Cheddar RSS

“One Battle After Another” has quickly become the movie of the year with universal acclaim from critics and audiences alike, but reporters focused on box office numbers are disparaging of the film because it’ll only become profitable in the box office window if hell freezes over. So far it’s made about $100 million at the box office against a production budget of $135 million. Those aren’t great numbers. But there is so much more to the movie industry than focusing on box office returns for an individual film.

The film, written and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, was greenlit at Warner Brothers by Warner Bros. co-chairs Michael De Luca and Pamela Abdy not because they thought it was going to be a smash hit, although they wouldn’t have been opposed to that happening, but for a host of other reasons. They are long-time collaborators with the auteur, and it’s likely going to be nominated for and win a bunch of Oscars. They’ve made a bunch of other highly profitable movies recently like “Minecraft, The Movie,” which grossed a billion dollars, but which, let’s be honest, is hardly going to make much of an impact in the artistic stakes. They also scored big with movies like “Sinners” and “Weapons.” Not all of their films have been hits, it’s true — “Joker: Folie à Deux,” “The Alto Knights” and “Mickey 17” all failed at the box office.

Still,“One Battle After Another”, while it isn’t in the black yet, is successful based on the reasons it was produced. There is also a good long-term chance “One Battle After Another” will become profitable because of digital rentals and purchases, licensing fees to streaming services and television networks, and physical media sales. Why? Because the word of mouth is that the movie is excellent. People don’t go to the movies to see excellent films as much as they used to, but they sure as heck stream them on their TVs when they come along at home.

We tend to forget that movies exist forever after they are made, so they have a long tail to become profitable. As Matt Damon mentioned on his “Hot Ones” appearance, movies used to make $30 to 40 million easily on DVD, and while that doesn’t exist anymore, there’s still plenty to be made from streaming revenue. There’s also a host of great movies that flopped at the box office:

• “The Shawshank Redemption,” (it made $16 million against a budget of $25 million, but after multiple re-releases it eventually made $73 million), “
• The Big Lebowski,” (made $17 million against a budget of $15 million, but ultimately gained its following on video)
• “Blade Runner” (made $41 million against a budget of $30 million),
• “Heathers,” (made $1.1 million against a $3 million budget)
• “Children of Men,” (made $70 million against a budget of $76 million)
• “Citizen Kane,” (made just $1.6 million against a budget of $840k after William Randolph Hearst, the inspiration for the main character, did all he could to sabotage its theatrical release — the film, nevertheless, is commonly acknowledged to be the greatest movie ever made!).

The only reason you should care if a movie is successful is if you want similar films like it to be made. So if you wanted a fourth Tron film, then you can be upset that “Tron: Ares” flopped. If you didn’t, and I really hope you didn’t, then we’re all good here.

What we’ve learned from Warner Brothers being purchased and sold countless times over the years — and the studio is currently under bid from Paramount, yet again — is that the film business is a horrible business for shareholders. It is outrageously expensive and often loses money, which is why AT&T got rid of it in 2022. Rare are the great, critically acclaimed movies that make a ton of money for their makers. “Top Gun: Maverick,” “Titanic,” “Jurassic Park,” “Gone With The Wind,” “Star Wars” and “Jaws” are the rare exceptions to that rule, but they’re generational blockbusters. After “Jaws,” Stephen Spielberg was given carte blanche to make whatever he wanted. That’s exceedingly rare in Hollywood.

There are countless industries designed for people to obsess over money in. I’m simply making the case for us to consider critical acclaim as more important than box office success, much of the time. Then again there are also terrible movies that also flop at the box office, and they deserve everything they get. The 2019 remake of “Cats,” for example, got a Rotten Tomatoes score of 19% and is genuinely unwatchable. It blows my mind that nobody stopped the thing from being made, half way through, based on early rushes. But moviemaking is a complicated business, and all the more delightful for that complexity. Don’t you think?