I haven't seen the other movies, but Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga was actually pretty good, I'm glad it got made.
this post was submitted on 01 May 2025
51 points (100.0% liked)
[moved to piefed] movies
4247 readers
2 users here now
Matrix room: https://matrix.to/#/#fediversefilms:matrix.org
Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.
A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome
- Discussion threads to discuss about a specific movie or show
- Weekly threads: what have you been watching lately?
- Trailers
- Posters
- Retrospectives
- Should I watch?
Related communities:
Show communities:
Discussion communities:
RULES
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the titleβs subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.
2024 discussion threads
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This movie had one of the worst marketing campaigns I've seen in a long time... Every trailer made it look like hot garbage and cash grab trash pumped out by Hollywood to fill a quota
they probably dint have enough people buying tickets for it to overcome how much they spent.
That's usually what indicates a box office bomb.
Meh. I like Anya Taylor-Joy in most things but she doesn't make a convincing action hero. Too skinny and small. She's supposed to be going hand-to-hand with bulky dudes 2/3 times her size? No.
Yeah, it was clear they just wanted a big name to have on the poster. The actress who played the child version of Furiosa was fantastic though.
Yeah, Furiosa really didn't deserve to flop.
I'm glad to see i wasn't the only one saddened to see Mad Max on the list with all those other terrible movies... It wasn't the best one of the series, but it wasn't bad either. I enjoyed it a lot, and the funny thing is I wanna say it's 1 of only 2 movies I saw in the theater last year. I did my part, lol.
It was ok but it didn't feel like a film, it felt more like a couple of episodes of a big budget tv show stitched together.
I know a lot of people didn't like it, but I loved Megalopolis. It's so ambitious, has great cinematography, and it's weird. I thought it was well acted and will be a cult classic in a decade. It is a little weird that the main character is the only person with a superpower (stopping time) and it has almost no impact on the story, but that just adds to the weird appeal for me.
Megaopolis and Babylon are weirdly similar to me and I can't really explain it. I enjoyed Megaopolis and would watch it again. Especially Wow Platinum lol. Such a weird movie. So many scenes were like "damn, I feel like this is supposed to be symbolic but I don't know for what." Sort of the opposite of "sometimes the curtains are just blue" lol.
I really appreciate that he got a literal America's Got Talent star from the age of 12 to play the purity virgin.
I'm sure she felt that one in her bones and it's such a sharp blade I don't think a lot of people got it stabbing them
Oh, don't get me wrong, some of them were obvious. Like when they threw the literal Make America Great Again hat.
LOL I loved the "on the point" robin hood stealing the life from the rich and giving to the poor.
Its so full of symbols and agreed that it's gonna be a where's Waldo hunt for the cult classic fans for years.
When someone says Megaopolis doesn't have obvious symbolism You believe that entitles you to the riches of my Emersonian mind?
Furiosa didn't deserve, such a good movie, it fit so well as Mad Max prequel
I agree, I was surprised to see Furiosa there.
Borderlands only lost $80 million???
Yeah, that's the power of a brand
Its also the power of a cheap production that was more an excuse for a bunch of rich people to skip out in covid restrictions so they could take a vacation in Hungary. If it's a "fix it in post" production and you never bother with the post production it actually ends up pretty cheap.
It feels their entire budget was spent up front and then when it was obvious it was garbage they stopped spending.
So these costs do not appear to include the often massive marketing costs that can run into tens if not hundreds of millions for big blockbusters? Unless I am missing something.
You are not.
I knew Joker 2 didn't do well but I'm shocked it did this poorly. How was the budget that high anyway?
Likely due to Todd Phillips, Joaquin Phoenix, and Lady Gaga demanding huge salaries. Other than that, I'm not sure.
Strange that they include Kraven Hunter in the list but not Madame Web which had a greater loss of like $100m?
Wikipedia seems to imply Madame Web (which is indeed an early 2024 movie) made $500k.
No way. It made 100 million worldwide on an 80 million budget. Advertising would have been 40 to 80 million.
It lost at least 20 million.
If you believe Wikipedia has incorrect information and the budget of the film was actually $120 Million then I encourage you to find a source and edit the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madame_Web_(film)
Youβre missing a few bits of knowledge that will help make sense of their comment:
-
BO numbers are the total takings, and of course the exhibitors take a cut of that. For a big tentpole it starts maybe a 70/30 split in favour of the distributor, but by the end of the run it will be much less. As a rough rule of thumb, we divide the box office by two to get roughly how much gets back to the studio.
-
When media and fans (and Wikipedia) quote a filmβs βbudgetβ theyβre actually referring to the negative cost. This is the cost incurred in development, production and post-production, up to the point that the film exists in a full version ready for distribution (the negative). It does not include marketing and distribution costs (prints & advertising), such as posters, premieres, trailers, junkets, billboards, media campaigns, but also dubbing, subtitles and getting the files to the Theater (usually via costly satellite time). The rule of thumb for a major release is to say they spent at least the same again as the negative cost on P&A.
So if Madame Web had a budget around $100m, it cost the studio at least $200m. if it made $100m BO, then the studio got back $50m. So its a loss of around $150m.
Well, whatever metric you're using isn't what this article is using because the budget and box office earnings of Kraven on Wikipedia match. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraven_the_Hunter_(film%29 it doesn't seem right to use a different metric just for Madame Web.
Again, those figures are the negative cost.
So you think they should include Madame Web in their list and use a different metric for it than the others? Or what?