July was, to some, a make-or-break month for Hollywood. Three major films dropped in as many weeks: 'Jurassic World: Rebirth,' James Gunn's 'Superman' reboot, and Marvel's 'Fantastic Four: First Steps.'
I saw two of those movies: 'Superman' and 'Fantastic Four.' My 12-year-old son was enamored with both, and I enjoyed 'Fantastic Four' more than 'Superman' for a variety of reasons, but mostly because it was the better film. It had a better script with better characters and story beats. For Marvel, which hasn't exactly covered itself in glory these past few years, it was on par with the MCU products of Phases 1 and 2. It didn't replace my favorite MCU film, 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier,' but I'd rewatch it just as I have pretty much anything up to and including 'Endgame.'
Unfortunately, 'Fantastic Four' dropped off the box office cliff in its second weekend, earning just $11.7 million domestically -- an 80% drop since opening weekend.
Hollywood has a problem. Some very serious problems. The audience, however, isn't one of them.
Some people won't want to hear this, but it might be time to stop putting ALL the blame on studios or creatives for underperforming movies. It might be time to start looking at the intelligence level of moviegoers.
— John Rocha (@TheRochaSays) August 2, 2025
If a phenomenally STUPID film like #JurassicWorld Rebirth can… https://t.co/tbULS6ZnKu
The entire post reads:
If a phenomenally STUPID film like #JurassicWorld Rebirth can crush films like #Superman and #FantasticFour at the box office, then something might be wrong with all of us and NOT the studios or the creatives.
The problem is not that 'Jurassic World' is 'phenomenally stupid' -- having not seen it, I can't make that judgement call. The problem is that 'Jurassic World' is the latest installment in a series that has a premise that was tired since Jurassic Park II: dinosaurs on islands eating people.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
The first 'Jurassic Park' was a cinematic masterpiece. Everything in that film worked, from the CGI and practical effects -- the rain required the crew to dry off the massive animatronic T-Rex frequently -- to the acting performances, to the story. 'Jurassic Park' also has my favorite cinematic score of all time; I dropped a pretty penny on tickets to hear the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra play the theme last year.
But you can only rehash dinosaurs eating people so many times.
As to the 'Fantastic Four' and 'Superman' -- both of them are reboots of movies that have been done before. There were three prior 'Fantastic Four' movies in 2005, 2007, and 2015. There have been six post-Christopher Reeve 'Superman' films in 2006, 2013, 2016, 2017, 2021, and 2023.
Audiences are tired of the same retreads.
Movies like 'Superman' and 'Fantastic Four' are also based on beloved comic book characters with profound lore and complex stories behind them, plus rabidly devoted fan bases who adore those comic books and characters. For years now, Hollywood has taken those characters and undermined or trashed the lore in the name of THE MESSAGE or remaking them for 'modern audiences.' In their rush to be 'inclusive,' they made sure to exclude the die-hard fans who would pay to see those movies.
And it isn't just comic book movies. Audiences were told the 'Charlie's Angels' and 'Ghostbusters' (2016) reboots were meant for women, so when men didn't show up, those movies flopped. Billy Eichner's gay rom-com 'Bros' bombed after he told half the viewing public the movie wasn't meant for them.
Why would anyone pay to see movies made by creatives who openly hate them?
While we're on the subject of pay, have you seen the prices of movies lately? I have a family of four, and to take my boys to a movie tonight, tickets alone would cost $60. That doesn't include popcorn and drinks, which means a night out at the movies is at least $100.
On top of that, the standards of behavior for moviegoing audiences have deteriorated. When I took my youngest to 'The Minecraft Movie' opening weekend, the woman next to us used her phone flashlight throughout the movie to stuff her face with popcorn, candy, and a large pepperoni pizza. It was obnoxious and distracting. There were no ushers in the theaters -- when was the last time you saw an actual usher -- so we both had to go find a manager and complain. No one ever spoke to her, by the way.
Why would we tolerate that when -- for most films -- they'll land on streaming in a few weeks anyway? We can watch them from the comfort of our own home for a fraction of the cost, eliminating the headaches that come with traditional viewing.
At the end of the day, Hollywood is about creating a product. That product is a movie that is meant to entertain audiences. They keep failing to do that; instead, they offer up the same crap sandwich with slightly different condiments and expect us to eat it. And then they attack half the viewing base, as the Gunns did by injecting politics into the very non-political 'Superman' movie.
Hollywood would be better served by giving smaller budgets to independent filmmakers to create smaller, more authentic movies. But i fear they won't do that, either, because reboots and sequels are safe. There's less of a risk you'll tick off the outrage mob if you throw some CGI dinosaurs on the screen rather than produce a film with an original script. The DEI nonsense rules Hollywood imposes on productions don't help, either.
On top of that -- as I have long argued -- Hollywood needs to stop relying on streaming and keep movies off streaming services for longer periods. That the theater industry hasn't lobbied for such a change blows my mind: their bottom line is the one being dinged by such quick turnaround times.
So yes, there's plenty of blame to go around, but don't put any of it on the audiences.
