Movies - Box Office postsSunday September 15, 2019
Box Office: J-Lo Makes it Rain, ‘IT 2’ Scares Up More
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:
|2018||Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again||$34,952,180||$120,634,935||3,514|
|2016||The Magnificent Seven (2016)||$34,703,397||$93,432,655||3,696|
|2019||The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part||$34,115,335||$105,806,508||4,303|
|2018||A Wrinkle in Time||$33,123,609||$100,478,608||3,980|
|2017||Blade Runner 2049||$32,753,122||$92,054,159||4,058|
|2019||Men in Black International||$30,035,838||$79,800,736||4,224|
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).
Box Office: Ampersand-Heavy ‘Hobbs & Shaw’ Wins Weekend; But...
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.”
Box Office: How Often is the Biggest Movie of the Year (Worldwide) Not a Sequel?
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.”
Box Office: ‘Lion King’ Roars, So Does QT
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:
- “Avengers: Endgame”: $2.79 billion (1)
- “Captain Marvel”: $1.12 billion (22)
- “Spider-Man: Far From Home”: #1.03 billion (32)
- “Aladdin”: $1.009 billion (40)
- “Lion King”: $962 million (47)
- “Toy Story 4”: $917 million (57)
All are Disney save Spidey, which is Sony/Columbia, but owes much to Disney's MCU.
Box Office: June is Strewn with Broken Tentpoles
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?
|Movie||Worldwide Box Office||Previous Film Worldwide Box Office||Difference|
|The Secret Life of Pets||$223||$875||-$652|
|Men in Black International||$219||$624||-$405|
|Godzilla: King of the Monsters||$376||$529||-$153|
The difference amounts to $1.5 billion. That actually might get some attention in Hollywood.