2019 At The Box Office

I don’t have a horse in that race, but from what I’ve read about the book and the film’s production, they decided to throw out huge chunks of the book’s story and discarded its narrative structure, which were elements that were intrinsic to the book’s success. That doesn’t seem to have helped with critics and it may have turned off fans of the book. What they were left with, at least as far as I can see in the trailers and advertising, is something that doesn’t seem to have a coherent message for why someone needs to see it in a theater.

Those who were still interested in seeing the film might have been further discouraged from seeing it specifically in a theater when the press tour emphasized that Amazon was a co-sponsor and will have it on streaming soon. So why go on and pay for it today when it’s already been announced it’s coming to streaming soon enough?

 

I think the only reason The Goldfinch didn't drop its theater count like a stone last weekend is because theaters are typically contractually required to keep movies for two weeks. I'm very curious to see what its theater count looks like heading into the weekend once the two-week requirement to keep it is up.

My local theater -- a big 20-screen multiplex -- kept Where'd You Go Bernadette on its own dedicated screen for a month, which, given its anemic numbers, stunned me. I know people in other markets where Bernadette went to their dollar theater before leaving our first-run place. They also kept Blinded By the Light for a month (three weeks on its own screen) and The Kitchen for three weeks (the last one sharing a screen with something else.)

That being said, my theater will be keeping The Goldfinch for a third week starting Friday, but only for two shows a day instead of the usual four, so it's not completely gone here but is fading faster than even some other recent financial disappointments.

I like the cast of The Goldfinch a lot, and I really loved the director's last movie, Brooklyn. But it just looked so somber and depressing, and the trailer didn't really give me a sense of what the story was or that there would be an emotional payoff to sitting through something that sad. So I skipped it. Certainly the reviews sealed my decision to do so.

 

As a followup to my post yesterday, Box Office Mojo has posted theater counts for this weekend. The Goldfinch will continue to screen in 442 locations, -2,100 from last week, losing 82.6% of its screens. https://www.boxofficemojo.com/counts/chart/?yr=2019&wk=39&p=.htm

 

Toy Story 4 made $118m on its opening weekend, while Incredibles 2 made 183m on its opening weekend, which puts the $20m of Abominable in some perspective. Abominable might still do ok when all is said and done, but its box office is clearly at much lower level than what Disney and Pixar regularly get for their animated films.

Overall, I think Goldfinch is a good movie with a solid cast and some beautiful cinematography by Roger Deakins. I haven't read the book, but it's a 700+ page monster that takes 32+ hours as an audiobook. I'm glad I could just watch the 2.5 hour movie instead. I left the theater in a mostly positive state of mind, and I don't think it's a downer by the end. But clearly it appealed to very few people, and its failure at the box office will continue to make studios shy of making medium-budget movies like this. For those who are curious, it's probably worth catching on Amazon imho if you miss it in theater, but you have to be patient with the film, as it reveals things slowly. The good performances and cinematography come in to help you enjoy the journey of the slowly unspooling threads as much as the destination.

 

I think it also speaks to the audience's lack of interest in anything original, as the two examples you cite are both sequels and Abominable is only the third original film to debut at the top of the box office in 2019 (after Us and Good Boys).

 

I don’t know that I’d call it lack of interest, per se.

I think the reality of how media is distributed and how we consume that media has changed so drastically and that the general public was less wedded to the idea of seeing things in a theater than enthusiasts like us were.

Over the past decade or so, wage growth has remained mostly stagnant, while the cost of a movie ticket has risen faster than the pace of inflation. Meanwhile, the rise of streaming has taken a former entertainment constant - that you must leave the house to acquire new premium content - and made it irrelevant. Inexpensive large televisions and sound systems have narrowed and in some cases closed the gap between what you got in a theater vs what you could get at home.

Most people are now aware that for any film that opens today in a movie theater, it will also be available:
-For digital purchase in two months for about $15
-For digital rental in three months for about $5
-As part of a subscription streaming service in four months, virtually for free since the household already has the subscription.

In that context, theatrical releases are starting to seem like commercials for what you can get at home soon enough.

The average American goes to the theaters something like twice a year. If you’re going only once or twice a year to do something that will cost you more and be less convenient than getting to do the same thing at home where all you need to do is wait a small period for it to come to you... what’s the best investment of that limited resource (the number of times you go to a theater)? Is the best investment an unknown thing that you may or may not like, that may not have any perceived benefit to being seen on a bigger screen? Or is the best investment a thing you already like, that others will ruin the ending of for you if you don’t see it right away?

Advances in technology, and improvements in home viewing quality and selection, are changing everything about the business. Meanwhile, people still consume media content, and yes, even original content, in huge quantities. It’s just that the theatre isn’t the place that they’re doing it. I don’t think the audience has lost interest in original content. Rather, I think they are being bombarded with so many options across so many platforms, many of which are so inexpensive, that they’re simply rearranging what types of things they view where.

So I don’t think “audiences have lost interest in seeing original content” is quite right. Probably more accurate is, “audiences have lost interest in paying top dollar to see original content in inconvenient ways when they can instead see the same content for free more conveniently by waiting a few extra weeks.”

 

Pretty much.

That’s probably always been true to some extent, but the big difference now is that whether it’s going out or staying home, it’s still the same stuff. Where you can see something no longer has to affect what you can see.

 

I agree completely, it’s not just the money. But I think the money helps reinforce choices people are inclined to make. “I’d rather watch it at home, and it’s cheaper too!”

Studios and hardware providers spent a lot of time creating a home entertainment industry and getting people to invest in better quality home gear, in the idea that watching stuff at home can be a high quality experience. It shouldn’t be that surprising to them that people are now using that stuff!

 

It's also possible people are tired of Yeti/Bigfoot animated films. "Abominable" is the third one in a year!

 

Charting with Dan for this week:

 

Sounds about right. But Warner will still be thrilled - they almost certainly got their investment back this weekend, since they were only on the hook for about a third of the film’s $55 million budget, but likely with a deal structure that allows them to recoup before their financing partners.

 

The film is probably already profitable for everyone at this point. World wide it made 4X it's production budget when 3X the production budget would probably have it break even.

 

Charting with Dan for this week providing some great context around Joker's big opening: