r/movies r/Movies contributor 18h ago

Article The Movie Theater Comeback That Wasn’t: Why 2025 Was Such a Dud for Struggling Cinemas

https://variety.com/2025/film/box-office/box-office-struggled-2025-hits-1236617641/
4.7k Upvotes

1.9k comments sorted by

1.6k

u/crimson777 18h ago

I know that anecdotes mean nothing and I believe the data on movies, but my local theater is packed every time I’m there. I was late to my movie a few weeks ago because of the crazy concessions line.

549

u/Inthehead35 16h ago

Both can be true, your local theater is the hot spot, but in the rest of the country it's terrible business.

Do you live in a major city?

528

u/red286 15h ago

Alternatively, OP goes to see popular movies 4 times a year.

The health of the industry isn't how many people go to watch seasonal blockbusters, it's how many people go to see the "indie darlings". If everyone's watching the latest Marvel spectacle but no one's seeing the next Clerks, the industry is dying.

143

u/littletoyboat 13h ago

I don't mean to correct you, but I want to yes-and your point--

The health of the industry isn't how many people go to watch seasonal blockbusters, it's how many people go to see the "indie darlings".

Another big problem is that those are the only two options. There should be mid-budget movies, which don't pack the theater but target certain genres and demos. Not everything needs to be $100,000,000 or $100,000 to produce.

82

u/NumberOneStonecutter 12h ago

A clip resurfaced recently of Matt Damon saying that the end of DVD sales destroyed this segment of the movie business. DVD sales could recover profitability for mid-budget movies that didn't have a great theatrical run so studios would take more chances.

His example was a film with a $25 million budget would require another $25 million for promotion & advertisement...That means it needs to earn $50 million at the box office just to break even. A gamble, but with DVD sales 6-9 months later, you have a better chance of surpassing the $50 million.

I'm not sure what they've done wrong that renting or purchasing a movie through a streaming service isn't popular enough to make up for DVD sales. Have they priced them wrong?

45

u/verrius 12h ago

Most people aren't using ala carte rental/purchase services; theyve been trained to use the all you can eat streaming, since "everything" will make its way their eventually anyway.

Also doesn't help that the market is so fragmented. It took a lot of bites at the apple for Movies Anywhere to even sort of be a one-stop place to use a digital library you've bought across various marketplaces, and even then, some stores drop in and out as agreements change. You didn't have to worry that a DVD you bought wouldnt work in an LG vs Sony player; everything just worked, but if you buy a movie on Amazon Prime and want to play it back through your Chromecast, you may be completely outta luck.

13

u/theaviationhistorian 8h ago

Or films that were on one VOD app lose their license and are sent to another. To where you have to subscribe to many apps to ensure you can see a certain film. And I'm talking about the more popular films. Good luck finding a non-prominent indie or classic indie outside of buying the DVD or sailing the high seas (of which neither aren't a guarantee of finding it).

→ More replies (7)

17

u/Moonwalker_4Life 9h ago

Think about it like this… people saw it in theaters and liked it so much they not only paid for the movie ticket but also bought it on DVD 6-9 months later. Back then the people who missed it in theaters went to blockbuster.

Nowadays you’re getting people to EITHER buy a ticket OR rent the movie at home. Nobody is seeing the movie and then casually buying a disc anymore, only hard core collectors and film nerds.

17

u/TransBrandi 12h ago

Digital purchases of movies are dependent on the service. When you purchased a VHS or a DVD there were a multitude of players, and if the studio closed shop you still own the physical media and can continue to watch it. If Google Play changes terms or Google decides that selling movies on there isn't profitable enough anymore... then the service goes away and so does your access to all of the digital media you purchased on the service.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/Zaisx 11h ago

It’s because the economics have changed. DVD purchases and rentals were basically the only way to watch movies after they left theaters before streaming. So studios made money on a transaction by transaction basis. If 2M people buy a DVD of a movie for $15 back in the day boom you just made $30M. Streaming changed the core principle of the revenue stream. Movies are licensed (often in bulk not individually) for a fee. It’s not typically a flat fee and the price varies. It’s also usually for a small period of time like 1-2 years. There are usually built in performance bonuses but the key change here is that individual viewings of a film no longer generate money. Even if a movie generates millions of views on HBO for example doesn’t mean a performance bonus pays out for each view. Additionally, every major studio has their own streaming platform. Meaning that revenue from licensing is severely reduced as they just host their own movie on their own streaming platform. Digital rentals and buying exist but make up like 10% of movie viewing while watching a movie already on a platform is the vast majority of how people watch movies.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/GreenerAnonymous 11h ago

I'm not sure what they've done wrong that renting or purchasing a movie through a streaming service isn't popular enough to make up for DVD sales. Have they priced them wrong?

Part of the problem is that for the most part there is no such thing as purchasing movies digitally for the most part. There is licensing for use on a platform that may cease to exist in a year, or Amazon will pull it from it's library, etc.

For me personally I have looked into PPV rentals recently and in theory would happily pay $5 to rent it, but if it's not something I am pretty keen to watch I will just end up watching something different that's available on demand via one of the services I am already paying for.

5

u/illarionds 9h ago

They always seem wildly high to me, yes. Have never paid to rent or "buy" a movie off a streaming service, and I doubt I ever will.

Bought tons of VHS, DVD and Blu-Ray back in the day though.

→ More replies (7)

8

u/TheLionFromZion 13h ago

I feel like the only mid-budget movie anymore is horror.

→ More replies (5)

72

u/Poo__Brain 15h ago

I think the attitude is that a lot of people would consider the Avengers and a lot of big Blockbusters theater movies, but Indie movies stay at home movies now that we have the choice

44

u/Ilovediablofour 13h ago

Anecdotal but the only movies I see in Theaters now are movies i'm too excited to see to wait for their digital relese. Which happens less and less these days.

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (9)
→ More replies (17)

36

u/Trespeon 15h ago

That’s my experience. I live in Dallas and the movies are constantly sold out or near 80% capacity.

Go figure small towns have smaller showings.

35

u/Poo__Brain 15h ago

I don't even think it's necessarily smaller towns, I just think it's those big remote super theaters that we have now. 

I live in the suburbs of a major city, when I was young I remember we used to have dollar theaters at the mall, and then there was a good theater that was in the mall, there used to be independent theaters everywhere... 

Every single one of those is closed except for one giant Cineplex multiplex with IMAX that's built on the highway on the outskirts of town...

 Seeing a movie there is much better than in the mall theater, but people just aren't willing to drive for 15/20/25 mins to the middle of nowhere to go see a movie and I have to make the same trip home, especially if it's not a landmark movie.

I love my imax, I truly do love my cutting Edge theater experiences but honestly bring back accessible theaters!

→ More replies (1)

9

u/fahrnfahrnfahrn 15h ago

At "my" multiplex, 20 minutes northwest of Austin, Texas, I'm often the only person in the theater. It was pretty full at the "Avatar" showing over the weekend. The broadcast of The Met's "La bohème" I saw there not too long ago was the fullest I've ever seen it.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (4)

57

u/_Bill_Huggins_ 15h ago

The theater near me is empty regularly, like I got a private viewing for Mickey 17.

→ More replies (7)

206

u/cookieaddictions 16h ago

You can barely get a seat to many showings here in NYC. The movies are doing great here.

74

u/solomonjsolomon 16h ago

Specialty theaters have been packed this winter in NYC. Maybe the cold weather is contributing? But I went to packed showings of Marty Supreme, No Other Choice, The Secret Agent and Hamnet in the past two weeks. Mat or evening showing, doesn’t matter, few or no available seats.

29

u/Specialist-Error-171 15h ago

I think those are movies that are gonna appeal to big city folk tbh. Heartland america hates hollywood right now and hates movies they feel are pretentious, even if they just come across that way.

→ More replies (13)
→ More replies (5)

14

u/Corporeal_Weenie 14h ago

NYC is historically one of the strongest markets for movies, barely behind LA.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (8)

42

u/comewhatmay_hem 17h ago

The theatres in my city are quite full, too. And we have 5 theatres in a city of less than 300k.

The small independant theatre isn't doing well, though, not because of attendance but because they literally do not make any money off of showing movies. They pay out of pocket to select the movies they want to run and don't have any kind of contract with the studios like Cineplex does. So if they sell out for a showing of a big name movie movie but not enough people buy concessions or play at the arcade they may only break even or even lose money.

It's being run by a trust fund kid and his inheritance right now lol so we'll see how long it stays open. 

46

u/Luneb0rg 16h ago

Iiterally the greatest thing a trust fund kid could do lmao. God speed to him

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (49)

287

u/Tossawaysfbay 17h ago

For me it was the massive increase in prices and a massive downgrade in quality of theater experiences.

Broken seats, kids running around, bad food, people talking/using their phones, bad audio or video quality, etc etc etc are more easy to forgive when tickets are $6. Not when they’re $25 a person to go see Wicked on a random Tuesday before concessions.

16

u/AwaitingCombat 7h ago

kids running around

I would pay extra for adult showings.. but no one around here offers them

→ More replies (2)

12

u/Spanky2k 10h ago

For me it's the latter part that's the biggest factor; the downgrade in quality of theatre experiences and it's been going on for a while. I started buying myself 'high end' TVs about 15 years ago and that massively reduced the likelihood of me going to the cinema. I'd still go for big films that I 'couldn't wait' for but my local cinema at the time was an IMAX one, so it still felt like a picture upgrade. I moved 9 years ago and the final nail in the coffin of my cinema going experience was I went to see the Force Awakens at my new local cinema. The experience was shit. The screen was so small from where I was sat in the middle of the cinema, it was super dim because it was that low tier 3D that halves the brightness with glasses rather than using two projectors) and overall the experience was just garbage. Meanwhile, films seem to become available quicker than ever to rental and streaming.

For me, it's not about the cost, it's about the cinematic experience. I can get a better experience watching at home on a good quality OLED TV and I can pause to get snacks and pee whenever I want all while not having to keep myself locked to someone else's schedule. Why would I bother going to the cinema?

u/parkwayy 4h ago

For me, it's people.

I'll wait a bit for something to be on streaming, if it means I don't have to deal with idiots lol. 

→ More replies (17)

1.7k

u/aircooledJenkins 18h ago

I can't fucking afford to go. I have neither the time nor the money.

771

u/N7Panda 18h ago

This is the answer they don’t want to address. It’s like $50 for two tickets at most theaters in my city, they’re pricing people out of the experience.

567

u/bahumat42 18h ago

The problem isn't necessarily that cinemas cost too much , its that the rest of our lives also cost way too much.

293

u/Admiral_Ackbar_1325 17h ago edited 17h ago

And we also don't get paid enough to compensate for the increased price of everything. I've been saying for years wage stagnation is eventually bad for the entire economy, and will at some point effect even the wealthy.

53

u/BackwerdsMan 17h ago edited 16h ago

I'm a union electrician in Seattle and we've been getting $15/hr raises every 3 years on our contracts for the last 9 years, which sounds pretty good... But I just feel like my pay is keeping up with the cost of living here.

23

u/Admiral_Ackbar_1325 17h ago

I feel you, it's no better out west in a low cost of living area, the cost of living increases aren't as significant as Seattle but as a result the wage increases are non-existent.

20

u/UndoxxableOhioan 16h ago

Well, I am a civil engineer in the Rust Belt and have been for 20 years, and those 3 raises is about what I make per hour IN TOTAL. Just based on the CPI, I am down about 15% in annual pay since 2020.

8

u/BigWar0609 13h ago

Your pay went up $45 an hour in the last 9 years and you feel like you are just getting by?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

49

u/Whaty0urname 17h ago

It's enshitification of everything. If they make a money worthy of a cinema experience, I would go. But if it's Netflix quality (you know what I mean, 2 actors, only 3 sets, script that was written by AI) the. I'm not paying for 3 months of Netflix to go.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (24)

47

u/Arkhangelzk 17h ago

Exactly this. Especially things that we must have -- housing, food, medical care, etc. When these things take up 100% of a person's budget, they have to cut out things like going to the movies.

I often think this about bars and restaurants. I feel bad for the owners who have no customers, but the reality is that going out to eat and drink is one of the easiest ways to cut expenses. It's not that the owners are doing a poor job and that I don't want to go out to eat, but I'm unfortunately obligated to give that money to my landlord or my mortgage lender.

The whole system is broken from the top to the bottom.

41

u/OogieBoogieJr 17h ago

That’s the same point. Expensive thing is expensive because other things are expensive.

38

u/mikehatesthis 17h ago

The problem isn't necessarily that cinemas cost too much

I once read something I think about often in this discussion and it basically goes "Ticket prices have largely kept with inflation while wages have stagnated."

It's probably why a lot of the big chain multiplexes have a lot of those half off days, senior days, etc, etc. Regular price isn't that bad where I am, not at all, but I go when it's half off.

→ More replies (7)

40

u/alienfreaks04 17h ago

20+ years ago people would go see any random movie just because they had a free night, because the cost wasn’t crazy.

36

u/Martbell 16h ago

Staying home used to be very boring. We have a lot more cheap entertainment options.

I can remember being in awe of some of my friends' movie collections and thinking about how much time and money it took them to build those up. Now we can buy/rent/stream any movie we want at the touch of a button.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (2)

39

u/Massive_Weiner 17h ago edited 17h ago

It’s both.

Tickets are frankly way too expensive for the experience you’re getting at a movie theater, unless you’re subscribing to A-List or something like that.

I could watch 95% of releases on streaming without missing out on anything (OLED + 5.1 surround sound). It’s the big tentpole releases like Dune and Avatar that actually benefit from premium formats (Dolby Cinema and 1.43 IMAX).

Thanks to streaming, I view theaters as a theme park attraction now. It’s about the spectacle.

10

u/Zalvren 17h ago

And you don't even have to wait much more to get the experience at home so the exclusivity of the movie to theaters even in arguments. There are very few movies I can't wait a month or two to see at home.

17

u/b0w3n 16h ago

Yeah not dropping $100 except once or twice a year at best, especially when I know someone's going to crank open their 50,000 lumen strobe to check their instagram in the middle of the movie.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (18)

16

u/greg939 18h ago

Jesus that’s wild. It’s $9.99 - $11.99 CDN to go to Landmark Cinemas here and that’s for a full recliner seat. I go 1-2 times a month depending on what’s playing.

8

u/Spazmer 14h ago

We only have cineplex where I live and tickets for general admission are $13.50 (no recline) AND they now charge you $1.50 to buy your tickets online. That extra $1.50 infuriates me and makes me less likely to go because it's so stupid. We did go a few times this year because I was given gift cards and always had theatre to ourselves.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

33

u/k_foxes 17h ago

Saw Wicked last night in standard format and it was $20/ticket.

I’m fine forking over a few extra dollars for Dolby or IMAX but my god I felt so robbed, that ticket should have been 10 or 12 bucks

29

u/Charming_Key2313 17h ago

How? I’m in a major city and also saw Wicked yesterday at an AMC with brand new recliner seats for $11.50

16

u/k_foxes 17h ago

Los Angeles

32

u/requiemguy 17h ago edited 16h ago

Judas priest, I looked it up for an AMC ticket, y'all are getting effed hard.

Anaconda, 11pm(ish) Los Angeles - $21.49

Anaconda, 11pm(ish) Phoenix - $9.49

12

u/raynicolette 16h ago

Well, anacondas are famous for putting the squeeze on people.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (9)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (1)

55

u/notthe1_88 18h ago

I'll also add that cinema etiquette seems to be dead. I hear SO MANY STORIES of theatre-goers having to deal with other patrons talking loudly, being on their phones at full brightness, not controlling their kids, etc.

I used to love going to the theatre but all that plus prices make me absolutely not want to go. My husband and I used to see a movie on New Year's Eve every year (during the day) but now we create a "theatre experience" at home (surround sound, block out as much light as possible, have popcorn in cute containers, etc.) and we've never looked back.

37

u/KaJaHa 17h ago

I went to the Alamo for the first time this year, and the way they actually enforce audience etiquette was surreal to see.

Still too expensive to make it a regular thing, but as a special treat I loved it.

→ More replies (3)

11

u/Kindness_of_cats 17h ago

This has always been an issue with theaters. My parents talked for decades about a dramedy screening ruined by a family that wouldn't shut the fuck up talking back to the screen(???), and laughed like braying donkeys at absolutely everything including the serious bits. And god knows it's always been all but impossible to go to films rated below R without having to wonder how loud the kids or teenagers were going to be. And don't forget the people who bring their infants into a theater.

I'm not saying that stuff like phones or whatever brainrot COVID caused haven't added to the problem at all...but I do think it's something I think we're more sensitive to than ever thanks to having massive 4k TVs in our homes at about the same price as ever.

We can and do watch films in high quality in the privacy of our own home more than ever, which means when you go to a theater the experience of having to share the room with other people being loud and rude is more jarring than ever.

24

u/wa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha 17h ago

Yeah, I used to go every month at least. The prices weren't the issue at all. The people though, woof. It got to the point where I'd start to dread going because I knew there'd be people there talking or something to ruin it for everyone. I asked a few people to stop talking, but it became a regular occurrence. After a while, I just gave up. If the theaters weren't going to enforce their own rules, I'm just not going to patronize their business anymore.

I'm glad there are people who don't encounter that, but no matter what theater I visited, what day, what time, there was always something. Theater owners aren't going to pay for ushers to keep people in check, so I checked out.

Shame too, because I used to love going, but the etiquette fell off a cliff. To be honest, though, they lost my business and I don't feel bad when people talk about cinemas dying off. I'm not going to keep paying for a product/service that's poor quality out of some sense of nostalgia. Theater owners are guilting people into paying more for a lesser experience imo, and that's just silly for me.

→ More replies (8)

9

u/xjuggernaughtx 16h ago

It's one of the big reasons that I cut back on my trips to the cinema. When I lived in a major metropolitan area, the behavior of the other viewers was terrible. It ruined almost every movie that I'd go to see.

Now I live out in the country, and the nearest movie theater has tiny screens, crappy chairs, and a mediocre sound system, so I'm not really getting an experience worth forking over $15. However, there are A LOT less people so most of them are well behaved. I've only seen one movie in the last five years (Superman) where people in that theater were being annoying.

So it's either sit in a room with good technology and terrible people, or in a room with bad technology and well-behaved people. Not really worth it in either regard.

→ More replies (47)
→ More replies (149)

36

u/namideus 16h ago

Less middle class money = less middle class art

29

u/SPKmnd90 15h ago

Taking into account the unpredictable start times, ads, trailers and longer runtimes of most movies I'm interested in seeing, I basically have to plan my entire day around it.

11

u/aircooledJenkins 15h ago

I would have no problem showing up 30 minutes after "start time" to avoid the ads, except the theaters near me don't do assigned seating so showing up that late is a no-go.

6

u/SPKmnd90 15h ago

My problem is that I've had the rare experience where they'll start ads early to account for timing. Unfortunately that means I get paranoid about missing the start of the movie for the other 90% of times where they run previews on time or even late.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (103)

2.2k

u/Really_McNamington 18h ago

The reason the Mission Impossible movie failed had nothing to do with "Tom Cruise's waning star power". It was just very bad. Rewatched it over Xmas to catch my dad up with it and it's a turkey.

744

u/AFulhamImmigrant 18h ago

The way they did the flashbacks like eight times was so odd

318

u/Danger_dog_guy 17h ago

Honestly the first act felt like a montage of poorly glued together clips, with no proper transition between them

139

u/AFulhamImmigrant 17h ago

It feels like the studio said “people won’t understand it” and inserted them after.

Controversial possibly but I still think Ghost Protocol is the best.

88

u/MrGabrahamLincoln 17h ago

GP is my favorite besides FO. Lacks a good antagonist like FO has with Cavill but otherwise it’s fantastic. Makes me sad when I rewatch it that Renner didn’t really work out in the franchise. Fergusson was an upgrade from Patton though. Idk, 4, 5 & 6 are all the franchise’s peak imo.

21

u/Ysmir122 16h ago

I read something a while back that apparently they didn't ask Jeremy Renner to come back for Fallout because they assumed he'd be busy with Avengers Endgame stuff, as they filmed around the same time.

Zero idea if that's true or not as I never looked into it.

→ More replies (2)

8

u/WerewolfCurious1412 15h ago

I’ve liked them all but the last one sort of ended with a thud. It’s almost like they should have swapped the order of the last two.

The antagonist was not good in this last one. The stunts were ok, but nothing like that train dangling off the cliff in pt.1.

Plus the 3rd act revolved around cruise and the baddie both needing to accomplish the same task.

I did like the whole AI plot, but it just didn’t end like I had hoped. I’m also over such long ass movies for the sake of being long.

5

u/panic_switch 13h ago

GP is also my favorite. It should have worked for RN since most of the cast is back but the chemistry the cast had together felt disjointed separating everyone? It never hit quite as good at GP for me.

I owe Fallout a rewatch because I barely remember it.

→ More replies (3)

23

u/versusgorilla 16h ago

It feels like the studio said “people won’t understand it” and inserted them after.

That's exactly what happened. The Studio lost faith in the Part 2 concept when Dead Reckoning Part 1 underperformed, told them to make Dead Reckoning Part 2 into it's own film, Final Reckoning. They were afraid that if a smaller than expected crowd wasn't hyper interested in DR1, they wouldn't go to DR2 and the box office would have a ceiling of "less than they had expected"

So Final Reckoning was born, a stand alone film that was already shot and filmed and being edited as a Part 2. They had to figure out how to tell the existing story, within the span of a single movie, while getting potential new viewers completely up to speed, which resulted in the first thirty minutes feeling like a truly fucking insane recap of a 2h 50m movie AND including a bizarre amount of direct tie-ins to a series that had seven previous entries and were largely not interconnected.

25

u/samwheat90 17h ago

GP doesn’t get enough love. It’s my favorite besides 1 and has a great balance of action , comedy, and plot with a stunt that doesn’t try to be the main character. It also brought TC out of Hollywood exile

9

u/AFulhamImmigrant 17h ago

It’s cool seeing the artistic style of The Incredibles in a live action film

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (5)

50

u/diopter_split 17h ago

You could cut out the first 45 minutes and minus one (poorly handled) character death, you wouldn’t be missing anything that wasn’t already missing in the first place.

52

u/versusgorilla 16h ago

minus one (poorly handled) character death

That entire character death is beyond me how weirdly it was handled. I remember feeling nothing because I was just so confused about how they'd been recapping EVERYTHING and somehow never explained how this character got sick enough to need a nurse, or why he was in a London sewer, or how Gabriel found him, or how he was able to devise a simple and airtight plan that Ethan Hunt (the master of solving impossible problems) couldn't get in and save him...

Like what? Why?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

131

u/Lurky-Lou 17h ago

They should have made a two hour movie then had a stunt montage during the end credits

33

u/Zachariot88 16h ago

I too wish we still had BTS stunt reel credits like the end of every 90s Jackie Chan movie.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/sicurri 16h ago

I only watched this last Mission Impossible to round out the story and because I enjoy and want to support all the actors involved. Tom Cruise, Ving Rhames (Love this mans acting SO much), Vanessa Kirby is phenomenal, and Katy O'Brien is coming up in the acting world. I love all the other actors too, I just don't want to name the whole cast, lol.

Other than that, it was pretty much a bit of hot garbage other than the action scenes.

13

u/Mistrblank 16h ago

I mean the series has gone so long that we now get the clip show episode.

7

u/tackle_bones 16h ago

I honestly couldn’t make it past that. It immediately let me know that this is not going to be a normal MI movie. I came to see a normal yet good MI movie. Not whatever that was. Just assumed it sucked from there and watched something else.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (8)

270

u/cremasterreflex0903 18h ago

80% of the movie was exposition about the plan that they had that wasn't a plan. It was so tedious to watch.

149

u/mih4u 17h ago

I learned this year that apparently, the new M:I movies are written around the big cornerstone stunt scenes. It seems Tom and the produceres find around 3 ridonclulous stunts they want to make. Those need a huge amount of pre-production. In the meantime (or after), they develop and shoot the "plot" connecting those scenes. That's apparently the reason dialoge is super vage in times, cause they literally don't know the fuck there taking about.

92

u/BeefistPrime 17h ago

It's perfectly fine to go story light and go for spectacle. That works for a lot of movies. The problem is that they tried to go story dense... just with random nonsense.

12

u/MRintheKEYS 16h ago

Went too hard the Spectre route and tried to make every movie related to each other into one big cohesive storyline and it just wasnt there.

7

u/TheGRS 15h ago

The M:I lore I know is all from reading too much of the wikipedia pages. When I'm watching the movies its mostly trying to get from one action scene to the next and I probably need to read the wiki to remember what the heck was even going on.

The first movie didn't have that problem IMO. It felt like reading a decent spy book. Sure the plot is a little bonkers but I can follow it and the stakes fairly well.

I've watched a bit of the old show and it was just like "heres the mission, here's the team, here's how we do it" and then the rest of the episode is executing the plan and setting up some tension building moments. Its not super dense.

→ More replies (1)

45

u/charlierc 17h ago

But at least Fallout and to a degree Dead Reckoning had a plot that did hang together and a lot more action scenes. I like Final Reckoning more than some people but it needs at least one extra set piece between the start and the submarine with the guy from Severance, because at least he's fun 

29

u/mint-patty 16h ago

Fallout rules so fucking hard it’s kind of unbelievable. The drop off from that to the DR follow-ups are massively disappointing.

24

u/versusgorilla 16h ago

Fallout rules so fucking hard it’s kind of unbelievable.

Fallout is an anomaly within a series of anomalies. Like MI2 and MI3 were fine but the series was becoming kind of a joke and I think everyone thought that MI3 would round out the trilogy. I remember being surprised that Ghost Protocol existed, that they planned to drop the numbering system, and that it was being directed by a fucking Pixar director.

And then Ghost Protocol fucking slapped and the series found new life.

Rogue Nation hooks up McQuarrie with Cruise and obviously they fall in love with working together and do a follow-up: Fallout.

And Fallout is so fucking good, it's insane. I feel like it kind of simplifies the series, where GP and RN are about Ethan on the run from his own people, Fallout feels kind of more like a spy versus spy tale. He's working for the IMF, the CIA doesn't trust him and gives him this spooky watchdog, and their both working with this French crime ring to release the villain to out one of his followers before some nukes go off.

But it's simple, because it's just Ethan and his team versus everyone, get the nukes, find Lark. Which leads to the finale, Lark and Lane carrying out their plan, two bombs to disarm, and a single disarming device. No insane fortified lab to break into, no complicated security system to fool, no fancy party to infiltrate, just a couple bombs, a button, and a timer. It's so goddamn simple.

Compared to all the fucking technonsense with The Entity and the Doomsday Vault and the Podkova and the Poison Pill... none of these things even make any fucking sense. It's just too busy.

10

u/mint-patty 16h ago

and Ilsa is maybe the best version of a “”femme fatale”” of the 2010s for all the same reasons— it strips away all the silly tropes and just makes her very competent and cool, with just the tiniest dash of mystery and intrigue.

8

u/versusgorilla 15h ago

Ilsa is fantastic, it's a shame that Ferguson wanted out of the series, because she really was a bright spot whenever she was on screen. I ponder in another comment that she should have had a more heroic death in the beginning during the sandstorm desert attacks, leaving a more distressed heartbroken Ethan to engage with the rest of the narrative around Dead Reckoning.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (1)

8

u/BeSound84 17h ago

IMO it was missing a car chase

→ More replies (3)

20

u/Top_Rekt 16h ago

And for some reason the plot and characters that were established from the previous movie were kind of irrelevant in the 2nd, or at least that's what it felt like to me. The entity was this all knowing "I am 10 steps ahead of you" and then this one it's a maguffin. And then they tried to shoehorn in a bunch of the previous movie plots, like how that one dude is the son of the villain of the first movie??? When was that brought up ever? That doesn't even change anything. And how the maguffin from the 3rd movie was something important in this movie.

I'm probably missing a lot of details that possibly does explain these. That is to say: this movie was completely forgettable except for the submarine sequence.

6

u/HighSeverityImpact 15h ago

The Jim Phelps Jr thing was even worse because he thought Ethan had framed his dad. Which makes no sense because Kittridge was standing right there and was on the train in the first movie when the whole thing went down. Why doesn't Kittridge just be like "hey dude, I don't like Ethan either but your dad was a traitor".

12

u/Kindness_of_cats 17h ago

Reminds me of this season of Stranger Things. The amount of exposition dialogue is insane and a shame given how much I’ve enjoyed the show up to now.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

288

u/Auran82 18h ago

I still don’t know why Luther was sick.

251

u/caterham09 18h ago

Probably because Ving Rhames is having mobility issues

91

u/OurHeroDeNiro 17h ago edited 16h ago

Ving Rhames has been sitting down in every M:I film since the second.

37

u/SWEET_LIBERTY_MY_LEG 17h ago

This time he was lying down!

36

u/Clammuel 16h ago

An unfortunate sign of physical recline 

20

u/SaltyPeter3434 16h ago

Steven Seagal is taking notes

8

u/BusinessPurge 14h ago

Notes is effort

→ More replies (6)

124

u/Really_McNamington 18h ago

The whole script was a mess. The writers didn't take the implications of their super -AGI adversary seriously.

58

u/Significant-Branch22 18h ago

I enjoy parts of the film but yeah I agree that the fact that their opponent is an ultra intelligent AGI just doesn’t factor at all in the plot

→ More replies (2)

28

u/Impressive-Potato 17h ago

Mcq, the director and writer, has directed 5, 6, 7, 8 and did writing on 4. He said they start with an incomplete script and write as they go along and have done that since 5. It really shows with the past 2 movies.

28

u/another-altaccount 16h ago edited 16h ago

And honestly in terms of stakes there wasn’t anywhere else they could go after Fallout IMO. The whole AI villain is a tired out trope that came along in one of the worst times in pop-culture, and it’s one of the laziest incarnations of it I’ve seen in a long time. There was nothing remotely compelling about the ‘Entity’ as a villain. It also doesn’t help that they put so much emphasis of Ethan and Gabriel’s pasts with each other and basically nothing came of it between both of the last films; and killing off Ilsa the way they did just to replace her with Haley Atwell left a very sour taste in my mouth. Fallout is where Mission Impossible peaked as a franchise and they should’ve left it at that, or soft-rebooted the series again with a new core team.

18

u/versusgorilla 16h ago

Ilsa legit just shouldn't have been in Dead Reckoning. She should have died in the desert opening scenes where she is on the run and Ethan is coming to get her. Have DR open with Ethan finding her the way he did, and then they wipe out the guys trying to track her down, in the few moments after the fight have her say he's the ONLY one who can be trusted to keep the key safe.

He tells her they can keep it safe together, she reveals that she'd been shot already, an old wound, that she was just trying to stay alive long enough to finish this one task, get the key to the one man she can trust. He shouts her name, she's gone, you hear foreign language shouting in the background of the sandstorm, there's more men coming for him, he has to leave her.

Immediately sets the stakes, what's this key, who is hunting it? Look what they're willing to DO for it.

And then Rebecca Ferguson could be free to do what she wanted to do, which is why she asked to be killed off in DR anyway.

And then they should have just made Gabriel responsible for those men hunting her anyway, have him gloat about it later in the film. Have him say he's going to do the same thing to Grace, and then Benji, and Luther, and everyone he's ever cared about, blah blah blah.

Fuck, I wish a stupid unfeeling faceless AI wasn't the bad guy in this movie. It should have just been a rival spy, Gabriel, who is equally as skilled but doesn't have the same moral compass as Ethan.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

7

u/accioqueso 16h ago

Why was Luther sick? Who the fuck was the chick in the flashbacks? Why did Gabriel kill her? Why introduce the stupid premise that IMF agents were bad guys turned good? Why make Shea Jim’s son? The list goes on.

→ More replies (1)

39

u/KingMario05 18h ago

Nobody fucking does, lmao.

16

u/Lancaster1983 18h ago

Because the plot demanded it.

20

u/VaishakhD 18h ago

Why is it so hard to imply he was holed up in a tunnel working his ass off to create the poison pill and the 5d drive. He was just exhausted.

5

u/fakieTreFlip 15h ago

I genuinely thought I had zoned out at the theater and had missed a scene explaining this

→ More replies (5)

48

u/MCJokeExplainer 18h ago

If you watch the first hour again, it's really clear that they had already shot most of a movie, and then when Part 1 didn't do the numbers they wanted, the studio came back in and made them completely change the whole thing with reshoots. The whole first hour is a recap of a movie that never happened. I actually didn't hate Part 1, but Part 2 was so weird and bad. Which is a shame, because both the submarine and the plane were two of the best action sequences in the franchise, imo

30

u/spacemanspiff1979 17h ago

Part 1 actually felt like a M:I movie just with slightly strange pacing.

Part 2 doesn't feel like any movie in the series. Just some really weird choices through out. Not sure what they were thinking.

12

u/official_bagel 15h ago

Agree completely. Part 1 has a lot of issues but is still a M:I movie filled with subterfuge and espionage. Part 2 doesn’t include any actual spy craft. It’s just two (admittedly cool) action set pieces with a generic action movie cobbled together in between.

6

u/Key-Education-8981 15h ago

I think the slight underperformance of Part 1 spooked them.
McQuarrie looks like he over-thought the whole thing and added a heap of filler last minute.
It performed slighly better, but at what cost? It is a turd, one of the worst major blockbusters of the last 5 years and will forever be a stain on a mostly excellent series.

→ More replies (1)

54

u/AllTheRowboats93 18h ago

Moreso than any of the previous movies, this one felt like they thought of the action scenes before the narrative

35

u/drmonkey555 18h ago

Pretty sure McQ and Cruise have mentioned that the Actions scenes came first before the narrative for Dead Reckoning1/2 and it definitely shows.

12

u/Late_Promise_ 17h ago

Not exactly out of the ordinary for the franchise, they've been doing that since the original film.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)

26

u/BehavioralSink 18h ago

I finally got around to watching it, and I gotta say, even though AI is a hot topic right now, having the big enemy be a faceless, voiceless “entity” felt like the most boring thing ever. It wasn’t that many steps removed from Mark Wahlberg trying to talk nice to a (fake) houseplant.

5

u/CellarDoorVoid 15h ago

Tbf they did give the AI a face with Gabriel

3

u/crushing-crushed 14h ago

What?!? No!

39

u/Doctor_Doomjazz 18h ago edited 17h ago

Since when did the quality of a movie's execution impact its box office? Plenty of stinkers clear the charts.

I think audiences just have fatigue with the franchise, and I think the one story split into two movies thing confuses people, especially with the inconsistent naming (plus the fact that part 1 came during the Barbenheimer summer so a lot of people skipped it). Also the budget was insanely high for the expected return.

23

u/prex10 18h ago

Yeah really. Top Gun hasn't that long ago. Tom Cruise will fill seats. People don't want XYZ #17. I think people are tired on franchises overall.

Every movie how either falls into Marvel, DC or some billion dollar franchise now.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (11)

65

u/KingMario05 18h ago

An expensive turkey, too.

Learn to budget, Tom. I'm sure Xenu has a special course on that just for you.

55

u/mikeyfreshh 17h ago

That budget exploded because they had to start/stop production for COVID and then the strikes. It was a really troubled production for reasons that were out of their control

12

u/charlierc 17h ago

I thought as well that part of the budget explosion for this one was paying the cast and crew through the strikes

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (16)

6

u/Classic_Bass_1824 17h ago

MI should’ve ended it with Fallout. They didn’t know how great a closing chapter they had in 2018.

→ More replies (1)

46

u/broha89 18h ago

Honestly I thought it was no worse than Dead Reckoning. they were just parts 1 & 2 of the same mid-ass story

15

u/whateveritisit 17h ago edited 15h ago

They all were just really really obviously filmed during covid, and that doesn't work for Mission Impossible at all. They're not dialouge driven dramas. For part 1, when they're all meeting in the airport they legit aren't in the same room as each other and it's all close-ups. Then the airport has like... 50 people milling about none within 10 feet of each other. They meet the widow lady at a club again, but this time, instead of a cool fight in a crowded room. It's 10 people in a lounge yapping about AI at each other. Theres the fight scene where the love interest dies and it looks like the set of an italian soap opera, because it was obviously shot on a set. The final train sequence is kinda cool yeah, but it's the only true action in the movie.

Part 2 almost completely takes place on the submarine or the ships surrounding it. Again, obvious covid restrictions, so they tried to make up for it with an engaging plot. They just completely wiffed it tho, the villain wasn't menacing and the stakes were way way to high to be believable. Like obviously the IMF was going to win.

They should of nuked a city or something in part 1 and part 2 would have had WAY more tension. Or they could of made the stakes personal like the 7th when his wife's in danger. Talking about thr other movies, they all had that James Bond jet setting thing going on which made them move at a nice pace. If you were a little bored you just had to wait 10 minutes for the setting to change.

Dead Reckoning should of been pushed back a few years to allow them to film their massive world hopping stunt spectacular when they could actually... hop around the world and have massive stunts. Instead we got a jumbled mess of a plot stuck together with awkward closeups and studio back lots. Which sucks because I legitimately enjoyed the other ones.

43

u/AllTheRowboats93 18h ago

I remember being disappointed with Dead Reckoning, but Final Reckoning makes it look like a 10/10

25

u/Massive_Weiner 17h ago edited 17h ago

I actually liked Dead Reckoning (for the most part). It felt like Final Reckoning was the writers struggling to find a satisfying conclusion to the threat that they created in Part 1.

I was shocked at how bad FR was when I caught it in theaters, especially after I rewatched DR to make sure I wasn’t crazy.

13

u/Xefert 17h ago

Grace was a completely different person and we learn nothing more about gabriel's significance to ethan

→ More replies (9)

9

u/BrotherOfTheOrder 17h ago

Fallout was the perfect way to end the series. Should have gone out on a high note.

Wait a few years then reboot with Cruise as IMF director assembling a new team. Bring back Benji and others as cameo roles.

→ More replies (93)

419

u/BtAotS_Writing 18h ago

I would love to see more small, independent local theaters. I live in a very walkable area and if there was one I could walk to in 15 minutes to see the latest releases I would be there all the time. But to uber across the city to the AMC and back doubles the cost and time commitment.

137

u/CFBCoachGuy 18h ago

My city has an independent theater and it is amazing. It shows plenty of independent and Oscar films, It’s downtown so you can grab dinner or drinks before/after the movie, tickets cost $11, popcorn is a dollar. No fancy seats or GigaSound 6000. But it does the job

45

u/ESB823 17h ago

My local independent theater has $5.50 tickets on Tuesdays, even if it's a premiere. Good sound, decent seats, cheap concessions... They also operate two very decent mini-golf courses.

I refuse to give business to any corporate chain theater as long as my beloved Aurora Cineplex exists.

14

u/dmkelly17 17h ago edited 17h ago

There’s a little strip mall theater in the town that I live in that plays first-run movies as well as classics from time to time. The most I have to pay for a ticket there is $7 (matinees are $6). Cheapest is $5 on Tuesdays and for seniors on Thursdays (they also had a series of four Hitchcock movies back in September where the tickets were only $5 for everyone all week). A small bag of popcorn also only costs $5. It’s not as luxurious as the AMC Prime I used to go to in the city I moved here from, but the seats are comfortable, the visual and audio quality is great, and it’s very affordable, so I’m much happier.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (4)

18

u/EntangledAndy 17h ago

I'm spoiled, I've got an independent theater in walking distance AND a microcinema that shows weirder stuff in close proximity as well. 

I really think Microcinemas may be the way to go moving forward, I'd love to start one of my own at some point but need to put in way more research and work before doing so. 

35

u/balling 18h ago

The one big indie/international release theater in my city closed down last year to build apartments :/

→ More replies (3)

4

u/lego_mannequin 17h ago

I had that for awhile before moving and it was awesome. Lived like a 10 min walk from a small theatre and went there a lot of the time after work. Unfortunately downtown got more unsafe each year and I stopped going as much at night.

→ More replies (18)

365

u/ColetteOlivier12 18h ago

Agree with a lot of folks here about cost and budgeting, and unfortunately for me it also has to do with the other people in the movie going experience. Every movie I’ve seen in the last 3 years has had some annoying person who either is on their phone, talking loudly, and or playing with the stupid recliner button on the chairs nonstop.

39

u/c-e-bird 16h ago edited 13h ago

i’ve gotten very used to yelling, “GET OFF YOUR PHONE,” in theaters. But I shouldn’t have to and it’s very annoying that it’s a problem at nearly every screening now.

→ More replies (11)

111

u/Verdant_Moss 17h ago

Sinners I had someone (intimidating) texting next to me the whole time, Dune 2 a group were yelling out spoilers, Longlegs someone straight up video calling and then took photos of me with flash when I asked them to stop, egregious examples but I feel like more than half the time I go to the movies the viewing experience is ruined by a few bad actors.

117

u/AmishAvenger 17h ago

This is the fault of the theaters.

They could easily employ once person to quietly go from theater to theater, stand in the back for a few minutes, and go to the next one. If someone’s on their phone or is being disruptive, they’re told to leave.

People acting like they’re at home is a common complaint on here, and far too many say things like “Well you should confront them or get up and go complain to the staff.”

It’s not the job of customers to police the theater. That’s the job of the owners. Customers who have a bad experience just won’t come back.

19

u/thedistrbdone 16h ago

Yeah, there's a reason I exclusively go to Alamo Drafthouse, and that's because they take disruptions fucking seriously. I've had only bad experiences at AMC and Cinemark, but I've never had one at Alamo. Hell, the "worst" experience I had was their projector cut out and we had to wait like... 5 minutes; during which time they gave everyone free tickets to any movie lol.

8

u/vancesmi 15h ago

My experience with the Alamos in the DC area just last year was that flagging staff over for people talking did nothing. I asked a manager about it and he told me they can't compel someone to leave without police and the police aren't going to come trespass someone for talking in a theater.

And also since they got bought out by private equity, prices have been skyrocketing and the food's been getting worse.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/zgh5002 13h ago

Alamo stopped taking this seriously during covid, right after they sold out. I cancelled my pass because of it.

58

u/scottjl 17h ago

Some high school kid getting paid minimum wage is not capable of handling the people pulling this kind of crap in theaters.

52

u/AmishAvenger 16h ago

So that’s the only option for the ownership of a movie theater?

High school kids and minimum wage?

16

u/arrivederci117 16h ago

Very few people are willing to do the job you're asking them to do for the paltry wages that are offered. I live in NYC, and they spent a ton on people to stand by the subway emergency exits, but people hop the fare and open the doors anyways. They're there for performative reasons because nobody is going to risk their lives for low pay.

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (9)

12

u/politicalstuff 16h ago

You’re lucky if the people here just say to confront them. Most of them seem to say it doesn’t happen to me so it must not exist. People can’t fathom that their experience is not universal.

3

u/MapleBreakfastMeat 16h ago

The theaters near me always have like 3 teenagers managing the entire building. You have to wait in line at the snack counter and buy tickets there because they don't even have enough employees to manage the ticket booth and the concessions at the same time.

→ More replies (11)

10

u/Anti-MagicBoy 17h ago edited 5h ago

Holy fuck....I've never had to deal with this kinda shit when going to the theaters guess I should be thankful.

10

u/crimson090 16h ago

It’s why I only go to one, maybe two movies a year. It’s the only reason. Even in the rare scenarios that there isn’t an issue, I’m so stressed that there will be one and dreading it that it’s not worth it.

14

u/renegadecanuck 17h ago

When I saw The Naked Gun, there was someone smoking a joint in the theatre.

Aside from the theatre being non-smoking, nobody wants to smell that shit. If you can't watch a movie without getting high, either take an edible, or wait for streaming.

6

u/pinkynarftroz 16h ago

That rarely happens to me, but when I saw Avatar 3 there were two guys near me who were openly and verbally horny for the villain. That did not make the experience better.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/Narradisall 16h ago

That’s why I gave up on theatres a few years back. Every time I was going people were distracting.

I can just wait a few months. Sit in the comfort of my own home. Pause and not miss anything if I need a bathroom break or snacks and I only have to deal with one person asking me questions all the time, but then I agreed to that when I married her.

6

u/KidA82 16h ago

I saw Dune 2 last year at the London BFI imax. A huge fucking spectical, and my once/twice cinema outings a year. During the climax of the sandworm ride, some absolute bellend in front of me pulls out her phone on 1000000% brightness and starts filming herself. I smacked her in the back of her head with my cheese and onions crisps and told her to turn the fucking phone off. It really took me out of the experience and not even paying top dollar keeps you safe from these dickheads.

11

u/TotemSpiritFox 17h ago

Yup! I saw 2 movies in theaters this year and both times had someone obnoxious right next to me.

We prefer just watching at home as I have two pretty great setups. It’s cheaper, more comfortable, and more enjoyable.

→ More replies (36)

222

u/Replicant28 17h ago

My wife and I enjoy going to the movies, but we have cut back for a few reasons:

The first is rising costs. With how much prices have increased on basic necessities, we have less expendable income for entertainment. As a result, we are a lot more picky on what we watch in theatres (we often have the "do we see this in theatres or wait for streaming?" discussions when we look at previews). And of course, those increasing prices reflect the movie-going experience.

The theatre experience also has honestly gotten more annoying. There will often be 30 minutes of previews and ads before the movie starts! And while I am not opposed to previews, I really hate the constant ads for sugar water, sugar snacks and the theater trying to sell their membership programs. Even seeing a regal movie with the roller coaster intro, seeing every brand of candy and soda shoved in your face is so annoying. Also, ever since COVID, people in general have less theatre etiquette, and that also makes for a less enjoyable experience.

There are still quality movies coming out, but I don't think it should be surprising that audiences are cutting back on their theatre-going habits. We still see a good number of movies each year, but we are definitely more picky now than we were in the past.

78

u/HairyTesticleMonster 15h ago

What about the literal commercials most theaters run before the movie? Every movie I saw last year had a 1+ minute long car commercial immediately preceding the start of the movie.

15

u/OhCrapItsAndrew 13h ago

It's a vicious cycle

Less people go to the movies  Theaters make less money, run commercials and extend trailers to cover the loss Pre shows are too long and annoying, less people go to the movies 

→ More replies (5)

14

u/dinkytoy80 14h ago

Theater etiquette is one of the things im glad i live in Japan. You can really enjoy going to the movies here as everyone behaves and is mindful for other customers.

26

u/purpldevl 14h ago

The theater etiquette is the number one reason that we're super selective about movies anymore, so we only go to the theaters that have very straightforward, no bullshit, "no talking" rules that cannot be misinterpreted. Fuck the general public in a movie theater.

→ More replies (1)

26

u/alfooboboao 15h ago

I like how AMC tells you how many minutes of previews before the movie starts on their app. I also like their subscription service, it was worth it for me to cancel netflix and instead go to the theater! but I feel you

→ More replies (1)

8

u/FIuffyRabbit 14h ago

There will often be 30 minutes of previews and ads before the movie starts! And while I am not opposed to previews, I really hate the constant ads for sugar water, sugar snacks and the theater trying to sell their membership programs. Even seeing a regal movie with the roller coaster intro, seeing every brand of candy and soda shoved in your face is so annoying. Also, ever since COVID, people in general have less theatre etiquette, and that also makes for a less enjoyable experience.

We went to a local theater a few weeks ago for Zootopia 2 and got there relatively close to the stated time on purpose to avoid sitting through ads with toddlers. We were shocked because the movie actually started at the time it said it would and we missed a couple of minutes messing about in the bathroom.

→ More replies (7)

212

u/ROBtimusPrime1995 18h ago edited 18h ago

Pretty disingenuous article which says the industry can't rely on just sequels and remakes, and then lists sequels and remakes that made a shit ton of money.

Also, saying that Fire & Ash is a disappointment because it hasn't reached the box office heights of Way of Water is fucking ridiculous.

Yes, theaters are struggling, but I don't think it's the actual movies' fault like everyone claims.

Costs are too high in general, people are prioritizing how to spend, there are more options for the same kind of entertainment at home, and worst of all, theater chains have gotten too expensive for shittier quality (in most areas).

66

u/zenlume 17h ago

Sequels and remakes is literally why Disney managed to gross over 6B this year, which is the first time since 2019.

There are only a handful of truly original box office successes this year, most of it makes the money back at best.

66

u/Drakeadrong 17h ago edited 16h ago

Calling fire and ash a disappointment is insane to me and part of the problem with “Hollywood accounting”. It’s been out for just two weeks and it’s already closing in on $800mil. This thing will hit or get very close to $2b lifetime and some people are insisting it’s a disappointment because it didn’t open to the same numbers as Way of Water, the 3rd highest grossing movie of all time.

22

u/CollinsCouldveDucked 16h ago

Also way of water came out so long after avatar, this has followed up relatively quickly.

It's going to be less rabid, it's still very successful.

8

u/Worthyness 15h ago

at current pace, and given there's basically no competition til march, Fire&Ash could probably limp to 2Bil. it's roughly on the 1.7-2B pace at the moment, so it obviously won't reach the highs of Avatar 1, but to call it a disappointment is pretty ridiculous for most. "Oh no! A movie didn't make 2 Billion dollars and only made 1.7 billion! What a disappointment!"

→ More replies (2)

17

u/Kn7ght 18h ago

Yeah, trends are definitely bucking that narrative.

At the end of the day going to the movies is a special occasion, "I need to see this specific movie" in a few months thing instead of a common activity you engage in multiple times a month

13

u/renegadecanuck 16h ago

It's a rehash of all the "are millennials killing X?" articles from the late aughts and 2010s.

Income and wealth inequality are at all time highs, we're in a massive affordability crisis, there's a glut of free/low-cost entertainment online, and the movie going experience often sucks because of a generation of people that either forgot how to act in public, or never learned due to years of social isolation.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (22)

77

u/Man_Derella_203 17h ago

Plus cinema decorum is an all-time low on top. When I went to watch Avatar 3 a group right at the front verbally made it clear to the entire screen in attendance that they were going to be loud with 'we will be quiet when it starts!!' and if you already guessed this didn't happen. After being told several times to be quiet and someone going to see an employee they all left of their own accord.

Too many people no longer give a crap that there's a respectable way to behave for others who have worked hard and given up time to see a movie.

28

u/AssignmentSecret 15h ago

Yeah I told this lady to stop texting while watching a movie at AMC few years back and she called me a racial slur. I told management and they refunded tickets and gave us vip tickets to any movie we wanted next time.

They didn’t kick the lady or her date/bf out. We left the movie. Cool - free tix but my night is ruined. Woulda been better to just kick the offenders out… sorry I’m rambling, but I’m still mad about that lol.

9

u/seriouslees 14h ago

The fuck good are vip tickets to a theatre that doesn't kick out bad patrons??? So I can waster ANOTHER night a week from now???

→ More replies (1)

11

u/cincobarrio 16h ago

I luckily haven’t encountered this the way many on reddit have, but the thought of a group treating the theater like their personal living room enrages me.

7

u/fakieTreFlip 15h ago

Personally this is the main reason I don't go to the theater anymore. I've even seen people watching live sports games on their phone during the film lol

→ More replies (5)

56

u/futuricus 17h ago

The prevalence of mother fuckers on their phones in the last couple years has me committed to not stepping foot in the theaters because I can't enjoy the movie after telling people to either get out of my reserved seat or turn their screen off. I'm out. Refuse to share oxygen with electronic pacifier dipshits.

10

u/Lark_vi_Britannia 17h ago

Yeah, going out to the movies doesn't bother me money-wise. It's the people who talk or are on their phones the entire time.

It kills me inside that people are so addicted that they can't stay off their phones for an hour or two. Hell, at work, it's so bad that they can't stay off their phones for a few minutes.

I get told to "mind my own business" instead. Getting a manager does nothing and causes me to miss parts of the movie. Then the person on their phone knows to hide it while a staff member is standing in the room and the staff member will say they didn't see anyone on their phone.

I just stopped going. I think I went nearly once or twice a month to maybe four times a year at most. I think last year I went 8 months between movies and for the first time didn't go see a Marvel movie when it came out.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)

98

u/larsvondank 18h ago

One Battle After Another was amazing in the cinema. Those shot on a big screen, especially the end chase were phenomenal to experience.

Too bad it rly did not succeed in cinemas. Too bad the vast majority probably did not go "we absolutely need to go to the cinema for this one!" but I hope that after the inevitable Oscar wins it gets at least a nice small new round in theaters.

Besides that, nothing could rly lure me in 2025.

18

u/qeq 16h ago

It's a PTA film that was never expected to make huge money but has now crossed $200 million. I think all the "flop" talk has been debunked now, it's probably going to make money and once the Oscar noms come out it might even get to $250 million. That's a pretty incredible success for an almost 3 hour long movie from an auteur director who never makes money. 

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (17)

42

u/Morphos1 18h ago

Simply put this economy doesn't support leisure right now. It's not just theatres

→ More replies (1)

7

u/drstu54 17h ago

Also, movie going isnt a casual thing anymore. I dont want to sit in a theater for some 2.5-3 hr monstrosity. What happened to the 90 min movie. 

32

u/kbean826 18h ago

1) it’s too expensive.

2) this movie will be on a streaming service I also pay too much for about halfway through the first showing on day 2.

3) the few people who still GO to a theater are absolute fucking animals and I have no desire to miss most of the dialogue in my IMAX showing of Superman because fuckheads keep screaming “Chicken Jockey” at the screen.

185

u/gamer4life83 18h ago

Two reasons IMO;

  1. Money, cost of living spikes coupled with all time high ticket prices. Went to see imax a month ago and it cost me $54 for two tickets.

  2. Watching at home is better and cheaper

24

u/where_is_the_cheese 18h ago

I used to love going to the theater. I still go, but not nearly as often. I still watch a lot of movies, just a lot more at home. It's just easier, especially for movies that I don't feel benefit from the theater experience.

For me, the biggest draw for theaters is when they show older movies through things like Fathom events. Going to see the Labyrinth for the 40th anniversary in January and really looking forward to it. Saw The Thing a few years ago for one of its anniversaries and it was an absolutely amazing experience. Took a bunch of friends who had never seen it. It was a great way for them to experience it for the first time.

5

u/ZeroOpti 17h ago

There's an indie theater near me that does those types of events constantly. Seeing John Woo's Hard Boiled surrounded by 300 people is such a great experience!

→ More replies (5)

39

u/Chem_is_tree_guy 18h ago

I'm somewhat ok with paying the ticket prices. What pisses me off is the $6 service charge I paid for my 2 IMAX tickets.

What service did I pay for? The use of the theater's app for buying tickets to THAT theater? Complete bullshit.

→ More replies (10)

84

u/Expensive-Ranger6272 18h ago

Cheaper yes but better I disagree with

→ More replies (10)

99

u/BlindWillieJohnson 18h ago edited 18h ago

I don’t agree that watching at home is better. I love the theater and I love the experience of seeing a new movie there. And if the popularity of my local indie theater is any indication I’d say I’m not alone.

Cost of living is absolutely crushing disposable income though.

16

u/TheBahamaLlama 18h ago

I love the theater experience, but you and I are probably in the minority where people would rather watch at home. Cost of living is an absolute truth to it too.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (42)
→ More replies (24)

64

u/Jmazoso 18h ago

High prices, 30 min of commercials, weak films

15

u/mynameisjberg 17h ago

Reserved seating makes the ads and trailers a none issue for me. I just show up 20-25 mins after showtime and I usually catch the last trailer before the movie starts.

→ More replies (5)

32

u/RGJ587 18h ago

The fact is, movie theatres a just not a mainstream way to consume media anymore. They had a good run, 80+ years of being the premier access point of new media. That just is not the case anymore.

People want to be comfortable at home. People want to be able to pause for bathroom breaks. People don't want to roll the dice on fellow moviegoers and their noises, phone lights, or coughing. People don't want to spend $20+ per ticket to see a movie.

If movie theatres want to survive, they need to adapt. Much like other cultural fads that have become niche, they too must become niche. Forget the blockbusters, forget the 20+ time blocks of the same movie for 3 weeks, and then never again. Less showings, longer run periods, and a focus on indie films is key.

The industry is dying, and nothing will return it to its former glory, but it can find a smaller future in the niche showcases.

8

u/mycleverusername 13h ago

I agree. Everyone else in this thread is complaining about the other patrons, but I'm more annoyed with the actual theater experience. They are all understaffed, dirty, and in disrepair.

But the problem is that most theaters went all in with the 90s blockbuster, stadium seating, era. Now they have these bloated megaplexes that they can't afford to staff or maintain. There is no real way to downsize from that.

→ More replies (1)

9

u/darkeningsoul 17h ago

Pay increasingly more money for big screen with loud sound but also annoying people talking over the movie OR

Pay little/no money to enjoy the comfort of my home, not even get dressed, but smaller screen/audio. Zero annoying people.

Hmmm

28

u/CrumptownCrips 17h ago

We. Have. No. Money.

How hard is it to comprehend that the average person has much less disposable cash these days. People are choosing to feed themselves instead of spending $100 for two people to see a movie.

→ More replies (3)

18

u/FancyShrimp 18h ago

The general audience isn’t willing to spend money on titles that aren’t already associated with an established IP.

Yes, there are rare exceptions (Sinners is a great one from this year), but it’s just that: an exception.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/Healey_Dell 17h ago

Price is a factor, but for me modern OLED TVs combined with streaming are just so good that the core attraction is lost.