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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

How Will Captain Marvel 2 Do? A Box Office Prediction for The Marvels

Recently writing about the pattern of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) grosses from Thor 4 forward I found myself hitting on the subject not just of what it portended for Guardians of the Galaxy 3, but also The Marvels, still half a year away--enough so that it seemed worth giving that its own post.

Ant-Man 3 was the precedent that seemed to me most relevant to Guardians of the Galaxy 3, given that it is likewise a "lesser" Marvel franchise coming out not quite three months after the other movie, with the estimates for its opening weekend domestic gross strongly suggesting a similar course (a rough one-third drop in inflation-adjusted, real terms from what the last film made leaving it with an approximately $700 million gross).

By contrast Black Panther 2 seemed a more relevant parallel for The Marvels, in part because of the parallels between the preceding films. Captain Marvel, like Black Panther, was the first film in a new series; put out during Marvel's Phase Three peak (2018-2019); released in the early part of the year (March 8, as against February 16, a mere three weeks off); touted as an event (indeed, a milestone!) because of its protagonist's ethnicity or gender; and similarly made over a billion dollars at the box office (back when a dollar was officially worth a good deal more than it is today).*

Fast-forward to today, and one notes that Black Panther 2 was put out amid declining excitement about the MCU in the wake of Phase Four's underperformance; put out in November; and simply did not have the cachet of the first because a sequel to a movie supposedly important as a "first" simply could not be an event in the same way. (One might add that in becoming "female-led" Black Panther 2 became in yet another way even more like the upcoming Captain Marvel 2.)

Black Panther 2 ended up making half of what Black Panther did. It does not seem unreasonable to anticipate Captain Marvel 2 doing the same on the basis of those parallels, which would mean a gross of some $600-$700 million.

Moreover, it should be noted that Captain Marvel 2 has liabilities Black Panther 2 (even with the loss of a well-liked star) did not.

There is the divided reaction to the first Captain Marvel film.

There is the tie-in with a Disney streaming show that not everyone Marvel Studios must be hoping will come see the film will have watched (which hurt Dr. Strange 2).

And there is arguably greater doubt about the movie--with the MCU racking up further underperformances (Black Panther 2 included in the view of those disposed to see it as such, and the unquestioned disappointment of Ant-Man 3, while Guardians of the Galaxy may go the same way), and the decision to bump the release of The Marvels from July to November not helping.

The result is that The Marvels may suffer an even steeper drop than Black Panther 2 did, possibly slipping below the $600 million mark to rival Ant-Man 3 in its earnings.

For the time being we have not heard much about what the movie ultimately cost, only partial numbers released to date, while one can only wonder as to just how big and expensive the post-production job that prompted the more than three months' delay is. But it is worth recalling that the original Captain Marvel saw Disney-Marvel spend over $450 million on the film (with $175 million just the net production cost). Sequels are rarely cheaper to make than the original, while the extended post-production, and the possibility of a more than usually aggressive promotional push to help prop up the good Marvel name(s) in which Disney has so much invested, would make a still heavier outlay plausible. Should the movie after all that end up with $600 million, or even less, from the theatrical run, its profits will not just be a long way from the $400 million+ the studio may have made from the first film (and expected of the second!), but the return negative.

Of course, a lot could happen in the six months between now, and when the movie will hit theaters, with The Flash an object lesson in just how much the expectations (or at least, the press' expectations) can change in such a short period. Yet this is the pattern I see as relevant for the time being--while, as we are on the subject of that other movie, it seems to me that people are swinging from one extreme to the other, if not regarding the film's quality, then at least its likely box office. Even a better-than-expected Flash film, and some positive buzz and word-of-mouth, is likely to boost it only so much in a crowded summer. The same would go for Captain Marvel 2, a very great gap existing between the numbers I am talking about here, and the $1.3-$1.4 billion grossed by the original, or even just the billion-dollar mark the MCU has found ever more elusive in even this inflationary era.

* Arguably the view of Black Panther as a "milestone" was more important in the U.S. than elsewhere. It actually ended up the highest-grossing movie of the year in North America in 2018, outdoing even Avengers: Infinity War with its $700 million domestic gross ($800 million+ today), but performed more like other Marvel movies abroad (pulling in just 48 percent of its take internationally). Still, the first Black Panther's international gross was markedly greater than the sequel's, some $647 million ($750 million in 2022 terms) to Black Panther 2's $405 million.

For an updated view of the issue, see the author's latest on Captain Marvel 2's prospects.

How Will The Flash Do at the Box Office?

Until recently I have not discussed box office predictions much here, and when I have done so (especially when addressing predictions made in advance of the film's hitting theaters), have usually offered comment on other people's predictions rather than trying to come up with my own predictions from scratch.

The main reason that I have been offering more predictions lately is that the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), and its component series', have run for so long by this point as to give us lots and lots of data in which even those of us who are not Hollywood insiders privy to test screenings and other such information can look for patterns.

We have less of that to go on in the case of the later, less prolific DC Extended Universe (DCEU), which has also been less consistent--and is already slated for a much-publicized overhaul, meaning we will not get very much more to work with before having to rethink our assumptions. Still, prior to that we will get a few more films, notably a Blue Beetle movie "upgraded" from the original plan for a streaming release; a sequel to the DCEU's sole billion dollar-hit, Aquaman; and of course, The Flash.

The buzz for Aquaman 2 has been surprisingly bad recently; the buzz for The Flash, surprisingly good, spectacular even, such that one may wonder just how it will do at the box office when it comes out six weeks from now in mid-June.

Considering this my first thought is that the Barry Allen/Flash character simply does not have the cachet of the other members of the Justice League, while there is no special angle that would make this "more" than just "another superhero" movie (the way Wonder Woman was, for example) in a market where there has been a super-abundance of the super-hero stuff for as long as most of us can remember (perhaps not irrelevantly including another incarnation of the Flash himself on the small screen in the Arrowverse for nine seasons), and "fatigue" possibly setting in. Meanwhile star Ezra Miller's current public image is . . . unhelpful, enough so as to probably put off some of the audience.

Moreover, The Flash will be going out into the most crowded summer box office season since before the pandemic. People will have lots of other options--so many that if it happens that the movie gets good press late in the game and has the advantage of positive word-of-mouth the crowding will limit its "legs," as they will any other movie we get this year. (I will say it again: Top Gun 2 had a lot of advantages, but in the cheer-leading mood surrounding it just about no one wanted to admit that one of the most important was that it had very little competition compared with releases in most summers.)

The result is that there is some room for the movie to "overperform," but from relatively low expectations. Screen Rant's Cooper Hood, for example, predicted $700 million as the movie's gross back in January, before the press became more bullish. Just going by my gut (on which I am more reliant here, again, because there is less to compare this movie to) I can picture the movie making that, or even more than that--but the billion-dollar mark seems to me beyond its reach. Will I have occasion to change my mind? I suppose I will find out in the coming weeks.

Thor 4 vs. Black Panther 2 vs. Ant-Man 3 . . . vs. Guardians of the Galaxy 3 and The Marvels?

From Thor 4 on every new Marvel movie has, in inflation-adjusted, "real" terms, taken in one-quarter to one-half less than the preceding film in the series (Thor 4 vs. Thor 3, etc.). Moreover, the significance of the trend is confirmed by the fact that, where available, the profits show it--"cash-on-cash return" as calculated by Deadline showing a one-half drop in profit for Thor 4 and Black Panther 2 as against Thor 3 and the original Black Panther, respectively.

Thor 4 had the smallest drop in box office gross (of roughly one-quarter), Black Panther 2 the biggest (one-half), while Ant-Man 3 was in the middle (its worldwide gross about a third down from that of Ant-Man 2). It may seem surprising that Black Panther 2 suffered the biggest drop, given the tendency to present it as a hit, as against Ant-Man 3's generally acknowledged failure. However, whatever one makes of the many factors involved in such "spin," the original Black Panther was treated as an event, producing a result even a well-received sequel was unlikely to match, while the loss of the star was a further handicap--while people tend to be less quick to call a movie that made over $800 million a flop as against one that failed to break the half billion-dollar barrier (the more for the post-pandemic era being one of "flexible" expectations in such matters).

The result is that it is probably more useful to focus on the other two films when gauging the prospects of new Marvel movies, like Guardians of the Galaxy 3, which, as I have already argued given the estimates regarding the opening weekend, may play out like Ant-Man 3, with a (real, inflation-adjusted) gross a rough one-third lower than what Guardians of the Galaxy 2 managed (expectations which will be partially confirmed, or disconfirmed, by Sunday).

Still, it seems to me possible that the Black Panther series may be a more useful precedent for considering the fate of The Marvels. Its predecessor, Captain Marvel, like Black Panther, was a release in the first three months of the year touted as an "event," in part because it was the first MCU movie with a female lead, but also in part because the climax of Marvel's Phase Three in the mega-event of the release of Avengers: Endgame was a mere seven weeks away. The result was a $1.1 billion gross in early 2019, which is more like $1.3 billion in the terms of early 2023 (and, if the Fed is right about the inflation rate, maybe more like $1.4 billion later this year)--such that even a very well-received Marvels movie would probably not do as well. Especially given the divided reaction to Captain Marvel (this was the movie that officially drove Rotten Tomatoes to introduce two audience scores in an attempt to limit the effect of "review-bombing"); the tie-in between a major MCU movie and a Disney streaming show (which strategy did not serve Dr. Strange 2 well, and will probably not serve this movie well either, especially given that the show prompted similar reactions to the first Captain Marvel movie); and the decision to bump the movie's release from late July to November (which has been grist to the mill of the skeptics, among whom the rumor that poor test screenings is circulating); there is that much more reason to anticipate "headwinds." Indeed, it may not be unreasonable to anticipate a Black Panther 2-like fall from the gross of the original Captain Marvel (which is to say, a real terms drop of half into the $600-$700 million range), while I would not rule out the film's performing even below this mark (perhaps, sliding down into Ant-Man 3 territory).

Of course, it is just May--and the release of The Marvels a whole half year away. But it is hard to picture anything in the next six months strongly enhancing this movie's prospects from whatever they happen to be now--especially if Guardians of the Galaxy 3 fails to revive the public's excitement about the MCU.

Guardians of the Galaxy 3: Reviewing the Range of Predictions

With Guardians of the Galaxy 3 about to kick off the summer movie season the range of predictions regarding the movie's box office gross discussed here may be of some interest. These are as follows:

* At the start of the year an analyst publishing in Screen Rant suggested $1.2 billion.

* Going by the inflation-adjusted performance of the first two Guardians films I considered $1 billion as the outcome were it to simply do as well as its predecessors (with a little over half coming from overseas).

* Considering how the last Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) film did in comparison with its predecessor--how, as if the drops from film to film previously seen with Thor and Black Panther were not bad enough, Ant-Man 3's fell so far short of Ant-Man 2--I suggested a $700 million gross were Guardians 3 to see its gross drop in comparable fashion relative to Guardians 2 (as, with its domestic gross falling a rough sixth, its international gross closer to half, it winds up with a bit under $400 million at home, a little over $300 million more from overseas).

* Considering the expectations regarding its opening weekend I extrapolated a gross in the $700 million range from what the opening weekend meant for Guardians 2 (with $320 million at home, $420 million from abroad, $740 million plausible, though with the take easily less).

* Combining both the Ant-Man-like drop and the opening weekend now expected I got a gross closer to $600 million than $700 million, or even under the $600 million mark.

In all these you have a range from $1.2 billion down to half that or less in the relatively dark scenario I developed out of the combination of the precedent of Ant-Man 3, and the current, lowered, expectations for the opening weekend.

The high end of this range would be not just a morale-boosting topping of the billion-dollar mark for the MCU for only the second time since 2019 (the first was Spider-Man: No Way Home), but a series best for the Guardians movies.

The low end of this range would be very bad indeed for Marvel, given that Guardians is its best chance to demonstrate the franchise's continued health in 2023--while even calling into doubt whether the rather "pricey" movie would cover its cost.

Considering these numbers it is worth recalling that when Screen Rant's analyst offered the $1.2 billion estimate he also estimated that Ant-Man 3 would be a billion-dollar hit. In fact it made it less than half that, which is what we would see were the movie to wind up with <$600 million.

I do not rule out the possibility of such a collapse. But presented with these possibilities I am sticking with the $700 million take, give or take $50 million, predicted by both the current expectations for the opening weekend and the Ant-Man-style collapse calculation as the most likely outcome--not what backers or fans of the MCU would hope for, but not the worst-case scenario for now.

And thereby ends the speculation about how the film will do on the basis of anticipations and precedents. Within mere hours the movie will be in theaters--and for the short period in which speculation about its box office take will still have any meaning, people will be doing it from real numbers as the ticket-buyers finally have their say, deciding whether or not, as I suspected, Chris Pratt's highest grossing film this year is the one that has already been playing in theaters for a month.

What Will Guardians of the Galaxy 3 Make in its Opening Weekend?

A couple of weeks ago I offered an estimate of Guardians of the Galaxy 3's box office gross (that now, perhaps unsurprisingly given the movie's coming out Friday, seems to be getting a lot of traffic).

At the time I concerned myself with the film's overall box office performance, not its opening weekend performance, which is the main thing we are hearing about now. According to Variety, Guardians of the Galaxy, Volume 3, is expected to take in $120 million in its opening weekend at the domestic box office.

This sounds robust (and certainly the relevant media presents this as excellent). But $120 million is, even in current dollars, about a fifth down from what Guardians of the Galaxy 2 made in its opening weekend during the same three-day period in May (May 5-May 7) six years ago. Some $147 million, when one adjusts it for today's prices, that opening weekend take was more like $180 million.*

So basically the expectation is that Guardians of the Galaxy 3 will make a third less than Guardians of the Galaxy 2--suggesting the new movie's making a lot less than its predecessor.

Might the film have better "legs" offsetting an underwhelming opening weekend, however? I know of no reason to think so. Quite the contrary, it is a highly publicized threequel coming into a crowded-as-usual summer movie season very different from last year's, in which circumstances the same "front-loading" of the gross as was seen with the preceding movie made seem rather plausible. Guardians of the Galaxy picked up 38 percent of its total domestic gross in those first three days--a typical figure for high-profile sequels--and should Guardians of the Galaxy 3 do the same it would end up with about $320 million in the till. This is less than what the preceding Guardian films made in current dollar terms, and about a third down from what Guardians of the Galaxy 3 made in real, inflation-adjusted terms.

Down near the bottom end of the range of predictions previously being discussed (roughly, $290-$400 million), were the international grosses (57 percent of the total previously) to go the same way the movie's final global tally would be in the vicinity of $740 million, again a significant drop from what came before (Guardians of the Galaxy 2 a billion dollar hit in today's terms).

Moreover, it seems some analysts are even less optimistic about key parts of the picture. Deadline, which estimated a $130 million gross for the film's opening weekend not quite three weeks ago, now offers another estimate in the area of $110 million, which, apart from setting us up for still less on the basis of the same formulas I have used here (a Guardians movie taking in $290 million domestically, $670 million globally), in itself bespeaks the kind of falling expectations that preceded Thor 4's less-than-stellar performance last summer. Meanwhile I find myself thinking about Ant-Man 3's underwhelming performance, and how that was much more a matter of underperformance internationally rather than at home in North America. Where Ant-Man 3's box office slipped by a sixth domestically, it fell about half internationally in real terms. Were the drop for Guardians' international gross to be that much greater than its domestic drop (which already seems likely to be much sharper than the one Ant-Man 3 suffered, one-third rather than one-sixth, and maybe worse) it is not inconceivable that the international take could be that much weaker.

The result is that if a Guardians performance in the $700-$750 million range looks worrisome, worse still is quite conceivable. In the event of $290 million in North America, combined with an Ant-Man 3-like drop internationally, the movie might not see $600 million. Were the international drop, again, increased in severity, as the American drop increased in severity, the movie could see a good deal less than $600 million.

At this point it seems one could say something of potential profitability. Even with its reported $250 million budget Guardians 3 would not necessarily be a money-loser with a $700-$750 million gross. After all, Thor 4, budgeted at a similar level, if failing to cover its cost in its theatrical run, eventually brought in a $100 million cash-on-cash return thanks to characteristically healthy Marvel revenues from home entertainment/streaming/TV (and perhaps more still from merchandise, and from keeping the bigger-than-any-one-movie-or-series Marvel machinery grinding along). And there is for the time being no reason to think the profitability of a Guardians movie at that level would be worse. But it would likely be less than Disney-Marvel was hoping for from a Guardians of the Galaxy 3, the more in as it is a good deal less profit than it made from Guardians 2 ($190 million adjusted for today's terms, by my reckoning), continuing the pattern of falling profits (indeed, halved profits on its latest sequels relative to their predecessors, as seen with Thor 4 and Black Panther 2), and reaffirming the increasingly widespread view that Marvel's heyday is a thing of the past rather than proving the occasion on which the mega-franchise rallied and showed up the naysayers. Moreover, in 2023 it will not have a better chance than this one was, with the animated Spider-Man and the Kraven movies different sorts of projects, best judged by a different standard, and the only other comparable MCU movie The Marvels, which has been bumped from July all the way out to November.

I will have more to say of that film's chances--as well as Guardians' own prospects--as more data comes in.

* As always, I am using the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index, in this case adjusting May 2017 prices for those of March 2023.

Estimating the Commercial Prospects of a Major Film: A Fuller View

Deadline's first "Most Valuable Blockbuster Tournament" in three years, and its addition to and update of the ever-growing mass of data those Tournaments have produced, has had me rethinking my formula for estimating a movie's likely profitability from the more commonly publicized pieces of information (production budgets and box office grosses). Now it seems to me more useful to think less in terms of just the movie's succeeding or failing in its making its money back from the theatrical run than what that run portends more broadly--in what it can suggest about subsequent earnings from home entertainment, streaming, TV; and worthwhile to pay more heed to expenses that come after a movie is "finished" and out, like the "residuals and participations"; precisely because we have enough such data systematically collected to allow one to plausibly make some generalizations about them.

Of course, all that said, one should acknowledge the roughness of any such generalization. Apart from the vagueness of any numbers given us by the media (e.g. "Was that the cost of the production, or the net cost of the production?"), and the frank uncertainty (and even chicanery) associated with the calculations of accountants at the studios as in any other business (the words "There is no net" are a cliché for a reason), movies and their performances differ in all sorts of ways. Low-budget movies, as against high-budget movies, devote relatively less to production than to other expenses. (Saving money on a production does not make the cost of prints and ads any cheaper, especially if the movie is supposed to get a well-publicized wide release. Thus the total expenses on Where the Crawdads Sing ran to $123 million--even though the production itself cost a mere $24 million.) Movies that do less well in theaters tend to derive a higher share of their revenue from home entertainment/streaming/TV. (Crawdads, again, made some $120 million from the latter, as against just $68 million in theatrical rentals, so that they accounted for almost two-thirds of the total revenue in Deadline's analysis.) At a given level of earnings it makes a big difference what kind of deal the "talent" got, and whether the movie "underperformed" or "overperformed". (The fact that Top Gun 2 gave Tom Cruise a very generous contract to play Maverick Mitchell again, and then overperformed as it did, meant that participations alone came to an extraordinary $280 million--as against the $177 million actually spent on making the actual movie! Paramount's profit was still colossal--but this was a big bite out of the possible return on investment.)

All the same, crunching the numbers does afford one some meaningful averages that are at least a basis for good guesses--with this going all the more for the purposes of the kind of calculations I tend to here as my writing focuses on the likelihood that big-budget, blockbuster-type films lost money, broke even or turned in a profit rather than anything more precise. From that standpoint it seems to me reasonable to say that, when we count in the fuller outlay in the Deadline manner, a production budget (which in the absence of any information to the contrary I assume to be all net outlay to be on the safe side) is likely to represent no less than half and more likely a third of the total expense of the movie. At the same time the movie's theatrical rentals (40-50 percent of the gross, if usually closer to the 50 than the 40 mark) are commonly about 50 percent higher than what it will net the backer in home entertainment/streaming/TV (with Avenger vs. Thanos-caliber hits tending to do relatively less well because the box office take is so huge, while smaller earners, again, derive more of their money from the non-theatrical sources).

What does this work out to for, say, a $200 million production (like Ant-Man 3)? Going by the rules of thumb given here the fuller expenses will be upwards of $400 million, and likely in the vicinity of $600 million. With the movie needing to take in around 60 percent of that at the box office merely to let the later home entertainment options close the gap, at even the low end of the spectrum it would need something in the vicinity of $240 million in theatrical rentals simply to let a commonplace performance in home entertainment suffice to cover the remainder. That is to say, nothing less than $450 million at the box office is likely to do, while a half billion dollars or more are more likely to be required. At the high it would need $360 million, implying a gross in the area of $750 million at the least, and maybe even more like $900 million, again, just to break even, with worse quite possible (for instance, if a star's contract claims a significant share of the gross).

In that last "normal" year before the pandemic, 2019, maybe ten movies made $900 million--a fact that should remind us that, even where individual movies make colossal profits, the risks, and frequent losses, are likewise colossal, enough so that I wonder if the viability of this whole way of making and distributing movies is not increasingly in question.

Is Profitability Possible for Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny?

Some time ago I made an estimate of how well (or poorly) Indiana Jones 5 is likely to do commercially based on the reported cost of the film, the grosses of prior films in the series, and the "headwinds" I saw the film facing (e.g. an aging fan base, waning nostalgia, skepticism in some quarters about a new director and Disney's oversight in the wake of a less than perfectly happy experience with Star Wars, etc.). My guess was a gross in the vicinity of a billion dollars, with a 25 percent margin up or down from that mark, with a performance below the billion dollar mark more likely than one much above it (and acknowledgment of a dim prospect of a Solo-like collapse). I also argued that given the reported $300 million cost of the movie (which according to my formula meant that the movie had to make 4-5 times that much to be assumed safely out of "flop" territory, and thus a $1.2 billion gross minimum, perhaps as much as a $1.5 billion gross necessary) this could easily leave the film making a loss--at least, as of the end of the theatrical run.

I see no reason to change any of that now.

Still, I do see some grounds for expanding on it. As my qualifier "as of the end of the theatrical run" indicates I did not concern myself with subsequent earnings--home entertainment, streaming, TV. However, crunching the recent Deadline numbers on twenty movies of 2022, which show pretty much the same picture in this respect as we had before the pandemic, it seems to me that one can say something of those home entertainment, etc., earnings, specifically that they tend to come to about two-thirds of what a movie took in theatrical rentals (the 40-50 percent of the gross the studio gets) in the case of big-budget films, which is to say that the final revenue averages roughly 60 percent theatrical, 40 percent from those other streams. It also seems that one can say something of the fuller expenses--like the costs of that release in those other media--which mean that the total expenses on a film commonly run three times the production budget these days (and sometimes more).

Going by the "production budget times three formula," and in the absence of information to the contrary the assumption that the $300 million production cost is the net figure, Disney-Lucasfilm may be spending up to $900 million on Indiana Jones altogether (a colossal but not unprecedented outlay). Going by the 60/40 theatrical/non-theatrical split, the movie would need some $500-$550 million in theatrical rentals--which means $1-$1.3 billion in box office gross--just to reduce the gap to be made up by the non-theatrical options to the proportions at which home entertainment and the rest could be expected to make it up. And this might be optimistic, given the role of participations and residuals here given that, after all, they brought Harrison Ford back to play Indiana Jones a fifth time.

The result is that, unless what we have heard about the production's costs are way off (and sometimes the expenditures do indeed turn out to be significantly less), it is easy to see the Indiana Jones film falling short of what it would need not only to make its money back in theaters, but to do so even with the help of post-theatrical revenue. A "mere" $750 million gross could leave the studio well into the red on this production, with the gap too big to be filled up by those other revenues. Of course, for all that the film may have some value to the franchise by keeping up interest in the older Jones films, moving associated merchandise, etc., but a bigger success would fulfill that object much more effectively than an underperforming Indiana Jones movie. And in the end there is a world of difference between merely minimizing one's losses, and enjoying the kind of roaring success that motivated Disney's purchase of Lucasfilm, and backing a big-budget Indiana Jones film.

Considering such a return on investment I find myself thinking of the trajectory of the blockbuster. Raiders of the Lost Ark, way back in 1981, cost what in today's terms would be some $60 million to make--a fifth what this movie has run--while the other associated expenses (e.g. publicity) were probably still smaller--while Indiana Jones 5 for all the extra investment, would be doing very well indeed to merely match its box office take (in today's terms, in the vicinity of $1.3 billion), which would still, even with the vastly enlarged home entertainment/streaming/TV income, just let it break even.

Just as with the historical epics and musicals that bloomed in the '50s, increasingly struggled in the '60s, and did not wholly survive that latter decade, the outlays have got to a point that makes vast investments to highly uncertain result the norm, so much so that just as with those genres I look at movies like this and think "This can't go on." But for the time being "this" is still going on, because at its level of capitalization, and facing the competition it does from those other media, Hollywood simply cannot go on in any other way.