When is a $50 million debut a flop? When your film cost $250 million to make (and we’re not even counting the cost of promoting a big-budget studio tentpole yet, which can sometimes be as much as the production budget), and it took you 5 days to get there. Yeah, I think it’s safe to say that Disney is going to be taking a bath with “The Lone Ranger”, which opened to miserable critical reviews (just 25% positive according to Rotten Tomatoes as of this writing) and moviegoer indifference.
The big-budget revisionist western opened just under $49 million and second place to CG animated sequel “Despicable Me 2”, which was anything but despicable, grossing $142 million domestically over the same period as “The Lone Ranger”, easily giving it the #1 spot. Adding insult to injury, “Despicable Me 2” only cost $76 million to make, not even one-thirds of “The Lone Ranger’s” budget, but nearly triple its weekend profits. And just in case you think this is only an American thing, foreign moviegoers also flocked to “Despicable Me 2” to the tune of $151 million, giving the sequel $293 million so far in worldwide box office. “The Lone Ranger”, by comparison, has only made $73 million worldwide, with $24 million of that coming from foreigners. Ouch, indeed.
“The Lone Ranger” just barely beat out female buddy cop film “The Heat” for second place, with the Sandra Bullock/Melissa McCarthy comedy falling one spot to #3 in its second week, but still managed to earn a respectable $25 million. The moderately budgeted comedy has already earned $86 million domestically, double its budget, and $92 million worldwide.
Roland Emmerich’s “White House Down”, meanwhile, continues its floptastic showing at the box office, dropping to 6th place in its second week with another $13.5 million, giving it just $50 million so far in two weeks of release. Keep in mind that the film cost a whopping $150 million to make. At this rate, it’s very doubtful the film will manage to surpass the similarly themed “Olympus Has Fallen”, which capped off just shy of $99 million earlier this year (and $160 million worldwide), but only cost $70 million to make. It’s beyond me how one movie can cost twice as much as another and still look relatively about the same in almost every respects.
In other notable news, Zack Snyder’s “Man of Steel” has since surpassed $500 million worldwide ($586 million to be exact as of this article). That’s not bad, but you have to consider that the film cost $225 million to make and probably just as much to market. That still means the movie will be profitable when all the numbers are counted, but it’s nowhere the unquestionable hit Warner Bros. was probably hoping for after the lackluster showing of “Superman Returns” in 2006. It goes without saying, but Superman’s return to the big screen doesn’t even come close to matching Marvel/Disney’s “Iron Man 3”, which cost about the same amount (just a shade less, in fact) and grossed over $1.2 billion.
Marvel still > than D.C., apparently.
Via : Box Office Mojo