Pixar's Elemental will be only the second film from that studio to have a "normal" release (theaters only, in a box office well on its way to normalization) since the pandemic cut off Onward's initially well-received and commercially promising run.
The first film was Lightyear--a major failure, commercially at least. (Deadline estimated the loss the studio suffered on the movie at over $100 million last year--making it a Solo-caliber flop.)
As it happens, Boxoffice Pro, a mere three weeks before the film's opening, was not optimistic about this one either, estimating its likely domestic gross at $98-$167 million--what would at the low end be a disappointing opening weekend for such a movie, never mind its whole run.
Of course, a Pixar movie can put in a not-so-good performance domestically and make up for it overseas. Coco certainly did so--its $210 million in 2017 a far cry from Inside Out's $356 million two years earlier, to say nothing of the $400 million+ taken in by Finding Dory (2016) and Toy Story 4 (2019), and of course, the $600 million+ scored by The Incredibles 2 (2018). Still, performing at Pixar's usual standard overseas, bringing in nearly $600 million more, made it an $800 million hit.
All the same, that was very anomalous, the norm for Pixar its movies' making 50 to 60 percent of their money internationally (rather than the near-three quarters Coco did).* Moreover, Elemental's anticipated gross is way below Coco's at even the high end, even before we start thinking about what six years of inflation have done to the dollar.
What do these numbers suggest? Assume the film, in line with the most pessimistic extrapolation from the available numbers, pulls in $100 million domestically, and no better than that overseas. This leaves Pixar with $200 million in the till.
Alternatively, assume the film's gross is at the high end of the Boxoffice Pro range, and like Coco makes three-quarters of its money overseas. We could be looking at a gross of $660 million+.
A range of between $200 million and $660 million is very wide indeed--but we do have a midpoint in $430 million, while we can consider a range of more specific scenarios within the parameters of the numbers discussed here, eschewing both the worst case (the movie's falling equally flat at home and abroad) and the best (the movie doing relatively well or better at home, and cleaning up internationally in that way so rarely seen).
Assuming the film makes the bottom of the range estimated by Boxoffice Pro domestically (just under $100 million), but, as is usual when a Pixar film does relatively poorly in the U.S., somewhat better abroad--pulling in, say, 60 percent of its money there--we would end up with a global gross of $250 million. (And again, with three quarters of its money made abroad, Coco-style, it would bring in some $400 million.)
Assuming the film makes the middle of the range estimated by Boxoffice Pro at home ($133 million), and only matches this overseas (as seen with Incredibles 2), we end up with about $270 million. With 60 percent of the money being made overseas (another $200 million), we have a take of more like $330 million (while with three quarters grossed there it would make more like $530 million).
Assuming the film makes the top of the range discussed domestically ($167 million), and matches this overseas, we end up with $335 million, while its making 60 percent of its money overseas would work out to its making a bit under $420 million.
Meanwhile consider an analogy we overlook if focused on the more recent and more successful films--The Good Dinosaur--which may be especially salient. At the moment I cannot say much about Elemental artistically--but it has seemed to me that, where the general audience (and especially the American audience) is concerned, science fiction and fantasy are an easier sell when the concepts are familiar and easy for people who are not hardcore sci-fi fans to grasp--and the setting not too different from contemporary Earth. Thus was it with the present day-set films about superheroes (The Incredibles), talking fish (Finding Nemo and its sequel) and talking toys (Toy Story) that have been Pixar's biggest moneymakers. By contrast The Good Dinosaur, with its counterfactual premise and quasi-prehistoric milieu and spin on the theme of the adventure of a "boy and his dog," was conceptually "too much." So might it go with Elemental, with its city where beings of fire, air, water and earth all live together.
How did The Good Dinosaur end up doing?
It picked up $123 million domestic and $332 million worldwide (making less than the usual, with American sales especially depressed so that it took in 63 percent of its money overseas). Adjusted for inflation this works out to $157 million domestic--and $424 million global in April 2023 dollars, about the midpoint between the bottom and top ends of the range discussed above.
Meanwhile, taking the circa $130 million estimate discussed as the mid-range for the domestic gross here, and assuming its accounting for just 37 percent of the global total (as the other 63 percent come in from overseas), we end up with more like $350 million.
Apart from the comparative outlier of $530 million, the figures I have amassed here --$250 million, $270 million, $330 million, $335 million, $420 million, $430 million in the better and worse scenarios, and the numbers from the more specific analogy with The Good Dinosaur too—fall within the range of $250-$430 million. Rounding up or down to the nearest $50 million for good measure, we end up with a range of $250-$450 million, and $350 million or so (the same figure we got with the looser analogy with The Good Dinosaur) right in the middle.
In the absence of more information at present that--$250-$450 million, and the middle of that range especially--is the vicinity in which I expect the final take to end up. All the same, I do not wholly rule out a $600 million+ take, especially in the event of the film finding a stronger reception overseas, which, if not putting it on a level with the $1 billion hits to which Pixar, like Marvel, got so accustomed in the late '10s, would make it no Lightyear-like failure.
* The figures for Incredibles 2, Finding Dory, Toy Story 4 and Inside Out were, respectively, 51, 53, 60 and 58 percent.
Wednesday, May 31, 2023
Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse: The Beginning of a New Trend in American Animation?
The 2018 film Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse made a bit under $400 million at the box office. Given the budget and expectations it was respectable, not spectacular--especially in comparison with the money made by both live-action superhero films (especially the consistently popular Spider-Man movies), and the animated films put out by studios like Disney, Disney-Pixar and Illumination (single films of theirs routinely raking in $1 billion or more at the box office in those same years).
This was also not too surprising--Americans tending to take their action-adventure in live-action form, while leaving splashy family films, especially comedies and musical comedies, to the animators.
The result is that it is interesting that Boxoffice Pro, in contrast with its response to the tracking of so many live-action superhero films this year, has been getting more bullish about the prospects of the 2018 movie as we approach the movie's launch (scheduled for this Friday). Estimating a far higher take suggestive of what only the live-action superhero films have tended to make (the high end of the range for the domestic gross is now $360 million), Shawn Robbins explicitly acknowledged that its trajectory "seems to be mimicking a typical Marvel film more than a traditional animated release without a dedicated fan base."
The figures, and the parallel, have me wondering--could Across the Spider-Verse be a milestone for American animation? The moment in which action-adventure in that form as a major theatrical draw arrives? When, just as in Japan, animated action movies adapting the most popular comic book stories around start to routinely top the box office?
There seem to be good reasons to think so. Americans seem to have become more accustomed to this kind of experience as anime and manga fans flock to the theaters to catch Japanese animated films of the type in growing numbers. (Consider, for example, how in 2021, as Hollywood failed miserably to attract crowds of the usual size, the Japanese blockbuster Demon Slayer opened to $21 million on the way to selling $50 million worth of tickets--almost what James Gunn's much-touted The Suicide Squad managed that summer.) Moreover, exploiting the possibilities of animation would seem a way to inject a bit of creativity, or at least novelty, into the well-worn superhero movie genre, and the well-worn American blockbuster generally (perhaps, while also saving on production costs). Indeed, the folks at Warner Bros. pontificating about 10-year plans for rebooting the DC Extended Universe, if really thinking that far ahead, should be paying particular attention to the possibility.
So far, though, I know of no reason to think they are doing so.
This was also not too surprising--Americans tending to take their action-adventure in live-action form, while leaving splashy family films, especially comedies and musical comedies, to the animators.
The result is that it is interesting that Boxoffice Pro, in contrast with its response to the tracking of so many live-action superhero films this year, has been getting more bullish about the prospects of the 2018 movie as we approach the movie's launch (scheduled for this Friday). Estimating a far higher take suggestive of what only the live-action superhero films have tended to make (the high end of the range for the domestic gross is now $360 million), Shawn Robbins explicitly acknowledged that its trajectory "seems to be mimicking a typical Marvel film more than a traditional animated release without a dedicated fan base."
The figures, and the parallel, have me wondering--could Across the Spider-Verse be a milestone for American animation? The moment in which action-adventure in that form as a major theatrical draw arrives? When, just as in Japan, animated action movies adapting the most popular comic book stories around start to routinely top the box office?
There seem to be good reasons to think so. Americans seem to have become more accustomed to this kind of experience as anime and manga fans flock to the theaters to catch Japanese animated films of the type in growing numbers. (Consider, for example, how in 2021, as Hollywood failed miserably to attract crowds of the usual size, the Japanese blockbuster Demon Slayer opened to $21 million on the way to selling $50 million worth of tickets--almost what James Gunn's much-touted The Suicide Squad managed that summer.) Moreover, exploiting the possibilities of animation would seem a way to inject a bit of creativity, or at least novelty, into the well-worn superhero movie genre, and the well-worn American blockbuster generally (perhaps, while also saving on production costs). Indeed, the folks at Warner Bros. pontificating about 10-year plans for rebooting the DC Extended Universe, if really thinking that far ahead, should be paying particular attention to the possibility.
So far, though, I know of no reason to think they are doing so.
How Much Does a $250 Million Production Need to Make in Order to Break Even?
We seem to hear the figure $250 million in relation to production budgets a lot these days. Thor 4 and Black Panther 2 supposedly cost that much. So did Guardians of the Galaxy 3. And lots of others.
Seeing how much money these films cost, and how much they made at the box office (well under $1 billion in the case of the first two, with the same expected in the case of the third), people wondered "Was that enough for them to break even?"
The completely unsatisfying but true answer is "It depends."
Not every reported production budget figure is accurate. Even when they are people do not always mean the same thing when they speak of "production budgets." They may be speaking of what it cost to make the movie--or the "net" cost, which is to say how much the studio had to spend, rather than what was covered by outside sources like product placement or tax breaks. They may, consciously or unconsciously, include the "interest and overhead," but not always.
Meanwhile there are the uncertainties about what was spent after production on promotion and distribution--starting with "prints and ads." There is also the matter of "participations and residuals" (as in, someone else gets their cut of the gross, right off the top, pushing the moment at which the backer of a movie breaks even on what they laid out further off). All of this is never cheap, but it can vary very wildly--while the details get a lot less publicity than production costs with the participations and residuals especially complicating things greatly. (Certainly participations and residuals on Top Gun 2 cost almost twice the production budget of the film, $315 million to $177 million.)
Finally, there is how we think about revenue. We usually think in terms of box office gross, of which the studio that made the film is apt to get 40-50 percent of the total in "rentals." But home entertainment, TV, streaming are hugely important revenue generators, even for big hits often delivering 40 percent or more of the total income.
The result of the latter especially is that a movie that would not come close to breaking even on its theatrical run ends up not only breaking even in the end, but a money-maker, with a good example Thor 4. That movie, which according to Deadline really did run $250 million in production costs, without the interest and overhead (another $45 million), and far from slight expenditures on prints and ads ($160 million!), thus incurred well over $400 million in costs just getting into theaters, before any thought of participations and residuals came into the picture.
The movie ended up grossing $760 million theatrically--and netting just $350 million in theatrical rentals. And it would have been a big loss-maker if the issue ended there.
However, between home entertainment, television, streaming, the movie netted another $300 million. In the process the film got $650 million in revenues, for an eventual outlay (participations and residuals included) of a little under $550 million.
So in short--a $250 million movie that grossed just $760 million at the box office not only broke even, but made $100 million+, landing it a spot on the list of the most profitable films of the year. Moreover, all this is without getting into such matters as the value provided in its propping up of a bigger franchise (as is the case with the Marvel Cinematic Universe), or the colossal revenues derived by that franchise from marketing (which propping up that franchise helps, even beyond direct sales of Thor-related merchandise).
All this goes to show that a movie that can fairly be considered a disappointment and an underperformer (compared with, for instance, Thor 3 and the standard the MCU seemed to set in its storied Phase Three) was, taken in itself, very much worth the while for the investors. And so is it likely to go with other similarly expensive movies that at least avoid making much less than the Thor sequel.
Seeing how much money these films cost, and how much they made at the box office (well under $1 billion in the case of the first two, with the same expected in the case of the third), people wondered "Was that enough for them to break even?"
The completely unsatisfying but true answer is "It depends."
Not every reported production budget figure is accurate. Even when they are people do not always mean the same thing when they speak of "production budgets." They may be speaking of what it cost to make the movie--or the "net" cost, which is to say how much the studio had to spend, rather than what was covered by outside sources like product placement or tax breaks. They may, consciously or unconsciously, include the "interest and overhead," but not always.
Meanwhile there are the uncertainties about what was spent after production on promotion and distribution--starting with "prints and ads." There is also the matter of "participations and residuals" (as in, someone else gets their cut of the gross, right off the top, pushing the moment at which the backer of a movie breaks even on what they laid out further off). All of this is never cheap, but it can vary very wildly--while the details get a lot less publicity than production costs with the participations and residuals especially complicating things greatly. (Certainly participations and residuals on Top Gun 2 cost almost twice the production budget of the film, $315 million to $177 million.)
Finally, there is how we think about revenue. We usually think in terms of box office gross, of which the studio that made the film is apt to get 40-50 percent of the total in "rentals." But home entertainment, TV, streaming are hugely important revenue generators, even for big hits often delivering 40 percent or more of the total income.
The result of the latter especially is that a movie that would not come close to breaking even on its theatrical run ends up not only breaking even in the end, but a money-maker, with a good example Thor 4. That movie, which according to Deadline really did run $250 million in production costs, without the interest and overhead (another $45 million), and far from slight expenditures on prints and ads ($160 million!), thus incurred well over $400 million in costs just getting into theaters, before any thought of participations and residuals came into the picture.
The movie ended up grossing $760 million theatrically--and netting just $350 million in theatrical rentals. And it would have been a big loss-maker if the issue ended there.
However, between home entertainment, television, streaming, the movie netted another $300 million. In the process the film got $650 million in revenues, for an eventual outlay (participations and residuals included) of a little under $550 million.
So in short--a $250 million movie that grossed just $760 million at the box office not only broke even, but made $100 million+, landing it a spot on the list of the most profitable films of the year. Moreover, all this is without getting into such matters as the value provided in its propping up of a bigger franchise (as is the case with the Marvel Cinematic Universe), or the colossal revenues derived by that franchise from marketing (which propping up that franchise helps, even beyond direct sales of Thor-related merchandise).
All this goes to show that a movie that can fairly be considered a disappointment and an underperformer (compared with, for instance, Thor 3 and the standard the MCU seemed to set in its storied Phase Three) was, taken in itself, very much worth the while for the investors. And so is it likely to go with other similarly expensive movies that at least avoid making much less than the Thor sequel.
Tuesday, May 30, 2023
What We Can Expect of Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse: A Box Office Prediction (The Global Gross, and the $1 Billion Question)
With a mere week to go before the film's release, Boxoffice Pro's Shawn Robbins upgraded the forecast for the domestic gross of the sequel to the animated 2018 Spider-Man film, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, to the range of $259-$362 million (a rough one-ninth increase from the prior level at the high end, from $325 million).
Implying a potential gross almost 60 percent higher in real terms than what the first film raked in domestically ($190 million, which is more like $229 million in April 2023 money), it would be a very rare case of a post-pandemic sequel doing better--much better--than its pre-pandemic predecessor. (Indeed, the only point of comparison that comes to mind--perhaps not coincidentally--is the colossal gross of that other Spider-Man movie, Spider-Man: No Way Home, with its $800 million take.*)
Should the new film merely approach the upper limit of the range projected by Boxoffice Pro it would very likely beat Guardians of the Galaxy 3 (my expectation still has it topping out at about $330 million), every other Marvel film this year (all of which I expect to do less business than Guardians), very likely The Flash as well (especially with its projected gross looking less impressive than before), Blue Beetle and, especially if the bad buzz is to be heeded, probably Aquaman 2 as well, at the box office--which would, again, leave it the highest-grossing Marvel superhero movie, or just plain superhero movie, of 2023, domestically at least.
Could it make the $1 billion mark, though? Assuming the bullish view about the film's domestic prospects is justified the big "if" here would be foreign response. Some movies, after all, do as much as three or more times their domestic business overseas, with the later installments of the Fast and Furious franchise excellent examples. However, Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse did not do much more than match its domestic gross internationally ($194 million international to $190 million domestic). Were that international response merely to grow alongside the way the domestic gross is expected to expand one would call that an extraordinary success--but that would leave the movie with not much more than $700 million in the till. Thus, barring even more extreme domestic overperformance than has already been envisaged, foreign enthusiasm would have to grow much more than domestic enthusiasm has--the movie not seeing its gross rise by 60 percent in relation to the first film, but more like triple. (In April 2023 terms the movie's $194 million gross would be more like $234 million--as against the $640 million+ probably required to get the movie into the billion-dollar club.) This may not be impossible--but I have seen no evidence for it so far.
The result is that the safer bet would still seem to be something between the bottom of the Boxoffice Pro projection combined with the foreign gross the first film got ($260 million domestic, $230 million overseas+), and the high end of the domestic range matched by a proportionately enlarged gross abroad ($362 million, plus $370 million abroad) as the lower and upper limits of the plausible range of the worldwide gross. This works out to arrange of approximately $500 million-$750 million, with the $1 billion take only an outside possibility for now.
* Spider-Man: Far From Home took in $390 million in the summer of 2019--which equaled $424 million in December 2021, when Spider-Man: No Way Home opened and collected almost twice as much ($814 million, 92 percent more than the prior film's already impressive sum).
Implying a potential gross almost 60 percent higher in real terms than what the first film raked in domestically ($190 million, which is more like $229 million in April 2023 money), it would be a very rare case of a post-pandemic sequel doing better--much better--than its pre-pandemic predecessor. (Indeed, the only point of comparison that comes to mind--perhaps not coincidentally--is the colossal gross of that other Spider-Man movie, Spider-Man: No Way Home, with its $800 million take.*)
Should the new film merely approach the upper limit of the range projected by Boxoffice Pro it would very likely beat Guardians of the Galaxy 3 (my expectation still has it topping out at about $330 million), every other Marvel film this year (all of which I expect to do less business than Guardians), very likely The Flash as well (especially with its projected gross looking less impressive than before), Blue Beetle and, especially if the bad buzz is to be heeded, probably Aquaman 2 as well, at the box office--which would, again, leave it the highest-grossing Marvel superhero movie, or just plain superhero movie, of 2023, domestically at least.
Could it make the $1 billion mark, though? Assuming the bullish view about the film's domestic prospects is justified the big "if" here would be foreign response. Some movies, after all, do as much as three or more times their domestic business overseas, with the later installments of the Fast and Furious franchise excellent examples. However, Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse did not do much more than match its domestic gross internationally ($194 million international to $190 million domestic). Were that international response merely to grow alongside the way the domestic gross is expected to expand one would call that an extraordinary success--but that would leave the movie with not much more than $700 million in the till. Thus, barring even more extreme domestic overperformance than has already been envisaged, foreign enthusiasm would have to grow much more than domestic enthusiasm has--the movie not seeing its gross rise by 60 percent in relation to the first film, but more like triple. (In April 2023 terms the movie's $194 million gross would be more like $234 million--as against the $640 million+ probably required to get the movie into the billion-dollar club.) This may not be impossible--but I have seen no evidence for it so far.
The result is that the safer bet would still seem to be something between the bottom of the Boxoffice Pro projection combined with the foreign gross the first film got ($260 million domestic, $230 million overseas+), and the high end of the domestic range matched by a proportionately enlarged gross abroad ($362 million, plus $370 million abroad) as the lower and upper limits of the plausible range of the worldwide gross. This works out to arrange of approximately $500 million-$750 million, with the $1 billion take only an outside possibility for now.
* Spider-Man: Far From Home took in $390 million in the summer of 2019--which equaled $424 million in December 2021, when Spider-Man: No Way Home opened and collected almost twice as much ($814 million, 92 percent more than the prior film's already impressive sum).
How Much Will The Little Mermaid Make at the Box Office?; or, "Will The Little Mermaid Make a Billion Dollars?"
As I remarked in a prior post I had wondered if The Little Mermaid might not be the live-action movie that will break the billion-dollar barrier this year--and then when seeing the opening weekend numbers, particularly the numbers from overseas, I became much more doubtful.
Consider the track record of the movies that seem most comparable--the four live-action adaptations of Disney animated classics released pre-pandemic, namely The Jungle Book, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Lion King (as middle-of-the-pandemic, simultaneously-on-streaming Mulan is not likely to be very helpful here). Those four movies all made between 28 and 35 percent of their domestic gross during the first weekend of release (with Aladdin, like The Little Mermaid a Memorial Day weekend release making a third), while all four made 60 to 67 percent of their money abroad.
A $118 million opening gross would therefore work out to something in the vicinity of $340-$410 million domestic, with the usual level of international ticket sales suggesting a global total of some $850 million to $1.2 billion by the end of the run (the latter, about what Aladdin made when one adjusts for inflation).* However, in the first three days of release, rather than the North American gross being 30 to 33 percent of the total it was more like 58 percent of the money made globally (all as the movie came out in--save for Japan--all of the larger and more lucrative markets, China included). Should that domestic/foreign split endure then a $340-$410 million gross would work out to something more in the vicinity of $600-$700 million globally.
Of course, we are still quite early in the film's run. Should it prove to have stronger than expected legs at home, or enjoy some "bounce" overseas after a weak early reception, it could do better. All the same, the $1 billion mark that the four preceding films cleared easily (at a moment when the dollar was less inflated) remains a long way off, even should the film do better than now expected. (After all, the movie would have to take in 40 percent+ more than the high end of the range I calculated here.) Meanwhile, in light of its reception it may be easier to imagine the film doing less well than "overperforming."
* Adjusting the May-July 2019 prices of the period of Aladdin's release for the prices of April 2023 the film's $1.05 billion gross at the time of release is equal to $1.24 billion today.
Consider the track record of the movies that seem most comparable--the four live-action adaptations of Disney animated classics released pre-pandemic, namely The Jungle Book, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Lion King (as middle-of-the-pandemic, simultaneously-on-streaming Mulan is not likely to be very helpful here). Those four movies all made between 28 and 35 percent of their domestic gross during the first weekend of release (with Aladdin, like The Little Mermaid a Memorial Day weekend release making a third), while all four made 60 to 67 percent of their money abroad.
A $118 million opening gross would therefore work out to something in the vicinity of $340-$410 million domestic, with the usual level of international ticket sales suggesting a global total of some $850 million to $1.2 billion by the end of the run (the latter, about what Aladdin made when one adjusts for inflation).* However, in the first three days of release, rather than the North American gross being 30 to 33 percent of the total it was more like 58 percent of the money made globally (all as the movie came out in--save for Japan--all of the larger and more lucrative markets, China included). Should that domestic/foreign split endure then a $340-$410 million gross would work out to something more in the vicinity of $600-$700 million globally.
Of course, we are still quite early in the film's run. Should it prove to have stronger than expected legs at home, or enjoy some "bounce" overseas after a weak early reception, it could do better. All the same, the $1 billion mark that the four preceding films cleared easily (at a moment when the dollar was less inflated) remains a long way off, even should the film do better than now expected. (After all, the movie would have to take in 40 percent+ more than the high end of the range I calculated here.) Meanwhile, in light of its reception it may be easier to imagine the film doing less well than "overperforming."
* Adjusting the May-July 2019 prices of the period of Aladdin's release for the prices of April 2023 the film's $1.05 billion gross at the time of release is equal to $1.24 billion today.
Analogies for The Little Mermaid's Box Office Run: Black Panther, The Last Jedi, Ant-Man 3?
As I remarked earlier a major factor in my hesitation to discuss the box office prospects of The Little Mermaid was the scarcity of useful points of comparison compared with other would-be blockbusters. (The most obviously useful analogies--other live-action adaptations of Disney animated classics--are few, and pretty much all pre-pandemic, in contrast with what I write here about Marvel Cinematic Universe films.)
Still, in the wake of the first weekend it seems to me that there are three points of comparison even beyond the prior live-action Disney adaptations.
The Little Mermaid is like Black Panther in being a Disney-backed film hailed in many quarters as a step forward for representation.
It is like The Last Jedi in its box office gross, at least at this stage of things, appearing a significant disappointment in comparison with its predecessors, all as supporters of the film claim that online trolls opposed to that step forward for representation are significantly at fault.
And it is like Ant-Man 3 in the film's underperformance, while being evident in the domestic market, being much more pronounced in overseas markets--the gap between anticipated ticket sales and what the film has actually made much wider there than at home.
Whether these latter two analogies will become less salient--or more so--to our thinking about the movie's run is something we will see in the weeks ahead.
Still, in the wake of the first weekend it seems to me that there are three points of comparison even beyond the prior live-action Disney adaptations.
The Little Mermaid is like Black Panther in being a Disney-backed film hailed in many quarters as a step forward for representation.
It is like The Last Jedi in its box office gross, at least at this stage of things, appearing a significant disappointment in comparison with its predecessors, all as supporters of the film claim that online trolls opposed to that step forward for representation are significantly at fault.
And it is like Ant-Man 3 in the film's underperformance, while being evident in the domestic market, being much more pronounced in overseas markets--the gap between anticipated ticket sales and what the film has actually made much wider there than at home.
Whether these latter two analogies will become less salient--or more so--to our thinking about the movie's run is something we will see in the weeks ahead.
Is Disney-Lucasfilm Changing its Star Wars Film-Making Strategy?
Since Solo flopped back in 2018--indisputably and hard (even the Deadline folks expressed suspicions that the numbers they had understated the disaster)--there has been much more smoke than fire where the cinematic side of the Star Wars franchise has been concerned. The concluding film of the sequel trilogy apart, there has not been a single film in the five years since, and so far as I can tell, no informed observer seriously expecting Star Wars on the big screen this year, or maybe even the next.
Besides the studio's getting burned (and very badly burned indeed) the pandemic confused things--depressing revenue, and inflaming the already exuberant expectations about the money to be made for streaming, raised expectations that this, not theatrical release, was the logical focus for producers, all across Hollywood, with this reflected in Disney's case, and Star Wars' case, in the studio's launching a succession of Star Wars-themed streaming series. (There was no Boba Fett movie of the kind once planned--but there has been a "Book of Boba Fett.")
Of course, with the box office recovering, and expectations surrounding streaming "less exuberant" than before, studio chiefs have their eyes fixed on selling $20 tickets once more. Still, the financial damage of the pandemic remains, compounded by what, compared with the post-Great Recession norm expectation of "free money for investors," have been high interest rates.
Alas, Disney-Lucasfilm has been stumbling here, moving from one effort that produces a lot of publicity but no movie to another --significant in which is its, like the runners of a certain other aging franchise (the post-reboot James Bond series), relying not on a "creative producer's" vision working with directors who may not have been household names but could be counted on to deliver "the goods" as that producer desired, to hiring some Big Name, and preferably a Hot New Name, to "Make it New."* The already long-prominent J.J. Abrams was enlisted to helm Episode VII, while they had Rian Johnson slated to direct not just The Last Jedi but a whole lot of other Star Wars, while Josh Trank (after Chronicle), and Patty Jenkins (in the wake of her success with Wonder Woman), came and went without much resulting, especially as each lost their luster (Johnson after the ill reception to The Last Jedi, Trank after Fantastic Four, Jenkins after Wonder Woman 1984).
I get from this a sense of fickleness and irrationality. Big productions do not lend themselves well to auteurial-type filmmaking (as George Lucas learned the hard way making the original Star Wars, which is why others did the actual directing on The Empire Strikes Back and The Return of the Jedi), with this all the more the case given the hard realities of studio control in this day and age, and where Star Wars is concerned, an established universe and a fandom very attentive to the details with all the associated additional constraints. The result is that either the Hot New Name cannot bring very much to the film--or you get something that will displease the fan base, which will be very vocal about the fact, with the reactions to Episodes VII and VIII, exemplary. J.J. Abrams played it ultra-safe with Episode VII (such that a little way into the movie the more alert members of the audience think to themselves, "Wait, I've seen this before . . ."), while Rian Johnson did the opposite with Episode VIII, being thoroughly flippant toward the material (a major reason for the backlash).
Still, Disney may be starting to move away from this irrational approach, if their choice of Dave Filoni is anything to go by. Filoni's film experience is limited, but his television experience on Star Wars' new series is vast--a fact that may be relevant to the film he has been tasked with making, a tie-in to multiple Disney TV series'. That does not by any means guarantee a more successful film. Indeed, I am not sure that the promised Heir to the Empire (is it me or has the commentariat little-noticed that this was the same title Timothy Zahn used for the first in his big trilogy?) is a really well-conceived project, given that a TV tie-in may be quite awkward in bringing in the wider audience expected for a Star Wars movie. (Certainly it was no asset to Dr. Strange 2.) All the same, it may mean that the management is no longer pursuing fantasies of "An auteur will figure things out for us," which, at least, suggests some self-criticism, and maybe a little more insight into what the studio has and how, if this is at all possible, it might be got to work.
* In his very useful book on the saga, Licence to Thrill, James Chapman wrote of the Bond series' directors as "proficient journeymen . . . whose greatest asset was their ability to translate the script to the screen in a straightforward way without any self-conscious tricks."
Besides the studio's getting burned (and very badly burned indeed) the pandemic confused things--depressing revenue, and inflaming the already exuberant expectations about the money to be made for streaming, raised expectations that this, not theatrical release, was the logical focus for producers, all across Hollywood, with this reflected in Disney's case, and Star Wars' case, in the studio's launching a succession of Star Wars-themed streaming series. (There was no Boba Fett movie of the kind once planned--but there has been a "Book of Boba Fett.")
Of course, with the box office recovering, and expectations surrounding streaming "less exuberant" than before, studio chiefs have their eyes fixed on selling $20 tickets once more. Still, the financial damage of the pandemic remains, compounded by what, compared with the post-Great Recession norm expectation of "free money for investors," have been high interest rates.
Alas, Disney-Lucasfilm has been stumbling here, moving from one effort that produces a lot of publicity but no movie to another --significant in which is its, like the runners of a certain other aging franchise (the post-reboot James Bond series), relying not on a "creative producer's" vision working with directors who may not have been household names but could be counted on to deliver "the goods" as that producer desired, to hiring some Big Name, and preferably a Hot New Name, to "Make it New."* The already long-prominent J.J. Abrams was enlisted to helm Episode VII, while they had Rian Johnson slated to direct not just The Last Jedi but a whole lot of other Star Wars, while Josh Trank (after Chronicle), and Patty Jenkins (in the wake of her success with Wonder Woman), came and went without much resulting, especially as each lost their luster (Johnson after the ill reception to The Last Jedi, Trank after Fantastic Four, Jenkins after Wonder Woman 1984).
I get from this a sense of fickleness and irrationality. Big productions do not lend themselves well to auteurial-type filmmaking (as George Lucas learned the hard way making the original Star Wars, which is why others did the actual directing on The Empire Strikes Back and The Return of the Jedi), with this all the more the case given the hard realities of studio control in this day and age, and where Star Wars is concerned, an established universe and a fandom very attentive to the details with all the associated additional constraints. The result is that either the Hot New Name cannot bring very much to the film--or you get something that will displease the fan base, which will be very vocal about the fact, with the reactions to Episodes VII and VIII, exemplary. J.J. Abrams played it ultra-safe with Episode VII (such that a little way into the movie the more alert members of the audience think to themselves, "Wait, I've seen this before . . ."), while Rian Johnson did the opposite with Episode VIII, being thoroughly flippant toward the material (a major reason for the backlash).
Still, Disney may be starting to move away from this irrational approach, if their choice of Dave Filoni is anything to go by. Filoni's film experience is limited, but his television experience on Star Wars' new series is vast--a fact that may be relevant to the film he has been tasked with making, a tie-in to multiple Disney TV series'. That does not by any means guarantee a more successful film. Indeed, I am not sure that the promised Heir to the Empire (is it me or has the commentariat little-noticed that this was the same title Timothy Zahn used for the first in his big trilogy?) is a really well-conceived project, given that a TV tie-in may be quite awkward in bringing in the wider audience expected for a Star Wars movie. (Certainly it was no asset to Dr. Strange 2.) All the same, it may mean that the management is no longer pursuing fantasies of "An auteur will figure things out for us," which, at least, suggests some self-criticism, and maybe a little more insight into what the studio has and how, if this is at all possible, it might be got to work.
* In his very useful book on the saga, Licence to Thrill, James Chapman wrote of the Bond series' directors as "proficient journeymen . . . whose greatest asset was their ability to translate the script to the screen in a straightforward way without any self-conscious tricks."
Monday, May 29, 2023
The Little Mermaid: The Film's Opening Weekend Box Office Gross
The Little Mermaid is not the kind of film about whose box office performance I am inclined to make guesses. Disney's live-action remakes of its animated classics are still a fairly small sub-genre, offering little basis for the kind of analogies that underlie so much of box office gross forecasting than action-adventure blockbusters, and indeed, even the highly prolific Marvel Cinematic Universe with its over thirty films to date. Still, I have to admit that when recently suggesting that we might in 2023 not see a single live-action movie break the $1 billion barrier, especially as the chances of Guardians of the Galaxy 3 (and the Marvel Cinematic Universe with it), Indiana Jones, and then The Flash, all seemed to recede further, I thought that if any movie might prove me wrong it would be The Little Mermaid.* (After all, the movies have been huge money-makers, with four of the current wave of such films to date breaking the billion-dollar barrier, and two doing it in 2019 alone--namely Aladdin and The Lion King.**)
Now that, too, seems most unlikely. The Little Mermaid, just a few days ago supposed to be headed for a $135-$140 million gross over the four-day weekend seems likely to finish with something less domestically--just $118 million. Meanwhile the movie is doing even more poorly abroad, with $68 million collected internationally--a figure sufficiently underwhelming that while some of the entertainment press present the domestic underperformance as a "win," the disappointment there is undeniable. (Incidentally the film did have a release in that huge and important Disney market, China--where it collected $2.5 million.)
I will not get into the issue of why this has been the case. There are lots of other people doing that already, many doubtless better-informed. But it is another underperformance in a year already looking to be full of them for Hollywood, and for Disney especially, as what was arguably the first "normal" year for the box office with respect to the release schedule and audience behavior post-pandemic time and again elicits weak responses to its full slate of would-be blockbusters.
* The three movies in question are the late 2021 release Spider-Man: No Way Home, and 2022's Top Gun: Maverick and Avatar: The Way of Water, while the animated The Super Mario Bros. Movie has already been the year's first $1 billion hit.
** The other two are 2016's The Jungle Book and 2017's Beauty and the Beast.
Now that, too, seems most unlikely. The Little Mermaid, just a few days ago supposed to be headed for a $135-$140 million gross over the four-day weekend seems likely to finish with something less domestically--just $118 million. Meanwhile the movie is doing even more poorly abroad, with $68 million collected internationally--a figure sufficiently underwhelming that while some of the entertainment press present the domestic underperformance as a "win," the disappointment there is undeniable. (Incidentally the film did have a release in that huge and important Disney market, China--where it collected $2.5 million.)
I will not get into the issue of why this has been the case. There are lots of other people doing that already, many doubtless better-informed. But it is another underperformance in a year already looking to be full of them for Hollywood, and for Disney especially, as what was arguably the first "normal" year for the box office with respect to the release schedule and audience behavior post-pandemic time and again elicits weak responses to its full slate of would-be blockbusters.
* The three movies in question are the late 2021 release Spider-Man: No Way Home, and 2022's Top Gun: Maverick and Avatar: The Way of Water, while the animated The Super Mario Bros. Movie has already been the year's first $1 billion hit.
** The other two are 2016's The Jungle Book and 2017's Beauty and the Beast.
Guardians of the Galaxy 3's Fourth Weekend at the Box Office: How Did it Do?
The weekend numbers are a little slower than usual coming in on a four-day holiday weekend, but we do have them now.
As of Sunday Guardians of the Galaxy 3 had taken in $299 million domestically, with the film's breaking $300 million today reasonably assumed--and thus has already surpassed the bottom end of the range specified in pre-release expectations (to say nothing of the "doomsday" scenarios of an Ant-Man 3-like collapse), with some way still to go. More or less consistent with my projections of recent weeks, should the week-to-week trend hold I still expect the movie will finish up somewhere around $330 million in North America.
That said, with the film's global take standing at $731 million, it seems there is a quicker decline in the film's take overseas, reflecting the more front-loaded character of the international gross as compared with the weaker opening but better holds seen in North America. (The opening weekend saw the movie take in less than 42 percent of its money domestically--$118 million of the global $228 million; this past week saw it take perhaps 45 percent of its money there--$32.5 million of the $72 million or so.) How much that international take slows remains to be seen, but going by its week-to-week declines over the past two weeks (from $146 million to $78 million, from $78 million to $39 million), I can picture another $40 million+ coming in from abroad. Working out to $470 million+ internationally, and $330 million domestic, a final worldwide tally at least in the vicinity of $800 million very probable, and a gross some way north of that fairly so, with a figure of somewhere around $825 million not too hard to picture (if with perhaps a little more coming from North America, a little less from elsewhere).
Again, this is better than what many feared given the unhappy precedents of the last three Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) films (and that opening weekend), but confirms the film-to-film declines of the MCU franchise's various series for the time being. That still leaves the franchise profitable for now, and likely to remain profitable even were it to go on falling some way--but rather less so than at its Phase Three peak, with the trend untoward, and complacency on the part of the franchise-runners unwarranted.
As of Sunday Guardians of the Galaxy 3 had taken in $299 million domestically, with the film's breaking $300 million today reasonably assumed--and thus has already surpassed the bottom end of the range specified in pre-release expectations (to say nothing of the "doomsday" scenarios of an Ant-Man 3-like collapse), with some way still to go. More or less consistent with my projections of recent weeks, should the week-to-week trend hold I still expect the movie will finish up somewhere around $330 million in North America.
That said, with the film's global take standing at $731 million, it seems there is a quicker decline in the film's take overseas, reflecting the more front-loaded character of the international gross as compared with the weaker opening but better holds seen in North America. (The opening weekend saw the movie take in less than 42 percent of its money domestically--$118 million of the global $228 million; this past week saw it take perhaps 45 percent of its money there--$32.5 million of the $72 million or so.) How much that international take slows remains to be seen, but going by its week-to-week declines over the past two weeks (from $146 million to $78 million, from $78 million to $39 million), I can picture another $40 million+ coming in from abroad. Working out to $470 million+ internationally, and $330 million domestic, a final worldwide tally at least in the vicinity of $800 million very probable, and a gross some way north of that fairly so, with a figure of somewhere around $825 million not too hard to picture (if with perhaps a little more coming from North America, a little less from elsewhere).
Again, this is better than what many feared given the unhappy precedents of the last three Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) films (and that opening weekend), but confirms the film-to-film declines of the MCU franchise's various series for the time being. That still leaves the franchise profitable for now, and likely to remain profitable even were it to go on falling some way--but rather less so than at its Phase Three peak, with the trend untoward, and complacency on the part of the franchise-runners unwarranted.
Sunday, May 28, 2023
Boxoffice Pro is Now More Bullish on Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse and The Transformers: Rise of the Beasts: Implications
With the release of Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse scarcely a week away Boxoffice Pro's projection regarding that movie's gross is significantly higher than its original expectation--the $85-$105 million estimate for the opening weekend now up to $95-$130 million.
The result is that the high end of the range for the film's gross now approaches $360 million.
I remember not too long ago wondering if Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse might not be the highest-grossing Marvel superhero of the year. At the time my expectations for Guardians of the Galaxy 3 were lower than they are now--the strong holds having not yet materialized then. Even with those holds materializing, though, I think the movie unlikely to get much past $330 million, such that film that makes $360 million might well beat it--all as the other live-action Marvel movies this year seem unlikely to do even as well as Guardians (my expectations for Captain Marvel 2, and Kraven the Hunter, decidedly lower).
Right now it also seems that, with expectations for The Flash downgraded in the latest report (a point I took up in my prior post) Spider-Man may have a good chance at beating him too. Combined with the possibility of Aquaman 2 seeing its gross fall a long way from that of the original Aquaman (though in fairness it seems to me way too early to do more than speculate about that), Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse could well be not just the top-grossing Marvel superhero movie of the year, but the top-grossing superhero movie of the year, period.
The upward revision of the projections for the next Transformers (Rise of the Beasts) is interesting, though less impressive. Where previously the expectation had been of the movie making $60-$90 million in North America the range is now more like $75-$100 million. This would still be a grave disappointment in relation to the franchise's earlier movies, the standards of summer blockbusters generally, and the money reportedly sunk into the film. Still, it may be a positive sign for the bottom line, which the backers of the movie sure could use.
Expect more here on the prospects of Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse this week.
The result is that the high end of the range for the film's gross now approaches $360 million.
I remember not too long ago wondering if Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse might not be the highest-grossing Marvel superhero of the year. At the time my expectations for Guardians of the Galaxy 3 were lower than they are now--the strong holds having not yet materialized then. Even with those holds materializing, though, I think the movie unlikely to get much past $330 million, such that film that makes $360 million might well beat it--all as the other live-action Marvel movies this year seem unlikely to do even as well as Guardians (my expectations for Captain Marvel 2, and Kraven the Hunter, decidedly lower).
Right now it also seems that, with expectations for The Flash downgraded in the latest report (a point I took up in my prior post) Spider-Man may have a good chance at beating him too. Combined with the possibility of Aquaman 2 seeing its gross fall a long way from that of the original Aquaman (though in fairness it seems to me way too early to do more than speculate about that), Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse could well be not just the top-grossing Marvel superhero movie of the year, but the top-grossing superhero movie of the year, period.
The upward revision of the projections for the next Transformers (Rise of the Beasts) is interesting, though less impressive. Where previously the expectation had been of the movie making $60-$90 million in North America the range is now more like $75-$100 million. This would still be a grave disappointment in relation to the franchise's earlier movies, the standards of summer blockbusters generally, and the money reportedly sunk into the film. Still, it may be a positive sign for the bottom line, which the backers of the movie sure could use.
Expect more here on the prospects of Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse this week.
Saturday, May 27, 2023
Of "Armchair Movie Executives": Some Thoughts
Not long ago I read an article (which I refrain from naming or linking) remarking--frankly, lamenting--what its author saw as the transformation of the moviegoing public--of people who have no personal stake in how films do whatsoever--into "armchair movie executives," endlessly gabbing about the business of movies, to the point of overshadowing the movies themselves, while also expressing befuddlement at the development.
I think his sense of this was exaggerated. I suspect that those who pay much attention to what movies cost and make are a small minority--but it so happens that small minorities tend to be a lot more noticeable than silent majorities, here as in other areas of life, and the Internet has permitted them to be much more noticeable indeed. I also suspect that those who are interested mostly pay attention to just a very small proportion of the films that are produced. (Those who do care what movies make are much more concerned with blockbusters than small dramas such as Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret, and with some blockbusters rather than others--the evidence, apparently, that they care much more about how the Marvel superhero films will do than, for example, how Fast X will do.)
Still, I do think that, all things considered, more people are paying attention, and individually many of them are paying more attention, than before--and that the author of the piece in question was right when he suggested that easy access to the relevant data played its part. But this only permitted it to happen, rather than compelling the armchair executives to use the data.
It also seems that the situation is substantially of Hollywood's creation, specifically how it makes and markets films these days.
If it appalled the author of the article in question that the public speaks of "franchises," that is because just about every big movie is a franchise movie now--as was not the case before, with key to the plan cashing in on name recognition, and relentless invidious comparison of the new with the old. "Didn't you just hate that?" they'd say in that gratingly wheedling way as they run down that older film while trying to talk up the new. Many of us would say, "No, we didn't hate it," but they did raise the issue all the same, and thus induced us to think about the relationship of one to the other.
If more people know more of the numbers, that is because the studios' claqueurs are always tossing them about, with reports of big salaries, big budgets, big grosses intended to make them think "This is something special. This is something I have to see," to the point of using a movie's being a hit, or even just having the makings of a hit, to make more people go see it, just like the practice of persuading people to buy books by telling them they are bestsellers--which, unavoidably, makes them attentive to the matter of what is selling.
Of course, some people are more responsive to all this than others. Those who belong to a particular "fandom," for example, tend to be interested in everything to do with the work of which they are fans, and are famously attentive to history and detail--with this not necessarily excluding the economics of the matter--which tends to be a factor in the heightened interest in them, all as Hollywood is making so many more movies that come with a fandom attached (as with its superhero comics-based films).
It also matters a great deal that they so often offend those fans--who are so inclined to seize on the now more available than ever evidence to support their arguments that what they did not like, no one else did, either.
There are also those who have had more than a purely "fan" interest--for example, anyone who has ever fancied themselves writing a screenplay, maybe studied up on it a bit, maybe read the trade publications in the hope of learning something. The number of such persons relative to those who actually make a living in Hollywood is not small, and they do not all live in the Los Angeles area by any means. It is quite possible to gain an interest in the financial performance of films this way. (Indeed, even before the Internet you could read Variety at your local library, and be presented with a wealth of financial minutiae.) And even if such interest was never very serious or very lengthy one does not necessarily give it up. Quite the contrary, the fantasy of being in Hollywood can play its part here, the whiff of "insider information" another way the publicists have of getting a hold of the audience's imagination as it makes its sales pitch.
And there are also the factors that let all this loom larger next to the interest of other sides of film and their interest. Hollywood, notably, has long relied on the "star" system to interest the public in movies--but the star system has long been in decline, which means that other ways of catching people's interest more conspicuous. There are times when Hollywood has seemed exciting artistically--and others where it has not, with our period falling into the latter category, making it the easier for the economics to overshadow the art. (Indeed, film critic David Walsh, no worshiper of high film grosses or lover of gossip for gossip's sake, who is at least as attuned to cinema as art as any critic working today, titled his review of Marvel's Black Widow "Black Widow: The Surrounding Controversies are More Interesting and Revealing Than the Film.")
Those who would lament the decline of interest in film as an art form--I would like to make it clear that they have my sympathies--would therefore do better to see in the proliferation of armchair movie executives not the problem, but only a symptom.
I think his sense of this was exaggerated. I suspect that those who pay much attention to what movies cost and make are a small minority--but it so happens that small minorities tend to be a lot more noticeable than silent majorities, here as in other areas of life, and the Internet has permitted them to be much more noticeable indeed. I also suspect that those who are interested mostly pay attention to just a very small proportion of the films that are produced. (Those who do care what movies make are much more concerned with blockbusters than small dramas such as Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret, and with some blockbusters rather than others--the evidence, apparently, that they care much more about how the Marvel superhero films will do than, for example, how Fast X will do.)
Still, I do think that, all things considered, more people are paying attention, and individually many of them are paying more attention, than before--and that the author of the piece in question was right when he suggested that easy access to the relevant data played its part. But this only permitted it to happen, rather than compelling the armchair executives to use the data.
It also seems that the situation is substantially of Hollywood's creation, specifically how it makes and markets films these days.
If it appalled the author of the article in question that the public speaks of "franchises," that is because just about every big movie is a franchise movie now--as was not the case before, with key to the plan cashing in on name recognition, and relentless invidious comparison of the new with the old. "Didn't you just hate that?" they'd say in that gratingly wheedling way as they run down that older film while trying to talk up the new. Many of us would say, "No, we didn't hate it," but they did raise the issue all the same, and thus induced us to think about the relationship of one to the other.
If more people know more of the numbers, that is because the studios' claqueurs are always tossing them about, with reports of big salaries, big budgets, big grosses intended to make them think "This is something special. This is something I have to see," to the point of using a movie's being a hit, or even just having the makings of a hit, to make more people go see it, just like the practice of persuading people to buy books by telling them they are bestsellers--which, unavoidably, makes them attentive to the matter of what is selling.
Of course, some people are more responsive to all this than others. Those who belong to a particular "fandom," for example, tend to be interested in everything to do with the work of which they are fans, and are famously attentive to history and detail--with this not necessarily excluding the economics of the matter--which tends to be a factor in the heightened interest in them, all as Hollywood is making so many more movies that come with a fandom attached (as with its superhero comics-based films).
It also matters a great deal that they so often offend those fans--who are so inclined to seize on the now more available than ever evidence to support their arguments that what they did not like, no one else did, either.
There are also those who have had more than a purely "fan" interest--for example, anyone who has ever fancied themselves writing a screenplay, maybe studied up on it a bit, maybe read the trade publications in the hope of learning something. The number of such persons relative to those who actually make a living in Hollywood is not small, and they do not all live in the Los Angeles area by any means. It is quite possible to gain an interest in the financial performance of films this way. (Indeed, even before the Internet you could read Variety at your local library, and be presented with a wealth of financial minutiae.) And even if such interest was never very serious or very lengthy one does not necessarily give it up. Quite the contrary, the fantasy of being in Hollywood can play its part here, the whiff of "insider information" another way the publicists have of getting a hold of the audience's imagination as it makes its sales pitch.
And there are also the factors that let all this loom larger next to the interest of other sides of film and their interest. Hollywood, notably, has long relied on the "star" system to interest the public in movies--but the star system has long been in decline, which means that other ways of catching people's interest more conspicuous. There are times when Hollywood has seemed exciting artistically--and others where it has not, with our period falling into the latter category, making it the easier for the economics to overshadow the art. (Indeed, film critic David Walsh, no worshiper of high film grosses or lover of gossip for gossip's sake, who is at least as attuned to cinema as art as any critic working today, titled his review of Marvel's Black Widow "Black Widow: The Surrounding Controversies are More Interesting and Revealing Than the Film.")
Those who would lament the decline of interest in film as an art form--I would like to make it clear that they have my sympathies--would therefore do better to see in the proliferation of armchair movie executives not the problem, but only a symptom.
The '90s Feature Film-Based-on-an-Old-TV-Show Craze
There were adaptations of old TV shows into films before the 1990s--as in the late 1970s when, amid the Hollywood studio executives being stunned by the success of the George Lucas project they had all sneeringly rejected, Paramount made its contribution to the stream with a big-screen version of Star Trek that proved a major hit and launched a screen series that has continued down to the present, or , or Twilight Zone: The Movie, or the ironic Dan Aykroyd-Tom Hanks Dragnet, or the un-ironic Brian De Palma The Untouchables.
There have certainly been such adaptations since the '90s--as with the decisions to make big-screen versions of The Equalizer, or The Man From U.N.C.L.E., or ChiPs.
However, such efforts seem to have been especially numerous in the '90s (and the years immediately afterward, up to say about 2005, which given how long such projects take to come to fruition, can be thought of as a natural extension of them). Thus did we see the period produce hits out of '60s and '70s-era television shows like The Addams Family, The Fugitive, Maverick, Mission: Impossible and Charlie's Angels, and S.W.A.T., and Starsky & Hutch, with live-action adaptations of The Flintstones and George of the Jungle and Scooby-Doo likewise successes, as Lost in Space and Wild Wild West, if not quite the hits some hoped for, still sold a lot of tickets, and The Brady Bunch Movie did well enough to rate a sequel of its own. However, the list gets positively staggering when we remember the ones that were less well-received--like the big screen Leave it to Beaver, or Sgt. Bilko, or The Avengers (those other Avengers), or The Mod Squad, or The Honeymooners.
There simply did not seem as much enthusiasm for this afterward, this fashion waning just like the brief '90s boom in the Western (Dances With Wolves, Unforgiven) and other kinds of period pieces (Braveheart, Titanic, all that "Greatest Generation"-singing World War II stuff).
I am not sure that the flops came to matter more to Hollywood decision-makers than the successes. Rather, in an important moment in the history of the evolution of "high concept," became more focused in its approach to this game, Hollywood zeroing in on the sci-fi action-adventure genre as the big moneymaker; while being a little more attentive to the fact that a movie version of an old TV show has little high concept cachet if their audience has never heard of that show, as is now increasingly likely with ever-exploding electronic entertainment options meaning that reruns of old TV shows are not the staple of people's pop cultural diets they used to be. Thus Hollywood enthusiastically made big movies out of shows like The Transformers and G.I. Joe (and even the Chipmunks and Smurfs), but these decision-makers became more cautious when looking at dramatic fare, to say nothing of those sitcoms that even TVLand and Nick at Nite stopped running ages ago. Were their caution perfect there would never have been, for example, Dax Shepard's ChiPs, or Elizabeth Banks' Charlie's Angels. But all the same, such things are rarities now--while confirming the change is the way that yesteryear's big screen hits, rather than being remade for the big screen, are now made over into small screen TV shows. Hence Fatal Attraction is now a show on streaming--while if we ever get a new edition of Cheers or Seinfeld (I very much hope that we don't, but to all evidences the typical Hollywood Suit is as shameless as he is stupid) it will probably be coming to your streaming service, rather than to a theater near you.
There have certainly been such adaptations since the '90s--as with the decisions to make big-screen versions of The Equalizer, or The Man From U.N.C.L.E., or ChiPs.
However, such efforts seem to have been especially numerous in the '90s (and the years immediately afterward, up to say about 2005, which given how long such projects take to come to fruition, can be thought of as a natural extension of them). Thus did we see the period produce hits out of '60s and '70s-era television shows like The Addams Family, The Fugitive, Maverick, Mission: Impossible and Charlie's Angels, and S.W.A.T., and Starsky & Hutch, with live-action adaptations of The Flintstones and George of the Jungle and Scooby-Doo likewise successes, as Lost in Space and Wild Wild West, if not quite the hits some hoped for, still sold a lot of tickets, and The Brady Bunch Movie did well enough to rate a sequel of its own. However, the list gets positively staggering when we remember the ones that were less well-received--like the big screen Leave it to Beaver, or Sgt. Bilko, or The Avengers (those other Avengers), or The Mod Squad, or The Honeymooners.
There simply did not seem as much enthusiasm for this afterward, this fashion waning just like the brief '90s boom in the Western (Dances With Wolves, Unforgiven) and other kinds of period pieces (Braveheart, Titanic, all that "Greatest Generation"-singing World War II stuff).
I am not sure that the flops came to matter more to Hollywood decision-makers than the successes. Rather, in an important moment in the history of the evolution of "high concept," became more focused in its approach to this game, Hollywood zeroing in on the sci-fi action-adventure genre as the big moneymaker; while being a little more attentive to the fact that a movie version of an old TV show has little high concept cachet if their audience has never heard of that show, as is now increasingly likely with ever-exploding electronic entertainment options meaning that reruns of old TV shows are not the staple of people's pop cultural diets they used to be. Thus Hollywood enthusiastically made big movies out of shows like The Transformers and G.I. Joe (and even the Chipmunks and Smurfs), but these decision-makers became more cautious when looking at dramatic fare, to say nothing of those sitcoms that even TVLand and Nick at Nite stopped running ages ago. Were their caution perfect there would never have been, for example, Dax Shepard's ChiPs, or Elizabeth Banks' Charlie's Angels. But all the same, such things are rarities now--while confirming the change is the way that yesteryear's big screen hits, rather than being remade for the big screen, are now made over into small screen TV shows. Hence Fatal Attraction is now a show on streaming--while if we ever get a new edition of Cheers or Seinfeld (I very much hope that we don't, but to all evidences the typical Hollywood Suit is as shameless as he is stupid) it will probably be coming to your streaming service, rather than to a theater near you.
Thursday, May 25, 2023
The James Bond Franchise's Trajectory and the Marvel Cinematic Universe
With Phase Three's routinization of billion-dollar grosses (and $5 billion off just the two-part Avengers battle with Thanos!) the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) recently represented the epitome of what a popular franchise could achieve at the box office. (Snobs snickered about "Marvel envy" as they watched Warner Bros., Universal and others try to have similar success, but there were excellent reasons for the envy, from a business standpoint at least.)
Of course, no reasonable person could expect Phase Three-caliber success to go on forever, any more than any other comparable pop cultural sensation (or business success) can go on forever. The pandemic probably did quicken the end of the good times (my own prediction in 2019 was that Black Widow was 2020's surest bet for a billion dollar gross, and I think it probably would have grossed a billion in today's dollars if it had not been for the pandemic), but all the same Phase Four was pretty anti-climactic after that the big Avengers two-parter, while Phase Five has yet to show much sign of restoring "Marvel supremacy." Indeed, I wonder if there is not already a rush to end it and get on with Phase Six--though even allowing for the prospect of recovery getting the MCU's box office draw back to its Phase Three level is a tall order, with nothing quite like the boom years of 2016-2019 to be seen again (because, commercially at least, they really were that spectacular), and that those years will continue to be recognizable as Marvel's commercial peak.
Of course, that fact does not spell the end of the MCU by any means, with the James Bond series--because this was not only the first of the high-concept action-adventure blockbusters as we now know them, but because having run so long it has probably already gone where the other franchises eventually will (as consideration of the handling of Star Wars, for example, demonstrates)--a useful point of reference here. As it happened the Bond series peaked in the mid-1960s, with Thunderball and You Only Live Twice, after which there was more caution in laying out the money, because grosses were not what they had been (Twice, the highest-cost film made to date, and the first to bring in less than its predecessor, such that points of comparison afterward would be few). But the franchise went on cranking out new Bond films. For a half century, and counting.
It is a reminder that a series can go on for a very long time indeed after ticket sales slip. Still, the Bond series did so in a different time, when the economics of filmmaking were different, and the market was different. Through the late '60s, and well into the '70s, there was nothing quite like them from the standpoint of action-adventure spectacle, which probably helped a great deal in their lingering on. Moreover, if when such competition arrived the series suffered for it (the '80s, certainly, a low point for the series commercially, especially but not just in the U.S.), there was even in the '90s more room for the franchise to rally than it enjoys today. Moreover, after a mere four films, and a quashed attempt at a spin-off (in the unmade Jinx Johnson adventures), the producers thought a reboot in order--which was to see a mere five films cranked out between 2002 and the present, with the disappointing response to the last of those films giving the producers pause about a next attempt likely to be many more years off.
It is all a far cry from the MCU's cranking out three $200 million+ headline movies year in, year out in the expectation of takers, with a vast patchwork of tie-ins also going (as in the streaming TV series). Still, for the time being the movies, if not pulling in what they used to do, are among the more profitable films around, with Doctor Strange 2 #4, Black Panther #2 and Thor 4 #9 on Deadline's list of money-makers last year (even the last delivering a cash-on-cash return of over $100 million), which would seem quite enough to have the other studios still suffering from "Marvel envy." The issue, though, is how long the MCU's films can go on doing that well, with the trend of the returns on an immense investment so evidently downward--and I would add, more at issue than the fate of this one franchise. I cannot say for certain just how much "superhero fatigue" is out there (I actually expected it to have finished the wave of superhero films long before this point), but it seems to me that the broader pattern of blockbuster filmmaking may well be in trouble--like the old-style Hollywood musical in the late '60s. If that proves to be the case then the MCU's problems will be of a nature far, far more fundamental than the mismanagement or overexploitation of a single franchise.
Of course, no reasonable person could expect Phase Three-caliber success to go on forever, any more than any other comparable pop cultural sensation (or business success) can go on forever. The pandemic probably did quicken the end of the good times (my own prediction in 2019 was that Black Widow was 2020's surest bet for a billion dollar gross, and I think it probably would have grossed a billion in today's dollars if it had not been for the pandemic), but all the same Phase Four was pretty anti-climactic after that the big Avengers two-parter, while Phase Five has yet to show much sign of restoring "Marvel supremacy." Indeed, I wonder if there is not already a rush to end it and get on with Phase Six--though even allowing for the prospect of recovery getting the MCU's box office draw back to its Phase Three level is a tall order, with nothing quite like the boom years of 2016-2019 to be seen again (because, commercially at least, they really were that spectacular), and that those years will continue to be recognizable as Marvel's commercial peak.
Of course, that fact does not spell the end of the MCU by any means, with the James Bond series--because this was not only the first of the high-concept action-adventure blockbusters as we now know them, but because having run so long it has probably already gone where the other franchises eventually will (as consideration of the handling of Star Wars, for example, demonstrates)--a useful point of reference here. As it happened the Bond series peaked in the mid-1960s, with Thunderball and You Only Live Twice, after which there was more caution in laying out the money, because grosses were not what they had been (Twice, the highest-cost film made to date, and the first to bring in less than its predecessor, such that points of comparison afterward would be few). But the franchise went on cranking out new Bond films. For a half century, and counting.
It is a reminder that a series can go on for a very long time indeed after ticket sales slip. Still, the Bond series did so in a different time, when the economics of filmmaking were different, and the market was different. Through the late '60s, and well into the '70s, there was nothing quite like them from the standpoint of action-adventure spectacle, which probably helped a great deal in their lingering on. Moreover, if when such competition arrived the series suffered for it (the '80s, certainly, a low point for the series commercially, especially but not just in the U.S.), there was even in the '90s more room for the franchise to rally than it enjoys today. Moreover, after a mere four films, and a quashed attempt at a spin-off (in the unmade Jinx Johnson adventures), the producers thought a reboot in order--which was to see a mere five films cranked out between 2002 and the present, with the disappointing response to the last of those films giving the producers pause about a next attempt likely to be many more years off.
It is all a far cry from the MCU's cranking out three $200 million+ headline movies year in, year out in the expectation of takers, with a vast patchwork of tie-ins also going (as in the streaming TV series). Still, for the time being the movies, if not pulling in what they used to do, are among the more profitable films around, with Doctor Strange 2 #4, Black Panther #2 and Thor 4 #9 on Deadline's list of money-makers last year (even the last delivering a cash-on-cash return of over $100 million), which would seem quite enough to have the other studios still suffering from "Marvel envy." The issue, though, is how long the MCU's films can go on doing that well, with the trend of the returns on an immense investment so evidently downward--and I would add, more at issue than the fate of this one franchise. I cannot say for certain just how much "superhero fatigue" is out there (I actually expected it to have finished the wave of superhero films long before this point), but it seems to me that the broader pattern of blockbuster filmmaking may well be in trouble--like the old-style Hollywood musical in the late '60s. If that proves to be the case then the MCU's problems will be of a nature far, far more fundamental than the mismanagement or overexploitation of a single franchise.
"The Hollywood Franchise in Winter"; or, "The Studios Have Run Every Franchise into the Ground!"
A little while ago it occurred to me that it was entirely possible that no live-action movie this summer, or this year, will break the $1 billion barrier (a failure the more glaring as at least a half dozen such films managed the feat in 2019, at a time when a dollar was worth $1.17 today). This is not for lack of big franchise films of the kind that we are endlessly reminded are just about all that gets people to the theater these days--but because the films from which the franchises hail are long past their best days. I have written a lot here about the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) lately, but it would be unfair to treat it as unique in this. The truth is that, for all the intensity of its prolonged exploitation, they're still, after hitting truly extraordinary highs, doing better than all their rivals, as one is reminded looking at the offerings of the summer of 2023, be it the already officially dead DC Extended Universe, the Fast and Furious, the Transformers, Mission: Impossible, etc., etc.--they are all a decade old or older (in most cases, much older), with many, many entries behind them. (Fast and Furious 10? Seriously? Transformers 6? Or is it 7? Back to the Future II's joke about Jaws 15 looks less and less like satire and more like prognostication all the time.)
Of course, that raises the question of why this is the case--why the studios are so determined to feed the public not only installments in booming franchises, but increasingly risky offerings from increasingly aged and run-down film franchises. There is an undeniable disinterest on their part in doing so that bespeaks their management's laziness, cowardice or stupidity, to the point of being eager to throw hundreds of millions away on sequels no one asked for. (Thus did we get a Terminator 6.) Meanwhile, where they have been willing to make the attempt, they have displayed extraordinary incompetence. (Would you believe that Will Smith's After Earth was supposed to launch a cinematic universe?)
Yet even fully acknowledging the stupidity and incompetence involved one has to admit that the Suits have not been given so much to work with as they might have, depriving them of material that had some possibility of helping inject some freshness into their production.
Consider, for example, publishing. When did we last see a literary blockbuster really suitable for their purposes? The YA fantasy/sci-fi boom of the late '90s and early 21st century gave us such colossi as Harry Potter, Twilight, the Hunger Games. But that was a long time ago, such that the studios have gone on trying to exploit them (with the awkward Fantastic Beasts spin-off of Harry Potter, with a Hunger Games prequel coming your way this year) to questionable result.
TV? Alas, TV is these days living off of what it can derive from, besides its past (with remake after remake after remake after revival of old TV shows), film, taking more than giving (thus are films of yesteryear that are not big action blockbusters endlessly remade for the small screen, like Fatal Attraction). Meanwhile the market is ever more fragmented, stuff that would bring a general audience to the theater elusive--which is why we still traffic in references to the Simpsons and Seinfeld and Star Trek all these years later, because that is the only thing those of us of a certain generation have seen that we can expect others to recognize. This means not only a lack of ready-made franchises they can turn into the next Mission: Impossible or Transformers, but a smaller chance of new ideas in a more general or abstract way gaining any traction.
The result is that, while by no means letting the folks in Hollywood off the hook for their failure, their failure has been a matter of a broader failure on the part of a generally stagnant pop culture industry in which the technological and commercial INNOVATION on display ("How do we squeeze the customer for a few more pennies?") have far outstripped the creativity of the "content" that is their raison d'etre.
Of course, that raises the question of why this is the case--why the studios are so determined to feed the public not only installments in booming franchises, but increasingly risky offerings from increasingly aged and run-down film franchises. There is an undeniable disinterest on their part in doing so that bespeaks their management's laziness, cowardice or stupidity, to the point of being eager to throw hundreds of millions away on sequels no one asked for. (Thus did we get a Terminator 6.) Meanwhile, where they have been willing to make the attempt, they have displayed extraordinary incompetence. (Would you believe that Will Smith's After Earth was supposed to launch a cinematic universe?)
Yet even fully acknowledging the stupidity and incompetence involved one has to admit that the Suits have not been given so much to work with as they might have, depriving them of material that had some possibility of helping inject some freshness into their production.
Consider, for example, publishing. When did we last see a literary blockbuster really suitable for their purposes? The YA fantasy/sci-fi boom of the late '90s and early 21st century gave us such colossi as Harry Potter, Twilight, the Hunger Games. But that was a long time ago, such that the studios have gone on trying to exploit them (with the awkward Fantastic Beasts spin-off of Harry Potter, with a Hunger Games prequel coming your way this year) to questionable result.
TV? Alas, TV is these days living off of what it can derive from, besides its past (with remake after remake after remake after revival of old TV shows), film, taking more than giving (thus are films of yesteryear that are not big action blockbusters endlessly remade for the small screen, like Fatal Attraction). Meanwhile the market is ever more fragmented, stuff that would bring a general audience to the theater elusive--which is why we still traffic in references to the Simpsons and Seinfeld and Star Trek all these years later, because that is the only thing those of us of a certain generation have seen that we can expect others to recognize. This means not only a lack of ready-made franchises they can turn into the next Mission: Impossible or Transformers, but a smaller chance of new ideas in a more general or abstract way gaining any traction.
The result is that, while by no means letting the folks in Hollywood off the hook for their failure, their failure has been a matter of a broader failure on the part of a generally stagnant pop culture industry in which the technological and commercial INNOVATION on display ("How do we squeeze the customer for a few more pennies?") have far outstripped the creativity of the "content" that is their raison d'etre.
Tuesday, May 23, 2023
Indiana Jones 5 and Top Gun 2: Revisiting the Comparison
The expectation some have that Indiana Jones 5 will play like Top Gun 2--dominating its summer's box office with a bigger-than-expected opening, followed by stronger-than-expected legs leading to a gross towering over those of its rivals--has been much discussed in the press on account of the two films both being revivals of major '80s-era "feel good" hits with the kind of stars "Hollywood doesn't make anymore" that even seem comparable in getting a big screening at Cannes prior to their worldwide release.
There has, of course, been less comment, or even acknowledgment, of the undeniable differences in the circumstances of their release. The Rah-Rah attitude the media took toward Top Gun 2 meant that pretty much no one talked about the advantage it derived from having relatively little box office competition from other action-oriented blockbusters; or the Rah-Rah attitude itself, which is to say, the media's cheerleading for the movie.
It was always clear that Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny would not have such a clear run at the box office--the summer of 2023 packed with big movies (even if audience enthusiasm for the particular films may be shaky in this era of numerous aged, run-down franchises). Now, in the wake of the premiere at Cannes it seems clear that the movie will not have the media cheerleading for it. (Indiana Jones 5's Rotten Tomatoes was score was, in fact, "rotten"--a mere 50 percent as of Friday, as against the 77 percent that even the not-so-well-received Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull managed.)
This matters all the more because Indiana Jones 5 probably needed critical backing more than Top Gun 2 did. Certainly I remarked the headwinds facing that blockbuster--but I suppose my expectation was that the audience's reception would, if not positive, incline more toward disinterest than dislike. In the case of Indiana Jones 5 dislike seemed a real danger given the skepticism in many quarters about such a project from the start--with this exacerbated by the fact that, in contrast with the do-over of Top Gun that gave its target audience more of what it liked the first time, and was received by it as a "feel good" movie, Indiana Jones 5 looks like the opposite. Departing in significant ways from its predecessors (structurally, aesthetically, etc.), it would seem that those who had doubts about the necessity or desirability of a fifth film, made under Disney management, starring an octogenarian Harrison Ford, helmed by Logan director James Mangold, and costarring Phoebe Waller-Bridge, will, on reading the reviews available now at least, feel they were entirely right to be doubtful. Indeed, while the analogy that occurred to me a few days ago was between Indiana Jones 5 and Daniel Craig-era James Bond 5, No Time to Die, especially in the wake of some of what I have seen on the Internet, I would not rule out a The Last Jedi-level Internet backlash against the film--with all that implies for how the film will perform at the box office, and general feeling toward the individuals and firms involved.
There has, of course, been less comment, or even acknowledgment, of the undeniable differences in the circumstances of their release. The Rah-Rah attitude the media took toward Top Gun 2 meant that pretty much no one talked about the advantage it derived from having relatively little box office competition from other action-oriented blockbusters; or the Rah-Rah attitude itself, which is to say, the media's cheerleading for the movie.
It was always clear that Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny would not have such a clear run at the box office--the summer of 2023 packed with big movies (even if audience enthusiasm for the particular films may be shaky in this era of numerous aged, run-down franchises). Now, in the wake of the premiere at Cannes it seems clear that the movie will not have the media cheerleading for it. (Indiana Jones 5's Rotten Tomatoes was score was, in fact, "rotten"--a mere 50 percent as of Friday, as against the 77 percent that even the not-so-well-received Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull managed.)
This matters all the more because Indiana Jones 5 probably needed critical backing more than Top Gun 2 did. Certainly I remarked the headwinds facing that blockbuster--but I suppose my expectation was that the audience's reception would, if not positive, incline more toward disinterest than dislike. In the case of Indiana Jones 5 dislike seemed a real danger given the skepticism in many quarters about such a project from the start--with this exacerbated by the fact that, in contrast with the do-over of Top Gun that gave its target audience more of what it liked the first time, and was received by it as a "feel good" movie, Indiana Jones 5 looks like the opposite. Departing in significant ways from its predecessors (structurally, aesthetically, etc.), it would seem that those who had doubts about the necessity or desirability of a fifth film, made under Disney management, starring an octogenarian Harrison Ford, helmed by Logan director James Mangold, and costarring Phoebe Waller-Bridge, will, on reading the reviews available now at least, feel they were entirely right to be doubtful. Indeed, while the analogy that occurred to me a few days ago was between Indiana Jones 5 and Daniel Craig-era James Bond 5, No Time to Die, especially in the wake of some of what I have seen on the Internet, I would not rule out a The Last Jedi-level Internet backlash against the film--with all that implies for how the film will perform at the box office, and general feeling toward the individuals and firms involved.
Can the MCU Reverse the Erosion of its Audience?
Guardians of the Galaxy 3 had a disappointing opening weekend, but afterward had surprisingly strong holds for a blockbuster threequel (and still more, for a pandemic-era MCU release with a soft initial reception) given such films tendency to have their grosses very "front-loaded."
A plausible reading of the situation is that audiences coming to the movie are genuinely liking what they are seeing--maybe more than anything the MCU has offered them since Spider-Man: No Way Home (with this supported by the 94 percent audience score I see on Rotten Tomatoes).
Of course, the positive reaction goes only so far. Even at my most optimistic I see the film making a final sum closer to $800 million than $900 million--a far cry from the $1 billion+ Guardians of the Galaxy 2 earned in real terms, let alone the $1.2 billion Screen Rant anticipated for the film back in January, which would justify a view of the film as some proof that "The MCU is back!"*
All the same, this does raise the question of whether the MCU can reverse the evident erosion of its audience--and more importantly, do it with the existing slate of projects (as, should the movies already headed their way flop, they will make the task harder for its successors).
What are your thoughts, readers?
Screen Rant has since offered the more modest (but still bullish) prediction that the movie "could still grow its box office to at least $1 billion throughout the summer."
A plausible reading of the situation is that audiences coming to the movie are genuinely liking what they are seeing--maybe more than anything the MCU has offered them since Spider-Man: No Way Home (with this supported by the 94 percent audience score I see on Rotten Tomatoes).
Of course, the positive reaction goes only so far. Even at my most optimistic I see the film making a final sum closer to $800 million than $900 million--a far cry from the $1 billion+ Guardians of the Galaxy 2 earned in real terms, let alone the $1.2 billion Screen Rant anticipated for the film back in January, which would justify a view of the film as some proof that "The MCU is back!"*
All the same, this does raise the question of whether the MCU can reverse the evident erosion of its audience--and more importantly, do it with the existing slate of projects (as, should the movies already headed their way flop, they will make the task harder for its successors).
What are your thoughts, readers?
Screen Rant has since offered the more modest (but still bullish) prediction that the movie "could still grow its box office to at least $1 billion throughout the summer."
Can Guardians of the Galaxy 3 Still Break the Billion-Dollar Barrier This Summer?
Back in January Screen Rant offered the very bullish prediction that Guardians of the Galaxy 3 would gross $1.2 billion at the box office.
Of course, any such expectation has long since faded, and the web site now suggests instead that the movie might yet break the billion-dollar barrier, at best--which if not quite as good would leave it at least matching the gross of the preceding film in the series in real, inflation-adjusted terms, which is pretty good for a sequel, and especially an MCU movie these days (given their recent trend of sharply declining grosses).
At this point I have already ruled out what a while back looked like the worst-case scenario (an Ant-Man 3-like collapse for the film at the box office, leaving it with a take of under $600 million). But what about this best-case scenario?
Consider what it would require. Even with Guardians of the Galaxy 3 doing relatively better abroad than its predecessors (so far making not 55 but 60 percent of its money internationally) its getting to a $1 billion at this rate would require it to make over $400 million domestically. This would require it to make about three-and-a-half times what it did in its opening three days ($118 million) through the overall run. This would not require Top Gun-like legs, but still very strong legs indeed--considerably stronger than those which have already brought some relief to those hoping the movie would do well after a less-than-hoped-for opening weekend.
Should the film's grosses hold up as they have this past week from the prior week the movie would top out around $330 million--pretty well short of the mark, with even $350 million optimistic. The result is that, unless the overseas earnings get even stronger in some unforeseeable way (the movie came out pretty much everywhere in early May--China included--so no one's waiting on any big markets) this by itself suffices to make that performance unlikely. Indeed, as yet I think not just $1 billion but even $900 million likely to prove out of reach.
Of course, the upcoming Memorial Day weekend will tell us more about the prospects of this film--but I expect it to be more telling still about Fast X, and the weekend's near-certain winner by a long way, the live-action remake of the 1989 film that almost singlehandedly brought animation back to the top of the box office, The Little Mermaid.
Of course, any such expectation has long since faded, and the web site now suggests instead that the movie might yet break the billion-dollar barrier, at best--which if not quite as good would leave it at least matching the gross of the preceding film in the series in real, inflation-adjusted terms, which is pretty good for a sequel, and especially an MCU movie these days (given their recent trend of sharply declining grosses).
At this point I have already ruled out what a while back looked like the worst-case scenario (an Ant-Man 3-like collapse for the film at the box office, leaving it with a take of under $600 million). But what about this best-case scenario?
Consider what it would require. Even with Guardians of the Galaxy 3 doing relatively better abroad than its predecessors (so far making not 55 but 60 percent of its money internationally) its getting to a $1 billion at this rate would require it to make over $400 million domestically. This would require it to make about three-and-a-half times what it did in its opening three days ($118 million) through the overall run. This would not require Top Gun-like legs, but still very strong legs indeed--considerably stronger than those which have already brought some relief to those hoping the movie would do well after a less-than-hoped-for opening weekend.
Should the film's grosses hold up as they have this past week from the prior week the movie would top out around $330 million--pretty well short of the mark, with even $350 million optimistic. The result is that, unless the overseas earnings get even stronger in some unforeseeable way (the movie came out pretty much everywhere in early May--China included--so no one's waiting on any big markets) this by itself suffices to make that performance unlikely. Indeed, as yet I think not just $1 billion but even $900 million likely to prove out of reach.
Of course, the upcoming Memorial Day weekend will tell us more about the prospects of this film--but I expect it to be more telling still about Fast X, and the weekend's near-certain winner by a long way, the live-action remake of the 1989 film that almost singlehandedly brought animation back to the top of the box office, The Little Mermaid.
Guardians of the Galaxy 3: Revisiting the Ant-Man 3 Comparison
While the Marvel Cinematic Universe has, since the climax of Phase Three, seen a nearly unbroken series of disappointments in various degree, Ant-Man 3's underperformance was of particular concern. After all, the earlier installments in particular were released when the pandemic had the global box office way down from the historical norm--such that the meaning of the earnings of Black Widow, The Eternals and Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings was ambiguous, while Dr. Strange 2, if not all that had been hoped for given the groundwork laid by the colossally successful Spider-Man: No Way Home and its opening-of-the-summer release, still outdid the first Dr. Strange as it took in, if not a billion dollars, then also not so much less. Subsequently, if in current terms Thor 4 did poorly next to its predecessor Thor 3 (taking in $760 million, against the $854 million Thor 3 made in 2017, and the $1 billion+ it made in 2022 dollars) it was an exceptional fourth installment in its series; while Black Panther 2, if seeing a worse drop (Black Panther 2 made just half what the original did in real, inflation-adjusted terms) was a follow-up to a particularly colossal hit that was in some ways unrepeatable (as a "first" held to be of political significance), and suffered from the loss of the original's star.
There were no such excuses for Ant-Man 3, given a relatively easy February release (as compared with the summertime box office its two predecessors had to contend with), and boosted with the interest of its being the opening act of Phase Five, all as the preceding films did not raise the bar all that high (Ant-Man 2 taking in not much over $600 million globally). However, its real terms gross ended up over a third down from Ant-Man 3's none-too-stellar take ($476 million grossed to date, against the $740-$750 million Ant-Man 2 made in 2023 dollars).
All of this seemed to bode poorly for Guardians of the Galaxy 3, and indeed, after its opening weekend I speculated here about what Guardians would make if it followed an Ant-Man 3-like trajectory from that point on (producing estimates of a domestic gross under $250 million, and a global box office of possibly under $600 million).
As it happened, the films ended up performing very differently. Ant-Man 3 had what seemed a decent opening weekend domestically, and then saw its grosses fall hard (70 percent from the first weekend to the second), while its international gross suffered even worse. (In the end, in inflation-adjusted terms, Ant-Man 3 made about a sixth less domestically than Ant-Man 3, while its international gross fell almost half.) By contrast Guardians of the Galaxy 3 had a disappointing opening weekend, followed by surprisingly strong second and third weekend holds, quickly mooting the worst case scenario (the movie's domestic gross is already well past $250 million now); while in relative terms it did better overseas (producing a 60/40 international/domestic split, versus the 55/45 split seen with Guardians of the Galaxy 2).*
The strong legs in the domestic market, and the relatively robust international performance, will mean that Guardians of the Galaxy 3 will, gross-wise, hold up relatively better to the preceding film in its series than Ant-Man 3 did. Indeed, I suspect its final, inflation-adjusted gross will be a fifth or less down from what the second installment did (with this split a bit differently, the movie about three-tenths down in the domestic market, and just a tenth down internationally, from that mark).
Still, if this is grounds for a sigh of relief on the part of Guardians' backers (a gross of $800 million+ is a lot better than <$600 million), it confirms the general downward trend in the grosses, and profitability, of the MCU, which may be expected to continue rather than reverse (even as some films do better than others). This certainly seems the case with Captain Marvel 2, like Black Panther 2 a follow-up to a film whose success may be unrepeatable (as a politically significant "first," and having hit theaters mere weeks before the highly anticipated Avengers: Endgame), presaging a particularly severe drop, which may be worsened by the headwinds it faces (which I have written enough about previously to not bother belaboring here)--such that I would think it lucky to do as well as Guardians, with all that implies for the MCU's fortunes.
* The 12 days following Ant-Man 3's opening weekend saw it boost its initial three-day gross a mere 76 percent in the domestic market (from $106 to $187 million). By contrast Guardians of the Galaxy 3 increased its gross over its opening weekend take by a much better 125 percent over the same period (from $118 to $267 million, already beating out Ant-Man 3's final domestic take by $50 million, with a good deal more to come).
There were no such excuses for Ant-Man 3, given a relatively easy February release (as compared with the summertime box office its two predecessors had to contend with), and boosted with the interest of its being the opening act of Phase Five, all as the preceding films did not raise the bar all that high (Ant-Man 2 taking in not much over $600 million globally). However, its real terms gross ended up over a third down from Ant-Man 3's none-too-stellar take ($476 million grossed to date, against the $740-$750 million Ant-Man 2 made in 2023 dollars).
All of this seemed to bode poorly for Guardians of the Galaxy 3, and indeed, after its opening weekend I speculated here about what Guardians would make if it followed an Ant-Man 3-like trajectory from that point on (producing estimates of a domestic gross under $250 million, and a global box office of possibly under $600 million).
As it happened, the films ended up performing very differently. Ant-Man 3 had what seemed a decent opening weekend domestically, and then saw its grosses fall hard (70 percent from the first weekend to the second), while its international gross suffered even worse. (In the end, in inflation-adjusted terms, Ant-Man 3 made about a sixth less domestically than Ant-Man 3, while its international gross fell almost half.) By contrast Guardians of the Galaxy 3 had a disappointing opening weekend, followed by surprisingly strong second and third weekend holds, quickly mooting the worst case scenario (the movie's domestic gross is already well past $250 million now); while in relative terms it did better overseas (producing a 60/40 international/domestic split, versus the 55/45 split seen with Guardians of the Galaxy 2).*
The strong legs in the domestic market, and the relatively robust international performance, will mean that Guardians of the Galaxy 3 will, gross-wise, hold up relatively better to the preceding film in its series than Ant-Man 3 did. Indeed, I suspect its final, inflation-adjusted gross will be a fifth or less down from what the second installment did (with this split a bit differently, the movie about three-tenths down in the domestic market, and just a tenth down internationally, from that mark).
Still, if this is grounds for a sigh of relief on the part of Guardians' backers (a gross of $800 million+ is a lot better than <$600 million), it confirms the general downward trend in the grosses, and profitability, of the MCU, which may be expected to continue rather than reverse (even as some films do better than others). This certainly seems the case with Captain Marvel 2, like Black Panther 2 a follow-up to a film whose success may be unrepeatable (as a politically significant "first," and having hit theaters mere weeks before the highly anticipated Avengers: Endgame), presaging a particularly severe drop, which may be worsened by the headwinds it faces (which I have written enough about previously to not bother belaboring here)--such that I would think it lucky to do as well as Guardians, with all that implies for the MCU's fortunes.
* The 12 days following Ant-Man 3's opening weekend saw it boost its initial three-day gross a mere 76 percent in the domestic market (from $106 to $187 million). By contrast Guardians of the Galaxy 3 increased its gross over its opening weekend take by a much better 125 percent over the same period (from $118 to $267 million, already beating out Ant-Man 3's final domestic take by $50 million, with a good deal more to come).
Sunday, May 21, 2023
Guardians of the Galaxy 3's Third Weekend: How Did it Do at the Box Office? (Oh, and What About That Fast X?)
Guardians of the Galaxy 3's third weekend performance has been in line with last week's predictions--another good hold enabling the movie to take in another $30 million at the domestic box office, raising its total here to $267 million. Meanwhile the movie's global gross is about $659 million according to the current estimate.
Thus the pattern evident last week remains evident now: after what seemed to many a weak opening, reasonably strong legs that compensated for it at home, while relative to the past films in the series Guardians of the Galaxy 3 has benefited from a slightly higher intake of money internationally (more like 60 percent than 55-57 percent of its money coming from foreign markets thus far).
At this point the movie is all but certain to finish up north of $300 million domestically, and $700 million globally--and north even of the $750 million I had thought it would not get much past. Indeed, my prior prediction of something around $330 million domestically and $825 million globally still seems to me reasonably optimistic.
A pleasant surprise after the plummeting expectations in the weeks preceding the movie's release, and the opening weekend (which had me speculating about Ant-Man 3-based worst-case scenarios of a sub-$600 million global take, now quite moot) what I said earlier about that performance also seems true. If a better outcome relative to its predecessors than other recent Marvel releases have seen it is still something of a comedown from the last two, especially when we adjust the figures for inflation--the two Guardians of the Galaxy films $1 billion hits in 2023 dollars, a mark of which its 2023 follow-up will almost certainly fall well short. Accordingly those hoping to see the Marvel Cinematic Universe collapse at the box office may not be able to gloat the way they might have thought a couple of weeks ago--but at the same time the mega-franchise's backers and supporters are reminded that they have no grounds for complacency, that profits are falling for a now aging franchise showing signs of weariness, even as, with Phase Five less than inspiring, the studio management cries "To Phase Six. And beyond!"
The story does not seem dissimilar for Fast X. The movie took in $67 million at the North American box office--near the upper end of the range predicted for it, but no better than that--while doing better overseas, with an impressive $320 million gross. Thus far I see no reason to change my prediction (a North American take in the $160-$175 million range, a global take in the vicinity of $800 million).
Meanwhile The Super Mario Bros. Movie, which on top of an extraordinary debut ($225 million racked up in its first six days) has shown extraordinary staying power at the box office, has continued to do so by taking in another $10 million to remain at #3 in its seventh weekend--confirming the expectations that this will be Chris Pratt's highest-grossing movie this year, and likely exceed the earnings of any live-action movie this year (with, in the wake of Indiana Jones 5's always uncertain and perhaps dimming prospects, a real possibility that none of these will break the $1 billion barrier Mario and friends broke so easily and quickly).
Thus the pattern evident last week remains evident now: after what seemed to many a weak opening, reasonably strong legs that compensated for it at home, while relative to the past films in the series Guardians of the Galaxy 3 has benefited from a slightly higher intake of money internationally (more like 60 percent than 55-57 percent of its money coming from foreign markets thus far).
At this point the movie is all but certain to finish up north of $300 million domestically, and $700 million globally--and north even of the $750 million I had thought it would not get much past. Indeed, my prior prediction of something around $330 million domestically and $825 million globally still seems to me reasonably optimistic.
A pleasant surprise after the plummeting expectations in the weeks preceding the movie's release, and the opening weekend (which had me speculating about Ant-Man 3-based worst-case scenarios of a sub-$600 million global take, now quite moot) what I said earlier about that performance also seems true. If a better outcome relative to its predecessors than other recent Marvel releases have seen it is still something of a comedown from the last two, especially when we adjust the figures for inflation--the two Guardians of the Galaxy films $1 billion hits in 2023 dollars, a mark of which its 2023 follow-up will almost certainly fall well short. Accordingly those hoping to see the Marvel Cinematic Universe collapse at the box office may not be able to gloat the way they might have thought a couple of weeks ago--but at the same time the mega-franchise's backers and supporters are reminded that they have no grounds for complacency, that profits are falling for a now aging franchise showing signs of weariness, even as, with Phase Five less than inspiring, the studio management cries "To Phase Six. And beyond!"
The story does not seem dissimilar for Fast X. The movie took in $67 million at the North American box office--near the upper end of the range predicted for it, but no better than that--while doing better overseas, with an impressive $320 million gross. Thus far I see no reason to change my prediction (a North American take in the $160-$175 million range, a global take in the vicinity of $800 million).
Meanwhile The Super Mario Bros. Movie, which on top of an extraordinary debut ($225 million racked up in its first six days) has shown extraordinary staying power at the box office, has continued to do so by taking in another $10 million to remain at #3 in its seventh weekend--confirming the expectations that this will be Chris Pratt's highest-grossing movie this year, and likely exceed the earnings of any live-action movie this year (with, in the wake of Indiana Jones 5's always uncertain and perhaps dimming prospects, a real possibility that none of these will break the $1 billion barrier Mario and friends broke so easily and quickly).
Saturday, May 20, 2023
Is Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny Going to Be the No Time to Die of the Indiana Jones Series?
The kind of adventure Indiana Jones represented when he first appeared, was, like Star Wars, a throwback to adventure serials and World War II movies in a time when people who grew up on the stuff were a significant demographic--and imbued with a nostalgia for that content as strong as the nostalgia for the '50s, the '60s, the '70s, the '80s were to be in later decades. (Certainly reading through the classics of spy fiction I was struck again and again by how much World War II stuff we got in the 1970s.)
There was less of that about in subsequent decades, in which Indiana Jones-type period adventure looked more anomalous--in part because the fashion for such adventure Indiana Jones started proved a lot less durable than the fashionability for outer space and sci-fi action-adventure Star Wars started (which has since had ups and downs, but never really disappeared), while in 1989 the heroes literally riding off into the sunset, such that Indy was no longer around to keep propping it up the way new Star Wars films have. Indeed, anyone much under forty is unlikely to have seen more than one Indiana Jones film in the theater, if that, with that particular film unprepossessing. (It does not seem irrelevant here that the young are especially tough sells on period pieces these days.)
None of that takes anything away from the status of the prior Indiana Jones films, and especially the first three, as classics of the action-adventure form that did much to establish the genre as we know it, and continue to enjoy a good deal of affection from fans. But as the James Bond films that were a significant inspiration for Indiana Jones demonstrate, past glories of this kind are a poor basis indeed for keeping a franchise going from hit to hit, and it is not for nothing that doubts abound about how the audience will take this latest installment in the franchise. Indeed, it seems possible that Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny will be to the saga what No Time to Die has been to the rebooted James Bond film--a belated fifth installment by a new director that closed the saga on a less than triumphant note from the perspectives of box office, critics and fans alike, as the demographics of the audience affirm that the long-declining franchise's audience has aged right along with it rather than replenishing itself by winning new fans.
There was less of that about in subsequent decades, in which Indiana Jones-type period adventure looked more anomalous--in part because the fashion for such adventure Indiana Jones started proved a lot less durable than the fashionability for outer space and sci-fi action-adventure Star Wars started (which has since had ups and downs, but never really disappeared), while in 1989 the heroes literally riding off into the sunset, such that Indy was no longer around to keep propping it up the way new Star Wars films have. Indeed, anyone much under forty is unlikely to have seen more than one Indiana Jones film in the theater, if that, with that particular film unprepossessing. (It does not seem irrelevant here that the young are especially tough sells on period pieces these days.)
None of that takes anything away from the status of the prior Indiana Jones films, and especially the first three, as classics of the action-adventure form that did much to establish the genre as we know it, and continue to enjoy a good deal of affection from fans. But as the James Bond films that were a significant inspiration for Indiana Jones demonstrate, past glories of this kind are a poor basis indeed for keeping a franchise going from hit to hit, and it is not for nothing that doubts abound about how the audience will take this latest installment in the franchise. Indeed, it seems possible that Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny will be to the saga what No Time to Die has been to the rebooted James Bond film--a belated fifth installment by a new director that closed the saga on a less than triumphant note from the perspectives of box office, critics and fans alike, as the demographics of the audience affirm that the long-declining franchise's audience has aged right along with it rather than replenishing itself by winning new fans.
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny's Cannes Debut (Need We Revise the Box Office Prediction for Indiana Jones 5?)
These past few days I have had (as writer about this summer's films for this blog, at least) my attention on Guardians of the Galaxy 3's third weekend, Fast X's debut, and the Boxoffice Pro forecast for The Flash.
Indiana Jones 5's Cannes world premiere slipped my mind.
But it did happen. And the first reviews are out.
When I made my prediction for how Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (aka Indiana Jones 5) would do at the box office I went by what the prior films in the series made, the downward trend in their domestic grosses, the proportion of domestic to foreign gross. On that basis I anticipated a domestic gross of perhaps $400 million, matched by another $600 million internationally for a $1 billion take. This was about a fifth down from the series' peak with Raiders of the Lost Ark, so I set that movie's gross (about $1.25 billion in today's terms) as an upper end to the plausible range, and going by the same "margin of error," suggested $750 million as the range's bottom end
I also guessed that the movie's making under $1 billion was more likely than its making more than $1 billion because the film seemed to face a lot of headwinds (as an aged franchise with an aged audience that may be a tough sell to younger folks less attached to it and leerier of period pieces; cynicism about a fifth Jones film, a new director, Lucasfilm under Disney management; unattraction to the particular choice of theme, setting, personnel attached, be it having the director of Logan do the movie, or including Phoebe Waller-Bridge; etc.). Indeed, the film had enough against it that I did not rule out a Solo-like collapse (you know, what happened the last time a character Harrison Ford played in earlier years had a Lucasfilm adventure with Ms. Waller-Bridge).
Considering all this it seems worth returning to the point of comparison that Top Gun 2 has been for many of the more optimistic watchers of this film's prospects. While so far as I can tell the entertainment press prefers to ignore the fact in favor of a Rah-rah attitude toward the Top Gun sequel's success at the American box office, that movie succeeded as well as it did because it had comparatively slight box office competition in the summer of 2022; and the cheerleading of that media behind it.
Indiana Jones 5, like every other movie out this summer, was never going to have the kind of comparatively open field Top Gun 2 did. Now we also see that it does not have the press cheerleading for it. The movie's Rotten Tomatoes scores stands at a franchise low--very low--50 percent, a fact which seems the more ominous given that this was a movie that, given its shaky appeal, really needed that; and that, certainly to go by what I saw for the immediately preceding film in the series Indiana Jones 4 (the critics' score was a "fresh" 77 percent, the audience score a "rotten" 53 percent), the critics may be far kinder to the film than the general public.
Moreover, the specific remarks the critics offer regarding the film in many cases specifically confirm what many feared about the movie--that it is an unnecessary and mediocre, "box-ticking" addition to the saga, heavily reliant on the audience's fondness for its predecessors, even as it misses what people actually love about them, and even undermines them in what Nicholas Barber's review for the BBC called not just a movie that feels like "fan fiction [or] a tie-in video game," but a "gloomy and depressing" close to the series. (I might add that just as Mr. Barber's remarks would seem to confirm those who were skeptical of the director of Logan doing a movie about Indiana Jones in old age, those who groaned at the thought of Phoebe Waller-Bridge's involvement in the project are also likely to feel they were right to do so.)
So yes: even if some would still have us believe Indy's next adventure could play like Top Gun 2, if I was thinking $750 million-$1 billion was more likely than $1 billion+ back at the start of April (with Solo-like collapse, if not likely not wholly ruled out) my assessment leans still more heavily in that direction (as I upgrade even the prospect of Solo-like collapse, still unlikely, but less unlikely-looking than before these reports).
And I am not expecting that to change--at least, in the upward direction.
Still, we will see what Boxoffice Pro has to say about the opening weekend in response to the first evidence of the public's actual willingness to buy a ticket.
Indiana Jones 5's Cannes world premiere slipped my mind.
But it did happen. And the first reviews are out.
When I made my prediction for how Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (aka Indiana Jones 5) would do at the box office I went by what the prior films in the series made, the downward trend in their domestic grosses, the proportion of domestic to foreign gross. On that basis I anticipated a domestic gross of perhaps $400 million, matched by another $600 million internationally for a $1 billion take. This was about a fifth down from the series' peak with Raiders of the Lost Ark, so I set that movie's gross (about $1.25 billion in today's terms) as an upper end to the plausible range, and going by the same "margin of error," suggested $750 million as the range's bottom end
I also guessed that the movie's making under $1 billion was more likely than its making more than $1 billion because the film seemed to face a lot of headwinds (as an aged franchise with an aged audience that may be a tough sell to younger folks less attached to it and leerier of period pieces; cynicism about a fifth Jones film, a new director, Lucasfilm under Disney management; unattraction to the particular choice of theme, setting, personnel attached, be it having the director of Logan do the movie, or including Phoebe Waller-Bridge; etc.). Indeed, the film had enough against it that I did not rule out a Solo-like collapse (you know, what happened the last time a character Harrison Ford played in earlier years had a Lucasfilm adventure with Ms. Waller-Bridge).
Considering all this it seems worth returning to the point of comparison that Top Gun 2 has been for many of the more optimistic watchers of this film's prospects. While so far as I can tell the entertainment press prefers to ignore the fact in favor of a Rah-rah attitude toward the Top Gun sequel's success at the American box office, that movie succeeded as well as it did because it had comparatively slight box office competition in the summer of 2022; and the cheerleading of that media behind it.
Indiana Jones 5, like every other movie out this summer, was never going to have the kind of comparatively open field Top Gun 2 did. Now we also see that it does not have the press cheerleading for it. The movie's Rotten Tomatoes scores stands at a franchise low--very low--50 percent, a fact which seems the more ominous given that this was a movie that, given its shaky appeal, really needed that; and that, certainly to go by what I saw for the immediately preceding film in the series Indiana Jones 4 (the critics' score was a "fresh" 77 percent, the audience score a "rotten" 53 percent), the critics may be far kinder to the film than the general public.
Moreover, the specific remarks the critics offer regarding the film in many cases specifically confirm what many feared about the movie--that it is an unnecessary and mediocre, "box-ticking" addition to the saga, heavily reliant on the audience's fondness for its predecessors, even as it misses what people actually love about them, and even undermines them in what Nicholas Barber's review for the BBC called not just a movie that feels like "fan fiction [or] a tie-in video game," but a "gloomy and depressing" close to the series. (I might add that just as Mr. Barber's remarks would seem to confirm those who were skeptical of the director of Logan doing a movie about Indiana Jones in old age, those who groaned at the thought of Phoebe Waller-Bridge's involvement in the project are also likely to feel they were right to do so.)
So yes: even if some would still have us believe Indy's next adventure could play like Top Gun 2, if I was thinking $750 million-$1 billion was more likely than $1 billion+ back at the start of April (with Solo-like collapse, if not likely not wholly ruled out) my assessment leans still more heavily in that direction (as I upgrade even the prospect of Solo-like collapse, still unlikely, but less unlikely-looking than before these reports).
And I am not expecting that to change--at least, in the upward direction.
Still, we will see what Boxoffice Pro has to say about the opening weekend in response to the first evidence of the public's actual willingness to buy a ticket.
Thursday, May 18, 2023
Will Guardians of the Galaxy 3's Legs Hold Up? (A Box Office Prediction About Guardians of the Galaxy 3's Third Weekend--and Fast X's First)
After a disappointing debut Guardians of the Galaxy 3 had a better than expected second weekend--its gross over the weekend sliding, at last calculation, just under 48 percent from the level of the previous weekend (as against the 67-70 percent drops in first-to-second weekend gross that the last three Marvel Cinematic Universe sequels had seen). The general expectation seems to be that this pattern will continue to hold, with Boxoffice Pro anticipating a $30 million+ third weekend that will raise Guardians of the Galaxy's take to over $267 million.
Assuming this to be the case, what would it mean for the film's overall performance? Let us consider not merely weekends, but weeks. In its first Monday-to-Sunday period after the first weekend, which gave the film its better than expected gross of $215 million as of last Sunday, the film took in about $96.3 million. Boxoffice Pro's anticipation suggests a $52.8 million take in the following seven day period, a mere 45 percent drop. Assuming the 45 percent week-on-week drops continue (so that at the end of the fourth weekend the movie has $297 million in the till, $313 million at the end of the fifth, etc.) the film will top out in the vicinity of $330 million domestically.
Where the global situation is concerned the calculation is trickier. Still, the film's earnings have been a bit more robust than usual overseas. Where the prior two Guardians films made 22-33 percent more internationally than they did at home the recent film, to date, has been making more like 50 percent more. Assuming that holds up the film's international take could be in the vicinity of $495 million. Added to the domestic gross that works out to a global take of some $825 million.
These assumptions are not without their element of optimism. (For all we know the bump the film had the second weekend might not last, the grosses eroding more quickly from here on out.) But they are still within the $700-$875 million range discussed here as plausible last week (indeed, near the middle of that range).
Expect the press to make the most of the $800 million+ gross should it happen, comparing it favorably with the grosses of the prior two films--though the reality would be more mixed. Today's prices are not those of 2013, or even 2017, and in real terms an $825 million take, or even an $875 million take, would leave the movie the lowest grossing of the trilogy by a not insignificant margin (the original Guardians made a little under a billion in today's terms, Guardians 2 over a billion), and it does not do to gloss over the fact. However, it would constitute a more modest drop from the gross of the prior film than has been seen for other Marvel movies (a drop of perhaps a fifth, as against the quarter-drop Thor 4 suffered, the over one-third drop suffered by Ant-Man 3, the drop in real gross of about half suffered by Black Panther 2).
Considering this it seems worth noting the possible implications for the next really major summer movie, Fast X. The Boxoffice Pro prediction regarding the film has broadened--with the floor now lowered to $58 million. Suggestive of a final North American take that may be under $150 million, the more in as the chances of its surprising everyone with even Guardians of the Galaxy-like legs are not great (a "leggy run" is by definition a rarity, and by its third weekend the competition will be thickening, with the most anticipated movie of the summer, the next animated Spider-Man, hitting theaters then), the film is admittedly expected to make three to four times as much overseas. Still, this would easily leave it under the $800 million mark--while the production budget has been reported as high as $340 million (which is to say, almost a $100 million more than a Guardians of the Galaxy movie expected to make at least as much). We now hear that Fast and Furious 11 is due out in 2025--but, barring the greatest studio bull-headedness about sticking to franchises even after they have ceased to pay, that combination of falling grosses and rising costs seems bound to have consequences for those plans.
Assuming this to be the case, what would it mean for the film's overall performance? Let us consider not merely weekends, but weeks. In its first Monday-to-Sunday period after the first weekend, which gave the film its better than expected gross of $215 million as of last Sunday, the film took in about $96.3 million. Boxoffice Pro's anticipation suggests a $52.8 million take in the following seven day period, a mere 45 percent drop. Assuming the 45 percent week-on-week drops continue (so that at the end of the fourth weekend the movie has $297 million in the till, $313 million at the end of the fifth, etc.) the film will top out in the vicinity of $330 million domestically.
Where the global situation is concerned the calculation is trickier. Still, the film's earnings have been a bit more robust than usual overseas. Where the prior two Guardians films made 22-33 percent more internationally than they did at home the recent film, to date, has been making more like 50 percent more. Assuming that holds up the film's international take could be in the vicinity of $495 million. Added to the domestic gross that works out to a global take of some $825 million.
These assumptions are not without their element of optimism. (For all we know the bump the film had the second weekend might not last, the grosses eroding more quickly from here on out.) But they are still within the $700-$875 million range discussed here as plausible last week (indeed, near the middle of that range).
Expect the press to make the most of the $800 million+ gross should it happen, comparing it favorably with the grosses of the prior two films--though the reality would be more mixed. Today's prices are not those of 2013, or even 2017, and in real terms an $825 million take, or even an $875 million take, would leave the movie the lowest grossing of the trilogy by a not insignificant margin (the original Guardians made a little under a billion in today's terms, Guardians 2 over a billion), and it does not do to gloss over the fact. However, it would constitute a more modest drop from the gross of the prior film than has been seen for other Marvel movies (a drop of perhaps a fifth, as against the quarter-drop Thor 4 suffered, the over one-third drop suffered by Ant-Man 3, the drop in real gross of about half suffered by Black Panther 2).
Considering this it seems worth noting the possible implications for the next really major summer movie, Fast X. The Boxoffice Pro prediction regarding the film has broadened--with the floor now lowered to $58 million. Suggestive of a final North American take that may be under $150 million, the more in as the chances of its surprising everyone with even Guardians of the Galaxy-like legs are not great (a "leggy run" is by definition a rarity, and by its third weekend the competition will be thickening, with the most anticipated movie of the summer, the next animated Spider-Man, hitting theaters then), the film is admittedly expected to make three to four times as much overseas. Still, this would easily leave it under the $800 million mark--while the production budget has been reported as high as $340 million (which is to say, almost a $100 million more than a Guardians of the Galaxy movie expected to make at least as much). We now hear that Fast and Furious 11 is due out in 2025--but, barring the greatest studio bull-headedness about sticking to franchises even after they have ceased to pay, that combination of falling grosses and rising costs seems bound to have consequences for those plans.
Sunday, May 14, 2023
Guardians of the Galaxy 3: How Did the Movie Do in its Second Weekend? (Testing the Predictions)
Last week Guardians of the Galaxy 3 made its debut at the box office. Even after a slight upward revision it was a weak gross compared with preceding entries in the series ($118 million, versus the $147 million with which its predecessor debuted, and the $180 million it would equal in 2023 dollars). Indeed, not much higher than what Ant-Man 3 made in its opening weekend ($106 million over the equivalent three-day period, as part of a four day weekend that saw it take in $120 million), the precedent of Ant-Man 3, and the preceding two Marvel movies (Thor 4 and Black Panther 2), suggested not only a disappointing opening weekend, but weak legs--with the second weekend seeing a gross some 67-70 percent down from that of the first. Meanwhile even a better hold (which Boxoffice Pro predicted) seemed unlikely to be much better than what the earlier, initially more warmly received, Guardians of the Galaxy 2 did (a 56 percent or so drop). Taking these two possibilities as establishing the range, and extrapolating from the opening weekend numbers on those terms, it seemed to me the second weekend would see a gross of $35-$50 million, with my expectation, given how things have been going for Marvel, inclining toward the low end of the range (under $40 million).
Looking at the movie's grosses on the days of the following week I found myself starting to rethink that, the movie holding up rather better than Ant-Man 3 in the post-Sunday period, and giving the impression that it would extend its lead. (After its first four days Guardians of the Galaxy was running 6 percent ahead of Ant-Man 3--with $127 million to $120 million. But after seven days its gross was running almost 13 percent ahead, with $152 million banked to its $135 million.) But I let my prediction stand--and still thought that if the movie now looked likely to make over $40 million it would not shift the result upward very much, never mind shift the range.
Instead what happened is that the drop (better than that for any of the other eleven Marvel Cinematic Universe movie (MCU) released since the pandemic) was under 50 percent as it made not forty, not fifty, but sixty million.
It seems that Star-Lord and company, if starting out with what looked like a bust (a third down from what Guardians of the Galaxy 2 scored in the exact same time frame, in real terms), has been partly compensated by a better than expected week after. Much will depend on whether this pattern continues. But at this stage of things the worst-case scenario I had in mind (an Ant-Man 3-like collapse after the first weekend, leaving the movie with $240 million or so banked stateside) no longer seems worth considering. Indeed, even if the movie were after this point to follow Ant-Man 3's pattern of rapid decay (which is to say, that it had 78 percent of its gross banked in the first ten days, with just that last little bit left to go) the movie would end up with something on the order of $270 million. And it would not take very much better for it to cross the $300 million line.
The result is that, as earlier anticipated by most analysts, $300-$400 million is the range in which the film is likely to finish domestically. For the time being, however, I still anticipate that the gross will be closer to the low end of the range. (Guardians of the Galaxy 2 made 64 percent of its money in its first ten days. The same would still give Guardians 3 $330 million.)
Meanwhile the overseas hold has been similarly decent--the film collecting a respectable $92 million abroad, bringing the global total for the first ten days to $528 million. Implying a rough 40/60 split between the domestic and foreign earnings, this more or less continues the pattern from last week, which suggested (in the reverse of what happened with Ant-Man 3) that the movie's overseas earnings were holding up better than its domestic earnings relative to its predecessor. Assuming that this remains the case, with a Guardians gross in the $300-$350 million range domestically, one would end up with $750-$875 million collected worldwide.
The low end of the range is not much better than the estimates made in line with the real terms decline of Marvel's movies (I estimated $700-$750 million in the weeks leading up to the movie's release). Meanwhile the high end of the range--if a good deal better than the pessimistic speculations we saw as the opening weekend expectations plummeted, and the first weekend did indeed prove a disappointment--does not change the fundamental situation. Even the $875 million still leaves the movie not only not the "big finish" some said it would be, but the lowest performer in the trilogy by a good way when we adjust for inflation, and by the same token, well short of that billion in current dollars mark of which so much is made. All of this would seem to affirm the view of the MCU as a franchise in decline--if a slower, less catastrophic decline than some had it (or hoped).
Looking at the movie's grosses on the days of the following week I found myself starting to rethink that, the movie holding up rather better than Ant-Man 3 in the post-Sunday period, and giving the impression that it would extend its lead. (After its first four days Guardians of the Galaxy was running 6 percent ahead of Ant-Man 3--with $127 million to $120 million. But after seven days its gross was running almost 13 percent ahead, with $152 million banked to its $135 million.) But I let my prediction stand--and still thought that if the movie now looked likely to make over $40 million it would not shift the result upward very much, never mind shift the range.
Instead what happened is that the drop (better than that for any of the other eleven Marvel Cinematic Universe movie (MCU) released since the pandemic) was under 50 percent as it made not forty, not fifty, but sixty million.
It seems that Star-Lord and company, if starting out with what looked like a bust (a third down from what Guardians of the Galaxy 2 scored in the exact same time frame, in real terms), has been partly compensated by a better than expected week after. Much will depend on whether this pattern continues. But at this stage of things the worst-case scenario I had in mind (an Ant-Man 3-like collapse after the first weekend, leaving the movie with $240 million or so banked stateside) no longer seems worth considering. Indeed, even if the movie were after this point to follow Ant-Man 3's pattern of rapid decay (which is to say, that it had 78 percent of its gross banked in the first ten days, with just that last little bit left to go) the movie would end up with something on the order of $270 million. And it would not take very much better for it to cross the $300 million line.
The result is that, as earlier anticipated by most analysts, $300-$400 million is the range in which the film is likely to finish domestically. For the time being, however, I still anticipate that the gross will be closer to the low end of the range. (Guardians of the Galaxy 2 made 64 percent of its money in its first ten days. The same would still give Guardians 3 $330 million.)
Meanwhile the overseas hold has been similarly decent--the film collecting a respectable $92 million abroad, bringing the global total for the first ten days to $528 million. Implying a rough 40/60 split between the domestic and foreign earnings, this more or less continues the pattern from last week, which suggested (in the reverse of what happened with Ant-Man 3) that the movie's overseas earnings were holding up better than its domestic earnings relative to its predecessor. Assuming that this remains the case, with a Guardians gross in the $300-$350 million range domestically, one would end up with $750-$875 million collected worldwide.
The low end of the range is not much better than the estimates made in line with the real terms decline of Marvel's movies (I estimated $700-$750 million in the weeks leading up to the movie's release). Meanwhile the high end of the range--if a good deal better than the pessimistic speculations we saw as the opening weekend expectations plummeted, and the first weekend did indeed prove a disappointment--does not change the fundamental situation. Even the $875 million still leaves the movie not only not the "big finish" some said it would be, but the lowest performer in the trilogy by a good way when we adjust for inflation, and by the same token, well short of that billion in current dollars mark of which so much is made. All of this would seem to affirm the view of the MCU as a franchise in decline--if a slower, less catastrophic decline than some had it (or hoped).
Transformers 6 aka Transformers 7 aka Transformers: Rise of the Beasts: The Opening Weekend and Overall Box Office Gross (A Box Office Prediction)
The curiosity about how upcoming films will do financially is, of course, largely centered on the biggest blockbusters, particularly those where a fandom has become impassioned by controversy--with Disney's productions, especially its Lucasfilm and Marvel superhero productions, far and away at the top of the list of objects of such argument.
Still, that is far from the entirety of what this summer is offering theatergoers, even when one just thinks in terms of the biggest action-adventure franchises. After all, this year brings new installments in sagas like Mission: Impossible, the Fast and Furious, and the Transformers, with Transformers: Rise of the Beasts coming to theaters in June.
In discussing this last one let us first acknowledge the fact that the first film in the Transformers sequence appeared sixteen years ago, and was followed by four more "main line" films within the next decade, and a spin-off the following year. Moreover, far from going from strength to strength the way that, for example, the Fast and Furious franchise did in its fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh entries (the 2015 movie a near $2 billion hit in today's terms) before its more recent decline set in, the Transformers franchise peaked early. Transformers 2 was the biggest hit domestically--its $400 million gross in 2009 equaling about $550 million today--after which there was erosion (Transformers 3 did all right), followed by something more like collapse (with Transformers 5 making perhaps $155 million in the same, inflation-adjusted terms, just a little over a quarter of what Transformers 2 managed). This was for a time compensated by burgeoning overseas earnings, which made Transformers 3 globally an even bigger hit than Transformers 2 had been (a billion-dollar movie in current dollars, a $1.4 billion hit in today's terms), while an even better overseas take went a long way to offsetting Transformers 4's weaker performance in its home market (so that globally it came close to $1.4 billion). But even the foreign markets did not save Transformers 5, which abroad made about half of what Transformers 3 and 4 did. Meanwhile the spin-off Bumblebee--a prequel to the series--made only Transformers 5 money domestically, and less than that internationally. (With a global take of under a half billion in current dollars, and not quite $550 million in 2022 dollars, globally it made just a quarter of what Transformers 2 did in American theaters, and about forty percent of what Transformers 3 and 4 did elsewhere.)
Transformers Film Grosses, Worldwide and Domestic (Current and 2022 U.S. Dollars, CPI-Adjusted; Adjusted Figures in Parentheses)
Transformers (2007)--Worldwide--$710 Million ($1 Billion); Domestic--$319 Million ($450 Million)
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)--Worldwide--$836 Million ($1.14 Billion); Domestic--$402 Million ($549 Million)
Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)--Worldwide--$1.1 Billion ($1.44 Billion); Domestic--$352 Million ($458 Million)
Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014)--Worldwide--$1.1 Billion ($1.37 Billion); Domestic--$245 Million ($303 Million)
Transformers: The Last Knight (2017)--Worldwide--$605 Million ($722 Million); Domestic--$130 Million ($155 Million)
Bumblebee (2018)--Worldwide--$468 Million ($545 Million); Domestic--$127 Million ($148 Million)
None of this looks very promising for what people are calling "Transformers 6," or "Transformers 7" (depending on whether or not Bumblebee already has the distinction of being #6), which is yet another prequel to the 2007 film (so Transformers 6/Transformers 7 is also Bumblebee 2?)--making it seem less promising still. After all, not only does the franchise seem to be in a state of advanced decline, but the studio has followed up a less than spectacularly successful take on the material with more of the same--with a continuation along the lines of period prequel (such that where the 2007 Transformers exploited nostalgia for the '80s cartoon and toys, they now seem to be exploiting nostalgia for the nostalgia), while raising the stakes. Bumblebee was apparently intended as a "smaller" film, with a more modest (circa $100 million) budget and a Christmastime release, which seems to have boosted a film less than highly anticipated by allowing it to at least have "legs" that carried it from a mere $34 million five-day weekend release gross to a $127 million total domestically (in spite of which it was not to be seen in Deadline's list of the year's more profitable films). By contrast Rise of the Beasts is reportedly a $200 million production put out in the thick of summer--and so that much bigger a gamble.
According to Boxoffice Pro's report yesterday that gamble is not looking like a very good one--the publication's tracking suggesting a $30-$40 million opening weekend on the way to a front-loaded gross of two to at best three times that, likely failing to break the $100 million barrier, with the range they foresee $60-$90 million.
In other words, "Bumblebee 2" can be expected to do much less well than "Bumblebee 1"--which was already, by a significant margin, the weakest performer in the franchise to date.
I see little room for argument with the estimate--in part because it is pretty close to impossible for a big franchise movie to go any lower than that, but also in part because I do not know any grounds for thinking it will go higher (not least, given the long decay of the franchise's grosses I have just discussed).
Of course, as already acknowledged the films have already been increasingly reliant on overseas earnings, such that one might anticipate their finding some succor here. But even were the film to have, relatively speaking, as good an international performance as any of the Transformers films to date--like #5, quadrupling its domestic earnings internationally--the result would only be a worldwide take of $300 million-$450 million (even at the high end, no more than the first three films made in North America alone). At the low end . . . well, a movie can make $300 million domestically and still be considered a disappointment.
Given the combination of earnings now thought plausible with the massive outlay the movie could easily make Ant-Man 3 look like a brilliant success by comparison, while being far less explicable as a decision. Ant-Man 3, after all, was planned at an earlier date when Marvel was the undisputed champion of the box office (way back in the fall of 2019, apparently, just after Avengers: Endgame was being touted as the highest-grossing movie in history), and the decision to use it as the launch pad for Phase Five, if not without risk, easily seemed bold rather than foolhardy. (After all, the franchise had previously done well out of building up series' through their involvement in a Universe-wide narrative, and giving Ant-Man that spot in the Phase may have seemed a way of perking up interest in one of their weaker performers.) By contrast the decision to take this tack with Rise of the Beasts--not just making another Transformers movie, but persisting in a strategy that failed to rehabilitate the franchise's fortunes, and indeed backing the product with more money and throwing it out there in a more brutally competitive period (and, if the reports are to be believed, actually planning still more Transformers movies on this basis!)--seems exactly that.
Of course, Transformers 6/Transformers 7/Bumblebee 2 has yet to actually hit theaters, and the final film may well surprise us with its performance, somehow defying the fact that its release (June 9) will be sandwiched between those of the highly anticipated Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (June 2) and that other movie with prospects looking far brighter than they did just a short time ago, The Flash (June 16), to, on the strength of audience enthusiasm and excellent word of mouth, dominate theaters through the month, and even have impressive fourth and fifth weekends in the wake of Indiana Jones' arrival (June 30) as it goes on to be the Top Gun of 2023--another exercise in '80s nostalgia that defies the doubters to dominate the summer season through sheer staying power at the multiplex. (That'll learn the naysayers!)
But should things work out in the way that seems all too predictable now it would be a reminder that if the management of Disney catches most of the critics' flak these days its executives have no monopoly on what might politely be called "poor choices." It would be another reminder, too, of at least one aspect of their poor choices, the studio's desperate cleaving to run-down franchises long past the point at which they have delivered a healthy return for apparent lack of ability or willingness to do anything else.
Still, that is far from the entirety of what this summer is offering theatergoers, even when one just thinks in terms of the biggest action-adventure franchises. After all, this year brings new installments in sagas like Mission: Impossible, the Fast and Furious, and the Transformers, with Transformers: Rise of the Beasts coming to theaters in June.
In discussing this last one let us first acknowledge the fact that the first film in the Transformers sequence appeared sixteen years ago, and was followed by four more "main line" films within the next decade, and a spin-off the following year. Moreover, far from going from strength to strength the way that, for example, the Fast and Furious franchise did in its fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh entries (the 2015 movie a near $2 billion hit in today's terms) before its more recent decline set in, the Transformers franchise peaked early. Transformers 2 was the biggest hit domestically--its $400 million gross in 2009 equaling about $550 million today--after which there was erosion (Transformers 3 did all right), followed by something more like collapse (with Transformers 5 making perhaps $155 million in the same, inflation-adjusted terms, just a little over a quarter of what Transformers 2 managed). This was for a time compensated by burgeoning overseas earnings, which made Transformers 3 globally an even bigger hit than Transformers 2 had been (a billion-dollar movie in current dollars, a $1.4 billion hit in today's terms), while an even better overseas take went a long way to offsetting Transformers 4's weaker performance in its home market (so that globally it came close to $1.4 billion). But even the foreign markets did not save Transformers 5, which abroad made about half of what Transformers 3 and 4 did. Meanwhile the spin-off Bumblebee--a prequel to the series--made only Transformers 5 money domestically, and less than that internationally. (With a global take of under a half billion in current dollars, and not quite $550 million in 2022 dollars, globally it made just a quarter of what Transformers 2 did in American theaters, and about forty percent of what Transformers 3 and 4 did elsewhere.)
Transformers Film Grosses, Worldwide and Domestic (Current and 2022 U.S. Dollars, CPI-Adjusted; Adjusted Figures in Parentheses)
Transformers (2007)--Worldwide--$710 Million ($1 Billion); Domestic--$319 Million ($450 Million)
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)--Worldwide--$836 Million ($1.14 Billion); Domestic--$402 Million ($549 Million)
Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)--Worldwide--$1.1 Billion ($1.44 Billion); Domestic--$352 Million ($458 Million)
Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014)--Worldwide--$1.1 Billion ($1.37 Billion); Domestic--$245 Million ($303 Million)
Transformers: The Last Knight (2017)--Worldwide--$605 Million ($722 Million); Domestic--$130 Million ($155 Million)
Bumblebee (2018)--Worldwide--$468 Million ($545 Million); Domestic--$127 Million ($148 Million)
None of this looks very promising for what people are calling "Transformers 6," or "Transformers 7" (depending on whether or not Bumblebee already has the distinction of being #6), which is yet another prequel to the 2007 film (so Transformers 6/Transformers 7 is also Bumblebee 2?)--making it seem less promising still. After all, not only does the franchise seem to be in a state of advanced decline, but the studio has followed up a less than spectacularly successful take on the material with more of the same--with a continuation along the lines of period prequel (such that where the 2007 Transformers exploited nostalgia for the '80s cartoon and toys, they now seem to be exploiting nostalgia for the nostalgia), while raising the stakes. Bumblebee was apparently intended as a "smaller" film, with a more modest (circa $100 million) budget and a Christmastime release, which seems to have boosted a film less than highly anticipated by allowing it to at least have "legs" that carried it from a mere $34 million five-day weekend release gross to a $127 million total domestically (in spite of which it was not to be seen in Deadline's list of the year's more profitable films). By contrast Rise of the Beasts is reportedly a $200 million production put out in the thick of summer--and so that much bigger a gamble.
According to Boxoffice Pro's report yesterday that gamble is not looking like a very good one--the publication's tracking suggesting a $30-$40 million opening weekend on the way to a front-loaded gross of two to at best three times that, likely failing to break the $100 million barrier, with the range they foresee $60-$90 million.
In other words, "Bumblebee 2" can be expected to do much less well than "Bumblebee 1"--which was already, by a significant margin, the weakest performer in the franchise to date.
I see little room for argument with the estimate--in part because it is pretty close to impossible for a big franchise movie to go any lower than that, but also in part because I do not know any grounds for thinking it will go higher (not least, given the long decay of the franchise's grosses I have just discussed).
Of course, as already acknowledged the films have already been increasingly reliant on overseas earnings, such that one might anticipate their finding some succor here. But even were the film to have, relatively speaking, as good an international performance as any of the Transformers films to date--like #5, quadrupling its domestic earnings internationally--the result would only be a worldwide take of $300 million-$450 million (even at the high end, no more than the first three films made in North America alone). At the low end . . . well, a movie can make $300 million domestically and still be considered a disappointment.
Given the combination of earnings now thought plausible with the massive outlay the movie could easily make Ant-Man 3 look like a brilliant success by comparison, while being far less explicable as a decision. Ant-Man 3, after all, was planned at an earlier date when Marvel was the undisputed champion of the box office (way back in the fall of 2019, apparently, just after Avengers: Endgame was being touted as the highest-grossing movie in history), and the decision to use it as the launch pad for Phase Five, if not without risk, easily seemed bold rather than foolhardy. (After all, the franchise had previously done well out of building up series' through their involvement in a Universe-wide narrative, and giving Ant-Man that spot in the Phase may have seemed a way of perking up interest in one of their weaker performers.) By contrast the decision to take this tack with Rise of the Beasts--not just making another Transformers movie, but persisting in a strategy that failed to rehabilitate the franchise's fortunes, and indeed backing the product with more money and throwing it out there in a more brutally competitive period (and, if the reports are to be believed, actually planning still more Transformers movies on this basis!)--seems exactly that.
Of course, Transformers 6/Transformers 7/Bumblebee 2 has yet to actually hit theaters, and the final film may well surprise us with its performance, somehow defying the fact that its release (June 9) will be sandwiched between those of the highly anticipated Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (June 2) and that other movie with prospects looking far brighter than they did just a short time ago, The Flash (June 16), to, on the strength of audience enthusiasm and excellent word of mouth, dominate theaters through the month, and even have impressive fourth and fifth weekends in the wake of Indiana Jones' arrival (June 30) as it goes on to be the Top Gun of 2023--another exercise in '80s nostalgia that defies the doubters to dominate the summer season through sheer staying power at the multiplex. (That'll learn the naysayers!)
But should things work out in the way that seems all too predictable now it would be a reminder that if the management of Disney catches most of the critics' flak these days its executives have no monopoly on what might politely be called "poor choices." It would be another reminder, too, of at least one aspect of their poor choices, the studio's desperate cleaving to run-down franchises long past the point at which they have delivered a healthy return for apparent lack of ability or willingness to do anything else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
