Movies - Box Office posts

Not much on the domestic box-office front to report. “Sonic the Hedgehog” fell 55% but still won the weekend with $26 million. “Call of the Wild” debuted and finished second with $24.8 million. Both are in the low 60s on Rotten Tomatoes and look awful. “Birds of Prey” finished third in its third weekend with $7 mil. It's now at $75.2 and seems likely to be the first DCEU movie to not break $100 mil. Previous low was “Shazam!”'s $140. Lowest in MCU is “Incredible Hulk” (the Ed Norton one) with $134. But that was 12 years ago.

That said, the U.S. market is doing great compared with China. 

I'd totally missed out on this story, this obvious story. On Mojo, I looked at the numbers to try to figure out the year's big Chinese New Year movie. This is from today:

Immediate thought: Wait, didn't Chinese New Year already happen? Yes. It began the last week in January. So why weren't the numbers bigger? 

Second thought: Wait, “Fighting with My Family”? That WWE thing from last year? Where are the Chinese movies? 

Third: Wait, $3,956 total? And that was ... two weekends ago? 

The other shoe finally dropped on my idiot self: Coronavirus. 

The Chinese government actually shuttered movie theaters in January—just as Chinese New Year was happening. Brutal. Imagine American movie theaters being closed just as soon as kids got out of school or during Xmas break. Like that but maybe combined. And this was the year China was predicted to surpass the U.S. as the biggest movie audience in the world. Not likely now, particularly with no end in sight for the Coronavirus.

So are no theaters anywhere in China open? Yep, none. From a story in the Hollywood Reporter a month ago:

Among the big-budget movies that had been set for release on Saturday were Wanda's comedy-action sequel Detective Chinatown 3, Huanxi Media's comedy tentpole Lost in Russia, sports epic Leap, Jackie Chan‘s Vanguard, Dante Lam’s action flick The Rescue and family animation Boonie Bears: The Wild Life, among several others (local regulators have always blocked Hollywood films from releasing during the festival period, giving local studios an uncontested run at the box office).

In the “Detective Chinatown” series, the first was set in Thailand, the second in the U.S. (New York), and the third scheduled for Japan. In the “Lost” series it went Thailand, Hong Kong (homages galore), to Russia.

Now at $43 million domestic, $171 worldwide. Beats folding pizza boxes.

There was a lot of chatter on Twitter last week about the opening-weekend box office for “Birds of Pre,” the “Suicide Squad” spinoff starring Margot Robbie and other young actresses playing kick-ass Gotham City villains/not-villains, with nary a Batman or Joker in sight.

OK, the chatter was less about the box office ($33 mil) as the way it was reported: “low,” “down,” “flailing.” The usual suspects attacked the messenger, argued the stats, and talked up organizing groups to go to the movie's second weekend to keep the world safe for women-made and womencentric movies. 

Me: More power to ya.

The results? Yeah, the movie's BO dropped nearly 50% to $17 mil. It finished second for the weekend to “Sonic the Hedgehog,” whose 3-day total of $57 million almost matches “Prey”'s 10-day total of $59 million. The usual suspects will probably object to this now, or to the way it's being framed, but I don't know how you could frame it positively. DCEU movies already plays sloppy seconds to MCU movies, and “Birds” has the worst box office among those. The previous DCEU low was “Shazam!” but even it reached $59 million in four days. For “Wonder Woman” it took a day and a half. “Batman v. Superman”? Not even a day. 

Alright, here's a way to frame it positively: “Birds” opened to about the same gross as Fox's “Dark Phoenix” ($33/$32), but “Phoenix” fell off 71% on its second weekend and wound up with a total domestic box office of $65.8. So “Birds” will at least do better than that. 

Oh, here's another: It's probably not the movie, which got good reviews (79% on Rotten Tomatoes). It's deciding to make the movie in the first place. Yes, Robbie was the best thing in “Suicide Squad” but that's like saying the maraschino cherry is the best thing on a shit sundae; most folks are still going to remember the shit. Plus these are all third- and fourth-tier characters. I suppose you could frame it like that; that it's a wonder it's done as well as it has. But no one in Hollywood is framing it that way. 

Elsewhere, the much-slammed “Fantasy Island” horror reboot (9% RT) finished third with $12.4; the black romance “The Photograph” was fourth with $12.2; “Bad Boys for Life” added another $11.3 as it creeps toward $200 million domestic ($181); and the disappointing “Downhill” (40% RT) with Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Will Ferrell finished 10th with just $4.6.

Last Sunday, “Parasite” got all the love at the Oscars, winning best picture, director, screenplay and international film, and its distibutor, Neon, tried to capitalize by increasing its distribution twofold to 2,001 theaters. It worked: the movie earned another $5 mil to reach $44.3 domestic, $171 worldwide. But the Oscar-winner still finished the weekend behind “1917,” which grossed another $8 million to reach $145/$323. That said, “Parasite” is now the fifth-highest-grossing foreign-language film in the U.S., and tomorrow will surpass “Instructions Not Included” for fourth place. I think it'll wind up there. Ahead of it: “Hero” ($53), “Life is Beautiful” ($57) and “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” ($128).

Sorry. Still trying to get the hang of the Box Office Mojo redesign. Which is actually a Box Office Mojo/IMDb Pro redesign. I.e., the info we used to be able to find on Box Office Mojo (for free) is now on IMDb Pro (for which we have to pay), and it's harder to find. Thanks, Amazon. 

The big release this Oscar weekend is “Birds of Prey,” the spinoff of “Suicide Squad,” one of the DCEU movies that helped make 2016 such an excruciating year. Its full title is “Birds of Prey (And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn),” about which I‘ll let Anthony Lane take over:

Beware of movies with long titles. I vaguely recall a Dustin Hoffman film, made in 1971, called “Who Is Harry Kellerman and Why Is He Saying Those Terrible Things About Me?,” but for the life of me I can’t remember the answer to either question. An oversized title has no practical worth, its sole purpose being to give us a mandatory dose of wackiness. Hence the latest contender, “Birds of Prey, and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn.” Don't you feel kooked up just reading that?

Don't know how “Harry Kellerman” did at the box office, but “Birds of Prey” isn't doing fantabulous. It opened on more than 4,000 screens and grossed just $33 mil. Yes, that's the second-best opener of 2020, after “Bad Boys for Life,” but it's dead bottom for DCEU openers. And not even close:

Shit, I just realize I‘ve seen all of those movies. And in the theater! Meaning I have to see “Birds of Prey,” too? I have zero interest. “Suicide Squad” was so bad, and while I love me some Margot Robbie, I’m not exactly into Harley Quinn.

It's supposedly OK, 80% on RT, which beats the 27% for “Suicide Squad,” but some part of me worries the highish rating is for the female leads, female screenwriter (Christina Hodson), and female director (Cathy Yan). I.e., too many critics seem to be doing PR for PC culture. Lane's review, at least, is scorching. He says it aces the Bechdel Test but is still “an unholy and sadistic mess.” Girl power?

The debate over why it's bombing should get interesting—and decidedly un-PC. Some will point to this and last year's “Shazam!” and say moviegoers are tired of the DCEU. Others will point to this and last year's X-Men movie, “Dark Phoenix,” which also grossed about $33 mil opening weekend, as examples that female superhero leads don't draw the fanboys. Still others will say (or hope) that it's all indicative of superhero saturation, and this genre is running its course. Me, I'd put it all together. The movie stars a second-tier character from a shitty previous film in a shitty superhero universe, and god aren't we sick of all this already? Plus fanboys probably didn't rush out for it.

Second place for the weekend is the fourth weekend of “Bad Boys for Life,” which is now shockingly at $166 domestic, $336 worldwide. Shocking because: 1) Will Smith hasn't exactly been killing it at the box office; 2) Martin Lawrence?; 3) the original came out a quarter-century ago. Yet here we are. Both totals are way ahead of what “Bad Boys II” grossed in 2003, which was way ahead of what “Bad Boys” grossed in 1995. Meaning expect a fourth. Or more Will Smith/Martin Lawrence movies. 

What Oscar movies are people going to Oscar weekend? Mostly the frontrunner:

We‘re having a few people over for the event. I’ll be rooting for “Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood” and anticipating disappointment. 

The first movie of each trilogy also has the biggest box office for each trilogy. 

What do the following verbs have in common? 

• Strike
• Return
• Attack
• Revenge
• Awaken
• Rise

Yep. They‘re the verbs in the subtitles of the various “Star Wars” sequels. Just tossing in for no reason. I guess for their sameness. Although not quite, right? The originals and the prequels, sure, they’re the same (strike/attack, return/revenge), but the new ones are less about combat and more about ... growth? Self-improvement? They‘re positive, and mostly about the heroes. They’re selfies, befitting the age.  

“Rise” is the latest and it hasn't exactly done that at the box office. Here's a list of the nine SW movies ranked by domestic box office and adjusted for inflation:

* Still in theaters, yo

Nothing's coming close to the first one again but “Force” muscled to the No. 2 slot in 2015. Since then, a downhill slog. Most franchises  would take such a slog. In terms of the canon, “Revenge of the Sith” grossed a piffle in 2005, but it was still the No. 1 movie of the year. Only the second of the prequels, on the heels of the disappointing, antiseptic “Phantom Menace,” wasn't the No. 1 movie of its year, and it still finished No. 2—to the first “Spider-Man” movie. “Skywalker” also won't be No. 1, since another superhero movie, “Avengers: Endgame” is in a galaxy far, far away at $858 million. “Skywalker” needs another $93 mil just to reach “The Lion King”'s $543.6 in second place. Can it do it?

Maybe. Here's box office for the three recent films after 17 days—along with the final domestic totals for the first two:

By Day 17, “Force” had grossed about 79% of its total, “Jedi” about 83%. If we assume, say, 80% for “Skywalker,” that's another $90 mil. It‘ll be close.

Of course, domestic box office matters less these days than worldwide, so how is “Skywalker” doing there? Even worse. “Force” earned $2 billion worldwide, “Last Jedi” dropped to $1.3, “Skywalker” is at $918 million. It’s ninth for the year, and I think it‘ll wind up fourth. New territory for “Star Wars.” 

So what makes a franchise lose 3/4 of a billion dollars and a lot of interest? Too many, too soon? And too similar? Or just not interesting enough? All “Star Wars” movies drop, as we’ve seen above, but that's not true for other franchises. The most popular “Avengers” was the last.

None of which matters much to Disney since it owns both franchises. Want to see something sad? These were the studios for the top five films of the year when “Star Wars” was released:

1. 20th Century Fox (Star Wars)
2. Universal (Smokey and the Bandit)
3. Columbia (Close Encounters)
4. Paramount (Saturday Night Fever)
5. United Artists (A Bridge Too Far)

And this year:

1. Disney (Avengers: Endgame)
2. Disney (The Lion King)
3. Disney (Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker)
4. Disney (Frozen II)
5. Disney (Toy Story 4)

The No. 1 animated movie in 1977 was Disney's “Pete's Dragon” and it was at No. 11—several notches below “Annie Hall.” We were so much older then; we're younger than that now.

How does J.J. Abrams have so much power? What is he considered good at? 

He directed the worst of the “Mission: Impossible” movies—the third. He rebooted “Star Trek” by destroying Vulcan and then directed the worst of the reboots—“Into Darkness.” He made his own Spielberg-homage film, “Super 8,” but it was less than super, then took over the “Star Wars” franchise and promptly killed off Han Solo and Luke Skywalker. Now he's directed one of the worst of the “Star Wars” movies. I guess he's more producer (69 credits) than director (15)? Maybe he should stick to that. 

Anyway, the third of the new “Star Wars” movies, or No. IX overall, “The Rise of Skywalker,” opened this weekend to pretty good box office for anything other than a “Star Wars” movie:

• “The Force Awakens”: Dec. 18-20, 2015: $247 million
• “The Last Jedi”: Dec. 15-17, 2017: $220 million
• “The Rise of Skywalker”: Dec. 20-22: $175.5 million

This is the latest in terms of calendar date it's opened—i.e., closest to Christmas, a very busy time for everyone, so it may recover. But “Force” opened with a new weekend box office record, while “Jedi” was still second all-time to “Force.” “Skywalker”? It's 12th. The “Star Wars” opener has fallen off by $75 million.

The other opener this weekend, the much-panned “Cats,” did as poorly as you'd think: $6.5 million in 3,380 theaters. One wonders how many attendees went out of morbid curiosity. 

Interesting to see that “Parasite,” the critics' darling from Korea, has already grossed $21 million. That's got to be top tier for foreign-language films at the domestic box office, but I don't know if Box Office Mojo still lists such a thing, and if they did, where I might find it.

What's one more than a trifecta? A quadfecta? Is that a thing? Anyway, we hit it this year—or Hollywood did.

These are the biggest worldwide box-office hits ever by MPAA rating:

• G: “Toy Story 4,” $1.07 billion
• PG: “The Lion King,” $1.65 billion
• PG-13: “Avengers: Endgame,” $2.79 billion
• R: “Joker,” $1.05 billion

What do they have in common? Yes, they‘re all 2019 movies. 

One might think that happens a lot—movie prices keep going up, China’s movie market keeps getting bigger, etc.—but I doubt it. It's been 10 years, for example, since the last time a new PG-13 king was crowned.

But let's check it out. Has any movie year hit the MPAA rating worldwide quadfecta before?

The last time it could‘ve happened was 2009, when “Avatar” (PG-13) set the worldwide box-office record; but that year, to hone in on just one of the other categories, the highest-grossing R-rated movie worldwide was the comedy hit “The Hangover,” which grossed $467 million, far behind then-leader “The Matrix Reloaded” (2003), at $741 million. 

So what about 2003, then? “The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King” (PG-13) grossed more than $1 billion, after all. But that was still way shy of “Titanic”’s then-record PG-13 total of $1.8 billion. 

So back to 1997, when “Titanic” was released? Nope. Biggest PG film worldwide that year was still “E.T.,” from 1982. And at that point, in 1982, PG-13 didn't even exist. 

It's never happened before. Not even close. 

Domestically, it didn't happen in 2019, either, since while “Toy Story 4” set the North American record for G-rated films, the others didn't break through. The record for PG films is still “The Incredibles 2” from last year (two Pixars!), PG-13 is still “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” from 2015, while R remains “Passion of the Christ” from 2004. It's only on the worldwide stage that this happened.

Keep in mind: All of these worldwide box-office kings are Hollywood movies. Hollywood. That's the city/industry the right-wing is constantly attacking as “liberal.” Because apprently nothing is more liberal, and angers conservatives more, than an American industry dominating a global market.

You either die a hero or you live long enough to see the villain surpass you. 

Last weekend, “Joker” became the first R-rated movie to gross north of $1 billion worldwide. It’s currently at $1.035 billion. But what’s truly astonishing to me is less the $327 million it’s earned in the U.S. than the $700+ million it’s earned abroad.

You know how much that is? That’s 30th all-time. Only 29 movies have earned more in international markets than “Joker.”

Exactly. “Joker.” 

Most of the movies ahead of it are what you’d expect: Marvel movies (7), Animateds (5), plus the Tokiens, Transformers, Jurassics, Fast/Furiouses, Star Warses, and the Camerons (2 each). The one-offs include a Potter, a Bond, a Pirates. All of this is basically wish-fulfillment fantasy and Hollywood endings.

“Joker,” meanwhile, is a gritty reboot of Batman’s No. 1 nemesis that owes more to the oeuvre of Martin Scorsese than DC Comics.

It's actually doing better abroad than any DC Movie save “Aquaman.” Yep, it’s already grossed more in foreign markets than any of the “Batman” movies. Apparently people would rather see the villain than the hero: 

The kicker? “Joker” hasn’t even opened in China—and probably won’t. So it’s doing all this without the most lucrative market abroad—a market where “Batman v. Superman” grossed $95 million, “Justice League” $106 millon, and “Aquaman” $292 million. 

Any thoughts on the how and why of this? Is it because it's good? 

Here’s a deeper question: Is “Joker” the most grown-up movie to gross $1 billion worldwide? A good argument can be made. 

The fourth reboot of a ‘70s jiggle show may be the last ... for a while.

Still not a fan of Box Office Mojo’s redesign. So much data is now hard to find on the site, or is now only available if you pay $100+ a year for  IMDb Pro. All this is Amazon, by the way. They didn't create either site, just bought them years ago, and are now mucking them up. No character searches any longer on IMDb; now all this crap. 

That said, there may be advantages to the new setup. The No. 1 movie for the weekend, and the highest-rated (92%) RottenTomates new release, is “Ford v Ferrari,” which grossed just over $31 million. Second was the second weekend of “Midway,” $8.7 million, third was the first weekend of “Charlie's Angels,” $8.6.

Wait, whoa. Third? Not even $10 mil? Shame. Elizabeth Banks directed, which probably means—despite her “Pitch Perfect 2” grossing $184 in 2015—she won't be getting many more chances. On the plus side, maybe this is a stake in the heart of this intellectual property. How many variations have there been? From 1970s jiggle TV show to 2000 hit movie to 2003 disappointing sequel to 2011 disappointing TV show to 2019 disappointing reboot. Three disappointments and you‘re out? Probably not. 

Anyway, I lost the thread. The advantage to the new cross-pollinated amazon setup may be this: I was curious what else “Ford v Ferrari” director James Mangold had done, and checked it out as part of my trial subscription to IMDb Pro. I was like: Oh right, the Wolverine stuff. Also “Walk the Line” and “3:10 to Yuma” and “Knight and Day” (underrated for that kind of film). 

But to get to that info you have to go through “Projects in Development,” one of which, for Mangold, was this:

“Untitled Joe Namath Project”

The story of American football star Joe Namath, who became one of the sport’s early media sensations as well as a Super Bowl champion.

For a second, I was excited. I would totally be there for this. Then I saw how many other “Projects in Development” Mangold has: 10, and with eight of them he's attached as director. No way that's going to happen. So we‘ll see. 

BTW: Elizabeth Banks has 30 projects in development right now, including five in which she’s attached as director, so I probably shouldn't worry too much about her. Or at all, given the state of the world. 

BTW II: Adam Driver as Broadway Joe? 

I haven't done much on box office lately. It's in the usual autumn lull, for one, so there's not much to report. For another, Box Office Mojo recently revamped its site and I'm still trying to work my way around it.

Overall, I'm not a fan. Or maybe I'm just not used to the difference yet.

Nah. it's the first. Amazon screwed the pooch.

Example: The default for annual box office is for “Calendar Grosses” rather than “In-Year Releases,” which means that the biggest movie of 1997 is “Men in Black” (rather than “Titanic”), and the biggest movie of 2009 is “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” (rather than “Avatar”), and the biggest movie of 2015 is “Jurassic World” (rather than “Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens”), and none of these things are really true for anyone who talks about box office. 

That's just to start. If they'd ask me a year ago what should be done with the site, I would‘ve said, “Hey, can we figure out what China was watching between, say, 2010 and 2014? Could you do that? You have 2009 so why not 2013?” They still haven’t done that. The redesign seems to have given us more design and less data. 

Anyway, the four biggest movies this weekend were all newbies:

1. Midway: $17.5
2. Doctor Sleep: $14.1
3. Playing with Fire: $12.8
4. Last Christmas: $11.6

None did great guns. Apparently “Midway” wasn't supposed to win but did. Apparently “Last Christmas” was supposed to do better but didn‘t. “Doctor Sleep” is the sequel to “The Shining” while “Playing with Fire” is a John Cena family comedy. Ish. Not much to report.

We’re reaching the end of the year, and so far the biggest domestic box office hits by genre are:

1. Superhero
2. Animation
3. Animation
4. Superhero
5. Superhero
6. Animation
7. Superhero/horror
8. Horror
9. Horror
10. Action-adventure

Just the two genres, cartoons and superheroes, trading it off until “Joker,” a mixed genre film, which includes elements of both superhero and horror, arrives at No. 7. It's like a bridge to horror. 

BTW: Anyone who's pushing back on what Martin Scorsese wrote/said about Marvel movies isn't really paying attention. Just look at that list. A culture that keeps voting for cartoons and superheroes is a culture that can vote for Donald Trump for president. It's a culture that can stand to the side, doing nothing, as constitutional, democratic and civic norms are violated daily.

I‘ll refrain from “laughs all the way ...” jokes.

So, yes, “Joker”’s $93.5 million domestic haul is the biggest opening ever in October, beating out last year's supervillain movie, “Venom,” by about $13 million. But it's also the biggest opening ever for a movie starring Joaquin Phoenix. It beats out “Signs,” which opened to $60 million in 2002, “The Village” ($50 in 2004) and “Gladiator” ($34.8 in 2000).

As you go down that list, the thing you notice is no recent movies. Nothing this decade. We get movies from the 1980s (“Space Camp” and “Parenthood”) before anything from the past 10 years. All of this unadjusted. 

Made me wonder: Did “Joker”'s opening beat the openings to all of Joaquin's 2010s movies combined? Yes, and it's not even close. His previous 10 movies opened to a total of $2 million. Not average. Total.

That made me wonder: Did “Joker”'s three days beat the entire domestic box office of Joaquin's other 2010s output? Check it out. 

Some good movies in there, too. Three (“The Master,” “Her” and “Inherent Vice”) would be in the discussion for best movies of the decade. “The Master,” at least, would be in my discussion.

Haven't seen “Joker” yet but know the controversy. Interestingly, this argument (violence begets...) used to come from the right. Now it's the left.

It did well abroad, too: another $140 million. I guess some people don't want anything logical; some people just want to watch the world burn. 

Elsewhere, “Hustlers” made enough $6.3 and is at $91, while “It Chapter Two” crossed the $200 million rubicon with another $5.3. I like that “Good Boys” is still out there. It finished 10th, adding another $900k for $83. 

Girls just wanna have bonds. 

Could “Hustlers,” in which sympathetic strippers rip off douchey Wall Street brokers in the lead-up to the 2008 Global Financial Meltdown, be Jennifer Lopez’s first $100 million movie? It came in second this weekend, grossing $33 million, and such films are usually right on the cusp. From recent years:

 Is anyone surprised a J-Lo movie never broken $100? OK, two movies have—both animated, and neither really J-Lo movies: “Ice Age: Continental Drift” and “Home.” The best live-action grosser of hers if “Maid in Manhattan” from 2002 ($94) and “Monster-in-Law” from 2005 ($82). Her heyday. She’s only done seven live-actioners in the 14 years since 2005:

• 2007: “El Cantante” with Marc Anthony ($7.5)
• 2010: “The Back-Up Plan” with Alex O’Loughlin(?) ($37.4)
• 2012: “What to Expect When You’re Expecting” with mostly female cast ($41.1)
• 2013: “Parker,” a Jason Statham actioner ($17.6)
• 2015: “The Boy Next Door,” threatened by a younger lover ($35.4)
• 2015: “Lila & Eve”(?) with Viola Davis ($0.038)
• 2018: “Second Act,” girl from the block succeeds in business world ($39.2)

Feels like a film festival in hell. In three days, “Hustlers,” which is supposed to be good (88%), has made almost as much money as almost any of them. Welcome back. Now don’t blow it.

Speaking of: “It: Chapter Two” won the weekend with another $40.7 mil, bringing its 10-day total to $153.8. Nothing to sneeze at ... unless you compare it to “It,” which grossed $218 domestic by this point. A little odd to me. It’s rare when a sequel to a good movie doesn’t do as well in the opening rounds. Because the first played off “Stranger Things” and now we’re kinda tired of it? Because it’s not kids? Because it’s not new? It’s still doing great, just not “It” great.

The fourth weekend of “Angel Has Fallen” grossed another $4.4 to bring its total to $60. The fifth weekend of “Good Boys” grossed another $4.2 to bring its total to $73. The ninth weekend of “Lion King” grossed at $3.5 to bring its total to $553.9.

The other wide opener, “The Goldfinch,” has buzz for a bit, but like so many September releases the buzz died fast: 25% RT, $2.6. The well-reviewed “Monos,” which I saw at SIFF last May, opened in five theaters to good reviews (91%) and little dough ($43k).

Not a fan of box office takes like these:

This hed is from Indie Wire, which should know better. And does, really. You read the article and it's all about why studios are reluctant to make new, original movies like “Once Upon a Time...” when even a spinoff from a profitable franchise can turn this kind of buck. But that's Box Office 101 these days. As Joe Henry sang in “Dirty Magazine”:

Just tell me everything I‘ve heard before
Like it was news
Like it was news

To me, the real story is that even though “Hobbs & Shaw” won the weekend, and did so with the 8th-best opening of the year, it’s way down from previous “Fast & Furious” franchise films:

• 2009: Fast & Furious: $70 mil
• 2011: Fast Five: $86
• 2013: Fast & Furious 6: $97
• 2015: Furious 7: $147
• 2017: The Fate of the Furious: $98
• 2019: Fast & Furious presents: Hobbs & Shaw: $60

Not sure what to make of that “Fast & Furious presents...” bit. Will other franchises follow suit? “Star Wars presents...” “Batman presents...” Just what we need: more colons in film titles. Not to mention ampersands. 

After “F&FP:H&S,” the third weekend of “Lion King” came in at $38.2 for a domestic total of $430 and a worldwide take of $1.195 billion. It's now No. 2 both domestically and worldwide, beating out “Captain Marvel” on both charts. 

Tarantino's take on LA 1969 dropped 51% for another $20 mil; it's at $78 domestic, which, unadjusted, is fourth-best for a QT movie, after “Django” ($162), “Inglourious” ($120), “Pulp” ($107). Adjust and “Pulp” is No. 1 at $228.

In true indie-wire news, “The Farewell” added 270 theaters for 409 total and grossed another $2.4 mil for $6.8. That's the movie you should go see. That and “Once Upon a Time in ... Hollywood.”

I recently found out Box Office Mojo has a page that breaks down worldwide box office by year. This is helpful. I think of all the times I went to its overall worldwide box office page and searched by year. Now, no need. 

If you go to the year-by-year page, what do you immediately notice? In the ‘90s, those titles were sure shorter, weren’t they? Because? Yes, they weren't sequels. No need for colons. Sometimes just a word would do. “Ghost.” “Aladdin.” “Titanic.”

A few years ago I did a post where I broke down, by decade, how often the biggest domestic movie of the year was a sequel. Wait, a few years ago? It's been 10 already. It looked like this:

• 1970s: 0
• 1980s: 2
• 1990s: 2
• 2000s: 7

Except this was before “Avatar” was released and it looked like “Transformers 2” would be No. 1 for 2009, so I included it in the 2000s. So if you correct that, and add this most recent decade (I'm assuming “Avengers: Endgame” has got it this year), it looks like this:

• 1970s: 0
• 1980s: 2
• 1990s: 2
• 2000s: 6
• 2010s: 9

I should clarify: I'm not just counting sequels, but prequels and “continuing universe” movies. So, to me, both “Avengers” and “Black Panther” fit that bill. The one year in the 2010s the No. 1 domestic movie wasn't a sequel, prequel or continuing universe movie? 2014: Clint Eastwood's “American Sniper.” It's also the lowest-grossing of the decade's top-grossing films: $350 million. About a third of what “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” made a year later.

Anyway, that's how we look domestically. 

And worldwide? For which we now have a page? It's similar:

• 1990s: 2
• 2000s: 8 
• 2010s: 9 

The only top worldwide movies this century that weren't sequels, prequels or “continuing universe” movies were:

• 2001: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (because it was first)
• 2009: Avatar (ditto)
• 2013: Frozen (ditto)

The top movies for the last six years have all been colon movies: Long titles with a colon in the middle, as “Transformers: Age of Extinction.” The days of one-word titles dominating? Gone like “Ghost.”

Once upon a time and a very bad time it was....

My wife and I are going to see “Once Upon a Time in ... Hollywood” later today, but of course Box Office Mojo and the like already know this since they‘ve got the weekend totals all ready for us—and they’re usually not far off. 

Disney's “Lion King” won the weekend with $75 mil, a 60% drop from its record-setting animated opening of $191, which is what you expect with record-setting openings. At the same time, it's not what you expect from animated movies. Kids' movies, like women's movies, tend to have longer legs. It's movies made for men and boys that tend to blow it all opening weekend.

Among other animated movies that opened big, for example, “Incredibles 2” (No. 2) dropped 56%, “Finding Dory” (3) dropped 46%, “Shrek the Third” (4) dropped 56% and “Toy Story 4” (5) dropped 50%. That said, only “Incredibles 2” grossed bigger. A big drop for “LK,” sure, but it's still the 11th-biggest second weekend ever, unadjusted, after having the eighth-biggest opener ever. The year/decade/century of Disney continues. 

Anyone see it, btw? 

Tarantino came in second with $40 million. That's his biggest opener, beating “Django” by $2 mil. “Django” is also his biggest all-time domestic grosser at $162—or about $30 mil less than “Lion King” grossed last weekend. So it goes. His cachet is elsewhere.

For the record, it's Leo's fourth-biggest opener (after “Inception,” “Gatsby” and “Shutter Island”) and Brad's fourth-biggest  (“World War Z,” “Mr. and Mrs. Smith” and “Troy”). Their cachet is elsewhere, too.

Spidey still clings to the top, finishing third with $12 mil for a domestic gross of $344 and worldwide past $1 billion. Domestically, that's the third-biggest Spider-Man (after the first two Tobeys); worldwide, it's the biggest by far. 

These are the biggest movies worldwide this year, and their all-time ranking in parentheses:

1. “Avengers: Endgame”: $2.79 billion (1)
2. “Captain Marvel”: $1.12 billion (22)
3. “Spider-Man: Far From Home”: #1.03 billion (32)
4. “Aladdin”: $1.009 billion (40)
5. “Lion King”: $962 million (47)
6. “Toy Story 4”: $917 million (57)

All are Disney save Spidey, which is Sony/Columbia, but owes much to Disney's MCU. 

After the blitzkrieg of “Avengers: Endgame” in April/May, this has been the summer of underperforming sequels/retreads: 

• May 31: “Godzilla: King of the Monsters” opened in the U.S. at $46 mil, which is about half of what “Godzilla” opened to five years earlier ($93.1). After a month, it's at $106 domestic.
• June 7: “Secret Life of Pets 2” opened to $46 million, which is far cry from the $104 the original opened to in 2016. It's now at $131 vs. the $368 the orginal brought in. Perhaps worse: “Dark Phoenix” grossed just $32.8 mil and after nearly a month looks like it won't even make triple digits. It's stuck on $63 domestic, which is the worst gross ever for any of the 12 X-Men movies. (Yes: 12.)
• June 14: “Men in Black International,” starring Thor and Valkyrie, opened at $30. The original opened at $51 ... in 1998.
• June 21: Finally, a movie that opened better than its predecessors! “Toy Story 4” grossed $120, which is a hair better than “3”'s $110 in 2010, but worse if you adjust for inflation. Even so, it's a huge success compared to everything else on this list.

Will all of this get Hollywood execs to change strategy and maybe give us the new? Doubtful. Execs would still point to “Endgame”'s $2.7 billion worldwide as the endgame. Do it right and you get that. Do it wrong and you'll probably still make up for it internationally. 

Or do you? 

 The difference amounts to $1.5 billion. That actually might get some attention in Hollywood.