Not long ago I had occasion to think about how athletes seemed to have a higher profile in the media world just a couple of decades back, so that even people who did not follow their sport often knew something about them.
There seemed no great mystery there. Pop culture was a smaller territory then than now, and perhaps especially important the offerings of television more limited, so that sports had less competition for eyeballs, and was that much bigger a part of the culture generally, so that even the inattentive noticed.
There was also a significant amount of "sports entertainment" that got attention from people who did not ordinarily care to follow sports, because of its gimmicks or other attractions--like the old American Gladiators show, or the WWE (especially in the turn-of-the-century "Attitude Era"), providing plenty of visibility to a good many athletes, while there were still such things as fitness celebrity-packed workout shows on ESPN in the morning. And there was the way in which all this was leveraged, with the WWE, for example, pursuing tie-ins and cross-overs, getting their stars guest spots wherever they could, so that watching Star Trek: Voyager on UPN you saw Seven of Nine fighting The Rock for some reason--and very unusually for that character, losing, because there is no way they are going to put The Rock out there just to get beat up.
Sometimes this led to a second career, with The Rock, and John Cena, certainly, becoming as close to film stars as anyone gets to be in the twenty-first century. But all of that would seem to have fallen by the wayside (Gina Carano perhaps the last such success story, though alas her career is in a period of downturn). Effect as well as cause of those changes in media, it all probably plays its part in the generation gap existing between older enthusiasts and the less interested young the Pew Research Center would seem to have reconfirmed this month.
Friday, October 27, 2023
Thursday, October 26, 2023
Boxoffice Pro Revises its Numbers for Captain Marvel 2 (aka The Marvels) Downward (Again)
Whatever one makes of The Flash as a film it was in commercial terms the worst flop of the summer--a $300 million movie that finished its worldwide theatrical run with a mere $271 million grossed. Constituting outright collapse for the DCEU franchise of which it is a part, the flopping of franchise film after franchise film over the summer (Fast and Furious, Indiana Jones, Mission: Impossible) had me wondering if Captain Marvel 2 (The Marvels) might not similarly be a moment of Flash-like collapse for the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). Two weeks ago Boxoffice Pro's first long-range forecast including the film confirmed the impression, with an estimate of $121-$189 million for the film's domestic run, the low end of the range only marginally better than what The Flash picked up in North America ($108 million).
Still, bad as that was I remembered all too well how many of the year's underperformers saw their prospects decay between that first long-range forecast and their opening weekend--and while last week's forecast edged downward only marginally (2 percent they said) this week's forecast showed a significant dip. The publication's projection for the film's run is now $109 million-$169 million, a significant drop from the already low figure of two weeks before that leaves the low end of the range almost exactly at what The Flash managed, and we still have two weeks to go, during which a lot could change--possibly for the better, but perhaps also for the worse. At that same point, two weeks from release, Boxoffice Pro was projecting a $208-$322 million gross for The Flash, meaning that they expected the movie would make at worst twice and perhaps three times what it actually ended up making.
Were The Marvels to underperform similarly relative to its own two-weeks-before-release projection the movie would make $55-60 million, not on opening weekend, but over its entire run, ending up with half what The Flash grossed domestically--without necessarily doing better abroad. In that case my earlier projection of $250-$500 million, which had already been revised downward from an earlier figure that was not all that great, would seem overoptimistic.
This is a really extreme scenario, of course. But the point is that this is how badly that movie crashed and burned this year, such that it cannot be wholly ruled out.
Still, at the other end of the spectrum of possibility there is the possibility of people who see the film actually liking it. After all, hits these days seem to be less front-loaded than they used to be--in part because the usual claquing may be less effective (it sure fell flat with The Flash), but perhaps also because people are less intent on heading out on opening weekend, with other people actually finding a film worthwhile getting them out there on those later weekends as we have seen time and again this year.
Consider what that might mean for the current anticipation of a $45-$67 million opening weekend (especially as just as things could get much worse, there is no guarantee that they will). Should the film manage to, in spite of this weak debut, end up displaying the kind of staying power that Elemental did--more than quintupling its gross--the film would make $235-$350 million domestically. If the international markets respond similarly (within a situation where the final take adheres to the 38/62 domestic/international split seen with the original Captain Marvel) this would work out to a gross in the vicinity of $930 million at the high end of the range, a near-billion dollar hit exceeding anything the MCU has achieved since Dr. Strange 2 (and every really comparable movie since Avatar 2), while even at the low end of the range the movie would make $600 million+, at least bringing the movie within striking distance of breaking even.
For my part I can picture the performance shifting downward more easily than I can picture it moving upward--but I also think that some caution is increasingly in order about assuming too much on the basis of an opening weekend. Between the two I will, for now, stick with my prior projection of $250-$500 million for the worldwide gross, if with the low end looking that much more likely after this latest report.
Still, bad as that was I remembered all too well how many of the year's underperformers saw their prospects decay between that first long-range forecast and their opening weekend--and while last week's forecast edged downward only marginally (2 percent they said) this week's forecast showed a significant dip. The publication's projection for the film's run is now $109 million-$169 million, a significant drop from the already low figure of two weeks before that leaves the low end of the range almost exactly at what The Flash managed, and we still have two weeks to go, during which a lot could change--possibly for the better, but perhaps also for the worse. At that same point, two weeks from release, Boxoffice Pro was projecting a $208-$322 million gross for The Flash, meaning that they expected the movie would make at worst twice and perhaps three times what it actually ended up making.
Were The Marvels to underperform similarly relative to its own two-weeks-before-release projection the movie would make $55-60 million, not on opening weekend, but over its entire run, ending up with half what The Flash grossed domestically--without necessarily doing better abroad. In that case my earlier projection of $250-$500 million, which had already been revised downward from an earlier figure that was not all that great, would seem overoptimistic.
This is a really extreme scenario, of course. But the point is that this is how badly that movie crashed and burned this year, such that it cannot be wholly ruled out.
Still, at the other end of the spectrum of possibility there is the possibility of people who see the film actually liking it. After all, hits these days seem to be less front-loaded than they used to be--in part because the usual claquing may be less effective (it sure fell flat with The Flash), but perhaps also because people are less intent on heading out on opening weekend, with other people actually finding a film worthwhile getting them out there on those later weekends as we have seen time and again this year.
Consider what that might mean for the current anticipation of a $45-$67 million opening weekend (especially as just as things could get much worse, there is no guarantee that they will). Should the film manage to, in spite of this weak debut, end up displaying the kind of staying power that Elemental did--more than quintupling its gross--the film would make $235-$350 million domestically. If the international markets respond similarly (within a situation where the final take adheres to the 38/62 domestic/international split seen with the original Captain Marvel) this would work out to a gross in the vicinity of $930 million at the high end of the range, a near-billion dollar hit exceeding anything the MCU has achieved since Dr. Strange 2 (and every really comparable movie since Avatar 2), while even at the low end of the range the movie would make $600 million+, at least bringing the movie within striking distance of breaking even.
For my part I can picture the performance shifting downward more easily than I can picture it moving upward--but I also think that some caution is increasingly in order about assuming too much on the basis of an opening weekend. Between the two I will, for now, stick with my prior projection of $250-$500 million for the worldwide gross, if with the low end looking that much more likely after this latest report.
Are Box Office Hits Becoming Less Front-Loaded? (The Evidence of 2022 and 2023)
Last year the success of Top Gun 2 was received as significant confirmation of the recovery of the box office--but also something more.
Some rushed to argue that the movie's success suggested the old-fashioned star-powered vehicle was back.
If so, there has been little evidence for this position this year--with even Tom Cruise's own draw as a star far from affirmed by the way Mission: Impossible 7 flopped.
Such observers would have done better to pay attention to how Top Gun 2 became such a big money-maker. Yes, a big crowd came out opening weekend--but what is more important it drew surprisingly big crowds on the second weekend, and the third, and the fourth, week after week after week, so that even in its ninth weekend in play (by which time many films have virtually vanished from the theaters) the movie still brought in over $10 million. It did not slip from the "top five" of the weekend until week 11, and even after that point managed to bring in another $55 million on top of its already considerable pile. The result was that Top Gun 2 more than quintupled its very respectable first three day gross of $127 million (with a total of $719 million collected domestically).
Few films have done so well. However, it is notable that Avatar: The Way of Water likewise quintupled its opening weekend gross. Meanwhile this year Barbie, Oppenheimer and The Super Mario Bros. Movie each quadrupled their hefty opening weekend gross, while if not a hit on the same scale Elemental more than quintupled its own opening gross.
This is quite a contrast with how movies like Avengers: Endgame, even as their grosses soared to new heights, tended to make forty percent of their money in their first three days of release--and it may well be that we are starting to see a pattern emerge here, the more in as so much else is changing.
Consider the films that have done well in 2023. The kind of movies that were conventionally front-loaded--big franchise sequels--have tended to do less well, as more idiosyncratic movies became successes. Their doing less well would by itself seem to suffice to make movies less front-loaded generally. Yet one can picture other factors at work here, the more in as they can seem related to that weaker response to new releases in big franchises--like audiences being less susceptible to "I've got to see it opening weekend!"-type hype; their, perhaps, being more likely to come out if they heard good things from actual people rather than just the claqueurs, so that perhaps the first weekend is not so strong, but the dip from the first to the second weekend is not so severe as might have been expected, because that word of mouth brought in people who would not otherwise have showed at all--with franchise films providing further confirmation of this by seeming to follow the same trajectory when they do well. There was no second-weekend succor for, for example, The Flash--but Guardians of the Galaxy 3 may be such a case. The movie's opening was generally regarded as disappointing, perhaps even to suggest a film underperforming to the same degree as Ant-Man 3--but industry-watchers were heartened by the second weekend response. This did not make the film as leggy as Elemental, but the sequel proved leggier than its initially better-received predecessor (where Guardians of the Galaxy 2 did not quite make 2.7 times its opening weekend gross, Guardians of the Galaxy 3 tripled that gross), enabling it to go a rather longer way to matching its gross than would otherwise have been possible for it.
The result is that box office-watchers might do better to show a little more caution in regard to using opening weekend response as a basis for their guesses about a film's overall run--the more in as the hits carrying the film industry these days are less likely to be the same kinds of draw on which it relied before.
Some rushed to argue that the movie's success suggested the old-fashioned star-powered vehicle was back.
If so, there has been little evidence for this position this year--with even Tom Cruise's own draw as a star far from affirmed by the way Mission: Impossible 7 flopped.
Such observers would have done better to pay attention to how Top Gun 2 became such a big money-maker. Yes, a big crowd came out opening weekend--but what is more important it drew surprisingly big crowds on the second weekend, and the third, and the fourth, week after week after week, so that even in its ninth weekend in play (by which time many films have virtually vanished from the theaters) the movie still brought in over $10 million. It did not slip from the "top five" of the weekend until week 11, and even after that point managed to bring in another $55 million on top of its already considerable pile. The result was that Top Gun 2 more than quintupled its very respectable first three day gross of $127 million (with a total of $719 million collected domestically).
Few films have done so well. However, it is notable that Avatar: The Way of Water likewise quintupled its opening weekend gross. Meanwhile this year Barbie, Oppenheimer and The Super Mario Bros. Movie each quadrupled their hefty opening weekend gross, while if not a hit on the same scale Elemental more than quintupled its own opening gross.
This is quite a contrast with how movies like Avengers: Endgame, even as their grosses soared to new heights, tended to make forty percent of their money in their first three days of release--and it may well be that we are starting to see a pattern emerge here, the more in as so much else is changing.
Consider the films that have done well in 2023. The kind of movies that were conventionally front-loaded--big franchise sequels--have tended to do less well, as more idiosyncratic movies became successes. Their doing less well would by itself seem to suffice to make movies less front-loaded generally. Yet one can picture other factors at work here, the more in as they can seem related to that weaker response to new releases in big franchises--like audiences being less susceptible to "I've got to see it opening weekend!"-type hype; their, perhaps, being more likely to come out if they heard good things from actual people rather than just the claqueurs, so that perhaps the first weekend is not so strong, but the dip from the first to the second weekend is not so severe as might have been expected, because that word of mouth brought in people who would not otherwise have showed at all--with franchise films providing further confirmation of this by seeming to follow the same trajectory when they do well. There was no second-weekend succor for, for example, The Flash--but Guardians of the Galaxy 3 may be such a case. The movie's opening was generally regarded as disappointing, perhaps even to suggest a film underperforming to the same degree as Ant-Man 3--but industry-watchers were heartened by the second weekend response. This did not make the film as leggy as Elemental, but the sequel proved leggier than its initially better-received predecessor (where Guardians of the Galaxy 2 did not quite make 2.7 times its opening weekend gross, Guardians of the Galaxy 3 tripled that gross), enabling it to go a rather longer way to matching its gross than would otherwise have been possible for it.
The result is that box office-watchers might do better to show a little more caution in regard to using opening weekend response as a basis for their guesses about a film's overall run--the more in as the hits carrying the film industry these days are less likely to be the same kinds of draw on which it relied before.
Wednesday, October 25, 2023
Just How Long Have the Running Times of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Films Actually Been?
The reports of Captain Marvel 2 as the shortest film the Marvel Cinematic Universe had to date sent me checking the figures on that. Just checking the numbers at Box Office Mojo it appeared that the 32 prior Marvel Cinematic Universe films ranged in running time from 112 minutes (for 2008's The Incredible Hulk and 2013's Thor 2) to 181 minutes (for 2019's Avengers: Endgame). The average seems to have been 133 minutes for the whole sequence from the original 2008 Iron Man to Guardians of the Galaxy 3, though it should be noted that the movies have trended toward longer running times--with the Phase One average 124 minutes, the Phase Two average 126 minutes, the Phase Three average 136 minutes and the Phase Four average 139 minutes, working out to a 15 minute growth from Phase One to Phase Four.
Still, even allowing for the overall trend toward longer movies there are distinct patterns to the differences in length across phases. Those movies about a larger grouping, as with the four Avengers films (ranging from 141 to 181 minutes), Captain America: Civil War (143 minutes) or The Eternals (156 minutes), tend to be rather longer than those centered on a single character, and especially those introducing a new character, which tend to clock in at the low end of the range (115-125 minutes or so). The Phase Four-released Captain Marvel was no exception to the pattern, coming as it did to just 123 minutes.
One also sees a tendency to brevity in the lighter, more comedy-oriented films. Certainly the Ant-Man films tended to run shorter than the average (averaging about two hours versus the 133 minute norm for the saga), with this also going for the notoriously silly Thor 4 (which clocked in at just 118 minutes).
As The Marvels has a tighter focus and lighter tone it seems natural for it to tend toward a shorter running time, to run for a little under two hours rather than a lumbering two-and-a-half. However, it is still something of a surprise to see a Phase Five sequel clock in at 18 minutes shorter than the original Captain Marvel, and about a quarter shorter than the usual Phase Four running time.
Still, even allowing for the overall trend toward longer movies there are distinct patterns to the differences in length across phases. Those movies about a larger grouping, as with the four Avengers films (ranging from 141 to 181 minutes), Captain America: Civil War (143 minutes) or The Eternals (156 minutes), tend to be rather longer than those centered on a single character, and especially those introducing a new character, which tend to clock in at the low end of the range (115-125 minutes or so). The Phase Four-released Captain Marvel was no exception to the pattern, coming as it did to just 123 minutes.
One also sees a tendency to brevity in the lighter, more comedy-oriented films. Certainly the Ant-Man films tended to run shorter than the average (averaging about two hours versus the 133 minute norm for the saga), with this also going for the notoriously silly Thor 4 (which clocked in at just 118 minutes).
As The Marvels has a tighter focus and lighter tone it seems natural for it to tend toward a shorter running time, to run for a little under two hours rather than a lumbering two-and-a-half. However, it is still something of a surprise to see a Phase Five sequel clock in at 18 minutes shorter than the original Captain Marvel, and about a quarter shorter than the usual Phase Four running time.
Of "Barbenheimer," Spider-Man and Elemental
During the summer of 2023 we have seen those movies that looked like "sure things" (Indiana Jones, Mission: Impossible, superheroes) disappoint badly--but we have also seen success where it might have been least expected. The most conspicuous case was, of course, "Barbenheimer"--how Barbie and Oppenheimer both overperformed so massively that they could be credited with saving the summer box office from the ignominy of an even poorer performance than was seen in 2022. However, we should consider, too, those other, less conventional films that did relatively well. Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse was, for Hollywood, a rare animated hit outside the family comedy or musical comedy genres--doubling the domestic gross of the first film as, also bettering its overseas gross, it approached a worldwide box office take of $700 million (while in North America outdoing every live-action superhero film so far this year), validating a relatively bold choice of project.
If in a more qualified way, Elemental may also be credited as a chancier film that ended up doing better than expected as safer films failed all around it--though of course how industry-watchers, and the industry, will respond to this remains to be seen.
If in a more qualified way, Elemental may also be credited as a chancier film that ended up doing better than expected as safer films failed all around it--though of course how industry-watchers, and the industry, will respond to this remains to be seen.
Elemental Goes From Flop to Hit
By the time the tracking-based estimates for Elemental began to circulate last May a note of pessimism about such films was penetrating through the noise of the usual claquing, especially about the productions of that studio that just a few years ago had looked as if it could do no very great wrong, Disney--the more in as Ant-Man 3 had disappointed, and Guardians of the Galaxy 3 had just opened to underwhelming numbers. The way the live-action remake of The Little Mermaid opened also did not help--and nor did the recent record of Disney animation (Disney having the prior year seen two big-budgeted animated movies, one of them from Pixar, make Deadline's list of the year's top five money-losers).
When Elemental arrived it did not defy the low expectations held for it, opening to just under $30 million. Still, the movie turned out to have Top Gun-like legs, more than quintupling its domestic take, while doing very well overseas, pulling in almost 69 percent of its box office gross from the international markets. The result is that where, more optimistic than most, I think (partly on the grounds that "concept-heavy" movies of this kind often find a warmer reception internationally than domestically), I suggested a likely range of $250-$450 million for the worldwide gross, and hewed toward the middle of that range more than the top, the movie overtopped that upper bound to pull in just a little less than a half billion dollars.
Admittedly this is not a prepossessing number for a Disney animated film by pre-pandemic standards (let alone coming out of the celebrated Pixar)--but we are told that it assures the film's profitability (at least, by the time that post-theatrical revenues like home entertainment, where Disney does well, are added in). The result is that, with the bar admittedly not very high, this one can be counted as a much-needed win for the studio.
When Elemental arrived it did not defy the low expectations held for it, opening to just under $30 million. Still, the movie turned out to have Top Gun-like legs, more than quintupling its domestic take, while doing very well overseas, pulling in almost 69 percent of its box office gross from the international markets. The result is that where, more optimistic than most, I think (partly on the grounds that "concept-heavy" movies of this kind often find a warmer reception internationally than domestically), I suggested a likely range of $250-$450 million for the worldwide gross, and hewed toward the middle of that range more than the top, the movie overtopped that upper bound to pull in just a little less than a half billion dollars.
Admittedly this is not a prepossessing number for a Disney animated film by pre-pandemic standards (let alone coming out of the celebrated Pixar)--but we are told that it assures the film's profitability (at least, by the time that post-theatrical revenues like home entertainment, where Disney does well, are added in). The result is that, with the bar admittedly not very high, this one can be counted as a much-needed win for the studio.
Friday, October 20, 2023
How Much Will The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes Gross at the Box Office?
Up until now I have not given the Hunger Games prequel, The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes, much thought. It simply seemed to me that there was just not much demand for the movie (certainly nothing to inspire confidence in grosses on par with those of the preceding four films).
After all, the Hunger Games saga did not seem to cry out for continuation--let alone a prequel. This seemed to me all the more the case because of the way the saga, in print and on screen, ended on a disappointing note for many (the fourth film was the lowest-grossing of the lot by a significant margin, its gross a third or so down at the North American box office from the second film's); because the young adult dystopian action-adventure fad was already waning at that point, and now seems far behind us; because in book form the prequel had robust sales but does not seem to have had the phenomenal sales the original trilogy managed, testifying to the decline of interest; and because of the kind of success the original Hunger Games was, and the way the prequel relates to that.
Reading that original Hunger Games trilogy (I did discuss this in Cyberpunk, Steampunk and Wizardry) it seemed to me that Suzanne Collins succeeded with readers by interesting them in the personal drama of Katniss Everdeen--rather than with striking ideas, or a particularly compelling world, on which levels the book seemed to be weaker, while also being less successful with readers. (Considering the weaker response to the third book and the final two films it seemed to me significant that by this point the story increasingly emphasized "the bigger picture," the high politics, the harder sci-fi elements, which were both less well–conceived and presented than the personal story of the earlier books, and a tougher pitch to the general audience than a personal drama.) And this prequel is set way before Katniss Everdeen came along--a prequel relying ultimately on the interest of the background that seemed a weak foundation, with all that implies for a blockbuster-sized audience buying tickets to this one.
The result is that while I did not bother making estimates, Boxoffice Pro's first long-range forecast regarding the film came to me as no surprise--their prediction that the movie will pull in $90-$142 million, not on its opening weekend, but its entire North America run. In other words, even at the high end of the range the movie can be expected to pull in fewer dollars over that whole run than the first Hunger Games managed in its opening weekend more than a decade ago (when in March 2012 it grossed $153 million). Adjusted for inflation the projection for the prequel actually falls short of what the first Hunger Games movie made in its first two days ($118 million, or $158 million in September 2023 dollars). It is also scarcely two-fifths of the real terms gross of the lowest-earning of the movies (the fourth, Mockingjay--Part Two, whose $281 million in 2015 equals $365 million in September 2023 dollars).
Of course, one might wonder if the international market will come to the movie's rescue. As it happens the domestic/international split varies from 59/41 to 43/57 in the case of the four films released between 2012 and 2015. Let us now derive from these proportions multipliers for the North American gross as a way of calculating the worldwide gross--1.7 at the low end, 2.3 at the high end. Multiplying $90 million by 1.7 gets us $153 million. Multiplying $142 million by 2.3 gets us $327 million. Rounding for the nearest $50 million this gives us a range of $150 million-$350 million, versus the $850 million that the fourth film made globally in today's terms (or the $1.14 billion the second film, Catching Fire, made).
There is no way to read this as anything but a collapse in the global as well as the domestic gross, even at the high end, never mind the low--enough so that while I have yet to see a budget declared for the film from a source I feel that I can rely on, in light of the prior films' budgets (circa $80 million for the first, $160 million for the fourth, and thus $100-$200 million+ in today's terms) it seems safe to assume this production was not cheaper. Even at the bottom end of the range (a movie budgeted like the first Hunger Games, at least when the net is considered, with post-production costs merely comparable) for the movie to have much chance of breaking even with the help of its post-theatrical earnings it would need to make much more than $200 million, well above the bottom end of the range.* For a movie budgeted like the fourth film it would probably need even more than the $350 million comprising the high end of the range here. The result is that I can picture this production, which seemed to me ill-conceived from the start, easily being another addition to the year's already long list of big-budget money-losers.
* The premise of this estimate is that a $100 million film would, given the final bill being at least twice the production budget, come to $200 million+; and that films at this level tend to make well over 50 percent of their total gross from theatrical ticket sales; suggesting $120 million+ in rentals, and thus $250 million in ticket sales, as a necessity. With the film plausibly running a multiple of that in regard to expenses (a $200 million+ production, as much or even more for associated expenses like marketing and distribution for a total not implausibly in the vicinity of a half billion), that much more in the way of ticket sales is needed (especially as home entertainment, streaming, etc. revenues tend to have a lower ceiling than ticket sales).
After all, the Hunger Games saga did not seem to cry out for continuation--let alone a prequel. This seemed to me all the more the case because of the way the saga, in print and on screen, ended on a disappointing note for many (the fourth film was the lowest-grossing of the lot by a significant margin, its gross a third or so down at the North American box office from the second film's); because the young adult dystopian action-adventure fad was already waning at that point, and now seems far behind us; because in book form the prequel had robust sales but does not seem to have had the phenomenal sales the original trilogy managed, testifying to the decline of interest; and because of the kind of success the original Hunger Games was, and the way the prequel relates to that.
Reading that original Hunger Games trilogy (I did discuss this in Cyberpunk, Steampunk and Wizardry) it seemed to me that Suzanne Collins succeeded with readers by interesting them in the personal drama of Katniss Everdeen--rather than with striking ideas, or a particularly compelling world, on which levels the book seemed to be weaker, while also being less successful with readers. (Considering the weaker response to the third book and the final two films it seemed to me significant that by this point the story increasingly emphasized "the bigger picture," the high politics, the harder sci-fi elements, which were both less well–conceived and presented than the personal story of the earlier books, and a tougher pitch to the general audience than a personal drama.) And this prequel is set way before Katniss Everdeen came along--a prequel relying ultimately on the interest of the background that seemed a weak foundation, with all that implies for a blockbuster-sized audience buying tickets to this one.
The result is that while I did not bother making estimates, Boxoffice Pro's first long-range forecast regarding the film came to me as no surprise--their prediction that the movie will pull in $90-$142 million, not on its opening weekend, but its entire North America run. In other words, even at the high end of the range the movie can be expected to pull in fewer dollars over that whole run than the first Hunger Games managed in its opening weekend more than a decade ago (when in March 2012 it grossed $153 million). Adjusted for inflation the projection for the prequel actually falls short of what the first Hunger Games movie made in its first two days ($118 million, or $158 million in September 2023 dollars). It is also scarcely two-fifths of the real terms gross of the lowest-earning of the movies (the fourth, Mockingjay--Part Two, whose $281 million in 2015 equals $365 million in September 2023 dollars).
Of course, one might wonder if the international market will come to the movie's rescue. As it happens the domestic/international split varies from 59/41 to 43/57 in the case of the four films released between 2012 and 2015. Let us now derive from these proportions multipliers for the North American gross as a way of calculating the worldwide gross--1.7 at the low end, 2.3 at the high end. Multiplying $90 million by 1.7 gets us $153 million. Multiplying $142 million by 2.3 gets us $327 million. Rounding for the nearest $50 million this gives us a range of $150 million-$350 million, versus the $850 million that the fourth film made globally in today's terms (or the $1.14 billion the second film, Catching Fire, made).
There is no way to read this as anything but a collapse in the global as well as the domestic gross, even at the high end, never mind the low--enough so that while I have yet to see a budget declared for the film from a source I feel that I can rely on, in light of the prior films' budgets (circa $80 million for the first, $160 million for the fourth, and thus $100-$200 million+ in today's terms) it seems safe to assume this production was not cheaper. Even at the bottom end of the range (a movie budgeted like the first Hunger Games, at least when the net is considered, with post-production costs merely comparable) for the movie to have much chance of breaking even with the help of its post-theatrical earnings it would need to make much more than $200 million, well above the bottom end of the range.* For a movie budgeted like the fourth film it would probably need even more than the $350 million comprising the high end of the range here. The result is that I can picture this production, which seemed to me ill-conceived from the start, easily being another addition to the year's already long list of big-budget money-losers.
* The premise of this estimate is that a $100 million film would, given the final bill being at least twice the production budget, come to $200 million+; and that films at this level tend to make well over 50 percent of their total gross from theatrical ticket sales; suggesting $120 million+ in rentals, and thus $250 million in ticket sales, as a necessity. With the film plausibly running a multiple of that in regard to expenses (a $200 million+ production, as much or even more for associated expenses like marketing and distribution for a total not implausibly in the vicinity of a half billion), that much more in the way of ticket sales is needed (especially as home entertainment, streaming, etc. revenues tend to have a lower ceiling than ticket sales).
Captain Marvel 2's Chances in Theaters: An Update
Some time ago I suggested that just as the DCEU suffered a collapse at the box office with The Flash, Captain Marvel 2 could be the same kind of disaster for Marvel. Last week's tracking-based estimates from Boxoffice Pro seemed to affirm that, with Flash-like numbers (an opening in the $50-$75 million range, as a movie that might have been expected to take in $700 million pulled in, at the low end of their projection, $121 million--as against The Flash's $108 million).
Of course, there was at the time still a month to go and I wondered if the numbers might not shift significantly. We had seen the estimates for Barbie and Oppenheimer, for example, rise greatly in the month before the release of both those films--while in release both movies considerably overtopped the expectations held for them on the very eve of their openings. However, other films have seen the expectations for their ticket sales plummet in those same weeks--as was the case with, for example, The Flash and Indiana Jones and Mission: Impossible 7. And to be frank Captain Marvel 2 looks more like these as a big-budget action-adventure franchise film of the kind that has run into so much trouble lately. The result is that I have had my eye on the week-to-week fluctuations.
As it happens, there was not much movement since last week--a 2 percent drop one could dismiss as a "rounding error." Still, it was not the upward movement, let alone the significant upward movement, those hoping the film will be a hit must want to see--who will have to find consolation in there still being almost three weeks to go, and the fact that after that the speculation ends and the moviegoers themselves will make the only commercial judgment on the film that counts in the end.
Of course, there was at the time still a month to go and I wondered if the numbers might not shift significantly. We had seen the estimates for Barbie and Oppenheimer, for example, rise greatly in the month before the release of both those films--while in release both movies considerably overtopped the expectations held for them on the very eve of their openings. However, other films have seen the expectations for their ticket sales plummet in those same weeks--as was the case with, for example, The Flash and Indiana Jones and Mission: Impossible 7. And to be frank Captain Marvel 2 looks more like these as a big-budget action-adventure franchise film of the kind that has run into so much trouble lately. The result is that I have had my eye on the week-to-week fluctuations.
As it happens, there was not much movement since last week--a 2 percent drop one could dismiss as a "rounding error." Still, it was not the upward movement, let alone the significant upward movement, those hoping the film will be a hit must want to see--who will have to find consolation in there still being almost three weeks to go, and the fact that after that the speculation ends and the moviegoers themselves will make the only commercial judgment on the film that counts in the end.
Thursday, October 19, 2023
Will Christopher Nolan Be Directing Bond 26?: Reflections on the Chatter
In the two years since the release of No Time to Die the entertainment press has not had much to work with while keeping up the chatter about the next Bond film but rehashing old Bond trivia and speculations and suggestions about what they think the producers might do, or should do, in the next installment they are all absolutely sure is coming.
The result is that when reports of Christopher Nolan being up to helm a rebooted Bond franchise--with the reboot perhaps seeing the original Bond novels refilmed in their own periods--started to circulate they were quick to talk all this up.
Since then things have quieted down--for now, at least. (Even if there is nothing much to it in the absence of any real news people will probably resuscitate the idea.)
Still, the idea is not wholly implausible, given the direction of the films in recent years. Back in Albert Broccoli's time a Nolan would never have been given such a chance--but the franchise has gone from being "creative producer"-run as it was with Broccoli, to looking to critics' darling-type would-be auteurs (Marc Foster, Sam Mendes, Danny Boyle, Cary Fukunaga) to freshen things up. And Nolan in particular seems to have been on their minds for a long time, given how much the rebooted Bond films followed in the footsteps of Nolan's Batman trilogy.
Thus did they begin with an origin story about Bond becoming Bond, recounted in a tone some call "dark and gritty" (and others call "market pessimism"). Thus did they use for the big twist in Skyfall the big twist in The Dark Knight (that the first Avengers film and Star Trek and doubtless others have also ripped off). Thus did they give the reboot they had likewise made "more personal" an ending as well as a beginning, with the series ending with the hero.
It does not seem unreasonable that spending so much time "borrowing" Nolan's ideas they would have thought "Why not just actually get Nolan?" Especially given that it would automatically get a press that loves him, and his sizable online following, very excited about the project.
This would seem all the more the case given how the last few years have gone for Nolan--with Nolan directing a spy thriller of his own in Tenet that was well-received by critics and fans (even if the pandemic crushed its chances of being a blockbuster); while in a summer in which the film studios were failing miserably in getting the public to the theater Nolan somehow made his weirdo postmodern art film about a scientist from the 1940s into a near-billion dollar blockbuster. It would seem the more natural still if the Bond franchise's runners are at all enticed by the idea of following after the continuation novels by sending the screen Bond back to his own era (given that Nolan has helmed commercially successful period pieces not just in Oppenheimer, but Dunkirk).
Still, that a Nolan-helmed Bond film may seem plausible for all these reasons does not actually mean that this is the direction being taken--or even that the result actually stands much chance of working. After all, Nolan succeeded here in giving the public something other than a franchise film and now they want him to . . . make a franchise film just as those franchise films are failing. Perhaps a period franchise film of exactly the kind whose riskiness the colossal failure of Indiana Jones 5 just underlined, to which little really new can be brought at this stage of things, let alone anything really new that a vast audience would care to see. I certainly do not think the general moviegoing audience really wants something faithful to the Fleming originals--while I suspect that any such approach would make much more sense on the small screen than on the large, a very different kind of project from the one we are talking about here.
The result is that when reports of Christopher Nolan being up to helm a rebooted Bond franchise--with the reboot perhaps seeing the original Bond novels refilmed in their own periods--started to circulate they were quick to talk all this up.
Since then things have quieted down--for now, at least. (Even if there is nothing much to it in the absence of any real news people will probably resuscitate the idea.)
Still, the idea is not wholly implausible, given the direction of the films in recent years. Back in Albert Broccoli's time a Nolan would never have been given such a chance--but the franchise has gone from being "creative producer"-run as it was with Broccoli, to looking to critics' darling-type would-be auteurs (Marc Foster, Sam Mendes, Danny Boyle, Cary Fukunaga) to freshen things up. And Nolan in particular seems to have been on their minds for a long time, given how much the rebooted Bond films followed in the footsteps of Nolan's Batman trilogy.
Thus did they begin with an origin story about Bond becoming Bond, recounted in a tone some call "dark and gritty" (and others call "market pessimism"). Thus did they use for the big twist in Skyfall the big twist in The Dark Knight (that the first Avengers film and Star Trek and doubtless others have also ripped off). Thus did they give the reboot they had likewise made "more personal" an ending as well as a beginning, with the series ending with the hero.
It does not seem unreasonable that spending so much time "borrowing" Nolan's ideas they would have thought "Why not just actually get Nolan?" Especially given that it would automatically get a press that loves him, and his sizable online following, very excited about the project.
This would seem all the more the case given how the last few years have gone for Nolan--with Nolan directing a spy thriller of his own in Tenet that was well-received by critics and fans (even if the pandemic crushed its chances of being a blockbuster); while in a summer in which the film studios were failing miserably in getting the public to the theater Nolan somehow made his weirdo postmodern art film about a scientist from the 1940s into a near-billion dollar blockbuster. It would seem the more natural still if the Bond franchise's runners are at all enticed by the idea of following after the continuation novels by sending the screen Bond back to his own era (given that Nolan has helmed commercially successful period pieces not just in Oppenheimer, but Dunkirk).
Still, that a Nolan-helmed Bond film may seem plausible for all these reasons does not actually mean that this is the direction being taken--or even that the result actually stands much chance of working. After all, Nolan succeeded here in giving the public something other than a franchise film and now they want him to . . . make a franchise film just as those franchise films are failing. Perhaps a period franchise film of exactly the kind whose riskiness the colossal failure of Indiana Jones 5 just underlined, to which little really new can be brought at this stage of things, let alone anything really new that a vast audience would care to see. I certainly do not think the general moviegoing audience really wants something faithful to the Fleming originals--while I suspect that any such approach would make much more sense on the small screen than on the large, a very different kind of project from the one we are talking about here.
What Will the Marvel Cinematic Universe Bring in 2024? (And Will Audiences Go For It?)
A prior post here considering Marvel's potential to stage a comeback--concerned in the main with Marvel's prospects given the real problem evident after this year's string of underwhelming box office performances, that the high-concept franchise action film that has been king of the box office for decades is in decline. Still, even admitting this of the general market one might imagine Marvel managing to carry on, and even reverse the downward trend its films have been displaying at the box office.
In thinking about that it seems worth considering the movies scheduled for release in 2024.
There are three for the time being--Deadpool 3 on that critical first weekend of summer, the first of the rebooted Captain America films (Captain America: Brave New World) in late July, and The Thunderbolts in December.
How do their chances look at this very early stage of things?
There is no question that Deadpool has his fans. However, the question is whether, six years after the last Deadpool movie, audiences will be up to a third helping of the same shtick, and whether it will matter much for the overall MCU. While I admit to not having been impressed with it even the first time around, others were, and I think it plausible that at least enough of the fans will come out to make the film a success by deflated, post-pandemic standards--but even such a success has to be qualified. Deadpool actually began as part of Fox's X-Men franchise, rather than the MCU, and is very different in style and tone from the rest of the generally PG-13-rated franchise, so that it may not suffer as much as others from the Marvel brand losing some of its luster--while the same relationship to the franchise means that its success cannot help the MCU much, if it indeed becomes a success.
This matters all the more as the next two Phase Five films are far from the sure bets they might have seemed to be a few years ago. Captain America became a major success for Marvel, with 2016's Captain America: Civil War one of the MCU's earlier $1 billion+ hits, but this arrives after an eight year gap with the last Captain America movie, a five year gap with the last Captain America appearance in Avengers: Endgame, and entails a significant overhaul when the pattern is already the films' performing well below the bar set by their immediate and especially Phase Three predecessors. (I also wonder what to make of the decision to bring back Tim Blake Nelson's Samuel Sterns--recycling an element from the little-seen 2008 The Incredible Hulk. Is this, like the tie-ins with the streaming shows, a sign of a franchise wrapped up in itself expecting the general audience to show the attentiveness of the hardcore, and in the process alienating them?) The late July release date (a change of plans that came in the wake of the big Hollywood strikes of this year) may also be unhelpful. Meanwhile The Thunderbolts, in presenting another superhero team that is far from the Avengers or the X-Men in regard to name recognition, puts me in mind of the less than wholly successful The Eternals.
The result is that if the MCU manages a "comeback," I do not see it happening on the basis of its 2024 releases on the basis of the available evidence. Instead it is easier to picture the present discontents with the MCU continuing--or even these films ending up further additions to Marvel's "loss" column.
In thinking about that it seems worth considering the movies scheduled for release in 2024.
There are three for the time being--Deadpool 3 on that critical first weekend of summer, the first of the rebooted Captain America films (Captain America: Brave New World) in late July, and The Thunderbolts in December.
How do their chances look at this very early stage of things?
There is no question that Deadpool has his fans. However, the question is whether, six years after the last Deadpool movie, audiences will be up to a third helping of the same shtick, and whether it will matter much for the overall MCU. While I admit to not having been impressed with it even the first time around, others were, and I think it plausible that at least enough of the fans will come out to make the film a success by deflated, post-pandemic standards--but even such a success has to be qualified. Deadpool actually began as part of Fox's X-Men franchise, rather than the MCU, and is very different in style and tone from the rest of the generally PG-13-rated franchise, so that it may not suffer as much as others from the Marvel brand losing some of its luster--while the same relationship to the franchise means that its success cannot help the MCU much, if it indeed becomes a success.
This matters all the more as the next two Phase Five films are far from the sure bets they might have seemed to be a few years ago. Captain America became a major success for Marvel, with 2016's Captain America: Civil War one of the MCU's earlier $1 billion+ hits, but this arrives after an eight year gap with the last Captain America movie, a five year gap with the last Captain America appearance in Avengers: Endgame, and entails a significant overhaul when the pattern is already the films' performing well below the bar set by their immediate and especially Phase Three predecessors. (I also wonder what to make of the decision to bring back Tim Blake Nelson's Samuel Sterns--recycling an element from the little-seen 2008 The Incredible Hulk. Is this, like the tie-ins with the streaming shows, a sign of a franchise wrapped up in itself expecting the general audience to show the attentiveness of the hardcore, and in the process alienating them?) The late July release date (a change of plans that came in the wake of the big Hollywood strikes of this year) may also be unhelpful. Meanwhile The Thunderbolts, in presenting another superhero team that is far from the Avengers or the X-Men in regard to name recognition, puts me in mind of the less than wholly successful The Eternals.
The result is that if the MCU manages a "comeback," I do not see it happening on the basis of its 2024 releases on the basis of the available evidence. Instead it is easier to picture the present discontents with the MCU continuing--or even these films ending up further additions to Marvel's "loss" column.
Can the Marvel Cinematic Universe Make a Comeback?
Back in the 2010s the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) went from strength to strength at the box office, especially in its 2012-2019 second and third phases, with Avengers: Endgame capping a historic commercial success.
However, as with so much else in the world the period since the pandemic has been unkind to it--the movie industry generally taking a brutal beating, one whose effects have persisted even as audiences for the most part resumed their theatergoing, with the MCU suffering along with the rest. Much of the MCU's trouble has been a matter of a more closed Chinese market (this was the biggest factor in the trouble Ant-Man 3 had), but it has had its share of woes even in its home North American market, where Thor 4, Black Panther 2, Guardians of the Galaxy 3 all performed below what might have been hoped for given their predecessors' earnings--while the current expectations regarding Captain Marvel 2 look a lot like what happened with The Flash, implying that worse, much worse, may be in store not just for that movie but the several others behind it in the pipeline, and the Marvel brand as a whole.
Of course, franchises do make comebacks. In its long history the James Bond franchise did so more than once--the franchise most notably recovering from its '80s-era decline with Goldeneye and the subsequent films of the Pierce Brosnan era. Still, the Brosnan period was only a period of relative success, falling well short of the franchise's '60s-era heyday, and could not have given the very different market. (Back in the '60s Bond had no competitors in the high-concept action-adventure franchise market. By contrast the field was pretty crowded by the '90s.) The result is that any recovery for the MCU is likely to be only relative, the kind of success the franchise saw in 2018-2019 (with Black Panther and Captain Marvel, and the two-part Avengers event, and Spider-Man and Ant-Man too, selling $9 billion in tickets in a mere year and a half) is simply not a reasonable expectation for any franchise's "business as usual" for very long.*
Moreover, even relative recovery can seem a longshot given, regardless of what Marvel does with its movies, the kind of movie Marvel makes and can be expected to go on making in any conceivable scenario--the high-concept action-adventure blockbuster franchise movie, which, as the troubles of the James Bond series that invented the form, and the Star Wars and Indiana Jones series' that went such a long way to making them a Hollywood staple, and the DCEU that has been Marvel's closest thing to a rival, and this summer's Fast and Furious and Transformers and Mission: Impossible movies all show, is looking very shopworn these days in the 2020s. Indeed, investing in superhero movies these days is starting to look like investing in big, splashy historical epics and musicals in the late 1960s--sticking to an ever-more costly and increasingly losing old game when the studios would be doing better to look to new ideas to be the basis of new successes.
* Of course, these have been inflationary years, and $9 billion in 2018-2019 works out to more like $11 billion today.
However, as with so much else in the world the period since the pandemic has been unkind to it--the movie industry generally taking a brutal beating, one whose effects have persisted even as audiences for the most part resumed their theatergoing, with the MCU suffering along with the rest. Much of the MCU's trouble has been a matter of a more closed Chinese market (this was the biggest factor in the trouble Ant-Man 3 had), but it has had its share of woes even in its home North American market, where Thor 4, Black Panther 2, Guardians of the Galaxy 3 all performed below what might have been hoped for given their predecessors' earnings--while the current expectations regarding Captain Marvel 2 look a lot like what happened with The Flash, implying that worse, much worse, may be in store not just for that movie but the several others behind it in the pipeline, and the Marvel brand as a whole.
Of course, franchises do make comebacks. In its long history the James Bond franchise did so more than once--the franchise most notably recovering from its '80s-era decline with Goldeneye and the subsequent films of the Pierce Brosnan era. Still, the Brosnan period was only a period of relative success, falling well short of the franchise's '60s-era heyday, and could not have given the very different market. (Back in the '60s Bond had no competitors in the high-concept action-adventure franchise market. By contrast the field was pretty crowded by the '90s.) The result is that any recovery for the MCU is likely to be only relative, the kind of success the franchise saw in 2018-2019 (with Black Panther and Captain Marvel, and the two-part Avengers event, and Spider-Man and Ant-Man too, selling $9 billion in tickets in a mere year and a half) is simply not a reasonable expectation for any franchise's "business as usual" for very long.*
Moreover, even relative recovery can seem a longshot given, regardless of what Marvel does with its movies, the kind of movie Marvel makes and can be expected to go on making in any conceivable scenario--the high-concept action-adventure blockbuster franchise movie, which, as the troubles of the James Bond series that invented the form, and the Star Wars and Indiana Jones series' that went such a long way to making them a Hollywood staple, and the DCEU that has been Marvel's closest thing to a rival, and this summer's Fast and Furious and Transformers and Mission: Impossible movies all show, is looking very shopworn these days in the 2020s. Indeed, investing in superhero movies these days is starting to look like investing in big, splashy historical epics and musicals in the late 1960s--sticking to an ever-more costly and increasingly losing old game when the studios would be doing better to look to new ideas to be the basis of new successes.
* Of course, these have been inflationary years, and $9 billion in 2018-2019 works out to more like $11 billion today.
The "Who Will Be the Next James Bond?" Chatter: A Note
As the claqueurs of the entertainment press endeavor to keep people talking about James Bond, and especially the unannounced next Bond film, on the basis of nearly nothing in the way of actual information, they have devoted much attention to speculation about and suggestions regarding the recasting of the lead, in the main going over the same list over and over and over again. (Yes, they are still talking about Henry Cavill. And Idris Elba. And all the other names you have heard three billion times already, as well as lots of names you have probably never even heard of at all. Like this Aaron Taylor-Johnson person they aren't shutting up about now.)
This seems to me to put the cart before the horse--given that the vision for the character, which is in turn a matter of the broader vision of the series, is what would make a particular actor more or less suitable to the role, especially with this not merely a matter of recasting but rebooting something that has already been repeatedly rebooted, and some serious change apparently in order after the uneven performance of the last film. (The point cannot be emphasized enough--No Time to Die was the series' weakest performer in North America since Licence to Kill, and probably not just here but elsewhere James Bond, like Indiana Jones, has failed to renew his fan base, with all that this promises for interest in a series that has only had one new film out since 2015.)
Do the series-runners have a new vision? One that actually stands a chance of appealing to a broad public? The silence on everything important to that possibility (the more obvious amid the noise about nothing at all, or what may yet turn out to be nothing at all) makes it difficult indeed to tell--but I am personally struck by the tallness of the order. The Bond movies, after all, succeeded by inventing the high-concept action-adventure franchise film--and kept the series going by adapting to that genre's evolution, putting up the ever-bigger budgets required for the first-stringers and shamelessly imitating every other success out there (from Jaws and Star Wars in the '70s to Jason Bourne and Christopher Nolan's Batman saga in the '00s). But now the whole game looks like it is drawing to an end--implying that a viable reboot will have to deliver a more fundamental overhaul of the series. And given the extreme reluctance of Hollywood to break with its longtime standard operating procedure, it seems to me that no one is offering any model for what the series might do on this score--forcing that much heavier a burden of imitation on those who would hope to bring Bond back to the screen successfully. If they do so it will be a striking feat--in marketing terms, if not artistically. But I cannot picture any possibility that would work (emphasis on the latter, as the claqueurs have not been short on ideas--the problem instead that all the ones I have heard from them have been completely unconvincing).
What do you think, readers? Anyone seeing the Bond series pull off the needed feat of reinvention to keep the franchise chugging along through another decade or more?
This seems to me to put the cart before the horse--given that the vision for the character, which is in turn a matter of the broader vision of the series, is what would make a particular actor more or less suitable to the role, especially with this not merely a matter of recasting but rebooting something that has already been repeatedly rebooted, and some serious change apparently in order after the uneven performance of the last film. (The point cannot be emphasized enough--No Time to Die was the series' weakest performer in North America since Licence to Kill, and probably not just here but elsewhere James Bond, like Indiana Jones, has failed to renew his fan base, with all that this promises for interest in a series that has only had one new film out since 2015.)
Do the series-runners have a new vision? One that actually stands a chance of appealing to a broad public? The silence on everything important to that possibility (the more obvious amid the noise about nothing at all, or what may yet turn out to be nothing at all) makes it difficult indeed to tell--but I am personally struck by the tallness of the order. The Bond movies, after all, succeeded by inventing the high-concept action-adventure franchise film--and kept the series going by adapting to that genre's evolution, putting up the ever-bigger budgets required for the first-stringers and shamelessly imitating every other success out there (from Jaws and Star Wars in the '70s to Jason Bourne and Christopher Nolan's Batman saga in the '00s). But now the whole game looks like it is drawing to an end--implying that a viable reboot will have to deliver a more fundamental overhaul of the series. And given the extreme reluctance of Hollywood to break with its longtime standard operating procedure, it seems to me that no one is offering any model for what the series might do on this score--forcing that much heavier a burden of imitation on those who would hope to bring Bond back to the screen successfully. If they do so it will be a striking feat--in marketing terms, if not artistically. But I cannot picture any possibility that would work (emphasis on the latter, as the claqueurs have not been short on ideas--the problem instead that all the ones I have heard from them have been completely unconvincing).
What do you think, readers? Anyone seeing the Bond series pull off the needed feat of reinvention to keep the franchise chugging along through another decade or more?
Saturday, October 14, 2023
Captain Marvel 2 vs. Guardians of the Galaxy 3 and Captain Marvel 2's Likely Box Office
In the wake of Boxoffice Pro's announcement of its tracking data-based projections for the domestic opening weekend and overall run of Captain Marvel 2 the figures have been making the rounds of the "armchair movie executive"-oriented entertainment news outlets. Given that the figures suggest the movie's performing much less like the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) Phase Three-released original Captain Marvel than they do The Flash (with an opening weekend in the $50-$75 million range and an overall run in the $120-$190 million range, vs. the half-billion dollar hit that first film was in today's terms), there has not been much room for even the most grade-on-a-curve-minded of the claqueurs of the entertainment press to pretend this is anything like good news for the movie. (Indeed, "abysmal" reads the headline at one such site.)
Since I had weeks ago suggested that the movie might be the MCU's equivalent of the DCEU's The Flash this was not exactly a shock to me--but I admit that there was some room for people to think otherwise, and not simply because they were cleaving to old predictions like Screen Rant's guess back in January.* One reason is Guardians of the Galaxy 3's performance this past summer, which it seems worthwhile to revisit.
In raising the matter of Guardians of the Galaxy 3 one should start by acknowledging that the movie did not buck the trend of MCU films making less (in inflation-adjusted, real terms) than their immediate series predecessors--the movie making a good deal less than Guardians of the Galaxy 2, as against the quarter-to-half drop seen with the other movies. However, in comparison with the latest Thor, Black Panther, Ant-Man films, it held up rather better--the drop about 20 percent relative to Guardians of the Galaxy 2. This could have been taken as meaning Captain Marvel 2 might not do too badly relative to its own high-performing predecessor. However, there were at least four significant differences undermining any such analogy (which was why, even months ago, I did not see Captain Marvel 2 breaking $700 million, let alone a billion):
1. Considering the case of Guardians of the Galaxy 3 it is worth remembering that the film was initially seen as a disappointment--its opening weekend gross softer than anticipated (a rough one-third drop from what its predecessor managed domestically). However, the film turned out to have surprisingly good "legs"--better than its predecessor (so that where the second Guardians movie made 2.65 times its opening weekend gross, Guardians 3 more than tripled the take from its first three days), implying a particularly strong audience response. That suggested that a film audiences liked might do a bit better than some of those that had gone before it, but it could not be taken for granted that this would happen with other Marvel movies (while, again, the film still ended up with 20 percent less grossed than its predecessor).
2. Just as Guardians of the Galaxy 3 proved an exception in its good legs, making it a questionable point of comparison for Captain Marvel 2, the first Captain Marvel was also an outlier--as it was released in the most fortuitous possible circumstances for such a movie. Not only did it come out during the MCU's Phase Three, but it came out mere weeks before the absolute peak of the franchise with the release of Avengers: Endgame, maximizing interest; while the claims made for the film as a "social justice first," if redounding less to the film's benefit than did the similar claims for Black Panther a year earlier, probably helping as well. The result was an exceptional boost to the film which must be credited with helping it become a $1 billion+ hit. Their absence (because Phase Five is a long way from Phase Three, because a sequel is by definition not a "first"), which makes the film less of an event, means that the drop can be expected to be that much sharper here--hence my use of Black Panther rather than the other Marvel films as a basis for my own projection (though going by the current numbers even that may have been overoptimistic).
3. Guardians of the Galaxy 3 had the benefit of considerable good will toward Guardians of the Galaxy 2, whereas Captain Marvel left audiences divided. A Rotten Tomatoes score may have its limitations as an indicator of audience feeling, especially as the claims of a campaign against the film led to the changes in its tabulation of general audience input, but all the same, where Guardians of the Galaxy 2 had an audience score of 87 percent, Captain Marvel had, and has, a mere 45 percent.
4. Captain Marvel 2's promotion has suffered from significant weaknesses. There has already been a delay of the release date (the movie bumped from July to November), connected with claims about reshoots and questionable VFX work (which was a problem for Ant-Man 3), none of which is ever encouraging. The film's budget has recently been treated as something of a scandal (unfairly, I think, but it happened all the same). An early trailer, perhaps reflecting the belated VFX work, made the movie look cheap by MCU standards, and if a later trailer made a more favorable impression that way some damage was probably done. There is also the promise that this will be a relatively goofy MCU movie--an approach that smacks of "tired franchise," and probably did not help Thor 4. The fact of a tie-in with Ms. Marvel may not be helpful (given that the general audience that makes big grosses possible does not want things to get so intricate and sprawling as to require complex investment), while the attempt to broaden the audience by airing the show on the Disney-owned ABC broadcast network so much more widely accessible than Disney Plus has not been a great success. And amid the continuation of the actors' strike the actors have been less visible "on the media circuit," and may remain so, to the film's disadvantage. I cannot see any comparison between this collection of troubles, and the promotional effort for Guardians of the Galaxy 3 (which still produced that film's weak opening weekend).
In the face of all that one might still have hoped that Guardians of the Galaxy 3's relatively good reception was indicative of, and conducive to, warmer feeling toward the Marvel brand, and that Captain Marvel 2 would derive some benefit from that--but if it has done that it has not happened in anywhere near the degree that it would need to do to make the movie anything but a flop-in-the-making, at least going by what we see at the moment.
* Screen Rant projected that Captain Marvel 2 would make $950 million in January--while also guessing Ant-Man 3 would be a $1 billion hit, and Guardians of the Galaxy 3 take in $1.2 billion. Alas, all that seems very far away now.
Since I had weeks ago suggested that the movie might be the MCU's equivalent of the DCEU's The Flash this was not exactly a shock to me--but I admit that there was some room for people to think otherwise, and not simply because they were cleaving to old predictions like Screen Rant's guess back in January.* One reason is Guardians of the Galaxy 3's performance this past summer, which it seems worthwhile to revisit.
In raising the matter of Guardians of the Galaxy 3 one should start by acknowledging that the movie did not buck the trend of MCU films making less (in inflation-adjusted, real terms) than their immediate series predecessors--the movie making a good deal less than Guardians of the Galaxy 2, as against the quarter-to-half drop seen with the other movies. However, in comparison with the latest Thor, Black Panther, Ant-Man films, it held up rather better--the drop about 20 percent relative to Guardians of the Galaxy 2. This could have been taken as meaning Captain Marvel 2 might not do too badly relative to its own high-performing predecessor. However, there were at least four significant differences undermining any such analogy (which was why, even months ago, I did not see Captain Marvel 2 breaking $700 million, let alone a billion):
1. Considering the case of Guardians of the Galaxy 3 it is worth remembering that the film was initially seen as a disappointment--its opening weekend gross softer than anticipated (a rough one-third drop from what its predecessor managed domestically). However, the film turned out to have surprisingly good "legs"--better than its predecessor (so that where the second Guardians movie made 2.65 times its opening weekend gross, Guardians 3 more than tripled the take from its first three days), implying a particularly strong audience response. That suggested that a film audiences liked might do a bit better than some of those that had gone before it, but it could not be taken for granted that this would happen with other Marvel movies (while, again, the film still ended up with 20 percent less grossed than its predecessor).
2. Just as Guardians of the Galaxy 3 proved an exception in its good legs, making it a questionable point of comparison for Captain Marvel 2, the first Captain Marvel was also an outlier--as it was released in the most fortuitous possible circumstances for such a movie. Not only did it come out during the MCU's Phase Three, but it came out mere weeks before the absolute peak of the franchise with the release of Avengers: Endgame, maximizing interest; while the claims made for the film as a "social justice first," if redounding less to the film's benefit than did the similar claims for Black Panther a year earlier, probably helping as well. The result was an exceptional boost to the film which must be credited with helping it become a $1 billion+ hit. Their absence (because Phase Five is a long way from Phase Three, because a sequel is by definition not a "first"), which makes the film less of an event, means that the drop can be expected to be that much sharper here--hence my use of Black Panther rather than the other Marvel films as a basis for my own projection (though going by the current numbers even that may have been overoptimistic).
3. Guardians of the Galaxy 3 had the benefit of considerable good will toward Guardians of the Galaxy 2, whereas Captain Marvel left audiences divided. A Rotten Tomatoes score may have its limitations as an indicator of audience feeling, especially as the claims of a campaign against the film led to the changes in its tabulation of general audience input, but all the same, where Guardians of the Galaxy 2 had an audience score of 87 percent, Captain Marvel had, and has, a mere 45 percent.
4. Captain Marvel 2's promotion has suffered from significant weaknesses. There has already been a delay of the release date (the movie bumped from July to November), connected with claims about reshoots and questionable VFX work (which was a problem for Ant-Man 3), none of which is ever encouraging. The film's budget has recently been treated as something of a scandal (unfairly, I think, but it happened all the same). An early trailer, perhaps reflecting the belated VFX work, made the movie look cheap by MCU standards, and if a later trailer made a more favorable impression that way some damage was probably done. There is also the promise that this will be a relatively goofy MCU movie--an approach that smacks of "tired franchise," and probably did not help Thor 4. The fact of a tie-in with Ms. Marvel may not be helpful (given that the general audience that makes big grosses possible does not want things to get so intricate and sprawling as to require complex investment), while the attempt to broaden the audience by airing the show on the Disney-owned ABC broadcast network so much more widely accessible than Disney Plus has not been a great success. And amid the continuation of the actors' strike the actors have been less visible "on the media circuit," and may remain so, to the film's disadvantage. I cannot see any comparison between this collection of troubles, and the promotional effort for Guardians of the Galaxy 3 (which still produced that film's weak opening weekend).
In the face of all that one might still have hoped that Guardians of the Galaxy 3's relatively good reception was indicative of, and conducive to, warmer feeling toward the Marvel brand, and that Captain Marvel 2 would derive some benefit from that--but if it has done that it has not happened in anywhere near the degree that it would need to do to make the movie anything but a flop-in-the-making, at least going by what we see at the moment.
* Screen Rant projected that Captain Marvel 2 would make $950 million in January--while also guessing Ant-Man 3 would be a $1 billion hit, and Guardians of the Galaxy 3 take in $1.2 billion. Alas, all that seems very far away now.
Friday, October 13, 2023
What Will Captain Marvel 2 (aka The Marvels) Gross at the Box Office? (Opening Weekend and Domestic and Worldwide Theatrical Gross Predictions)
Back at the start of May I predicted that Captain Marvel 2--aka The Marvels--would pull in some $600-$700 million globally on the basis of its, in line with the softening grosses of recent Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) films, and an analogy in particular with the Black Panther films, its making not much more than half what the preceding film in its series did. Nothing I saw in the following five months made me change that--excepting my allowing for a greater possibility of the gross collapsing outright in the manner of The Flash given how we have seen this happen again and again this year.
Now Boxoffice Pro has made public its tracking numbers--domestic numbers only, of course, but these are still important and telling, and I will discuss these first before I go onto the worldwide gross figure that was my original concern.
Right now Boxoffice Pro projects an opening weekend in the $50-$75 million range, and a gross in the $121-$189 million range.
Yikes.
After all, at the low end of the range these really are Flash-like numbers (that movie having taken in $55 million on its opening weekend, and gone on to a $108 million gross in its entire run), while the high end of the range is not very much better (more like what was hoped for The Flash in the weeks before its release, even after the delusions about its being the greatest superhero film ever fell apart).
I think this makes the point--but in the interests of thoroughness let us compare these numbers with what the original Captain Marvel made back in the spring of 2019. That movie opened to $153 million, and had a domestic run in the $427 million range--or $185 million in its opening weekend and $517 million in its overall run in September 2023 dollars, respectively.
This works out to the current expectation being that the movie will, in inflation-adjusted, real, terms, open 59 to 73 percent lower than the original, and eventually pull in 63 to 77 percent less; that, in other words, it will be lucky to make two-fifths what the original Captain Marvel did, and may make just one-quarter what it did, domestically.
By comparison Black Panther 2 made a bit over half what the first Black Panther did globally in real terms--which means that the current projection for Captain Marvel 2 is that even at the high end of the range it will suffer a significantly worse drop relative to its immediate series predecessor than any of the recent Marvel Cinematic Universe films, while in absolute terms hauling in even less than Ant-Man 3 (which was being called a flop with some $214 million in the till, over an eighth more than the best projected for this movie).
In fairness, a movie might find some compensation overseas for its domestic underperformance--but given this shortfall the compensation would have to be positively enormous for this movie, and this is not how things have been working out lately for the MCU, or for Hollywood generally. Indeed, the international market has often been the problem--this a much more significant factor in Ant-Man 3's overall performance than its domestic underperformance.
Let us thus take the domestic/international split the original Captain Marvel managed as a relatively optimistic scenario, especially since no recent Marvel release has managed to make quite so much of its money in the international markets--roughly 38/62 according to Box Office Mojo. This works out to a multiplier of 2.65, which applied to the $189 million gross that is Boxoffice Pro's high estimate has the movie, in this positive scenario, barely cracking $500 million. Applied to the low end of the range it finishes up with about $320 million. And should the movie manage to do only relatively as well overseas as, say, Black Panther 2 did (with a 53/47 split), with this applied to the $121 million figure, this would amount to $230 million--less than The Flash (and a fifth of the $1.13 billion Captain Marvel made before adjustment for inflation).
The result is that the $600-$700 million gross I had wondered might be overly bleak can now seem optimistic, with the worldwide gross now looking more like $500 million at best and perhaps as low as $250 million, and the domestic gross, which I cannot picture breaking $200 million, perhaps ending up closer to $100 million (or: $100-$200 million domestic, and $250-$500 million global).
Of course, we still have a month to go--but as has been seen time and again with franchise films this year BoxOfficePro's projections have tended to trend downward rather than upward in the case of such films in the weeks preceding their release (this certainly the case with The Flash, Indiana Jones 5, lesser disappointments like Mission: Impossible 7, etc.)--while reading Boxoffice Pro's commentary I was struck by the use of the phrase "alarmingly low" in relation to its pre-sales, which the site informs us are not just "69 percent behind the pace of Guardians Vol. 3," but also 72 percent behind [Ant-Man 3], and 42 percent behind Eternals" at present. (Eternals!) The result is that by the week of the movie's release the prognosis might be still worse than it is now--while even if it got no worse than it is at present there is no way to see this as anything but a prediction of disaster for this film, and another big blow to an already badly tottering MCU, and along with it, the badly tottering superhero genre, Hollywood franchise action film and "blockbuster" generally, and Hollywood studio system altogether.
Now Boxoffice Pro has made public its tracking numbers--domestic numbers only, of course, but these are still important and telling, and I will discuss these first before I go onto the worldwide gross figure that was my original concern.
Right now Boxoffice Pro projects an opening weekend in the $50-$75 million range, and a gross in the $121-$189 million range.
Yikes.
After all, at the low end of the range these really are Flash-like numbers (that movie having taken in $55 million on its opening weekend, and gone on to a $108 million gross in its entire run), while the high end of the range is not very much better (more like what was hoped for The Flash in the weeks before its release, even after the delusions about its being the greatest superhero film ever fell apart).
I think this makes the point--but in the interests of thoroughness let us compare these numbers with what the original Captain Marvel made back in the spring of 2019. That movie opened to $153 million, and had a domestic run in the $427 million range--or $185 million in its opening weekend and $517 million in its overall run in September 2023 dollars, respectively.
This works out to the current expectation being that the movie will, in inflation-adjusted, real, terms, open 59 to 73 percent lower than the original, and eventually pull in 63 to 77 percent less; that, in other words, it will be lucky to make two-fifths what the original Captain Marvel did, and may make just one-quarter what it did, domestically.
By comparison Black Panther 2 made a bit over half what the first Black Panther did globally in real terms--which means that the current projection for Captain Marvel 2 is that even at the high end of the range it will suffer a significantly worse drop relative to its immediate series predecessor than any of the recent Marvel Cinematic Universe films, while in absolute terms hauling in even less than Ant-Man 3 (which was being called a flop with some $214 million in the till, over an eighth more than the best projected for this movie).
In fairness, a movie might find some compensation overseas for its domestic underperformance--but given this shortfall the compensation would have to be positively enormous for this movie, and this is not how things have been working out lately for the MCU, or for Hollywood generally. Indeed, the international market has often been the problem--this a much more significant factor in Ant-Man 3's overall performance than its domestic underperformance.
Let us thus take the domestic/international split the original Captain Marvel managed as a relatively optimistic scenario, especially since no recent Marvel release has managed to make quite so much of its money in the international markets--roughly 38/62 according to Box Office Mojo. This works out to a multiplier of 2.65, which applied to the $189 million gross that is Boxoffice Pro's high estimate has the movie, in this positive scenario, barely cracking $500 million. Applied to the low end of the range it finishes up with about $320 million. And should the movie manage to do only relatively as well overseas as, say, Black Panther 2 did (with a 53/47 split), with this applied to the $121 million figure, this would amount to $230 million--less than The Flash (and a fifth of the $1.13 billion Captain Marvel made before adjustment for inflation).
The result is that the $600-$700 million gross I had wondered might be overly bleak can now seem optimistic, with the worldwide gross now looking more like $500 million at best and perhaps as low as $250 million, and the domestic gross, which I cannot picture breaking $200 million, perhaps ending up closer to $100 million (or: $100-$200 million domestic, and $250-$500 million global).
Of course, we still have a month to go--but as has been seen time and again with franchise films this year BoxOfficePro's projections have tended to trend downward rather than upward in the case of such films in the weeks preceding their release (this certainly the case with The Flash, Indiana Jones 5, lesser disappointments like Mission: Impossible 7, etc.)--while reading Boxoffice Pro's commentary I was struck by the use of the phrase "alarmingly low" in relation to its pre-sales, which the site informs us are not just "69 percent behind the pace of Guardians Vol. 3," but also 72 percent behind [Ant-Man 3], and 42 percent behind Eternals" at present. (Eternals!) The result is that by the week of the movie's release the prognosis might be still worse than it is now--while even if it got no worse than it is at present there is no way to see this as anything but a prediction of disaster for this film, and another big blow to an already badly tottering MCU, and along with it, the badly tottering superhero genre, Hollywood franchise action film and "blockbuster" generally, and Hollywood studio system altogether.
Monday, September 25, 2023
The Demise of the Gold Eagle Publishing Imprint, and the Collapse of the Mass-Market Paperback
Some years ago News Corps' shutdown of the Gold Eagle imprint that once loomed so large in action-adventure fiction seemed to go completely unacknowledged by the media.
That lack of coverage seemed to me to bespeak not just the decline of the imprint, or the associated genre of "paramilitary" action-adventure fiction, both of which were fairly "old news" by the mid-2010s, but the broader displacement of leisure reading by audiovisual media. The more recent collapse of sales of the mass-market paperback generally--not quite so unreported as the Gold Eagle collapse was, but all the same, getting relatively little attention--is part of the same process. No matter how much some would like for us to believe that we are just reading in a different format the decline of the paperback seems to me indicative of the decline of casual reading, light reading as other activities replace it.
Like mind-numbedly staring at videos where so-called "influencers" jabber about stupid crap--and, in line with the cultural importance accorded to said influencers and said stupid crap, get far more press coverage than the collapse of the mass-market paperback has got, or could be expected to have got, in an age in which even the "JOURNALISTS" OF THE ERA DO NOT READ!
That lack of coverage seemed to me to bespeak not just the decline of the imprint, or the associated genre of "paramilitary" action-adventure fiction, both of which were fairly "old news" by the mid-2010s, but the broader displacement of leisure reading by audiovisual media. The more recent collapse of sales of the mass-market paperback generally--not quite so unreported as the Gold Eagle collapse was, but all the same, getting relatively little attention--is part of the same process. No matter how much some would like for us to believe that we are just reading in a different format the decline of the paperback seems to me indicative of the decline of casual reading, light reading as other activities replace it.
Like mind-numbedly staring at videos where so-called "influencers" jabber about stupid crap--and, in line with the cultural importance accorded to said influencers and said stupid crap, get far more press coverage than the collapse of the mass-market paperback has got, or could be expected to have got, in an age in which even the "JOURNALISTS" OF THE ERA DO NOT READ!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
