Latest news with #Murdochs
Business Times
4 days ago
- Business
- Business Times
Even as the Murdochs bitterly feud, their empire thrives
NOTHING in Fox's television schedules last year was quite as exciting – or, at times, as profane – as the drama that played out in a closed probate court in Reno, Nevada. Rupert Murdoch, the now 94-year-old founder and controlling shareholder of Fox Corporation and its sister company, News Corp, was trying to change the terms of a family trust in order to block three of his children from inheriting control of the companies on his death. The high-stakes legal manoeuvre was rejected. An appeal – and thus a new season of morbid entertainment for media watchers – is in the works. As the Murdochs continue their decades-long, multibillion-dollar family feud, the empire they are fighting over is flourishing. This is doubly surprising. For one thing, succession crises and legal uncertainty tend not to bolster investors' confidence in a company. What is more, the Murdoch firms are giants in linear television and print journalism, declining industries that markets have not been kind to. Why are a pair of legacy media companies controlled by a dysfunctional dynasty so popular with investors? Start with Fox, the larger of the two, with a market value of US$24 billion. Its business is concentrated in American broadcast and cable television, which in recent years have witnessed a bloodbath. Over the past decade and a half, the share of homes with pay TV has fallen from nearly 90 per cent to barely 50 per cent, as viewers have defected to streaming services such as Netflix. As for broadcast television, Americans today spend half as much time watching it as they do streaming, according to Nielsen, a data company. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up While other legacy media companies' values have stagnated or worse, Fox's has soared. The difference lies in its content mix. In 2019, Fox sold its general-entertainment assets to Disney for US$71 billion, at what turned out to be the top of the market, deciding to focus on news and sport. It was the right call: streamers like Netflix have since grabbed the audience for general entertainment, while news and sport have mostly stayed on linear TV, and thus with Fox. 'They were always the most entrepreneurial company – they could always see around corners,' said Jessica Reif Ehrlich, a media analyst at Bank of America. Despite streamers' growing interest in sport, Fox's audience is stable: its first showing of the Indianapolis 500 last month brought in 7.1 million viewers, the most for the motor race since 2008. Fox News, meanwhile, recently recorded the most-watched quarter in the history of cable news, thanks in part to the chaos generated by the new occupant of the White House. Healthy audiences mean that, despite a shrinking cable market, Fox has seen modest growth in its affiliate fees (the sums it charges cable providers for carrying its channels) from US$5.9 billion in 2020 to US$7.3 billion last year. The return of Donald Trump has also helped Fox's advertising business, by normalising opinions which once made mainstream advertisers queasy about airing commercials on Fox News. Ads on the channel are no longer just for gold and magic pillows: in recent months, the likes of Amazon, Netflix and GE have paid for spots on the network. 'Because of the election results, many advertisers have sort of rethought their positioning in this country and understand that the Fox News viewer really does represent middle America,' Lachlan Murdoch, Fox's chief executive, said in March. Having mostly sat out the ruinously expensive streaming wars, in which media companies lost billions trying to woo subscribers, Fox is now experimenting with the new medium. In 2020 it bought Tubi, an unglamorous free streaming service with ads. Tubi has since overtaken rivals such as Pluto, owned by Paramount, and is on track to bring in more than US$1 billion this year. In February, Fox aired the Super Bowl on Tubi, drawing eight million new viewers to the platform. Some 40 per cent of the audience was under 34, a group that is hard to reach on cable. Its latest streaming experiment is Fox One, combining all of Fox's linear content, which will launch before the National Football League kicks off in September. Unlike other legacy media companies, which must reckon with the trade-off that putting their best stuff on streaming will undermine people's willingness to pay for a bigger bundle of entertainment content on cable, Fox faces no such dilemma. 'The beauty of Fox is, because they don't have the long tail of crappy linear cable channels to protect, they're very nimble,' said Jason Bazinet of Citigroup, another bank. On the transition to streaming, 'They're sort of agnostic, and so from a strategic standpoint they're just in a very good position.' News Corp, the other half of the Murdoch empire, which holds titles including The Wall Street Journal and New York Post, is in favour with investors for different reasons. Print news looks no more promising than cable television, as circulations at many titles decline and the advertising business is swallowed by Google and Meta. By one estimate, more than 3,000 newspapers have closed in America in the past 20 years – a third of the country's total. Yet, like Fox, News Corp's stock is buoyant, rising by nearly 50 per cent in the past two years. One reason is the success of Dow Jones, the part of News Corp which holds the Journal. Whereas advertising-reliant titles like the New York Post are struggling with declines in web traffic, the globalised, subscription-focused Journal has thrived in the same way as rivals like The New York Times. Dow Jones also has a high-margin business supplying data to companies. Its revenue has risen by 40 per cent since 2020, offsetting a decline among News Corp's other news businesses. HarperCollins, a book publisher owned by News Corp, has also contributed to growth, helped by a boom in audiobooks. Yet, the biggest driver of News Corp's share price has nothing to do with news. Among the company's eclectic assets is a 61 per cent stake in REA Group, a publicly traded Australian property-listing platform. The Murdochs invested in the company in 2001, when it was on the brink of bankruptcy after the dotcom crash. It proved to be an inspired bet: following a housing boom in Australia, REA's market value has grown to over US$20 billion, some US$4 billion more than News Corp itself. Shareholders' excitement about News Corp has little to do with newspapers or books, said Bazinet of Citi: 'The market's enthusiasm is for REA.' He calculated that, between 2017 and 2024, there was an 84 per cent correlation between the movements in News Corp's share price and those of REA. Rupert Murdoch (above) is apparently determined to protect the leadership of his eldest son, Lachlan – who as well as running Fox is chairman of News Corp – against a future challenge by three siblings, Prudence, Elisabeth and James, who disagree to varying extents with the right-wing politics of the Murdoch outlets. PHOTO: REUTERS As the Murdoch empire ploughs successfully on, the family continues to feud. Rupert Murdoch is apparently determined to protect the leadership of his eldest son, Lachlan – who as well as running Fox is chairman of News Corp – against a future challenge by three siblings, Prudence, Elisabeth and James, who disagree to varying extents with the right-wing politics of the Murdoch outlets. Under the terms of the family trust, the three will have enough votes to oust Lachlan Murdoch after their father dies. Unless he can amend the trust, or buy out the rebel siblings, change could be on the way for Rupert Murdoch's companies. Yet, the prospect of such an upset seems to be stoking enthusiasm for the stocks in some quarters. Activist investors in News Corp have long lobbied for the company to spin off its stake in REA, arguing that the property company and the newspapers would fare better separately than they have as a bundle. Fox has likewise benefited from speculation that the company could become a target for acquisition, as Hollywood's studios rush to bulk up. If control of the companies passes to siblings who are unhappy with the status quo, the chances of a sale or break-up rise. Investors' enthusiasm for Fox and News Corp is partly explained by the fact that Murdoch has run them so shrewdly. But it is also due to a sense that his time in charge is drawing to a close. ©2025 The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved
The Age
4 days ago
- Business
- The Age
The Murdochs are feuding but their empire is thriving
Nothing in Fox's television schedules last year was quite as exciting – or, at times, as profane – as the drama that played out in a closed probate court in Reno, Nevada. Rupert Murdoch, the 94-year-old founder and controlling shareholder of Fox Corporation and its sister company News Corp, was trying to change the terms of a family trust to block three of his children from inheriting control of the companies upon his death. The high-stakes legal manoeuvre was rejected. An appeal – and thus a new season of morbid entertainment for media watchers – is in the works. As the Murdochs continue their decades-long, multibillion-dollar family feud, the empire they are fighting over is flourishing. This is doubly surprising. For one thing, succession crises and legal uncertainty tend not to bolster investors' confidence in a company. What's more, the Murdoch firms are giants in linear television and print journalism, declining industries that markets have not been kind to. Why is a pair of legacy media companies controlled by a dysfunctional dynasty so popular with investors? Start with Fox, the larger of the two, with a market value of $US24 billion ($37 billion). Its business is concentrated in American broadcast and cable television, which in recent years have witnessed a bloodbath. As the Murdochs continue their decades-long, multibillion-dollar family feud, the empire they are fighting over is flourishing. Over the past decade-and-a-half, the share of homes with pay TV has fallen from nearly 90 per cent to barely 50 per cent as viewers have defected to streaming services such as Netflix. As for broadcast television, Americans today spend half as much time watching it as they do streaming, according to Nielsen, a data company. While other legacy media companies' values have stagnated or worse, Fox's has soared. The difference lies in its content mix. In 2019 Fox sold its general-entertainment assets to Disney for $US71 billion at what turned out to be the top of the market, deciding to focus on news and sport. It was the right call: streamers like Netflix have since grabbed the audience for general entertainment, while news and sport have mostly stayed on linear TV, and thus with Fox.
Sydney Morning Herald
4 days ago
- Business
- Sydney Morning Herald
The Murdochs are feuding but their empire is thriving
Nothing in Fox's television schedules last year was quite as exciting – or, at times, as profane – as the drama that played out in a closed probate court in Reno, Nevada. Rupert Murdoch, the 94-year-old founder and controlling shareholder of Fox Corporation and its sister company News Corp, was trying to change the terms of a family trust to block three of his children from inheriting control of the companies upon his death. The high-stakes legal manoeuvre was rejected. An appeal – and thus a new season of morbid entertainment for media watchers – is in the works. As the Murdochs continue their decades-long, multibillion-dollar family feud, the empire they are fighting over is flourishing. This is doubly surprising. For one thing, succession crises and legal uncertainty tend not to bolster investors' confidence in a company. What's more, the Murdoch firms are giants in linear television and print journalism, declining industries that markets have not been kind to. Why is a pair of legacy media companies controlled by a dysfunctional dynasty so popular with investors? Start with Fox, the larger of the two, with a market value of $US24 billion ($37 billion). Its business is concentrated in American broadcast and cable television, which in recent years have witnessed a bloodbath. As the Murdochs continue their decades-long, multibillion-dollar family feud, the empire they are fighting over is flourishing. Over the past decade-and-a-half, the share of homes with pay TV has fallen from nearly 90 per cent to barely 50 per cent as viewers have defected to streaming services such as Netflix. As for broadcast television, Americans today spend half as much time watching it as they do streaming, according to Nielsen, a data company. While other legacy media companies' values have stagnated or worse, Fox's has soared. The difference lies in its content mix. In 2019 Fox sold its general-entertainment assets to Disney for $US71 billion at what turned out to be the top of the market, deciding to focus on news and sport. It was the right call: streamers like Netflix have since grabbed the audience for general entertainment, while news and sport have mostly stayed on linear TV, and thus with Fox.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
28-04-2025
- Automotive
- Business Standard
Mega buyouts can support, not hinder Japan Inc's reform despite Toyota deal
This is a great time to be a mergers and acquisitions banker in Japan. The latest hot mandate is a potential ¥6 trillion ($42 billion) leveraged buyout of auto-supplier Toyota Industries Corp. Going private would mark a retreat from a long-standing cohabitation between the founding family and public-market investors just when Japan is trying to make its stock market more attractive for local and international capital. Is that bad news for the reform effort? Not necessarily. Toyota Motor Corp. Chair Akio Toyoda has proposed a buyout of Toyota Industries, which was founded by his great-grandfather, Bloomberg News reported on Friday. Toyota Motor is considering whether to participate, according to the Financial Times. The $295 billion carmaker and its affiliates hold 38 per cent of Toyota Industries, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. A buyout would be ambitious even if Toyota Motor rolled over its stake. A recent attempt to take 7-Eleven owner Seven & i Holdings Co. private — a deal of a similar size — foundered on a failure to secure financing earlier this year. Why are such difficult transactions being considered? In Seven & i's case, the bid came from a founding family member and was designed to prevent a takeover by Canadian suitor Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc. Here, there's no specific immediate threat. Still, the backdrop is hard to ignore. Japan's mission to modernize its capital markets is producing radical change; strictures on takeovers have been relaxed, shareholder activism is on the rise and management teams are under pressure to run companies to create value for shareholders rather than bosses. Cross-shareholdings are a key target. You don't need to own your suppliers, and businesses generally thrive when they can freely serve all shareholders equally without one investor setting the agenda. There's scope to clean up the relationship between the parent and subsidiary here, as analysts at Bernstein point out. Hence pressure could build for Toyota Industries to sell a minority stake that it has in Toyota Motor. A buyout would preempt that, instead increasing Toyoda's influence at the carmaker. To the extent these projects are family affairs, increasing paternal restiveness is part of a trend. Recall that members of the founding family behind Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. were among shareholders who opposed the drugmaker's $62 billion offer for Shire Plc in 2018, a bold transformational deal that went ahead. The traditional course for Takeda's boss would have been to run the company with no ambition beyond handing it on to the next management team in broadly the same shape. As it happens, the deal's naysayers can feel vindicated by the subsequent underperformance of Takeda's stock. Contrast this with many US firms, where founder control is entrenched through dual-class share structures conferring super-voting powers. Families like the Murdochs have the best of both worlds — enjoying the benefits of a listed traded stock while calling the shots and rebuffing activists. The Japanese authorities may worry that stock-market reform is now backfiring, pushing companies into private equity ownership and thereby reducing the choice of quality stocks for ordinary investors. But whatever the motivations behind them, buyouts should be a typical feature of every stock market. The question isn't whether such transactions are a thumbs-down to Tokyo's Topix 500 index, but whether selling shareholders get paid well on the way out. So long as they make good money, investors will in turn be willing to bet on the new listings that come along to fill the hole. And Japan Inc. can chalk that up as a win.
Buzz Feed
06-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Buzz Feed
39 Overhyped TV Shows And Movies That Viewers Say Turned Out To Be A Total Waste Of Time
A while back, I rounded up some TV shows and movies that members of the BuzzFeed Community thought were totally overhyped. In the comments, they shared even more examples — and some of them might surprise you! Here are 39 of their top responses: 1. "I would have to go with Succession. People keep telling me how amazing it is, the reviews are ranting, and I still haven't finished Episode 3. It's not even that I find it boring. I find the dialogue intriguing to some extent, but I hate every single character. Every one. There is nobody to root for, and I simply do not care what happens next. I am sure I will finish the season at some point, but there are so many other shows that just got me hooked right away." " Succession. The acting was good, but the story was so horrific. I watched five episodes and then gave up. Maybe it was meant to be a cautionary tale or a biopic about the Murdochs. I just didn't want my psyche poisoned by these wretched people." — mbsphd " Succession was disappointing with lazy, contrived dialogue, and the acting was meh. I watched most of Season 1, but it never got better. Overrated." — kkavila3 2. " Anyone But You, the new 'rom-com' (quotes because I didn't get that vibe) that Sydney Sweeney was in. So many people said that it was good and the leads had great chemistry. I saw none of that. It was so freaking boring! I turned it off 20 minutes in." "I watched the whole thing, and I didn't see any of that chemistry at all. It felt like 'two hot people stood next to each other' was considered chemistry. I am a sucker for a rom-com — and a Shakespeare-inspired one — but that just didn't work for me." — garebehr 3. "Honestly, for me, it was The Good Place. They should have just left it at Season 1." — forgetfulvane "That show lost me brain cells. Should've been a movie, possibly, if it wasn't so predictable from the beginning." — jessicagriffin2 4. "This is VERY unpopular, but I hated The Greatest Showman. The music is good; the plot is so. Dull." "I hated it because they used Hugh 'High Kicks' Jackson and pretty music to make that d-bag [P. T. Barnum] look like a human being when he was the epitome of capitalism in the real." — monkeybuttmom 5. " Schitt's Creek is the answer here for me. I've tried twice to watch it and just couldn't get through the first episode. It's just not my style of humor at all." "I finished it, but by the end, I was watching only for the fashion." — perenti 6. "I thought Top Gun: Maverick was the worst highly-anticipated movie. I honestly feel as if I waited more than 30 years for this movie to come out, and it was just so trite and predictable. Plus, without having a defined enemy, it sort of felt like a 'fill in the blank' enemy. Top Gun never should have had a sequel." 7. " Titanic!!! I walked out after the 40th time they played that awful song!! I don't walk out of movies, but I couldn't handle that one." 8. "I absolutely could not sit through The Revenant." "It was SO dull. I'm quite fine with tiny casts, survivalism, minimal dialogue, and all of that, but that one was so boring. I feel like Leonardo DiCaprio only got the Oscar that year because the Academy were afraid what lengths he'd go to to try and win one if being brutalized by a bear didn't do it." — garebehr "I tried to rewatch it because I ran into an old neighbor who told me her brother is in it. Sadly, I couldn't find him. Too graphic!" — crafty_gm 9. " Euphoria for me. Probably because I'm not a teenager, but, man, that show was so hyped, and when I watched it, I was just disgusted. It's not innovative or shocking to push alcoholism, drug misuse, and casual sex on the teenage population; it's just gross. And I hate when they say, 'It's not for teens, it's for adults.' What healthy adult wants to watch high school drama peppered with outlandish sexual content? Ridiculous. Hate it." "Honestly, it felt tragic for the sake of tragedy but not much substance. And with so much to work with, I think it could have been brilliant. But too many extreme storylines that were only about shocking the audience. And agreed the sexualization of teens was gross. I watched Season 1 but didn't bother with Season 2." — travelcat147 "I watched the first season, and I just couldn't do the second. In my mind, I just couldn't get past the fact that they were portraying teenagers. The least they could have done was make them college-aged. was just too much." — ropre 10. " Everything Everywhere All at Once was one of the most ridiculous, overhyped wastes of time I have ever tried to watch." 11. "Any show that is a reboot, sequel, or prequel to another show or an attempt to revive the corpse of a dead show is likely to fall into this list and be set up to fail. The old shows were good for a time, but times change and so do tastes. Let the audience make up the lives of the characters after a show ended. I would like to add Young Sheldon to this list. Sheldon never needed a backstory. He is more interesting if the audience imagines his childhood." CBS / Via Netflix — troper 12. " Only Murders in the Building. It was boring, contrived, and based on a stupid podcast premise. I was greatly disappointed." Hulu — bestcookie705 13. " Wednesday. Tim Burton is my favorite, and this is the only thing of his that I don't like. I watched the first three or four episodes or so, too, so it's not like it was an 'I couldn't get through the first episode' deal like Stranger Things was. Wednesday honestly felt like an attempt to take what little occult material there is from The Addams Family while also capitalizing on them being 'creepy and cooky... mysterious and spooky' (at least in TV show, but it is more prominent in the movies) and make it their whole identity. The werewolves, sirens, vampires, etc. in this show really rubbed me the wrong way — it's just not what the Addams Family is about, and this wasn't them." Netflix — mo2758 " Wednesday is so boring, ISTG." — pinkduck56 14. " Stranger Things is overhyped. It's one of the shows that taught me that, if EVERYONE is talking about it, I probably am not going to like it. Three seasons were out when I watched, and it was one of those things where I felt like I had already wasted so much time that I kept watching, waiting for it to get better. And nope. I think people are into the atmosphere more than anything else." Netflix — carnabystreet66 " Stranger Things could have SO easily just been a one-season miniseries. My partner and I just started it last year, and when we saw the final episode of Season One, we were like, ' it just end here?' I think we didn't even make it two episodes into Season 3, and by then, it was already exhausting/stupid. We kept thinking we'd watch it at some point, but there's nothing making us want to." — violetnylund 15. "I noticed yesterday that Oppenheimer was available on Prime Video, so I said, 'What the heck, I'll see what all the buzz was about.' It was the most boring and overrated historical movie I've seen since Amadeus." Universal Pictures / Via — certified_drapetomaniac "Totally agree on Oppenheimer. It took me three tries to get through the entire film. IDK how they managed to make a movie about the invention of the nuclear bomb boring as hell, but manage it they did. Such a shame, because it had a great cast. Skip the film; read the books instead." — caelesto 16. "My God, The Witcher was so bad. The books, the games — phenomenal. The dialogue of the show was so horrible, only made worse by the acting. I tried to get through three episodes 'cause people said it got so good after that. And people loved that song, 'Toss a Coin to Your Witcher.' But it was all garbage. My wife and I love Henry Cavill. But she couldn't even make it through one episode. God, it was awful." Netflix / Via — jpcheshire 17. "I really loved Mad Max: Fury Road, so I was excited to see Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga, the new prequel that just came out. I had heard good reviews, but I really don't know why. No spoilers, but basically, the ending was just too ridiculous. I felt like the whole movie was just a rehash of all the other Mad Max movies." Warner Bros. Pictures / Via — zazupitz 18. "For me, it's Ted Lasso. It's always being advertised and winning awards, and people recommend it to me all the time. I think I watched two seasons and just had zero interest. Maybe because I don't like sports, although most of the people who told me to watch it also don't care for sports, so I don't know." Apple TV+ / Via — nosurprises 19. " Avengers: Infinity War and End Game. The MCU had been building up for years for these movies, and they were so disappointing, they killed any interest I had in future MCU movies." Marvel Studios / Via Disney+ — monikap6 "Exactly! I feel like Captain America: The Winter Soldier was the best MCU film, and it just kind of went downhill from there. The early stuff was good; it had the right mix of humor and action with some decent writing. Whenever it started to rely on you watching EVERY SINGLE MOVIE to be able to enjoy one, it made it less fun. Now, it's pretty much just copy and paste the same story with different heroes." — monikap6 20. "For me, it's always been Star Trek: The Next Generation. I loved the original, but I only watched it out of order in re-runs as a kid. It was clearly made in its time, but it was brilliant. I struggled through several seasons of TNG and could feel the boredom physically. I absolutely believe a ton of talented people were involved, including cast members, but it was mind-searingly dull." Paramount Television / Via — slysnail38 21. "How can you not have Halo on this list? I was SOOOO excited for a Halo TV show. First episode, he takes off his helmet 'to appear more human.' JOHN DOESN'T HAVE EMOTIONS. He doesn't care if he appears nice and kind or not if the mission gets done. O,h and he sleeps with a Covenant alien spy? Not my John, not my Halo." Paramount+ / Via — lottaottars 22. "Most recently, Midsommar. I just don't get the hype. I was maybe expecting something different, but all I felt was disappointment when it was over." A24 / Via — cleverturkey53 "Yep. People were actually saying it was a woman-empowerment movie. But I just saw a self-obsessed woman who watches her friends get murdered and thinks this place is cool." — dukeofdumb 23. " Interstellar. Absolutely hated that movie. Do not understand the hype." Paramount Pictures / Via — keepintabs 24. " Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life was so bad. Such a disappointment, especially what they did to Rory's character." Netflix — badwolfenstein "I really think A Year In The Life should just be scrapped, and they should start over. I love Gilmore Girls, so I'd like to see a reboot or limited series or something done well. AYITL just sucks so fucking hard. They really butchered it. If I was them, I'd be like, 'Okay, that's officially not canon. Let's retry this.'" — goety 25. "I know I will be an outcast here, but I had a difficult time with The Sopranos. I watched it on streaming just a couple of months ago. I couldn't get into how dumb the whole gang was. I realize they were not supposed to be loveable, but I couldn't even like any. I gave up at the end of the second season. To me, the hype was really over the top." HBO / Via — marvelouseagle25 26. " The Talented Mr. Ripley was awful!! It's the only movie I walked out of!" Paramount Pictures / Via — sharebear817 27. "I'm gonna add Breaking Bad to this. Sorry, 10,000 episodes of 'don't do drugs, it's a bad thing' is just not entertaining." AMC / Via Netflix — lottaottars 28. "The new Napoleon movie with Joaquin Phoenix was so so bad, I fell asleep throughout most of it." Columbia Pictures / Apple Original Films / Via — innergrandma46 29. "Why isn't The Blair Witch Project on the list? 🤔" Artisan Entertainment / Via — tyfherring " The Blair Witch Project. If you didn't fall for their marketing, it was just a really boring movie full of panicky people." — trendyasteroid14 30. "The live-action Avatar: The Last Airbender reboot that Netflix did. I get that you have to change some stuff when you go from animated to live-action, but some of the plot points they changed made absolutely no sense. It's not even Avatar anymore, even though the casting was amazing, and the costumes and effects were on point! The writing just fell short for me and could have been more true to the original." Netflix — congdongracie24 31. "I really dig most of Wes Anderson's work, but Asteroid City did not work on any level. It literally felt like Wes was trolling the audience, trying to make a terrible picture, and seeing if anyone would call him out on it." Focus Features / Via — hwh 32. " Napoleon Dynamite. I remember being so excited to watch it because, at the time, everyone was so obsessed with it, and I just did not get it. I'm not opposed to a 'weird' or unconventional movie in the likes of Harmony Korine, David Lynch, etc., but Napoleon Dynamite just wasn't for me." Fox Searchlight Pictures / Via — jainelaine 33. Not one of The Matrix franchise movies was watchable after the first one. The first one was groundbreaking and quite spiritual in its way. The three subsequent movies were ALL action and no substance." Warner Bros Pictures / Via — ellie4me 34. " Babylon. I wanted to throw up in the first five minutes. Three hours and £4.99 I won't get back." Paramount Pictures / Via — kathryna456a720b8 35. " Cloud Atlas. Full of talent, but a terrible film." Warner Bros. Pictures / Via — heroicmagician35 36. " Snowpiercer. Everyone I knew raved about how good it was, but it bored the crap out of me. SMH." Radius-TWC / Via — princesst86 37. "For me, on the pedestal of most overhyped movies is The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. For the first time in my life, I wanted to leave the cinema hall during the screening. But I overpaid for the ticket, and that was literally the only thing that kept me going until the end." Sony Pictures Releasing / Via — antoinette_yoo 38. "I have since come to learn this is a somewhat different opinion, but I really disliked M. Night Shyamalan's The Village. First of all, it wasn't scary or suspenseful, and I guessed the twist ending right before it happened. And I was hoping what I thought wouldn't be it, but it was. This was back when M. Knight Shyamalan was still the king of twist endings. He had come off at least three movies that people seemed to love because of their endings — The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, and Signs. I went to see The Village because I loved The Sixth Sense and was creeped out by Unbreakable but in a good way. The Village didn't do it for me, and I know people who really disagree with my opinion and say this movie is one of his best. Really, after that, his movies started to tank, and now there is hardly anyone who says he's as good as he was 20-25 years ago!" Buena Vista Pictures Distribution / Via — joannaw4377e18ce 39. And finally: "Even big Marvel fans didn't like Secret Invasion." Marvel Studios / Via Disney+ — wildflower_daydreamer " Secret Invasion had SO much potential. I was incredibly excited for that show, thinking it was gonna drastically change the MCU, and it ended up being… absolutely nothing." — psychickid62 Now, in your opinion, what's a criminally UNDERRATED movie or TV show that totally deserves more hype? Why? Share your thoughts in the comments! Note: Some responses have been edited for length/clarity.
