Deadline has wrapped up its latest "Most Valuable Blockbuster" tournament--rounded off its lists of 2023's most profitable, and least profitable, films.
As sophisticated box office-watchers know, the tournaments are an imperfect source of data. Just consider how in the past the production budgets they reported proved understated in the wake of later revelations (the more significant in that some of these figures are lower than we were told they were before, as with the $100 million rather than $150 million figure for Spider-Man), the inconsistent use of information about the part subsidies played in the making of the bottom line (we were told the net production cost of Captain Marvel 2 was $220 million after a significant subsidy, but this is not acknowledged here), the similarly inconsistent use of merchandising data, the ambiguities involved in the related-party transaction that is a studio selling the streaming rights to its own movies to its own platform, etc.. However, for lack of any comparably systematic round-up it seems well to go with this report's findings for now, reading which I was struck by the following:
1. There Were Four Superhero Films on the List, But . . .
We hear much talk these days of superhero fatigue--and much sneering about that talk. "Look at all the superhero films on this list!" some might say. However, one could equally well say, look at all the superhero films that did not make the list, among them two of the year's Marvel Cinematic Universe films (Ant-Man 3 and Captain Marvel 2), and four WBD/DC films (Shazam 2, Blue Beetle, The Flash, Aquaman 2), while two of these topped the list of the year's biggest money-losers (with Captain Marvel 2 heading the list, and The Flash right behind it in second place). One may also note that the one live-action superhero film placing among the top ten this year (a very low proportion by recent standards, especially when one considers the number of releases in this genre the year had), Guardians of the Galaxy 3, was down in ninth place (and the least profitable entry in that series to date). Of the other three superhero films two--PAW Patrol and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles--were Paramount productions that were low grossers (failing to make the list of the top 30 worldwide grossers of the year), but whose low costs, and the inclusion of merchandising revenue in their cases, enabled them to place among the top ten in a year of weak competition. Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, which considerably bettered the gross of the well-received original, can more justly be regarded as a cinematic hit--though it may be noted, its performance is still a far cry from what the Spider-Man franchise accomplished at its strongest (exemplified by the near $2 billion take of Spider-Man: No Way Home back in late 2021). The result is that I would consider the fuller picture evidence for, rather than against, superhero fatigue.
2. There Were Four Animated Films, But . . .
Per usual animation was well-represented on the list of the biggest money-makers of the year. However, in line with what was stated above low budgets were key to their reported profitability (each and every one of the movies reported as having a production cost of $100 million or less), the more in as, gross-wise, only The Super Mario Bros. Movie really soared at the global box office. (Spider-Man was more respectable than sensational internationally, adding just $300 million in those markets to its North American gross--as compared with Super Mario's $800 million in the international market.) And again, merchandising revenue was key to the profitability of two of the four (PAW Patrol and Turtles). As the titles, and low budgets, imply, Disney was not represented here--Pixar's Elemental, if reportedly turning a profit in the end, still failing to make the cut here, while Wish ended up one of the year's biggest flops.
3. Most of the Films Were Surprise Overperformers Rather Than the Predicted Successes.
As the big superhero films and franchise films generally and the Disney productions underwhelmed, the way was cleared for other movies that would ordinarily not have ranked very highly--those lower-budget and less "conventional" blockbusters--to top the charts. According to my reading of the market at a minimum six of the listed movies fall into this category--namely The Super Mario Bros. Movie (few if any anticipated $1 billion+ for this one), the animated Spider-Man film (which so much bettered the performance of the original), Barbie (Boxoffice Pro's prediction for the domestic gross had been in the vicinity of a mere $200 million for this one mere weeks before a release that launched it far, far past that mark), Oppenheimer (ditto), Taylor Swift's concert film (an extraordinary performer by concert movie standards), and Five Nights at Freddy's (again, going above and beyond as it approached $300 million globally).
4. The Profits Were Low, Individually and Collectively.
Together the ten films on the list of most valuable blockbusters made a bit under $2.5 billion in profit. This sounds like a lot. However, compare it to the figures for the 2015-2019 period before the pandemic, when the studios established their current pattern. During this period the profits for the top ten movies, when adjusted for 2023 prices, ranged from $3.3 billion in the lowest-earning year (2016) to $5.4 billion in the highest (2019), and averaged $4.2 billion (leaving 2023 about 40 percent down). Granted, later revelations suggest those profits were overstated--with reports of the third and fourth Avengers films having been much more expensive than originally indicated quite enough to skew the figures. However, the gap is quite large enough that it would take a lot of downward adjustment to narrow it much, while, again, the figures for 2023 are at least as suspect as in prior years. The result is that it seems worth taking the figures at face value for now--the more in as the way in which those films became profitable varies significantly over the period.
5. Those Profits Tended to Reflect Low Costs Rather Than Colossal Grosses.
While I raised the point earlier in relation to the animated films, the truth is that this pattern of low costs translating to surprising profitability--far better profitability than the megabudget movies had--carried over to the year's more successful releases broadly in this year when of the top 10 most profitable films four did not make the list of the top 10 grossers worldwide, three did not make the top 20, and two did not even make the top 30 (with Freddy's at #19, Taylor Swift at #23, PAW Patrol at #31, and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles at #34 on the box office charts, despite which the Turtles movie was #4 on the "Most Valuable" list). If Guardians of the Galaxy 3 was a standard megabuck Marvel production (running the studio $250 million), the production cost of every other movie here was reportedly under $150 million--and in many cases much less (Barbie coming in just below that, Wonka lower still at $125 million, Oppenheimer, Spider-Man and Super Mario Bros. as "mere" $100 million productions, and the rest even less, with the Turtles movie made for $70 million, PAW Patrol $30 million, Freddy's $20 million, the Taylor Swift film a mere $15 million). The more striking given the galloping inflation of recent years, it is more striking still in comparison with the films on the flop list--the $200 million reported for The Flash and Wish, the $270 million for Captain Marvel 2, the $300 million for Indiana Jones 5 (by itself, exceeding the combined production costs of the five cheapest of the "most valuable blockbusters" list combined).
6. Thematically it Seems Notable That So Many Movies Were Based on Toys.
I can remember how not so long ago sneering at the video game-based movie as such was virtually universal. Going by the reviews of Super Mario Bros. and Five Nights at Freddy's films the critics' attitude toward such films remains less than kind. (Even as critics grew insanely generous in their evaluations of movies in general those two movies got a mere 59 and 32 percent ratings on Rotten Tomatoes, respectively.) Still, in contrast with before the broader audience has made clear that it does not necessarily feel the same way as the professional critics--with those two movies, again, making the list of the top ten moneymakers of the year and Super Mario in the #1 spot. The movie that came right after it was Barbie--also a movie based on a popular toy. Meanwhile those two lower-cost animated hits, the PAW Patrol and the Turtles, also have a significant toy angle, rounding out the picture.
7. Disney No Longer Rules Hollywood.
Those who have been watching the box office for some time likely remember how back in the 2010s Disney seemed unstoppable. However, between how few hits it scored in 2023, and how many flops it suffered as those very expensive would-be hits proved the opposite, those days seem long past-- Disney's sole representation on the top profit-makers list Guardians at #9, and four of the five biggest money-losers (Captain Marvel 2, Indiana Jones 5, Wish, the remake-no-one-asked-for of Haunted Mansion), including the biggest loser of all (Captain Marvel 2), are Disney productions, with each of these reported as losing $100 million+ and the lot a combined $600 million+. Taking into account the at best lackluster performance of other major Disney productions--like Ant-Man 3 and the live-action adaptation The Little Mermaid--makes Disney's situation look worse still.
8. The Cinematic Market Has Shrunken--and Fragmented.
Listening to the reports of Disney's troubles we hear much about the mismanagement of particular films, usually blaming anyone and everyone but the executives who actually have the power and responsibility in the situation (as in the whining about a lack of "supervision" on the projects, and the stupid and shabby scapegoating of the writers). However, the problem looks structural. During its glory days in the '10s Disney managed to dominate the market through a particular strategy, but that market appears to have since changed, particularly with respect to what moviegoers think is an "event" worth the trip to the theater calling that strategy into question. Until recently it was obvious that a new Star Wars, Marvel or Pixar movie, for example, was usually regarded by a critical mass of moviegoers worthy of being identified with the "general audience" as such an event. However, this has become less clear, the bar for what constitutes an event for the audience raised, so that really wide-audience events are more elusive, and relative to mass audience hits we are seeing more movies become hits on the basis of intense appeal to a limited but very enthusiastic portion of the audience, and particularly a young portion of the audience. Thus did Freddy's, and those Paramount cartoons, become moneymakers--part of the audience really excited about them, the rest not caring at all. Thus did it go with Taylor Swift's film. Even those really big hits, Super Mario and Barbie, seem to have had something of that flavor about them, just on a larger scale (the more in as Barbie was such a divisive, polarizing, film).
As that last especially shows, 2023 was anything but the business as usual to which I had thought the year returning--and it does not seem implausible to imagine that it portends changes in the business.
Look for my thoughts about that in an upcoming post.
Solomon Kane - Rattle of Bones
2 hours ago
No comments:
Post a Comment