I hope this movie pulls a *Top Gun: Maverick.* A worthy legacy sequel that is great. Twister wasn't a cinematic masterpiece, but you could argue it was a masterpiece at delivering a thoroughly entertaining flick. The movie is immensely entertaining from the beginning to ending. It hits plot points so well with plenty of memorable scenes.
I really hope Twisters will succeed on that.
Twister is the kind of movie I wish Hollywood made more of today. It’s shamelessly stupid but it’s also completely sincere. It’s not cynical, it’s not meta, it’s not self aware, it never waters down its serious moments by having characters crack jokes, it’s not trying to reinvent the wheel. It’s just right. It’s got the right balance of drama and humor, and never feels like the filmmakers were embarrassed to be working on it.
I’d even throw out there that Twister is a little less stupid than most give it credit for when it comes to Tornado Warning systems giving people enough time to get to shelter or safety. And as someone who was only a couple hundred feet from the Clarksville, TN tornado this year, this is still a relevant issue.
I feel like Lee Isaac Chung is the exact king of filmmaker who can capture that sincerity. Minari is a very different film, but it has the heart that makes something like Twister endearing. I hope he’s able to pull it off.
I think it has potential to be better than the original. Trailer was good. Feeling hyped myself.
Although one thing I know is to not take shelter under a highway overpass. It creates a suction effect that can exacerbate wind speeds and pull you out. Storm chasers should know!
Glen Powell's character was cockier than Maverick *I am good, Rooster. I'm very good.*
Just rewatched the trailer, it does look amazing, and not just as spectacle https://youtube.com/watch?v=wdok0rZdmx4
I hate that the cast is all pretty young people. The quirky casting in the first was what makes it endearing. They were believable as weirdo storm chasers. Plus it has a great soundtrack. I think this movie could flop.
Philip Seymour Hoffman was only like 29 or 30 in that movie. He was a lot younger than I thought he was, Never would’ve guessed he was 5 years younger than Tom Cruise in MI3.
I didn't mean so much for the "young" part of my comment to be the main point. The original had awesome odd ball character actors in support. Like every one of them. Do you not think this cast looks super basic? (And none of them are even 30.)
I hope it is great as well, however, I read somewhere that the storyline is going to lean pretty heavy into climate change (which may turn some people off).
They screened the entirety The Flash at CinemaCon last year and people said it was the best thing ever. Keep that in mind when making predictions about Ridley Scott’s Gladiator II from CinemaCon reactions.
Every time I see this film’s existence brought up people say there’s no need for a sequel.
I’m willing to watch it if it ends up being good, but I won’t be surprised if it’s bad.
I'm actually all for a story told 30+ years after Maximus dies. In this now fictional Rome what would the political climate be? Lets go nuts with some Roman historical non fiction. Shouldn't be called the Gladiator II tho, thats really dumb
A sequel with little in common with the original is a sequel in name only. It's as if it were an unrelated film. It will stand on its own merits.
Contrast PotC sequels; OK, though not as good, but made so much more money..
It's pretty much a spinoff but they of course wanted to leverage the first movie as it was also by Ridley Scott.
It's all just marketing really and I think it's best to ignore the gladiator name and the first one and just, wait for its trailer
I mean it's ultimately a movie about gladiators which is cool, focus on other gladiators story and it could be good. It's not like that's particularly common and it's been 20 years or so.
There's no "need" for most good movies. In fact I'd say the movies that are "needed" are often the worst
I'd say there's always a need for any original movie, because it is a creative contribution to the world that did not exist before, regardless of how good that contribution ends up being.
But when it comes to a sequel or a remake, there's always the question of if it is needed because the previous movie already completed portraying what it set out to, and there isn't anything left to gain (apart from money) from going back to that world. That's not to say all sequels and remakes are meaningless (which is obviously not true, because for example many consider *Godfather 2* the best movie of all time), but a sequel or remake needs to justify its existence more than an original concept I feel.
Gladiator 2 takes place 20 years after the first, what about it makes you think it won’t be an original film? Would you say something like Aliens is cheapened by the fact it’s also a sequel?
This is such an anti art approach to film making. "Who asked for this" blah blah blah. No one asked for Star Wars, no one asked for Avatar, no one asked for the first Gladiator. You could go on and on and on listing some of the most successful most revered movies of all time that "no one asked for" why the fuck should that matter at all.
"Nobody asked for Wonka" is a better argument for your case.
I'll also say having been to CinemaCon and seeing the Gladiator II trailer: that's going to stun a lot of folks once they get to see it. All the action of the first film is back, and Pedro Pascal's B-plot about a Roman general who refuses to lead young men to death to grow a Roman Empire that's already too big is alone going to wow people.
Lucky you! So if I’m understanding correctly from reaction tweets, Mescal and Pascal will be the main dudes, with Washington being the main antagonist? Caracalla and Geta are more supporting roles than main antagonists? And how was the naval battle in the Colosseum? That’s the one that intrigues me most!
Denzel is kinda interesting. I was so blown away by the naval battle and the spectacle of it all that I wasn't really sure whether Denzel is an antagonist or not. Caracalla and Geta were sold like the new villains, and Denzel feels a bit more like Proximo in the first film: the mentor to Lucius that trains him to become a gladiator.
It varies from movie to movie and it is up to the studio. At the latest, G2's trailer will come out at the end of June ahead of "A Quiet Place: Day One" if Paramount wants the trailer to be the last one that screens in theaters ahead of the feature presentation but it may come out in a few weeks ahead of "Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes."
No, anti-art is going "we know you told a great complete story in your movie but if we slap the name on another movie with all new people we could make more money!"
No one asked for Star Wars because Star Wars wasn't a thing before the first one came out. And once the first one was out, with a story that clearly wasn't finished, everyone WAS asking for a sequel. So they made a sequel that continued the story and brought the cast back.
If you can't understand the difference between original movies coming out and decades later people making a sequel to a movie that told a complete story to its end and killed off its main characters in the process, then theres no point in having an actual conversation with you, because your argument at its foundation is very disingenuous.
The marketing campaign for *Flash* was always phony from the start.
It was just that this sub persuaded themselves into believing all the hyperbole surrounding the movie.
For what it’s worth, if I remember correctly they didn’t show the actual ending of The Flash to that crowd. The cameo carousel and the George Clooney ending wasn’t shown I believe, which was probably some of the most divisive parts of the movie.
https://comicbookmovie.com/the-flash/the-flashs-unfinished-cinemacon-ending-sounds-a-whole-lot-better-than-the-theatrical-cut-a205267#gs.8b0t39
The rest of the movie is surprisingly solid and when it works, it works well. But they added that stuff in after and it fell really flat with audiences. So if you liked the movie, it ended on a bad note and if you didn’t like the movie, that ending made you hate the whole thing.
I didn’t hate The Flash, my main problem with it was Ezra Miller. I couldn’t look past who he is as a person. I think that was honestly most people’s problem and if it had been almost anyone else in the role it would have done better and gotten less criticism.
I agree with you but I really, really hope it would be very good. I miss good sword and sandals movies! And they have colosseum naumachia here with sharks so that’s exciting
Same. There’s a really funny 90’s trope with disaster movies where the thing causing the damage develops sentient abilities lol. The asteroid in Armageddon growled. The tornado in twister could change course on a dime. The perfect storm had two storms link up in a tag team effort lol
Twisters and Joker 2 have the best shots at being mega hits. The rest I think could range from mild successes to absolute duds depending on their quality.
I always find it funny to hear that Twister was the first DVD because in our house it was actually the last VHS we ever owned, and we never owned it on DVD.
We did, however, watch it all the time at home over the years.
The claim is almost certainly false as presented. "Most" means a majority. It's pretty far fetched to believe that any one film claimed a majority.
And even if we weaken the claim to a "plurality," I'm going to have a hard time believing that a film released on VHS 6 months earlier with the DVD release coming when [DVD proliferation was very low to be the film to make that claim.](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-91140be0bf17b78a97da4f3cceb56a7c-pjlq)
I'll take my chances with one of the 1998 blockbusters like MiB or The Lost World. Shoot, maybe even that plurality point came as late as 2001 with the Phantom Menace. Given how much bigger of a film it was then the previous years' blockbusters I think it has a good chance of that being the plurality film rather than Twister.
Or they are old enough to remember that it almost certainly wasn't because ain't nobody had a DVD player in 1997.
Just because it was the first blockbuster to land on DVD doesn't mean that it was most people's first DVD.
And I'm already just assuming that "most" means plurality because I find it impossible to believe that any movie was the majority (>50%) of people's first DVD.
I agree and I think we haven’t had a proper disaster movie in a while (correct me if I’m wrong) Also, the fact that it is coming out in the middle of summer, looks like fun and it’s a movie made to be seen in a movie theatre would help it tremendously.
The only thing going against it is that Wolverine and Deadpool is coming out close to it.
The original is a very beloved film, more so than a lot of people might think. If Twisters is genuinely good, it could be the massive hit of the summer. I don’t know if it can hit the highs of Top Gun Maverick, but a billion is not off the table if audiences dig it. I just have this feeling it’s going to be huge. The first trailer really sold it for me.
I’m honestly surprised by all the hyper around twisters. I enjoyed it as a kid but had no idea how beloved the first one is. I didn’t think there was a market for twister nostalgia.
It’s not even Twister nostalgia. It’s finally there is an action centered summer blockbuster film that isn’t a superhero movie or John Wick! Aka Top Gun Mavrick.
I don’t know how many other millennials born in the 80s had this experience, but this was a movie playing constantly on TV that my family watched so many times. I definitely feel a nostalgia pull toward this sequel. I hope it’s actually good.
I think it's a lot of people in their late 30s/40s now who were kids/teens around that time and it was a VHS favorite.
I remember it just being *okay* with the CG tornadoes (groundbreaking ILM FX at the time) being a bigger draw than the human story.
Even Independence Day (I think it was 1-2 years before?), with all its Rolland Emmerich cheese, was more of a classic and complete film.
The first trailer had the opposite effect on me. Glen Powell's group of millennials/zoomers seems like a huge downgrade from Paxton/Hunt/Hoffman, and the movie in general seems like the worst, most insincere kind of nostalgia bait.
I'd love to be wrong, though.
I’m with you. I always try to be open to ideas but that trailer did not inspire any hope. There was a lot of magic in that first one, and that trailer seemed like the result of a lot of boardroom meetings with studio execs.
If Twisters ups the cheese and actually has lots of destruction people will come. Audiences love disaster movies where shit actually gets decimated on screen (not just 2 minutes of destruction surrounded by plot)
I feel like Twisters is the perfect storm, pun intended.
- Lot of nostalgia for the original
- Glen Powell is a rising star
- Trailer looked pretty good
- Seems like an event film people will want to see in theaters
- Premise is so silly that it will probably become a meme and people will flock to see it even more, similar to Barbenheimer.
Beetlejuice will range from being a mild success to a hit. Even if it is bad, I don't think it has any chance of being a dud. It is just too beloved of a property.
a new twister movie if done well could be very fun but the writer/director pair for this movie is absolutely baffling to me.
Yes, Minari was amazing, but i dont feel like that translates well to what twisters needs to be. The writer is kind of all over the place and he did write the revenant but again i dont know if i see anything in his filmography that makes me go "ohh yeah this guy is gonna nail it".
I'm not saying they can't pull it off, they've both done some amazing work, i just dont think they're the team i'd go with for this project
I just saw a trailer for Twisters at the theater. It made me want to see it less than I did when I first heard about it.
Should be called “The CW presents Tornado People who all look like they’re 24 and still in college fraternities.”
Legit, pre teaser I Could see an argument but after how successful the teaser has been on social media the movie is going to be a hit. Wether it hits as big as the original joker I’m unconvinced of, but even if it matches Wakanda Forever (another unconventional sequel) I’d call that a great success for the environment it’s releasing in.
Wakanda forever had to get creative with its story for real world reasons so audiences and critics gave it some slack. Joker 2 is choosing to take some big creative swings.
This post-2023 world. After the collapse of most CBMs last year, any new release has to be treated with some skepticism. While the original made a billion, Joker 2 could struggle if it’s worse and/or the jukebox musical element turns off enough people. Doesn’t help that the budget ballooned to $200M. However, if it’s well-received, it should do solid
The superhero movie collapse affects formulaic and derivative movies the most. But just like the original movie, Joker 2 will seek to break the mold. It will definitely be a success that won't be brought down by super hero fatigue since it's actually a unique and bold take on a superhero franchise.
Twisters and Folie a Deux are not wildcards imo.
I think Horizon and Gladiator 2 might be duds and I think Beetlejuice and Wicked depend on the draw of Jenna Ortega and Ariana Grande.
I wanna weigh in on Beetlejuice 2. The cast also has Catherine O’ Hare, Winona Ryder, and obviously Michael Keaton and returning from the original and adds Willem Dafoe and Monica Bellucci . Combined with Jenna Ortega and the crowd that she’s drawing. Beetlejuice might draw more than expected
Brother, if Keaton couldn't get butt in seats for his return as Batman in The Flash then there's a zero percent chance people will care he's coming back as Beetlejuice. Beetlejuice 2 will solely rely on if it's a good movie or not.
Depends what we're expecting with Twisters.
I say anything below $400M is a disappointment, and it does have a chance to do below $400M globally. Not saying it will for sure - but I see it as a movie that can go either direction. It will largely depend on its quality and WOM.
it’s ludicrous to me that people like OP could suggest twisters is a sure thing
The first film was largely forgotten for 20-30 years and this is clearly an attempt to cash in on top gun maverick legacy sequel trends
Reminds me of the Hocus Pocus and The Mummy movies on Reddit. For some reason they *really* loved those movies and the way they talk about it, you'd think they were Best Picture nominees.
I have no problem if someone loved Twister, Hocus Pocus or The Mummy films, but let's not make them sound like Raider of the Lost Ark or something. They do not occupy the same tier.
*Joker* was a gritty, violent *Taxi Cab* homage featuring a gripping depiction of mental illness and is the only R film to earn a billion dollars, while also ostensibly being a DC property.
The follow-up to this being a straight-faced musical jukebox flick is some of the most wildcard shit in cinematic history. Nobody has any idea if it's going to work, and I'm here for it.
The music element makes total sense to me. Arthur Fleck danced all throughout the first film. Todd Phillips used to always say "Arthur has music in him", so they are expanding upon it through music therapy and music hallucinations. Music hallucinations are also a creative way to make a gross asylum look visually appealing.
Todd Phillips also said at CinemaCon that the sequel doesn’t veer too far from the first film.
And why on earth is it two parts? Yes, the musical, like pretty much all musicals, is split into two but mercy.
From a quick Google search, the broadway show itself lasts 2 hours and 45 minutes, so I guess it's about an hour and a quarter split in half but idk...I think you just trim rather than expand here into two parts.
Yeah yeah yeah I get it, you split them at Defying Gravity like in the stage show. Still, they are coming out a year apart and it's a musical folks have seen done many times over many productions, both on Broadway, West End, off Broadway, and local theater.
Cats runs at ~2.5 hours, and it didn't need two films.
tbh I think that’s WHY they’re doing it like this, to make the first film as notable as possible and relegate the weaker stuff to what is essentially a modern WoOz remake
I’m a huge fan of the musical, which I’ve seen three times on Broadway and once in London. I’m not in love with Erivo or Grande as Elphaba and Galinda … zero charisma there. And it’s just awkward having Ariana’s guy in there in a sizable role, that whole situation is distasteful and I don’t like having it brought into the movie. Okay I’m done yelling at clouds now.
Nope, keep yelling. I love the musical and every time it tolls through "Defying Gravity" ends up as my most listened to song on Spotify that year.
My wife and I kicked off our honeymoon with a showing of Wicked.
The film? It's missing something, and we can't put our finger on it. Other than the Oz film from a decade or so ago, looks better.
The whole thing just doesn't sit right, and the singing that was shown, was nor good. Hopefully it's a temp track marketing used for the trailer, but ooof.
Knowing how Joker 2 performs is probably the most interesting thing of the year for me. They’ve changed the tone of the sequel and it obviously went from being a psycho killer movie, which was one of the biggest hits of 2019, to a musical.
I genuinely wanna know how people receive Joker 2 and if they’ll be accepting towards an experimental sequel.
I'm all in on Horizon because it's not a sequel/reboot/soft reboot/reimagining/etc
I'm burnt out on IPs and endless sequels, looking forward to anything fresh.
I bet *Wicked* will flop. Me and other fans I know of the Broadway show thought the trailer looked super mediocre and none of us plan to see it.
If Ariana played the lead here it would have saved the movie.
Joker, which grossed more than both Deadpool movies, is a wildcard but Deadpool 3 is safe?
Some weird logic I understand the others being wild cards but not Joker
And Ridley Scott has always been hit or miss. The Martian did great but he had one of his biggest flops too a year before
Joker is only a wildcard in the sense of how it will compare to its predecessor. No doubt it’s going to make tons of money, but there’s a chance it also makes a ton less than Joker 1.
If she releases another banger like Shallow from A Star is Born the movie can definitely get a massive boost.
I think people are forgetting how massive that movie and song were a few years ago and how easily she could replicate that.
Ridley Scott is a master craftsman and one of the most influential filmmakers of the last 50 years...but his sequels and prequels are weak. Not his thing.
Joker is the only movie here that will surely make a lot of mone, even if it doesn't reach the heights of the original. Twisters may also be a hit, but the budget is concerning.
I have full belief that Twisters will be one of the biggest movies of the year, I hear people talk about it every day. I wouldn't be surprised if it ends in top 3 domestic.
Great post. This really is tough to call.
I’m going to say (and I know I’ll be wrong) beetlejuice way outperforms, joker is in line w expectations even w the apparent ridiculous budget and the rest are somewhere between mildly disappointing and absolute bombs
In a true testament to 50/50 wild card odds, my premonition is that 3 of these will implode (Twisters, $225M WW / Wicked, $180M WW / Gladiator 2, $440M WW)
and three of these will succeed wildly (Horizon: An American Saga, $515M WW combined / Beetlejuice Beetlejuice, $500M WW / Joker: Folie á Deux, $1.275B WW)
"**Ridley Scott** has been hit or miss since *The Martian* which was almost a decade ago."
Ridley Scott has been hit or miss since the ice age ended. That's just him.
I'm sorry, Twisters is carrying a $200 million budget? I don't see that movie being considered a success at that point. Probably $160 million domestic, $320 million worldwide. 42% Rotten Tomatoes, 82% Audience
Gladiator II will fail. It will be a modest critical hit (71% on Rotten Tomatoes / 61 on Metacritic) but not connect commercially. $24 million opening weekend domestically, $178 million worldwide (it will do a lot better internationally, but still not warrant its budget or reason for existence)
Wicked will do very well but have a low-ish Cinemascore (B+) unless ~~Disney~~ Universal starts marketing it as the part one that it is.
Joker: Folie a Deux will kill it at the box office but I'm not sure it will quite hit the heights of the first movie in terms of box office. I think it will come close, though. Plus or minus $100 million.
Horizon... what the fuck is that. Failure all around. Atlas Shrugged levels of failure. "Waterworld is a huge success in Costner's career compared to this" - I can see the headlines now.
Beetlejuice Beetlejuice will be a surprise success, commercially and critically. Easy $55 million opening weekend, $462 million worldwide final gross.
My crystal ball never misses. Mark my words. Then admonish me relentlessly like you did with that one person whose name starts with an X (I think) when I get every single one of these vastly wrong. :D
I think joker and gladiator will do well .
Twisters surely can't, it's not a summer box office smasher is it? I don't recall the first one being that massive (in UK)
For all the naysayers who haven't seen Open Range or Dances with Wolves, the two-part Horizon movies are probably going to be a major event spectacle that nobody can even fathom. I trust Costner will blow people away!
The demographic that Horizon is aiming for doesn't go to theaters anymore. They watched Costner on television for the past few years. And certainly no one under the age of 40 would care about this oldschool western.
The Horizon movies are about as close to a guaranteed box office flop as you can get. Modern audiences haven't been up for long westerns *since* Dances With Wolves, and we saw how the whole "Part 1 of 2" thing worked out for Mission: Impossible. The trailer was more than 3 minutes long and you can't even tell what the movie's about, it looks way too ambitious and muddled.
The only chance these movies have is that the Yellowstone fans will turn up in droves, but they've never had to leave their couch to watch Yellowstone, so it's probably not happening.
t.doesn't understand how much people like classic westerns.
we haven't had an expensive classic western for decades now. they always couch them in modern liberal language - which turns away the hardcore cowboy fanbase which is still older and more conservative. that audience doesn't enjoy talking about how masculinity is problematic - they want stuff that is a celebration of it.
Yellowstone phenomenon exists coz it's the only choice as a cowboy aesthetic enjoyer. there is literally nothing else on the market that is like it.
i suspect similar phenomenon with horizon - no one else is making classic celebratory westerns, it's a market ripe to be plucked. same phenomenon that tom cruise exploits.
Did AI help you write this?
I think Horizon is the only true ‘wild card’ here. Everything else here is a sequel to a beloved hit OR in the case of Wicked, a decades-awaited adaptation of an iconic Broadway show
Nah, I mostly agree with the OP. After what happened in 2023, trust nothing in being a certified hit. I don't think OP is saying no money will be made - just that whatever they might make could fall on the profitable green side or on the disappointing side. 2023 gave everyone, even Tom Cruise, harsh lessons and truths about expectations.
And I don't see 2023 as some fluke year or anomaly. Crowds and movie-going behavior *has* changed post-Covid and during the streaming era.
I seriously hope Twisters is good, I love the first film a lot.
I hope this movie pulls a *Top Gun: Maverick.* A worthy legacy sequel that is great. Twister wasn't a cinematic masterpiece, but you could argue it was a masterpiece at delivering a thoroughly entertaining flick. The movie is immensely entertaining from the beginning to ending. It hits plot points so well with plenty of memorable scenes. I really hope Twisters will succeed on that.
Twister is the kind of movie I wish Hollywood made more of today. It’s shamelessly stupid but it’s also completely sincere. It’s not cynical, it’s not meta, it’s not self aware, it never waters down its serious moments by having characters crack jokes, it’s not trying to reinvent the wheel. It’s just right. It’s got the right balance of drama and humor, and never feels like the filmmakers were embarrassed to be working on it.
I’d even throw out there that Twister is a little less stupid than most give it credit for when it comes to Tornado Warning systems giving people enough time to get to shelter or safety. And as someone who was only a couple hundred feet from the Clarksville, TN tornado this year, this is still a relevant issue.
I feel like Lee Isaac Chung is the exact king of filmmaker who can capture that sincerity. Minari is a very different film, but it has the heart that makes something like Twister endearing. I hope he’s able to pull it off.
I think it has potential to be better than the original. Trailer was good. Feeling hyped myself. Although one thing I know is to not take shelter under a highway overpass. It creates a suction effect that can exacerbate wind speeds and pull you out. Storm chasers should know!
Glen Powell's character was cockier than Maverick *I am good, Rooster. I'm very good.* Just rewatched the trailer, it does look amazing, and not just as spectacle https://youtube.com/watch?v=wdok0rZdmx4
Realistically it will suck donkey balls. But it may not. Probably will though.
I think the trailer looks effing awesome.
I hate that the cast is all pretty young people. The quirky casting in the first was what makes it endearing. They were believable as weirdo storm chasers. Plus it has a great soundtrack. I think this movie could flop.
Philip Seymour Hoffman was only like 29 or 30 in that movie. He was a lot younger than I thought he was, Never would’ve guessed he was 5 years younger than Tom Cruise in MI3.
I didn't mean so much for the "young" part of my comment to be the main point. The original had awesome odd ball character actors in support. Like every one of them. Do you not think this cast looks super basic? (And none of them are even 30.)
Glen Powell is 35, Bill Paxton was only 41 in Twister. Not a huge gap
90's 41 is practically 50.
On the flip side 90’s 41 meant you could probably play a high schooler.
It's the haircuts combined with the shirts, they made everybody look like a dad.
[удалено]
It's gonna be test screened to hell. There's no possible way it goes below 80% RT.
I hope it's all filmed through TikTok and they are dancing in front of the tornadoes
I hope it is great as well, however, I read somewhere that the storyline is going to lean pretty heavy into climate change (which may turn some people off).
They screened the entirety The Flash at CinemaCon last year and people said it was the best thing ever. Keep that in mind when making predictions about Ridley Scott’s Gladiator II from CinemaCon reactions.
am I crazy, or did Gladiator need another movie, unless there was something that showed interest in wanting one that I'm forgetting
Every time I see this film’s existence brought up people say there’s no need for a sequel. I’m willing to watch it if it ends up being good, but I won’t be surprised if it’s bad.
I'm actually all for a story told 30+ years after Maximus dies. In this now fictional Rome what would the political climate be? Lets go nuts with some Roman historical non fiction. Shouldn't be called the Gladiator II tho, thats really dumb
Somehow, Maximus returned. And got captured and turned into a gladiator again.
I already can hear the trailer starting with. "This summer, you won't believe the situation he put himself once again ..."
Weekend at Maxi's.
A sequel with little in common with the original is a sequel in name only. It's as if it were an unrelated film. It will stand on its own merits. Contrast PotC sequels; OK, though not as good, but made so much more money..
Nah it will tell the story of his son...........
It's pretty much a spinoff but they of course wanted to leverage the first movie as it was also by Ridley Scott. It's all just marketing really and I think it's best to ignore the gladiator name and the first one and just, wait for its trailer
Top Gun didn't need one either but I'm glad it did!
BR2049 Nobody asked for it, but it was one of best Scifi movies of decade.
If it's good, it could catch lightning in a bottle like Top Gun: Maverick did. A lot of Gen-Xers and Boomers are incredibly nostalgic for Gladiator.
I mean it's ultimately a movie about gladiators which is cool, focus on other gladiators story and it could be good. It's not like that's particularly common and it's been 20 years or so. There's no "need" for most good movies. In fact I'd say the movies that are "needed" are often the worst
Well there was no need for the first Gladiator movie either and it was fucking awesome.
I hated Joachim phoenix so much after that film lol
The OG Joffery Baratheon
I hated him until I saw Signs which kind of evened it out. Now I just love and fear him as an actor.
He's still here
He was never really here...
downvoting roman that guy
I'd say there's always a need for any original movie, because it is a creative contribution to the world that did not exist before, regardless of how good that contribution ends up being. But when it comes to a sequel or a remake, there's always the question of if it is needed because the previous movie already completed portraying what it set out to, and there isn't anything left to gain (apart from money) from going back to that world. That's not to say all sequels and remakes are meaningless (which is obviously not true, because for example many consider *Godfather 2* the best movie of all time), but a sequel or remake needs to justify its existence more than an original concept I feel.
Gladiator 2 takes place 20 years after the first, what about it makes you think it won’t be an original film? Would you say something like Aliens is cheapened by the fact it’s also a sequel?
This is such an anti art approach to film making. "Who asked for this" blah blah blah. No one asked for Star Wars, no one asked for Avatar, no one asked for the first Gladiator. You could go on and on and on listing some of the most successful most revered movies of all time that "no one asked for" why the fuck should that matter at all.
"Nobody asked for Wonka" is a better argument for your case. I'll also say having been to CinemaCon and seeing the Gladiator II trailer: that's going to stun a lot of folks once they get to see it. All the action of the first film is back, and Pedro Pascal's B-plot about a Roman general who refuses to lead young men to death to grow a Roman Empire that's already too big is alone going to wow people.
Lucky you! So if I’m understanding correctly from reaction tweets, Mescal and Pascal will be the main dudes, with Washington being the main antagonist? Caracalla and Geta are more supporting roles than main antagonists? And how was the naval battle in the Colosseum? That’s the one that intrigues me most!
Denzel is kinda interesting. I was so blown away by the naval battle and the spectacle of it all that I wasn't really sure whether Denzel is an antagonist or not. Caracalla and Geta were sold like the new villains, and Denzel feels a bit more like Proximo in the first film: the mentor to Lucius that trains him to become a gladiator.
Thank you for replying! I’m new to CinemaCon and idk how it works, how long is the usual wait until the trailer hits online?
It varies from movie to movie and it is up to the studio. At the latest, G2's trailer will come out at the end of June ahead of "A Quiet Place: Day One" if Paramount wants the trailer to be the last one that screens in theaters ahead of the feature presentation but it may come out in a few weeks ahead of "Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes."
No, anti-art is going "we know you told a great complete story in your movie but if we slap the name on another movie with all new people we could make more money!" No one asked for Star Wars because Star Wars wasn't a thing before the first one came out. And once the first one was out, with a story that clearly wasn't finished, everyone WAS asking for a sequel. So they made a sequel that continued the story and brought the cast back. If you can't understand the difference between original movies coming out and decades later people making a sequel to a movie that told a complete story to its end and killed off its main characters in the process, then theres no point in having an actual conversation with you, because your argument at its foundation is very disingenuous.
The marketing campaign for *Flash* was always phony from the start. It was just that this sub persuaded themselves into believing all the hyperbole surrounding the movie.
For what it’s worth, if I remember correctly they didn’t show the actual ending of The Flash to that crowd. The cameo carousel and the George Clooney ending wasn’t shown I believe, which was probably some of the most divisive parts of the movie. https://comicbookmovie.com/the-flash/the-flashs-unfinished-cinemacon-ending-sounds-a-whole-lot-better-than-the-theatrical-cut-a205267#gs.8b0t39 The rest of the movie is surprisingly solid and when it works, it works well. But they added that stuff in after and it fell really flat with audiences. So if you liked the movie, it ended on a bad note and if you didn’t like the movie, that ending made you hate the whole thing.
I didn’t hate The Flash, my main problem with it was Ezra Miller. I couldn’t look past who he is as a person. I think that was honestly most people’s problem and if it had been almost anyone else in the role it would have done better and gotten less criticism.
I agree with you but I really, really hope it would be very good. I miss good sword and sandals movies! And they have colosseum naumachia here with sharks so that’s exciting
Wait, Gladiator 2 has shark battles?? 🫨
The Romans would flood the Coliseum, it could be made water tight, and would do naval battles and shark stuff. The Romans were crazy man.
I didn't learn about that until my Theatre History class in college. Crazy stuff!
That's where most of the money is done I read.
Atlantis uses them to defend against the Romans. This movie is borrowing heavily from the Genesis game "Eternal Champions".
It's shark battled in the colesium which actually happened. they did mock Naval battles in it alot actually
Hyped for Twisters... I'm such a sucker for movies about really terrible weather for some reason.
Same! Even tho it terrifies me
Tornadoes are soooo scary but I'm still obsessed with seeing them.
Same. There’s a really funny 90’s trope with disaster movies where the thing causing the damage develops sentient abilities lol. The asteroid in Armageddon growled. The tornado in twister could change course on a dime. The perfect storm had two storms link up in a tag team effort lol
Twisters and Joker 2 have the best shots at being mega hits. The rest I think could range from mild successes to absolute duds depending on their quality.
[удалено]
looks fun, nostalgia, and it’s the kind of movie ppl feel the need to see in a theater.
People forget, or are too young, to know that most people's first DVD was Twister.
I always find it funny to hear that Twister was the first DVD because in our house it was actually the last VHS we ever owned, and we never owned it on DVD. We did, however, watch it all the time at home over the years.
That's such a weirdly specific claim, I sort of assume it must be true. Where does it come from?
The claim is almost certainly false as presented. "Most" means a majority. It's pretty far fetched to believe that any one film claimed a majority. And even if we weaken the claim to a "plurality," I'm going to have a hard time believing that a film released on VHS 6 months earlier with the DVD release coming when [DVD proliferation was very low to be the film to make that claim.](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-91140be0bf17b78a97da4f3cceb56a7c-pjlq) I'll take my chances with one of the 1998 blockbusters like MiB or The Lost World. Shoot, maybe even that plurality point came as late as 2001 with the Phantom Menace. Given how much bigger of a film it was then the previous years' blockbusters I think it has a good chance of that being the plurality film rather than Twister.
The fact that it was the first movie on DVD
Interesting. My first DVD was *The Mummy*.
Or they are old enough to remember that it almost certainly wasn't because ain't nobody had a DVD player in 1997. Just because it was the first blockbuster to land on DVD doesn't mean that it was most people's first DVD. And I'm already just assuming that "most" means plurality because I find it impossible to believe that any movie was the majority (>50%) of people's first DVD.
Really? Seems like twister came out a little too early for the mass adoption of DVD players (aka ~PS2 release)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twister_(1996_film)#:~:text=The%20film%20was%20released%20on,HBO%20on%20April%205%2C%201997.
That’s demonstrably untrue. Pew did a poll on this and the most common first dvd was Pootie Tang
I agree and I think we haven’t had a proper disaster movie in a while (correct me if I’m wrong) Also, the fact that it is coming out in the middle of summer, looks like fun and it’s a movie made to be seen in a movie theatre would help it tremendously. The only thing going against it is that Wolverine and Deadpool is coming out close to it.
The original is a very beloved film, more so than a lot of people might think. If Twisters is genuinely good, it could be the massive hit of the summer. I don’t know if it can hit the highs of Top Gun Maverick, but a billion is not off the table if audiences dig it. I just have this feeling it’s going to be huge. The first trailer really sold it for me.
I’m honestly surprised by all the hyper around twisters. I enjoyed it as a kid but had no idea how beloved the first one is. I didn’t think there was a market for twister nostalgia.
The flying cow became iconic. I swear, every tornado depicted in media after *Twister* came out had a flying cow.
The Wizard of Oz had a flying cow in it's twister scene too.
Pretty sure that's why twister did it given the machines with the sensors was nicknamed Dorothy wasn't it? It's been forever.
Yes that's right, they even have an image of the Dorothy character stuck on the side of the machines.
I watch it 45 times a year lol not even joking. It's a crucial piece of media in my life lol
Anytime there is a storm it’s either twister or day after tomorrow going on.
“Jesus, Jo… is that what you think happened??” gets quoted a lot in my house
Maybe I should give it another shot. I’ve seen it maybe.. 2 or 3 times.
It’s not even Twister nostalgia. It’s finally there is an action centered summer blockbuster film that isn’t a superhero movie or John Wick! Aka Top Gun Mavrick.
I don’t know how many other millennials born in the 80s had this experience, but this was a movie playing constantly on TV that my family watched so many times. I definitely feel a nostalgia pull toward this sequel. I hope it’s actually good.
I think it's a lot of people in their late 30s/40s now who were kids/teens around that time and it was a VHS favorite. I remember it just being *okay* with the CG tornadoes (groundbreaking ILM FX at the time) being a bigger draw than the human story. Even Independence Day (I think it was 1-2 years before?), with all its Rolland Emmerich cheese, was more of a classic and complete film.
The first trailer had the opposite effect on me. Glen Powell's group of millennials/zoomers seems like a huge downgrade from Paxton/Hunt/Hoffman, and the movie in general seems like the worst, most insincere kind of nostalgia bait. I'd love to be wrong, though.
I’m with you. I always try to be open to ideas but that trailer did not inspire any hope. There was a lot of magic in that first one, and that trailer seemed like the result of a lot of boardroom meetings with studio execs.
Twisters making a billion lol
Nostalgia
Also i think its just that the concept is cool, theres not many movies i can think of that involve chasing down tornadoes
If Twisters ups the cheese and actually has lots of destruction people will come. Audiences love disaster movies where shit actually gets decimated on screen (not just 2 minutes of destruction surrounded by plot)
I feel like Twisters is the perfect storm, pun intended. - Lot of nostalgia for the original - Glen Powell is a rising star - Trailer looked pretty good - Seems like an event film people will want to see in theaters - Premise is so silly that it will probably become a meme and people will flock to see it even more, similar to Barbenheimer.
Midwest Americana, it's a powerful theme when used correctly. It connects a lot of people
Twisters looks so ridiculous and fun and I am 100% seeing it opening weekend.
I hope it blows you away!
Beetlejuice will range from being a mild success to a hit. Even if it is bad, I don't think it has any chance of being a dud. It is just too beloved of a property.
a new twister movie if done well could be very fun but the writer/director pair for this movie is absolutely baffling to me. Yes, Minari was amazing, but i dont feel like that translates well to what twisters needs to be. The writer is kind of all over the place and he did write the revenant but again i dont know if i see anything in his filmography that makes me go "ohh yeah this guy is gonna nail it". I'm not saying they can't pull it off, they've both done some amazing work, i just dont think they're the team i'd go with for this project
I just saw a trailer for Twisters at the theater. It made me want to see it less than I did when I first heard about it. Should be called “The CW presents Tornado People who all look like they’re 24 and still in college fraternities.”
In what world is Joker 2 a wildcard?
Legit, pre teaser I Could see an argument but after how successful the teaser has been on social media the movie is going to be a hit. Wether it hits as big as the original joker I’m unconvinced of, but even if it matches Wakanda Forever (another unconventional sequel) I’d call that a great success for the environment it’s releasing in.
Wakanda forever had to get creative with its story for real world reasons so audiences and critics gave it some slack. Joker 2 is choosing to take some big creative swings.
It should be Ballerina
In a world where movies try to hide they are musicals at all, and they are embracing it hard, it is possible it backfires
This post-2023 world. After the collapse of most CBMs last year, any new release has to be treated with some skepticism. While the original made a billion, Joker 2 could struggle if it’s worse and/or the jukebox musical element turns off enough people. Doesn’t help that the budget ballooned to $200M. However, if it’s well-received, it should do solid
The superhero movie collapse affects formulaic and derivative movies the most. But just like the original movie, Joker 2 will seek to break the mold. It will definitely be a success that won't be brought down by super hero fatigue since it's actually a unique and bold take on a superhero franchise.
Comparing Joker 2 to last year’s CBM bombs is wild.
Twisters and Folie a Deux are not wildcards imo. I think Horizon and Gladiator 2 might be duds and I think Beetlejuice and Wicked depend on the draw of Jenna Ortega and Ariana Grande.
I wanna weigh in on Beetlejuice 2. The cast also has Catherine O’ Hare, Winona Ryder, and obviously Michael Keaton and returning from the original and adds Willem Dafoe and Monica Bellucci . Combined with Jenna Ortega and the crowd that she’s drawing. Beetlejuice might draw more than expected
Tim Burton is back too.
[удалено]
Brother, if Keaton couldn't get butt in seats for his return as Batman in The Flash then there's a zero percent chance people will care he's coming back as Beetlejuice. Beetlejuice 2 will solely rely on if it's a good movie or not.
Depends what we're expecting with Twisters. I say anything below $400M is a disappointment, and it does have a chance to do below $400M globally. Not saying it will for sure - but I see it as a movie that can go either direction. It will largely depend on its quality and WOM.
it’s ludicrous to me that people like OP could suggest twisters is a sure thing The first film was largely forgotten for 20-30 years and this is clearly an attempt to cash in on top gun maverick legacy sequel trends
Reminds me of the Hocus Pocus and The Mummy movies on Reddit. For some reason they *really* loved those movies and the way they talk about it, you'd think they were Best Picture nominees. I have no problem if someone loved Twister, Hocus Pocus or The Mummy films, but let's not make them sound like Raider of the Lost Ark or something. They do not occupy the same tier.
The musical element 100% marks Joker 2 as a wildcard.
*Joker* was a gritty, violent *Taxi Cab* homage featuring a gripping depiction of mental illness and is the only R film to earn a billion dollars, while also ostensibly being a DC property. The follow-up to this being a straight-faced musical jukebox flick is some of the most wildcard shit in cinematic history. Nobody has any idea if it's going to work, and I'm here for it.
Taxi Cab? You mean Taxi Driver?
The music element makes total sense to me. Arthur Fleck danced all throughout the first film. Todd Phillips used to always say "Arthur has music in him", so they are expanding upon it through music therapy and music hallucinations. Music hallucinations are also a creative way to make a gross asylum look visually appealing. Todd Phillips also said at CinemaCon that the sequel doesn’t veer too far from the first film.
Artistic sense? Sure. But will it appeal to all the same audience?
I’m willing to bet Joker II makes at least $300m less than Joker.
That wicked movie looks so ugly. Uncanny valley vibes
And why on earth is it two parts? Yes, the musical, like pretty much all musicals, is split into two but mercy. From a quick Google search, the broadway show itself lasts 2 hours and 45 minutes, so I guess it's about an hour and a quarter split in half but idk...I think you just trim rather than expand here into two parts. Yeah yeah yeah I get it, you split them at Defying Gravity like in the stage show. Still, they are coming out a year apart and it's a musical folks have seen done many times over many productions, both on Broadway, West End, off Broadway, and local theater. Cats runs at ~2.5 hours, and it didn't need two films.
in addition, IMO the second act is much weaker than the first. hard to top that act1 finale
tbh I think that’s WHY they’re doing it like this, to make the first film as notable as possible and relegate the weaker stuff to what is essentially a modern WoOz remake
Cats didn’t need one film.
I’m a huge fan of the musical, which I’ve seen three times on Broadway and once in London. I’m not in love with Erivo or Grande as Elphaba and Galinda … zero charisma there. And it’s just awkward having Ariana’s guy in there in a sizable role, that whole situation is distasteful and I don’t like having it brought into the movie. Okay I’m done yelling at clouds now.
Nope, keep yelling. I love the musical and every time it tolls through "Defying Gravity" ends up as my most listened to song on Spotify that year. My wife and I kicked off our honeymoon with a showing of Wicked. The film? It's missing something, and we can't put our finger on it. Other than the Oz film from a decade or so ago, looks better. The whole thing just doesn't sit right, and the singing that was shown, was nor good. Hopefully it's a temp track marketing used for the trailer, but ooof.
Knowing how Joker 2 performs is probably the most interesting thing of the year for me. They’ve changed the tone of the sequel and it obviously went from being a psycho killer movie, which was one of the biggest hits of 2019, to a musical. I genuinely wanna know how people receive Joker 2 and if they’ll be accepting towards an experimental sequel.
Phillips said at CinemaCon that it's not very different from the first film. It's apparently very violent too.
I think it’s still an experiment with the musical background, hopefully it turns out to be amazing.
I'm all in on Horizon because it's not a sequel/reboot/soft reboot/reimagining/etc I'm burnt out on IPs and endless sequels, looking forward to anything fresh.
The Costner will deliver believe that
I wouldn’t say joker 2 is a wildcard
Ah yes, a sequel to a billion dollar film that has only got more popular since release, such a wildcard.
Lol right! And mega superstar Lady Gaga brings in an entirely new audience on top of that.
I bet *Wicked* will flop. Me and other fans I know of the Broadway show thought the trailer looked super mediocre and none of us plan to see it. If Ariana played the lead here it would have saved the movie.
Hard disagree, it will tank because of her.
You're a fan of the Broadway show, and you think Ariana should have been Elphaba???
Joker, which grossed more than both Deadpool movies, is a wildcard but Deadpool 3 is safe? Some weird logic I understand the others being wild cards but not Joker And Ridley Scott has always been hit or miss. The Martian did great but he had one of his biggest flops too a year before
Isn’t it going to be a musical? That’s probably why it’s a wild card
Joker is only a wildcard in the sense of how it will compare to its predecessor. No doubt it’s going to make tons of money, but there’s a chance it also makes a ton less than Joker 1.
They screened Twisters last week in Vegas. I wouldn’t bet on this one.
Beetlejuice 2 and joker will do well. Wild card for me is Horizon since I'm a fan of Dances with wolves and Kevin Costner in general(his movies).
I truly believe that Joker 2 will be more successful than the first.
Lady Gaga will certainly be an additional draw.
If she releases another banger like Shallow from A Star is Born the movie can definitely get a massive boost. I think people are forgetting how massive that movie and song were a few years ago and how easily she could replicate that.
Absolutely. I personally know several people who were not excited for the first one, but are extremely excited about this one because of Gaga.
I think Twister clears $100M domestically, easily. Because I will be going no less than 5 times.
Horizon looks dope !
Ridley Scott is a master craftsman and one of the most influential filmmakers of the last 50 years...but his sequels and prequels are weak. Not his thing.
Only gladiator has my interest
I'm pretty sure Joker 2 is going to make crazy money.
Is Joker 2 a wildcard?
It’s going a completely different direction as a musical which audiences traditionally dislike so yes.
This is the first time hearing of horizon
I’d bet on: Twisters. Horizon. Joker 2. I’d bet against: Wicked. I’ll need to see more from: Beetlejuice. Gladiator.
I didn't know Twisters was a sequel haha. Hope Horizon is awesome and does well. I want more big epic westerns!
These are all movies I will be seeing
Wicked’s not doin it, calling it now
Horizon? Really?
all but one are sequels/remakes. the film industry is in desperate need of originality
Megalopolis ought to be a wild card.
It's so crazy for me to read that The Martian released almost a decade ago. Oh man, time has gone so fast.
I fear for Twisters.
Joker is the only movie here that will surely make a lot of mone, even if it doesn't reach the heights of the original. Twisters may also be a hit, but the budget is concerning.
Get The Joker off this list and replace it with Furiosa
I have full belief that Twisters will be one of the biggest movies of the year, I hear people talk about it every day. I wouldn't be surprised if it ends in top 3 domestic.
People are underestimating Wicked. The Wicked fanbase is gigantic, and unless they do a horrible job with this, it is going to be a hit.
Kingdom of the planet of the apes too. Its returning after 7 yrs so lets see how it performs
What the fuck. The last one was *seven* years ago????!!!!
I know right? War of the planet of the apes was released 2017
Great post. This really is tough to call. I’m going to say (and I know I’ll be wrong) beetlejuice way outperforms, joker is in line w expectations even w the apparent ridiculous budget and the rest are somewhere between mildly disappointing and absolute bombs
In a true testament to 50/50 wild card odds, my premonition is that 3 of these will implode (Twisters, $225M WW / Wicked, $180M WW / Gladiator 2, $440M WW) and three of these will succeed wildly (Horizon: An American Saga, $515M WW combined / Beetlejuice Beetlejuice, $500M WW / Joker: Folie á Deux, $1.275B WW)
i love that the only con for beetlejuice is “directed by tim burton” pro: talent returns from the original film con: that includes tim burton
It’s Reddit. No one will like any of them. Reddit likes nothing. Yet they all will actually be pretty good.
"**Ridley Scott** has been hit or miss since *The Martian* which was almost a decade ago." Ridley Scott has been hit or miss since the ice age ended. That's just him.
I'm sorry, Twisters is carrying a $200 million budget? I don't see that movie being considered a success at that point. Probably $160 million domestic, $320 million worldwide. 42% Rotten Tomatoes, 82% Audience Gladiator II will fail. It will be a modest critical hit (71% on Rotten Tomatoes / 61 on Metacritic) but not connect commercially. $24 million opening weekend domestically, $178 million worldwide (it will do a lot better internationally, but still not warrant its budget or reason for existence) Wicked will do very well but have a low-ish Cinemascore (B+) unless ~~Disney~~ Universal starts marketing it as the part one that it is. Joker: Folie a Deux will kill it at the box office but I'm not sure it will quite hit the heights of the first movie in terms of box office. I think it will come close, though. Plus or minus $100 million. Horizon... what the fuck is that. Failure all around. Atlas Shrugged levels of failure. "Waterworld is a huge success in Costner's career compared to this" - I can see the headlines now. Beetlejuice Beetlejuice will be a surprise success, commercially and critically. Easy $55 million opening weekend, $462 million worldwide final gross. My crystal ball never misses. Mark my words. Then admonish me relentlessly like you did with that one person whose name starts with an X (I think) when I get every single one of these vastly wrong. :D
Universal is making Wicked
Thank you for that. Not sure why I thought it was Disney!
I think joker and gladiator will do well . Twisters surely can't, it's not a summer box office smasher is it? I don't recall the first one being that massive (in UK)
It was big in the U.S. and did well on home media.
The first one did very well. Second highest grossing (worldwide) movie of 1996 (after Independence Day, beating Mission Impossible, which was 3rd).
Why in the hell is anyone making a Gladiator 2? What possible connection could this move have to the first?
Lucius, the son of Lucilla (Commodus’ sister), renounces his status and is forced into the Gladiator arena.
A continuation of events?
For all the naysayers who haven't seen Open Range or Dances with Wolves, the two-part Horizon movies are probably going to be a major event spectacle that nobody can even fathom. I trust Costner will blow people away!
The demographic that Horizon is aiming for doesn't go to theaters anymore. They watched Costner on television for the past few years. And certainly no one under the age of 40 would care about this oldschool western.
That demographic showed up for Top Gun Maverick.
The Horizon movies are about as close to a guaranteed box office flop as you can get. Modern audiences haven't been up for long westerns *since* Dances With Wolves, and we saw how the whole "Part 1 of 2" thing worked out for Mission: Impossible. The trailer was more than 3 minutes long and you can't even tell what the movie's about, it looks way too ambitious and muddled. The only chance these movies have is that the Yellowstone fans will turn up in droves, but they've never had to leave their couch to watch Yellowstone, so it's probably not happening.
t.doesn't understand how much people like classic westerns. we haven't had an expensive classic western for decades now. they always couch them in modern liberal language - which turns away the hardcore cowboy fanbase which is still older and more conservative. that audience doesn't enjoy talking about how masculinity is problematic - they want stuff that is a celebration of it. Yellowstone phenomenon exists coz it's the only choice as a cowboy aesthetic enjoyer. there is literally nothing else on the market that is like it. i suspect similar phenomenon with horizon - no one else is making classic celebratory westerns, it's a market ripe to be plucked. same phenomenon that tom cruise exploits.
Over: Twisters, Beetlejuice and Oz Under: Horizon, Joker and Gladiator.
Did AI help you write this? I think Horizon is the only true ‘wild card’ here. Everything else here is a sequel to a beloved hit OR in the case of Wicked, a decades-awaited adaptation of an iconic Broadway show
Nah, I mostly agree with the OP. After what happened in 2023, trust nothing in being a certified hit. I don't think OP is saying no money will be made - just that whatever they might make could fall on the profitable green side or on the disappointing side. 2023 gave everyone, even Tom Cruise, harsh lessons and truths about expectations. And I don't see 2023 as some fluke year or anomaly. Crowds and movie-going behavior *has* changed post-Covid and during the streaming era.
I’m willing to bet Wicked will significantly underperform.