65 (2023)

mistyotter35 said:People turn to torrent sites simply because the movie is already available on streaming services.

Look, when a movie hits streaming really depends on a few things. Sometimes it’s about whether it crushed it at the domestic box office, and other times it’s just down to some pre-negotiated contract between the studio and the platform. Nowadays, there's this standard window where you can expect a film to pop up on a service like Netflix or Max about 30 to 45 days after its theatrical debut.

The actual quality of the movie? That doesn't factor into the timing at all. It turns out that people think only the masterpieces make money, which isn't exactly true. If a flick flops in theaters, obviously the cinemas aren't going to keep it on the big screen any longer than their contract with the studio requires. So, the logical move is to dump it onto streaming immediately to see if it can find a second life there.

Take *65*, for example—it was a total box office bomb, and it's been out for about 30 days already. That's it for the theater run; the big blockbusters are rolling out now, and there's just no room left for a dud like that.

Honestly, the whole movie is incredibly predictable from those first three lines of dialogue. You don't need an IQ north of 50 to connect the dots regarding *65* and where the plot is headed. Sure, the action is okay, even if it feels repetitive, but there's no substance to it. No meat on the bones. It's basically The Last of Us meets Jurassic Park, but stripped down to nothing.

mistyotter35 said:Maybe because he’s done with the theatrical run?

Makes sense—his peak was pretty short-lived anyway since the movie wasn't even that great...

Taylor Gray5 said:When a movie hits streaming depends on a few things—sometimes it's about how well it did in theaters, other times it's just down to pre-existing contracts. Nowadays, there's usually a standard window where you can expect a film to show up on streaming about 30 to 45 days after its theatrical debut.

The actual quality of the movie doesn't play a role in that timing at all.

Actually, it definitely matters. Their whole goal is to squeeze every cent possible out of the box office before they let it hit streaming services, where the margins are thinner...

Patience means profit

Additionally, the movies that have gone to video on demand or plan to were low- to mid-tier budget films that weren’t forecast for a massive box office.

“We haven’t seen a movie go to streaming that was expected to be a blockbuster,” Shawn Robbins, chief analyst at BoxOffice.com, said.

Take Trolls World Tour, for example. The film has an estimated budget of $90 million to $110 million. The first Trolls film had $344 million in global ticket sales — around $150 million of which was garnered domestically — and, typically, animated sequels do not do as well as the first film. (Obviously, there are exceptions: Frozen II made more than Frozen.)

For comparison, Black Widow likely cost $150 million to $200 million to produce, and it could haul in anywhere from $750 million to more than $1 billion at the global box office. Then it would go on to make more once it was available on home video and on demand. So, pushing it straight to home video would mean Disney would make less money.

neonfox65 said:Patience means profit

If we’re talking about hitting theaters alongside heavy hitters like > or >, then sure, absolutely. In the case of 65, they made what they could. Honestly, I wouldn't even bother commenting on the rest of your argument because I have no idea where you even dug that up—usually, people leave a link to the article they're referencing, right? But seriously, what on earth do pandemic-era movies have to do with this? Just because one ended up being a streaming exclusive and > had a somewhat neutered box office run... look, even if > had been released during a normal period without COVID, there is zero chance that movie would have cleared $600m globally, let alone hit a billion. That’s just pure fantasy. It's all just a bunch of nonsense.

Quote: Ultimately, Dergarabedian noted that how long a film stays in theaters shouldn't be set in stone anymore—it’s a moving target.

“If a movie isn’t hitting its revenue targets after a couple of weeks, moving it to streaming just makes sense. But if it’s still absolutely crushing it at the box office? Let it run,” he mentioned. “At the end of the day, the market decides what happens to most movies.”

Here's the link—might have even made it up myself...🤦
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/28/m...ers/index.html

I basically told you the exact same thing you just quoted back to me:

“If a movie isn’t bringing in the dollars as expected in theaters after a few weeks, then it makes sense to move it to the small screen. However, if a movie is still killing it at the box office, let it ride,” he said. “The marketplace will decide the fate of most films.”

So, I'm really struggling to see what part of this is confusing you.

And honestly, circling back to where we started... all this copy-pasting you're doing doesn't actually support your original argument. You claimed the movie was bad just because it hit streaming so quickly, but like I already pointed out—those two things aren't inherently linked. One doesn't dictate the other.

It hit me pretty hard. Felt like my driver just grew two sizes right before my eyes.

casualharbor72 said:I haven't checked it out yet—but would you actually count the Jurassic Park films in that category, or not?

No Jurassic Park...

Dana Martin95 said:absolute garbage movie. I lasted maybe 40 minutes before checking out. Boring, derivative, and just plain stale.

Personally, I tapped out at the 32-minute mark. 🎉

At first, I was actually kind of digging it because of how mindless it was—I’ve always had a soft spot for those space survival flicks. But then that whole subplot about his daughter started hitting me, and man, it was just pure, unadulterated melodrama. It almost works until that other girl shows up, and then the whole thing just goes completely south. Total disaster.

And don't even get me started on those pathetic attempts at humor. 🤦

As for Adam Driver, he’s one of those actors where you’re constantly caught in this weird tug-of-war between liking him and wanting to roll your eyes. Or maybe the best way to put it is... sympathetically antipathetic.

That specific way he curls his lips—not that I’m complaining, per se—is just... 😵

🙂+++++

Taylor Gray5 said:And look, getting back to the start of this whole saga—all that stuff you keep copy-pasting still doesn't support your original point. You said the movie sucks just because it hit streaming so fast, but like I already said, those two things aren't connected at all...

Avatar 2 Release date December 16, 2022

Hit streaming March 28, 2023

65 Release date March 10, 2023

Hit streaming April 7, 2023

One came out three and a half months later, the other after just a month. And you're telling me that has nothing to do with box office success? Yeah, right... please.

Look, Avatar was squeezed for every last cent, mostly because they absolutely had to recoup their initial investment. I suppose they pushed it so hard that over the last few days, it was nothing but projections and nearly empty theaters.

neonfox65 said:Avatar 2 Release date December 16, 2022

hit streaming on March 28, 2023

65 Release date March 10, 2023

hit streaming on April 7, 2023

One showed up after three and a half months, the other after just a month. You’re telling me that has nothing to do with how much they pulled in at the box office? Yeah, right... give me a break.

Look, your original argument was that if a movie hits streaming too fast, it must be garbage. Then you pivoted to saying it needs to stay in theaters as long as possible to maximize profit. You seem to have no idea how to backtrack out of the flawed premises you started with, so I'll just quote my first response where I laid it all out for you.

It ends up on torrent sites because it's available on streaming services.
When a movie lands on a streaming platform really depends on the situation—sometimes it's about how well it did in theaters, sometimes it's just a pre-negotiated contract. Generally speaking, the standard window these days is seeing a film on streaming about 30 to 45 days after its theatrical debut.

The actual quality of the film doesn't dictate that timeline. If we followed your logic, only masterpieces would make money, which obviously isn't true. If a movie flops at the box office, theaters aren't going to keep it longer than their studio contracts require. In those cases, the only move left is to dump it onto streaming immediately to see if it can find any life there.

65 is a total box office bomb and it's already been out for about 30 days. That's it for the theaters; they're making room for the next big blockbusters now, and there's just no more space for this one.

In this specific instance, sure, the movie is bad, which is why it died out in theaters and moved to streaming so quickly. But that isn't a universal rule. Your initial correlation was fundamentally broken.

Taylor Gray5 said:...

Look, I know what I said. While you were busy getting all tangled up in your own thoughts—not that it matters now—I think we're finally on the same page...

It’s kind of stuck in that middle ground—not exactly riveting, but not boring either. The acting is solid and the visuals look great, but honestly, everything is pretty predictable. You aren't missing out on anything if you skip this one. 6/10

Gregory Brown94 said:This feels like a missed opportunity; the concept works beautifully on paper, but the execution falls somewhat flat. Here are my raw impressions:

+ Adam Driver. He quite literally carries the entire film. If any other actor had been cast, the movie would have ranked significantly lower in my book.
- The narrative logic surrounding the central incident itself.
+ The aesthetic and ship design.
+ The display interfaces.
- Why did the captain have to sleep at that specific moment? And why isn't there a co-captain to handle shifts and maintain control? My assumption is that once they reached the Solar System, the captain was woken up to land the craft on the planet, but even then, the timing felt clumsy...
- The dinosaurs were poorly rendered, almost looking like actors navigating through a cheap video game.
- Does the traveling crew lack a universal language? Why?! Who wrote this script? Some kids of Scott's?
+ That asteroid impact sequence—wow.
- The plot becomes somewhat repetitive; what nimblemarlin6 was saying earlier holds true.
- This is starting to become a "Prometheus" problem: why do alien world colonists always take off their damn masks when the air is perfectly breathable? And then nothing happens later, aside from the captain's wound getting infected.
+ Certain action segments were well done.

5 + [Rating Meter] - 6

All in all, if you set aside the logic and view the film strictly as light entertainment, it can certainly pass. However, the enjoyment evaporates the moment you start questioning the individual situations presented.

A brilliant idea to have dinosaurs on a distant planet? Please. It would have been an even better idea if they had found the Beatles, still together, with Bruce Lee acting as their bodyguard.

And that plot logic is just the absolute peak of absurdity...🙏
The plot logic...🤣🤣🤣

I'm laughing so hard I'm genuinely afraid my brain might short-circuit from the sheer nonsense.🤣 🤣 🤣

bluecyclist64 said:The idea of dinosaurs on a distant planet? Honestly, wouldn't it be even better if they stumbled upon the Beatles who never broke up, with Bruce Lee acting as their bodyguard?

The plot's underlying logic is just... something else entirely...🙏
The core logic...🤣🤣🤣

I'm laughing so hard I'm actually worried my brain might short-circuit from trying to make sense of this synopsis...🤣🤣🤣

On a distant planet? Isn't this just Earth? Personally, I thought the movie was garbage; there isn't even any satisfaction to be found in the sci-fi elements...

wanderingbison9 said:A distant planet? It’s clearly Earth!

I mean, honestly, the guy completely missed the twist. It was practically laid out for him—it’s Earth during the dinosaur era. They explicitly mention how humanoids were exploring the cosmos long before us, and then you have that bit where it says 65 billion years ago under the 65 mark... I don't see how you don't connect those dots. Plus, that final timelapse at the end? If that massive meteor hanging in the sky wasn't a dead giveaway throughout the whole movie, I don't know what is.🤣>

So, let's say Adam Driver kicks the bucket—imagine a final scene where some 21st-century paleontologist unearths a human fossil that’s somehow 65 million years old.
That would have been pretty wild.

But the way it is now...

The fact that the setting is Earth doesn't actually move the needle on the plot at all.
They could have dropped them onto any damn planet filled with hazards.
Or even better—a world crawling with dangerous humanoids.
Honestly, they could've saved a fortune on CGI by just having them hunted by some guys with rifles in the wilderness... the story wouldn't have changed one bit.

Then people would probably claim it’s just some cheap rip-off of the ending to Battlestar Galactica. 😁

The First of US.