What’s Killing the Box Office?
By: Connor Anderson-Rearick
Photo by: Obregonia D. Toretto
Since the 1890s, the film industry has simultaneously been a cornerstone of
entertainment and a representation of advancement throughout the ages, from
technological progression to societal shifts. From the silent era (1894 – 1929) to the
golden age of Hollywood (1927 – 1960) and the rise of streaming platforms in the 21st
century, the film industry has always adapted to serve the needs of its viewers. However,
during the COVID-19 pandemic, there were numerous, unprecedented challenges that
had to be overcome. From the forced closure of theaters to delays in production,
combined with the shift in how viewers consume media, have all contributed to a
noticeable decline in box office successes, even after the pandemic was over. And while
it is a known fact that movies have always been inconsistent in terms of financial and
critical reception, the post-COVID era has marked a significant departure from previous
film eras. Several factors of this decline will be explored, starting with the three
pre-COVID-19 box office factors that determine/contribute to a film’s success before
following up with the pandemic’s effects and two modern box office-bombs before
finishing with the clear distinction between film evaluation and enjoyment in mind.
Zachary Wisnefsky, a finance major at (and staff writer for) the University of
Connecticut, analyzes the box office from 2007 up until 2019, including the public box
office, production budget, and estimated post-production marketing data. Wisnefsky,
under the review of UConn professors Dr. Lingling Wang and Dr. Liping Qiu, cites nearly
40 sources for his own research paper, ranging from Box Office Mojo and the Numbers
to the Motion Picture Association of America. In the abstract of his paper, Wisnefsky
names the three factors that he believes affect a film’s box office performance, the first of
which being the type of film. Wisnefsky argues that “In the modern industry, people often
critique Hollywood for their lack of investment in original films. Assuming that the
industry is trying to maximize return, one would think that if that is the industry-wide
strategy, original films must be at a deficit to other types of films regarding correlation to
performance variables. The rise of the blockbuster comic book film is a prime example of
the industry shying away from big-budget original content.” Many of the highest grossing
films that Wisnefsky describes here are comic book/superhero films, so it makes sense to
include their influence in his writings, especially considering how many studios have
tried to copy the Marvel formula.
For his second factor, the MPAA rating, Wisnefsky asserts that “…studios often go
for PG-13 ratings in attempt to capture a greater audience. For R-rated films, only people
17+ can attend without adult supervision, while PG-13 and lower ratings do not have
such requirements. People in the industry often try to avoid R ratings to evade the
supposed pitfalls of a smaller audience. The question is does a non-R rating inherently on
average provide a higher likelihood of strong performance? Based on these industry
moves, one would think so (Wisnefsky, 6).” While there certainly have been
phenomenally successful R-rated films, Wisnef
For the third and final factor, star power, Wisnefsky insists that “The film industry
adores stars. Not just in marketing but in the structure of film finance. To pitch films to
studios and financiers, you often need an attached star director or actors. This film
‘package’ is said to be less risky than a film with no stars attached. Modern stars are also
now paid more than ever before, often in the range of $20 million plus. With the value
put on stars in the industry, it is interesting to explore whether their casting or hiring leads
to higher performance (Wisnefsky, 6).” Here, Wisnefsky makes sure to note the high
price studios pay for star power. It’s a risk for reward system; the more studios are willing
to pay, the greater chances the film will succeed. This formula has been the precedent in
the film industry for decades now, and it usually works. But this precedent was
challenged only a few years ago, and this challenge might have proved too powerful to
compete against.
As an archivist and production assistant for Warner Bros. Entertainment,
Soukaina Gonzalez experienced the COVID-19 pandemic’s initial effects and early panic
on the film industry firsthand, recalling when “On our set, one person in Zone A had a
positive test, and the entire production was closed for up to ten days and tested upon
return. It was imperative to make sure that all present people on set were following
accurate protocols and seeking regular testing to ensure the safety of every person. So,
reminding people to wear their masks, face shields, and eyewear, and to stay six feet
apart was a daily task, as people were also getting used to working on set during a
pandemic (Soukaina, 3).” Here, Soukaina describes the painstaking courses of actions
that productions had to take to ensure everyone’s safety. This period was also uncertain
financially, as seen when Soukaina stated, “It is estimated that the U.S. box office alone
will lose more than US$5 billion this year, and many long-awaited films have been
pushed back indefinitely (Soukaina, 1).” Eventually, the pandemic ended, and everyone
was able to return to their usual working routine. The financial uncertainty did not end,
however; in 2024, two franchise films that should have been box office hits left their
producers’ pockets emptier than expected. Both films share one key factor: critic and
audience reception.
On October 4, 2024, Todd Phillips’ Joker: Folie à Deux was revealed to theaters
all over the United States. Upon release, the film only made $37.7 million in its domestic
opening (against a $200 million production budget) and received overwhelmingly
negative reactions from critics, casual audiences, and fans of the first Joker film, which
grossed over $1 billion against a budget estimated to be between $55-$70, receiving
mixed to positive reviews. The same question that everyone was asking upon the sequel’s
release was “what happened?” Tatiana Siegel, an executive editor for film and media at
variety, presents the film’s turbulent production and its feelings towards fans of the first
movie, especially noting that “Todd Phillips ‘wanted nothing to do with DC’ during the
making of the film, says one agent familiar with the director’s unique carve-out, which
allowed him to bypass any oversight from the brand’s gatekeepers… As a Rolling Stone
review of the film succinctly put it: ‘Joker: Folie à Deux’ Has a Message for Fans: Go
F-ck Yourselves’ (Siegel).” The ill feelings towards fans of the first film, coupled with
the director’s own unwillingness to connect with his producers, left a sour taste in the
mouths of many and tarnished the reputation of the man in charge.
On September 20, Josh Cooley’s animated film Transformers One hit American
theaters, serving as a new starting point for the franchise. With a production budget
between $75 and $145 million, the film grossed over $111 million in its opening
weekend. Though significantly higher than the initial income for Joker: Folie à Deux,
Transformers One never picked up after its opening weekend, and it continued to be
beaten out by another animated robot film, The Wild Robot. However, unlike Joker,
Transformers One received enormous praise, with Collider box office specialist Rahul
Malhotra noting that “Transformers One currently sits at a fresh 88% approval rating on
the aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, while its audience score stands at a
near-perfect 98% (Malhotra).” Whereas Joker: Folie à Deux suffered due to lack of
communication between filmmakers and the apparent distaste for fans of the previous
films, Transformers suffered because of a lack of interest caused by poor marketing
compared to that of other films.
So, why did critics and audiences prefer the sci-fi action of Transformers One as
opposed to the psychological thrill of Joker: Folie à Deux, regardless of any previous
statements made by the filmmakers? This is the question that Robert Clewis, a
philosophy professor at Gwynedd Mercy University, attempts to answer. In his report on
film evaluation, Clewis argues that “…the unintended affective responses–nostalgia,
boredom, comic amusement–can be associated with each of the three types of dating;
that they have little to do with the artistic value of the film, even if they directly bear on
spectators’ level of enjoyment when viewing the film; and that, by recognizing this,
evaluators can rationally resolve disagreements that are grounded on these unintended
emotions (Clewis).” Clewis believes that a film’s dated qualities, such as themes or
imagery, will absolutely affect how modern audiences perceive that film, regardless of
artistic integrity or intention. This is a leading factor as to why some movies are
considered terrible by some and amazing by others; it’s all up to personal taste.
At this point, several factors contributing to the box office’s decline have been
deconstructed, from records of the past to modern martyrs and the audience’s
expectations. In the 3 years since the pandemic ended, the world has made a slow
financial recovery, the film industry included. While the film industry will remain
unharmed in the decades to come, it is undeniable that the current lack of enthusiasm for
many films has caused a major upset in a trend that has persisted for so long. If the
studios want to fill their pockets until they overflow again, they must recognize what
went wrong following the pandemic and reconnect with their audience.
Works Cited:
Clewis, Robert R. “Film Evaluation and the Enjoyment of Dated Films.” Projections: The
Journal for Movies and Mind, vol. 6, no. 2, winter 2012, pp. 42+. Gale OneFile:
Fine Arts, https://go-gale-com. Accessed 7 Nov. 2024.
Gonzalez, Soukaina. “When the film industry takes on the COVID-19 pandemic: my
experience on set.” Vet.k-state.edu, One Health Newsletter, 5 Nov. 2024,
https://olathe.k-state.edu.
Malhotra, Rahul. “‘Transformers One’ Destined for Scrap Heap Despite Passing First
Global Box Office Milestone.” Collider, Collider, 13 Oct. 2024,
https://www.msn.com*
Siegel, Tatiana. “Inside the ‘Joker: Folie à Deux’ Debacle: Todd Phillips ‘Wanted
Nothing to Do’ with DC on the $200 Million Misfire.” Variety, Variety, 9 Oct.
2024, https://variety.com
Wisnefsky, Zachary. “Breaking Down the Box Office: An Analysis of Film Profitability
Factors.” Digitalcommons.Lib.Uconn.Edu, University of Connecticut, 1 May 2023,
https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu
- Original article was taken down from Collider and re-uploaded on MSN
You May Also Like
The Musical Theatre Society Fall Broadway Cabaret
An English Degree Matters
