Last month Fandango reported that the summer's most anticipated film was Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse. Now Boxoffice Pro predicts an opening weekend for the film in the $85 million-$105 million range, on the way to a final domestic gross in the range of $226-$325 million.
Consider for a moment what these numbers, and especially the high end of the range, could mean in light of how other Marvel-based films are doing this year--in the domestic market, at least. Ant-Man 3 topped out well below the $226 million mark (with, at last report, under $214 million taken).
Guardians of the Galaxy 3, despite the efforts of the entertainment press to put the best possible face on things, seems to be underperforming severely (certainly to go by its opening weekend), with the film's having "legs" like those of Ant-Man 3, or for that matter the other recent Marvel-based releases, suggesting that the movie's making it to $300 million from this point would be a solid performance for the remainder of the film's run, with much less conceivable. (Following up an Ant-Man 3-level opening with an Ant-Man 3-like collapse would give it as little as $230 million at the end of its run.)
Moreover, with Guardians likely the best shot Marvel Studios had at a really big hit this year (the Marvel-Sony collaboration Kraven the Hunter is a Venom-type film, doing well should it match Ant-Man 3; and while the original Captain Marvel was a billion dollar hit Captain Marvel 2 faces strong enough headwinds that it seems unlikely to buck the trend) neither of the other live-action films seems likely to better its performance.
The result is that, should Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse simply hit the upper end of the range predicted by Boxoffice Pro, it could easily be the highest-grossing Marvel release in the domestic market in 2023.
Of course, the global take could be a different story. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, merely matched its domestic earnings abroad, rather than exceeding them the way Marvel movies so often do. Still, should the Guardians of the Galaxy and Captain Marvel do no better than I have predicted ($700 million tops globally, and perhaps significantly less, with under $600 million as yet not ruled out), Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse would not be far behind them, with its topping them a distinct possibility. It is even more plausible that, in spite of the budget for the animated sequel being considerably larger than that for the original film, it could be more profitable than the live-action Marvel-based releases (as a $150 million film against the $200 million+ reportedly laid out for Ant-Man 3 and Guardians).
This outcome would reflect the extent to which Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse was well-received and the extent to which fans have been excited about the prospect of a sequel. Still, especially in light of the limits to its drawing power (we are, again, talking about a hit in the $300 million range, scarcely enough to place in the top ten box office hits of the year back in 2019, even before we get to inflation), if this actually happened it would also be reflective of the decay of the box office performance of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) so evident since Avengers: Endgame.
In the event that all this does actually come to pass it could have some interesting implications--which I expect to go into in upcoming posts, especially as we get a clearer image of the situation.
In the meantime, Boxoffice Pro predicts a $50 million second weekend for the Guardians of the Galaxy threequel--about what the film would have if it manages a second weekend hold like that of Guardians of the Galaxy 2. For my part I predicted something in the $34-$40 million range, on the premise that the film would perform more like the last three MCU movies. The gap between $40 and $50 million may not look very big in itself, especially next to the shortfall between what this film will have banked at the end of even a robust second weekend (a little under $200 million) and what Guardians of the Galaxy 2 grossed by the same point ($248 million in 2017, which is $307 million in April 2023 dollars). However, it should be a good indicator of just how severe the depressive trend is for Guardians, and the MCU--and so how the Marvel movies will stack up relative to each other and the rest of the competition at the end of this year.
Friday, May 12, 2023
Tuesday, May 9, 2023
Is Guardians of the Galaxy 3 Proving to be Another Ant-Man 3? (An Estimate of Guardians of the Galaxy 3's Second Weekend Gross)
As I previously mentioned, Guardians of the Galaxy 3 opened in the same three-day May period as Guardians of the Galaxy 2 did six years earlier (May 5-May 7).
It took in a lot less, however--$114 million versus the $147 million its predecessor did in 2017 (and the $180 million that sum would be worth in March 2023 dollars).
There is no denying the significance of the drop as compared with that prior film's earnings, and earlier expectations. (Just weeks ago people were still talking about a $155 million opening, one-third higher than what the movie actually got.) Still, one may wonder if, accepting that audiences did not come out as hoped during the first weekend, they might be enticed to come out during the second--by good word of mouth, perhaps.
That is a long shot with a franchise threequel on the opening weekend of the summer season, of course--the more so given the pattern of the recent MCU movies, which have tended toward weaker legs, not stronger, even as their openings disappoint the cheer-leaders. This seems less likely still to happen for Guardians specifically when one considers how the gross fell from Friday to Saturday to Sunday night--in a manner almost identical to that of that particularly weak recent MCU performer, Ant-Man 3. (Ant-Man 3, which took in just a slightly smaller $106 million in its opening weekend, saw that weekend's gross structured in almost exactly the same way.)
Ultimately Ant-Man 3's gross tumbled 70 percent from its first (three-day) weekend to its second. Black Panther 2 and Thor 4 suffered drops almost as bad--of 67 and 68 percent respectively (with Thor 4's showing the more significant because, unlike the other two, it did not come out on an extended, holiday weekend that contributed to the further front-loading of the gross).
Even the least-worst of these numbers would still have Guardians of the Galaxy 2 pulling in a mere $38 million in its second weekend, while an Ant-Man 3-like tumble would have it taking in just $34 million--scarcely ahead of Ant-Man 3's $32 million (and half Guardians of the Galaxy 2's nominal second weekend gross of $65 million).* This would put it on track to make Ant-Man 3-like money, again, something in the $230 million range--which would be a bit under half of what Guardians of the Galaxy 2 took in in 2023 dollars (about $470 million).
In that case Guardians 3's take would fall below even the more pessimistic expectations of just a short while ago (a gross in the $290 million range) by a long way.
What would a more positive performance look like? For example, if Guardians 3 did at least as well as Guardians 2?
Guardians 2 saw a more modest 56 percent drop in weekend gross from the first weekend to the second. A far better hold than that of any of the MCU movies discussed here, the same would leave Guardians 3 with a second weekend take of $50 million at the North American box office, and maybe something in the area of $190 million total, suggesting that trajectory's leading toward the neighborhood of $300 million.
So right now that looks to me like the plausible range regarding the second weekend gross--$34 million to $50 million, with my suspicion, given the performance of the last three MCU movies, and the close parallel with Ant-Man 3, that the low end of the range is more likely than the high (with anything above $40 million a surprise).
In light of this it also seems to me that the plausible range for the domestic gross over the film's longer run is $230 million to $300 million (if, from its weaker starting point, it at least holds up as well as Guardians 2). Alongside this is an international gross in the $340 million to $400 million range, depending on whether it turns out the movie likewise made half its money overseas on the opening weekend, or has a run more broadly like that of the original Guardians. Together this adds up to the movie's prospects ranging from under $600 million in the Ant-Man 3-like collapse-after-the-first-weekend scenario, to $700 million in the event of the stronger performance.
Even with the better hold the gross would, in comparison with what Guardians of the Galaxy 2 made, recall Ant-Man 3's earnings relative to Ant-Man 2 (if arrived at a bit differently, with proportionately less grossed at home, and more abroad), while without it the drop would be still more severe. (Ant-Man 3's earnings of $475 million, in real terms, are about 36 percent below what Ant-Man 2 made previously, while anything under $650 million would be less than that for Guardians--the $570 million discussed here as the extreme low end more like 45 percent less.)
As all this indicates the high end of the range is still a disappointment given what was invested in and expected of the film (and needed from it by its backer), the low, coming on top of Ant-Man 3, likely grounds for outright panic at Disney-Marvel.
* Guardians of the Galaxy 2's $65 million opening weekend in May 2017 is the equivalent of $81 million in March 2023 dollars--which would be more like two-and-a-half times what Guardians 3 would make if it went the Ant-Man 3 route.
NOTE: This post was written before the upward revision in the reported weekend gross of the film to $118 million. As the adjustment would have only a slight effect on the calculations discussed here (e.g. changing the $34-$38 million range discussed here to $35-$39 million) the author has elected to let the prediction stand.
It took in a lot less, however--$114 million versus the $147 million its predecessor did in 2017 (and the $180 million that sum would be worth in March 2023 dollars).
There is no denying the significance of the drop as compared with that prior film's earnings, and earlier expectations. (Just weeks ago people were still talking about a $155 million opening, one-third higher than what the movie actually got.) Still, one may wonder if, accepting that audiences did not come out as hoped during the first weekend, they might be enticed to come out during the second--by good word of mouth, perhaps.
That is a long shot with a franchise threequel on the opening weekend of the summer season, of course--the more so given the pattern of the recent MCU movies, which have tended toward weaker legs, not stronger, even as their openings disappoint the cheer-leaders. This seems less likely still to happen for Guardians specifically when one considers how the gross fell from Friday to Saturday to Sunday night--in a manner almost identical to that of that particularly weak recent MCU performer, Ant-Man 3. (Ant-Man 3, which took in just a slightly smaller $106 million in its opening weekend, saw that weekend's gross structured in almost exactly the same way.)
Ultimately Ant-Man 3's gross tumbled 70 percent from its first (three-day) weekend to its second. Black Panther 2 and Thor 4 suffered drops almost as bad--of 67 and 68 percent respectively (with Thor 4's showing the more significant because, unlike the other two, it did not come out on an extended, holiday weekend that contributed to the further front-loading of the gross).
Even the least-worst of these numbers would still have Guardians of the Galaxy 2 pulling in a mere $38 million in its second weekend, while an Ant-Man 3-like tumble would have it taking in just $34 million--scarcely ahead of Ant-Man 3's $32 million (and half Guardians of the Galaxy 2's nominal second weekend gross of $65 million).* This would put it on track to make Ant-Man 3-like money, again, something in the $230 million range--which would be a bit under half of what Guardians of the Galaxy 2 took in in 2023 dollars (about $470 million).
In that case Guardians 3's take would fall below even the more pessimistic expectations of just a short while ago (a gross in the $290 million range) by a long way.
What would a more positive performance look like? For example, if Guardians 3 did at least as well as Guardians 2?
Guardians 2 saw a more modest 56 percent drop in weekend gross from the first weekend to the second. A far better hold than that of any of the MCU movies discussed here, the same would leave Guardians 3 with a second weekend take of $50 million at the North American box office, and maybe something in the area of $190 million total, suggesting that trajectory's leading toward the neighborhood of $300 million.
So right now that looks to me like the plausible range regarding the second weekend gross--$34 million to $50 million, with my suspicion, given the performance of the last three MCU movies, and the close parallel with Ant-Man 3, that the low end of the range is more likely than the high (with anything above $40 million a surprise).
In light of this it also seems to me that the plausible range for the domestic gross over the film's longer run is $230 million to $300 million (if, from its weaker starting point, it at least holds up as well as Guardians 2). Alongside this is an international gross in the $340 million to $400 million range, depending on whether it turns out the movie likewise made half its money overseas on the opening weekend, or has a run more broadly like that of the original Guardians. Together this adds up to the movie's prospects ranging from under $600 million in the Ant-Man 3-like collapse-after-the-first-weekend scenario, to $700 million in the event of the stronger performance.
Even with the better hold the gross would, in comparison with what Guardians of the Galaxy 2 made, recall Ant-Man 3's earnings relative to Ant-Man 2 (if arrived at a bit differently, with proportionately less grossed at home, and more abroad), while without it the drop would be still more severe. (Ant-Man 3's earnings of $475 million, in real terms, are about 36 percent below what Ant-Man 2 made previously, while anything under $650 million would be less than that for Guardians--the $570 million discussed here as the extreme low end more like 45 percent less.)
As all this indicates the high end of the range is still a disappointment given what was invested in and expected of the film (and needed from it by its backer), the low, coming on top of Ant-Man 3, likely grounds for outright panic at Disney-Marvel.
* Guardians of the Galaxy 2's $65 million opening weekend in May 2017 is the equivalent of $81 million in March 2023 dollars--which would be more like two-and-a-half times what Guardians 3 would make if it went the Ant-Man 3 route.
NOTE: This post was written before the upward revision in the reported weekend gross of the film to $118 million. As the adjustment would have only a slight effect on the calculations discussed here (e.g. changing the $34-$38 million range discussed here to $35-$39 million) the author has elected to let the prediction stand.
Fast X's Box Office Gross: A Prediction
As I remarked a while ago, my estimates about what Marvel movies will make are predicated on there being plenty of data at this point from which to make them--much more than is the case for other films, even when they are part of a franchise. (Speculating about Indiana Jones 5, for example, there was much less to go on--especially because not only was there only one other Indiana Jones film in the past thirty-three years, but because there is so little else like it out there in the market.)
It seems to me that the Fast and Furious franchise merits some comment here--the series, after all, in its tenth movie in twenty-three years, thus providing a basis for such guesses.
Of course, making sense of that data has its challenges. In line with the wild changes in the series' premise and casting (we went from a story about Southland truck hijackers who like to drag race to "the Rock-punches-a-torpedo spy-fi"), the series' grosses have been volatile, with the third movie representing a low for the series' fortunes, but recovery subsequently setting in, with the next four films going from strength to strength--hitting a peak with the extraordinary response to Fast 7. (Grossing $1.5 billion in the summer of 2015, this is equal to over $1.9 billion--almost $2 billion--in March 2023 dollars.) Still, if the series remains one of the biggest moneymakers around--and even more impressive if one cuts out the superhero films—its films' grosses have seen erosion since, with the eighth film not doing as well, and the ninth less well than that (in part because of the pandemic, by the lowered standards of which its earnings were very impressive indeed).
Simple induction suggests that the declining trend is likely to carry over to the tenth in some fashion. But how exactly?
Adjusted for those 2023 dollars Fast 7 (again) made $1.9 billion, the eighth movie (The Fate of the Furious) about $1.5 billion--a rough 20 percent drop. The ninth film took in about $800 million in 2023 terms--a bigger, almost 50 percent, drop, from what "F8" made, but again there was the pandemic. One might estimate on the basis of the prior shift from film to film that in its absence one would have seen another 20 percent drop, in which case it would have ended up with $1.2 billion in today's terms (not unreasonable given the proportion by which so many movies seemed to be off from their normal grosses during that patch). Anticipating another 20 percent drop from that level one could picture Fast X making a bit under $1 billion.
How does this compare with the increasingly detailed picture we have now with the film's release just ten days away? Boxoffice Pro recently told us that the movie is on track for a $65-$70 million North American opening--about what F9 made during the pandemic in current dollar terms ($70 million).* As is not uncommon for blockbusters of this type, the three prior Fast films took in about 40 percent of the money from their domestic run during the first three days, which suggests a gross from the whole theatrical run in the $160-$175 million range.
In considering this one should remember that the films have relied heavily on their overseas earnings, with the last three films making between 76 and a truly extraordinary 82 percent of their gross there. Extrapolating from the domestic gross this implies a plausible range of between $515 and $780 million abroad for between $675 and $960 million globally (the high end of the range, notably, equivalent to the result of the 20 percent-of-the-gross-per-film-erosion being carried forward to #10); with the $800 million in between more or less a match for how the ninth film did.
So what does this leave us in the end? A North American gross in the $150-$200 million range to be on the safe side, and a relevant global range of $650 million to $950 million or so to be equally safe at that level, with my best guess at a more precise figure inclining toward the middle of this range--$170 million domestic and $750-$850 million worldwide.
The result is that we again have a case of numbers that look very strong indeed by the "normal" standard--but are nonetheless not to be judged by that standard, given the distance they represent from the series' peak (a mere 40 percent, perhaps, of what Fast 7 took in, and less even than one might have hoped from what F9 took in); and the extraordinary outlay to make this movie (a staggering $340 million), which may call its plain and simple profitability into question, the movie failing to break even after counting in the post-theatrical earnings from home entertainment, etc..
The possibility, like the prospects of Indiana Jones 5, reminds us that we may be looking not just at "Marvel fatigue," or even "superhero fatigue," but fatigue with the blockbuster as we know it, perhaps in era-ending degree. Still, Hollywood remains a long way from facing that, and anyway never gives up on any franchise no matter how exhausted and riddled with losses it is (as the ever more pointless reiterations of the Terminator demonstrate). Already it seems we have word of a Fast 11 in the works, while I half expect that we will someday be seeing James Mangold enlisted to make a movie about Old Man Dom confronting what he knows in his very old bones will be his last race, prior to the inevitable reboot.
* This works out to $78 million in March 2023 dollars, meaning that Fast X's opening weekend gross is estimated to be a good deal less than what the prior movie made when the pandemic's impact on moviegoing was so much larger.
It seems to me that the Fast and Furious franchise merits some comment here--the series, after all, in its tenth movie in twenty-three years, thus providing a basis for such guesses.
Of course, making sense of that data has its challenges. In line with the wild changes in the series' premise and casting (we went from a story about Southland truck hijackers who like to drag race to "the Rock-punches-a-torpedo spy-fi"), the series' grosses have been volatile, with the third movie representing a low for the series' fortunes, but recovery subsequently setting in, with the next four films going from strength to strength--hitting a peak with the extraordinary response to Fast 7. (Grossing $1.5 billion in the summer of 2015, this is equal to over $1.9 billion--almost $2 billion--in March 2023 dollars.) Still, if the series remains one of the biggest moneymakers around--and even more impressive if one cuts out the superhero films—its films' grosses have seen erosion since, with the eighth film not doing as well, and the ninth less well than that (in part because of the pandemic, by the lowered standards of which its earnings were very impressive indeed).
Simple induction suggests that the declining trend is likely to carry over to the tenth in some fashion. But how exactly?
Adjusted for those 2023 dollars Fast 7 (again) made $1.9 billion, the eighth movie (The Fate of the Furious) about $1.5 billion--a rough 20 percent drop. The ninth film took in about $800 million in 2023 terms--a bigger, almost 50 percent, drop, from what "F8" made, but again there was the pandemic. One might estimate on the basis of the prior shift from film to film that in its absence one would have seen another 20 percent drop, in which case it would have ended up with $1.2 billion in today's terms (not unreasonable given the proportion by which so many movies seemed to be off from their normal grosses during that patch). Anticipating another 20 percent drop from that level one could picture Fast X making a bit under $1 billion.
How does this compare with the increasingly detailed picture we have now with the film's release just ten days away? Boxoffice Pro recently told us that the movie is on track for a $65-$70 million North American opening--about what F9 made during the pandemic in current dollar terms ($70 million).* As is not uncommon for blockbusters of this type, the three prior Fast films took in about 40 percent of the money from their domestic run during the first three days, which suggests a gross from the whole theatrical run in the $160-$175 million range.
In considering this one should remember that the films have relied heavily on their overseas earnings, with the last three films making between 76 and a truly extraordinary 82 percent of their gross there. Extrapolating from the domestic gross this implies a plausible range of between $515 and $780 million abroad for between $675 and $960 million globally (the high end of the range, notably, equivalent to the result of the 20 percent-of-the-gross-per-film-erosion being carried forward to #10); with the $800 million in between more or less a match for how the ninth film did.
So what does this leave us in the end? A North American gross in the $150-$200 million range to be on the safe side, and a relevant global range of $650 million to $950 million or so to be equally safe at that level, with my best guess at a more precise figure inclining toward the middle of this range--$170 million domestic and $750-$850 million worldwide.
The result is that we again have a case of numbers that look very strong indeed by the "normal" standard--but are nonetheless not to be judged by that standard, given the distance they represent from the series' peak (a mere 40 percent, perhaps, of what Fast 7 took in, and less even than one might have hoped from what F9 took in); and the extraordinary outlay to make this movie (a staggering $340 million), which may call its plain and simple profitability into question, the movie failing to break even after counting in the post-theatrical earnings from home entertainment, etc..
The possibility, like the prospects of Indiana Jones 5, reminds us that we may be looking not just at "Marvel fatigue," or even "superhero fatigue," but fatigue with the blockbuster as we know it, perhaps in era-ending degree. Still, Hollywood remains a long way from facing that, and anyway never gives up on any franchise no matter how exhausted and riddled with losses it is (as the ever more pointless reiterations of the Terminator demonstrate). Already it seems we have word of a Fast 11 in the works, while I half expect that we will someday be seeing James Mangold enlisted to make a movie about Old Man Dom confronting what he knows in his very old bones will be his last race, prior to the inevitable reboot.
* This works out to $78 million in March 2023 dollars, meaning that Fast X's opening weekend gross is estimated to be a good deal less than what the prior movie made when the pandemic's impact on moviegoing was so much larger.
Monday, May 8, 2023
Video Game Movies Become Blockbusters
A month ago I suggested that the opprobrium that once attached to major Hollywood features adapted from video games was fading away. None can be expected to take a non-technical Oscar home soon, but the kind of sneering we used to see is just not part of the scene anymore.
Still, such movies, if sometimes money-makers ever since Hollywood started cranking them out (otherwise there would not have been so many of them), were never really first-rank hits--not even an Angelina Jolie-vintage Lara Croft or Prince of Persia movie--while if the Resident Evil franchise ran for six films the movies were made on a smaller scale, while I might add, relying very heavily indeed on its popularity in the United States. (In 2017 Resident Evil: The Final Chapter made just $27 million in North America--but $36 million in Japan and $160 million in China, those two countries accounting for two-thirds of its global gross in a significant departure from the norm for English-language productions.)
This has changed with The Super Mario Bros. Movie and its $1 billion gross--which all but guarantees that Hollywood will be looking at more such projects, and ready to plow more money into them, the more in as the increasingly aged and weary collection of franchises that have been the mainstay of its release schedules are failing badly with moviegoers, and there seems less and less room for doubt about "superhero fatigue."
This raises the question of what the studios will make of those other adaptations--the more in as Hollywood executives so consistently fail to understand what "works" when a movie hits. When James Bond exploded in the '60s they thought "spies." When Star Wars exploded in the '70s, they thought "space." They were very, very slow to get that rather than "spies" or "space" what mattered was the invention of the action film as we know it, and the "high concept" film more broadly, precisely because grasping this meant understanding craft, aesthetics and the mind of the audience, rather than the kind of uncomprehending simian imitation to which they inclined.
So is it likely to go with those adaptations. It seems to me that The Super Mario Bros. Movie has been the success that it has because instead of vaguely turning the stuff of a video game into a movie they made a movie faithful to what a vast audience loved in the games--and had no pretensions to being anything but the makers of a crowd-pleasing film (which, incidentally, probably could not have worked nearly so well had they attempted to make it as a live-action film).
If Hollywood gets this aspect of the film's success I will be very surprised indeed--and instead expect to see lots and lots of adaptations made by people who just didn't "get it," which flop and leave the studio executives stupidly baffled about why moviegoers refused their offerings.
Still, such movies, if sometimes money-makers ever since Hollywood started cranking them out (otherwise there would not have been so many of them), were never really first-rank hits--not even an Angelina Jolie-vintage Lara Croft or Prince of Persia movie--while if the Resident Evil franchise ran for six films the movies were made on a smaller scale, while I might add, relying very heavily indeed on its popularity in the United States. (In 2017 Resident Evil: The Final Chapter made just $27 million in North America--but $36 million in Japan and $160 million in China, those two countries accounting for two-thirds of its global gross in a significant departure from the norm for English-language productions.)
This has changed with The Super Mario Bros. Movie and its $1 billion gross--which all but guarantees that Hollywood will be looking at more such projects, and ready to plow more money into them, the more in as the increasingly aged and weary collection of franchises that have been the mainstay of its release schedules are failing badly with moviegoers, and there seems less and less room for doubt about "superhero fatigue."
This raises the question of what the studios will make of those other adaptations--the more in as Hollywood executives so consistently fail to understand what "works" when a movie hits. When James Bond exploded in the '60s they thought "spies." When Star Wars exploded in the '70s, they thought "space." They were very, very slow to get that rather than "spies" or "space" what mattered was the invention of the action film as we know it, and the "high concept" film more broadly, precisely because grasping this meant understanding craft, aesthetics and the mind of the audience, rather than the kind of uncomprehending simian imitation to which they inclined.
So is it likely to go with those adaptations. It seems to me that The Super Mario Bros. Movie has been the success that it has because instead of vaguely turning the stuff of a video game into a movie they made a movie faithful to what a vast audience loved in the games--and had no pretensions to being anything but the makers of a crowd-pleasing film (which, incidentally, probably could not have worked nearly so well had they attempted to make it as a live-action film).
If Hollywood gets this aspect of the film's success I will be very surprised indeed--and instead expect to see lots and lots of adaptations made by people who just didn't "get it," which flop and leave the studio executives stupidly baffled about why moviegoers refused their offerings.
About That Other Chris Pratt Movie . . . (On The Roaring Success of The Super Mario Bros. Movie)
For the past month The Super Mario Bros. Movie has been the box office champion, in the U.S. and globally, bringing it over $500 million domestically, and more than matching that sum abroad.
This weekend, its fifth in release, saw it add almost $19 million more to its haul domestically, testifying to decent holds from weekend to weekend through April after its colossal opening ($146 million in its first Friday-to-Sunday period, and $225 million over the whole holiday weekend).
Making it the year's first (and possibly, only) $1 billion Hollywood hit, all but certain to make the year's Deadline Most Valuable Blockbuster competition, and additional feather in Illumination animation studio's increasingly full cap (these are the folks who brought you Sing, The Secret Life of Pets and the Despicable Me franchise), it is a genuine overperformance in multiple ways, which could not be more different from how the live-action Super Mario Bros. film released this time of year thirty years ago flopped so hard it was all but instantly buried, and scarcely remembered even a few years later save by Mario Bros.-loving kids who watched the movie because the characters were in it. The feat is the more impressive given that the critics were anything but on its side (an extreme contrast with the breathless cheer-leading for, say, Top Gun 2 that, again, was an underappreciated factor in its success).
Why has it all worked so well? I think David Sims hits on something important when he points to the movie giving audiences "what they actually want" from a movie such as this one--plain and simple, unpretentious, entertainment. Considering this--and the fact that this movie was directed by Teen Titans Go! veterans Aaron Horvath and Michael Jelenic--I find myself remembering that Teen Titans Go! episode Horvath and Jelenic cowrote, "The Return of Slade," and the lesson that it had to teach. As Raven tried to explain to Cyborg and Beast Boy, taking something that's "for kids" and trying to make it over into something adults would find "cool" is apt to produce something grotesque, and pleasing to no one. I think the makers of this movie took that lesson to heart, in which case--my compliments, and congratulations on the success of your film.
This weekend, its fifth in release, saw it add almost $19 million more to its haul domestically, testifying to decent holds from weekend to weekend through April after its colossal opening ($146 million in its first Friday-to-Sunday period, and $225 million over the whole holiday weekend).
Making it the year's first (and possibly, only) $1 billion Hollywood hit, all but certain to make the year's Deadline Most Valuable Blockbuster competition, and additional feather in Illumination animation studio's increasingly full cap (these are the folks who brought you Sing, The Secret Life of Pets and the Despicable Me franchise), it is a genuine overperformance in multiple ways, which could not be more different from how the live-action Super Mario Bros. film released this time of year thirty years ago flopped so hard it was all but instantly buried, and scarcely remembered even a few years later save by Mario Bros.-loving kids who watched the movie because the characters were in it. The feat is the more impressive given that the critics were anything but on its side (an extreme contrast with the breathless cheer-leading for, say, Top Gun 2 that, again, was an underappreciated factor in its success).
Why has it all worked so well? I think David Sims hits on something important when he points to the movie giving audiences "what they actually want" from a movie such as this one--plain and simple, unpretentious, entertainment. Considering this--and the fact that this movie was directed by Teen Titans Go! veterans Aaron Horvath and Michael Jelenic--I find myself remembering that Teen Titans Go! episode Horvath and Jelenic cowrote, "The Return of Slade," and the lesson that it had to teach. As Raven tried to explain to Cyborg and Beast Boy, taking something that's "for kids" and trying to make it over into something adults would find "cool" is apt to produce something grotesque, and pleasing to no one. I think the makers of this movie took that lesson to heart, in which case--my compliments, and congratulations on the success of your film.
Guardians of the Galaxy 3: The Question of its Legs--at Home and Abroad
Considering the initial reports of the opening weekend performance of Guardians of the Galaxy 3 (which were downgraded by yet another 2 percent just as I was writing my first draft of that post!) my concern was for how the domestic opening weekend gross compared with earlier expectations about it, and what it implied for the film's likely earnings from its fuller theatrical run.
Thinking in terms of the box office trajectory of the preceding films, and Guardians of the Galaxy 2 in particular (the opening weekend domestic gross equaled about 15 percent of the essential total), it seemed to me that the number--which was toward the much-deflated level anticipated by the time of the film's actual release--affirmed the prediction of $700 million I had suggested on the expectation that Guardians would see a rough one-third drop in its box office gross over its run (like Ant-Man 3 before it).
Still, in considering any analogy with Ant-Man 3 it is worth remembering that the film was initially regarded as at least reasonably successful on the basis of a robust-looking first weekend. The bigger than expected drop from week to week afterward--which meant that much less money was piled atop that opening weekend take--was what led to the view of the film as a disappointment. If Guardians of the Galaxy 3, after this weekend that has seen the movie gross about 63 percent of what Guardians of the Galaxy 2 did in its opening weekend, were to see its week-to-week "holds" look less like those of Guardians than of Ant-Man 3 with all they imply for the longer run (taking in, instead of 38 percent of its eventual theatrical gross, almost 50 percent of its total gross in its first Friday-to-Sunday period), then Guardians--which made scarcely more than Ant-Man 3 did in its first three days (and less than it made in the longer President's Day weekend of its debut) would similarly end up with well under $250 million, maybe around $230 million.
Is the film likely to suffer such a drop? Certainly the MCU's legs have been drawing unfavorable comment lately--while I cannot help noticing the particular parallel between the Friday-to-Sunday trajectory of Guardians 3 and Ant-Man 3 (from $48 million on Friday to $27 million on Sunday in the case of the former, and from $46 million to $26 million in the case of the latter).
I do not rule it out--while remembering that Ant-Man 3's weak "legs" were almost as evident abroad, the movie so that it ends up having taken in perhaps 46 percent of its international gross in just those first three days, a rough $120 million on the way to a $260 million total. Of course, Guardians of the Galaxy 3 has done better than that internationally, pulling in a bit better-than-expected $168 million in its first three days in international release.
Still, should it do no better from here on out than Ant-Man 3 did with regard to holds it would pull in $365 million--well under the $400 million or so I had earlier projected.
The result is that while the weekend meant no surprises for me regarding the upper end of the range into which the film's gross will likely fall, the lower end is another matter--the movie's ending up with closer to $600 million than $700 million still possible. For the time being I still think $700 million more likely than $600 million, but we will know more next weekend--which makes it one to watch for all those curious as to the film's trajectory, and that of the MCU.
Thinking in terms of the box office trajectory of the preceding films, and Guardians of the Galaxy 2 in particular (the opening weekend domestic gross equaled about 15 percent of the essential total), it seemed to me that the number--which was toward the much-deflated level anticipated by the time of the film's actual release--affirmed the prediction of $700 million I had suggested on the expectation that Guardians would see a rough one-third drop in its box office gross over its run (like Ant-Man 3 before it).
Still, in considering any analogy with Ant-Man 3 it is worth remembering that the film was initially regarded as at least reasonably successful on the basis of a robust-looking first weekend. The bigger than expected drop from week to week afterward--which meant that much less money was piled atop that opening weekend take--was what led to the view of the film as a disappointment. If Guardians of the Galaxy 3, after this weekend that has seen the movie gross about 63 percent of what Guardians of the Galaxy 2 did in its opening weekend, were to see its week-to-week "holds" look less like those of Guardians than of Ant-Man 3 with all they imply for the longer run (taking in, instead of 38 percent of its eventual theatrical gross, almost 50 percent of its total gross in its first Friday-to-Sunday period), then Guardians--which made scarcely more than Ant-Man 3 did in its first three days (and less than it made in the longer President's Day weekend of its debut) would similarly end up with well under $250 million, maybe around $230 million.
Is the film likely to suffer such a drop? Certainly the MCU's legs have been drawing unfavorable comment lately--while I cannot help noticing the particular parallel between the Friday-to-Sunday trajectory of Guardians 3 and Ant-Man 3 (from $48 million on Friday to $27 million on Sunday in the case of the former, and from $46 million to $26 million in the case of the latter).
I do not rule it out--while remembering that Ant-Man 3's weak "legs" were almost as evident abroad, the movie so that it ends up having taken in perhaps 46 percent of its international gross in just those first three days, a rough $120 million on the way to a $260 million total. Of course, Guardians of the Galaxy 3 has done better than that internationally, pulling in a bit better-than-expected $168 million in its first three days in international release.
Still, should it do no better from here on out than Ant-Man 3 did with regard to holds it would pull in $365 million--well under the $400 million or so I had earlier projected.
The result is that while the weekend meant no surprises for me regarding the upper end of the range into which the film's gross will likely fall, the lower end is another matter--the movie's ending up with closer to $600 million than $700 million still possible. For the time being I still think $700 million more likely than $600 million, but we will know more next weekend--which makes it one to watch for all those curious as to the film's trajectory, and that of the MCU.
Sunday, May 7, 2023
How Much Did Guardians of the Galaxy 3 Actually Make On its Opening Weekend? And How Much is it Likely to Make in its Overall Run?
Guardians of the Galaxy 3 took in $114 million at the North American box office this weekend. Those inclined to look "on the bright side" emphasize that it bettered the $110 million expectation people spoke of recently--and ignore that it at the same time fell short not just of the $116 million it was estimated to be earlier this morning, or the $120 million Variety suggested this past week, but the $155 million Boxoffice Pro thought possible just last month, and still more, what Guardians of the Galaxy 2 actually managed during the same three-day May 5 through May 7 period back in 2017. Its $147 million back in 2017 is more like $180 million today--leaving Guardian 3's take down by a third.
If we take that one-third drop as indicative of the film's longer-run fortunes (and there is no reason yet to think this MCU threequel launched at the start of a crowded summer season will have exceptional "legs") then we should expect the movie, on the premise that this is about 38 percent of its gross, to make a bit over $300 million domestically. Assuming the foreign earnings are proportionate (Guardians 2 made 122 percent of the domestic gross abroad), expect the movie to pull in about $400 million internationally for a $700 million total global gross.
Expect the press to put a bright face on this. But relative to the pricier and better-performing Guardians of the Galaxy franchise this would be an Ant-Man 3-like drop. And this is by no means the worst scenario, as Ant-Man 3 itself shows. The fall in the franchise's grosses with the third installment domestically was much milder than the fall in those grosses internationally. (Where the drop in inflation-adjusted terms at the North American box office was about one-sixth, internationally it was more like half--the main reason why the movie failed to break a half billion at the box office.) Should Ant-Man 3's performance portend even worse "Marvel fatigue" abroad than at home in America as the norm for the subsequent Marvel releases then we will see the international gross that much weaker. Were it to fall by half we would see the movie fall short of $300 million internationally, and thus a combined, global gross below $600 million.
The press will have a harder time putting a bright face on that, but at that level we might see this movie turn out to be a genuine loss-maker for the studio--while it will portend nothing good for The Marvels later this year, or for the MCU more generally. (To put it bluntly, if Guardians fails to make $700 million, I see that movie as less likely to make that mark.)
All that has me wondering at the decision to include hints of unannounced MCU sequels in the post-credits scene, suggesting lots and lots of follow-up to what we saw in the less-than-happy Phase Four.
To me it hints at Disney-Marvel's "staying the course," in spite of its troubles.
Any thoughts on that, readers?
If we take that one-third drop as indicative of the film's longer-run fortunes (and there is no reason yet to think this MCU threequel launched at the start of a crowded summer season will have exceptional "legs") then we should expect the movie, on the premise that this is about 38 percent of its gross, to make a bit over $300 million domestically. Assuming the foreign earnings are proportionate (Guardians 2 made 122 percent of the domestic gross abroad), expect the movie to pull in about $400 million internationally for a $700 million total global gross.
Expect the press to put a bright face on this. But relative to the pricier and better-performing Guardians of the Galaxy franchise this would be an Ant-Man 3-like drop. And this is by no means the worst scenario, as Ant-Man 3 itself shows. The fall in the franchise's grosses with the third installment domestically was much milder than the fall in those grosses internationally. (Where the drop in inflation-adjusted terms at the North American box office was about one-sixth, internationally it was more like half--the main reason why the movie failed to break a half billion at the box office.) Should Ant-Man 3's performance portend even worse "Marvel fatigue" abroad than at home in America as the norm for the subsequent Marvel releases then we will see the international gross that much weaker. Were it to fall by half we would see the movie fall short of $300 million internationally, and thus a combined, global gross below $600 million.
The press will have a harder time putting a bright face on that, but at that level we might see this movie turn out to be a genuine loss-maker for the studio--while it will portend nothing good for The Marvels later this year, or for the MCU more generally. (To put it bluntly, if Guardians fails to make $700 million, I see that movie as less likely to make that mark.)
All that has me wondering at the decision to include hints of unannounced MCU sequels in the post-credits scene, suggesting lots and lots of follow-up to what we saw in the less-than-happy Phase Four.
To me it hints at Disney-Marvel's "staying the course," in spite of its troubles.
Any thoughts on that, readers?
Are People Wrong to Think a Major Marvel Cinematic Universe Movie Has to Make a Billion Dollars to Be a Success?
One film critic of which I know, addressing the question of whether this or that big-budget superhero film was a success, tells his readers that not every such movie has to make a billion dollars--and as the Marvel Cinematic Universe amassed its recent track record, told them this so many times that it almost seems a ritual with him.
In fairness there is a sense in which he is right. In spite of falling short of the billion dollar mark such films have actually been among their year's most profitable releases (at least, to go by Deadline's calculations), as if a $250 million epic making a "mere" $800 million in theaters will not break even on ticket sales alone, there is the considerable revenue to be had from home entertainment, streaming, TV to fill in the gap, and even put it over the top.
Still, is the expectation of a billion dollar gross--and the sense that a movie pulling in less than that is less than a success--so illegitimate?
I would say that it is not--that, in fact, it is quite natural given the history of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, starting with the success of The Avengers in 2012, a $1.5 billion smash that summer (which would be more like a $2 billion gross in today's terms), and what it seemed to do for the associated franchises. The next summer Iron Man 3, following up two films that had had grosses in the $600 million range, pulled in as much as the two movies combined, taking in a near-Avengers-level gross of $1.2 billion (almost $1.6 billion in 2023 terms). From that point on billion dollar grosses actually did become routine for the franchise, with, alongside the Avengers sequels that hit new heights (Avengers 3 and 4 together taking in almost $5 billion in 2018-2019, more like $6 billion today), Captain America 3, Black Panther and Captain Marvel--and Spider-Man: Far From Home--were all bona fide billion-dollar hits.
The result is that a billion dollar gross became routine for the Marvel films in the wake of their Phase 2/Phase 3 performance, and yes, whether or not those grosses continued mattered. going even beyond the immediate contribution to the bottom line (lest it need saying, yes, a difference of billions matters), such expectations conditioned what others were prepared to pay for the distribution and merchandising rights to the associated content--and what the backers of those movies were prepared to put into them--and accordingly what they had to make back in order to stay viable at the same level, even before one considered the implications of inflation for the meaning of film grosses in real terms. The result was that not only did the falling grosses pointedly evident from Thor 4 on bespeak the decline of the MCU as a box office draw, but they meant a significant contraction in profitability insofar as anyone can discern it, and that for a beleaguered studio in a beleaguered industry that can hardly afford to see any of its profit centers suffer, with all that implies for the MCU, for Marvel, for Disney, and for all those whose livelihoods are bound up with them.
In fairness there is a sense in which he is right. In spite of falling short of the billion dollar mark such films have actually been among their year's most profitable releases (at least, to go by Deadline's calculations), as if a $250 million epic making a "mere" $800 million in theaters will not break even on ticket sales alone, there is the considerable revenue to be had from home entertainment, streaming, TV to fill in the gap, and even put it over the top.
Still, is the expectation of a billion dollar gross--and the sense that a movie pulling in less than that is less than a success--so illegitimate?
I would say that it is not--that, in fact, it is quite natural given the history of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, starting with the success of The Avengers in 2012, a $1.5 billion smash that summer (which would be more like a $2 billion gross in today's terms), and what it seemed to do for the associated franchises. The next summer Iron Man 3, following up two films that had had grosses in the $600 million range, pulled in as much as the two movies combined, taking in a near-Avengers-level gross of $1.2 billion (almost $1.6 billion in 2023 terms). From that point on billion dollar grosses actually did become routine for the franchise, with, alongside the Avengers sequels that hit new heights (Avengers 3 and 4 together taking in almost $5 billion in 2018-2019, more like $6 billion today), Captain America 3, Black Panther and Captain Marvel--and Spider-Man: Far From Home--were all bona fide billion-dollar hits.
The result is that a billion dollar gross became routine for the Marvel films in the wake of their Phase 2/Phase 3 performance, and yes, whether or not those grosses continued mattered. going even beyond the immediate contribution to the bottom line (lest it need saying, yes, a difference of billions matters), such expectations conditioned what others were prepared to pay for the distribution and merchandising rights to the associated content--and what the backers of those movies were prepared to put into them--and accordingly what they had to make back in order to stay viable at the same level, even before one considered the implications of inflation for the meaning of film grosses in real terms. The result was that not only did the falling grosses pointedly evident from Thor 4 on bespeak the decline of the MCU as a box office draw, but they meant a significant contraction in profitability insofar as anyone can discern it, and that for a beleaguered studio in a beleaguered industry that can hardly afford to see any of its profit centers suffer, with all that implies for the MCU, for Marvel, for Disney, and for all those whose livelihoods are bound up with them.
Is it Possible That No Live-Action Hollywood Movie Will Gross A Billion Dollars This Year? (Considering the Numbers)
The pandemic dealt filmgoing a serious blow, but it has been recovering for quite a while now, with Spider-Man: No Way Home's near $2 billion gross (achieved without even a release in China) showing that a movie that excited the public could be as big a hit as ever. Of course, in spite of that film's success the market as a whole did not recover. Production and release schedules do not "turn on a dime," and where likely blockbusters are concerned 2022 was thinner than most pre-pandemic years. (The summer season had just four really big action movies instead of the usual eight.) Still, Top Gun 2 and Avatar 2 (which took in over $4 billion worldwide between them) affirmed yet again that a big movie could be as big a hit as ever, while the animated Super Mario Bros. film did it again this year, with a take of over $1 billion and counting.
The result is that it would seem quite natural if 2023 had multiple billion-dollar grosses, with the list of course containing plenty of live-action movies. After all, 2019 had nine such films, of which six were of the live-action type (discounting the "talking" animals of The Lion King remake).
Still, consider the situation, starting with the superhero films. The MCU is not what it used to be, as we were reminded by Ant-Man 3's particularly painful underperformance, while Guardians of the Galaxy 3 has come out to lowered expectations, and even optimists do not seem to think The Marvels' gross will match its billion-dollar-grossing predecessor in current dollar, let alone real, terms. (My prediction is that each will make about $700 million--though with the qualifier that The Marvels could more easily fall below this mark.) Aquaman 2 is another follow-up to a billion-dollar hit, but expectations are again low for it, while if the prospects of The Flash are looking up I am doubtful that they are looking so far up as to approach the billion-dollar mark. And of course the Blue Beetle and Kraven the Hunter movies are more modest projects with more modest prospects.
Meanwhile, the Fast and Furious franchise, which for many years could be counted on for a billion-dollar take, has seen the erosion of its earnings since its peak (way back with #7), while the other non-superhero film most likely to hit the billion-dollar mark, Indiana Jones 5, if not to be written off (my own prediction is in the vicinity of a billion dollar mark), could easily fall short of it (the "margin of error" significant, and my guess that its gross could more easily go low than high). The performance of the Transformers franchise in recent years has not inspired great confidence (with American filmgoers losing interest after the third one, and #5 a particular disappointment). Meanwhile the Mission: Impossible and Meg movies (to say nothing of Dune, or The Expendables) seem unlikely to improve on their past performances so much as to make the billion-dollar mark--while I have very real doubts about the public's appetite for a Hunger Games prequel (the more in as that franchise was already "fading" before its conclusion way back in 2015, and the world has moved on from the YA dystopia fad).
If I prove right about all this it will be a disappointing "comeback" year for a Hollywood that may be even more reliant on the super-profits of a handful of franchise hits, and worrisome for the long term, given the already shaken condition of the industry, and what it would suggest for so many of those franchises. With the MCU, and Indiana Jones, and Fast and Furious, and the Transformers not going "above and beyond"--on top of the sad state of the Star Wars franchise and the exhaustion of Jurassic Park and the question marks surrounding 007--just how much is left? The crisis of blockbuster filmmaking will only deepen, with, again, no relief in sight, and the vulgarians running the studios keeping every door and window through which relief might possible come nailed shut.
The result is that it would seem quite natural if 2023 had multiple billion-dollar grosses, with the list of course containing plenty of live-action movies. After all, 2019 had nine such films, of which six were of the live-action type (discounting the "talking" animals of The Lion King remake).
Still, consider the situation, starting with the superhero films. The MCU is not what it used to be, as we were reminded by Ant-Man 3's particularly painful underperformance, while Guardians of the Galaxy 3 has come out to lowered expectations, and even optimists do not seem to think The Marvels' gross will match its billion-dollar-grossing predecessor in current dollar, let alone real, terms. (My prediction is that each will make about $700 million--though with the qualifier that The Marvels could more easily fall below this mark.) Aquaman 2 is another follow-up to a billion-dollar hit, but expectations are again low for it, while if the prospects of The Flash are looking up I am doubtful that they are looking so far up as to approach the billion-dollar mark. And of course the Blue Beetle and Kraven the Hunter movies are more modest projects with more modest prospects.
Meanwhile, the Fast and Furious franchise, which for many years could be counted on for a billion-dollar take, has seen the erosion of its earnings since its peak (way back with #7), while the other non-superhero film most likely to hit the billion-dollar mark, Indiana Jones 5, if not to be written off (my own prediction is in the vicinity of a billion dollar mark), could easily fall short of it (the "margin of error" significant, and my guess that its gross could more easily go low than high). The performance of the Transformers franchise in recent years has not inspired great confidence (with American filmgoers losing interest after the third one, and #5 a particular disappointment). Meanwhile the Mission: Impossible and Meg movies (to say nothing of Dune, or The Expendables) seem unlikely to improve on their past performances so much as to make the billion-dollar mark--while I have very real doubts about the public's appetite for a Hunger Games prequel (the more in as that franchise was already "fading" before its conclusion way back in 2015, and the world has moved on from the YA dystopia fad).
If I prove right about all this it will be a disappointing "comeback" year for a Hollywood that may be even more reliant on the super-profits of a handful of franchise hits, and worrisome for the long term, given the already shaken condition of the industry, and what it would suggest for so many of those franchises. With the MCU, and Indiana Jones, and Fast and Furious, and the Transformers not going "above and beyond"--on top of the sad state of the Star Wars franchise and the exhaustion of Jurassic Park and the question marks surrounding 007--just how much is left? The crisis of blockbuster filmmaking will only deepen, with, again, no relief in sight, and the vulgarians running the studios keeping every door and window through which relief might possible come nailed shut.
What is This Nonsense About the MCU Getting "Better Writers?"
Those who do not specifically avoid doing so are apt to hear something of the rumors circulating in the entertainment press.
Many of these rumors are quite stupid.
One such rumor that is stupid in such a way that it seems worth addressing here is that a Disney-Marvel management looking to save their colossal investment in the mighty but failing Marvel Cinematic Universe as it and the studio flounders are looking to hire "better writers" than they used in the past.
So far everyone seems to have spoken of this uncritically, as if thinking "Clearly the movies have not been very good. Clearly hiring better writers will help."
But think about this seriously for a moment. Are they seriously saying that the most powerful studio in Hollywood, making its colossal investment in the highest-grossing film franchise of all time, could have hired "better writers" than it did, but simply declined to do so? Are we expected to imagine that, laying out up to $700 million for a single production even before the residuals and participations were counted in, they said "Let's go with the second-stringers?"
Anyway--if we can set the unthinking adherence to the "habit of invidious comparison" of the conventionally-minded aside for a moment--what does "better" mean in this context? Is there some objectively accurate and precise system for classifying writers by individual quality to which Hollywood is privy--or set of systems, with one specifically regarding all-purpose competence at producing screenplays for superhero films? Or perhaps some sophisticated algorithm according to which they could in advance conveniently generate a numerical score indicating the suitability of this or that writer for the kind of Captain America 3 or Thor 2 the People In Charge hope to make?
Of course not. And it would not matter very much if such systems did exist because, in spite of the tidy credits on the screen and the awards handed out for them, the production of a major feature film script does not come down to the genius, or lack thereof, of a single individual. Everyone familiar with the process of scripting a film knows how diffuse and tortured it is--with different writers often called on to contribute different scripts for a project from which different bits might be used or not used in one form or another, and single scripts passing from one hand to another, and specialists called in to fix this or "doctor that" (e.g. "Punch up the dialogue here, would ya?"), all as a pack of Irving Thalberg wannabes who cannot write a proper e-mail, let alone a script, meddle in the process at every turn--with all this compounded by the necessity of satisfying innumerable imperatives from anyone and everyone connected with the project on whose support they rely, from companies placing their products, to governments handing out subsidies.
As all this reflects, in comparison with others among the higher-profile creative personnel in Hollywood, writers have very little power (and all of us who know Marvel know what Uncle Ben says about power and responsibility). This, of course, is one reason why they are in the lousy situation that now has them striking. And of course, amid that strike one can expect the studio chiefs to be even more than usually inclined to writer-bashing.
"Didn't like the movie? It's those no-good writers' fault!"
That we should be expected to take such a claim seriously, especially in a moment like this, is an appalling insult to our intelligence--though even the insult is not so appalling as the possibility that the studio executives are themselves stupid enough to actually think along such lines.
Many of these rumors are quite stupid.
One such rumor that is stupid in such a way that it seems worth addressing here is that a Disney-Marvel management looking to save their colossal investment in the mighty but failing Marvel Cinematic Universe as it and the studio flounders are looking to hire "better writers" than they used in the past.
So far everyone seems to have spoken of this uncritically, as if thinking "Clearly the movies have not been very good. Clearly hiring better writers will help."
But think about this seriously for a moment. Are they seriously saying that the most powerful studio in Hollywood, making its colossal investment in the highest-grossing film franchise of all time, could have hired "better writers" than it did, but simply declined to do so? Are we expected to imagine that, laying out up to $700 million for a single production even before the residuals and participations were counted in, they said "Let's go with the second-stringers?"
Anyway--if we can set the unthinking adherence to the "habit of invidious comparison" of the conventionally-minded aside for a moment--what does "better" mean in this context? Is there some objectively accurate and precise system for classifying writers by individual quality to which Hollywood is privy--or set of systems, with one specifically regarding all-purpose competence at producing screenplays for superhero films? Or perhaps some sophisticated algorithm according to which they could in advance conveniently generate a numerical score indicating the suitability of this or that writer for the kind of Captain America 3 or Thor 2 the People In Charge hope to make?
Of course not. And it would not matter very much if such systems did exist because, in spite of the tidy credits on the screen and the awards handed out for them, the production of a major feature film script does not come down to the genius, or lack thereof, of a single individual. Everyone familiar with the process of scripting a film knows how diffuse and tortured it is--with different writers often called on to contribute different scripts for a project from which different bits might be used or not used in one form or another, and single scripts passing from one hand to another, and specialists called in to fix this or "doctor that" (e.g. "Punch up the dialogue here, would ya?"), all as a pack of Irving Thalberg wannabes who cannot write a proper e-mail, let alone a script, meddle in the process at every turn--with all this compounded by the necessity of satisfying innumerable imperatives from anyone and everyone connected with the project on whose support they rely, from companies placing their products, to governments handing out subsidies.
As all this reflects, in comparison with others among the higher-profile creative personnel in Hollywood, writers have very little power (and all of us who know Marvel know what Uncle Ben says about power and responsibility). This, of course, is one reason why they are in the lousy situation that now has them striking. And of course, amid that strike one can expect the studio chiefs to be even more than usually inclined to writer-bashing.
"Didn't like the movie? It's those no-good writers' fault!"
That we should be expected to take such a claim seriously, especially in a moment like this, is an appalling insult to our intelligence--though even the insult is not so appalling as the possibility that the studio executives are themselves stupid enough to actually think along such lines.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
