Predicting the Movie Hits & Bombs of 2022

It's simply amazing how much money Maverick is still generating!

 

It keeps chugging along, there's no real competition in the blockbuster dept. at the present time. #12 All-Time Worldwide not adjusted for inflation, it should pass Frozen II this week, I don't think it has enough in the tank to catch Furious 7 $1.515 Billion for 10th place.

Grosses
DOMESTIC (48.6%)
$700,339,744
INTERNATIONAL (51.4%)
$740,400,000
WORLDWIDE
$1,440,739,744

Domestic Weekly $ Totals/% +(-)/Theatre count

May 27-Jun 2: $205,604,011 - 4,735
Jun 3-9: $137,739,925 -33% 4,751
Jun 10-16: $78,823,609 -42.8% 4,262
Jun 17-23: $69,055,279 -12.4% 4,035
Jun 24-30: $47,252,543 -31.6% 3,948
Jul 1-7: $43,430,746 -8.1% 3,843
Jul 8-14: $24,056,455 -44.6% 3,513
Jul 15-21: $19,603,319 -18.5% 3,292
Jul 22-28: $16,337,813 -16.7% 3,160
Jul 29-Aug 4: $13,576,544 -16.9% 3,008
Aug 5-11: $11,191,301 -17.6% 2,760
Aug 12-18: $10,853,289 -3% 3,181
Aug 19-25: $8,938,023 -17.6% 2,969
Aug 26-Sep 1: $6,866,887 -23.2% 2,962

 

I don't think that anyone even imagined that it would be in theaters 14-weeks later. And to still be bringing in over $5M domestically in the 14th week.

When I look at the top grossing movies world wide, not adjusted for inflation, I can understand how most of the top ten got to be there.

That is until I come to #10, Furious 7 at $1.515 Billion? That will forever remain a mystery to me. Can't really comment, not having seen it (or any of the other's), still...

And we can understand how many big movies are further down the list, simply because they were released years ago and inflation is not figured in. It is just a list. One can look at a similar list with inflation figured in.

 

That is a haaaaaaaarible movie. We booed, yelled rude things, and threw popcorn at the screen throughout Furious 7... and we were home at the time! Awful film.

I totally get why Top Gun: Maverick is a huge hit -- that's a fun, crowd-pleasing film if there ever was one. I do like the fan theory that Tom Cruise dies 10 minutes in, and everything that happens after that is what he imagines as he fades away. Sort of an Occurance at Owl Creek Bridge thing.

 

Seriously good Twilight Zone episode!

 

To be fair Furious 7 released in 2015 is one of the critically acclaimed ones in the series. 81% Critics / 82% Fans

 

"Furious 7" is probably the best of the franchise!

Granted, that's faint praise because so many of the movies are meh to worse, but I enjoyed it much more than most of 'em.

 

I wasn't previously aware that any of the FF movies had "critical acclaim".

But then, I was aware of the franchise and that they have made many of them. But just barely aware. Not enough to want to watch any of them

Kind of a crap shoot? Watch 7 to get an acceptable one. Of course Star Wars did come close, once the smoke (and mirrors) cleared...

 

V:

I have the (dubious?) distinction of booming both Furious 7 and Top Gun: Maverick, although, I’ve only ever seen the latter.

I wonder what was going on in 2015 that caused 7 to be so popular with audiences. Somebody at Universal mailed me a Blu-ray later (a tardy wrap gift, perhaps? We only had a wrap party in Abu Dhabi, as I recall) but my son and I had to turn the thing off after two minutes as it was giving both of us a headache.

Surely, there must be fans of the picture somewhere as it did such crazy big business.

So weird… I just don't get it.


~Huck

 

I thought it was great except the boom work was terrible!

 

A job is a job, working movies with huge budgets must have some perks ie: better pay than working some "D" level straight to streaming piece of crap.

It was the last in the franchise to include Paul Walker who died in 2013. The FF franchise pretty strong in international markets, F7 made $391 million in China alone.

All Releases
DOMESTIC (23.3%)
$353,007,020
INTERNATIONAL (76.7%)
$1,162,334,379
WORLDWIDE
$1,515,341,399

 

Which is a lot better than being the acting talent in a bad movie, which everyone remembers!

 

Great sound! But the Furious movies are awful to me in terms of story & character. I thought Top Gun: Maverick was really enjoyable, and I actually held back from seeing it because I feared I'd be disappointed. No issues -- I think there were a half-dozen things that stretched believability, but hey... it's a big mass-market action film. My problem with the Furious films is that there's a lot of really bad acting, plus it's too much of a "Road Runner movie" in terms of the stunts. F9 was even worse, going off into space, all that other crap. I mean, like... jesus. I don't buy that they can get away with it because it's fun -- it just gave me a headache.

Bah. I could barely stomach the Fast & Furious movies when Paul Walker was alive. The CGI Walker in Fast 7 was just awful, just Walker's CGI-reconstructed face glued on one of his brothers' bodies. I get that the movie made $1.5 billion and audiences liked it.

 

When is a test screening not really a test screening?

 

It would've been great if somebody from the audience told Dwayne: "This was your better acting performance since Furious 7"

 

‘Pinocchio’ Review: Tom Hanks & Robert Zemeckis’ Dull Disney Remake – The Hollywood Reporter

Pinocchio keeps Disney’s live-action-remake curse rolling along

 

Black Adam - trailer #2. This movie looks bad, really bad.

 

This is more of a "Greatest Bombs of the Last 30 Years," but there's some surprising films on this list that you might not expect:

The Biggest Box Office Movie Flops Ever Made – Herald Weekly

 

I think it was 40% Paul Walker and 60% CGI Paul Walker. Very creepy. Clearly, audiences didn't care, since it made $1.5 billion dollars.

 

I didn't see Ishtar! That, and Heaven's Gate are the films I think of as all time bombs.

 

Great website! Sums it up quite nicely and all in one place.

Some of the films on the list I liked, but their budgets made them box office disappointments. This sort of thing is understandable.

What makes me scratch my head is how you can spend over a $100M to make a movie about a prize fighter? It completely baffles me.

And even with a budget in excess of $100M, it still went over budget! What were they thinking of?

 

It's an interesting read, but the summary for Blade Runner 2049 states: "Blade Runner 2049 is the sequel to the original mega-hit, Blade Runner..." The original film was, as we all know, deemed a major box office failure during its initial release.

 

I actually saw Blade Runner in May of 1982 at Warner Bros. before it came out, and the first thing I said when the lights went up was, "well, this is a downbeat and very cerebral film, and it's not gonna make a dime." I was right about that. There are things I like about Blade Runner -- quite a bit -- but it's not a film I like to watch often. No question, it was a very influential film. For me, it veered too far away from Phillip K. Dick's novel -- and while I like a lot of his stories, they don't always translate well to film. You can make a good argument that Blade Runner was initially a bomb, but eventually made a lot of money for the studio in home video and reissues.

I just read a 500-page book on Michael Cimino and Heaven's Gate, and they make the case that the film was an enormous bomb, but it didn't bankrupt United Artists, which was widely reported. The problem was UA made another 3-4 bombs in the 2 years after Heaven's Gate, and that's really what wiped them out. I think it was originally budgeted at about $9 million (which is a lot for a Western), and wound up going way over $40 million, which is absolutely insane. I think it's a beautiful film, but I've never been able to get through it without dozing off. (I have the same problem with Barry Lyndon, which is really stunning to look at, but it's really dull -- to me.)

 

I wonder did anyone ever consider gender-swapping the remake of Death Wish? It could have been an interesting project, and probably wouldn't have done worse than the Bruce Willis version.

 

They basically did that with Jodie Foster in THE BRAVE ONE.