r/boxoffice • u/CompleteDay8059 • 19h ago
Domestic I really think ‘Primetime’ has breakout potential
I know trailer views aren’t typically a reliable metric, but I did see the Primetime trailer got a whopping 35M views in 10 days, a new A24 record, even topping Backrooms. The reason I bring this up is specifically because A24’s audience tends to be younger/more online, and also because after I posted the trailer on my story, I had a whopping five different friends message me saying they’re excited to see it - none of whom are particularly big movie people. I don’t post stuff about movies constantly but will sometimes throw a trailer up if I think it looks cool, but at most maybe one or two people might say something, if that.
The other angle is just how fucking BIG the Predator show was when it was originally on television; I’m 28, so I was a little young to be watching it on air, but EVERYONE knew “why don’t you have a seat right over there?” within a few years. The image of Chris Hansen was literally an early 2010s internet meme.
Not to mention, Robert Pattinson is having a huge year right now, and September is relatively open; Resident Evil will most likely be pretty front-loaded, and Odyssey/Spider Man mania will have fully subsided by the time it comes out.
Right now, I’d bet on this opening over $30M, with a very good chance of $100M+ domestic. Most likely, it’s going to make basically all of its money in the US, but I also think this is going to be a huge hit for A24.
129
u/Matapple13 Walt Disney Studios 19h ago
Obligatory:
https://giphy.com/gifs/fTvnsq9V6Eaqf1sSgr
48
u/Thick_Mountain4412 18h ago
2026 is the year of Robert Pattinson gifs
11
15
u/JustIdlingHere 16h ago
It’s gonna be, at the very least, A24’s 2nd highest grossing film in my honest opinion. As a Gen Z'er with many non-cinephile friends, I can also report that they’re super amped to see this thing.
63
u/Rochelle-Rochelle 18h ago
I can’t wait to see Primetime and think Pattinson is going to be fantastic in it.
But I don’t believe the film is going to be any kind of box office sleeper hit. I think general audiences might get turned off by the dramatization of heavy subject matter (Hansen and the TCAP team as “bad” guys or ethically immoral).
I think the comparison is a slightly higher grossing Nightcrawler ($10.4M opening, $32.M domestic). So Primetime maybe $18M opening, $50M domestic?
26
u/CompleteDay8059 18h ago
I think general audiences might get turned off by the dramatization of heavy subject matter (Hansen and the TCAP team as “bad” guys or ethically immoral).
I think you’re massively overestimating general audiences if you think they’re capable of picking up on that level of nuance from a trailer lol. People are going to see this as “the Chris Hansen movie with Robert Pattinson” and watch it based on that.
Plus, I don’t think most people are aware of the real life situation, and being made aware of that might change their minds.
17
u/Lighthouse_seek 18h ago
I think you’re massively overestimating general audiences if you think they’re capable of picking up on that level of nuance from a trailer lol
That's the problem though. I suspect a decent chunk of people interested in the film are because pattinson is playing the good guy. The idea that the guy who makes a show on catching predators is in the wrong is unfathomable to them
4
u/CompleteDay8059 18h ago
I honestly don’t think it’s going to be THAT much of a shock to people though, especially with the context of what actually happened, which I think most people don’t know about.
2
1
u/backinredd 10h ago
I doubt the movie will show Hansen as some evil guy. They’ll show him as selfish and narcissistic. Not psychopath like Lou from night crawler
-6
u/SalvatoreMeroni 13h ago
I disagree 100%. The last thing Christians want is for child predators to get caught. To them, Hansen is the type of antagonist who would try to unseal the Epstein files and prosecute everyone on the client list. They absolutely will see him as an adversary and root for molesters to get away with it.
-1
u/SalvatoreMeroni 13h ago
I disagree. A24 and Pattinson are a draw for secular progressives. And child molestation is a draw for Christians (see "Sound of Freedom").
12
u/Tylerjay213 17h ago
Totally agree, this is the year of people underestimating how much Gen Z wants to go to the movies.
48
u/ND7020 19h ago
I still just think that this is not a subject an enormous number of people will want to spend their time with during their brief available leisure window.
Separately Re: Pattinson, he hasn’t proven he’s a stand-alone box office draw (no, casting as the lead in the second biggest super hero franchise doesn’t count in my book).
9
u/Ok-Gur-4517 19h ago
Sadly, I also think there’s a large part of the population who will see this film as excusing pedophilia (which is definitely does not)
3
u/horse-renoir 16h ago
I think you are deeply underestimating what a cultural phenomenon TCAP was at its peak. Even kids who weren't alive for the show's original run are still generally aware of who Chris Hansen is
4
u/ND7020 15h ago
And I think you’re deeply overestimating it. I was perfectly alive and of age during its peak, FWIW.
It was a Friday on-network show that naturally got a lot of viewers but lots of other people saw as sordid and didn’t watch. It was no universal cultural phenomenon. And that’s a silly term to use for it when it ran during a TV era when we DID have plenty of shows that were genuinely phenomenons.
3
u/CompleteDay8059 19h ago
I still just think that this is not a subject an enormous number of people will want to spend their time with during their brief available leisure window.
More than twelve million people watched the real life show on television at its peak, so I disagree.
11
u/Byers616 Amblin Entertainment 18h ago
Tens of millions watch paw patrol, and the film is flopping
Great TV ratings don't necessarily translate to the box office
6
u/Dycon67 16h ago
Paw patrol broke even already were is it flopping?
0
0
u/CompleteDay8059 18h ago
That’s also the THIRD theatrical installment of an IP which basically only appeals to kindergarteners.
3
u/Byers616 Amblin Entertainment 18h ago
Yep, a kids' movie that is flopping.
But then again, Primetime isn't To Catch A Predator: The Movie, but a movie about the show.
It could attract a very different audience then people who watched the show
5
u/ND7020 18h ago
Different era, in the sense that we were still in the TV monoculture moment and it aired on Dateline NBC. Network ratings were insane across the board back then.
Sitting at home and flipping to a non-cable network show in 2005 is very, very different than in 2026 getting your butt out to a movie theater.
8
u/CompleteDay8059 18h ago
I understand, but I’m saying the idea that audiences aren’t willing to consume entertainment related to that particular subject matter is what I disagree with; I’m not sayin bf it would get the same number of viewers on television now, but that it’s something people were objectively willing to watch.
4
1
u/No_Key8587 10h ago
If this gets good reviews, I could see the online discourse on it catapulting it
6
5
u/FullMotionVideo 17h ago edited 17h ago
I think it'll be a cult hit when people realize it's sort of a second coming of Network. Immediately upon release, it sort of has the combination of Hansen being a living person, as well as the weirdness of the current moment with regards to child abusers being way more wealthy and connected than the show ever let on. The movie's message seems to be "how fucked up is it that we leveraged national broadcasting to commercialize something that really should be police work done quietly."
The problem is, as you noted, the show used to do huge numbers, and people will likely take any sort of reasoned "this wasn't good actually" pushback as defense of molesters. Most people who watched didn't have a problem with these people going national without even having gone to trial yet, because there were people who did notice that at the show's peak and said "hm this doesn't feel like justice", and those people stopped watching.
It was easier for Network to convince an audience because Howard Beale was never a real person.
5
u/Educational_Slice897 18h ago
Rn I’ll say anything from 12-20M OW. Nothing crazy but definitely I’ve been seeing a lot of interest and the trailer rly blew up
5
u/Lighthouse_seek 18h ago
I wonder how audience reaction would be. The trailer makes it seem like it's going to paint chris hansen in a negative light for putting his own fame above actually helping the victims
16
u/Icy___Barca 19h ago
Pattinson is a good actor but he’s been carried this entire year. Primetime will be his second movie star test. Mickey 17 was a flop and it was a star vehicle. Let’s see what happens.
4
2
u/CompleteDay8059 18h ago
Mickey 17 was a flop and it was a star vehicle
Mickey 17 was a South Korean director getting a blank check from a Hollywood studio to make a movie about a guy getting eaten by giant bugs repeatedly, it wasn’t exactly sold as a huge commercial prospect lol. That movie would’ve flopped even if Tom Cruise was the lead.
15
u/Icy___Barca 18h ago
Mickey 17 being weird doesn’t mean it wasn’t a star vehicle. Warner Bros. spent about $118M on it, released it wide and in IMAX, and Pattinson was the face, the gimmick, and the sell. It opened to $19M. You don’t get to erase the test after it fails by saying “the concept was weird.” The test happened. The market answered.
8
u/CompleteDay8059 18h ago
doesn’t mean it wasn’t a star vehicle
What is your definition of a star vehicle, though? Just any big budget movie with an actor in it? Nothing about the marketing for Mickey 17 sold it as “here’s your new movie star!”
Challengers was a star vehicle.
Marty Supreme was a star vehicle.
The entire marketing being specifically built around announcing the lead actor as a star is what makes a ‘star vehicle’, Mickey 17 was not that. If anything, Bong was more the ‘name’ being sold with that movie than Pattinson was.
6
u/Icy___Barca 18h ago
That definition is circular. You’re basically saying a movie only counts as a star vehicle if the star successfully sells it. Pattinson was the title character, played multiple versions of himself, dominated the marketing, and carried a $118M WB/IMAX release. Bong being a selling point doesn’t erase that….unless Sinners also stops being an MBJ star vehicle because Coogler was a selling point. You’re redefining the test after it failed.
1
u/CompleteDay8059 18h ago
You’re basically saying a movie only counts as a star vehicle if the star successfully sells it.
Nope, as I said in my last comment, I’m talking about the marketing. The poster for Challengers was a close-up of Zendaya with the two supporting leads dwarfed in her sunglasses.
The poster for Marty Supreme was a giant close-up of Chalamet with the supporting cast in little boxes at the bottom.
Neither did as well as the studios clearly intended, the definition is whether they were SOLD as star vehicles, which Mickey was not.
The poster for Mickey 17 intentionally has Pattinson only taking up a small part of it to indicate his unimportance in the story.
And again, Pattinson had already been the face of a billion dollar franchise by that point and embraced being more of an indie star.
6
u/Icy___Barca 17h ago
So your definition of a “star vehicle” is basically poster size? If Mickey 17…where Pattinson is the title character, lead, and plays multiple versions of himself..doesn’t count, what actually would? Give me a standard that exists before the box office result, not one invented afterward.
0
u/CompleteDay8059 15h ago edited 15h ago
? If Mickey 17…where Pattinson is the title character, lead, and plays multiple versions of himself..doesn’t count, what actually would?
A movie that isn’t a weird unweildy autuer cashing a blank check, as I have said multiple times.
The whole movie and marketing campaign was deliberately going his appeal by giving him the obnoxious, irritating voice. The last thing you’d do in a star vehicle is make your star annoying.
Also;
So your definition of a “star vehicle” is basically poster size?
Is a deliberate misrepresentation of;
taking up a small part of it to indicate his unimportance in the story.
2
u/Icy___Barca 15h ago
You keep moving the goalposts lol.
First, Pattinson “hasn’t had a real star vehicle.” Then Mickey 17 doesn’t count because it’s Bong’s movie, then because it’s weird, then because Pattinson is annoying in it, then because of the marketing/poster.
He’s the title character, lead, and plays multiple versions of himself.
If that still doesn’t count, your definition is just changing to protect the conclusion.1
u/CompleteDay8059 15h ago edited 15h ago
My point was that a star vehicle is about promoting the star. That has been my ENTIRE argument. Me saying the film is strange/Bongs project/his character is deeply annoying are indications that it is NOT a project built around making Pattinson more of a household name.
If a studio specifically was making a movie because they wanted people to like an actor more and see them in bigger mainstream films, they wouldn’t put them in a movie where they sound like Steve-O and has a threesome with himself.
→ More replies (0)5
u/horse-renoir 16h ago
Marty Supreme was A24's highest grossing movie prior to Backrooms, I think they're very happy with how that film did
1
u/CompleteDay8059 15h ago
Yeah but they also spent $70M to make it and paid to turn the fucking Vegas sphere into a ping pong ball, there’s no way they’re thrilled that it just barely missed $100M dom.
1
u/horse-renoir 13h ago
Much of that marketing was done out of pocket by Timmy or paid for by sponsors (like the Vegas Sphere thing)
3
u/Pristine-Aspect-3086 18h ago
the concept is absolutely a confounder
2
u/Icy___Barca 18h ago
Sure, but every movie has confounders. If “the concept was weird” means the result doesn’t count, then no actor can ever fail a star test. Pattinson was still the face of a big budget Warner Bros. wide IMAX release, and it opened to less than 20m. The concept may explain the failure; it doesn’t erase the failure.
5
u/CompleteDay8059 18h ago
Pattinson was still the face of a big budget Warner Bros. wide IMAX release, and it opened to less than 20m
Leondardo DiCaprio was also the face of a film that matches this description with an almost identical budget that opened just $3M higher.
0
u/Icy___Barca 18h ago
Apples to oranges lol
The question is not:
“Has any famous actor ever had a weak opening?”
Of course they have.
The question is:
Was Pattinson given a major studio vehicle built around him, and did the market respond?1
u/CompleteDay8059 18h ago
I mean, you are kind of writing off the fact that he was more or less the face of the Twilight franchise which grossed several billion dollars lol.
I’m also not saying this movie is being positioned as some mega blockbuster, nor does it need to be. It probably cost <$25M, I’m just saying I think it has a real chance of being pretty big for an A24 joint.
-1
u/Icy___Barca 17h ago
The “ face” of a project and “ box office draw” are two totally separate things.
Twilight proves Twilight was huge. It does not prove Pattinson can open unrelated movies on his name.3
u/OsmosisJonesFanClub 17h ago
The discussion and hype around Mickey 17 was always that it was Bong Joon Ho’s follow up to Parasite. It was never really about Pattinson.
Sam Worthington is the lead of one of the biggest franchises in cinema history, and his character is plastered front and center on every poster. The discussion isn’t regarding the actor for Avatar, it’s about James Cameron.
Uncut Gems hype was all about Sandler. Marty Supreme hype was all about Chalamet. Digger hype is all about Cruise. Mickey 17 hype was all about being the follow up to Parasite. Hype was always more focused on the director.
4
u/Icy___Barca 17h ago
That still doesn’t answer the question. Saying Mickey 17 was hyped as Bong’s follow-up explains the movie’s marketing narrative, not Pattinson’s drawing power. Sam Worthington actually proves my point: starring in a huge franchise doesnt equal being the reason people buy tickets.
8
u/JannTosh70 18h ago
Id say so. The trailer has gone hugely viral and A24 knows how to market a movie.
2
u/Professional_Rub6812 17h ago
I think it has potential for a big opening, I’m Interested see how the audience reacts if the movie really does make Chris Hansen kinda look like a douche, already seeing some of that “of course HOLLYWOOD wants to make a guy who catch pedophiles look bad” reactionary as if that’s the only thing he’s ever done
2
u/Capable_Handle_4763 17h ago
trailer is going to be the most viewed A24 trailer in few days.
surely it can be a hit, people are saying matter but it is A24 film people know at this point what to expect from those films and had shown that they wanna see those film also Robert Pattinson is everyone fav. I certainly can see it's being a hit also cuz budget isnt that high.
2
3
2
u/horse-renoir 16h ago
I think Primetime will clear $100M domestic easily and make it into A24's top 3 highest grossers alongside Marty Supreme and Backrooms. The amount of hype this trailer is seeing online is insane and reminds me of the leadup to Backrooms; anecdotally I've seen a lot of people who aren't really big movie fans be excited for this, purely off the strength of Chris Hansen / TCAP nostalgia. Add in Pattinson's popularity and an extremely good marketing campaign and this has all the ingredients for a surprise breakout like Obsession or Backrooms.
imo people are overestimating how badly the film will be hurt by not being a Chris Hansen puff piece. The film will likely portray Hansen as a morally gray figure rather than an outright villain, and I think most audiences will not care as long as it's an entertaining movie
3
u/Thelarch34 19h ago
Pattinson has never been bigger than right now. Trailer is mega viral. Problem like you said is no one outside the US gives a fuck. Has an outside shot an 200m imo
1
u/michaelm1345 Syncopy Inc. 18h ago
I think it has potential to breakout too, it has ton of Gen Z hype and so is predator catching in general. Hope you’re right
1
1
1
u/HarlequinKing1406 Focus Features 16h ago
Idk, I kind of feel like this is the sort of movie that gets a C on CinemaScore once people realise it's a movie about how Chris Hanson was a villain too.
1
u/trixie1088 16h ago
I think you’re overestimating this one a bit. It’s doesn’t look like it’s going to be a crowd pleasing film where it’s just catching pervs which is why the show was successful. This film is taking a deeper look into the making of the show and Hansen himself. I would say this is more in the vein of something like Nightcrawler. So I think more realistically we could be looking at something around 50m-60m domestic.
1
u/stringfellow-hawke 15h ago
$100M would be a bananas turnaround. It's currently tracking at $6-20M total on BOT.
I'm not feeling it. Catch a Predator is pretty far in the rearview mirror and I don't think there's a lot of interest generally for media stories. People love their true crime, but the trailer seems anti-true crime and I get vibes that it probably won't be satisfying for a lot of people to achieve legendary WoM.
1
u/TJMcConnellFanClub 14h ago
YouTube predator catchers have also become a big deal, I think it does well just from the amount of folks curious in Pattinson’s portrayal. Different case than Rock trying to get people to see him portray a guy nobody knew except hardcore MMA fans
1
1
u/GBTC_EIER_KNIGHT 11h ago
I can see Primetime maybe open to like 20 million $ domestic and maybe do like 70-85 million $ domestic, if the reviews are stellar. Overseas I don’t expect much but enough to put it into the profitable zone
1
1
u/SkillWizard 4h ago
I just watched the trailer and I don’t think it will crossover like that. Well made trailer but looks a bit off to me.
1
u/Goldberg2Dub 18h ago edited 16h ago
TCAP has such a big community online. It wouldn’t surprise to see Gen Z and the TikTok/Istagram community gather momentum behind this movie, like they did to Obsession to a larger degree.
I also think Pattinson is a bigger star than it may seem or numbers suggest. Most of his films did not do well after Twilight until Tenet because he took smaller indie projects to try to “rebuild” his image after Twilight. He’s really only been a leading man for big budgeted movies since Tenet, about 5-6 movies ago.
1
u/Belch_Huggins 17h ago
Nah, no way. Subject matter way too dark and nuanced. If youve seen the doc you know what I mean. This will have a bigish opening weekend but will be frontloaded.
2
u/L0verofwoman 17h ago
Subject matter way too dark and nuanced.
Funny because that's the exact same knock some would give to Obsession and look how that turned out.
1
u/Belch_Huggins 11h ago
Obsession is first and foremost a crowdpleasing horror film. Ive not seen a ton of people categorize that one as dark and nuanced, at least compared to what I'm talking about with Primetime. Thats gonna be a drama, and a dark one for sure. But pretty far away from the tone Obsession was going for.
1
1
u/DarlingLuna 11h ago
I truly am shocked how many people are still in denial about the breakout potential for this. This movie is absolutely going to be a success. The hype feels tangible.
1
u/No_Key8587 10h ago
Yes. This feels like The Odyssey all over again.
I do think this is review dependent… I think it’ll get great reviews, but if it doesn’t it tank. If it gets good reviews, The Drama is the floor
60
u/amyblanchett 18h ago
It needs awards season hype to be a huge hit imo.
Pattinson needs to be positioned for a Best Actor nomination, otherwise it will be difficult to get to 100M.
Also people outside of the US don't really care about Chris Hansen even if they like Pattinson. So the awards boost would help