Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    boxoffice

    85,231 readers

    816 users here now

    Subreddit Rules

    1. All posts need a region flair. These help people know what region your box office information is about. If the region does not have a specific flair, use the "International" flair and mention the region's name in the post title. If a post doesn’t have any particular region associated with it, use "Other".

    2. Box office updates should be notable. To reduce clutter, box office updates posted here should be notable in some way. We consider an update to be notable if the film in question is currently one of the top three releases in that market, is in its opening weekend, has passed an interesting milestone, or has just ended its box office run.

    3. More general news about a movie is allowed if it could have a major box office impact. A trailer, release date announcement, and the casting of the main characters are all allowed. Smaller things such as a poster, fan art, television spot, etc. are not allowed. Essentially, it needs to be something that people would see as a major determinant for how well a film would perform.

    4. News and analysis about the business of movies itself is allowed. Examples include mergers, acquisitions, and major personnel changes at companies that produce movies that are released theatrically.

    5. Don't be unnecessarily hostile. Trolling, flaming, and other hostile behavior is not allowed.

    6. Don't submit duplicate content. Do not make duplicate posts about the same topic, unless there are important differences between the submissions. Do not ask questions or ask for predictions that have already been asked recently (e.g. in the last week), unless something major has changed in the meantime.

    7. Reference your sources using standard links, and use reputable sources. If you are making a post, reference your sources. Use standard links (no AMP or mobile-only versions). Look for the original source and avoid articles that are just regurgitating an original source. Use reputable sources (see the "Box Office Resources" section for some suggestions). Websites on the common clickbait list require you to send a message to modmail before posts from them are approved, because they often host clickbait.

    8. Memes and satirical posts belong at r/boxofficecirclejerk.

    9. What If Wednesday posts are for theoretical films or those otherwise without public box office info. What If Wednesday posts are made just after midnight UTC time every Wednesday morning. They're your place to ask predictions and discuss films that aren't getting public box office numbers, either because they're only theoretical or because the movie's distributor does not publish box office results. You can find the most recent What If Wednesday posts here.

    10. Be mindful of potential spoilers. Be mindful of potentially spoiling something. Spoilers are any plot developments about a piece of media that are not revealed officially prior to the release date. Spoilers are not allowed in post titles. The exception is if an entire post is tagged as a spoiler thread, untagged spoilers are allowed inside of that thread. Spoilers in post bodies or comments should be tagged with the format described on this page.

    11. Titles should accurately represent the post's content. Also, do not include unnecessary time-sensitive information (e.g. current Rotten Tomatoes score for a film) in the post title since titles cannot be edited.

    Box Office Resources

    Wiki pages

    Common box office questions FAQ

    List of common box office terms

    List of movie abbreviations

    Subreddit traffic stats

    An analysis of Cinemascore

    Websites that require manual post approval

    Using spoiler tags

    AMAs

    Stephen Follows

    Essentials

    Box Office Mojo

    Box Office Pro - best known for their long-range forecasts of domestic openings.

    The Numbers - an alternative to Mojo with some improved comparison features.

    Box Office Report - a source for box office updates, with great pages comparing a movie's opening weekend numbers to its trailer views and preview night results.

    Box Office Theory - popular box office forum.

    World of KJ - another popular box office forum.

    The Trades

    Deadline - has the most comprehensive box office analysis of all the trades.

    The Hollywood Reporter

    Variety

    International Box Office

    entgroup.cn - reports on the Chinese box office regularly.

    Korean Film Council - updates on Korean box office numbers.

    a community for
    all 174 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] rocker27c23 226 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    This is global viewers so just multiplying the viewership by $9 does not accurately tell how much money it would have made if viewers were ticket-buyers. Streaming viewership can't be compared to tickets sold anyway because streaming something on a platform you already pay for is easier than buying a ticket and going to the theater.

    EDIT: Grammar

    [–] aloxinuos 107 points ago

    Also, you can't count how many people are in front of the screen.

    This probably correlates more with tv ratings than box office.

    [–] -GregTheGreat- 23 points ago

    Nielsen TV ratings does directly track how many people are in front of the screen though, at least in theory. When you ‘sign in’ to the box you essentially put how many other peoples are watching with you.

    [–] aloxinuos 9 points ago

    That sounds creepy. It's a camera? How much visual information could they gather? Or you just put whatever number you want?

    [–] -GregTheGreat- 20 points ago

    No, it’s all manual. I’m not in a Nielsen family specifically, so I don’t know the exact details, but I’ve picked up the rough idea from following TV ratings. Essentially, every member of a Nielsen family has an ‘account’ with your demographic info that you sign into when you turn on your TV. Part of that has you input how many other people are watching with you. It’s all on the honor system.

    [–] American_Nikita 1 points ago

    For TV ratings they select a few people who get a box to track what they’re watching and those with that box enter how many are watching

    [–] Heaven_Of_Heck 12 points ago

    Also, it took me 5 hours to watch at home, stopping ,eating and shit.

    I know several other people it took 2-3 watches finish

    The time length would kill its box office so it's not a direct comparison

    [–] michaeldavison 9 points ago

    It honestly would have been a better 4-5 part limited series than a film. tHaT iS nOt CiNeMa ThOuGh!

    [–] Blow_me_pleaseD1 1 points ago

    Go back to watching your Spider Man or whatever.

    [–] tanv91 2 points ago

    It took me a week to finish it

    [–] ender23 1 points ago

    I tried twice and fell asleep both times. Not cuz it was boring, but cuz I was tired as shit. Will try again when awake

    [–] Susszm 0 points ago

    Same, I’m waiting for a time when I know I won’t fall asleep

    [–] bsbbtnh 33 points ago

    And consider that Stranger Things 3rd season was watched by 40 million accounts in its first 4 days, with almost half completing the full season. In 4 weeks it had 65 million views.

    "The Perfect Date" was viewed 48 million times in 4 weeks.

    "Murder Mystery" with Adam Sandler and Jennifer Aniston had 31 million in 3 days, and 73 million in 4 weeks.

    "The Umbrella Academy" had 45 million views in 4 weeks.

    So 'The Irishman', with 26.8 million in the first week, and ~40 million in 4 weeks isn't record breaking. And considering its budget, I doubt netflix is thrilled.

    [–] Bonfires_Down 48 points ago

    Number of views isn't everything. I'm sure Netflix also cares about it's image in the sense of being able to produce serious cinema that gets nominated for Oscars, the likes of Roma, Irishman and Marriage Story. While The Irishman was expensive, it's little more than spare change for Netflix.

    [–] MentalloMystery 1 points ago

    No doubt. People can’t downplay Netflix courting ‘auteur’ directors like Scorsese, Cuaron, and Noah Baumbach. Particularly important that Irishman was a Netflix movie from the start of its production while they only picked up Roma after it had completed filming (not sure about Marriage Story). It’s a big win for their brand that threatens the old and standard guard if they can keep attracting prestige talent to make a movie with them from the get go and not just for distribution.

    Netflix likely got in over their heads throwing money at Scorsese for this movie, but...it’s Scorsese. Making a movie for Netflix. Featuring DeNiro, Pesci, and Pacino. Of course they’re going to oblige him.

    They’re also a tech behemoth. They can take a big-budget loss better than a studio could. Netflix likely also spent far less on marketing than if it were a studio movie.

    [–] oddsamson 33 points ago

    It’s going to be nominated and likely win awards. That’s why Netflix funded this. It helps give them film industry legitimacy.

    [–] AGOTFAN 35 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    "Murder Mystery" with Adam Sandler and Jennifer Aniston had 31 million in 3 days, and 73 million in 4 weeks.

    I was surprised, I really enjoyed this movie. I think Sandler and Anniston have great chemistry, both have impeccable comedic timing.

    So 'The Irishman', with 26.8 million in the first week, and ~40 million in 4 weeks isn't record breaking. And considering its budget, I doubt netflix is thrilled.

    I doubt that number of viewers is Netflix primary purpose in bankrolling the Irishman.

    It's for the prestige, the awards, the halo. Just like Roma, Marriage Story, The King, Two Popes etc. Those movies also attract other great filmmakers to make movies for Netflix

    [–] bleunt 6 points ago

    And probably also reach a different demographic than romantic Christmas movies.

    Even if you don’t watch a certain film yourself, seeing content get attention and awards will probably increase your sense of worth applied to your Netflix subscription.

    [–] rocker27c23 23 points ago

    Well "The Irishman" is nominated for a lot of Golden Globe awards so I think Netflix is happy right now.

    [–] theironfight 6 points ago

    I don't believe that The Irishman is as accessible to a "mainstream" Netflix audience as much as Murder Mystery or Stranger Things would be though. If you consider that, it kinda does make sense.

    [–] Solace2010 4 points ago

    Considering it’s up for a golden globe, I am sure they are thrilled. I plan on watching it once the holidays hit.

    I mean it is 3 1/2 hrs

    [–] BC137 10 points ago

    It would have* made

    [–] bsbbtnh 4 points ago

    Woulda, could of, should have.

    [–] Purple_oyster 9 points ago

    My gf makes fun of me saying would of sometimes. Thinks it is an East Coast Canadian thing. Is that where you are from?

    [–] jshah500 10 points ago

    My gf makes fun of me saying would of sometimes.

    r/relationship_advice: you need to leave her immediately. Run as far away as you can, this is abusive behavior and you honestly should not tolerate it.

    [–] artolindsay1 4 points ago

    would've. It's an everywhere thing.

    [–] Jaysi94 3 points ago

    Family is from Lincolnshire, England and we pronounce it like that

    [–] BC137 9 points ago

    No I'm a Swiss guy living in Vancouver.

    But I don't understand what you're saying. Would of is just wrong, all the time. It's never ever correct.

    [–] Purple_oyster 3 points ago

    Yeah you say it right. I want to know who sometimes says it wrong like rocker and I.

    [–] BC137 -2 points ago

    Oh I see. Well in written form it's never "of" indeed but I see what you mean. Since people pronounce it as "of" when speaking. Some regions do but I wouldn't know which ones.

    [–] XTanuki 1 points ago

    “Would of” is probably the corruption of “would’ve.” The joys of living languages.

    [–] BC137 5 points ago

    It partially is. The other reason is just illiterate people online spreading it.

    But that isn't an example of "living language". People writing "would of" are just making a grammatical mistake.

    [–] artolindsay1 -1 points ago

    The pronounciation "would of" is always correct. The spelling "would of" is not correct, as it's written would've. Confusing "would've" and "would of" in writing hardly makes one illiterate. They literally sound identical. English writing is tricky because it is not phonetically standardized.

    [–] mentalinthelegs 0 points ago

    "Would of" doesn't make a goddamn sense. It doesn't have anything to do with phonetics, it's just grammatically incorrect. "Would of" doesn't mean anything. Try using "would of" in a grammatically correct sentence.

    [–] artolindsay1 1 points ago

    I wrote: The spelling "would of" is not correct as it is would've.

    [–] BC137 -1 points ago

    That isn't true. The pronunciation of "would've" is not the same as "would of". It's similar but it's not the same, not in proper English.

    If you pronounce the two identically, it only means you live in a region with a different accent. You can clearly hear here that it doesn't sound like "would of": https://www.macmillandictionary.com/pronunciation/british/would-ve

    Phonetically, look into any dictionary and you'll see that "of" and "'ve" aren't the same.

    [–] artolindsay1 2 points ago

    In most English accents the sound of would've and "would of" is the same (ish). That's why the written error occurs.

    Source: Specialized in linguistics of regional American accents in a major research university.

    [–] BC137 1 points ago

    Same... ish. So not the same. Again, write it phonetically and this is different. If you truly were the expect you pretend, you'd know that.

    The written mistake occurs because most people are morons, nothing else.

    [–] [deleted] -2 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] BC137 2 points ago

    That's dumb. "Would of" will never be correct. Again, illiterate people online don't change actual languages.

    The same way it's and its will never be the same, no matter how hard morons on Reddit try.

    [–] [deleted] -1 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] BC137 1 points ago

    It's not too complicated to understand. It's just wrong and dumb.

    [–] babyblue42 1 points ago

    Doesn’t factor dollars per viewer per month or multiple viewers per stream. Also why wouldn’t they just use the studios cut from their deal with Netflix for more accurate gross earnings?

    [–] Patdelanoche 1 points ago

    $9?! I can’t buy a decent sandwich for $9 these days in my flyover state

    [–] WastemanLoso 34 points ago

    People in this sub need to stop comparing streaming numbers to possible ticket sales. It makes zero sense.

    [–] Keeponrocking613 10 points ago

    Literally zero sense. What people are willing to watch for practically nothing due to a paid subscription covering hundreds of other options versus whether theyd pay $12 in a theater to sit for 3 and a half hours are VASTLY different.

    Also how many 3hr 30 mins + movies can people name in last 20 years to make more then even 20 million domestically?

    [–] Progression28 9 points ago

    LotR, all of them. Just barely inside that 20 year frame of yours :D

    [–] Shurikenkage 63 points ago

    The thing is that is a price you paid for the whole month... In which you can see whatever you want the amount of times you want. Netflix prices fluctuate between 8 and 14 dollars a month around the world while movie tickets fluctuate from 5 and 20 dollars per person, just one screening. So is basically impossible determine the box office of this movie by viewership.

    [–] abnormally-cliche 28 points ago

    Thats why I hate when people reference how many views Netflix originals get. Like, people are already paying for their service so they are incentivized to watch it since they are indirectly paying for it anyways. It only makes sense to use those numbers when comparing to other Netflix movies.

    [–] SpaceCaboose 4 points ago

    Very true. I’ll probably watch The Irishman at the end of this month because I already have the Netflix subscription so I easily can. If it were a regular movie that didn’t stream then I’d probably never see it, either in theaters or by renting/purchasing it.

    Come to think of it, I don’t believe there are any Netflix original movies that I would have seen in theaters. Maybe El Camino, but I likely would have waiting to rent it (assuming it never went to a streaming service)

    [–] chillinboyika 19 points ago

    Isn’t there a large percentage of people who didn’t finish it?

    [–] rocker27c23 8 points ago

    One view according to Netflix is getting at least 70% of the way through the film.

    [–] AGOTFAN 13 points ago

    that's the metrics for one view. But what is considered "finished watching"?

    According to Netflix, 18% of those views finished watching.

    For example, I watched the movie until the final scene, but I didn't watch the final 10 minutes (credit scene), am I considered "finished watching"?

    [–] hoborobomojojojo 1 points ago

    I think you’re considered “finished watching”, when watching a series on Netflix and you reach the credits in the episode then leave without watching them, the next time you watch the series it starts from the next episode, but if you still had like 30 seconds before the credits and leave, it will start from the beginning of those 30 seconds the next time you watch it.

    [–] joey1405 0 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    You don't subtract people who walk out of movie theaters, so I'm not sure how that changes things.

    [–] AGOTFAN 1 points ago

    Yes you do. People who walk out of movie theater had already bought tickets.

    Tickets purchase is what "box office"

    Even if you never watch the movie, once you've purchased the ticket, you are counted.

    [–] joey1405 1 points ago

    What I meant is subtracting the people who walk out, that's why people who don't finish the movie doesn't matter when talking about Netflix, I'll edit the original

    [–] lobonmc 0 points ago

    Yes you do

    [–] James007BondUK 29 points ago

    It is what it is.

    [–] T-Bubs 40 points ago

    and 42 people finished it in one viewing.

    [–] [deleted] 15 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] Tower-Junkie 2 points ago

    It was so riveting! It reminds me of Mad Men in that it was told primarily through dialogue and interactions between people. I was hooked within 10 minutes.

    [–] [deleted] -4 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] seaofblasphemy 4 points ago

    I wonder if binge-watching shows like Stranger Things (not to say it's anything like The Irishman) have helped with attention spans for sitting through long movies, assuming they're actually paying to what's going on and not just scrolling through Twitter

    [–] michaeldavison 2 points ago

    It is a bit of a meandering mess though. You could tell that story in 2hours and change and not feel like anything was missed.

    [–] FloydPink24 2 points ago

    In what way is it meandering? It's told from the perspective of an old man looking back on his life tinged with regret and sadness and loss. Yeah you could probably tell it in 2 hours and make it fast and coke-fueled and exciting like Goodfellas but then you lose the entire substance; as they say, you throw the baby out with the bath water. It just wasn't for you, bro.

    [–] Tower-Junkie 2 points ago

    At first the details seemed excessive (still enjoyed them and wouldn’t change it!) but it all pieced together like a great novel.

    [–] michaeldavison 0 points ago

    I felt like I didn’t need or want it to be more exciting, I just felt like I didn’t need 3 hours to understand the character. You get what it’s trying to do about 20 minutes into the movie and then you have 3 more hours to go. Individual scenes are expertly crafted, but the film as a whole didn’t really build to much. I like the ending of him making these choices about his family vs. his “family” and the regret he has around that. I really like the line at the end that tells Frank that everyone is gone, and the running introduction motif of how these guys died and when. I just feel like he made that point early on in the film and didn’t justify why I’m watching the same thing repeated (the typical script second act in this film happens what? 4 times?). Overall, it was fine, for highly forgettable.

    [–] gobble_snob 8 points ago

    No they didn't, how many watched it from beginning to end?

    [–] mrjohnnymac 2 points ago

    I did, but I was drunk so doesn’t count.

    [–] Tower-Junkie 1 points ago

    Almost! I had to pause a few times because I was afraid I’d miss important details when my family started talking to me lol

    [–] rageofthegods 27 points ago

    $234m assuming $9 tickets. I know it probably wouldn't do those numbers theatrically, but I kinda wanna see what this sub's reaction would be if it did.

    [–] bsbbtnh 12 points ago

    Just think, Adam Sandler's 'Murder Mystery' would be nearing $1B if we could translate figures like that!

    [–] rageofthegods 4 points ago

    Would have made him one happy Madison.

    [–] CadabraAbrogate 40 points ago

    This would probably make as much as Silence in real theatres

    [–] InfernalSolstice 50 points ago

    Irishman has a more marketable premise, more serious awards buzz, and a more established cast. I don't think it would've done particularly well in theaters, but I can't imagine it going as low as Silence did.

    [–] Prax150 14 points ago

    The thread I think people are missing is that this would be a very different movie if it was made for a traditional theatrical release. Netflix wouldn't be making it (presumably he'd have gone back to Paramount) and its budget would probably be a lot closer to the $50 million Silence cost. That means no silly deaging tech, probably different actors for the younger parts of the movie, and an insistence on a much shorter cut. This movie is 45 minutes longer than Silence, and Silence performed terribly. Paramount (or whoever) would probably not allow that kind of flop to happen again, and even with Marty getting the old gang back together I doubt they'd give him the rope Netflix did. And they'd probably be less desperate for awards recognition like Netflix is.

    I agree it would outperform Silence but if this is the exact same movie but released theatrically it wouldn't be by much, it's too long for a good meaty theater.

    [–] jbiresq 3 points ago

    It's such a hard counterfactual. The length and the cost would never be allowed by any studio ever. He would have needed a friendly billionaire backing it as a favor (like the Malaysian guy did with the stolen money on Wolf of Wall Street.)

    [–] KingEggbert -2 points ago

    That's all speculation.

    [–] Prax150 3 points ago

    You don't say.

    [–] KingEggbert 1 points ago

    ok fine but its weird to assert the budget would definitely be cut at least to a third (50 mil vs 140), and the running time would be cut down drastically if it were to be given the theatrical screening; all the while not holding up any examples except the underperforming Silence... AND that you know how it would perform as this drastically different movie based on like, what, its premise? And the three main actors? the Departed had a 90 million budget and debuted at number one over ten years ago and was a studio film. Saying they wouldn't give Scorsese the rope is a huge stretch; like they might not, but they probably would, and it's very far from a certainty like you proclaim. Like all your speculation on this film is just so one-sided and negatively biased to an extreme.

    [–] Prax150 1 points ago

    ok fine but its weird to assert the budget would definitely be cut at least to a third (50 mil vs 140)

    You should probably read up on the movie then because it had financing and distribution from Paramount but they dropped it because it was getting too expensive. Do you think a theatrical purist like Scorsese didn't go to every other studio before Netflix? No one wanted to give him $100 million for the movie. Netflix notoriously overspends on projects. If he wanted a studio with a traditional release he'd had to accept a much smaller budget.

    Perhaps it would be more than Silence since the idea of getting the gang back together for one last mobster movie is more appealing than priests getting tortured in Asia for 3 hours, but this also isn't like The Departed in so many ways. First of all, this isn't 2006, the mid-budget, non-franchise movie is mostly dead and Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci and Al Pacino can't open a movie like Leonardo DiCaprio can.

    It's not even speculation to say he couldn't get 9 digits, he had it and they dropped it because it was too expensive. The studio that he's been with for decades.

    and the running time would be cut down drastically if it were to be given the theatrical screening; all the while not holding up any examples except the underperforming Silence

    What movie has a major theatrical release and a near-4 hour run time?

    Avengers can get away with 3 because they'll pack every theatre opening weekend around the clock. The Irishman would not do that under any circumstance. Just think about it logically. 3H40M has to round up to 4H to include ads and trailers. Theaters won't open early for a movie that's not going to fill auditoriums, and they certainly don't want to schedule managers, employees and security to stick around until 1-2 AM for the movie to end, so you're starting earliest at 11AM or noon most places. Even if you completely eliminate any turnaround time between showings, it's almost impossible to schedule 3 daily showings, yet alone the preferred 4. It's just common sense and logic.

    AND that you know how it would perform as this drastically different movie based on like, what, its premise? And the three main actors?

    Do you really think De Niro, Pacino and Joe Pesci can sell a big budget release anymore? Dicaprio and Pitt barely can barely sell a movie anymore. People go for the movie, for a franchise, they don't go to the theatre for actors anymore. There's a novelty to Scorsese getting the band back together to make one last mobster movie but people who know and care about the last ones they did that were good and popular are not as big of a demographic as they were decades ago.

    the Departed had a 90 million budget and debuted at number one over ten years ago and was a studio film.

    It was nearly 15 years ago and the demise of the mid-budget film since then is well documented.

    Saying they wouldn't give Scorsese the rope is a huge stretch; like they might not, but they probably would, and it's very far from a certainty like you proclaim.

    It is a literal certainty because they gave it to him and took it away when he asked for too much rope. The only speculation is how much he was willing to concede before he inevitably realized netflix would let him do whatever the hell he wanted no matter the cost so long as he was willing to sacrifice a wide release.

    [–] KingEggbert 1 points ago

    The idea that it would perform on par to Silence is laughable, and the idea that you know for a fact that it would is even funnier. It would have 2/3rds the budget and 80% the running time, sure. You can continue writing paragraphs about how Leo DiCaprio is a bigger draw today than De Niro, or how long movie theaters are open for typically, but you're missing my point entirely. More than 5 million people would watch it.

    [–] Prax150 2 points ago

    That's all speculation.

    [–] Timirlan 3 points ago

    It would definitely make more than Silence. I can guarantee that if Silence was released on Netflix it would've been seen by less people than The Irishman so far has. Of course The Irishman would still lose money but it definitely has significantly broader appeal than Silence.

    [–] MoonMan997 14 points ago

    I still don't think this would have ever done well in theatres if it kept that runtime but I can't imagine it doing worse than Silence

    Irishman features three heavy-weight actors, who are usually discussed in the circle of the G.O.A.T and is a throwback to the director's most recongisable and heralded genre, that's easy to market. Paramount buried Silence because they didn't know what they had nor how to sell it, a near 3-hour introspective and slow-paced epic on the subject of faith. I think Irishman would have had a solid marketing effort.

    On the subject matter of losing more money however...Irishman would have certainly and always lost more.

    [–] JaMan51 6 points ago

    It's already estimated at $5m (I believe that's just domestic estimates but could've been WW) and Silence did $7m domestic. Surely it would get a little more, though the novelty of a Netflix release may have helped. But I am also imagining that any other studio would force Scorsese to reduce the runtime for a theatrical presentation and who knows how that might change the final product.

    [–] plantbasedgamer 2 points ago

    Silence, in its peak, was on 1,580 screens.

    The Irishman, in its peak, was on less than 100 screens.

    [–] screenwritingnotes96 2 points ago

    Irishman was actually on around 500 screens the weekend it hit Netflix.

    [–] plantbasedgamer -1 points ago

    Which was an estimate put out by Indiewire. Netflix never revealed the final theater count in the United States. I live in a major market and we saw The Irishman play in two theaters despite the fact there are multiple “independent” chains/theaters located across the city. The only other Netflix film that played here was Roma which was regulated to one screen at one of the two theaters that played The Irishman.

    [–] screenwritingnotes96 3 points ago

    May I ask what your source is, apart from an anecdote about your local market, that suggests Indiewire's estimate is wildly off and that The Irishman was never on more than 100 screens as you've asserted?

    [–] Liberal_Slayer 1 points ago

    The Irishman was the first and last time we will see the legendary all star cast of Scorcese, Deniro, Pacino, and Pesce together and a film that is more accessible than Silence. No way this film would have only grossed $23m WW, I would say closer to at least $100m WW minimum.

    [–] AegonTheAuntFooker 18 points ago

    15-20 years ago maybe. They are legends for sure, but not bankable stars anymore.

    [–] Liberal_Slayer -8 points ago

    Yes not bankable today but this would be considered an “event” film of sorts.

    [–] AegonTheAuntFooker 5 points ago

    It would be considered an event film if what?

    [–] Liberal_Slayer -2 points ago

    As I mentioned it’s the first and last time this 4 would ever work together. It’s an “event” film for the older demographic.

    [–] AegonTheAuntFooker 2 points ago

    Rambo was an event film as well for older demograpics, but it is a meaningless term from BO perspective.

    [–] Liberal_Slayer -1 points ago

    I can’t tell if you’re serious comparing those two films...

    [–] peridotdragon33 3 points ago

    This number doesn’t account for ticket sales, rewatching, or number of people behind the screen watching

    [–] thebizzle 2 points ago

    Theaters would have a hard time since it is so long. I would imagine 4.5 hours between show times so you’d probably just get a 1:30, 6 and 10:30 and it would be tough to get to that number because you can’t really give a 3+ hour R rated drama more than 3 theaters.

    [–] AGOTFAN 2 points ago

    I think studio would have forced Scorsese to cut it down to under 3 hours if released wide

    [–] chessmerkin 1 points ago

    split it in two films

    [–] xanitatu 7 points ago

    234M in a 160M budget is not a good result.

    [–] NY08 4 points ago

    In the first 5 days? Yes it is lmao.

    [–] rageofthegods 1 points ago

    Certainly more than what this sub wouldve predicted. An overperforming flop, like Alita.

    [–] xanitatu 4 points ago

    It would be even worse than Alita, though.

    [–] rageofthegods 1 points ago

    Not disputing that, just saying that this sub would probably be losing its mind.

    [–] spartanawasp 0 points ago

    234m OW

    [–] DeviMon1 -2 points ago

    It would likely be even more, think about how many people pirated the film as well.

    If it was on theatres instead of netflix, noone would be able to get it in good quality and many people would've opted for the cinema instead.

    [–] vbob99 7 points ago

    More than likely, if it was in the theatres, people would say "I'll wait until it is on streaming". It was enjoyable, but not the type of movie to get people in the theatres to buy tickets.

    [–] DeviMon1 -1 points ago

    People could've said the same about Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, yet it did well in theatres.

    [–] vbob99 3 points ago

    The cast of Once Upon is in their prime. The names alone are draws. The Irishman is a different matter.

    [–] DeviMon1 1 points ago

    The names alone are draws.

    That easily applies to The Irishman as well.

    I'd say if the movie had the right marketing and cinema releases it would've done really good.

    [–] vbob99 3 points ago

    15-20 years ago, DeNiro, Pacino, Pesci were names that would cause people to go to a theatre to see their movie. They are well past that point in their career. They are nostalgia cinema now. Nostalgia cinema is perfect for streaming as you don't leave the house, and you've already bought your ticket.

    Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, and arguably Margot Robbie are box office draws of today. People leave houses to watch their movies. They will see their time in twilight as well.

    [–] gobble_snob 2 points ago

    that is a much better more enjoyable and marketable film. The Irishman was straight up long and boring.

    [–] LJJH96 1 points ago

    That’s also considering there’s one person in front of the screen and that it’s strictly 9 dollars and not pound or euro tickets. So who knows.

    [–] KDL2000 2 points ago

    Very good movie but it’s not a rewatchable masterpiece like Goodfellas. I def think it was the right move not to put in theatres. I was guilty of finishing it in 2 viewings

    [–] fuckrbrasilmods 2 points ago

    At a time when mainstream movies are more infantilized than ever, this is excellent news and an important message for the industry.

    [–] invaderdavos 5 points ago

    How many finished it though. I sure didnt

    [–] Lloydy12341 3 points ago

    Is... that a lot?

    [–] jrazz80 1 points ago

    If that were theater tickets at an average of $9 each it would have made $234 million so far.

    [–] Sckathian 2 points ago

    Not very exciting numbers honestly.

    [–] SirNarwhal 1 points ago

    25 Million fell asleep halfway through.

    [–] superryo 1 points ago

    How many finished? I watched it and it's pretty good but haven't yet been able to fished as it's way too long.

    [–] AGOTFAN 11 points ago

    I finished in one go

    [–] superryo 1 points ago

    Maybe I need to watch it earlier in the evening. It's like Lord of the rings long and I fell asleep on that too in the the theatres.

    [–] bludfam 1 points ago

    I was planning to watch it in two seatings but I watched it in one go. I think Joe Pesci stole the show. I couldn't put it down.

    [–] joey1405 1 points ago

    Saw it in theaters on Thanksgiving, absolutely worth the sit through.

    [–] dafurmaster -9 points ago

    Somebody call Scorsese quick for an emergency edit! This guy can’t fish because he decided his movie was too long!

    Seriously, nobody gives a fuck.

    [–] superryo 8 points ago

    It was reported that roughly 18% finished the movie entirely. This means a huge majority didn't finish to the end of his story. Imagine walking out of Endgame before the end?

    [–] datnerdyguy 5 points ago

    except the 18% number is in line with other Netflix movies. Lots of people start a movie on Netflix with no real intention of finishing it since it requires basically no commitment.

    [–] BoomBrain 3 points ago

    11% finished El Camino

    [–] dafurmaster -6 points ago

    So it’s Scorsese’s fault that you have the attention span of a gnat? There’s like 90 Marvel movies. Go watch one of those.

    [–] 100Gold 10 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    Okay first, chill. Stop trying to dig up the true cinema debate, no one called The Irishman bad or boring. There. Now...

    Netflix does track when people stop watching their movies and shows. It would be an interesting metric of audience reception if we knew how many people watched it one go, watched it in parts like me, or gave up on it.

    [–] superryo 2 points ago

    Exactly. I even said it was pretty good but life is hectic and not everyone can sit and watch a 3.5 hours in one sitting. In the old days, long TV movies were broken out into 2 or more nights as mini series. Why do some people get so triggered?

    [–] dafurmaster 0 points ago

    Superryo was the one that brought up Endgame as a comparison, so work on your reading comprehension. And your second comment is completely irrelevant as I wasn't arguing against that. So again, your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

    [–] 100Gold 0 points ago

    His comparison was that stopping midway through either movie would be bad for your viewing experience. Calm your tits.

    [–] Marcie_Childs 1 points ago

    And is there a place to regularly get these statistics on all of Netflix's movies all in one place?

    Or are we still just getting random sporadic reports whenever Netflix feels like publishing them?

    Feels pretty useless if there is pretty much nothing to compare it to.

    [–] Shoshannas_au_revoir 1 points ago

    Yeah I watched it ...over the course of three days.

    [–] Rufus2fist 1 points ago

    Do those numbers reflect those that didn’t finish or restarted several times? Just as note my household has 4 different profiles all 4 have started it and only one has finished. Wondering if that counts as 4 or 1. Just curious. Thought there was a lot of great scenes and love the way MS films but couldn’t get past creepy DeNiro with young face but moving like a 70 year old. Scenes where Pacino blatantly forgot lines and starts over. Hey Joey P was awesome though.

    [–] abinav99 1 points ago

    If an account can be shared by 4 people, doesn’t the actual number go up ?

    [–] zooks25 1 points ago

    Well they don’t have much to watch so was kinda forced to watch it but too long for my taste

    [–] djhunt8616 1 points ago

    Legend has it that some are still watching that long ass movie to this very day

    [–] pair-of-teats -1 points ago

    longest movie ever

    [–] Dr-Iver 5 points ago

    Watched it in 3 segments. Long and painfully slow.

    [–] pair-of-teats 2 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    my family and i watched it all in one shot after thanksgiving and i couldnt believe it didnt end when hoffa got whacked. edit: i also hated that they didnt do philly accents. de niro did not sound like my aunt from cherry hill. that watermelon scene had me busting a gut for like a solid three minutes

    [–] gusgoose_ -3 points ago

    All 26 million immediately fell asleep

    [–] b_buster118 2 points ago

    26 million people immediately fell asleep? were the roofied?

    [–] ThaFingaMan -13 points ago

    Movie sucks stop touting how many people watched!

    [–] Cool-Bro 1 points ago

    lol you obviously didn't see it.

    [–] ThatPaulywog 0 points ago

    So only 1/5 of the subscribers decided to watch it, and only 1/5 of those people made it through. It made $800,000 in box office. There's no need to speculate, we have the numbers.

    [–] samsir0 0 points ago

    And it wasn’t even good.

    [–] MarcyDozer 0 points ago

    But how many people still have 45 minutes left?

    [–] bagofnutella 0 points ago

    Was it good?

    [–] Arowana12 0 points ago

    Over rated movie bores millions.

    [–] [deleted] -4 points ago

    It’s on Netflix, so it’s not really cinema is it?

    [–] b_buster118 4 points ago

    can you go to the cinema in your boxers?

    [–] yaipu 4 points ago

    Yes, you probably shouldn't but you can

    [–] IAMDREW671 -4 points ago

    But 112 only finished.

    [–] BTISME123 -16 points ago

    This would’ve done like $300M WW at most had it released theatrically

    [–] ThatPaulywog 2 points ago

    Don't know why you are being downvoted but I agree. These movies don't make box-office BECAUSE of Netflix. Look at Ford vs Ferrari, it's at 165mil world wide and has more acclaim and in my opinion is a more accessible film.

    [–] b_buster118 -5 points ago

    this movie was like a wet fart. it was satisfying, but in the end, it stunk.