The summer of busts
Note: Because the post is already going to be long enough, this will only cover the movies from May to July. August still counts as the summer movie season, but there's usually not a lot of big movies released, and this August hasn't been particularly interesting so far (do we really need to wait for Blue Beetle to bomb to talk about DC?).
On paper this should have been a great summer: The last Guardians of the Galaxy movie, another installment in the highly successful Fast and Furious movies, another Disney live-action remake which have been incredibly successful, a movie featuring Michael Keaton back as Batman, Indiana Jones, and a Tom Cruise movie after his highly successful Top Gun sequel.
That was on paper.
So what actually ended up happening?
Well a lot of busts.
First let's go over the saga of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3. Early on it was a contender for a billion dollars this summer. Unfortunately for Disney Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania came out with the absolute worst reception of any Marvel movie since Eternals (and honestly even then it was definitely worse received). The Marvel brand was now tainted, at least a little. Pre-sales (that being the sale of tickets that people buy in advance) was looking bad. At one point it looked like it might open below 100 million.
In response to this, and confident in the product they had, Disney decided to drop the review embargo earlier. Resulting in similar positive critical reception that Black Panther: Wakanda Forever received . This finally made pre-sales climb higher, and once people actually started watching the movie positive word of mouth lifted it up to 118 million for the opening weekend. Still, this was much lower than what Guardians 2 opened up to six years ago (145M). It had a similar Cinemascore (the gold standard for audience reception) as Black Panther: Wakanda Forever (A) but if we look at other factors it indeed had better word of mouth. It's because of this glowing word of mouth that it was able to leg it out 358 million. Having the best multiplier of any Marvel movie since... well the first Guardians. It also had more appeal internationally than the previous two Guardians movies (maybe due to the darker tone) and it made nearly 850 million worldwide. Which is phenomenal, especially considering it got off to a shaky start that first weekend.
I should re-iterate: Marvel movies don't perform like this anymore. They usually have big openings and weak-ish legs. Having a softer opening but longer legs is a thing of the past for these types of fan driven movies, they're usually reserved for films aimed at older audiences.
I'm gonna group the next two May releases together. Fast X and The Little Mermaid also had high expectations. Both are coming from predecessors that have made billions of dollars. And actually, both didn't perform too bad overall. Fast X didn't do well domestically (it's basically a dead franchise stateside) but did very well internationally making 700M WW, and The Little Mermaid didn't do well internationally but did pretty well domestically nearly reaching 300M DOM and 550M WW. These are respectable grosses. Just one problem: their budgets. Fast X is sporting a 340 million dollar budget, making it one of the most expensive films ever made, and The Little Mermaid is sporting a 250 million dollar budget. The break-even points for these films are 850M and 625M respectively. They did not reach them. They would have been profitable if Fast X had the same budget as F9 (225M) and The Little Mermaid had the same budget as Cinderella (95M). Those would have been the responsible budgets to make these films with, but alas shit happens. They were both shooting during the pandemic, which raised costs on productions, and Fast X had to switch directors half-way through production.. Still, money losers are money losers.
June starts off with a bang. Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse opens to 120 million, more than Guardians 3 and four times more than what it's predecessor opened to. With great reviews and great audience scores, it becomes the first true out and out success since Guardians 3. It also had a much lower budget than all the summer blockbusters thus far. 100-150 million, according to differing reports (we'll know by the next year when Deadline does their most profitable blockbuster list) making profitability much easier. The film basically covered it's production budget in one weekend. It legged out pretty well. Outgrossing Guardians 3 domestically (375M) but not being able to match it internationally making nearly 700 million WW. While it did "fail" to meet the high expectations of 400M DOM, it's still massively successful. And will remain in the top 5 grossing films domestically.
The rest of June is a different story. First up we got Transformers: Rise of the Beasts, which was, at one point, one of the biggest movie franchises around resulting in two billion dollar films. While it beat expectations opening weekend, opening to 61M, it did not leg it out very well. 155M DOM and 420M WW is not a great number, especially not compared to it's 200M budget. It made less than Bumblebee despite having twice the budget. It's basically a dead franchise at this point, and it was not the win Paramount needed after Dungeons and Dragons also flopped.
Then we get a double whammy. The Flash and Elemental open the same weekend. At one point The Flash was projected to open well above 100 million just for the weekend, but pre-sales told another story. Pre-sale trackers on the forum BoxOfficeTheory, saw what industry tracking couldn't: a lack of interest. The sales just weren't there. DC as a franchise is already on the decline. This was a movie about a minor character that debuted in Justice League (which also bombed heavily), with a controversial lead star, and just unappealing trailers, who would be interested? Michael Keaton fans, supposedly. That was what people were clinging onto. The older Keaton fans would come out and help the movie. Apparently there aren't any. Doesn't help that Keaton had his last Batman outing over thirty years ago, meaning no one below the age of 40 even really cares about him as Batman. It opened disastrously to 55 million. dropping throughout the weekend from toxic word of mouth. It didn't even manage to hit the lower end of those initial projections throughout it's entire run. WB dumped so much money into this, just for it to be the biggest bomb in their studio history.
Elemental, on the other hand, ended up fairing a little bit better. Not on opening weekend. God no. It opened to 29M, one of the lowest openings in Pixar's history. But, it was really well received by audiences. And people kept watching it week after week, resulting in some of the best legs Pixar has had in a while. Reaching over 150M DOM, and over 400M (and counting) WW. If it reaches 500M WW, which it still looks like it might, it would break even theatrically. That's not great, as studios would love to make money theatrically, but considering this could have been a massive money loser for Disney, it's quite an impressive run. Thanks to Disney's re-commitment to theatrical, their animation studios are slowly building themselves back up in the eyes of audiences.
To end the month came Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. Supposedly the Top Gun: Maverick of 2023, at least that's what some people had pegged it as at the beginning of the year. Once again, it didn't work out that way. It premiered at Cannes to mixed reviews, and while the funko pop critics were able to get it to fresh on RottenTomatoes, the damage was done. Indiana Jones spent months with a rotten symbol. Even before that, trailer views were weak, the interest just wasn't there. Why? I think perhaps Crystal Skull was supposed to be the last outing for the character (which actually ended up being the second highest grossing film of 2008 and even outgrossed The Dark Knight internationally), and even before that The Last Crusade was supposed to be the last outing of this character. And now we're getting another last outing for the character. Except now he's 80. A fantasy wish-fulfillment character being 80 is probably not a great thing. It's also another situation where no one below 40 really cares about Indiana Jones (me excluded but I don't share the viewing habits of other people my age). So... it was over before it even started. It opened okay all things considering, 60M isn't bad. But it had mediocre drops week to week, no doubt due to mediocre word of mouth. And again, the budget was out of control. Initially reported to be 290M, the actual budget ended up being 320M. It didn't even get close to 400M WW. Making it one of the biggest bombs of all time, and certainly the biggest bomb of the year. This is probably the last straw for Lucasfilm. I can't imagine Disney letting them continue doing things this way.
Next one comes a sad one for me personally, Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning - Part One the first big movie of July. They decided to release it over a 5-day weekend. And, more importantly, decided to open the weekend before Barbenheimer. Unfortunately, that meant that no one was paying attention to Tom Cruise's latest critically acclaimed action film. It opened below 80 million for the 5-day weekend, below Indiana Jones even. It's only hope was to leg it out well. But again, two big movies would come out a week later. Mission Impossible was yet another victim of Paramount's idiotic release date decisions. Dungeons and Dragons opened a week before Mario, despite positive reviews and audience reception that ended up dropping like a rock too. If Paramount had picked more empty dates both of these movies would have done better. MI is the only blockbuster this summer to be extremely well reviewed, to get positive audience reception (same scores as Fallout) yet not be a success at the box office. The budget didn't help, 290M, it was one of the first productions to restart during the pandemic that's where this audio of Cruise yelling at crew members breaking protocols comes from. They actually set the standard for productions during the pandemic. But, money losers are money losers, and Paramount has been bleeding a lot of money.
One of the more interesting success stories so far this year is Sound of Freedom. Originally produced in 2018, 20th Century Fox held the distribution rights. When Disney bought Fox they shelved the movie. Angel Studios then got the rights to the film. They opened it on the Fourth of July weekend (America!) to rave audience reactions. It opened modestly, to 19 million, but has legged out spectacularly. Outgrossing summer blockbusters like Transformers: Rise of the Beasts and Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. Domestically anyway. It was powered by conservative influencers and the often reliable christian market. It's been debated if this should count. As they had a pay it forward service, meaning people would buy tickets for others to use for free. There were several reports of sold out screenings playing to a largely empty room. Whatever it is. It's money for movie theaters. And it's clearly playing well to an underserved market.
Now we get to the big one: Barbie and Oppenheimer. For over a year these two have been building up hype. Christopher Nolan, who usually has his films distributed by Warner Bros., was incredibly unhappy with how they sacrificed his film Tenet during the 2020 pandemic and even was even less happy when WB announced that their entire 2021 slate would be day and date on HBOMAX. He then takes his next project to Universal, after they agreed to a laundry list of demands. They pick the date July 21st, because that's the date Nolan likes and is "reserved" for him. Warner Bros originally had Coyote vs Acme there, a live-action Looney Tunes film with John Cena. However, they remove Coyote vs Acme from the schedule (it still has no release date) and instead put Barbie there. It originally started off as a "battle." Who would win, who would flop? But as we got closer, it became something else. The stark contrast between the two films, while both being from filmmakers who are lauded by younger people online, led to the creation of Barbenheimer. It wasn't "which one will win" it was "we're excited for both." It also wasn't, as some people think, manufactured by Universal and Warner Bros (why on earth would competing studios work together) it was organic. If it wasn't organic it wouldn't have worked. Barbie opened to over 160M and Oppenheimer to over 80M.
What makes their successes so great for the industry, is that they're in genres that have not been doing well post-pandemic. Even pre-pandemic comedies like Barbie were struggling. The last big comedy to hit 200M DOM was Ted back in 2012. Barbie easily blew past that. It's also a female oriented film in a time where women have been one of the slowest demographics to return to theaters. Adult dramas were also on lifeline. Elvis had been the highest grossing one post-pandemic, but pre-pandemic we would get multiple hits. In 2019: 1917, Little Women, Ford vs Ferrari, and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood all grossed over 100M DOM. In the two years since the pandemic only Elvis managed to hit that mark. But now Oppenheimer, something that on paper is tailor made for the end of the year Oscar season, opens like a blockbuster in the summer. It's the first drama to make over 200M DOM since Joker, and first non-franchise drama to make that much since Bohemian Rhapsody and A Star is Born crossed that threshold back in 2018.
Maybe it's a fluke, maybe it was just because it was these films specifically. But it's hard not to feel optimistic that this will translate to other dramas like Killers of the Flower Moon and Napoleon, and other female-oriented films like Wonka.
Smaller successes and optimism for the future of theatrical:
I covered the big movies. But what about the rest of the slate? Movie theaters can't just survive on 20 or so big movies a year. They need the smaller films to still deliver some money. These past two years, the box office has been incredibly top heavy. We either got films that only made a ton of money or we got movies that made no money.
Let me give you an example of the struggle of this specific market. The Peanut Butter Falcon was the 100th grossing film domestically of 2019. It grossed 20 million. In 2021 it was The Father with 2.1 million, in 2022 it was Cyrano with 3.8 million. You can see the toll the pandemic took here. But you can also see slight recovery.
I believe 2023 is the year we see substantial recovery in his part of the market. Smaller, non-franchise, and art-house films have been making more money than they have been in the past two years.
Let's look at some examples:
Asteroid City has the highest opening PTA (per-theater-average) of any film since the pandemic. Over 100k PTA something that used to be more common before the pandemic. And, once it goes wide, grosses 27 million domestic. Compare that to Wes Anderson's previous film which grossed 16 million domestic.
Past Lives also opens to a healthy PTA of 58k. That's higher than TAR and The Banshees of Inisherin. And that's without any star power and without having a well known Director. It has Oscar buzz, to be fair, but so did the other two and it still managed to outgross both of them when it went wide. So these types of awards films are already doing better than they were even six months prior.
No Hard Feelings not so much a small film, it's not an art-house film, and it's not an awards contender. It's a mid-budget comedy that relied solely on star power as a selling point. It's exactly the type of movie that failed countless times in 2021 and 2022. Yet, it outgrossed star-studded R-rated comedies from last year such as Amsterdam, The Menu, and Babylon pretty easily. Making 50 million domestic. It, perhaps, did not turn a profit theatrically, but it at least made some of its money back. Even a year ago, the thought of this type of movie making anything more than it did would have been unfathomable. Even Ticket to Paradise, which did make more than No Hard Feelings especially internationally, was PG-13 and had two old school stars headlining it instead of one young one.
I think these three movies really do show how much the market continues to improve, even as we faced massive bombs. When something as benign as Theater Camp can open with a PTA on par with Banshees of Inisherin, we're definitely heading in the right direction.
This was quite the summer for Hollywood. With so many high profile bombs, and two surprise hits, this already feels like a transformational year for the industry. Trends are changing. Franchises from the 2010s (mostly from Disney) are no longer the guaranteed money makers they were. The unions are on strike. Studios are looking to cut costs. It's a whirlwind.
There are two reasons I have a hard time getting myself to the movies. One is personal. Going to see a movie is so hard now. We really don't go often because we have two small children and no reliable childcare ATM. If we do, it will be movies like Elemental because it's aimed at kids. We saw it and loved it.
The second reason we don't go to the movies is exacerbated by the first. I'm not going to set aside my time for another sequel, prequel, sidestory, remake, etc. But that's what most big summer 'blockbusters' are.
However, Barbie and Oppenheimer seem really unique and fresh and I am definitely interested in making an attempt to see at least one of the two.
I really do hope movie studios will pause and take note of what is succeeding and failing
I'd so much rather they kept what they did during the pandemic and just let us buy and stream it. 20 bucks for a new movie sounds like a lot, but it's basically the same.
Though unfortunately I know that would be the death of movie theaters
I honestly don't understand with everyone's concern of the death of movie theaters.
So what? You're sad you wont be able to go to an outdated medium, pay insanely overpriced food, beverage, and ticket prices, deal with obnoxious loud assholes and obnoxious entitled parents who let their kids scream, sit in popcorn filled seats and sticky floors, sit through half an hour of ads for other movies trying to entice you to return to this awful experience, and then fight with parking/traffic to get home after all of that.
All of that instead of just, sitting in the comfort of your own home, with complete freedom of food and drink, pausing for bathroom break whenever you want and enjoying at your leisure?
Movie theaters are outdated and terrible. Yes there are a couple of the "higher classes" ones but most theaters are just bad. So what if they go away? Everything becomes outdated and needs replacing within society. Let movie theaters go, their time is over.
I love going to movie theatres! At home I’m distracted - I’m noticing jobs I have to do, or I’m half listening out for the kids to wake up, or I get a text and end up on my phone. I’ve never had any of the negative experiences with other movie goers, are American cinemas that terrible?! Our ads also aren’t that long. It can be expensive, but my local theatre often has deals on tickets so I can get a ticket and a small popcorn for about $25 (which to put into perspective is just a little more than 1 hour of minimum wage here).
I really hope theatres stick around!
They are pretty bad, only recently have they actually starting reserving seats, which seems like it should've been a no brainer.
Tickets are $15-$20 a person, small popcorn is $10, drink is $8, a small candy is $6, a burger is $25 and terrible quality, you'd pay the same or less at a restaurant for a decent burger. Most of the other food and appetizer options are sitting around that range also, if that theater even offers actual food. Waaaay overpriced.
You can easily spend $100 for 2 people accidentally if you weren't paying attention.
There are some "discount theaters" but there rare and even more rundown and worse condition than normal theaters.
It's literally half an hour of ads. If you're movie starts at 7:30, you can show up at 8 and they'll still be playing trailers, it's ridiculous.
Americans are rude as hell. People chit chat in the theater, are on their phones, get up and leave and come back multiple times, it's bad. Parents bring their kids and do nothing when they sit screaming and crying. Employees will do nothing about any of these issues.
To be fair to those employees, given the way that people working in the service industry are treated by the public I don't blame anyone for not wanting to put themselves in a potentially dangerous situation by confronting a disruptive guest.
Oh no I don't fault the employees either, but management should be doing something or providing guidelines and backing them up
Ok that sounds terrible and I now kind of agree with the first guy who said theatres should be left to die. Who enjoys that?!
(Also, I don’t blame the employees. Why put yourself at risk of someone getting aggy with you for minimum wage?! No thank you)
I’m feeling suddenly very grateful for our theatres! The expense is the only thing that’s also an issue here, but comparative to CoL generally it’s not quite as bad for us
When I said employees, I meant more the management. Like these people are actively pissing off a majority of your customers, those people aren't going to keep coming back if they know every movie they see will be a terrible experience at your theater. You should do something about that.
Even management don’t get paid all that much, it’s owners who should care. All those people who are ruining the experience obviously don’t care about other noisy (etc) people, and they’re still paying for it. I think as long as profits are relatively stable then owners won’t care either
I agree it would be nice though, no argument there. Just providing reasons why it might not be happening currently
Idk where all these Americans live where every person in a theater with them is obnoxious. I have only had Issues on rare occasions.
I bet you’re fun at parties. /s
Granted, theater experiences can vary greatly- but going to see a great film with a great audience- that can be special.
I was in one of those theaters that went into pandemonium when the portals opened at the climax of End Game. Remember that?
Even the flops- I also remember the weird confused quiet leaving a midnight opening night showing of Star Wars Episode 1. That was an experience too I guess.
So many issues in the world today are because we are a social species that choose a more and more isolated lifestyle.
It’s a low stakes step toward some sort of communal experience to go to a theater and be entertained. What else are you going to do- talk to a neighbor? /s
I don't really care about those big moments with random strangers. When I'm watching with my friends or family yeah, those are great, but more often than not when in the theater, people end up shouting or laughing at something that doesn't deserve it and then you miss the next few lines of dialogue.
I think we have plenty of social interaction as it is, being forced to go to the office, dealing with people when out running errands, the world is getting more claustrophobic. People are expecting everyone to be more social and not everyone wants that. People that want that can seek it out with bars and clubs and activities and stuff, but those that don't shouldnt be forced into it and it feels like that's where things are headed. Anyway that's a tangent.
I would much rather sit at home, watch with my friends and family and have full freedom and control over everything. Plus it's waaaay cheaper that way too. I could feed 5-6 people for $50 for a popcorn and snacks for a movie. Much better experience all around.
Fair enough. You do you. I’m kind of a hermit and need to make a point of doing social things. 👍
You and me both! My aversion to socializing and to large crowds is pretty strong, so the fact that I absolutely love 'big theater' moments means I'd lose something really special to me if theaters go away. I was also in the theater for the End Game moments, I was also exiting the theater after SWE1. The Lord of the Rings trilogy was another excellent experience, particularly the final movie. Fear makes for a great audience experience as well. Jurassic Park was terrifying on the big screen! And I still remember the odd stillness of the theater for A Quiet Place. It was the quietest movie, but despite that, I never heard a candy wrapper crinkling, a drink straw squeaking, or the sound of crunching popcorn. Hell, I couldn't even hear anyone breathing in some scenes! I especially enjoyed that one because I went to see it three times and the audience reaction never changed. I can't argue that a lot of people are done with theaters, and maybe we're at the point where there are enough that they're facing an end. But if they do disappear in my time, I'm going to lose something that's been very special to me.
End game was definitely a movie worth seeing in theaters.
I also treasure seeing the first Jackass movie in theaters. Not exactly fine cinema, but man what an experience to share.
My version of the Endgame scene you mentioned was the ending to Return of the King. Midnight screening on New Year's Eve. It was the first time I'd ever seen a packed house give a film a standing ovation.
I saw Endgame in a theater too, but my interest in that franchise died before that movie came out, so I didn't really feel anything during the portal scene.
Oh man....trying to come out of that half as pleased as going in was hard. It was like we were all lying to ouselves to justify how hyped we were.
I love going to the movie theater. I have one about 5 blocks from my apartment. They have well-priced beer, nice seats, good screens. The people there are usually pretty respectful. There's no downside.
Interesting point re the state American picturehouses seem to be in, I've heard plenty of horror stories similar to what you describe in your comment.
Thankfully it's not as bad and still an enjoyable experience in my country. I do still only go for films I think justify being first watched on the big screen - Dune (2021) is a good example. Some of the scenes were spectacular and I don't think I'd have appreciated it as much if I was watching it at home!
Investing in a projector might a good shout down the line
So I'm still reading but I had to stop at this:
I had to look this up because it sounds so ridiculous, but. It's real. My god, it's real. This has to be one of the weirdest choices to adapt to live action, though the premise of Wile E. Coyote suing Acme is definitely something.
I know this will probably be a kitschy garbage fire, but I'd give all the money in my pockets if this was made as a straight-faced courtroom dramedy taking spiritual influence from Who Framed Roger Rabbit and anything Aaron Sorkin ever wrote.
Yeah, I feel like the premise has potential. But at this point, I have zero expectations for most movies that feel like they're capitalizing on an existing IP's reputation. Particularly when it's an animated IP, they tend to put in even less effort for those. They put in lots of money and work on the animation itself, but writing-wise, they tend to fall flat.
The fact it's Warner Brothers makes those expectations plummet even further, given most of their recent works and treatment of animated IP's. So, I have very mixed feelings about this film already with barely any information.
On the other hand, I feel the way they are adapting this is in line with Christopher Robin and that movie was brilliant. These sorts of animation were always best as shorts (just check out Winnie's two "theatrical" releases... They aren't even a feature length film, it's like 3 long tv episodes), but if we're going to do live action, I feel grounding the fantastical with a realistic premise works out better than trying to out do animation with fancy CGI.
I'm not quite as optimistic here (Winnie was always treated surprisingly earnestly by Disney despite such a simple premise... Looney Tunes by WB not so much), but I appreciate it going in a "good" direction. Fingers crossed for execution.
Oh my god. Everybody acting and speaking/speech-speaking as only Sorkin can write, but Wile E. Still has to use signs and diagrams to communicate. Roadrunner is called a witness. He’s voiced by Liam Neeson in a late 3rd act twist.
What I could continue to come up with will only make for greater disappointment when I do eventually have to find out what the end abomination actually became.
It's a real shame because the idea has legs but I can't imagine the studio has the eyes to actually take advantage of it.
I was very put off by the idea of a live action Roadrunner movie (yeah, you know. Some of the most zany fast paced animation in history stuck in our corporeal form). But the plot makes it sound like some Robot Chicken sketch stretched out into a feature length film and that is exactly my humor. Probably won't do that well but I respect the effort.
Yeah, I have mixed feelings because the premise COULD be good. It hinges entirely on execution though, and I don't know how much I trust Warner Brothers with that.
This was such a bit of fun whiplash. "They made what! With who!?"
I am excited for this, but also completely expect it to bomb theatrically and critically.
Yeah, I have no idea what to expect from it. Just knowing it exists gives me mixed feelings. I feel like it will either be actually glorious or awful, with no in between.
Well, we can do nothing but hope for the best and expect the worst!
IMO it's still not in the same league as Battleship (2012) based – yes! – on the Hasbro board game. It was a horrific flop, lol.
You're not wrong. Their mistake was making that one serious. They should have gone over the top with making it silly by having it work exactly like the game, and people freaking out as pegs fall from the sky. Lean into the fact it's based on a board game played by kids—heck, reveal in a big twist it's actually kids playing the board game without knowing it's actually destroying battleships.
What if Enders Game, but Battleship and silly?
I've never seen it but generally I feel like you have to go hard in either direction. A silly premise sometimes works better when played completely straight.
Depends on how you're playing it straight. Having characters not acknowledge a ridiculous situation as ridiculous is a fine line to walk, it can either be brilliant or come across as lazy and dumb writing. I haven't seen Battleship either, but I know they leaned too hard into aliens and sci-fi.
Also, it never used the line "You sunk my battleship!" That line should have been delivered by either the most straight-faced admiral or a crying devastated captain.
I gotta take umbrage with this - more so considering your later quip in the Indy section about your generation's viewing habits.
Some of us had Keaton Batman on VHS back in the day. Same as we had Indy on VHS. No, I didn't see it in the theaters but I certainly have fond memories of it.
The bigger problem was how they... Well, the fact that they made the movie. There's a reason Aquaman 2 keeps getting pushed back and that's because their leading lady shit the bed, figuratively speaking. After everything with Ezra, they push out a bunch of trailers that have Batman in them but then show "The Flash" at the end. So obviously they banked on Keaton fans like you said but, it's not that young people don't care about Keaton, it's that young people's Flash was on the CW. And Keaton fans would probably want to see Nicholson and Burton at the helm. Young people were probably following what Ezra had done and older people couldn't follow the marketing about why Batman was apparently the main character of the Flash movie.
Agree for the most part as an older person. Was very, very excited to see Keaton revive his moody Batman and also absolutely love The Flash.
But Ezra sucks. His personal stuff is bananas but he’s not a good Barry Allen. To me Barry should be more Joseph Gordon-Levitt than Johnny Depp. It shouldn’t be a smoldering angst it should be a wholesome self doubt.
That’s why Grant Gustin worked so well on the CW and it’s why I really didn’t love seeing my favorite superhero in the Justice League and why I still haven’t seen the new Flash movie.
That plus the DC and Marvel stuff sucks shit lately. MCU feel very same-y, predictable and formulaic and DCEU feels like a little brother copying its older brother MCU and not nailing why it worked for the bigger brother.
Really wanted to see and love The Flash.
I watched this on TV in a bar the other day. I won't spoil anything for you as it sounds you haven't seen it yet. I was pleasantly surprised by it, but really felt like anyone could have made a decent if not better Flash than Ezra.
Yeah, I'm also inclined to believe that The Flash tanked mostly because of Ezra Miller's multitude of controversies.
I'm old enough to have had Michael Keaton Batman action figures, so I'm biased here, but I thought the trailers looked pretty good. And the "B" Cinemascore certainly suggests that the people who bothered to watch the movie generally liked it.
It's just hard to get past the Ezra Miller angle. Which is disappointing because I liked the comic book source material when I read it years ago so I was kind of looking forward to this. Especially because it would undoubtedly represent a reboot of the lackluster DCEU.
They needed to recast before the movie ever began production. As I understand it, the writing was already on the wall back then anyway.
Wonka is meant to be a female oriented film? From the trailer it looks like there's maybe one major female character, who is a sidekick, and one other female character with lines. Even most of the extras appeared to be men. What am I missing?
That confused me as well but I haven't been closely following that one so I figured I'd missed something.
Maybe it's just because it's Timothy Chalamet?
I hope not! There must be a more reasonable bar for "women oriented" than "main character is someone a lot of women find attractive". Considering that most celebrities are pretty attractive that would make it very difficult to find movies that genuinely cater to a woman's point of view.
I was similarly confused by that assertion. Maybe because it's a musical? The previous Wonka universe films were as well though...
Yes, musicals in general are more female oriented fare. Beauty and the Beast (2017) was the Barbie of its day, meaning it was powered by female audiences. Stuff like West Side Story (2021) would also have, pre-pandemic, grossed more from female audiences. But because women weren’t really back to theaters back then it didn’t do much business.
Would you consider the original Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory or Sweeney Todd female oriented as well? It seems extremely odd to me that properties that aren't made largely by women or telling stories about women are considered women oriented, but if your only consideration is who ends up buying tickets then I suppose I can't argue with numbers.
That's largely it. I don't think the gender of the main character of the movie determines whether something skews male or female. Captain Marvel, for example, skewed heavily male as comic book movies do. In fact Aquaman's audience was more female than Captain Marvel.
Musicals just don't appeal to men generally. Stuff like The Greatest Showman, which is not a female story at all really, skewed nearly 70% female.
That's really interesting! Thank you for clarifying.
It was powered by a female audience but I'd jump Dan Stevens' bones as a straight man. Him and Luke Evans actually gave a shit. Emma Watson was painfully flat.
I only really think that Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning - Part One was a "unfortunate" or I suppose less in control bust. It was a decent movie and it should've done well, but didn't. A lot of the busts are just... bad movies. The good movies did well, for the most part. An exception in the other direction was Mario, which wasn't in the summer but close enough, and had poor critical reviews but was a smashing success in box office numbers.
The Mario Movie is definitely its own case study. But as a very short summary: Nintendo knew exactly who to target and it was not critics. And of coirse Nintendo had enough clout to advertise around the critics. As for the movie itself; it is very much a modern Illumination movie; it very much is concerned with flash over substance, but it was very Fun. And to be honest that works perfectly for Mario. That plus all the callbacks for fans showed it was focused on tickling gamer's fancies, and it worked.
I don't know if I'd trust Illumination with Nintendo's more earnest IPs like Zelda, or god forbid, Metroid. But it was a good call for Mario.
Oh god, I don't want to hear Link or Samus talking If Illumination made those movies they would be singing.
For me the Mission Impossible movies give me franchise fatigue. Just how many times can the world's best spy/super-agent be turned on by his own government yet still always come back for more instead of saying "fuck it all" and fully going off-grid to live a quiet life?
Ghost Protocol was the high point for the franchise. It had great TC stunts and Jeremy Renner and Paula Patton as secondaries which helped levitate all of the scenes they had to do with TC. It was also better paced than MI2 or 3
I saw Barbie, that's about it. It was actually pretty funny and I enjoyed it more than I expected to. The ways they worked in how children really played with the dolls got a good laugh out of me. The rest of the stuff on the list I doubt I will ever watch. I never got on the superhero bandwagon, I'm currently waiting for it to peter out so studios might make good mid-budgeted films again. Enough of this "every film has to make 1 billion dollars or it's a failure" tripe.
Oppenheimer is a good mid-budget non-superhero movie
I've done a lot of personal reading and research into the Manhattan Project, the genesis of nuclear weapons and their impact on the resulting Cold War, so I'm not really interested in a film about Oppenheimer.
A movie can be more than a vehicle for information. I would argue that the merits of a good biopic lie in putting you in the headspace of whatever historical figure is on screen.
Oppenheimer is a good example of this. It's pretty light on exact details; it is mostly concerned with delving in the mind & experience of a man that was involved in a very interesting & impactful event.
I understand a movie can be more than a vehicle for information; I wouldn't be a fan of stuff like Panos Cosmatos' Beyond The Black Rainbow if I didn't believe it were so. But I've read books about Oppenheimer and watched interviews he's given and heard his experience from his own mouth. I'm not sure what a biopic - a genre that famously tends to play fast and loose with the facts to keep butts in seats - has to offer me over that. No offense or anything.
Art?
I was implying that you should give it a try, since it's not concerned with only historical events but more with Oppenheimer's subjective experience.
Given that the two big comic IP's are owned by Disney (self explanatory) and WB (who has been trying to make this work for DECADES), you might be waiting a while. I don't think this will be realized until we have a third pillar rise. And I don't think Image/Spawn is quite there yet.
But there are plenty of non-superhero movies out there. You're simply going to hear about Marvel/DC the most on the internet due to the discourse of movies (as a whole) being much smaller on the internet than comics or games (one which grew up with the internet. The other which is used to debating even pre-internet, and adapted with open arms).
Oh I don't need to wait, there's a backlog of at least 100 years of films I've never seen. History is full of films that are actually great but never got their due in their own time for any number of reasons. I think I'll still have plenty to watch while simultaneously tuning out whatever the new hotness these days is.
Fair enough. But I don't substitute home theater for the silver screen, and old movies rarely get rerun, unfortunately.
Funnily enough, Coraline is a surprising exception to this rule. Never saw it but I was curious. Shame I just missed it due to family being in town.
I don't relish or miss the theater experience, honestly. I prefer to watch something on my own time, eat my own food and go to the bathroom when I feel the need without missing anything. The way people conduct themselves at theaters now also puts me off.
Old movies are easy to find when you know where to look.
You might want to grab them on DVD while you can. There is a collection of award nominated (or winning) movies that are no longer available for certain reasons. Movies like "Cacoon", "Dogma", "Sleuth" and dozens more and that's not including movies weren't nominated for anything.
At some point I'm sure the studios while realize that time is what they're competing for with these huge back catalogs and will make moves to severely limit access so you'll have more time for their new garbage.
I think it's funny that you think DVDs are the only place to get out-of-print movies. Like I said, if you know where to look, you can get anything. ;)
Dogma is available in full on YouTube. https://youtu.be/dIbqEE6YI7Y
I haven’t watched it there yet so I can’t speak to the quality, but I was very pleased when I heard! Such a great movie
Can we have a discussion about how an action movie (that honestly looks like every other action movie in the past 20 years) can cost a third of a billion dollars?! Like, maybe that is the problem, lol?
So I looked up how much Vin Diesel got to say "I am Groot" in the Guardians movies and it's apparently something like $13 million per movie. Like... that could pay a few starving writers a warm meal and shit.
Of those I've only seen D&D and Spiderman. Both good films, but I preferred D&D. Spiderman was artistically very good but was pretty much a 2 hour chase sequence, it was exhausting to watch at times. In the end "nothing happened", the main baddie was absent most of the time, and the cliff hanger plot seemed more interesting. D&D had lots of callbacks to the universe, and I enjoyed how they had creative use of magic. Chris Pine is a weird one though, not sure I'm a fan of his, but the role he played suited that kind of faker smooth guy style he gives off. Seeing as how it bombed (?) that probably means they won't make any more, which is a shame as it is a rich world. We'll probably have to wait to 2026+ for the conclusion of Spider verse, which is bonkers. I dunno if I'd watch any other movie again knowing it doesn't wrap up, it's pretty annoying. Fast X and MI both did it too, what's with that trend?
I had high expectations of D&D because of comments like this I had read online. To me it felt like a hollow, largely derivative movie built around the ubiquitous MacGuffin and Endgame-style "give every character the chance to punch the villain" scene. Overall a well made, amusing at times movie with nice CGI, but other than that no... Heart.
My SO and I noticed this in other recent, highly rated movies. Nimona and The Bad Guys are good examples, besides D&D. The pattern would be: well to extremely well made movies, with a nice concept and execution, but ultimately empty and forgettable.
But I agree with your last idea: I always hated these movies that get split in two just to get more butts in the theater some years down the line. I hate this trend, and up until the end, I thought Spiderman was a 10/10 movie. Not so much after that ending though.
Could you elaborate on Nimona? I've seen it about one and a half times now and I thought it was quite fun and probably one of the better kids movies I've seen recently. I've seen a lot of empty and forgettable movies in recent years (much as I love Sam Raimi movies, Dr. Strange was very empty and forgettable) and that definitely didn't strike me as one.
I really don't know how to articulate it. The pieces are all there: the writing is decent, the visuals are gorgeous, the theme is interesting, but it lacks something. It felt lifeless. Perhaps it's because, as the other commenter said, it was a film done by a committee. Interestingly, it had quite a few number of writers attached to it, and a "lead narrative" role. It makes me think that it was a product of a writer's room, instead of some unique vision.
Even Spiderman's narrative felt like that, but it was elevated by the animation's passion and raw energy. I still remember the brain zaps the opening title gave me.
That's what happens when everything becomes the same focus-grouped 'film-by-committee' constructed at the whims of bean-counters.
For what it's worth, I didn't think the ending was forced and I didn't think it negatively impacted it at all. My wife, my daughter, and I all really liked it. More even than the first one.
I enjoyed most of Across the Spider-Verse. But the cliffhanger of the end pretty much ruined the rest of the movie for me in retrospect. It spends all of this time doing stuff that you then have to wait until the next movie to see where it goes. There was no sense of resolution, even on a small scale. Just, “Surprise! That was part one!” Even Fast X, which did pretty much the same thing, felt more complete at the end (though it still annoyed me). Maybe Fast X wasn't as disappointing because it was ridiculous all the way through and I wasn't as invested in it before the ending.
The D&D movie was entertaining and at least had a resolution. I wouldn't have minded waiting until it came out on streaming to see it, but I'm not mad I spent money to see it in the theater.
There is something I have become to call “requirements” in movies these days. They are scenes that are put into movies that are put in not because it makes the movie better, but there was some external event that made the producers feel they needed to insert them into the film. Most typically it’s because the film is a sequel that wasn’t originally planned.
Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 3 is a really good example of requirements. The previous two films worked out really well because they were essentially in this bubble that kept them away from the rest of the MCU. That bubble burst after the second movie. The movie had some really well thought out and executed parts; the scenes focusing on Rocket and Nebula really stand out for how good they are. But there are a lot of scenes that also kind of are just there and don’t really blend in well with the movie overall, like some of the scenes with Drax and Mantis being dumb together. Or to think of it a different way, imagine if this movie only focused on Rocket’s history and his relationship to the other Guardians, instead of all the other characters getting story arcs. Wouldn’t that have been a more powerful film?
I suppose another word for this would be sequelitis, but that didn’t seem to be specific enough. Besides that, sequels are not the only films to suffer from requirements. Most Disney films these days have them, especially the live action remakes. Beauty and the Beast had to make Belle into an inventor herself, but it didn’t come up again after it was established. Many of them have extremely impotent queer representation, like Cruella’s Artie (three points if you even remember who that character is - I can’t even remember them mentioning their name). The Lion King and Aladdin had some legitimately great songs written for them, but they ultimately did not contribute to the movie in any meaningful way.
Movies high in requirements have the tendency of offering watered down experiences with circuitous plots. Movies are strongest when they have a strong central theme. An idea of sorts that gives justification for everything that happens. Requirements are by definition external, and therefore always serve as a distraction from the central theme. People have been complaining that movies have been getting longer, and Requirements seem to be a good explanation as to why.
LGBT representation will always be weak and easy to edit out as long as money is an overriding concern for studios. They can't risk pissing off demographics that could produce money, so all you get is token LGBT references that are simple to remove to make places like Saudi Arabia and China happy.
What a great post. I love this type of analysis and a great effort throughout. We probably average 1 or 2 movies a week. We primarily watch at home but we are fortunate to have both a local independent theater that we love as well as a drive in theater during the summer.
The Super Mario Bros. an early year movie we just watched recently. We were both very happy with the film. We do not have kids but like this kind of thing when we've had a long day and have an hour or so before bed. Taking the target demographic into account we both loved the interplay between Mario, Bowzer, and Peach. Definitely a movie I'd watch with kids and I think there are some good life lessons in it. It's easy to fall into the trope of hero saving the princess, bad guy being over the top, but the characters actually had some appreciated nuance.
Mission Impossible I've never seen a mission impossible film. My partner has enjoyed them. We opted to see this at the drive in. The drive in experience is always "sub-optimal" for really appreciating a movie. But I felt the drive in was an appropriate experience for this film. I wasn't very impressed and probably would have gotten bored in a theater or at home.
Fast X we love the Fast and Furious franchise. We revel in its laisse-faire treatment of consequences, over the top characterization, and devil-may-care script writing. Fast X was fine. It was an average fast film, I expect part 2 to be better with an actual resolution.
Barbie I've written about this film elsewhere on Tildes. We absolutely loved this film.
Oppenheimer I've also written a fair amount this film here. "My favorite Nolan film but I don't like Nolan films."
Asteroid City Wes Anderson never really misses a beat. His aesthetic is getting tired but was well executed here. Some interesting direction decisions helped the movie. The children cast for the film really carried it for me. Absolutely hilarious performances from them.
Little Mermaid Has a weird tonal inconsistency. Overall I enjoyed my time with the film. Not really much to say here. My partner is named after her so it was a requirement to see.
Indiana Jones, Spiderman, Guardians of the Galaxy, Transformers, Batman are all things I'm sick of. I cannot wait until this business of pumping out sequels ad nauseum dies. If I want to watch an Indiana Jones movie I'll watch one of the first 3. I have no interest in Spiderman or Batman I've seen enough of them. Transformers I'm curious about only because of the Porsche collaboration but I can't really stomach the idea of watching the movie. I've enjoyed James Gunn's Guardians films so will likely watch it at some point. I'm apprehensive because MCU fan service pisses me off and I here there is more in this film than other Guardians installments.
Theater Camp We will likely see this weekend. We loved the trailer.
These are some great summaries! I agree with you on the ones I’ve seen, and so your opinion has helped me figure out which others on this list I’d probably enjoy. Thanks!
I don't totally understand the thrust of this post. You labeled it the "summer of busts" and then laid out a dozen highly profitable movies.
Or maybe there's something about box office math I'm missing. You say:
If Fast X had a 340M budget, I assume that means they spent 340M to pay the cast & crew, get locations, market, CGI, etc. Is that not right? If it is, wouldn't the break even point be 340M? Where does 850M come from?
340M is the production budget, with the break even point being 2.5x the films budget (usually). The only profitable movie with a budget over 200M this summer so far, and actually this year, has been Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3.
This summer saw the under-performance and outright flops of big budget blockbusters that were expected to be bigger money makers. This string of disappointments is why it has been seen as a disappointing summer, or what I labeled the summer of busts. Guardians, Spider-Verse, and the duo of Barbenheimer have really been the only blockbuster successes. Fast X, Little Mermaid, The Flash, Indiana Jones, Transformers, and Mission Impossible have either disappointed or been bombs.
Isn't Transformers profitable, according to that math?
155 + 520 = 675M box office
2.5 * 200 = 500M break even
Meaning after everyone got paid, and the studio refilled their coffers, there's 175M profit already. Plus toy sales, and whatever sweet money Chevy keeps paying to feature its lousy plastic cars.
I don't know--from the outside it still seems like studios are making bank.
Transformers made 436M World Wide (it was at 420 when I started writing this).
Not really. Even Iger has admitted to this string of disappointments, box office bombs like these also affect studios stock. While these grosses might seem impressive to an outsider, it isn’t making studios happy. Theaters on the other hand, are much happier this year than they have been in a while.
Ah, got it. The WW figured include domestic. Thanks for your patience!
The revenue split studios get from international box offices grosses is different from what they get from domestic grosses. The specifics of these deals aren't usually public, but I think it's typical for studios to get a smaller cut of the international grosses than they do for the domestic ones.
So if you're a studio, you're probably better off making 100M domestically than 100M internationally, because the theater keeps less of it. Since we don't know the details of the distribution deals (or the movie budgets themselves) all you can really do is guess though.
That's just production cost. The rule of thumb is that total costs are ~2-3x production costs.
There are a multitude of factors that are usually ignored in box office reporting, resulting in movies looking a lot more profitable than they are.
I believe that it is Hollywood Math all the way down and it always has been.
I'd be genuinly curious to know how much they make off each ticket. A precursory Google search shows answers ranging 10%-40% per ticket price. Our local drive in theater claims to make a pittance per ticket and urges people to support them by buying a fairly priced item at the concession stand ($3 for a large soda, $10 for a pizza last time I went). To be fair their ticket prices were pretty cheap last time I went ($7 per adult, $5 for a child for 2 movies)
This has led to many lawsuits because of Hollywood math among other issues. Scarlett Johanson sued Disney for lost revenue on "Black Widow" because they released on Disney+ and the theaters at the same time. Sometimes they sign for a percent of Net Profits which can magically be non-existant on a film like "Coming to America". It doesn't take long to uncover a multitide of other lawsuits over profits or lack thereof.
The one that always stuck with me was how "Forrest Gump" apparently lost $60 million . That math just doesn't math for me. It cost $55 million to make and it made $678 million at box office (before home release media sales) but that somehow means a $60 million loss.
This has been the answer to the age old problem of "Hollywood accounting". Actors and filmmakers used to sign on for a percentage of net profits, but then studios started finding ways to pretend movies like Return of the Jedi weren't profitable. So talent agents began putting "first dollar" points put in their clients contracts because it is a lot harder to lie about gross revenue with accounting trickery.
You might be forgetting about Hollywood Math where a movie like "Coming to America" had a budget of $36 million and brought in $288-350 million but still somehow lost money.
There was an article or interview from J. Michael Straczynski way back in the day where he stated that even though Babylon 5 had made over $1 billion as a franchise (at that time) it was on the books as a money loser because the studio could charge losses from other projects against it. I think "Waterworld" was specifically mentioned. While I can't find the exact article I'm thinking of I did find this which reaffirms the article I'm thinking of exists.
I mean, despite the title, this didn't really sound like a "bust" per se. Outside of maybe Mission Impossible being shown up by Barbie-Heimer. I was never really expecting theater participation to magically spring back to pre-pandemic levels like nothing hapoened, and despite that we still managed getting some pretty big hits despite that. You even seem to highlight art house films (which I honestly know little about) as recovering fast.
Probably stating the obvious here, but even outside of the pandemic, we have the rise of streaming (including movies coming out only a few months after theatrical release), increased theater prices, a looming recession, and overall lack of hype as factors that stand as difficulties to theatre's returning to form. And as you said, now we have strikes delaying some largely looked forward to films indefinitely as Hollywood has its bout with AI. There's much uncertainty.
I will also say that it's funny that, as an animation fan, that it's funny how there's such a comprehensive dissection into specifically June/July movies and "Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken" did so bad to still fall under your radar. For context:
Crazy swing given how the absolutely legendary word of mouth for Puss in Boots hoisted DreamWorks' last movie. Even Elemental's early flounder didn't save it.
Man, now I really feel bad about missing out on seeing Kraken. The husband just didn't want to see it with me. I'm going to see if it's still out, and if not I'll probably buy the blu-ray.
I'm sure that might have also played a part into it. I can wait 18 days for a film I might "kinda" want to see to come out on streaming instead of going to a theater.
I also can't fathom how an animated movie can cost so so much just to make (and to be fair the budget for RGTK was much lower than I thought it would have been at "only" $70 million).
Besides the problematic Ezra, I didn't want to spend money to see Flash in a theater because of the tonal inconsistancies of the DCEU and all the "reboot" talk. The DCEU shouldn't be old enough to need a reboot already. That is the same reason why I stopped caring about the all the different Spiderman movies before 2015 or whenever. I might eventually grab Flash from Redbox or maybe catch it streaming.
Fast 9 broke me--mentally, emotionally, phsyically and spiritually. Between the Tarzan car scene and the magnets1 I was ready to walk out of the theater which I'd never done before. No matter how bad the movie was or how much I hated it I was never as serious about walking out as I was in Fast 9. I'll probably never watch Fast X unless it's late at night and I'm physically unable to change the channel because I'm in some Saw inspired suicide/murder machine.
1Oddly enough I gave the space-fiero a pass since I thought it was a funny fan service nod to the memes/articles online making fun of the franchise by saying eventually they'll have to race a car in space. Then again I also laughed at the "I'm the Juggernaught, bitch!" line in X3 for the same reason.
I posted in another thread a while ago but Crystal Skull came out 15 years ago and I didn't see it then since it had been like 14 years after Last Crusade. To this day I've never intentionally watched Crystal Skull and doubt I ever will. I might have had an interest in seeing the lastest one if had been a "passing of the torch" type movie.
Transformer movies are a mixed bag for me. I played with and collected the OG Transformer toys and watched the original cartoon, collected the Marvel comics and was part of the generation traumatized by the opening sequence of the animated movie. Yet I find it literally impossible to keep track of, or care, about indistinguishable CGI silver blobs fighting and dying after being introduced just 5 minutes prior. Was it the bad robot or good robot who died? Who knows or who cares? On to the next CGI fight! I also never, EVER thought that what the giant fighting robot franchise was missing was a subplot around statutory rape/"Romeo and Juliet" laws. (Seriously, WTF?) The few that I have seen have been on streaming and never more than once.
I did miss seeing Across the Spiderverse in theaters mainly due to time constraints and commitments at the time.
I did see Guardians and it was everything the last Guardians movie needed to be.
I think, overall, that, prior to COVID, the Regal Club had spoiled me. For $15/month I could watch and any all movies I wanted in a theater. There were constant new releases and our local theater had tons of choices since each screen had a different movie. I let my subscription lapse in the beginning of this year since there seem to hardly be any new releases. There are so few movies that the rerelease of Morbius had 2 screens set aside for it. Fast X had 4 screens (out of 8). There simply isn't a selection of movies anymore.
The theater is competing for my time and my money and they're simply not offering anything I want at their price point.
I got the impression they originally did plan for Crystal Skull to be a passing of the torch kind of thing, but the movie despite being commercially successful was unpopular and got a lot of bad reviews, and then LaBoeuf himself got involved in a bunch of controversy, so I think that probably put quite the damper on things.
Were you the person on Reddit who use to make these posts? Either way, I loved them and loved this post. I don't follow this stuff but find it fascinating and enjoy your recap.
I hope you keep posting here, super informative. Thanks!
Not specifically. I’ve only ever made these types of posts here (in the two years I’ve been here), but I do participate in the box office subreddit a lot.
I think I know who you’re talking about though.
Good stuff. Glad to know you're here and I look forward to your future posts.