1. Cost of the theater
2. It's a musical. A lot of people don't like musicals
3. It will be streaming soon
4. The cast interviews. They're embarrassing to watch.
5. The reviews are great but people are cautious of overhyped movies.
Bonus: 2024 has been pretty awful for theater films. The most successful flicks are sequels.
You do know that it had doubled the budget costs in box office takings a few days after its release, right?
The largest opening for a Broadway musical adaptation ever and the second highest Thanksgiving performance of all time.
People are going to see it, even if you wish they weren’t.
It took 2 weeks, not a couple days. It's performing ok, but not great. It had a massive marketing campaign cost to factor in as well. It's certainly not a bomb, but it will most likely have middle of the road earnings at the end of it's theatrical run.
shareIt's past half a billion now.
What would you consider to be a "good" box office?
It's all relative to the cost, and this was expensive to make and had a huge marketing campaign. 500 million is good, but it's nothing special in today's movie market. Moano 2 flew past it in just 2 weeks. As I said, it's doing ok, but people are acting like it's some box office juggernaut, and it's simply not.
shareIt's a juggernaut by today's standards. Hardly anyone goes to the movies anymore, and films aren't making nearly as much as they did in the past. It's the 3rd-highest-grossing film of 2024, and it's turning a profit for Universal. That's about as good as it gets in 2024.
share It's 8th, actually.
1 Inside Out 2 $1,698,641,117
2 Deadpool & Wolverine $1,338,075,443
3 Despicable Me 4 $969,459,798
4 Moana 2 $726,376,035
5 Dune: Part Two $714,444,358
6 Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire $571,750,016
7 Kung Fu Panda 4 $547,689,492
8 Wicked $536,558,875
I'm referring to the domestic ticket sales list, which is the one most commonly used to determine the top films.
sharelol, except you didn't say that and that's simply not true. That's often a benchmark underperforming films will cling to, to give the impression they are doing better than they are, but rest assured, studies love money from anywhere in the world. When people talk about the biggest movies of all time, they don't set the parameters at "domestic".
shareAre we talking about profits, or viewership? I pointed out that Americans aren't going to the theaters in anywhere near the numbers they used to, so a comparison of dollars made is less revealing than a comparison based on where a film ranks in terms of viewership vs. its same-year competitors.
Wicked is the 3rd-most watched film of 2024. That tells me that it's been popular with theater-goers here in the U.S.
When we start looking at global numbers, things are skewed, as international audiences are very different from American audiences. A film like Wicked was made primarily for Americans. It's a prequel to a popular American film, and based on a hugely popular American musical. Any overseas sales are a bonus.
Also worth noting, while studios of course love money (who doesn't?), their primary profit comes from U.S. audiences. They keep 50-60% of the price of tickets sold in American theaters. They keep 40% of less from tickets sold elsewhere, and 25% or less of tickets sold in China.
You didn't say anything about Americans until I pointed out global numbers, only then did you bring up the term "domestic". Like I've said, the moving is doing fine. It's certainly not a bomb. Ticket sales are down everywhere, not just the US. Yes, some movies have larger global appeal than others, but those are still butts in the seats. And coming in 3rd domestically in a time you described as "Hardly anyone goes to the movies anymore", only supports my notion that its really just doing OK. Why does it need to be more than that?
shareExactly.
share"It's a juggernaut by today's standards."
Which are incredibly low, I don't think we should adjust ourselves to mediocrity.
We're talking about box office, not quality. The film itself looks awful, but it's doing very well at the box office by modern standards.
shareI was talking about mediocre performance at the box office. None of us should consider those movies juggernauts just because today's standards are so low. The high ticket prices are the only thing keeping that illusion alive.
shareBut it's all relative. The top 10 films are still the top 10 films, whether only 10,000 go see them or if 10 million go. If a film dominates the box office, it dominates the box office.
shareWhat if we come to a point where every top 10 movie loses money?
Wicked is not exactly a juggernaut like Gone with the Wind or Titanic, it's simply one of the most succesful films of 2024.
Which is why I said it's a juggernaut by today's standards. Because yes, if (when?) theater-going dwindles to the point where every movie loses money, there will still be certain movies that more people see than others, and those will be the ones said to dominate the box office.
Think of it in sporting terms. If Oregon wins the national championship this year, they'll finish the year 16-0. It's fair to say they were a juggernaut that dominated college football this year, even though you know full well if they took the field against the New York Giants, the absolute worst team in the NFL this season, the Giants would destroy them.
If sports aren't your thing, then another way to look at is that if this year, for whatever reason, theater-going were at an all-time high, there is no reason to think the most-watched films would be different. The order in which they are ranked would stay the same, only the number of tickets they sold would change. And that's what matters: which films outperform others, and by how much. You can't blame a film for the popularity of movie-going vs. streaming, you can only rate it by how it performs against the other films of its year.
"Which is why I said it's a juggernaut by today's standards."
And that's why I said today's standards are so low, we shouldn't adjust and accept it as a juggernaut. If you're losing money but less than the rest, you don't deserve to be called an "overwhelming force". You know what I mean?
I get it, the movie did much better than other movies, but if you look at it on its own and compare the production and marketing costs to the profit it made, it's not all that impressive.
It's like we're speaking two different languages.
If a film is the top-grossing film of the year, it deserves just as much praise or respect as a film that was the top in another year. Comparing the two is apples to oranges. A film that dominates the box office dominates the box office. Doing so in an era when fewer people go to the movies in no way reflects on the film.
Yeah, it's mindboggling. So you would call a movie that loses 10 million dollars a "juggernaut" because all the rest makes a loss of 50 million dollars. Fine, but I've got to go with Burk's logic here. The movie industry has a huge problem at the moment with movies costing more and making less. Just because this movie is making more than the rest, doesn't mean it's doing great. You want a profit to pay back the investors and make some new movies.
shareI'm not talking about profit at all. The industry is in big trouble right now, but that's an entirely different discussion.
A movie being the most popular among movie-goers is not about profit. Even if every film loses money, that doesn't change what movies were most popular among those who chose to go to the movies that year. A film can lose money but be a juggernaut at the theaters if it is the movie most people are choosing to see. Profit doesn't enter into the discussion.
From your first post:
"It's the 3rd-highest-grossing film of 2024, and it's turning a profit for Universal."
Now you're just moving goal posts. This movie simply isn't a juggernaut in any sense of the word. Just like a movie that loses $100 million and only sells 1000 tickets is't a juggernaut just because all the rest is doing even worse.
No one is moving goalposts. That Wicked is making money for Universal is a positive for the studio, but separate from the issue at hand. That's what "and" means in that sentence.
I don't know how else to explain this to you in a way you'll understand. How about this.
If a movie is the highest-grossing film of the year, and makes twice as much as the 2nd place film, and packs theaters for months, but it cost a lot to make, so ultimately it only turned a small profit, or even lost money, would you not say it was dominant at the box office in its year?
If another movie makes only a fraction of what that first movie made, and ranks 30th that year, but it was made for a tiny amount, is that your juggernaut?
You seem to be so caught up in profitability that it seems you'd say a film that made $1 million on a $10k budget is a force to be reckoned with at the box office, while a film that made $600 million on a $150 million budget was floundering. If we're talking profit, sure, but we aren't.
The movies that sell the most tickets are the most successful/dominant films/ juggernauts/ choose your term in terms of drawing audiences, even if they lose money. Those have been the goalposts the entire time.
We ARE talking about profit, because you brought it up yourself and you replied to Burk's post that talked about the costs and the movie's succes being relative. You can't just dismiss that because you feel like it. That's just being silly.
I'm not arguing it's just about profit. I'm saying that even if a movie makes a lot of money, there are others factor to consider (like Burk brought up). But you're so hung up about your own definition that "juggernaut" just means being more succesful than the rest, that you'd even call a movie that loses money a juggernaut (and I doubt the studio would be as satisfied as you). I can't deal with non-logic like that.
Merry Christmas. 🍆
What you mean is you can't admit when you're wrong.
shareLol, coming from the guy who keeps moving goalposts and making up his own definition of juggernaut (check a dictionary, please). I'm 100% right. You tried the same thing with Burk and the whole domestic vs. international thing and he also proved you wrong, wrong, wrong.
Insisting that a movie that loses $100 million can still be a juggernaut... Come on, that's just hilarious, you can't really believe that!😆
I watched Gladiator II at the theater last night and the place was swarming with little girls and their parents for Wicked. It was like a Taylor Swift concert. It’s an anecdote but I think that movie was making all the revenue at the theater where I was
shareAre you sure it was for Wicked because I just picked up tickets for Bonhoeffer and there were legions of little girls, but they were there for Moana 2.
Yes, I have seen all the green fingernailed and pink headbanded little beasties, but the manager at my local theatre told me Moana was the fav and it is also on almost twice as many screens as Wicked.
No I am actually not sure now that you make that point. These were elementary school girls so they easily could’ve been the audience for an animated movie. Meanwhile Gladiator II was not very good so I might have been more entertained seeing Moana 2 myself
shareThanks for the heads up re Gladiator II. Sorry you had to be the 'canary in the coal mine.' I have noticed your comments and almost always agree with them.
shareThe theaters here have good attendance. But most people I speak with fall into the five reasons above.
shareSounds about right. When I went to see Gladiator II on Thanksgiving, there were only four showtimes and it was the film's opening weekend! Wicked, by contrast, had 14.
I won't be going to see it because of the black/green woman. No idea who she is, except a hostile prick who loves to play victim. As well as suffering rampant "racism", she is of course, "queer". 🙄 Another nauseating Hollyweird woketard (she'll have her little Oscar in no time, though).
Just about everyone I've spoken to, whether interested in seeing the film or not, is repulsed by that horrible woman.
3. It will be streaming soon
no high quality streams yet though. I'll never watch a movie that was recorded on someone's phone.
share
The one I saw seemed pretty good. This didn't seem to be recorded on a phone off a screen, but maybe lost something during a format conversion. Still eminently watchable though.
I'll stream it soon when I get a chance - with the crappy cast, this doesn't seem to require a great feed.
The phone imaging is usually really decent, because cameras are so good these days. It's the audio that really kills it. Play this on a real tv amd sound system and it would look terrible, is my guess. Probably less noticeable watching on your phone.
shareYou know I didn't try the sound! I was busy getting dinner done, but I remember being surprised that I could find a stream, that it didn't buffer, and that the picture was more than decent. Maybe it was a camera.
I didn't use my phone, I used a Firestick. The TV is an older 70" Sharp Aquos (one Sharp actually made not the crap under the Sharp label these days) and it's calibrated. The sound is through a small Bose solo (yeah, I know).
My HT TV is an older Sony SXRD 3 chip projector that I will be replacing soon, and a 7.1 surround with in wall speakers, but we don't use that room much since the kids moved out. I'll probably stream Wicked on the Sony. The Sharp Aquos has a pretty good picture for a 1080P though.
I looked around last night and couldn't find a copy that wasn't a recording from a device...but that doesn't mean they don't exist. The minutes it hits streaming, for sure the good copies are outvthere
out there.
You're probably right - I didn't really pay a lot of attention to it other than I was able to find a stream, and one that didn't buffer every 5 seconds on such a popular film right now, and actually had a watchable picture. I'll take another look this weekend.
6. It's 2 hours and 40 minutes long.
shareLol. So true.
shareI saw it last night and the theater was packed! It even got an ovation at the end. I liked the movie, and I'm not the biggest fan of musicals. I don't really care what an actor/actress said in real life. If I didn't watch a movie because they said something I didn't like or agree with, I wouldn't see any movie.
shareThat's fair. Theaters here have good attendance and the reviews are good. I still wouldn't see it. I didn't care to read the book or watch the musical. I wouldn't waste 6 hours to see both movies.
what??? WHY??????
don't they make more money from more showings per day?
edit that shit down!
My favorite movie ever is Gone With the Wind, and it's almost 4 hours long - but it's one and done.
Regarding Wicked, at 2.40 for part one, I don't know why this is longer than the stage play which is about 2.40 complete including intermission. Assuming part II is going to be the same, that's well over 5 hours. I don't have a clue why it's so long. Even if they wanted to do a money grab and do two parts, they could have made each part 2 hours and still have been a lot longer than the stage play.
you telling me it is a PART ONE???
did they remove that from the marketing?????
that's false advertising to me!
yeah here on IMDB: Wicked Original title: Wicked: Part I
what the actual fuck??? WHY DO THEY DO THIS???
WHY DO THEY DO THIS???
I feel that way about a lot of movies today.
shareIt's a movie for the crowd who saw the Barbie and that's fine just don't call me a sexist or racist because I don't want to see it.
shareYou don't want to see it? You're a racist sexist.
...oh wait...
I would never see Barbie, but I would have definitely seen Wicked if it was cast better and they didn't rely so much on CGI which looks just horrible.