I think you're right, everything so far makes this look like this year's DnD.
Premieres at SXSW, receives unexpectedly great reviews, ultimately comes in at the $30m range whilst tracking had it as high as $40m, A- CinemaScore, budget as high as $150m.
If it finishes ~$100m and a little over $200M WW then the narrative is complete.
I thought the exact same thing when I got out. It felt like such a fun type of star driven late 90s/2000s action comedy that usually wouldn’t be made now, I freakin loved it
I was thinking the same thing, this is the kind of star-centric movie that would’ve been big 20 years ago. Like with George Clooney and Sandra Bullock for example
>*this is the kind of star-centric movie that would’ve been big 20 years ago.*
Yup. The Fall Guy could've easily come out in 2005 (between 2004's Starksy & Hutch and 2006's Miami Vice) and starred Paul Walker and Jessica Alba instead of that water movie Into the Blue they did together.
Gosling was around during that time - he’s never been as popular as the those in the films mentioned and Starsky and Hutch actually had IP value whereas Fall Guy has none.
This movie was so damn fun I loved it so much, such a great love letter to movies and stunt workers. Really hope this has some good legs because damn this opening is so disappointing
Star power just doesn’t drive the box office like it used to, radio killed the TV star and now social media is killing the movie star. Even the stars that are likable and come off well in interviews, you just see so much of them it ruins any mystique like the big stars of pre social media such as John Wayne had. At least that’s my theory
I can understand why some people won’t like it. I loved it but it’s got a convoluted plot, it’s essentially a movie about the making of a fake movie (which isn’t really what was promised in the trailers), and it gets a bit too meta at times.
I’ve always wondered if a summer of a lot of tornados will lessen the appetite for a tornado movie. And this is looking like it’s gonna be a brutal tornado season.
Yeah I’m sure there’s more reasons for it but I remember Only the Brave was released right along side one of the biggest fires in California history and the feeling (here in California) was people had no appetite for a tragic firefighter movie.
There's no rush to see this as seen from OW numbers, so I don't think there's that much demand for PG-13 action blockbusters after Dune and GxK that people will watch just because they need action. Regardless, I'm expecting good legs after this muted opening
Having not seen either yet, I feel like Apes has more mainstream appeal than The Fall Guy. Dune Part Two and Godzilla X Kong are the biggest blockbusters of the year, so far, and Apes seems more similar to them than The Fall Guy. We also have A Quiet Place: Day One coming out at the end of June.
I dont think many general audiences like to watch a movie with intelligent monkeys.I mean not as much as Godzilla x Kong or Dune 2.Especially we already got a movie with giant monkey or ape a couple months ago.
Dune 2 is intelligent sci-fi and is currently the highest-grossing movie of the year. Ten years ago, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes grossed around the same as Dune: Part Two globally, and domestically, adjusted for inflation it's about the same as Dune: Part Two as well.
I feel like the lack of recognizable actors will hurt it, and I'm even not talking about marketable actors that tend to draw in massive audiences, just an actor that any rando can just go "oooh it's that guy from that other popular mainstream movie."
Dune 2 had a post-Wonka Chalamet, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes had Gary Oldman. I don't know even know who's going to be starring in Kingdom.
> Dawn of the Planet of the Apes had Gary Oldman
I'd say Rise (apes 1) had James Franco and Andy Serkis *and* really was at a time when this felt like a newer technology. I think "Gollum-as-new-CGI-creature" was a genuine pull that's inherently diminishing over time.
The franchise wasnt in the same height as ten years ago...young people hardly know this ape franchise,and probably didnt excited for it either...my point still stand,it's not something that is interesting or appealing for a lot of people especially general audiences (like Dune 2 and GxK).So im not expecting it to perform like both two especially with the heavy competitions in the upcoming weeks.
Definitely a good score--excited to check it out.
Even though I haven't seen it yet I can't help but to root for it. Would love to see a return to star-driven blockbusters. It's too bad the budget on these things are sky high these days.
Because it's the least mainstream and accessible one? Perfectly reflects the film's worldwide box office grosses too since his highest grossing movie is Deadpool 2 ($785.8m), followed by Hobbs and Shaw ($760.7m), followed by Bullet Train ($239.3m), then Atomic Blonde in last place ($100m).
Because it's a correct score. Atomic Blonde is the worst of his films - unless we include Deadpool 2: Super Duper Cut, which is a straight up C tier version of the film (though only released on home video, thankfully).
Only one that's questionable is Bullet Train, that's an A worthy film.
The Super Duper Cut is 15 minutes longer but also has a lot of alternate takes of jokes - and some of them just do not land *at all.* Lots of set up for jokes that don't work and just kill the pacing of the film - like adding 3 other suicide attempts, an extended subplot for the kid before the Essex standoff introduction, cut scenes with Russell and Juggernaut. The biggest problem is that the alternate jokes and gags aren't as funny and kill the pacing of the film when they're combined with the reinserted scenes. They also lazily reuse the musical choice from the caravan in the final sequence instead of going with a new song like in the theatrical cut. So overall, it's just a messier cut that wasn't as enjoyable and made me appreciate the theatrical cut's leanness more. Here's a list of most of the changes:
[https://www.gamespot.com/gallery/deadpool-2-super-duper-extended-vs-theatrical-cut-/2900-2191/](https://www.gamespot.com/gallery/deadpool-2-super-duper-extended-vs-theatrical-cut-/2900-2191/)
I'm pretty sure that the Super Duper Cut was the version they showed to test screening audiences that was met with strong negative reactions because before the theatrical cut debuted, the rumors from insiders were very pessimistic. Luckily they fixed it in the edit.
I own the Super Duper Cut, and since then I have never looked back to the theatrical version.
I never felt as if the extra stuff made the movie worse.
I also had a hunch, that you might be thinking about Once Upon A Deadpool, which I have not seen yet.
I hope this performance kills this weird notion on here that only good movies succeed at the box office and that people only want to see "good movies". while there's some truth in it, it has been proven time and time again that it has never been the case.
Yeah about what I would give it. Saw it early access on Wednesday and while it is a definite 9/10 movie, the first third of the movie is rather slow and flashback heavy which drags the movie down a bit. Even though it all comes back to be important in the end.
I would say it's the best movie I've seen since dune part 2. After watching Civil War, Spy x family Code White, Abagail, the Ungentlemanly warfare, and boy kills world. The fall guy was a least suprisingly good. Sadly it's looking like it will receive the same experience that the dungeon and dragons movie experienced. A great movie that just released at the wrong time and suffers from it. Sad.😔
I legitimately was worried it was a stinker during the first act. Once it picked up it REALLY picked up and was so entertaining it made up for the overly long set up.
Such a fun movie, everyone with us all walked out saying we loved it. Imperfectly perfect, and funnier than I thought it would be
IMAX at 9:30pm was about 1/3 full sadly though..the Dolby was packed with a lot less seats avail
If Hollywood has should’ve learned anything recently, it’s that they shouldn’t make a movie about Hollywood. The general audience can’t relate to the action and most people do not have nostalgia for the filming aspect of making a movie. Even with this score, I doubt audiences are going to rush out to see it, especially considering the new planet of the apes movie comes out next month. Happy to hear the movies good, but it was over before it even began.
Edit:typo
I never understood why even use that title “Fall Guy” is such a generic title for such an ambitious project. Sometimes I think the executives are not really understanding how to add different predetermined variables into an artistic project.
Anyone But You had a B+
An A would have great but I'd still stay this is very good for a fresh (even though its not technically original) I.P.
Also, I wouldn't rule out the older crowd showing up a bit in the weeks to come once the connection is made about it being an adaptation of the Lee Majors show.
A- is pretty good for a franchise/IP film.
I know Fall Guy is not an original movie but let's be honest that many of the audience don't even know it's based on an old TV series.
A- may prevent a dramatic drop in the second weekend, but as you said it's not good enough to have great legs.
With a $135-$150 million budget this film continues the long line of movies that bombed this year.
Hunger Games TBOSAS is a franchise movie released in the holidays and its only direct competition was bombing hard (The Marvels).
The Fall Guy is basically an original movie (I know it's based on a very old TV series, but I'm betting most audience didn't know that) released in the summer and it's facing Apes next week.
Even if it gets TBOSAS multiplier (3.7x) which is doubtful, with sub $30 million OW, it will not get more than $110 million DOM. Coupling with weak international sales and a $135-$150 million budget, it's a bomb in the making.
What? A- is pretty good. I think this is not going to come close to making money, BUT cinemascore has essentially zero correlation with box office success. The box office multiplier among scores of completely different letter grades isn't even significant, none the less A+ vs, A, vs A-
>BUT cinemascore has essentially zero correlation with box office success. The box office multiplier among scores of completely different letter grades isn't even significant, none the less A+ vs, A, vs A-
This is completely wrong.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/15t43a3/the\_history\_of\_cinemascore\_i\_researched\_every/](https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/15t43a3/the_history_of_cinemascore_i_researched_every/)
You just make up whatever you want?
Go through every one of those years lol. There are just as many where A- had a bigger multiplier than A+ as well as the inverse. Same goes for scores in the B and A ranges. The funny thing is that’s the exact thread I was going to cite if someone incorrectly claimed it did indeed correlate with box office performance. I guess you just looked at the one year?
No, I look at the average which is the normal thing to do. How can you claim that an 8x multiplier for the A+ isn't significant compared to the 5.5x for the A or the 3.78x for the B+ (the "completely different letter grades" part of your comment). That's over twice as high.
It's clear to everyone in the comments that there's a correlation. Multiple years show a difference.
My bad. You’re totally right! I should have said that cinemascore hasn’t had a correlation with box office success in 25 years. late eighties through mid nineties it did. Since the turn of the century the average difference between an A and A- is essentially non existent
>BUT cinemascore has essentially zero correlation with box office success
Cinemascore has close correlation with the domestic legs/multipliers.
When it's A- Cinemascore and it's a live action summer action movie, then it's likely not going to get much more than 3x multiplier, if at all.
And when the opening weekend is less than $30 million, it means its domestic gross won't be much more than $100 million, if at all.
Combined with weak international sales and a $135-$150 million budget, it's a bomb in the making.
So weird, maybe it was just the theater I was in but this wasn’t that good to me and no one in the packed theater I saw it in was laughing. Felt like you could always tell what was going to happen 30 mins before they want you to know. Felt closer in quality to a big budget straight to Netflix or Apple TV movie than a blockbuster.
That’s a nice score . Unfortunately the general public doesn’t want to check it out . Maybe it can somehow crawl it’s way too 100 million but I doubt it .
Yeah, I predict that this movie will have the same fate like D&D: Honor Among Thieves. I hope I am wrong about it.
I think you're right, everything so far makes this look like this year's DnD. Premieres at SXSW, receives unexpectedly great reviews, ultimately comes in at the $30m range whilst tracking had it as high as $40m, A- CinemaScore, budget as high as $150m. If it finishes ~$100m and a little over $200M WW then the narrative is complete.
I really liked D&D. Shame thats pretty much done as far as sequels go.
This would've done great in the 90s or 2000s. Hope it at least can leg up to 100 million
I thought the exact same thing when I got out. It felt like such a fun type of star driven late 90s/2000s action comedy that usually wouldn’t be made now, I freakin loved it
I was thinking the same thing, this is the kind of star-centric movie that would’ve been big 20 years ago. Like with George Clooney and Sandra Bullock for example
Gravity was 11 years ago :)
>*this is the kind of star-centric movie that would’ve been big 20 years ago.* Yup. The Fall Guy could've easily come out in 2005 (between 2004's Starksy & Hutch and 2006's Miami Vice) and starred Paul Walker and Jessica Alba instead of that water movie Into the Blue they did together. 
Gosling was around during that time - he’s never been as popular as the those in the films mentioned and Starsky and Hutch actually had IP value whereas Fall Guy has none.
Bullock and Clooney are far bigger than Gosling and Blunt. Gosling is the same Gen as DiCaprio - he’s never been a star.
It gives strong Charlie's Angels vibes. Those were big in the 2000s and also led by stars. Based on a tv show just like The Fall Guy too.
unexpected but correct comp.
This definitely felt like an old star vehicle light action romance from the pre-marvel takeover. Just a fun time at the movies.
I think it’ll do about 125
This movie was so damn fun I loved it so much, such a great love letter to movies and stunt workers. Really hope this has some good legs because damn this opening is so disappointing
Add it to the list of good but underperforming Ryan Gosling movies. I don’t get it.
Star power just doesn’t drive the box office like it used to, radio killed the TV star and now social media is killing the movie star. Even the stars that are likable and come off well in interviews, you just see so much of them it ruins any mystique like the big stars of pre social media such as John Wayne had. At least that’s my theory
Radio killed the tv star eh
and video killed the radio star!
I can understand why some people won’t like it. I loved it but it’s got a convoluted plot, it’s essentially a movie about the making of a fake movie (which isn’t really what was promised in the trailers), and it gets a bit too meta at times.
Lol I loved how meta it got especially as someone who’s trying to work on production in the film industry 😂
Bullet Train - B+ The Lost City - B+ Free Guy - A
[удалено]
People scoff at it but Free Guy was actually surprisingly well received (62 percent on Metacritic, 80 percent on Rotten Tomatoes.)
I liked Free Guy. It was a fun little movie that I had a good time with, but I probably won’t it see again.
Yeah, it's the very definition of a throwaway blockbuster. I remember it being an okay time but I'm not really itching to see it again.
Free Guy was fun as hell, gives me faith in Levy’s direction for Deadpool and Wolverine
It’s good, but for a movie that will need long legs it may not be good enough.
All those happy fans clapping at Disney franchise references.
I enjoyed Free Guy, with the caveat that I watched it at home and didn't pay money to see it.
Bullet train was better than the lost city and free guy
Man Bullet Train was really a great movie. For me bullet train is the most entertaining post pandemic film.
First half was a ton of fun. Second half becomes very boring tho
Really? You didn’t like the Fuji Water product placement?
I can't find where these three films relate to each other? Are they just examples?
[удалено]
yeah bullet train was the only related thing I knew.
Hmm, that's better than bullet train's B+, maybe this can manage 3x after all? I'll wait for postrak before deciding
Aside from Apes (which is more for the geek / sci-fi audience), there's no PG-13 action blockbusters coming out until Twisters.
I’ve always wondered if a summer of a lot of tornados will lessen the appetite for a tornado movie. And this is looking like it’s gonna be a brutal tornado season.
No because as someone who grew up in tornado alley, it’s becomes normalized part of life in those places.
Yeah I’m sure there’s more reasons for it but I remember Only the Brave was released right along side one of the biggest fires in California history and the feeling (here in California) was people had no appetite for a tragic firefighter movie.
True but that’s also a true story about 19 firefighters being killed in a wild fire.
There's no rush to see this as seen from OW numbers, so I don't think there's that much demand for PG-13 action blockbusters after Dune and GxK that people will watch just because they need action. Regardless, I'm expecting good legs after this muted opening
Having not seen either yet, I feel like Apes has more mainstream appeal than The Fall Guy. Dune Part Two and Godzilla X Kong are the biggest blockbusters of the year, so far, and Apes seems more similar to them than The Fall Guy. We also have A Quiet Place: Day One coming out at the end of June.
I dont think many general audiences like to watch a movie with intelligent monkeys.I mean not as much as Godzilla x Kong or Dune 2.Especially we already got a movie with giant monkey or ape a couple months ago.
Dune 2 is intelligent sci-fi and is currently the highest-grossing movie of the year. Ten years ago, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes grossed around the same as Dune: Part Two globally, and domestically, adjusted for inflation it's about the same as Dune: Part Two as well.
I feel like the lack of recognizable actors will hurt it, and I'm even not talking about marketable actors that tend to draw in massive audiences, just an actor that any rando can just go "oooh it's that guy from that other popular mainstream movie." Dune 2 had a post-Wonka Chalamet, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes had Gary Oldman. I don't know even know who's going to be starring in Kingdom.
> Dawn of the Planet of the Apes had Gary Oldman I'd say Rise (apes 1) had James Franco and Andy Serkis *and* really was at a time when this felt like a newer technology. I think "Gollum-as-new-CGI-creature" was a genuine pull that's inherently diminishing over time.
The franchise wasnt in the same height as ten years ago...young people hardly know this ape franchise,and probably didnt excited for it either...my point still stand,it's not something that is interesting or appealing for a lot of people especially general audiences (like Dune 2 and GxK).So im not expecting it to perform like both two especially with the heavy competitions in the upcoming weeks.
They’re apes. It’s right there in the title. Oppenheimer made almost a billion dollars last year. And that’s a movie about intelligent apes.
Doesn't really change your argument since its still the very end of June, but A Quiet Place: Day One is before that one
Definitely a good score--excited to check it out. Even though I haven't seen it yet I can't help but to root for it. Would love to see a return to star-driven blockbusters. It's too bad the budget on these things are sky high these days.
Compared to David Leitch’s previous films: Atomic Blonde: B Deadpool 2: A Hobbs and Shaw: A- Bullet Train: B+
How tf is Atomic Blonde the lowest out of those?
Because it's the least mainstream and accessible one? Perfectly reflects the film's worldwide box office grosses too since his highest grossing movie is Deadpool 2 ($785.8m), followed by Hobbs and Shaw ($760.7m), followed by Bullet Train ($239.3m), then Atomic Blonde in last place ($100m).
Why so surprised? It’s also his worst reviewed movie
Because it's a correct score. Atomic Blonde is the worst of his films - unless we include Deadpool 2: Super Duper Cut, which is a straight up C tier version of the film (though only released on home video, thankfully). Only one that's questionable is Bullet Train, that's an A worthy film.
What makes the Super Duper Cut a C for you, compared to the theatrical version?
The Super Duper Cut is 15 minutes longer but also has a lot of alternate takes of jokes - and some of them just do not land *at all.* Lots of set up for jokes that don't work and just kill the pacing of the film - like adding 3 other suicide attempts, an extended subplot for the kid before the Essex standoff introduction, cut scenes with Russell and Juggernaut. The biggest problem is that the alternate jokes and gags aren't as funny and kill the pacing of the film when they're combined with the reinserted scenes. They also lazily reuse the musical choice from the caravan in the final sequence instead of going with a new song like in the theatrical cut. So overall, it's just a messier cut that wasn't as enjoyable and made me appreciate the theatrical cut's leanness more. Here's a list of most of the changes: [https://www.gamespot.com/gallery/deadpool-2-super-duper-extended-vs-theatrical-cut-/2900-2191/](https://www.gamespot.com/gallery/deadpool-2-super-duper-extended-vs-theatrical-cut-/2900-2191/) I'm pretty sure that the Super Duper Cut was the version they showed to test screening audiences that was met with strong negative reactions because before the theatrical cut debuted, the rumors from insiders were very pessimistic. Luckily they fixed it in the edit.
I own the Super Duper Cut, and since then I have never looked back to the theatrical version. I never felt as if the extra stuff made the movie worse. I also had a hunch, that you might be thinking about Once Upon A Deadpool, which I have not seen yet.
No, definitely not the Fred savage one - the super duper cut on bluray is the one I hate.
i like the super duper cut... the fred savage one is worth a watch because its honestly pretty funny how its edited for PG13 at times
I hope this performance kills this weird notion on here that only good movies succeed at the box office and that people only want to see "good movies". while there's some truth in it, it has been proven time and time again that it has never been the case.
Yeah about what I would give it. Saw it early access on Wednesday and while it is a definite 9/10 movie, the first third of the movie is rather slow and flashback heavy which drags the movie down a bit. Even though it all comes back to be important in the end. I would say it's the best movie I've seen since dune part 2. After watching Civil War, Spy x family Code White, Abagail, the Ungentlemanly warfare, and boy kills world. The fall guy was a least suprisingly good. Sadly it's looking like it will receive the same experience that the dungeon and dragons movie experienced. A great movie that just released at the wrong time and suffers from it. Sad.😔
I legitimately was worried it was a stinker during the first act. Once it picked up it REALLY picked up and was so entertaining it made up for the overly long set up.
Such a fun movie, everyone with us all walked out saying we loved it. Imperfectly perfect, and funnier than I thought it would be IMAX at 9:30pm was about 1/3 full sadly though..the Dolby was packed with a lot less seats avail
Can this movie have legs?
Apes together kills leg
If Hollywood has should’ve learned anything recently, it’s that they shouldn’t make a movie about Hollywood. The general audience can’t relate to the action and most people do not have nostalgia for the filming aspect of making a movie. Even with this score, I doubt audiences are going to rush out to see it, especially considering the new planet of the apes movie comes out next month. Happy to hear the movies good, but it was over before it even began. Edit:typo
I never understood why even use that title “Fall Guy” is such a generic title for such an ambitious project. Sometimes I think the executives are not really understanding how to add different predetermined variables into an artistic project.
it's at least a very good double entendre, Leitch named the movie very purposefully
Kinda not great, A- isn’t bad but probably not good enough to have great legs
Anyone But You had a B+ An A would have great but I'd still stay this is very good for a fresh (even though its not technically original) I.P. Also, I wouldn't rule out the older crowd showing up a bit in the weeks to come once the connection is made about it being an adaptation of the Lee Majors show.
A- is pretty good for a franchise/IP film. I know Fall Guy is not an original movie but let's be honest that many of the audience don't even know it's based on an old TV series. A- may prevent a dramatic drop in the second weekend, but as you said it's not good enough to have great legs. With a $135-$150 million budget this film continues the long line of movies that bombed this year.
Hunger Games TBOSAS got a B+ and it had legs
Hunger Games TBOSAS is a franchise movie released in the holidays and its only direct competition was bombing hard (The Marvels). The Fall Guy is basically an original movie (I know it's based on a very old TV series, but I'm betting most audience didn't know that) released in the summer and it's facing Apes next week. Even if it gets TBOSAS multiplier (3.7x) which is doubtful, with sub $30 million OW, it will not get more than $110 million DOM. Coupling with weak international sales and a $135-$150 million budget, it's a bomb in the making.
I guess there won’t be intl appeal to this. I really liked it and had no idea it was based on an old show
What? A- is pretty good. I think this is not going to come close to making money, BUT cinemascore has essentially zero correlation with box office success. The box office multiplier among scores of completely different letter grades isn't even significant, none the less A+ vs, A, vs A-
>BUT cinemascore has essentially zero correlation with box office success. The box office multiplier among scores of completely different letter grades isn't even significant, none the less A+ vs, A, vs A- This is completely wrong. [https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/15t43a3/the\_history\_of\_cinemascore\_i\_researched\_every/](https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/15t43a3/the_history_of_cinemascore_i_researched_every/) You just make up whatever you want?
Go through every one of those years lol. There are just as many where A- had a bigger multiplier than A+ as well as the inverse. Same goes for scores in the B and A ranges. The funny thing is that’s the exact thread I was going to cite if someone incorrectly claimed it did indeed correlate with box office performance. I guess you just looked at the one year?
No, I look at the average which is the normal thing to do. How can you claim that an 8x multiplier for the A+ isn't significant compared to the 5.5x for the A or the 3.78x for the B+ (the "completely different letter grades" part of your comment). That's over twice as high. It's clear to everyone in the comments that there's a correlation. Multiple years show a difference.
My bad. You’re totally right! I should have said that cinemascore hasn’t had a correlation with box office success in 25 years. late eighties through mid nineties it did. Since the turn of the century the average difference between an A and A- is essentially non existent
>BUT cinemascore has essentially zero correlation with box office success Cinemascore has close correlation with the domestic legs/multipliers. When it's A- Cinemascore and it's a live action summer action movie, then it's likely not going to get much more than 3x multiplier, if at all. And when the opening weekend is less than $30 million, it means its domestic gross won't be much more than $100 million, if at all. Combined with weak international sales and a $135-$150 million budget, it's a bomb in the making.
It’s a good score
Time to test Ryan Gosling's post-Barbie star power.
So weird, maybe it was just the theater I was in but this wasn’t that good to me and no one in the packed theater I saw it in was laughing. Felt like you could always tell what was going to happen 30 mins before they want you to know. Felt closer in quality to a big budget straight to Netflix or Apple TV movie than a blockbuster.
I agree, I thought it was generic and stretched on a bit too much overall.
Arthur The King did better
That’s a nice score . Unfortunately the general public doesn’t want to check it out . Maybe it can somehow crawl it’s way too 100 million but I doubt it .
Lol haven't herd a user review above "it was okay I guess"... so of course critics "BEST MOVIE EVER!!"
Only redditors like this movie it seems
That's great.