The Golden Globes saw the unveiling of a new television spot for Beauty and the Beast, one which teased the upcoming live-action adaption while giving us a taste of Emma Watson’s big musical number. And the next night, during a college football game, they offered a bigger look at Pixar’s Cars 3. You don’t need me to tell you that Disney had a ridiculously good 2016 at the global box office ($7 billion), or that their franchises and brand loyalty are the envy of every other studio in town.
They’ve got Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar, Walt Disney animation and the growing “live-action fairy tale” franchise. They dominated 2016 and they may well dominated 2017 as well. So what is the rest of Hollywood to do? Don’t be Disney.
I’ve discussed this before, but it bears repeating. Thanks to a huge investment in preexisting franchises (Marvel and Lucasfilm’s Star Wars and eventually Indiana Jones), their reestablished Walt Disney Animation brand and the like, Disney is at the top of the hill when it comes to what everyone claims to want, namely big-budget, brand-driven, presold fantasy franchise fare.
To the extent that the industry as a whole has gotten worse in terms of seeking out the next big expanded universe or fantasy franchise, it’s partially because the studios are owned by corporations whose shareholders see the profits being generated by the Mouse House and want a piece of that. But what if the best way to win against Disney is to win alongside Disney by not being Disney?
There is no law saying that a movie studio can’t make massive profits without relying on mega-budget tentpole offerings. Universal/Comcast Corp. released not as single movie in 2014 that cost more than $70 million to produce (Dracula Untold, which earned $221m worldwide) and released not a single film that made more than $463m worldwide (Lucy, an original, R-rated Scarlett Johansson-starring EuropaCorp sci-fi thriller that cost $40m to produce). Yet they had a record year in profits.
That doesn’t mean they weren’t even happier in 2015 when they dropped a bunch of big franchise titles (some of which, like Furious 7 and Fifty Shades of Grey, were delayed from 2014) and had the biggest market share of the year. But Universal’s accidental experiment shows you don’t have to bet the farm to win the bank.
If we argue, at least for the short term, that Walt Disney’s mix of Star Wars, the MCU, the Disney/Pixar animated offerings, and the live-action franchises are an unbeatable mix, where does that leave the rest of the industry? The rest of the studios won’t necessarily get rich by offering what amounts to “Disney-lite,” so I would argue that they have to embrace their own distinct identities.
And in doing so, they should strive to offer (preferably high-quality) theatrical content that is different from Disney in one form or another. The roots are already there for just that sort of specific branding. When you look at what each major studio has done best, you can see what they might wish to emphasize going forward.
Warner Bros./Time Warner Inc. did fine with the big plays (DC Comics, J.K. Rowling) but also scored a deluge of middling hits, thanks to New Line. So keep being that studio that releases 20 movies a year of all shapes and sizes. The DC Films offerings, the LEGO movies, and the J.K. Rowling stuff will make money (Warner arguably ruled the tentpole game up until very recently), but don’t stop being an old-school movie studio that mixes the tentpoles with everything else. The recent promotion of Toby Emmerich to President of Warner Bros. was an encouraging sign. So as long as they don’t try to become “Batman, J.K. Rowling, LEGO, and almost nothing else,” they should be okay.
Universal/Comcast Corp. hit pay dirt over the last few years thanks partially to homegrown franchises that don’t necessarily break the bank. Illumination delivers blockbuster animated fare with under $100 million budgets and the likes of Fifty Shades of Grey and Pitch Perfect started out as cheap counter-programming that Universal treated as A-level events for under-served demographics (see also: Straight Outta Compton). Even The Fast and the Furious was once a $40m-budgeted street racing drama starring “that guy from Pitch Black.” The “classic monsters” thing (starting with Tom Cruise’s The Mummy) is a “star+brand” franchise that emphasizes Universal’s legacy of horror films, one that continues thanks to their partnership with Blumhouse.
For 20th Century Fox, the likes of Logan, Alien: Covenant, A Cure for Wellness, War for the Planet of the Apes and Kingsman: The Golden Circle represent a clear attempt to present would-be fantasy fare for adults as a way to differentiate their would-be blockbusters from the pack. It’s a clear signal that Fox isn’t going to try to directly compete with Disney in the tentpole game. Considering that the would-be theatrical moviegoer isn’t getting any younger, I don’t necessarily think the likes of Logan or Alien: Covenant will be hurt by their R-ratings as long as they are budgeted so that they don’t have to break records to break even.
Most of Sony’s smaller-scale, unique movies (Don’t Breathe, Sausage Party, Miracles from Heaven, etc.) did good-to-great in 2016 while their “big” plays (Ghostbusters, Inferno, The Magnificent Seven and Passengers) didn’t make enough to justify the budgets (the verdict is still out on Passengers). Their animation division is fine, even if Angry Birds and The Emoji Movie get held up as signs of the apocalypse and make people forget that Hotel Transylvania and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs were quite good. Spider-Man: Homecoming is an easy win and The Dark Tower cost just $60 million (ditto the cheaper Underworld and Resident Evil franchise), but stock should be taken in what made Sony money versus what did not make them money.
It is no secret that Paramount/Viacom Inc. didn’t have a great 2016, but their year-end “prestige” offerings like Arrival and Fences did better (or at least made more relative to budgets) than Ben-Hur, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows and Star Trek Beyond. 2017 has a relatively small slate (nine movies) of mostly nostalgia-driven (Rings, xXx, Friday the 13th, Transformers: The Last Knight) franchise plays with the hope of a few late-in-the-game prestige acquisitions. We’ll see how many of them end up as profitable as the likes of 10 Cloverfield Lane, Arrival and Fences. If Paramount is serious about becoming a filmmaker-driven/star-driven prestige studio for more than just the last two months of the year, I’ll look forward to their 2018 slate.
Lionsgate, either the most major mini or the most mini of majors, has had a boost in their prestige, as they scored year-end Oscar-friendly hits with Hacksaw Ridge and La La Land along with a triumphant return for Tyler Perry. Now You See Me 2 stumbled in North America ($65 million) but $331m worldwide (including $97m in China) says it’s a hit. In a post-Hunger Games world, Lionsgate needs to do what it does best, which is offer an unholy number of responsibly theatrical releases (thanks to partnerships with Roadside Attractions, Pantelion, Code Black. and the like) that play to diverse demographics which build their library without worrying about scoring the next mega franchise.
For Universal, it’s reasonable budgets, homegrown franchises, and female-driven/minority-centric releases being treated not as counter-programming but rather A-level events while staying out of the superhero game. For Warner Bros., it’s being an old-school movie studio that mixes a bunch of smaller movies with a few big tentpoles. For Paramount, it’s about star-driven, filmmaker-driven prestige pictures (or even innovative genre fare like the Cloverfield franchise) along with easy wins like Transformers and Mission: Impossible. Sony scores best when it makes small, unique offerings and Lionsgate/Summit needs to forget about replicating the Hunger Games/Twilight glory days. And 20th Century Fox can define itself as the home for R-rated, adult-skewing fantasy franchise fare.
Walt Disney is doing what Disney does best, thanks partially the acquisition of other peoples’ franchises, and the only way that hurts the theatrical industry at large is if everyone else trips over themselves to replicate that level of tentpole-specific success.
A Hollywood filled with studios all chasing the likes of The Avengers and The Force Awakens will hurt everyone, a kind of reverse game theory. But a Hollywood made up of several distinct studios who between them offer a whole host of different kinds of multiplex-friendly movies of all shapes and sizes has a shot at surviving in the VOD/streaming era. Let Disney have its glory; the rest of the industry should concentrate on showing moviegoers what else is out there.
