5 Box Office Lessons From 2016: From Franchise Fatigue to Fading Movie Stars

Rogue One A Star Wars Story
Courtesy of Jonathan Olley/©Lucasfilms

“Finding Dory,” “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story,” “The Secret Life of Pets” and other blockbusters helped drive the domestic box office to record heights in 2016. However, it’s not like moviegoing suddenly saw a surge in popularity. Attendance was essentially flat with last year’s 1.32 billion and a far cry from the record 1.57 billion admissions from 2002. The record came from a new high-water mark in ticket prices, as well as the added cost that comes with Imax and 3D releases.

Overseas, the numbers are still being tallied, but many experts believe that a slowdown in China will lead to revenue declines.

The story of 2016, when it is written, will be a mixed one. Despite the rise of streaming services and quality television, the movie business continues to be resilient. Audiences are still turning up en masse for the new Star Wars or Avengers films, regardless of how adept “Game of Thrones” is at serving up epic spectacles.


The Biggest Bombs and Blockbusters at the 2016 Box Office

Yet there are also very real challenges to the business. Fewer films are accounting for an ever greater slice of overall box office revenues and one studio in particular, Disney, is responsible for more than half of the top ten highest grossing films. There’s also a dawning realization that the older modes of distributing movies are in need of a shakeup — a change that seems likely to roil the industry.

As studio executives and filmmakers look ahead to 2017, and what they hope will be another record-smashing 12 months, here are five takeaways from the year that was.


Screening Room, the Sean Parker-backed startup that hoped to release movies in the home at the same time they hit theaters, got a raft of big-name filmmakers to back it, but has yet to announce any major studio partners. But that doesn’t mean exhibitors who view any erosion of the theatrical window as an existential threat should be breathing a sigh of relief. The debate around Screening Room and the support it received from the likes of J.J. Abrams and Steven Spielberg signals that there is a growing realization that movie distribution may require a major overhaul. The threat of piracy is too real and it’s increasingly clear that our on-demand culture, one in which people want to see things where they want, when they want, is making the old experience of hitting the multiplex seem passé.

Universal and Warner Bros. have publicly said they’re having discussions with exhibitors about making some films available on demand for a higher price earlier than they are traditionally released on those platforms. It’s clear that any diminishment of the standard 90 days that a film appears exclusively in theaters will require studios to offer exhibitors some sort of carrot, likely in the form of a cut of digital revenues.

One entertainment company chief told Variety that a big cable company or some other competitor will try to compact the theatrical window down to a “few weeks” at some point this year. The executive added, “It will be for a high price. We are pretty good at carving out windows.”

Just don’t look to Disney to join in. The studio is on a hot streak and doesn’t seem too eager to mess with a good thing. “The theatrical experience is the embodiment of our filmmakers’ vision and acts as a locomotive to all the downstream businesses,” from television, to consumer products to theme parks, said Dave Hollis, the studio’s distribution chief.

There are other believers in the value of a theatrical release. Although indie films such as “Margin Call” and “Arbitrage” proved that there is money to be made in simultaneously releasing a film in theaters and in the home, many art house companies have grown convinced that this approach is shortsighted. Debuting a film in theaters raises its profile and helps it cut through the clutter, they argue. While Netflix has publicly emphasized streaming its films over releasing them theatrically, other digital pioneers such as Amazon have opted to embrace more traditional distribution models. In turn, they’ve been rewarded with the likes of “Manchester by the Sea” and “Love and Friendship,” two of the year’s bigger indie releases, as well as duds such as “The Neon Demon.”

“We’re definitely doubling down on theatrical,” said Howard Cohen, head of Roadside Attractions, which distributed “Love and Friendship” and “Manchester by the Sea” with Amazon. “What quickly happened with day and date was that everybody jumped in and VOD became code for not a good movie.”


Audiences seemed to come down with a nasty case of “sequelitis” last summer, rejecting or failing to show up in force for the likes of “Independence Day: Resurgence,” “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows,” and “Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising.” All told three out of the fourteen sequels released over the summer failed to match the grosses of their predecessors. It didn’t help that many of these films were roundly rejected by critics.

“Ultimately, it was about the product,” said Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst at ComScore.

Despite these failures, it would be incorrect to assume that Hollywood is going to get out of the franchise game. For the most part reboots, spinoffs, prequels, and followups are still the driving force in the business. Of the top ten highest-grossing films domestically, eight are sequels, remakes or exist in some sort of cinematic universe. Hardly a triumph of originality. The only exceptions are “The Secret Life of Pets” and “Zootopia,” two animated offerings that benefited from their associations with Illumination and Disney, top brands in the world of family entertainment.

And the reason that many studio executives and analysts believe that 2017 will be an even bigger year at the box office is because it will see the return of major franchises such as “Star Wars,” “Guardians of the Galaxy,” “The Fast and the Furious,” and “Alien,” not because of any explosion of risk-taking and creativity.

What studios do seem to have realized is that they need to offer something familiar that still seems fresh. Those sequels or spinoffs that did work, such as “The Conjuring 2” or “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story,” introduced new characters or plot lines, taking their franchises in innovative directions, instead of simply recycling plot points and scenarios from previous chapters.

“You have to do a lot of work to convince people of why you made another movie and why they need to see it,” said Megan Colligan, Paramount’s marketing and distribution chief.


After years of explosive growth, the Chinese box office finally showed signs of slowing down. Ticket sales in the country grew by a mere 3%, a steep decline from the 49% jump experienced in 2015. It’s left some observers wondering if the Middle Kingdom will overtake the U.S. as the top market for film in 2017,as many had previously predicted.

At the same time, the U.S. failure of “Warcraft” and the video game adaptation’s success in China shows that culturally the countries still want different things from their blockbusters. Having a big budget and a lot of special effects isn’t a guarantee that a film will work in Asia or vice versa.

Studio executives still believe that Hollywood’s future is inexorably linked with that of China.

“Of course there are going to be some pauses, but it’s still going to be a much bigger business five years from now than it is today,” said Disney’s Hollis.

Then there are longer term concerns. President elect Donald Trump has railed against trade with China on the campaign trail. If he enacts tariffs on Chinese goods, it could impact the number of Hollywood films that the country allows to screen in China annually.

Negotiations on film quotas are expected to take place this year. Expect the talks to be heated. Chinese investment in the entertainment business is already raising concerns. AMC, which is owned by Chinese conglomerate Dalian Wanda, faced a public relations backlash when it was buying Carmike, and some lawmakers have raised questions about the level of Chinese ownership of media companies. Hearings on Capitol Hill seem preordained, but no matter how hard Congress slams the gavel, studios will continue to seek out Chinese investment and try to appeal to Chinese audiences. China has become to big to be ignored.


Movie stars aren’t shining as brightly. The likes of Tom Hanks, Ben Stiller, Brad Pitt, Warren Beatty, Melissa McCarthy, and Johnny Depp saw audiences steer clear of their latest offerings, while movies such as “Rogue One” and “The Jungle Book” made bank without relying on A-list names above the title. One by one, their projects fell, as “Allied,” “Alice Through the Looking Glass,” “Inferno,” “Rules Don’t Apply,” “Ghostbusters,” and “Zoolander 2” collapsed at the box office. In the case of Depp and Pitt, messy divorces served as distractions, limiting both actors from doing press for “Alice” and “Allied,” respectively. It can be risky to rely to heavily on a single actor to sell a project.

“Passengers,” a science-fiction romance with Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt, is still in theaters, but its debut was on the lower end of expectations. That’s disturbing because both actors are seen as two of the hottest performers in Hollywood. If they can’t generate sparks, who can?

Nor were actors alone in seeing their popular appeal diminish. Top directors such as Steven Spielberg and Ang Lee also failed to attract crowds with their latest efforts, “The BFG” and “Billy Lynn’s Long Half Time Walk,” leaving audiences cold. Both filmmakers may face tough questions when it comes time to get a greenlight for their next passion project.

What makes it puzzling is that there are still a few instances where a star, a director, and a project can perfectly align, ensuring box office success. Hanks may have face-planted with “Inferno,” a Dan Brown adaptation, but he scored with “Sully,” a biopic about Chesley Sullenberger. The actor’s innate decency combined with Clint Eastwood’s direction seemed like the perfect match for the story of a hero pilot. The problem is that kind of alchemy is difficult to pull off and hard to bank on.


When it comes to releasing their biggest films, studios have started to stretch out. Gone are the days when a major release had to hit theaters between Memorial Day and the end of July if it wanted to put up blockbuster grosses. Instead, the likes of “Deadpool,” “Zootopia,” and “The Jungle Book” opened in the dead of winter or spring and were rewarded with some of the year’s highest grosses. Without the same level of competition, these films weren’t forced to rack up a disproportionate amount of their revenues in their opening weekend. They could benefit from word-of-mouth.

Warner Bros. bet heavily on this type of dating when it scheduled “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” and “Suicide Squad” for March and August release windows. These comic book movies let Marvel have the prime summer and winter openings, and putting some distance between them and those costumed avengers, helped everybody profit.

“Neither one of those two months were proven for releasing films,” said Jeff Goldstein, president of domestic distribution at Warner Bros. “And with both of those films we proved those periods could work.”

Others will soon follow suit. Next year, “The Ghost in the Shell,” “The LEGO Batman Movie,” “Logan,” and “Beauty and the Beast” are just a few of the high-profile movies that will steer clear of summer in favor of spring or winter debuts. In Hollywood, no secret stays that way for very long.

James Rainey contributed to this report.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 33

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. begixe says:

    what Jeff responded I am alarmed that any one can profit $8302 in 4 weeks on the computer .
    read…………. http://tinyurl.com/4dayjobs

  2. malcolm says:

    Cant disagree with much of this you could see the way BO was this year..the surprise hits and under performing big budget films..
    one thing though about Rogue One having no A-list stars Donnie Yen may not be as well known to Western audiences but in China Korea Japan and everywhere else in Asia he certainly is A-list..

  3. Orki72 says:

    If you look at the all time worldwide box office history you will see that most of the movies in the top 100 positions are comic book (or more superhero) adaptations, seqels, prequels, spon-offs, 3D-blockbusters, multiple part stories, animations. There are only a few exceptions like Titanic, Inception etc.
    So it is reliable to bet on big audiences to play along by going into these blockbusters but most of the times a inventive story line is also needed. And people are sick of typecasting. They don’t want to see Johnny Depp miminig a Sparrowesque role like in Lone Ranger few years ago, but they will watch him playing original parts like in Black Mass. Alice 2 noneoftheless was a whole mess of a movie with a story going nowhere and relying only on the Burton blueprint factor.
    I wonder if anybody “real” is watching these flops before they get released. I think most of the movies should get a go-sign from “real” movie theatre goers than to be planned as the next big thing from studio bosses who doesn’t know their audiences anymore.
    And they have to be aware how much people are willing to pay for Hollywood fun with increasing ticket prices, faster alternating home screening and streaming services.
    A family of four cannot afford to see every blockbuster aka superhero movie experience in 3D anymore. So they do watch more careful the buzz around the movie to see if a movie theatre seat is worth it instead of watching it at a comfy seat at home on the big flat TV screen.

  4. loco73 says:

    Sequelitis and franchise burn-out will occur when the movies offered are crap as some of the examples in this article. The same goes for the box office earning power of movie stars. People will still go out to see their favourite actors and actresses if they star in good movies and deliver good performances. But given the high-price of movie tickets these days you can understand people’s rejection and straight out anger of/at some movies…

  5. Joe says:

    I would rather sit at home watching a movie on my modest entertainment, rather than a multiplex. I don’t have to deal with inconsiderate movie goers, and I have the ability to stop the movie whenever I want, for a bathroom break or a phone call.

  6. Ima Right says:

    99% of movies suck now. movie theaters are too big and loud and most people in
    the theater have no manners and annoying with their iphones and gadgets. boycott.
    too bad all the drive ins and smaller theaters showing classics have closed down.

  7. Betsy foodie says:

    A divorce and rumored affair did not stop mr and Mrs. Smith from doing good business. Brad Pitt promoted the movie overseas (mostly in China with interviews and talk shows) but it flopped all over the world. He looked weird in the trailers- too much Botox or cgi .

    Plus, his team has managed to put him on the cover of all tabloids and gossip sites as the innocent victim to Angelina Jolie and her children. That’s areal turn off. Johnny Depp attempted to do the same to his ex and he failed even though his fans still trash her around the Internet – Most people think it’s a punk move. It’s like grow up, stop the pity party, take responsibility for your actions and stop the continued abuse of your family.

  8. Jay Sanders says:

    As far as movie theaters are concerned, they have to offer something you cannot get at home. Big screens and superb sound won’t do it – you can get that at home (screens not as big as those in the theater, but you can sit closer – the effect is almost the same.) If they can’t deliver, they will go the way of the drive-ins.

    • nerdrage says:

      I’ve never seen a home setup that can equal a movie theater for zap-pow types of movies (Star Wars, Marvel). The type where the whole point is sensory overload is also the type that does the best theatrically. for any movie that doesn’t scream in your face, you might as well just stay home.

  9. Anonymous says:

    I firmly believe audiences were drawn to Jungle Book by Justin Marks name.

  10. Mark Brack says:

    Why not make better movies AND market them and quit cutting into the theatrical window. Closing those studio branch offices has hurt the biz over the long haul. Your money is not just made in LA and New York. I still remember when HBO went 24/7 it cut our midnight show business in half. Go day and date on major studio releases and they become just another TV movie. It is the old law of supply and demand! You want more people in theatres THEN QUIT shortening the theatrical window. It is time for vertical integration to come back into vogue. It is TIME the major studios owned theatre chains again. Signed – a former independent theatrical film exhibitor…………….

    • nerdrage says:

      “Making better movies” is really not the point. People are already telling Hollywood what they want by the tickets they buy. They want sensory overload and famous brand names. They don’t care about stars or characters or stories. The Star Wars movies are the poster children for this style of moviemaking. It puts butts in seats. Many better movies are made each year but they don’t motivate people into movie theaters.

    • Joe Smart says:

      You have the problem backward. People aren’t staying home to watch movies because the window between theatrical and home video has shrunk. They are staying home because movie prices are at record highs and many people simply can no longer afford to take their families to the movies unless it’s a special occasion or special film that demands to be seen on the big screen. People in Hollywood live in a bubble and think ticket prices have nothing to do with the shrinking number of ticket buyers. I live in the real world. My co-workers who have families can afford to go to the movies no more than three or four times a year because of high ticket prices, obscene concession prices, charges for parking, upcharges for I-max and 3D and all of the other ways theater owners have managed to make moviegoing an unpleasant and overpriced experience. It’s generally cheaper to buy a new release on Blu-ray than to go to the movies with a date and buy anything whatsoever from the concession stand. That’s a good deal? Most movies aren’t worth what it costs in money and trouble to see them in the theater.

      • nerdrage says:

        Don’t forget the ads that theaters run before movies. Real ads, not trailers. I can stay home and stream movies on Netflix and Amazon and guess what, NO ADS. And none of the other crap either. I haven’t seen a movie in a theater in all of 2016. But I’ve seen dozens of movies. Why bother with all that movie theater BS?

  11. Terry says:

    Why would anybody want to see any for these movies?

  12. Passengers would have performed stronger if it had gotten higher ratings on Rotten Tomatoes and other online review platforms. I believe that is why Sully performed well, it had solid reviews. I think La la Land will fill seats becuase of word of mouth. My point is: movie stars really well to draw audiences to their movie when it has strong reviews and word of mouth. Online review platforms like Rotten Tomatoes, MetaCritic and other platforms are changing how movie goers decide to go to the movies.

    • jhs39 says:

      The definition of a star used to be someone who could open a movie, regardless of the reviews. Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence clearly aren’t those kinds of stars and there may not be any out there anymore. That era might have ended when high concept franchises (Transformers; Marvel films; DC films; Star Wars films; Disney live-action fairy tale films) became more important than the actors who starred in them.

  13. Ben says:

    Screening Room seems pretty dead

  14. The diminished star power, noting “Passengers”, is explained by your earlier point about franchises. I can’t remember who but someone wrote that nowadays franchises make actors, not actors making franchises. Tom Hanks, Johnny Depp, and so on. These people had sold movies long before they donned bad hair (“Da Vinvi Code”) or developed a taste for rum (“Pirates of the Caribbean”), they had their names. But Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt, they made their careers off of franchises. “Hunger Games” made Lawrence, not the other way around. Why do you think they moved the latter three installments of the franchise to November in the midst of award season? The franchise practically promoted her every year. Chris Pratt. Yeah nice guy (I like him a lot more than I like Lawrence), but are we really going to say he’s an A-lister because he was in a Marvel film and a “Jurassic Park” sequel. Those are brands he was part of. Don’t get me wrong, he’s a solid actor, but let’s not pretend that journalists aren’t being a little lenient throwing around the term “A-lister”nowadays. Yes these two are overpromoted, but A-lister not so much. Lawrence’s last two solo projects where her name is the main promotion (“Joy” and “Passengers”) flopped or look to be ready to flop, not to mention the critical reception has been mediocre to pure crap. Also keep in mind the Academy has been proven to be bought off and awards can be bought. She worked with Harvey Weinstein…he is notorious for buying awards. The overall point? The film industry is trying to force down their idea of a star and movies and not letting audiences decide for themselves. I can’t stop laughing at all the great films this year like “Hell or High Water” being called “throwbacks”. Why? Because they follow basic narrative and use characters people can relate to? I care more about that than “The Danish Girl” no offense. The Academy and the industry has worked too hard to use sympathy as a main drive for most of the films they promote. I want real life on screen, not bias tribute. I hope that the industry takes this and starts investing in stuff that doesn’t just get a lot of views on Youtube because, as shown, clearly that is not the best way to judge your audience. Most audiences are immature I admit (“Transformers” has two billion dollar films in it’s franchise…I’ll leave you with that.) but maybe this means they are tired of being coddled. I sure hope so.

    • Sean C. says:

      Joy wasn’t a flop. An overall disappointment, but $100 million worldwide for an indifferently-received adult drama isn’t bad overall. As far as a measure of Lawrence’s star power, would it have done better or worse if it had starred another actress? I would say probably worse.

      • jhs39 says:

        Actually doubling your budget worldwide is considered break-even now, not a hit. If you make less than that your movie flopped unless it does well on home video. Some movies don’t expect to get in the black based purely on theatrical grosses but with home video and TV sales they can still end up making a profit. That’s how you end up with sequels to movies like XXX, Pacific Rim and (possibly) Edge of Tomorrow.

      • To be deemed a hit, a film must double it’s budget. “Joy” was $60 million plus whatever was used for promotion. Therefore, yes it was a flop by definition. Also, $100 million is not as big of a deal as it used to be. Julia Roberts did the similar film “Erin Brokovich” which made $250+ million on a $52 million budget. You also have to account for inflation throughout the years. That’s why even though the box office total of the year was at it’s highest, it was still considered a disappointment because the value of the dollar. Less people are going to the theater man.

      • Sean C. says:

        “Flop” means more than that a film didn’t make money, in common parlance. Joy didn’t meet expectations, but it wasn’t a disaster either.

      • Sean it was a flop. There isn’t a word for it. And given that she was asking for $15 million (That’s money you’re asking for when you can make A LOT of money) it even more brings into question her star power. Asking for $20 million or $15 million is Leonardo DiCaprio-level. Leo sells movies that are never below $200 million at the box office. He’s had movies at crap level that manage to make back their budget and double it at least. J. Edgar was made for $35 million, made $84 million. That was a mixed received film and it made back money. That’s another thing. Risk. Appropriate risk. Different movies make different amounts but in every scenario a film needs to double it’s amount or it’s a flop. This is a rule of film. Ask anyone.

    • timgray2013 says:

      Several points here. When you talk about “diminishing star power,” Variety wrote an article in 1927 saying no star guarantees box-office. Every actor has careers ups and downs; that was true then and is still true. For some reason, you love to denigrate Jennifer Lawrence, but she is a good actress, and the measurement of stardom is determined over many years, not just by a few misfires. Second, your statement “awards can be bought” is an often-repeated claim, but it’s silly. When studios have an awards contender, they spend time, energy and money to promote it. And if their contender doesn’t win, the campaign strategists complain to studio heads that the winner “bought the award” as a way of saying “It’s not my fault; I did everything possible but it’s your fault we lost: You didn’t spend as much money as they did.” Every Academy member whom I know takes the voting very seriously. And over the years, it’s clear that they vote for the contender they liked best, not for the one that threw the best parties or promoted their film the most. The “awards can be bought” is an untrue “fact” that is repeated every year by bloggers, most of whom don’t know anyone connected with the film industry.

      • “Joy” felt like a flop, I admit, especially coming off of the Hunger Games level attention for Lawrence. The only problem with calling it a flop is if they really expected it to become a major hit. I can’t think of a studio who would place that film at a $250+ million venture. “Joy” was definitely an awards film that flopped in that regards but will eventually fill the coffers.

      • Couple things. One, not sure why you focused on the Lawrence aspect. I was using her and Chris Pratt as examples. If you find her to be a good actress, very well. I don’t share that sentiment. But that leads into your perspective. You know people who the voting process seriously, not many others share the sentiment. Considering the Academy has how many members? I recall it being in the thousand and you only need a tenth of that to secure a nomination. You seem to ignore basic campaigning psychology and not daring to admit that that is used in convincing people to vote for particular nominees. This is not a new thing. Cliff Robertson, back in 1969 won for “Charly” and many feel to this day that was based in popularity and not that he deserved it. To say that the Academy’s choices aren’t based in any kind of popularity or appeasing a wider audience. Using the expression “they vote for the contender they like best” gave it away. :) Seeing as how you’re right, these people spend an obscene amount of time meeting people and working to leave lasting impressions means ultimately there is a bias and skewed nature to the voting process. Because hey, someone leaves a nice impression over and over again who might you vote for? The better nominee you rarely see or the one who smiles and shows up everywhere. Sorry bloggers didn’t always exist, so feel free to toss that silly argument out. This has been going on long before the internet where these accusations occur. And then it’s so persistent…usually means there is something to grapple onto.

  15. StuartM says:

    Every year the same analysis. Every year the same misguided conclusions. A star in a lousy or just plain dull movie can rarely save it – especially given the choices available. A lousy movie can be a success for reasons best known to the audience, but most of the flops are flops for fairly obvious reasons. Passengers went down the tubes because of the stalker element EVERYONE picked up on- a lunatic plot decision that could easily been avoided. Marvel and Pixar rock because they are Marvel and Pixar (though The Good Dinosaur was a warning) Star Wars has the Force, but it has an expert team driving a unique narrative universe (ditto Harry Potter’s creators) and Disney is basically turning into the most powerful distributor with the deepest pockets. Jungle Book worked because it was superbly made, charming and unexpected. Sadly films like Pete’s Dragon get lost in the crowd – not to mention many many good medium budget pictures. Too much money is spent on films that are aiming far to high above their fighting weight (Deepwater) and if your budget demands Avenger like returns to break even then you’d better make an Avengers movie. Inferno flopped because too many of the Dan Brown audience has moved on… etc etc. Warner are blatantly trying to create a franchise rather than a series of good entertaining films that BECOME a franchise and by doing so are shooting themselves in the face. All the public wants is to feel it hasn’t thrown the cost of an evening out at the pictures down the drain. The movie business will always be (and always has been) a lottery between serendipity, intuition and experience. What the studios MUST realize is that taking an audience for granted is not the way to go. “You can lead a horse to water…” When originality, common sense, a good story well told and creative joy lead the way you have a chance, hubris and money-lust is the road to Ben Hur (and many others) in 2016. Transformers remains the exception – dire crap turned up to eleven, but there are enough Transformer fans for whom dire crap is okay if the spectacle repeats itself.

    Watch ANY major flop, and you can see why what happened, happened.

    • This is the best conclusion of 2016 in the comments.

      Transformers have carved a niche out by making the term “blockbuster” as amped as possible. They may suck as movies, but they have that certain flair that is irresistible to many average moviegoers. They may only watch it once, but with emerging markets like China buying into it, the franchise is easily translatable. Plus, I like them for their soundtracks and the music from Linkin Park and Imagine Dragons haha.

      Anyways, great job :)

    • Liza says:

      Passengers was marketed terribly. Who knew what it was about from the ads? A more coherent ad campaign would have added a few mil to the film’s opening. Also, not a big fan of the movie, but the so-called stalker element is more in the minds of critics (one says it and the rest follow) than in the script.

  16. Mark says:

    Jeff Goldstein is making stuff up. Big movies had opened well in march (the hunger games, Alice in wonderland, WB’s own 300) and August (guardians of the galaxy, ninja turtles 2014)

  17. Mark Zinan says:

    So in other words, people are searching for familiarity and comfort. Something to cling onto as we free fall into ……………

More Film News from Variety