Hollywood Blockbusters are Flopping HARD!

The D.C. metro area wasn’t the only place where those films failed to connect. “Roofman” debuted to a paltry $8 million, while “Smashing Machine” endured a brutal 70% decline in its sophomore outing, bringing revenues to $10.1 million.

As for other films aimed at adults, “Kiss of the Spider Woman,” a $34 million-budgeted musical adaptation with Jennifer Lopez, fizzled with $850,000 — albeit from far fewer theaters than Tatum’s film.

Even Paul Thomas Anderson’s “One Battle After Another,” led by Leonardo DiCaprio, struggled to break out despite being hailed as a generational masterpiece. Though the global haul of $140 million is impressive for a film that’s original, R rated and nearly three hours long, “One Battle” requires roughly $300 million to break even.

That’s because Warner Bros. spent more than $130 million on production and $70 million on promotional efforts, and ticket sales are typically split 50-50 between studios and theater operators. Meanwhile DiCaprio typically gets first-dollar gross on his movies, meaning he gets a percentage of box office revenues before the studio recoups any costs.

“These prestige-type movies have failed to create a sense of FOMO among audiences,” says Fandango’s box office analyst Shawn Robbins. “They weren’t event-ized enough.”

Robbins also wonders whether audiences have been trained to wait for streaming debuts to see certain films, particularly the ones that don’t feature superheroes, marauding dinosaurs or Christopher Nolan-style pyrotechnics. Since COVID, studios have shrunk the amount of time that films are exclusively available in theaters from 90 days to, in some cases, a couple of weeks.

“People have come to expect these movies to be available in the home much sooner than they used to be,” he says.

In the case of “Roofman,” backed by Paramount Pictures and Miramax, a lean $19 million budget means that losses will be minimal. Other recent awards fare won’t be as lucky. “One Battle After Another,” which is mounting a multimillion-dollar Oscar campaign, is tracking to lose $100 million, according to studio executives with knowledge of the economics of similar-sized films.

A Warner Bros. spokesperson pushed back on those estimates while noting the company has enjoyed a successful year at the box office with hits like “Sinners” and “A Minecraft Movie.”

“Warner Bros. refutes Variety’s anonymous sources and their uninformed estimates,” a studio spokesperson says. “Films across the studio’s slate, including ‘One Battle After Another,’ have achieved financial reward in 2025 with more than $4 billion earned to date.”

The $4 billion figure refers to box office revenue, not profits. However, Warner Bros.’ 2025 slate of triumphs does help offset a loss like “One Battle.” And Anderson’s film is expected to be a major Oscar player, which makes it valuable to the company in ways beyond the balance sheet.

Earlier in the fall, a Warner Bros. source pegged year-to-date theatrical profits at roughly $600 million before counting a major winner in “The Conjuring: Last Rites” and a money loser in “One Battle After Another.”

With “The Smashing Machine,” the failure troublingly exposes the risks of A24’s new corporate strategy. In 2024, the indie studio completed a round of funding that pegged its valuation at $3.5 billion. The company has used the capital to back a much pricier slate of films. “The Smashing Machine,” for example, carries a $50 million price tag — tens of millions of dollars more than a typical indie.

Meanwhile this December’s Timothée Chalamet-led table-tennis drama “Marty Supreme” has a budget between $60 million to $70 million, making it the most expensive film in the studio’s history. A24 clearly wants to make the kind of mid-budget films that major studios have abandoned, but higher expenses mean flops will hurt more.

A24 mitigated some risk on “The Smashing Machine” by selling off foreign rights. Rival studio executives believe that limits losses on the picture to roughly $10 million, but it will leave a bad taste in the mouth of the studio’s overseas partners, who will shoulder the bulk of the pain.

“This is an epic bust,” says one rival indie executive. “A24 covered themselves, but everyone else internationally got their asses handed to them. They may not want to come back to the well again.”

Although some movies for grown-ups are having a tougher time, analysts hope studios continue to make them. They believe it’ll take films of all shapes and sizes to push moviegoing toward pre-pandemic levels. Revenues remain roughly 20% behind those of 2019.

“Consumers go to the theater a few times a year at most. They gravitate towards what they know; sequels, prequels and spinoffs where they’re less likely to walk away disappointed,” Texas Capital Securities analyst Eric Wold says. “It’s always been tough for studios to put a lot into original IP. Risk of failure is higher.”

Budgets need to come down.

No wonder the producers of Marty Supreme are promoting the hell out of it. The film must be a real stinker and they are praying they can break even.

To be honest I had not heard about One Battle After Another until a friend recommended it. Also, I wouldn’t have accurately surmised the content of what it’s actually about based on the title alone.

The only films that made money this year are Sinners and Weapons.

I think a lot of people just don't have the will to concentrate on a film nowadays. They're used to being able to flip through a serious of short YouTube videos.

[quote]A24’s “The Smashing Machine,” a sports biopic starring Dwayne Johnson as MMA fighter Mark Kerr, “died pretty quickly,” O’Meara reports.

That similar Zac Efron pic of the tragic wrestling family flopped big too. People are going to wait for TV.

That’s not true, r7. People binge entire seasons of shows - 11 hours worth - in one sitting. Movie theaters are outdated and Hollywood movies are atrocious.

I am excited for Marty Supreme- but they are FUCKED. I was shocked at the budget for that one-

The film looks good (and I am a lifelong Timmy HATER)

But that budget is going to fuck them.

[quote] That similar Zac Efron pic of the tragic wrestling family flopped big too. People are going to wait for TV.

Yeah.

It came out pretty quickly on HBO Max.

But for that matter, so did Sinners and Final Destination: Bloodlines.

I was actually surprised at how quickly both of those movies came out, especially given how popular they were.

[quote]The only films that made money this year are Sinners and Weapons.

A Minecraft Movie and Lilo & Stitch, #1 and 2 at the North American box office, were both quite profitable. Sinners sits at #5 in money earned and Weapons at #13 (so far). Worldwide, Lilo & Stitch is #2, A Minecraft Movie #3, Sinners #14, Weapons #16.

I'm not convinced that Roofman having a weak opening weekend is proof that Hollywood blockbusters are flopping hard.

It cost $19 million, and it's up to $10 million after its first week. Channing Tatum has never been a huge draw at the box office, and it's not the type of movie that was going to open to massive numbers. What was the best case scenario for a movie like that, $15 million?

R11- I loved The Iron Claw and the entire cast was amazing. That one shocked me how much I liked it-

It was directed by one of my favorite new-ish directors who also directed The Nest which is probably one of my favorite films in the last 20 years..

I guess that kills The Rock's shot at an Oscar. Maybe a Golden Globe nom?

Stars like DiCaprio, Jennifer Lopez, and The Rock are now in their fifties and no longer have a lock on the young audiences who once made up the core demographic of moviegoing audiences.

I love A24- but holy shit---

The "Marty Supreme" movie has a reported budget of $70 million, making it A24's most expensive film to date

They need to stop paying these so called "stars" like it's the nineties or early aughts.

If you just look at US box office, the highest earning film of the year thus far is "The Minecraft Movie." If you include worldwide earnings it's the live action "Lilo and Stitch." Next three are "Jurassic World Rebirth," "Superman," and "Sinners." So what can we learn from this? If you want to make money, either use preexisting IPs or make low budget horror movies.

Even with the big seats people are too fat to be comfortable in movie theaters.

It’s interesting because people say they want new and original stories and are tired of sequels, reboots, and superhero movies.

And yet all these high profile well reviewed movies with A-list box office draws all bomb.

[quote] It’s interesting because people say they want new and original stories and are tired of sequels, reboots, and superhero movies.

[quote] And yet all these high profile well reviewed movies with A-list box office draws all bomb.

I'm one of those people who has been complaining about this for a long time, and I'm very happy to see new and original movies being made.

HOWEVER, they still have to be new and original movies that people actually want to see.

Just based on the trailers for the Dwayne Johnson, Channing Tatum, and Leo DiCaprio movies, I have to say that none of them interested me.

It's great that we're not getting retreads, but for the love of all that is good, at least make the movies interesting!!

Sinners totally fit the bill for a new and interesting movie that was interesting, as well as cinematically and culturally rich. And through word of mouth, people went to see it. That's how it used to work in the "old days."

Also before streaming a lot of people were in the habit of goiing to movie theaters once or twice a week. You didn't necessarily go because you were hyped to see a certain film, you just wanted to go to the movies and chose whatever was playing within a reasonable travel distance that sounded okay. I don't remember ever saying "Oh wow, let's go see 'Can't Stop The Music'!"

Again, I don’t care what’s playing. I’m not sitting in a theater with fucking idiots on their phones while their brats scream and run up and down the aisles.

It costs too much to put up with other people and their fucking brats

[quote] That’s not true, [R7]. People binge entire seasons of shows - 11 hours worth - in one sitting.

Very few people would do that. More likely they break an 11-hour series up over several days with frequent pauses to do other things.

[quote] Sinners totally fit the bill for a new and interesting movie that was interesting, as well as cinematically and culturally rich.

R22 Sinners was one of my favorite movies of the year. But One Battle After Another is exactly what you’re describing here.

[quote] Sinners was one of my favorite movies of the year. But One Battle After Another is exactly what you’re describing here.

The difference is that I'm not hearing any word-of-mouth "buzz" about One Battle After Another, the way I did about Sinners.

People were raving about Sinners. OBAA? Not so much.

R27 It’s gotten rave reviews and Oscar talk for picture, director, and several cast members including DiCaprio.

It’s not a box office hit, but that has nothing to do with what an absolutely amazing film it is. You don’t have to watch it if you don’t want to, of course. But I think you’d really be missing out.

Sinners seemed to come out of nowhere and made its mark by elevating the genre picture (horror), through expert storytelling and the brilliant craft of filmmaking. It went viral.

R28, why did you like One Battle After Another so much? It interests me, but not enough to see it in a theater, for now, anyway.

I only flop when I'm soft.

Sinners stayed in theaters a surprisingly long time. I think it's because it just made such good use of the big screen.

Bring back the Studio System! Give these brats a salary and a studio option. 🚬🥃

I think Roofman has legs and doesn't consider it a flop since the budget was only $19 million. (I'm not sure how much Paramount spent on marketing, but it looks like it'll be fine regardless.) One Battle After Another and The Smashing Machine are the only flops here.

I’m surprised how few of my friends want to see OBAA. I think they’re so bummed by Trump they don’t want to see a political film. Too traumatized to see any scenes of ICE rounding up people etc. Too bad because the film is quite the roller coaster ride.

None of these films were considered Hollywood blockbusters. The Smashing Machine is A24, for Pete’s sake.

I have F&F’d the OP for not knowing what a Hollywood blockbuster is.

He must learn.

[quote] I think they’re so bummed by Trump they don’t want to see a political film. Too traumatized to see any scenes of ICE rounding up people etc.

That's the exact reason I stopped watching The Walking Dead.

Trump's 1st term took place at the same time Negan entered the show.

Two obnoxious bullies who couldn't be defeated.

I just couldn't stomach watching Negan on the show, because it was like bad triumphing over evil in both real life AND on the show.

Hollywood blockbusters are flopping? Nobody wants to hear about the politics of autocracy?

Hold my beer and stand clear.

[quote]The difference is that I'm not hearing any word-of-mouth "buzz" about One Battle After Another, the way I did about Sinners.

These two predicted "Anora" would win Best Picture and Actress early and never wavered and now they insist OBAA will sweep despite the box office..

The Oscar twinks!

They're actually very good at what they do. If they're saying OBAA is winning, I wouldn't dismiss it.

Hmm, let me subscribe to their channel. They're very easy on the eyes and offer good analysis.

I hope that the flop of The Smashing Machine means The Rock and Emily “Sourpuss” Blunt are out of Oscar contention.

[quote] The Oscar twinks!

They're Twinks AND Twins!

Lol. So adorable.

But I'm not a fan of their vocal fry.

One of the problems with seeing movies in theaters is how degraded the experience has become. It's expensive as fuck and add on twenty minutes to each movie with relentless commercials and trailers.

[quote] Also before streaming a lot of people were in the habit of goiing to movie theaters once or twice a week. You didn't necessarily go because you were hyped to see a certain film, you just wanted to go to the movies and chose whatever was playing within a reasonable travel distance that sounded okay. I don't remember ever saying "Oh wow, let's go see 'Can't Stop The Music'!"

There were definitely some films that I saw as soon as possible and others that were on top of the list, but it’s true that many times we just were determined to see something and picked the best available option.

[quote] Was a theatre manager thru my youth and my friends and I, all theatre workers, would go on our days off to other theaters to see movies. I haven't been to a movie since the first "Knives Out" and have zero desire to go now.

R43. Last week I sat through 30 minutes of trailers and commercials after paying $17 + $2.50 service charge. Outrageous. I go to the movies maybe once or twice a year.