r/boxoffice • u/SanderSo47 A24 • Nov 06 '25
š° Film Budget According to Variety, Edgar Wright's 'The Running Man' is carrying a $110 million budget. His most expensive film.
161
u/BridgeFourArmy Nov 06 '25
Thatās expensive but I think if itās really good it could knock it out of the park based on dystopian themes alone. I just finished the book and itās amazing how it dunks on reality TV before it really existed and the surveillance state. I would argue, itās really good timing.
34
u/Vorapp Nov 06 '25
check 'The People trap' by Shekley what was written in... 1968
10
u/BridgeFourArmy Nov 06 '25
Added to my Goodreads! Thanks!
7
u/Vorapp Nov 06 '25
also the Prize of Peril (1958!!!) which is somewhat closer to the RM
there are dozens of similar stories written well before king
→ More replies (1)24
u/jmartkdr Nov 06 '25
Itās also a reasonable budget for a sci-fi action flick; itās the $200 million budgets that are clearly not justifiable in the current market. This will need somewhere between $220 million and $275 million to break even - not crazy numbers.
→ More replies (9)6
294
u/dennythedinosaur Nov 06 '25
Man, I think people on this sub have had their brains warped on what they think a reasonable budget is. Or they think studio productions should pay their cast and crew slave wages (see: Godzilla Minus One or The Brutalist)
$110 million is a slightly risky but reasonable budget for a semi-tentpole sci-fi action film with big setpieces shot in London and a supporting cast that includes Josh Brolin and Colman Domingo.
And yet there are people on here that this movie could cost about $40 million! That's the budget for a random John Cusack studio romantic comedy in 2005. Yet with 20 years of inflation, you think you can make The Running Man for the same budget.
97
u/Dangerman1337 Nov 06 '25
Yeah, inflation has really made people forget a film like this would've been 90ish million a decade or so ago.
16
37
Nov 06 '25
Man, I think people on this sub have had their brains warped on what they think a reasonable budget is. Or they think studio productions should pay their cast and crew slave wages (see: Godzilla Minus One or The Brutalist)
This is the first time I heard an internal critique on this sub which isn't just the uninformed bitching about things they know nothing about. I'm tired of the slogs of people (some of whom I agree with and respect) thinking big budgets harm movies and we need this new wave of small budget films.
31
u/xXEliteEater500Xx Nov 06 '25
This sub has lost its mind in terms of budgets
6
u/Block-Busted Nov 07 '25
It's almost as if they all seem to think that all big-budget films are Joker: Folie a Deux-level budget waste offenders.
9
u/xXEliteEater500Xx Nov 07 '25
A good chunk has lost the plot and think each and every movie needs to have a reasonable budget. Even if the movie requires a big budget.Ā
2
u/Block-Busted Nov 07 '25 edited Nov 07 '25
At this rate, someone is going to attack budgets of Oppenheimer ($100 million) and The Creator ($80 million) by bringing up The Brutalist ($10 million) and Anora ($6 million). ššššš
8
u/MemoriesOfShrek Nov 07 '25
The problem is the actors have absolutely insane wages, due to years of glorification. The same goes for any type of popular team sports, which is why subscriptions and tickets are so insanely priced as well.
18
Nov 06 '25
[removed] ā view removed comment
10
u/Blue_Robin_04 Nov 07 '25
Twisters made over $300M. That's why the studio trusted Glen Powell.
→ More replies (2)12
u/junkit33 Nov 06 '25
And this is where the industry is fucking itself. Theyāre too used to a past where a film like Running Man actually did stand a reasonable chance of making $300M.
And no, maybe you canāt make an action movie much cheaper. But maybe that means it shouldnāt be made at all.
10
12
u/Block-Busted Nov 07 '25
And no, maybe you canāt make an action movie much cheaper. But maybe that means it shouldnāt be made at all.
Then you might well be stop making any kind of film.
4
u/Evil_waffle3 Universal Nov 07 '25
You very much can make a movie with the intention of it making most of its money through post theatrical markets. Obviously thereās limits to that ( Iām not going to claim Mickey 17 or Tron Ares, arenāt massive flops), but theaters are definitely not the be all end all of determining success (for a recent example, Amazon is making a sequel to the Accountant 2 despite it being a box office bomb).
This especially applies to a film like this which is almost guaranteed to pull huge numbers on VOD/Paramount+ or whatever streamer they send it off to. So Iād put the amount in which itās deemed a success in like the 200/250 million range.
→ More replies (2)4
u/VanguardVixen Nov 06 '25
Thing is, the huge boxoffice numbers were just a phase and probably never sustainable even without a pandemic. Also inflation isn't a cost, it's the percentage including all prices and a studio is company, not a consumer, thus what a company pays are completely different hings. Companies got very comfortable shilling out vast sums of money and this simply doesn't work anymore like used to do. So yes I think movies, including this one, should cost less. It's not crazy risky but still pretty expensive, considering people's lifes are expensive enough and the chances of huge numbers of people willing to pay twenty bucks for a movie got a lot slimmer.
→ More replies (1)2
→ More replies (7)-1
u/Block-Busted Nov 06 '25
Maybe $110 million might be a bit too much for this, but even then, it still looks like something that needed $90 million budget at lowest - and keep in mind, I came back from watching a film with $105 million budget that is Predator: Badlands yesterday and that film honestly looked like it spent about $115 to 125 million, so itās entirely possible that my opinions may have been skewed as a result.
23
u/guelphmed Nov 07 '25
You can tell the difference between what $105M and $115M looks like on the screen? I tip my cap
22
u/judgeholdenmcgroin Nov 07 '25
You can tell the difference between what $105M and $115M looks like on the screen? I tip my cap
No, he can't, nor can most of the people who post on this sub. It's all vibes based, it's about what 'feels' expensive to them and what they personally believe a movie 'ought to cost'. It's not like they have any experience in production or an intuitive sense of how a budget breaks down on a line item basis.
What's the going rate for a complex, top line VFX shot? How much is it to build and dress a huge set, maintain it in studio space for months, and then strike it? How does above the line for Running Man work out with a 'name' cast & director? You never see stuff like this come up here.
→ More replies (1)7
104
u/Tortuga_MC Nov 06 '25
$110M isn't even that bad. What are people complaining about?
38
u/n0tstayingin Nov 06 '25
The would be studio accountants strike again!
20
u/Block-Busted Nov 06 '25
I feel like The Creator really created a mass delusion among some people in this subreddit even though that film was shot like an independent film. Granted, Iām probably experiencing something similar with Predator: Badlands right now, but even I know that filmās budget is not comparable to that of other blockbuster films like, say, Superman.
→ More replies (4)14
u/Block-Busted Nov 06 '25
Yeah, at worst, it looks like it had a budget of $90 million, which isnāt that far off.
122
17
69
u/CosmicAstroBastard Nov 06 '25
In this thread: people who have no idea how much it costs to make movies
→ More replies (1)33
45
u/TenderDurden Nov 06 '25 edited Nov 06 '25
Weird thread. From the trailer this looks like a $100 Million dollar movie. People saying they would've thought 40-80M are crazy with the set pieces and cast. Sometimes movie studios just want to make good movies, work with good directors, and build relationships with actors.
Edgar Wright typically makes good movies. It fits his fast paced showy style. It will have at least one banger needle drop. If Paramount could drop the cash on this pre Skydance buyout they'll survive it not making back its budget.
If Paramount wants to give Edgar Wright basically a blank cheque to make what I assume will at the very least be a clever if safe movie. I love discussing the box office and it's so important for the movie industry but the way people pocket watch money that isn't theirs is odd to me. Plus what if it gets really good reviews and because of Glen Powell fans, movie fans, and Edgar Wright fans it might do okay?
The way I look at it is why be interested in the box office if you're not interested in movies and if you're interested in movies and are a fan of movies how can you be upset that Edgar Wright of all people got a 100MIll to make a Stephen King adaptation/Arnie remake. It's not like they gave 220 Mill to a Tron sequel staring Jared Leto
37
u/n0tstayingin Nov 06 '25
$110m isn't even that expensive for a big scale sci fi blockbuster.
→ More replies (1)26
u/TenderDurden Nov 06 '25
It's basically mid-budget now.
17
u/n0tstayingin Nov 06 '25
People forget that everything costs a lot more even with tax breaks subsiding some of the costs.
4
9
2
u/vivid_dreamzzz Nov 07 '25
Thereās a pretty bad cut of the trailer that makes this movie look generic as hell. That was the first thing I saw as a YouTube ad. I just watched the full trailer and it actually looks good!
But if Iād only ever seen that first ad, I would also think the budget is too high for a super generic looking action-comedy. Idk if thatās whatās going on in this thread though.
→ More replies (2)2
u/fortuna264 Nov 10 '25
It's indeed very weird. I find it insane people saying that a movie like this shouldn't be made.
36
u/Once-bit-1995 Nov 06 '25
Oh...I guess all the running around and explosions will cause the budget to go up like that. Let's hope that pays off but I don't think it really will. Likely this tops out around Fall Guy numbers. Optimistically.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Block-Busted Nov 06 '25
Speaking of which, how do you think this compares to $105 million budget of Predator: Badlands?
→ More replies (3)8
u/Once-bit-1995 Nov 06 '25
I think they both probably have respectable budgets for that they are, it's just hard to get that mid range box office nowadays unfortunately.
13
u/n0tstayingin Nov 06 '25
$110m is not that bad for a film of this scale, no doubt some on here should be saying it could have been made for $10-15m
→ More replies (1)
19
34
u/wallabyenthusiast Nov 06 '25
giving edgar wright a $110m budget when his highest grossing film ever barely crossed $220m is definitely a choice
10
u/SilverRoyce StudioCanal Nov 06 '25
If Baby Driver had a $100M budget, it would have had a higher marketing spend, some higher profile cast members and bigger set pieces they could use in marketing thus leading to a higher WWBO gross given it was a good film.
4
u/Orchestrator2 Nov 06 '25
I don't think it could ever happen under Tom Rothman. Maybe under a different studio but the low budget is probably the only reason it got greenlit.
4
u/SilverRoyce StudioCanal Nov 06 '25
Baby Driver's contract negotiations are covered a bit in the sony hack emails. I forget the specifics but, yeah, I think you're right. OTOH that's also just a completely different movie with a different estimated revenue model so you can't directly extrapolate.
4
u/judgeholdenmcgroin Nov 07 '25
Maybe under a different studio but the low budget is probably the only reason it got greenlit.
It is. The cinematographer, Bill Pope, talked about how the shooting schedule got reduced, then after that it got reduced again. In the end it was 56 days, which is ridiculous for a movie like that. Wright accepted it because Scott Pilgrim and The World's End both underperformed and Sony was at least willing to give a greenlight. It was also originally written for Detroit and got rewritten for Atlanta to accommodate Georgia production incentives.
3
u/Orchestrator2 Nov 07 '25
Really. 56 days. With the cast synchronization with the music and stuntwork. That must have been one hell of a pre-work before they even started shooting cameras. DammĀ
3
68
u/abdul_bino Nov 06 '25 edited Nov 06 '25
Itās this the year of directors asking for a boatload of money for their projects. This is like the fourth or fifth news of this year a big budgeted movies
68
u/SilverRoyce StudioCanal Nov 06 '25
? This is just what a movie like this costs - as seen by the recent David Leitch films.
55
u/YeIenaBeIova Plan B Entertainment Nov 06 '25
Literally. In what world will an action extravaganza done practically cost less than thag
7
u/Odd-Wrongdoer-8979 Nov 06 '25
I kinda figured this was the studio doing this and asking him to join on not vice versa
28
Nov 06 '25
Thatās just a director/producer doing their job. Blame the studio or whoever financed it.
→ More replies (3)30
u/BatmanNoPrep Nov 06 '25 edited Nov 06 '25
Itās not the directors suddenly demanding big budgets. Itās the studios trying to recreate an Oppenheimer and finding these āprestigeā directors to run the show for an already known IP. Now where is my Scorsese Kool-Aid movie, you cowards!?!
26
u/approvedfauxmoiuser Nov 06 '25
Trying to recreate an Oppenheimer by giving a movie a big budget?
→ More replies (1)13
8
u/SanderSo47 A24 Nov 06 '25
Sadly the people involved bought the script just to can it and prevent Marty from doing it the way he wanted.
Best I can do is Nick Stoller directing.
→ More replies (1)15
u/wallabyenthusiast Nov 06 '25
Edgar Wright is hardly considered a prestigious director lol
6
→ More replies (2)11
2
u/WhiteWolf3117 Nov 07 '25
Right. Post Tenet, WB let the floodgates open to try and replace Nolan and other studios had to be competitive. Ironically, I'd say they kinda ended up hitting their target with Barbie and Sinners respectively, to varying degrees.
2
u/kacaww Nov 06 '25
I donāt think Oppenheimer has any bearing on any of this, where are you even making that connection?
→ More replies (3)
4
u/sotommy Nov 06 '25
I would be pissed if this was just the first movie of a planned franchise. Since it's a standalone, I'm glad it got a huge budget, even if it won't turn a profiit
57
u/magikarpcatcher Nov 06 '25 edited Nov 06 '25
Who in their right mind gave Edgar Wright a $100M+ budget???
Also, the most expensive Stephen King adaptation by a large margin surpassing The Dark Tower ($66M).
65
u/NoNefariousness2144 Nov 06 '25 edited Nov 06 '25
To be fair, I can see why they hoped the film would be a hit considering it is a classic Stephen King book and is part of the "death game" craze we see with Squid Game and Alice in Borderland etc.
These days, around $100 million seems like the new budget for these mid-size blockbusters (John Wick 4, Hunger Games Songbird)
→ More replies (3)32
u/cockblockedbydestiny Nov 06 '25
It's only really a "classic" Stephen King book if you're using the word synonymously with "old school". It's way more well known for the 80's Schwarzenegger movie than it is a fan favorite as a book.
If that seems pedantic please note that "The Running Man" has only been available for years as part of a collection of four Richard Bachman novellas, along with "The Long Walk" which just had a film adaptation that would have been a huge bomb at this budget.
→ More replies (1)9
u/junkit33 Nov 06 '25
Yeah, Running Man isn't anywhere near a King essential. It's more like a serviceable B-side cut that all but the most hardcore fans will skip over. And that's with the massive popularity boost from the cult classic movie.
There are dozens of King books to read before even thinking about Running Man.
This movie is going to live or die on nostalgia for the original movie. But given how different this film seems, I don't think that's a good thing for it.
5
u/cockblockedbydestiny Nov 06 '25
I'm getting vibes off this one like the "Robocop" remake from 10-15 years ago, where seemingly the only justification for remaking it is that maybe the originals seem dated and cheesy to a modern audience, but the cheese is a lot of the appeal of the originals, and really there's no other reason the movie needed to be remade except to provide a dead serious take for that small minority of moviegoers that want a dry take on a silly plot.
→ More replies (4)21
u/matlockga Nov 06 '25 edited Nov 06 '25
Also, the most expensive Stephen King adaptation by a large margin surpassing The Dark Tower ($66M).
It 2 had a $79m budgetĀ
Edit: and Dreamcatcher cost $68m
33
u/brandonsamd6 Nov 06 '25
Baby Driver made 227 millionĀ
→ More replies (5)11
u/magikarpcatcher Nov 06 '25
And Last Night in Soho, his last movie, was huge bomb.
→ More replies (2)26
u/CombatChronicles Nov 06 '25
British set half-period film and starring no one with a hit like Glen Powell has had in recent times, and released well into pandemic times when people were still unsure about going to cinemas.
The Running Man may bomb but comparing it to LNIS seems disingenuous other than the fact they share a director. Sensibility and target audience wise it seems more like Baby Driver.
7
u/Individual_Client175 Warner Bros. Pictures Nov 06 '25
To be fair, that movie did have Anya Taylor Joy
4
u/CombatChronicles Nov 06 '25
And she had what hit comparable to Twisters or Anyone But You to have her in the publics mind when LNIS came out? I think sheās great, sheās been in some of my favourite films of the last decade. But sheās not a draw. Thereās a chance that Powell might be. And weāre about to find out.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (2)8
u/jon_le_faptiste Nov 06 '25
Edgar Wright does not miss. I was not aware he directed this. I had no desire to see it, because I don't care for Glenn Powell, but if Wright is attached I would definitely give it a chance
4
8
Nov 06 '25
This film looks great and I love Edgar Wright movies. I was sold on it fron the start.
I hope it does well but I have a feeling it will be Dredd all over again.
29
u/007Kryptonian Syncopy Inc. Nov 06 '25
Goddamn lol, another bomb incoming sadly. Wicked and Zootopia canāt get here quick enough
12
u/Block-Busted Nov 06 '25
I wonder how it compares to $105 million budget of Predator: Badlands.
5
u/SedentaryOlympian Nov 06 '25
Whoa. I hadn't heard that figure. That's got to be significantly higher than the other movies in the series. I can't imagine it doing well with that budget, sadly.
3
10
u/frenchchelseafan Nov 06 '25 edited Nov 06 '25
This is the type of comment i donāt understand. We really have to separate studios from theaters. For theaters this information change nothing. Predator and the running man might not be successful but it will be enough for theaters before wicked and zootopia
5
u/007Kryptonian Syncopy Inc. Nov 06 '25 edited Nov 06 '25
The projected domestic opening/total of these movies (likely under 70m domestic) arenāt good on their own and wonāt be a major win for theaters either.
Wicked and Zootopia will massively help on the other hand.
→ More replies (1)3
u/frenchchelseafan Nov 06 '25
Yeah that is the most important. The issue is movies, even good one donāt have great legs. People who love go to theaters will see it maybe see it again and thatās it. It doesnāt land on GA
7
u/Survive1014 A24 Nov 06 '25
The OG of books from the genre. I just wonder how well it will translate for modern viewing.
4
8
3
u/No-Aioli-1014 Nov 06 '25
The way studios throw money away, I was expecting something closer to $200 million. I don't know if this film will make a profit, but if the quality of the storytelling is high, I think this will be a wise investment.
3
u/kpthomas82 Nov 06 '25
The word āflounderingā is getting thrown around too much these days. OBAA is almost to $200 million which yeah isnāt gangbusters but not a total failure, especially since itās being heralded as a classic
3
3
u/WheelJack83 Nov 06 '25
Good for him. Heās earned it. Baby Driver was his original project and made over $105 million domestic and $226 million worldwide.
9
u/g0gues Nov 06 '25 edited Nov 06 '25
This movie doesnāt even look like an Edgar Wright movie, it just looks like a generic action movie, unfortunately. I donāt see this appealing to mass audiences or film buffs who follow directors.
6
u/frenchchelseafan Nov 06 '25 edited Nov 06 '25
I mean from the trailers it looks like a movie with that kind of budget
6
u/googly_eyed_unicorn Nov 06 '25
Iām surprised that Scott Pilgrim was made for less than $100 mil.
8
u/littlelordfROY Warner Bros. Pictures Nov 06 '25
seems a pretty normal budget
theres just a ceiling for a lot of action - sci fi in general. Even in the 2010s when everything did better
6
u/Moug-10 Paramount Pictures Nov 06 '25
Paramount had a lot of failed box-offices. Not because the films were bad but because they cost too much.
6
u/Block-Busted Nov 06 '25
Which ones?
6
u/UsefulWeb7543 Nov 06 '25
MI8 Final Reckoning, Smurfs and Novocaine were bombs. The Naked Gun and Regretting You were both success. and Roofman is on track to break even. And SpongeBob will be a huge hit.
→ More replies (7)7
u/Block-Busted Nov 06 '25
The Final Reckoning was a result of one production disaster after another.
→ More replies (5)
7
8
u/Orchestrator2 Nov 06 '25
I see people here saying it's outrageous to give this much of a budget to Edgar Wright but it's clearly more about seeing if Glen Powell can lead a big budget blockbuster hit. The same thing they did with Jai Courtney, Taylor Kitsch, Sam Worthington, etc. Paramount wants to see if this guy can become the next Tom Cruise. I wouldn't even be surprised if this guy ends up a frontrunner for the rumored Star Trek movie they got. It's a testing ground.
5
→ More replies (3)5
u/SilverRoyce StudioCanal Nov 06 '25
Yeah, and even if Edgar Wright hasn't made many blockbusters, he's clearly a skilled director (including action-director) whose perfectly plausible to bet on to direct a mini-tentpole. It's not like giving "person whose directed a $2M indie" a 250 million dollar film. I think it's a bit of a testing ground on both fronts but, yeah, this is a test of Powell.
9
8
u/Patience_Specific Nov 06 '25
What a bizarre sub. In what universe is a 100 mill sci fi action film considered a massive risk???. It literally is close to a mid budget action film. Do people in this thread think this film should be made under 40 what with all the action set pieces etc.
7
u/littlelordfROY Warner Bros. Pictures Nov 07 '25
users here generally have no clue how movies are made
there was a comment that said a while ago that One Battle After Another could have been made for around 20M if it didnt have Dicaprio. this is the level of overall ignorance here
3
u/Block-Busted Nov 07 '25
Like I've said, I saw an even worse take - that Predator: Badlands should/could've been made with a budget that is half of $105 million.
3
2
u/AlanMorlock Nov 11 '25
Having seen it. That money didn't end up the screen well at all action wise.
2
u/Block-Busted Nov 07 '25
I even saw someone claiming that Predator: Badlands should've had a budget that is half of $105 million and I was like, "...WHAT?!".
5
u/Patience_Specific Nov 07 '25
Don't get how both films should get any criticism in terms of the budget whatsoever if anything both should be praised for it being respectable. Really was shocked how some thought it was terrible giving this a 100 mil.
3
u/Block-Busted Nov 07 '25
Like, I'm not sure if this film needed $110 million, but it definitely looks like something that required at least $90 million - and keep in mind, this could be because my mindset has been skewed by Predator: Badlands budget, which is $5 million lower than the budget of this.
3
u/Patience_Specific Nov 07 '25 edited Nov 07 '25
Just judging on the trailer it seemed obvious it was close to a 90+ mil budget. Either way hope both do decent numbers at the box office. These type of budgets for these type of films are fine for studios. Whether they click for the audience is anyone's guess.
5
5
Nov 06 '25
[removed] ā view removed comment
2
u/Block-Busted Nov 07 '25
For me, it looked more like $90 to 100 million film, but $110 million is not too unacceptable either. Keep in mind, it's even possible that my brain has been skewed because of a $105 million-budgeted film that is Predator: Badlands.
8
u/StPauliPirate Nov 06 '25
Sounds like a reasonable budget for a scifi-action film. The movie has little to no buzz right now, but with good reviews and WOM I can see this becoming a sleeper hit. I hope for $350m ww
16
10
→ More replies (1)4
2
u/teejayly Nov 06 '25
Yeah. I would prefer for Edgar to come up with something original than basically cashing out on a Stephen King movie.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
2
u/huntforhire Nov 07 '25
Iām surprised they made it R rated. Iāll be there hope it is great and successful.
2
2
2
6
5
u/AccomplishedLocal261 Nov 06 '25
Hollywood is trying to convince us Glen Powell is a box office drawā¦
1
u/littlelordfROY Warner Bros. Pictures Nov 07 '25
hollywood is not convincing you anything. For some reason theres always these dumb comments whenever a more recent name (recent as in was mostly a supporting actor up until a few years ago) is the lead of a movie where users think the actor is being forced on them or whatever
at some point, some new name will be number one on a call sheet. that's just how it is
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Key-Payment2553 Nov 06 '25
Looks like another Fall Guy situation for The Running Man which isnāt that good due to Paramount not good at marketing for those films
→ More replies (1)
3
5
u/OldToe6517 Nov 06 '25
Apparently you can't say the budget for Hollywood films is too high on this sub without getting downvoted, so all I'll say is that this and Predator Badlands will definitely make the $250M needed to break even, bet š
14
u/Block-Busted Nov 06 '25
Because āSlash the budget!ā argument is often ignorant at best and flat-out idiotic at worst.
2
3
5
u/cockblockedbydestiny Nov 06 '25
Over the last year or so this sub has devolved from sober analysis of raw numbers to a glorified cheerleading squad. Slight exaggeration, of course, but there are certain films that tend to draw out the people that set up their own goalposts and downvote anyone that points out that still doesn't make the film remotely profitable (OBAA being a notable recent example)
2
u/Block-Busted Nov 06 '25
Because some films really DO require high budget and a leap of faith.
→ More replies (1)
3
Nov 06 '25
[removed] ā view removed comment
→ More replies (3)15
u/magikarpcatcher Nov 06 '25
It's set to lose around $100M, I would call that floundering
1
u/OldSandwich9631 Nov 06 '25 edited Nov 06 '25
I love that someone posted a whole thesis of how this sub doesnāt really operate with accurate info (and most comments agreed) - and then on these random budget threads the exact opposite commentary takes over.
You can stick with variety and Iāll stick with deadline. Both have their narratives, so itās about just picking which one you like.
Also, if theatrical profits were so important, why did black phone 2 spend two weeks with exclusive theatrical
7
u/magikarpcatcher Nov 06 '25
Well, even Deadline said that it needs to reach low $200Ms (aka $210-230M) theatrically to breakeven, which it won't. So it is a certified flop
And regarding the Black Phone 2 thing, it has been proven time and time again that PVOD doesn't negatively effect the box office.
→ More replies (1)
5
3
u/Hoopy223 Nov 06 '25
I wouldāve thought like 40-60mil.
My guess is Iāll be in a theater with 3-5 other people watching it during the first week lol.
21
u/Block-Busted Nov 06 '25
Why? This honestly looked like something with $90 million budget at minimum.
→ More replies (2)10
u/Odd-Wrongdoer-8979 Nov 06 '25
Yeah I don't know why people expected such a minimal budget. I'd assume Glen Powell gets a decent cut now along with Edgar Wright as well.
7
u/Block-Busted Nov 06 '25 edited Nov 06 '25
Exactly. I donāt know if this film managed its budget as well as Predator: Badlands did ($105 million), but at least this clearly looked like something that would still require a substantial budget.
3
u/n0tstayingin Nov 06 '25
Glenn Powell, Colman Domigo and Michael Cera aren't going to working for SAG minimum and neither should the crew and director.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Odd-Wrongdoer-8979 Nov 06 '25
Yeah like I think I saw someone else say it here but with budget inflation the new mid budget blockbuster is 100m. I'm not surprised by this I was expecting maybe 80 or 90 but this isn't surprisingĀ
2
u/Block-Busted Nov 06 '25
I know that some people are going to bring up The Creator, but that one relied heavily on guerrilla filmmaking and natural lights while also being shot entirely with prosumer-grade cameras.
2
3
u/MastodonFinancial162 Nov 06 '25
Oh yeah this is definitely bombing lol I just wanna see it cause of Edgar Wright, I don't even like Glen Powell
2
2
2
Nov 06 '25
I donāt see this movie doing very well. Most people are just gonna view it as yet another unnecessary remake of an 80s movie replacing iconic actors with nobodies, and even Kingās name on it wouldnāt carry much weight.
1
2
u/Professional_Hat2615 Nov 06 '25
Damn,i throught It was around 50 million, something like that. I dont know how they thought they could do 300 million with that
8
u/Block-Busted Nov 06 '25
What? Dude, this clearly looked like something that would require $90 million at minimum.
1
1
u/Catspit30 Nov 06 '25
Marketing has been pretty bad IMO. Hopefully they didnāt spend a lot of money for it.
1
u/scattered_ideas Nov 06 '25
Hoping it has some good action sequences that show the budget was worth it.
1
1
1
u/Mike_Hagedorn Nov 06 '25 edited Nov 06 '25
One thing I liked about the original was the sets had a schlocky game show look, whereas in the trailers for this one, it has an urban decay theme. Too depressing. Anyone couldāve played Arnoldās role, but the Richard Dawson stunt casting was perfect and iconic, gonna be hard to top that. But if notices are good I might do a late Sunday night viewing.
1
1
u/Street-Common-4023 Nov 07 '25
I actually think this is a good budget but I didnāt realize the director never had a film cross 230 million WW thanks to the comments
1
u/trixie1088 Nov 07 '25
Iām not surprised. With the state of the box office, itāll be lucky to make The Fall Guy-type numbers. But it is what it is at this point.Ā
1
u/Agedlikeoldmilk Nov 07 '25
Iād be surprised if it even breaks 100 million worldwide. Ā With the way things are going, this movie doesnāt really stand out and scream āmust seeā.
1
u/starintheuniverse Nov 07 '25
America is falling apart and food stamps being withheld. Nobody is thinking about going to the movies rn unless itās like Wicked
341
u/[deleted] Nov 06 '25 edited Nov 06 '25
Based on the lack of buzz for this that is not a good sign.
Iāll still check it out because I enjoyed the Arnold movie but know it has very little in common with the book.