trades have a vested interest in protecting the status quo because that’s the safest (and whitest) way to keep the cash coming in. Of course, an original idea from a free-thinker makes them shake in their boots.

Putting an asterisk on something as monumental as “Sinners” doesn’t just denigrate the film to potentially impressionable readers, it serves Hollywood executives looking to make films referred to in board meetings as “content,” or watched in the background at home.

And right on cue, with “Sinners” in its second weekend dominating the box office with sold-out screenings, is a Deadline article detailing Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos saying the theatrical experience is outmoded. Sarandos is quoted in the piece asking, “What is the consumer trying to tell us? That they’d like to watch movies at home.” Next time you read an article in a trade that has nothing to do with the quality of the art itself, and everything to do with the artist or how they achieved their success, consider: “What is the publication trying to tell me?”

 

Yah it had a great opening but in 3 days people were trying to say that was nice but it underperformed. When it opened almost exactly like Tarantino's last movie and nobody shouted flop for that! Sinners making 45 million this weekend will finally shut them up. But deciding a movie's fate after 72 hours is just getting exhausting. Give it a freaking week, as we literally just saw with Sinners!

Anyway Sinners aside Sith rereleae is impressive, it's North America total is almost at 400 million. Don't be dopey and pull it Disney, people want to see it again! The May the 4th shows alone would make significant bank!

Also Teddy Netflix statement about how they're saving Hollywood can bite me. If Teddy Netflix wants his precious streaming movies to have any staying power it needs a wide theatrical release until they disappear after 2 weeks into Netflix slop. The Super Mario Movie was added to Netflix Canada like 2 months ago and it's still in the top 10! Netflix movies don't have any staying power as streaming exclusives

 

Yeah, keeping it around for SW day would be a well-deserved gift to fans and to GL's final film for performing so well. Also, I'm sure a lot of people are just hearing about its re-release for the 1st time through WOM from people who saw it. There's going to be a lot of disappointed SW fans.

It was weird timing for the release anyway. It wasn't released on May the 4th, or Revenge of the Sixth, or the day of ROTS's original release, or the date of anything else Star Wars related either. If you're not going to release it on 1 of those days, then why not bring it back when there's far less competition -- like 5 to 8 weeks ago?

And if they're worried about hurting Thunderbolts' opening weekend, well, they already probably have a little. I'm sure there's a big overlap between SW and MCU fans, and I would think people generally are more likely to space out their trips to the movies rather than go 2 weeks in a row. That means some of those who were part of that huge turnout for ROTS won't be going back to the theaters next weekend.

It's abundantly clear that Disney thought that ROTS would perform similarly to TPM, and they had no idea that it still has so much cultural relevance to people who were between 5 to 15 years-old when the film originally came out. That attitude traces all the way back to all the promotional work for TFA.

It's also an issue of hindsight being 20/20. They may have figured that Minecraft would've performed similarly to the Sonic film and that Sinners would be nothing special, but because those films were doing so well and the Accountant 2 came out this weekend, ROTS couldn't expand to many additional screens to match demand.

So, a total cock-up from mostly every angle in my POV.

It's unfortunate. I hope Disney keeps it in at least some theaters (half as many would probably suit a 2nd weekend's demand), but I don't see it happening.

I don't know how it works for theaters though. Do they have any discretion here? Can they keep it and toss away some other film that they're not contractually obligated to keep anymore?

 

I disagree completely about the angle that the Sinners reporting was biased. Any reasonable reporting would say that a $48 million opening weekend against a $90 million budget is a problem UNLESS the movie holds up much better in subsequent weekends than the average movie. I think there were plenty of indications that Sinners would have a very strong hold its second weekend, but no one knows that for certain until it happens. It's easy to say now that Sinners is an unmitigated success. That wasn't as obvious last Sunday.

Of course the bias may come in when the reporting doesn't say that The Accountant 2 actually is much worse off at the end of its first weekend than Sinners was. Accountant 2's chances of making even 2x its budget seem slim.

fun article, Deadline profiled the profitability of last year's It Ends With Us, as follows:

'It Ends With Us' Profit
All figures in millions

Table with 2 columns and 22 rows.
BOX OFFICE
Domestic 148.5
International 201.2
Worldwide 349.7
REVENUES
Theatrical 175.0
Home Entertainment 65.0
Television and Streaming 120.0
TOTAL REVENUES 360.0
EXPENSES
Production Costs 25.0
Prints and Ads 60.0
Residuals and Other Distribution Expenses 13.0
Interest and Overhead 5.0
Participations 50.0
TOTAL EXPENSES 153.0
STUDIO NET 207.0
Source: Deadline estimates

 

The problem is not only that Sinners performed well over any ORIGINAL release, say , last 20 years, but also the deal Cogler got from WB, wich many studios think gave him too much money:

 

A non franchise non brand original R movie that is sweeping up. There might well be some anger about that deal, particularly now that it looks like it's going to be a huge blowout winner. Coogler looks like a business genius now to go along with his moviemaking prowess.

A 6% second weekend drop is just out of this world. How many movies have done that in the last ten years? It actually had a double digit Saturday on Saturday increase. When a movie performs that well week on week you have to start talking in terms of box office phenomenon.

 

Those most profitable write ups are interesting, lion king prequel only profitable for 150 million and that was #7!

 

Or Dune Part 2 in a hole even after rentals and only pulling a profit after its $220 million in tv and streaming..

 

Well, it seems like they jumped the gun a little with Sinners. It's a film not based upon pre-established IP, and they knew that even though it was a horror film, it got an A cinemascore, which is unheard of, and some incredibly high recommend level from post-track.

That's the sort of film that's likely to have good legs. I'm thinking of the 6th Sense or My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Those films had like 5 weekends in a row where their grosses hardly fell. Back to the Future and Get Out were similar in that respect iirc. For a film like Sinners, with that type of audience response, I think it would've been more prudent to wait a week to print an article like that, especially if they didn't want to possibly get egg on their faces.

But maybe it's all about the clicks. They can print that article, then somebody else can print a refutation a week later, and then Variety & NYT, and Salon & AVclub can make just a little bit of money off it.

Also, that Coogler got the rights back in the year 2050 seems like nothing special to me. We might have content being streamed directly into our brains by then. I can't believe anyone cared so much about that to even mention it. That was weird.

So, you put the 2 of those things together, and the race element, and I can see why some were wondering whether there was some bias. The whole thing gives that impression even if there was none.

 

I think WB still has to release any sequels too so he got a great rights deal but not something unprecedented

It'd be crazy if Sinners makes another 40 million again next week against Thunderbolts* as for RoTS, if Disney extended TPM rereleae I think they would for this too, Thunderbolts or not. May the 4th bank bekons!

Watch them do TFA 10th anniversary rereleae next year and it makes like 5 million opening weekend (and I love TFA! But a bit too soon for rereleae with all the Star Wars content)

 

Honestly...they could put all the SW movies on a perpetual limited release rotation and they would make money.

I could easily see some of these art house theaters have a "Star Wars" time slot every weekend of the year...just have to check the schedule to know which film is this week.

A perpetual money making machine, so long as the theater stays in business.

If the studios are paying attention to these re-release returns, they should know there is an appeal to show legacy content in a legacy format.

In fact...it might be easier to get some people to the theater to see something old rather than something new.

Nostalgia baiting...both with film and environment.

Then tell people they can get that feeling any weekend they want?

I'd be nervous about how often I might go.

That might be enough to get me to buy one of those "movie-goer" subscriptions.

"You mean I could get one free ticket a month to a Star Wars movie on a big screen?"

 

... none of you are getting any of this money. Wake up!!