tl;dr Furiosa’s $25 million opening was lower than the expected $40 million that its predecessor Fury Road opened with. Could lose money on its $168 million budget.
Lower budgeted family friendly Garfield well on its way to profit on its reported $60 million budget.
-
“Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga,” $25.6 million.
-
“The Garfield Movie,” $24.8 million.
-
“IF,” $16.1 million.
-
“Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes,” $13.4 million.
-
“The Fall Guy,” $5.9 million.
-
“The Strangers: Chapter 1,” $5.6 million.
-
“Sight,” $2.7 million.”
-
“Challengers,” $1.4 million.
-
“Babes,” $1.1 million.
-
“Back to Black,” $1.1 million.
So why didn’t they name it something new instead?
Go on come up with an original name for your story about new characters that aren’t a part of an existing franchise.
Oh wait… they revived a 9 year old brand that’s been dead for 30 years prior to milk some more nostalgia from the fans wallets.
What the fuck are you talking about.
The original director revived a 30 year old movie franchise. In doing so completely reset the story.
Call the film “Fury Road” staring “Mad Matt” and you’d be calling it a visionary new story with tasteful callbacks to 80s action films.
Then we get a prequel to the film 9 years later. In what world is that milking? A follow up to a film isn’t milking a franchise.
Reseting the existing timeline doesn’t mean it’s a new product or a new story. It’s the same franchise still.
Yes. But it’s not. It’s another sequel. (Prequel is still a continuation of a franchise)
So many shows and movies could have been new standalone stories but have a brand tacked on because of sales and marketing bull.
Lol I agree with you somewhat, but I think you’re too lost in the sauce here. There are plenty of egregious examples of Hollywood and movie studios doing what you dislike (Batman rings some bells…), but this ain’t it chief.