After Furiosa flops, Hollywood could be facing a biblically disastrous summer | Hacker News Reader

After Furiosa flops, Hollywood could be facing a biblically disastrous summer

bbc.com

58 pointsUUjiasuqi114 comments

I’ve seen a lot of explanations for this, but talking to most people my age, there’s only one that’s the real reason: the economics are terrible for watching a movie. The tickets are averaging $20-30 per person around where I live. In 2018, the same movies cost $7-13. Parking and food push the costs even higher. All for a couple of hours of entertainment. I can watch the same movie for $20 when it comes out on DVD. It simply doesn’t make sense to go to watch a movie in a theater, especially when everything else is eating up people’s budgets.

If you're a regular movie goer, you can get a monthly pass for a little over $20 at the big theater chains. It pays off if you see 2 movies a month, or just 1 if it's IMAX.

Yeah, but how many people do that?

That works well when you go to movies alone, for a family of 4, that cost starts going up to $100/month. And unfortunately, not enough good movies come up during the year to justify spending $1000+ every year on just movies. You’re better off watching a couple movies in theaters and then watching the rest on DVD.

That's a bit of a blanket statement because it's highly location dependent. For example here in the Bay Area, there's a decent amount of Cinemark locations available, and a subscription costs $11/mo for 1 ticket per month with rollover — and those tickets can be used for non-subscibers. They also allow additional ticket purchases at the discounted subscription price.

Even if one only goes to the movies a few times a year it's still a good deal over paying retail. A family of 4 can go to the movies 3x per year on $132 here in the SFBAY, which is a far cry from $1,000.

Yes, AMC has a much pricier subscription but they also hand out waaay more tickets.

This creates the same "cohort effect" you see in Ski season pass pricing. People who get a good deal from the pass and pay relatively little to go a lot, and people....who just don't go anymore.

The whole model this is based on is basically creating a giant audience segmentation and aiming a big part of the funnel at your [competitors, alternatives, etc]

There's rarely if ever two movies a month I'm interested in watching let alone going to the theater to watch. Even if there were the ancillary costs for going to the theater push those costs up.

Theaters have to compete with my living room. I don't even have some crazy setup but I have a big screen and comfortable seating. I can not turn the audio volume to deafening levels. I can pause if I need to use the bathroom. I also have access to food and drinks that don't cost a small fortune.

Back when watching a movie at home meant a VCR connected to a 13" TV with an iffy coax signal, a theater was a very good option. Unfortunately for theaters my home option has gotten better and their offerings have gotten worse. At the very least their offerings have diverged from my interests.

Movies are coming to streaming faster than they ever have as well. Its hard to want to go see a mediocre movie at high prices when it will be available in 60-90 days. When I was a kid, the VHS wouldn't appear for 6months to a year.

People will say "oh but we have proven that going to streaming sooner does not effect ticket sales", to which I say - how can we be sure that the compounding effect of every movie going to streaming after 45 days has not brought about a fundamental shift to the theater's value proposition?

Are you really watching DVDs on modern large screens though? Maybe you meant Blu-ray. DVDs look terrible on modern screens.

It’s still called a “DVD release” whether it’s 4K or blue ray or streaming on Amazon. You understood what I was saying. This was an unnecessary nit.

I'm sorry. I genuinely thought you might be watching DVD disks.

I watch DVDs on my 40-inch screen when the Blu-rays aren't available for rental from Redbox, but I haven't rented from Redbox in a while because of their terrible selection.

Or stream it once for $4.99 or less if you're patient and are willing to wait a couple months after Blu-ray/streaming release.

It seems like after Endgame, there have only been a few 'event' movies like Oppenheimer, Top Gun Maverick, and Dune 2 that would be worth experiencing in a movie theater.

And even then, those movies are pushing 95-100 dB during some scenes, making me not really want to do the 'IMAX' experience again, it's just too loud and too big. A 40-60" OLED from 5-10' away and near my fridge and bathroom—with a pause button so I can get up halfway through a nearly 3 hour movie—is too tempting.

It'd be nice if there were 1.5 hour movies that cost $10 a ticket in a nice, normal theater.

Yep. I can watch it in a dirty, noisy theater where I have to wear earplugs to be comfortable, or I can watch it at home a few months later from the comfort of my recliner with a couple IPAs and a bowl of popcorn.

The only movies I reserve for the theater are real epics, and those seem few and far between these days.

Obviously things differ by location, but I'm in a large, pretty expensive city (Seattle). I usually go to the Cinemark in Bellevue because they have IMAX. This is a nice theater in a nice area. A ticket to see Furiosa tonight, in IMAX, is $19.50. A ticket for a standard screen is $13.50. My recollection is that's pretty much what movie tickets cost 10 years ago.

I think the films just aren't enticing enough to steal eyes from streaming services, TikTok, etc.

IMAX used to cost $12.99 in 2018 in Bay Area. Tickets were way cheaper 6 years ago.

The number of ticket sales has been flat to declining since the '90s: https://www.the-numbers.com/market/ and I've read that the heyday of movies was in the '40s and '50s.

The simple answer is likely the quality of TVs: 65" OLED TVs with good sound aren't that expensive any more. The quality delta of going to a theater versus watching something on TV used to be massive.

The only thing a theater really offers anymore is sharing the experience of a movie with other people. Which is definitely a benefit, but is it a $100 night out worth of benefit? Not to me.

this I think is exactly the reason, I was going 3-4x times a week to the movies in the 90s, but once I had more pocket change and "spending" money, really started investing in quality home theater gear, and over the years it fulfills 90% of my movie watching needs. Reducing my "going to the movies" to twice a year, if at all.

there is also so much content available, that there is no real urgency to watch the movie at release. "Waiting" for it be available on bluray/streaming, is not even "waiting" at all.

N people can watch the same movie M times for $20 when it comes out on DVD. You can pop your own popcorn, and put on the amount of butter and salt that you like. You can also rewind to watch any bit you want.

Even bigger expense, bringing bedbugs back home from sitting in the nasty and never cleaned seats. Worth it to just see it at home. Times have changed and going to the movie theater is not what it used to be.

During covid a lot of households got equipped with better TVs and sound systems. Avoiding movie theatres also showed people that they can experience movies at home just by waiting for a couple of months. I personally been in a movie theatre once since covid lockdowns were over. It no longer makes sense to me neither from the economic or entertainment point of view.

It really does feel like there has been very little originality in movies in the last decade or so. Too many comic book movies, sequels/prequels, and remakes. Couple that with the price of movies going up, and many times audience annoyances with people on their phones or just being otherwise distracting and it makes the desire to go see a movie in a theater pretty low for me.

It does feel like TV series have capitalized on it. Fallout for example was truly excellent.

There are a lot of reasons for this, but for me, a big thing is how absurdly long movies are now. I look at movies and at this point will reject some that just feel like they will take too much time.

I saw Furiosa, it was fine, but it was about a half an hour longer than it should have been.

It's 148 minutes long. For comparison, Mad Max was 93 minutes long, The Road Warrior was 96 minutes long, Beyond Thunderdome was 107 minutes long, and Fury Road was 120 minutes long.

That's why I didn't see Dune 2 in the theaters. No way I can sit for three hours straight. It's just not fun after two hours.

A variety of mediums replaced casual movie going for a portion of people who used to go. Now I think a movie has to particularly resonate with the wider audience in order to get people to go out at all.

Even beyond that, I wonder if the current young generation even watches tv or movies at all? Or do they watch youtube/twitch and play video games instead?

They don't play video games, they watch people play video games.

As a 21 year old explained to me, "Playing video games is a lot of work."

Eh. It's more like watching sports vs playing sports. They're both enjoyable but entirely distinct categories even though there's overlap in what's occurring.

To be fair, I don't understand watching sports either.

My perspective is likely skewed on this because of an anxiety disorder I'm still learning to deal with properly. But I wonder how widespread this mechanism I'm dealing with is. It basically goes like this:

The world is freaking terrifying. Social media makes you constantly aware of this from the minute you wake up to the minute you fall asleep. All other media channels (which seem to largely hang off of or reference social media trends anyhow) aren't much better. Its literally impossible to escape. Constant argument, aggression, threat, and doom.

Some kinds of brains cope with this by diving headfirst into fantasy realms. Disconnecting from reality by attempting to swap it for a different one. Video games, movies, anime, rpgs etc. Huge with that crowd.

Other kinds of brains like mine, simply shut everything the hell out. Scripted drama becomes an uncomfortable reminder of the impending doom that you're already drowning in. Alternate realities can become just another trigger.

I hardly watch TV, or movies. I write code pretty much. That's my escape because while there may be frustration, there is no aggression, no conflict, no drama. I imagine less nerdy people probably take up other crafts or hobbies.

granted. seeing through my own lens. But I also know I can't be the only one coping this way. I wonder if that also isn't part of a larger trend.

Marvel forever ruined Hollywood.

So did streaming releases + sub $1k 80 inch 4k TVs. The value of going to a theater at this point is almost nonexistent for most people.

I love movie theatres. I hate stupidly expensive popcorn and people talking and using their phones the entire time.

I think a fair question then would be what you actually love about them. Theaters do boast large screens with high image quality, but compared to a large flat screen you can have at home (where you can select your own seat) the difference diminishes. They also boast high audio quality. But as we all know, the audio quality is only great at a few seats in the center. You can certainly create an audio setup at home for not that much money that rivals the actual experience at the average seat.

There are other reasons people like movie theaters: the inability to pause the movie, nostalgia, the gathering of many people to engage in the same experience. Many of these are, to me, almost inseparable from expensive popcorn and inconsiderate behavior, which movie goers have been lamenting almost since the invention of the motion picture.

It's just kind of the experience, I don't know. It has a certain familiarity, but there's also the shared experience aspect of it. I don't like to be cloistered more and more at home, despite that being the overwhelming arc of American culture. Sometimes it's nice to enjoy a shared, familiar experience (even if the popcorn costs too much).

Phone use doesnt seem to be an issue anymore in my city. Ive been to the theater on opening weekend 3 times this year and Ive never seen more than 10 people at my movie. And with assigned seating, no one even chooses seats near another person. The biggest draw to going to the theater these days is how empty they are. They solved the biggest issue, other people!

The value of a theater is negative for me, it's a miserable experience. The volume is always too loud, you have to sit through ads, the seats are gross, people are loud and obnoxious, and you have to travel to the place. And you have to pay quite a bit of extra money for the privilege of this awfulness.

The only reason to use one is if your setup at home is very bad for multiple watchers, then you can go with friends... but even that sucks.

Seriously, why would I go to the theater at the same cost to watch at home only to have to to step through sticky floors to sit in seats of questionable cleanliness to watch a movie with the glow of other people's phones around me, watch the movie once when the theatre says I can watch, not be able to pause or rewind when I can't understand the audio because the sound engineer these days is so fucking awful that dialog is so subdued compared to everything else?

It's a shame, because I'm the sort that'd probably actually enjoy Furiosa, but no chance in hell I'm going to a theatre starting at $16 for one ticket to watch it alone. I'd rather buy a bluray at $30 than go to the theatre at $16 (before taxes, too). My TV is more modest than 80", but my sound system is clearer, but not nearly as chest-thumping as the theatre experience (trade off I'm more than ready to make, though I do enjoy chest-thumping audio for action movies).

You can put together a hell of a 4k projector set-up with 7.2 surround and all that, for the cost of about 100 $20 movie tickets, with a little bargain shopping. If you have the space for it.

100 tickets may seem like a lot but 1) you can probably have six or so people watch comfortably at once, so the ticket equivalent may be reached fast, 2) the experience will be overall better than a theater in basically every way except that you can’t compete with exceptionally-well-suited movies on, say, imax (the odd film like Dune—I saw and liked Furiosa on imax but it would have been entirely fine on my projector). Those will be the only remaining films that are even tempting to see in a theater.

Any attempts to streamline a risky creative endeavor are doomed to eventually realize like EA that churning out Sports FC * (nee FIFA) / Madden NFL * is financially optimal.

not marvel, very bad writing did

*Politics ruined Hollywood.

A feminist movie was a big hit last year … So, no, “politics” don’t play a role in it.

None of the explanations in this topic are relevant if they don't address that "Barbie", "Oppenheimer" and "Super Mario Bros" were all hits last year.

Ticket prices, concession prices, streaming, attention spans, originality (or lack of), home theater setups, length of films... all of these factors were in place last year.

It's probably worth looking at specifically why the marketing for the hits from last year was effective (Barbie marketing particularly was both ubiquitous and highly inventive) versus "Furiosa" and "Fall Guy". Also note that Fall Guy's box office was relatively okay compared to something like "The Lost City" but it's budget was much higher, making it a much tougher financial proposition.

Most of these seem to be "retreads". I saw Dune II and I thought it was very good. Too bad Hollywood is too afraid to invest in movies with a real story.

Seems to them, Action means Bullets and Car Chases, SF means Special Effects and Lasers with nothing to do with Science.

> Most of these seem to be "retreads". I saw Dune II…

I know what you mean, but this still made me chuckle, because the recent Dune’s a retread, too.

I don't think of the recent Dune as a retread, I think of it as switching to rubber based tires instead of wagon wheels and putting an internal combustion engine inside instead of horses up front

This just feels like poor marketing. I am not an avid movie goer. I saw Dune 2 this year and did Barbie/Oppenheimer last year.

In both scenarios I attended due to viral, word-of-mouth marketing. I didn't see specific trailers that compelled me nor was I anxiously awaiting the releases.

In contrast, I heard nothing about Furiosa prior to its release, but have read tons of content about its post-release failure.

What did we expect? With the rise in content creation its turned into a fast paced content mill. Most ideas are not really new. The ones that are, tend to be more niche. With increased content options, the share of consumer will be smaller for any given one.

I still go to cinema like 2-3 times a week, sometimes even more. Local chain has an unlimited pass for ~100€ (1 year). As a single person it's my favorite pastime, and I just like films

kind of unfortunate, I heard Furiosa was actually a good movie. though, I personally haven't been to the movies in about 6 years or so.

Go see Furiosa! It's not quite as incredible as Fury Road, but it's pretty darn great, and it's the exact kind of movie you should see in the cinema. Feeling the rumble in the chair from the sound system while watching is honestly thrilling.

I realize we all have excellent TVs and sound systems at home now, but the cinema is still worth it, and especially for movies like Furiosa that were just made to be experienced in one. Watching at home is definitely a much lesser experience.

I actually liked it better than Fury Road. I think I didn't reflect enough during Fury Road to try and understand the world. I dismissed it as kinda silly and figured i should just suspend disbelief, but Furiosa does a bit more handholding and gives all the background and depth Fury Road hints toward. Rewatching Fury Road after Furiosa helped me appreciate it more.

Watching at home is such a diminished experience compared to a theater.

Furiosa may be thematically stronger than Fury Road.

I was about to write “the character work and character-writing might be better, too” but then I remembered Nux. It’s a close call.

I also liked it better than Fury Road. I thought the action sequences in Furiosa were easily the best choreographed large action I've ever seen, but it's also a much more rounded film with some absolutely masterful shot choices.

> personally haven't been to the movies in about 6 years or so

Why is that? Is it the outrageous ticket prices? The 20 minutes of commercials and trailers before the movie even starts? The people who not only don't turn off their phones but actively use them during the movie and even make phone calls? Or is it the loudness of the theater that tries to hide the noise made by inconsiderate people?

I was a heavy movie goer (no TV at home!) and used to go to a ton of movies - sometimes more than one in a day.

Some things that are tough

Totally ignoring patron behavior

A group of older teens comes in, phones on the entire movie on bright, talking, cursing, just making a ruckus (maybe on purpose even) a row or two in front. If you are trying to watch a movie with your 5 year old kid (what I loved as a kid) this is no good!

Fights / robberies in the mall / shopping area itself. Again, not the right vibe for kids to be part of and again no consequence / action.

I seriously remember going to packed theatres with a totally cool / fun vibe as a kid - everyone pretty pro-social in terms of behavior. My parents would buy the ticket and leave us there. The other folks were basically a positive to the shared experience. The only issue was sometimes talking and the ushers would walk you out if you talked too much.

I wear earplugs for the loudness - which is ridiculous.

We ended up getting a projector for home. We can curl up (with kids and family as relevant) and have a better experience?

So question: When does it come out on streaming?

Also a hack if you still love movies. Go on a total off-beat time if you can a few weeks after opening. The attendance falls off hugely. But can still be a tiny bit hit or miss.

I just watched it this weekend on a whim at the end of an all day date. We both enjoyed it a lot, we went and watched Fury Road at home after as she had not seen that and was very excited for it.

I think I still like Furiosa better, but my opinion of Fury Road has improved upon the second watching.

The viewing experience was great. There were like 10 other people in the entire theater and we had prime center seats.

Prequel? Bad sign.

Fleshing out a weird movie world we’ve already visited? Rarely a good idea. See: John Wick.

… but it was pretty damn good anyway. I like it more the more I think about it.

Fifth entry in a movie franchise is not generally a sign of quality either.

Nor is being directed by the same guy that made a film about dancing penguins and another about talking pigs.

I'm looking forward to it though.

Sequels, prequels, adaptations from other media, known stories, that is most that have been produced in the last years or decades. With that there are no surprises, no new stories, not a lot of innovation, people get bored or not interested, specially after a few hopeful tries that ended in deception, specially after a big media push.

Making movies are seen as an investment that must have a sure return, there is no risk taking, not a lot of new approaches, and they won't end in black swans but in some variant of diminishing returns. The most surprising thing is that they are getting surprised by the outcome of this kind of approach.

You can get an 85 inch television for $800 after tax at Best Buy today. Maybe the market for leaving the house to watch a big screen just isn't there anymore. People have their own big screens now.

Could be as simple as the cost and lack of money. Weak content / weak promotions. Covid: packing into a small area with many strangers inside for hours seems risky now.

I know I'm a bit sensitive to this type of thing, going to the theater is such a roll of the dice:

- Will I set in front of someone kicking my chair? - Will I sit next to someone eating candy from a crinkly bag for half the movie? - Will I sit behind someone on their phone the whole time? - Will I sit next to someone talking most of the time?

I go to about two movies a year because of this, but I would easily go 5, maybe even 10 times as often if there was a way these issues could be addressed.

I wonder if the new FLirt Covid strain also plays a role here to some extent. I see more people with masks again and lots of people calling in sick actually.

The average person's TV setup (what used to be called "home theater") now matches or exceeds the movie going experience: volume control, pause anytime, cheap food, private bathrooms, no-one talking ot eating next to you, etc. I saw Dune 2 in a nearly empty theater and it was still a terrible experience (good movie though).

There are some reasons to be interested, given how expensive they are to make (in some genres), but overall I am always surprised how much we all seem to care how much movies cost and earn. I don't ask that about books or musical recordings or even TV shows, yet somehow with movies I'm an investor?

I know that‘s not what this topic is about at its core, but let me tell you: go watch Furiosa. Like, right now.

It’s a symbiosis of most enjoyable craziness and excellent execution like nothing before it.

The central street war / chase scene borders on life-altering.

Hollywood is in a decline for years and pushing politics and ideology in each and every movie didn't help either.

People are just fed up by this nonsense and don't watch it anymore. A similar thing is (finally) happening in the gaming space, too.

No. Most people don't care. The group that sees "politics and ideology" ruining everything everywhere are an insufferably loud minority.

Which is ironic because minorities are usually what set them off.

It's been going on for so long that more and more people realize what is being played and they reject it because they don't want any ideology being pushed onto their plate by a movie or a game.

It's similar to the espionage problem with TVs, phones and OSs.

And btw: It's funny how you can always get at least one person to jump on a comment like that and tell me it's not true.

This was my experience. Same thing happened to gaming for me at the same time.

It was around 2015 that I burned out. The last film that I tried to watch was the Force Awakens. It was incoherent, frenetic, poorly acted, and filled with in-vogue nonsensical pandering. Any interest I had in cinema as a medium evaporated.

There's nothing filmmakers can do to make me want to watch films, let alone pay for the privilege--even if they somehow pandered to all my weird whims.

Megalopolis is honestly the first film that I've heard about in almost a decade that sounded even remotely interesting, but then I saw the trailer and all desire to see it disappeared.

Let it burn.

> If the summer blockbuster season is ever to recover, it's going to require some blue-sky thinking.

Yeah, revolutionary thinking like: stop producing recycled content slop, lower the budgets, make original films not based on pre-existing IPs. Maybe even try some relatable human-scale stories instead of wannabe grandiose "save the galaxy" type stuff.

I can't believe a human being with a pulse can sit through a superhero movie. The way those things are constructed, their "nutritional value", is worse than run-of-the-mill degenerate isekai harem anime, expect the latter costs a lot less to make and wastes less human potential.

What? Furiosa is a flop????

It's been open for 6 days. It's a bummer that movies need to make all their money right away.

Same with Fall Guy. Everyone I've talked to who saw it loved it. My wife and I have wanted to see it since it opened, but life is busy and this week is our first opportunity to do so. We're going tomorrow, which is the last day before it gets pulled from theaters.

The solution is painfully obvious for anyone who isn't actually involved in milking every last red cent out of media: make movies people actually want to see, and not just shameless cash grabs recycling everything from 1980 onward. Of course, now every suit expects every movie to gross a billion dollars, so that's not going to happen. It's a fun dream, though.

Literally all the numbers say the opposite.

There is a ton of ink on the topic, but the core problem is that executives get fired for failures more frequently than they get expanded upside for hits.

“Executives get fired” makes it sound like being fired is a natural consequence of a box office failure. Who is firing the executives in such a way that they incentivize mediocre performance? Maybe they should quit doing that?

This should help:

https://x.com/TheMonologist/status/1795505661591040064

I can't remember where now, but I read that these reboot cash grabs are largely aimed at overseas markets like China which make up the majority of film earnings nowadays.

Except if there’s Winnie the Pooh in them, it’s sort of a litmus test.

There's a reason science fiction was popular in the Soviet Union...

Please elaborate. :-)

The fantastic is sufficiently detached to provide an allowed, apolitical outlet for social commentary, where more realistic stories would be censored.

I often wonder how "Kin-dza kin-dza" could have been produced, but it was perhaps in a climate of increasing openness.

Is Furiosa a cash grab? I haven't seen it yet but Fury Road was anything but.

Yeah this is most likely the wrong movie to blame.

Fury Road was IMHO the blockbuster movie of the 2010s.

I didn't have time yet but very much looking forward to see what George Miller has cooked up this time around!

Fury Road was certainly not a cash grab, but a prequel to the blockbuster of the 10s except with a female lead definitely smells like a cash grab.

What a female lead has to do with it?

I like how the anti-woke internet twisted the subject for their agenda, claiming people didn't watch because they have apprehensions about woke Hollywood and female protagonists.

Also they often don't seem to have a clue what kind of living legend George Miller is.

She was the protagonist of the other one too. The Jay Gatsby to Max’s Nick Carraway.

And AFAIK this is built almost entirely off the extensive character background notes developed while writing her for Fury Road, so it’s not like they just cooked up this story because they needed something.

It was supposed to come out as an animated companion backstory like the Animatrix. The budget would have been lower for that. Instead we get it 10 years later and much bigger than it was meant to be. No idea whose choice that is (Miller, the studio, someone in between). If I didn't have a kid I'd have seen it opening weekend; Fury Road was a perfect flick.

I was worried, given these kind of story-behind-the-story prequels are usually a bad idea, but was pleasantly surprised. It delivers Fury Road style action of a similar (so, exceptionally high) quality both in raw action-excitement and in use of the scenes to convey story and (especially) characterization and character arcs, while being very differently-structured and not at all feeling like just the same thing again, or like it’s just trying to fill in every single gap in the setting left by Fury Road.

It also feels thick with influence and fluency in cinema per se, in a way that Fury Road didn’t to me, and I think it may mean this one rewards repeat watches to an exceptional degree.

George Miller wanted to make this story at the same time as Fury Road, right after so it wasn’t a cash grab at time of conception

Fury Road is my idea of a blockbuster. But it was the 21st highest grossing movie of 2015! Financially, it was a mild success. Terminator Genisys made more money.

It gets blame because the massive budget

Hollywood can’t make great smaller movies like that anymore without spending $100M which raises the stakes and it also comes with a ton of studio baggage afraid of any sort of risk

Fury Road made sense. The fact that Furiosa is set in between the original Mad Max and the time of Fury Road kinda says "cash grab" to me. No real logical reason to insert this fifth film between films 1 and 4 other than "we don't know how to continue the storyline with something new, so let's just bridge the gaps".

The reason is clearly "George Miller wanted to make it". In other words: not a cash grab.

I loved how they bridged the gaps. Further development of the world which made me appreciate Fury Road even more. When I saw the trailers I thought it looked terrible and was a cash grab. After a friend got me to go see it, I was happily proven wrong.

I don't think telling a story out of sequence from existing material means that it's a cash grab.

I think the trailer hurt them more than anything. It looks like a crappy CGI imitation of Fury Road, which I loved.

No, Miller originally planned to film both Fury Road and Furiosa back-to-back. Not a cash grab.

It’s a watchable warmup before rewatching the previous one :) and that one still looks fucking epic.

Personally I think Chris Hemsworth was a big miscast and just plain boring and weird. If they would get somebody like Rob Zombie it could’ve been much more fun and menacing xD. Otherwise it just doesn’t take you on an emotional journey. They tried to cramp as many story lines as possible, but it just has diluted the whole experience. They didn’t use any dynamic and rememberable soundtracks. Technically they did a great job and many moments were quite similar to original one.

But at the end I left with only single thought. That this is gonna be a future of LA with all water supply issues, AI taking jobs, and poor actors, models, stand up comedians and homeless people inheriting the land xD. If only Hollywood won’t come up with an entertainment so epic that they will be able to compete with passionate creative people creating new kind of movies using AI for pennies.

> Personally I think Chris Hemsworth was a big miscast and just plain boring and weird

Huh, I’d call out his performance as one of the best elements of the movie (which I also liked a lot overall, this isn’t a backhanded compliment)

[edit] this though:

> They didn’t use any dynamic and rememberable soundtracks.

Yeah, it bucks some stupid and bad Hollywood trends (you can see what’s happening in night scenes! You can understand the dialog!) but does follow the nigh-universal trend of having a boring soundtrack that zero people are humming on their way out of the theater. I wouldn’t have guessed I’d be looking back favorably on the original soundtracks of middling 90s movies but here we are.

> But at the end I left with only single thought. That this is gonna be a future of LA with all water supply issues, AI taking jobs, and poor actors, models, stand up comedians and homeless people inheriting the land xD.

Yes, and cosmetic surgeons slashing people, Sendero Luminoso conquering territory, Carjack Malone living on a tanker ship, Peter Fonda surfing on a stormdrain.

It's called Escape from LA, and it is glorious.

If only they recycled the best of the 1980s, it would be fine. Not great but fine. A large (majority?) of the audience wouldn’t even know it was recycled.

Unfortunately mostly the veneer of the 1980s is recycled into some commitee test audience mashup. In a way we succeeded in making “machine learning” movies “by hand”. An awful lot of movies aren’t from the human spark.

The Super Mario Brothers and Barbie movies were big successes. Lots of other cash grabs make money too. But the movies that are coming out now were greenlit years ago, during the era when Marvel showed you could print money with just any lazy movies. Things are different now, but this one was already finished.

I think (hope?) many of the movie watchers are caught up on the tropes and the “always makes money” formulas that Hollywood has been riding for years. If they pay attention maybe they’ll greenlight genuinely new IP and try things and let creatives explore again. You can make a lot of “failures” for $160M and if two are hits you’ve made enough to pay for all the rest.

We saw Furiosa in IMAX. It was amazing. It was also $45 for two tickets. Concessions were a bit more than that.

Hollywood: Most families don’t have $100-200 to throw down on a single movie.

The Mad Max movies weren't really blockbuster movies. They kind of appeal to a niche and not a more general "Action"-enjoying movie crowd.

can't wait for the articles about how the movie flopped only because of a female lead. /s

I can’t tell if this article is from 2024 or some previous year. Maybe that’s part of the problem.

The article compares The Little Mermaid with Furiosa. The two movies cannot be any more different. I saw Furiosa and enjoyed it a lot. It's not a kid's movie... I think a summer blockbuster needs to appeal to a wider crowd.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com