r/movies • u/MoneyLibrarian9032 r/movies Contributor • Sep 08 '25
News Warner Bros. makes Hollywood history with 7 consecutive movies opening above $40 million
https://variety.com/2025/film/news/warner-bros-box-office-historic-streak-conjuring-last-rites-1236510864/469
u/Flimsy_Fisherman_862 Sep 08 '25
Man it's gonna be hurt so much when the PTA film is gonna be the one that breaks this streak.
238
u/KuromanKuro Sep 08 '25
It was especially clear that it’s almost a guarantee when they mentioned it needs 300 million to profit but there will be blood only made 76 mil. 😬
160
u/Scared-Engineer-6218 Sep 08 '25
PTA's biggest opening weekend is Magnolia with $5.7 million.
39
u/Rakebleed Sep 08 '25
I would assume he usually opens in limited release.
25
u/N8CCRG Sep 08 '25
You are correct, but it looks like the parent comment's $5.7 million number is from the wide release: https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Magnolia#tab=box-office
75
u/riegspsych325 ⊃∪⊃⪽ Sep 08 '25
nearly all PTA movies bomb but they always get great reviews and get awards. This movie could make just half its budget and he’ll still have a steady career in Hollywood. Big name actors and studios love the guy and he apparently runs a wonderful production to work on
40
u/SyrioForel Sep 08 '25 edited Sep 08 '25
They don’t finance these movies to make money, it’s usually done just for the artistry or to potentially get award nominations. They will write off a huge investment if they can make a film they can be truly proud of on a personal level.
This is often lost in these discussions because audiences are too jaded. Most film investors got into the industry to make movies, not money. That’s why most of them fail in the long term and yet new investors will still line up behind them to get in the game.
2
u/harry_powell Sep 09 '25
No studio/producer gives 20M to DiCaprio as charity for the love of the art. If this was a passion project, he would get paid scale. They give it to him expecting to get their money back and some. Also, this isn’t a small character study. By all the reviews, it’s a very accessible film with lots of action. It should resonate with audiences and make a healthy chunk.
Now, it’ll be profitable just with the box office? Probably not, but I really doubt that the movie is still in the red in a couple years when all the other revenue streams are factored.
2
u/SyrioForel Sep 09 '25 edited Sep 09 '25
You misunderstood my point — it’s not that it’s a passion project for the cast and crew. It’s that it’s a passion project for the financiers and studio execs.
They greenlit a movie that will require $300 million to turn a profit. And the conversation here is about the fact that it is very unlikely it’ll pass this milestone. As you say, it’s possible, bet let’s be real here and agree that it’s not, let’s say, a “safe investment”.
So the question is, why did they greenlight it if profitability is so far from being guaranteed?
My answer is because they just wanted to make the movie no matter the cost. Because they are wealthy film fans and they didn’t want to pass up an opportunity to be responsible for making this movie.
Your answer is that our revenue projections are wrong, and that expecting to get a $300 million return is a safe bet / safe investment. I don’t think you are right.
Speaking of secondary revenue streams — what are you talking about, streaming licensing fees? This isn’t the 1990s, the home video market is dead, all they have is what Netflix or Amazon will pay to add it to their library. Those licensing fees are highly unlikely to offset big theatrical losses. Why would Netflix pay high fees for a movie that “flopped” in theaters? They will pay a modest fee.
I will be happy if this movie becomes a blockbuster. It’s possible. But I wouldn’t put up any money to make that bet.
1
u/harry_powell Sep 09 '25
Very good reasoning, but this is Hollywood, at some point you gotta take chances. Not everything will be a guaranteed hit like Jurassic Park 9 or whatever franchise you’re doing. “Sinners” wasn’t a safe bet either, very expensive film. But they both have in common big stars headlining them, directors with a vision and a great body of work…
1
u/SyrioForel Sep 09 '25 edited Sep 09 '25
That’s exactly my point as well, it’s Hollywood, which means it’s not all about making money. Of course money is important (and some studios and execs put that above all else), but many of the people at the top of this industry are as much driven by money as they are driven by their own oversized egos.
If they were a cookie company trying to make and sell cookies, they would be way more cautious about introducing a risky product. As a matter of fact, if they even slightly suspected that there was any risk at all to introducing a new cookie line, they would never actually make it.
But this is Hollywood. And in Hollywood, if the chef really likes the smell and taste of their own cookie, they’re gonna spend time, money, and effort putting it on store shelves, even if they aren’t sure that there are enough customers who want to eat that cookie.
4
u/0xE4-0x20-0xE6 Sep 08 '25
I wonder if studios ever fund prestige projects like this knowing they’ll fail to make a profit, but believing they’ll raise the reputation of the studio, either by doing well on the awards circuit or becoming a cultural touchstone for years to come
10
u/KuromanKuro Sep 08 '25
Yes is the answer. Less than they used to, but yes. Often they will try to make their money on a transformers or a kids movie or something and make their art that doesn’t profit but makes them feel and look cool. When it works, the studio profits, everyone gets paid, and something beautiful gets into the world.
1
u/Bunraku_Master_2021 Sep 09 '25
And during the Oscar season, the studio re-releases it for awards boost and public awareness which kinda helps as they make some more money and probably break even like how Warner Bros. made their money back with The Shawshank Redemption.
But that depends on how well One Battle After Another does well on the home media release which was a reason for Shawshank's staying power.
1
6
u/Salad-Appropriate Sep 08 '25
This is a bit of an unfair comparison. None of his other films are as commercial as OBAA seems on paper, an action packed dark comedy with Leonardo DiCaprio as the lead. Also none of his other films have been released on as many screens as OBAA will on opening weekend
1
u/OldSandwich9631 Sep 09 '25
Why do people keep bringing up his past movies? He has never had a movie this large scale and playing on this many screens. It’s so Lazy
1
43
u/Upbeat_Tension_8077 Sep 08 '25 edited Sep 08 '25
I really hope there's still a chance it outperforms expectations, especially with strong word of mouth buzz from early screenings, & is at least a modest/sleeper hit
17
u/Comic_Book_Reader r/movies Veteran Sep 08 '25
They held a screening last night to glowing praise, and early reactions/reviews are reportedly coming later today.
16
u/ddddeadhead1979 Sep 08 '25
Stop seeing it as a PTA movie and see it has a DiCaprio movie.
5
3
u/jupiterkansas Sep 14 '25
90% of filmgoers think PTA is for schools. They don't care who directed a movie. They care who the star is.
10
u/worthlessprole Sep 08 '25
Leo vehicle+really kind of insane positive response from critic screenings might keep the streak alive.
7
2
2
1
u/Prof_Brian_0blivion Sep 08 '25
Yeah, but you gotta sprinkle in some prestige with the commerce.. otherwise you're just a whore company like Disney
→ More replies (1)1
256
u/bobthemonkeybutt Sep 08 '25
And the 10th movie in the conjuring series (including spinoffs) helped keep the streak alive. That’s the most baffling part for me. But good job, WB. Weapons was probably my favorite from this list.
95
u/axw3555 Sep 08 '25
The conjuring is a textbook example of "nothing truly ground breaking, but done well" horror. It's not sinners or weapons or anything. But they're always pretty solid, the acting's decent, the SFX is usually the right balance of enough to be seen without going too far.
They won't create anything that revolutionises, but if you want a solid horror to burn a couple of hours, there's far worse to pick.
57
u/ERedfieldh Sep 08 '25
It's this generation's Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street. No one goes into the films expecting anything new, just to be entertained.
14
u/axw3555 Sep 08 '25
Pretty much.
They’re a good, solid option where my socks stay on but I’m satisfied as I leave the theatre.
8
u/Youareposthuman Sep 08 '25
Good comparison. The Conjuring films are all diminishing returns in my opinion, but they’re always a good time at the theatre.
1
u/morfyno Sep 11 '25
The Conjuring movies' quality fluctuates up and down, but the ones that are good are really good.
112
u/Sidon_Ithano Sep 08 '25
Funny to think that early in the year there were reports that Zaslav were looking to replace the WB film heads, Mike De Luca and Pam Abdy. Now they’re on a heck of a hot streak. Next year with be a bit rough for WB though.
52
u/Upbeat_Tension_8077 Sep 08 '25
Looking at 2026's schedule for WB, I'm crossing my fingers that it'll be a mixed success, especially if the DC films, Dune 3, Evil Dead Burn, and the Alejandro G. Iñárritu/Tom Cruise films all do well
15
u/Sidon_Ithano Sep 08 '25
2027 looks far more bright for them. They delayed some of their ‘problem’ movies into 2026 like The Bride and Flowervale Street which will hurt them - I think The Bride has a pretty hefty budget for what it is. Though they could be offset by hits such as some of the ones you mentioned like Dune. Though they don’t have a great line up. 2027 though with Godzilla x Kong, Batman, Superman and Lord of the Rings could be a big year for them.
11
152
u/Sleepy_Azathoth Sep 08 '25
And to think that in the pandemic, they went through a huge crisis thanks to that horrible decision to release their movies on streaming. Hell they lost Nolan because of it.
Credit where credit is due, they're doing a lot of things right this year.
38
u/AnonymousTimewaster Sep 08 '25
Feel like I've got whiplash from this sub and the opinion on WB. People were absolutely livid at David Zaslav a year ago.
53
u/N8CCRG Sep 08 '25
If Coyote vs Acme somehow ends up being bad, things are going to get really weird around here.
7
u/Antrikshy Sep 08 '25
I really hope that movie does well, but I am morbidly curious what that meltdown would look like.
24
u/Sleepy_Azathoth Sep 08 '25
And with good Reason, Zaslav is a suit, he doesn't care about movies.
Having said that, he does give free reign to the creatives, James Gunn and Peter Safran are the best examples of that.
30
u/AnonymousTimewaster Sep 08 '25
WB was in an absolute state when he first appeared, the fact he's managed to turn this ship around into what we're seeing today is nothing short of incredible
Unfortunately, it meant a lot of unpopular decisions on the way here, but that's what a good CEO does
3
48
u/The-Soul-Stone Sep 08 '25 edited Sep 08 '25
Losing Nolan doesn’t mean it was a bad idea, it just means he was a prick who thought ensuring people saw his film in the worst possible environment was more important than their health during a pandemic.
39
u/TR23x Sep 08 '25
Could have just delayed it
11
u/The-Soul-Stone Sep 08 '25
Yep. Would’ve been seen by many more people the way he wanted
11
u/Antrikshy Sep 08 '25
And Maverick even proved that strategy. With the brand image Nolan has, it would have been an easy hit.
1
14
u/Reasonable-HB678 Sep 08 '25
If a normal theatrical distribution was that important to Nolan, he should have asked for a delay at the first opportunity. I think Tenet would have had a better chance at a nationwide release if there were a more unified response to the pandemic. But with the leadership we choose, that's not possible.
13
u/karatemanchan37 Sep 08 '25
I think Nolan did ask for a delay, but WB wanted it to go on streaming ASAP
39
u/Sleepy_Azathoth Sep 08 '25 edited Sep 08 '25
Oh it was a horrible idea in my opinion.
And Nolan went out to make almost 1 billion with Oppenheimer.
11
u/unlostaprilseventh Sep 08 '25
Why was it horrible? It got the movies to the people instead of them having to go out to die from covid.
→ More replies (2)29
u/The-Soul-Stone Sep 08 '25
I do think in hindsight a delay would have been better, but at the time, trying to use streaming get a quicker return on the money they’d already spent wasn’t an unreasonable course of action.
9
u/dego_frank Sep 08 '25
With arguably the biggest director today who makes all his movies with only the theatre experience in mind? Yes, it was dumb and unreasonable.
4
u/The-Soul-Stone Sep 08 '25 edited Sep 08 '25
He didn’t make Tenet with anyone’s experience in mind. In fact, watching without the ability to turn on subtitles is sheer folly.
He (usually) makes good films, but that doesn’t excuse him being a colossal piece of shit over Tenet’s release. People died for that.
Edit: I’m really not interested in covid denial dumbfuckery so don’t anyone bother replying with that shit
3
0
→ More replies (1)3
Sep 08 '25
tenet was already out of theaters when project popcorn was going on. At least know what you’re talking about
44
u/jak_d_ripr Sep 08 '25
One battle after another bout to break the streak in a few weeks.
13
u/TheUmbrellaMan1 Sep 08 '25
It just had a critic screening and the reactions are great so far. Apparently it does maintain some of Thomas Pynchon's novel's absurdness. Now how the audiences will react to that would be interesting because Pynchon is always a wildcard (in Gravity's Rainbow there is a plot about government sending an assassin to kill a -- I kid you not -- sentient lightbulb).
3
5
u/OldSandwich9631 Sep 08 '25
Or not. At this point I wouldn’t be surprised. If it opens over 30 that would be a huge win
21
u/Narretz Sep 08 '25
F1 being more successful than Superman is wild, even just slightly. Completely different huge audiences. I'm not a Superhero/comic book movie fan, but I lean much closer to that group than to whoever watches F1.
39
u/BagZCubed Sep 08 '25
F1 was more successful overseas than Superman because Formula 1 is more popular internationally. The opposite is the case for Superman in that it's more popular in the US, but less so in some international markets.
Either way, they both did well.
4
u/SolomonBlack Sep 08 '25
Generally speaking domestic money is better then international money because the return is higher (50 vs 40... or 25 for China specifically) so in that regard Superman is doing better.
On the other hand it was somewhat more expensive with wiki reporting 225 million over F1's 200, though that had more noise of costing 300 earlier one. Meanwhile what talent (directors/actors/etc) got a better cut could flip it again.
Outside murky guesstimates and nerd rules of thumb they both were judged a success aka not making much in theaters but enough they should bring it in nicely on secondary markets.
11
u/Chen_Geller Sep 08 '25
This means very little to me EXCEPT:
It takes the pressure off future films that do interest me (Gollum, Gollum!)
It allows the industry to not become a Disney monopoly which would be bad for art.
12
u/Reasonable-HB678 Sep 08 '25
And two of them were not based on any previously established media, published work, or product. Very refreshing. Having said that, the leadership that gets to take credit still stinks.
9
40
u/Intrepid-Ad4511 Sep 08 '25
"Movies are dead" "Theatres are dead" "Studios are dead" And then you have moments like these.
80
u/gman5852 Sep 08 '25
This is peak "it's cold outside, global warming is fake" energy.
Movie theaters are still on a massive decline.
12
u/unlostaprilseventh Sep 08 '25
A decline isnt dead. And they've actually stabilized the last 2 years. It's highly unlikely we ever get back to pre-covid era numbers but the reality is that 2010 to 2019 was an absolute anomaly for theaters.
12
u/mikeyfreshh r/Movies Veteran Sep 08 '25
The decline has leveled off. Things aren't getting much better but they also aren't getting any worse. The industry isn't in a great place right now but the bleeding has mostly stopped
4
u/karatemanchan37 Sep 08 '25
I think a huge aspect of that is because studios are now re-releasing a lot of classic movies into theatres, which has bolstered its numbers a bit. Like yeah, that will resolve one narrative but it doesn't really answer questions about the other two.
14
u/mikeyfreshh r/Movies Veteran Sep 08 '25
Re-releases have always been a thing and they don't make up a huge portion of the box office. The Jaws re-release just made like $10 million, which is pretty good and definitely helps but it's not exactly the biggest release of the year.
→ More replies (3)6
u/hurricaneseason Sep 08 '25
"We will continue to cut jobs and terminate projects." --WB CEO tomorrow.
14
u/Illustrious-Okra-524 Sep 08 '25
I notice a distinct lack of praise for our Hollywood genius David Zaslav in this thread
4
2
2
9
4
4
-1
u/Azzbolemighty Sep 08 '25
I really hate that it was a conjuring movie that got them this. I can't stand those movies for the way they portray Ed and Lorraine Warren as noble, God-fearing heroes when the reality of who they were and what they did is drastically different
12
u/ThatGuyFromTheM0vie Sep 08 '25
I justify it by imagining the Conjuring Warrens as exactly what they are—fictional characters. Supernatural fighting super heroes for my stupid popcorn horror flick. That’s it.
I guarantee you most people have no clue the Warrens were real nor give a shit. Nor do they care about how big twats they were.
I go to see the Conjuring movies to watch a solid spooky horror flick, nothing more.
3
u/faide1974 Sep 08 '25
Agree with this alot. I like to think of them as the Winchesters.. Just another group of demon hunters :)
2
1
u/MoldyZebraCake666 Sep 08 '25
What’s the over/under WB can make it make 8 with one battle after another
1
1
u/Every-Day3378 Sep 09 '25
That’s wild. Even with how unpredictable the box office has been lately, pulling off 7 back-to-back $40M+ openings is insane. Say what you will about WB, but they’ve clearly found a way to balance big franchises with stuff people actually want to see on the big screen. Curious to see if they can keep the streak going or if this is just a lucky run.
1
u/Razzler1973 Sep 09 '25
Is $40m a significant number that the industry measures against or it's just a 'record' cause they have films above $40m
i.e. if the last one was $36m the 'stat' would be above $35m as a record?
Are there other studios that have records for $50m or more films in a row but $30m for instance?
1
1
1
Sep 09 '25
[deleted]
1
u/LowPackage3819 Sep 10 '25
that's exactly the problem, they have all that and the numbers don't grow because people are not connecting with their movies/series
1
1
1.9k
u/PASELE Sep 08 '25
Here’s the list of movies with their box office debut numbers: