There was a time when the number of stars a film received would be an indicator of its success. Now, however, it’s all about the business. Box office numbers have superseded critics as the judges of a film’s worth. It is surprising how the general movie audience also considers these numbers important while making movie-watching decisions. At a time when the film culture itself has changed, it is important to question whether a film’s financial performance is truly its best judge.
Not even the tags of Oscar-winning, or even a Golden Globe-winning, attract the attention that a million-dollar box-office number does. It is all everyone looks forward to – the audience, and the media. If these numbers aren’t 3-digit millions, the film is easily overlooked by the audience. Yes, at the end of the day, you watch what you like, even if it is a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie. But that should not entail deeming seemingly underperforming films as bad. Box office numbers should never be seen as a factor for deciding whether a movie is good or bad.
Box office stats are much more complicated than the 2 or 3-digit figure that is emboldened in movie posters. Theatre collections are collected by a database service called Rentrak, which is exclusively available to studio executives. The primary duty of studios immediately after release of films is the impressions it makes, and part of it involves seeing the turnout on day 1. Studios arrive at a ballpark figure, based on this turnout, and expect that it will more or less pan out in the first week at least. These numbers do not concern audience expectations at all, but studios use them as a lure anyways – and they work, big time.
When Barbie and Oppenheimer released earlier this summer, Hollywood enthusiasts had their eyes on every single development these films made. The fans of either film don’t realize it, but the competition among the two was about the money they made. Barbie has now become the 1st female led – written, produced, starred – movie to make $1 billion at the box office. While Oppenheimer has missed out on the feat by a sliver, it doesn’t take away from the fact that it is cinematic brilliance. So is Barbie, but marketing giants would never appreciate the successes of both films together. The real battle was always Warner Bros vs. Universal, and not Barbie vs. Oppenheimer. Studios may congratulate competitors when they break a record, but it is only done in good spirit (and for image-building purposes). But when multiple studios face off against each other, it is seldom a good fight.
But beware, box office numbers are exactly what they are: numbers. They are concerned only with the financial aspect of the movie industry, and their role is limited to just there. The figures tell you how many people watched a movie and where. But they definitely don’t tell you whether the audience liked it or not. The good and bad about the movie comes out on reviews; a 300 million grossing film might not be the best movie of the season, quality wise. For example, Transformers: Age of Extinction is the franchise’s highest grossing film ever, bringing in more than $1 billion. But that is the only good thing about the film; many agree that the film is also the worst one out of the series of five. Often times negative publicity also drives tremendous money to some films, as it did with Fifty Shades of Grey.
Then, there are also films that are in the exact opposite situations. Films that performed poorly at the box office are among the best pieces of cinema to exist. The Shawshank Redemption had an extremely low turnout, bringing in only $28 million domestically. Even a Martin Scorsese film and Fight Club are part of this fateful category. This quashes the argument that bad box office numbers equal bad films. In the same way, films with record-breaking box office numbers are not always good films.
What is alarming though, is that the audience has taken the bait set by film marketers. Box office performances have entered their conversations, being used as criteria to justify the film’s success. And studios continue banking on this never-ending cycle, more emboldened posters with latest box office numbers are released week after week, until the hype of the film dies down. It instills in the public a sense of missing out on the fun that should be partaken in. It is as if not watching the blockbuster of the year means missing out on the highlight of the year. Those touting the success of Elvis are relatively silent about Priscilla: the only chatter about the latter has come from film enthusiasts and critics.
The economics of every film is different from the other. If a movie is supposed to make 25 million at the box office, then all efforts should be made so that this primary goal is achieved. These films are specifically meant to bring in such amounts, and will not bring in astronomical figures otherwise. Their theatrical runs are structured in ways that are different to the average 100 million grossers. But just because these films cash in low figures does not always mean they are bad. The audience must detach themselves from the attraction of these figures, because they do not concern their viewing patterns at all. At the end of the day it is the average audience member’s money that is going to be spent. And given current trends at the box office, they have a good chance at being disappointed at watching something they spent that hard-earned money for. The financial aspect of cinema has to run in parallel with the artistic purpose of cinema, and not outshine or sugarcoat it.