Warner Bros.’ “Barbie” claimed the top spot with a massive $155 million in ticket sales from North American theaters from 4,243 locations, surpassing “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” (as well as every Marvel movie this year) as the biggest opening of the year and breaking the first weekend record for a film directed by a woman. Universal’s “Oppenheimer” also soared past expectations, taking in $80.5 million from 3,610 theaters in the U.S. and Canada, marking Nolan’s biggest non-Batman debut and one of the best-ever starts for an R-rated biographical drama.
It’s also the first time that one movie opened to more than $100 million and another movie opened to more than $80 million in the same weekend. When all is settled, it will likely turn out to be the fourth biggest box office weekend of all time with over $300 million industrywide. And all this in a marketplace that increasingly curved towards intellectual property-driven winner takes all.
The “Barbenheimer” phenomenon may have started out as good-natured competition between two aesthetic opposites, but, as many hoped, both movies benefitted in the end. Internationally, “Barbie” earned $182 million from 69 territories, fueling a $337 million global weekend. “Oppenheimer” did $93.7 million from 78 territories, ranking above “Barbie” in India, for a $174.2 million global total.
The only real casualty was “Mission: Impossible: Dead Reckoning Part I,” which despite strong reviews and a healthy opening weekendLinks to an external site. fell 64% in weekend two. Overshadowed by the “Barbenheimer” glow as well as the blow of losing its IMAX screens to “Oppenheimer,” the Tom Cruise vehicle added $19.5 million, bringing its domestic total to $118.8 million.
“Barbenheimer” is not merely counterprogramming either. But while a certain section of enthusiastic moviegoers overlapped, in aggregate the audiences were distinct.
Women drove the historic “Barbie” opening, making up 65% of the audience, according to PostTrak, and 40% of ticket buyers were under the age of 25 for the PG-13 rated movie.
“It’s just a joyous time in the world. This is history in so many ways,” said Jeff Goldstein, Warner Bros.’ president of domestic distribution. “I think this marketing campaign is one for the ages that people will be talking about forever.”
“Oppenheimer” audiences meanwhile were 62% male and 63% over the age of 25, with a somewhat surprising 32% that were between the ages of 18 and 24.Both “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” scored well with critics with 90% and 94% on Rotten Tomatoes, respectively, and audiences who gave both films an A CinemaScore. And social media has been awash with reactions and “takes” all weekend—good, bad, problematic and everywhere in between—the kind of organic, event cinema and watercooler debate that no marketing budget can buy.
“The ‘Barbenheimer’ thing was a real boost for both movies,” Goldstein said. “It is a crowning achievement for all of us.”
“Oppenheimer” had the vast majority (80%) of premium large format screens at its disposal. Some 25 theaters in North America boasted IMAX 70mm screenings ( Nolan’s preferred formatLinks to an external site. ), most of which were completely sold out all weekend—accounting for 2% of the total gross. Theaters even scrambled to add more to accommodate the demand including 1 a.m. and 6 a.m. screenings, which also sold out.
“Nolan’s films are truly cinematic events,” said Jim Orr, Universal's president of domestic distribution.
IMAX showings alone made up 26% of the domestic gross (or $21.1 million) from only 411 screens and 20% of the global gross, and “Oppenheimer” will have at least a three-week run on those high-demand screens.
“This is a phenomenon beyond compare,” said Rich Gelfond, the CEO of IMAX, in a statement. “Around the world, we’ve seen sellouts at 4:00 a.m. shows and people travelling hours across borders to see ‘Oppenheimer’ in IMAX 70mm.”
This is the comeback weekend Hollywood has been dreaming of since the pandemic. There have been big openings and successes—“Spider-Man: No Way Home,” “Top Gun: Maverick,” “Avatar: The Way of Water” among them, but the fact that two movies are succeeding at the same time is notable.
“It was a truly historic weekend and continues the positive box office momentum of 2023,” said Michael O’Leary, President & CEO of the National Association of Theatre Owners. “People recognized that something special was happening and they wanted to be a part of it.”
And yet in the background looms disaster as Hollywood studios continue to squabble with striking actors and writers over a fair contract.
“Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” were the last films on the 2023 calendar to get a massive, global press tour. Both went right up to the 11th hour, squeezing in every last moment with their movie stars. “Oppenheimer” even pushed up its London premiere by an hour, knowing that Emily Blunt, Matt Damon and Cillian Murphy would have to leave to symbolically join the picket lines by the time the movie began.
Without movie stars to promote their films, studios have started pushing some falls releases, including the high-profile Zendaya tennis drama “Challengers."
But for now, it's simply a positive story that could even continue for weeks to come.
“There could be a sequel next weekend,” said Paul Dergarabedian, the senior media analyst for Comscore. “The FOMO factor will rachet up because of this monumental box office event centered around the movie theater experience.”
China is the only major market where cinema is forecast to grow next year.
By Patrick Frater.
After making a partial post-pandemic recovery, global cinema box officeLinks to an external site. is expected to retreat again in 2024, as the twin writers’ and actors’ strikes of 2023 are forecast to have a negative impact on theatrical revenues.
Box office research firm Gower Street AnalyticsLinks to an external site., in a preliminary draft of its annual forecast, says that worldwide cinema box office should weigh in at $33.4 billion for 2023. But next year could be 5% lower, at $31.5 billion.
The 2024 global projection would put the year’s total 20% below the average of the last three pre-pandemic years, 2017-2019.
The forecasts are derived from a combination of Gower Street’s Forecast Database, currently-known release calendars and additional analyst assessments.
“Given that we lost 50% of production time in 2023, the anticipated 5% year-on-year decrease in 2023 is not indicative of a declining interest in cinema, but simply a direct consequence of limited product availability,” said Gower Street CEO Dimitrios Mitsinikos. “In fact, as July 2023 marked a record-breaking month at the global box office, we know that there is a robust audience demand for compelling theatrical releases.”
“The impact of the recent writers’ and actors’ strikes on the release calendar, in terms of global-appeal Hollywood product, has been significant,” said Rob Mitchell, director of theatrical insights at Gower Street. “That is the key driver of this slight regression in recovery momentum we’re seeing in 2024 that looks to postpone any chance of returning to pre-pandemic levels until 2025.”
The company says that its understanding of the titles likely to release in 2025 point to, “a very good year at the global box office and hopefully a positive trend-setter for the second half of this decade.”
The territory most affected by the strikes’ impact on production, unsurprisingly, is Hollywood’s North American or domestic market. Gower Street forecasts that 2024 box office in North America will finish 11% lower than 2023, at approximately $8 billion. That would be 30% below the 2017-2019 average and only a modest 7% ahead of 2022.
The international market (excluding China) in 2024 is anticipated to finish 7% down compared with 2023, at approximately $15.6 billion, slightly propped up by local films. The forecast total is 21% lower than the 2017-2019 average, but 12% ahead of 2022.
Within the international aggregate, Gower Street estimates that Europe, Middle East & Africa will finish 2024 at $8 billion (23% below the 2017-2019 average, 9% below 2023 levels, and 13% ahead of 2022).
Asia Pacific excluding China will finish 2024 at $5.2 billion (22% below the 2017-2019 average, 2% below 2023, and 6% ahead of 2022).
Latin America is forecast to finish 2024 at $2.4 billion (15% below the 2017-2019 average, 8% below 2023, and 22% better than 2022).
China, with its massive installed base of cinemas and its shrinking dependence on Hollywood content, is the only market forecast to grow next year. Gower Street estimates 5% growth in 2024 to $7.9 billion – a figure that would put it within a whisker of the North American market – but the company also warns that limited visibility into the Middle Kingdom releasing calendar makes China the hardest market to predict.
“The international market is a bit less impacted by the limited release calendar caused by the Hollywood strike, compared to domestic,” said Gower Street’s chief analyst Thomas Beranek, who led the work on the 2024 projection. “Local and international titles have more space to shine in each market when the supply of attractive U.S. product is shortened. This has been proven frequently since the pandemic disrupted both production and release cycles in 2020.”
“They said, ‘What do you guys think about a theatrical release?’” Damon says. “It wasn’t what we expected when we first made the deal.”
“Air,” about Nike’s pursuit of a shoe deal with Michael Jordan, went over so well with early audiences that Amazon, despite acquiring the film for its Prime Video streaming serviceLinks to an external site., wanted to launch it in theaters. And in its first two weeks, “Air” has been a hit.
After a strong five-day debutLinks to an external site. of $20.2 million — especially good for an adult-skewing drama — “Air” dipped only 47% in its second weekend. Reviews have been stellar. When “Air” does arrive on Prime Video, the studio and its filmmakers expect an even better showing than if they hadn’t launched in theaters.
“It should function as free advertising to create this halo effect which in turn creates more viewers on the service,” says Affleck, who directed and co-stars in “Air.”Links to an external site. “If that’s the case, I think the business will really expand and go back to a broader theatrical model.”
Not long ago, some were predicting more and more films would be diverted from theaters and sent straight into homes. Moviegoing was destined to dieLinks to an external site., they said. Not only has that forecast fallen flat, the opposite is happening in some cases. Companies like Amazon and AppleLinks to an external site. are sprinting into multiplexes, taking a distinctly different approach to the staunchly streaming-focused NetflixLinks to an external site.. Launched on 3,507 screens, “Air” was the biggest release ever by a streamer — and it’s just the start. Amazon Studios, led by Jennifer Salke, is planning to release 12-15 movies theatrically every year. Apple is set to spend $1 billion a yearLinks to an external site. on movies that will land in cinemas before streaming.
Movie theaters and (most) streaming services are turning out to be fast friends, after all.
“We truly think that by putting it into theaters, you just can’t otherwise get that kind of word of mouth and press around it,” says Kevin Wilson, Amazon Studios and MGM theatrical distribution executive. “No matter how much you spend, that’s a hard thing to replace.”
That “halo effect” isn’t quite free. It takes a robust marketing blitz to raise awareness for a film. But whether a movie is headed to a streaming platform or video on demand, the splash of a theatrical run can cascade through through every subsequent window. A film dropped straight into a vast digital expanse might go viral or quickly fade into one of a million things you can click on.
Moviegoing still hasn’t yet reached pre-pandemic levels, but it’s getting close. Movie after movie has overperformed at the box office lately, including “Creed III” (released by MGM, which Amazon owns) and Lionsgate’s “John Wick: Chapter 4.” With more than $600 million in two weeks, UniversalLinks to an external site. Pictures’ “Super Mario Bros.” is breaking recordsLinks to an external site. for animated films. After a dismal 2020, a trying 2021 and a fitful comeback last year led by “Top Gun: Maverick” and “Avatar: The Way of Water,” optimism abounds that movie theaters have weathered the storm.
“It’s springtime in the theatrical business,” exclaims John Fithian, the soon-departing president and chief executive of the National Association of Theater Owners. On Monday, the trade group will convene exhibitors in Las Vegas for a CinemaCon sure to be triumphant. Expect chest-thumping proclamations of revival.
Last year, Hollywood’s theatrical pipeline fell well short of the pre-pandemic rate of wide releases. With 63% of 2019’s wide releases, the box office reached 64% of 2019’s box office. The problem, exhibitors argued, was not enough supply. This year, around three dozen more wide releases are on the schedule.
“Both Amazon and Apple have signaled that they have $1 billion-plus in forward budgeting for the production and marketing of movies to be released theatrically,” Fithian says. “We’re going to get to a point in a year or so where we have more movies distributed theatrically than we did pre-pandemic.”
Movie theaters aren’t totally out of the woods. During the pandemic, the number of screens operating in the U.S. and Canada dropped from 44,283 in 2019 to 40,263, according to NATO. Though those losses are far less than many anticipated, the balance sheets for some theater chains remain strained. Regal’s parent company, Cineworld, declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy last year.Links to an external site. The financial condition of theater owners, Fithian says, is his greatest concern looking ahead.
Streaming, though, may be departing the role of archrival. During the pandemic, studios took different roads in trying out new methods of release. But while large numbers of films, like Apple’s starry action-adventure “Ghosted” this Friday, are still going straight to streaming, some of the biggest movie suppliers have turned away from those pandemic-era experiments.
“Direct-to-streaming movies were providing really no value to us,” David Zaslav, chief executive of Warner Bros. DiscoveryLinks to an external site., said earlier this year.
Since taking over the studio last year, Zaslav has dramatically changed course at Warner Bros., which spent 2021 releasing films simultaneously in theaters and on the platform formerly known as HBOLinks to an external site. Max. Zaslav has so soured on films going straight to their streaming platform that he altogether squashed $70 million “Batgirl”Links to an external site. and “Scoob! Holiday Hunt.” The data, he has said, is clear: “As films moved from one window to the next, their overall value is elevated, elevated, elevated.”
It should be noted that many made much the same argument well before the pandemic. But Wall Street craved subscription growth from streaming services, and studios eagerly chased the reward — rising stock prices — until the bottom fell out last yearLinks to an external site.. As subscription numbers slowed, the signal from Wall Street shifted to: Grow your streaming platforms but make money, too.
“We have been arguing this for years,” says Fithian. “But I’m glad that they finally got it.”
Later this year, Apple will release wide in theaters two anticipated epics: Martin Scorsese’s “Killers of the Flower Moon” and Ridley Scott’s “Napoleon.” They’ll have help. Paramount is distributing “Killers of the Flower Moon” while SonyLinks to an external site. is handling “Napoleon.” Scorsese, one of the most passionate defenders of the big-screen experience, recently said he hope companies like Apple not only release films in theaters but build cinemas, tooLinks to an external site..
“Maybe these new companies might say: Let’s invest in the future of the new generations for creativity,” says Scorsese. “Because a young person actually going to see a film in the theater, that person, who knows, five or 10 years later could be a wonderful novelist, painter, musician, composer, filmmaker, whatever. You don’t know where that inspiration is going to land when you throw it out there. But it’s got to be out there.”
Being “out there” has its risks, of course. A theatrical run can give a film the patina of something worth making an effort to see, and differentiating it from the infinite sea of content. It can also mean sinking millions in advertising into an often already expensive movie that audiences, with more competition for their attention than ever, might not flock to. “Air” cost $130 million to make. If it was a dud, it would have been more likely to go straight to streaming.
“It’s got to be the right film. This plan won’t work on every single film. Amazon is going to pick and choose the ones that make sense,” says Wilson. “The Apples of the world and maybe even the Netflixes of the world are seeing: It doesn’t have to be every movie and it doesn’t have to completely flip our business model upside down.”
Amazon notched the first best-picture nomination for a streaming service back in 2017 with “Manchester by the SeaLinks to an external site.,” and Apple won last year with “CODA.”Links to an external site. But Netflix, the streaming pioneer, has long been the most dominant platform. And it’s remained resistant to embracing theaters.
Though Netflix gives many of its films a limited week-long run in theaters and owns two theaters (one in New York and one in Los Angeles), the streamer has typically considered its own platform its biggest marketing driver. Last fall, it gave Rian Johnson’s whodunit sequel “Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery” the widest release of a Netflix filmLinks to an external site.. But “Glass Onion” still opened only on about 600 screens and played just five days. Most big films play on more than 3,500 screens for four weeks or more.
“Driving folks to a theater is just not our business,” Ted Sarandos, Netflix chief executive, said in an earnings call TuesdayLinks to an external site.. Netflix’s scale and reach, he said, makes them different than other steaming services. A recent popular release like “Murder Mystery 2,”Links to an external site. with Adam Sandler and Jennifer Aniston, has been watched for 82 million hours in three weeks, according to Netflix.
“Glass Onion,” despite the small footprint and modest ad-support, still made an estimated $15 million in ticket sales. Some analysts said Netflix left hundreds of millions on the table. Netflix isn’t budging, but they are, at least, no longer the trendsetter.
“I hope that they will see what Amazon and Apple are doing and realize that they can both make money in theaters and drive more subscribers to Netflix,” Fithian says. “They’re kind of the last ones to the party.”
The movie business always looks better when the hits are rolling in; a few big bombs and all the doubts will start over again. Strategies can shift. But right now, theaters and (most) streamers are finding plenty of common ground. And business is booming again.
“All the naysayers who said maybe the theatrical business was dead or was going to be much smaller than it was before, I’m not so sure about that,” says Wilson. “I don’t think we’re there yet to be beating our chests. But there are certainly positive signs happening all over the place to say: There’s no reason we can’t get back to where we were — and in the next few years possibly exceed that.”
Out of the 336 Oscars awarded for acting, actors of color account for only nine percent of those winners. Out of that nine percent, only two Native American actors have won an Oscar. This means Native American actors account for less than one percent of total Oscar wins. In recent years, while there have been programs featuring Native voices both onscreen and behind the cameras, there has yet to be significant change in the film industry regarding Native portrayal and empowerment. Native people are not cast in generic parts within shows or films, but rather, the film industry prefers to cast Indigenous performers solely as Indigenous characters. While casting Indigenous people can increase visibility and representation it can also be problematic considering that Hollywood has historically been complacent in creating harmful stereotypes of Indigenous people.
In the past, the film industry has depicted Indigenous people as wild beasts living in the wilderness. They often hold inferior and mocked antiquated portrayals of native civilization, reaffirming the notion that Indigenous culture lingers in the past. The dehumanization done on the big screen has aided in civilization’s justification for harming Indigenous people and communities. Not only this but, Hollywood also has a long history of casting non-Indigenious actors in Indigenous roles. Some of the most notable examples are Burt Lancaster in “Apache,” Audrey Hepburn in “The Unforgiven,” and Johnny Depp in “The Lone Ranger.”
There have been steps forward in terms of this controversy. The majority of society would prefer that Native actors are cast in films about Indigenous people. At the same time, there have been pushes for research so that films can be historically correct. A noticeable example of both of these components is one of the most anticipated films released this October, “Killers of the Flower Moon.”
Between Martin Scorsese being acknowledged as an icon in the world of directing and Leonardo DeCaprio’s legacy of dynamic storytelling, the film was destined to spark discussion within the movie industry, and society in general. Unsurprisingly, after considerable anticipation, “Killers Of The Flower Moon” grossed $41.4 million worldwide during its opening weekend.
The film undoubtedly has some positives. Representation of Native people was immensely expanded via the film, with members of the Osage Nation explicitly represented. The language, wardrobe, and actors all came from within the community itself. Lily Gladstone’s portrayal of Mollie Burkhart, is captivating on screen. Her performance encapsulates generations of rage and is inspirational to a new line of Indigenous performers who can now identify with someone on the big screen. Furthermore, the film reveals a story that vitally needs to be told. The atrocities done to the Osage Nation demand responsibility to be realized. Most Americans, due to the suppression of many historic truths, are oblivious to the full breadth and depth of brutality done to Native Americans, and while there are many educational platforms that try to correct this, the classroom may not be enough. Showcasing these issues in film may bring more awareness to the general public.
That being said, the film also has its shortcomings. The picture contributes to the loop that has been ingrained for centuries that anything surrounding Indigenous people equates to violence. While it is undoubtedly true that Native people have historically and continuously experienced pain and massacre, the constant reminders can be triggering for many Indigenous people. In order for stories of genocide, heartbreak, and horror to be voiced, the members of Indigenous communities are forced to relive and be reminded of the atrocities done to their community. This is also amplified by the contemporary concerns surrounding the Missing and Murdered Indigenous WomenLinks to an external site. movement and inadequate health care on reservations. The film showcases obscene, gory, and graphic deaths. It is difficult to watch a story being told from the expendable deaths of Native people. Devery Jacobs, a star of the FX series Reservation Dogs, wrote: “I believe that by showing more murdered Native women on screen, it normalizes the violence committed against us and further dehumanizes our people,” she wroteLinks to an external site. on X.
It’s wonderful that Americans can be enlightened on history by means of pixels, music, and cinematography but for the Native community it isn’t historical fiction — it’s reality. It's generational pain without contemporary empowerment. It is a remembrance that bloodshed and disparity is a fact of life for many Indigenous people. We don’t need to be reminded that our people are in anguish because it’s a reality we are forced to live in everyday.
The film worked closely with the Osage Nation, but the community still professed pain from the rendition of their past. The film views the Osage Nation as a relic rather than the vibrant and alive community they are today. The Osage Nation is not an antique in a museum to view, learn from, and then put away. They endured genocide for hundreds of years to reclaim their culture now. The legacy journey of resistance and perseverance is equally important to showcase apart from the death and despair.
“Killers of the Flower Moon” is undoubtedly changing history by fully immersing the viewer in Indigenous culture through the film, but more work needs to be done to correct Hollywood’s image of Native Americans. Visibility is important. Reconciling with the truth of what America did to its Native inhabitants is also important, but it should not be done as a tradeoff to the mental health of Indigenous communities today.
