Connect with us

Business

Superheroes came to Hollywood's rescue this summer. Is it enough to save movies?

Published

on

Superheroes came to Hollywood's rescue this summer. Is it enough to save movies?

Foul-mouthed superheroes, babbling Minions and plenty of Anxiety (the animated kind) have propelled this summer’s box office past the winter and spring theatrical doldrums, marking one bright spot in an otherwise industry-wide gloom.

Boosted by a bevy of sequels, the summer’s gross box office receipts (starting from the first Friday in May) is projected to total roughly $3.6 billion through the Labor Day weekend, according to Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst at Comscore.

That’s short of last year’s “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer”-fueled haul of $4 billion, but still higher than summer totals in 2022, 2021 and 2020 — a positive sign for theater owners and studio executives who weathered a tough January-to-May stretch of limited and underperforming films.

And with a much-anticipated fall and winter slate of films including “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice,” “Wicked” and “Moana 2,” industry insiders are sounding more upbeat for the end of the year and beyond.

“If we can carry this same momentum that we have this summer currently into the fall and then into the beginning of 2025, I think exhibition will be very pleased,” said Jim Orr, president of theatrical distribution at Universal Pictures. “We can truly say we’re back.”

Advertisement

The optimism is a far cry from earlier this year, when the industry collectively wrung its hands as the box office struggled to captivate audiences. That concern turned into panic by Memorial Day, when films such as “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” and “Garfield” did not perform up to high expectations, leading to the worst Memorial Day weekend box office in almost three decades.
(“Garfield” ended up grossing more than $257 million in global box office on a reported budget of $60 million.)

Industry observers now see that five-month stretch as the low point in the theatrical slump, fueled in part by a lingering slowdown from the pandemic and the dual strikes by writers and actors, which disrupted the production and marketing of films.

“This industry took a double gut punch,” said Charles Rivkin, chairman of the Motion Picture Assn. “First we had COVID, which turned our $11-billion industry into zero overnight. And then when we were recovered from that, we immediately had the strikes.”

Morale was low at the outset of the season. Save for a few successes, such as Disney’s “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes,” May releases — from Universal’s “Fall Guy” to Warner Bros.’ “Furiosa” — mostly fell flat.

“The expectations for ’24 were definitely tempered,” Dergarabedian said. “We didn’t have a Marvel movie kicking off the summer.”

Advertisement

But starting with June’s “Bad Boys: Ride or Die,” the box office started to pick up. It would be the first of several sequels to power the all-important summer box office.

Animated films helped to power the rebound.

“Inside Out 2” and “Despicable Me 4” put up blockbuster numbers, which is notable because animation was one of the slowest genres to recover from the pandemic due to families’ wariness to return to theaters and the ease of watching movies on streaming platforms.

With several animated films set for release later this year, worldwide family box office revenue could reach $6.1 billion, which would surpass 2018’s total, said David A. Gross, who publishes the FranchiseRe movie industry newsletter.

“It’s fair to say that since ‘Super Mario’ in spring of 2023, family moviegoing is back to pre-pandemic levels,” he said.

Advertisement

To date, the domestic box office has generated about $5.6 billion, down from $6.6 billion at this point last year, according to Comscore. But the summer box office has made up a lot of ground.

“I don’t like to spike the ball on the five-yard line, but I think we’re in the right direction,” said Rich Gelfond, chief executive of Imax Corp., the giant-screen technology company that operates out of Playa Vista. “We’re certainly on the road back.”

One reason for the recovery: Walt Disney Co. got its groove back this summer, with the help of “Inside Out 2.”

The Pixar animated sequel to 2015’s “Inside Out” drew $1.6 billion worldwide, making it the highest grossing animated title of all time, and the top movie of the summer season. Then, Disney-owned Marvel Studios packed a punch with the R-rated “Deadpool & Wolverine,” which amassed $1 billion in global revenue and became the second-highest grossing film of the summer.

“Historically, there’s been a bit of a ceiling for R-rated movies just because a bunch of kids can’t come,” said Greg Marcus, chief executive of Marcus Theatres, a Milwaukee, Wis.-based chain with about 80 locations spanning 17 states.

Advertisement

But the reception for the movie “speaks to the … clamoring for product. The people are saying, ‘If you build it, we will come,’” he said

The box office showing for Pixar and Marvel was significant, as the key Disney brands have struggled to consistently deliver in recent years. The House of Mouse’s uncharacteristically weak post-pandemic track record was one reason box office analysts drastically lowballed opening weekend projections for “Inside Out 2.”

“Everyone had high hopes for that film,” said Sean Gamble, CEO of Cinemark, the Plano, Texas-based theater chain with more than 300 locations, including 20 in Southern California. “We certainly did, but that proved out to be way beyond what we expected. It’s probably one of the biggest outperforming films … we’ve seen in a very, very long time.”

Tony Chambers, executive vice president of theatrical distribution at Disney, said, “Quality matters, and quality delivers” — echoing a key point from Disney CEO Bob Iger, who has ordered sweeping cuts across the company to stem losses from its streaming business and has directed creative departments to focus on theatrical and not crank out as much content.

Appealing to broader, multicultural audiences doesn’t hurt either, Chambers said.

Advertisement

“It sounds very simple, but if you cast your net wide enough, the more fish you’re likely to get,” he said. “That’s been the common denominator for all the movies that have worked successfully this summer.”

To be sure, the movie industry still faces massive challenges, regardless of this summer’s slight reprieve. Box office revenue is still below pre-pandemic levels, and it’s unclear whether it will ever fully rebound as viewing habits shift.

So far this summer, theaters across the U.S. sold 274 million tickets, an 18% decline from last summer, according to industry data firm EntTelligence. That pales in comparison to the 406 million tickets sold in summer 2019 — a time when moviegoers weren’t yet accustomed to watching major releases at home on streaming services.

What’s more, film financing has become more difficult as interest rates have increased. China is no longer a reliable market for boosting American films’ box office revenue. And studios have slashed budgets and laid off thousands of employees as they struggle to balance their massive spending on streaming services with the lower-than-expected returns.

Still, if box office returns for the second half of this year are down by only 10% compared to pre-pandemic levels, that would be a good result, Gross said.

Advertisement

And this summer, the charge was led by a plethora of sequels.

“Sometimes people question, ‘Are there too many sequels?’’’ Gamble said. “Across the board, with compelling stories, they work. And we’ve seen many, many examples of that throughout the course of this summer.”

Of course, simply adding more chapters to a franchise doesn’t necessarily guarantee success (see: “Furiosa”). But this summer’s sequels have been “solid,” leading to some level of reassurance for the industry.

“When these things are hitting, and when the box office is flowing, it just helps everything about the business,” Gross said. “It helps everyone relax.”

While original and nonfranchise films didn’t lead the box office this year, they certainly gave it a boost.

Advertisement

Surprise breakout hits such as Neon’s masterfully marketed horror flick “Longlegs (the indie studio’s biggest movie to date) and Sony’s adaptation of the bestselling Colleen Hoover novel “It Ends With Us” weren’t nearly as lucrative as the likes of “Deadpool” or “Inside Out 2.” But they played an important role, exceeding expectations and keeping the popcorn lines moving.repeats “flowing” from quote.

“Every dollar counts in the summer, and those … films added significantly to the bottom line,” Dergarabedian said. “Every $20 million times five … is $100 million. So it all adds up to what turned out to be a pretty magnificent summer.”

Emelyn Stuart, owner of Stuart Cinema and Cafe in Brooklyn, N.Y., said summer business has been “amazing” compared to the previous year. Her theater has only one screen, which means she has just one chance at a time to pick a winner.

Last year, some of her choices included “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny,” as well as the DC Comics superhero film “The Flash,” which grossed just $271 million worldwide amid a controversy surrounding its star, Ezra Miller.

This year, she chose “Bad Boys: Ride or Die,” “Despicable Me 4,” “Deadpool & Wolverine” and “A Quiet Place: Day One.” The variety of available films led to a winning combination, she said.

Advertisement

For the fall, she’s planning to add a second screen to expand her options — particularly for attracting family audiences.

“With ‘Wicked’ coming, with ‘Beetlejuice,’ with ‘Joker,’ I think we’re going to end the year strong,” she said.

Business

Nike to Cut 1,400 Jobs as Part of Its Turnaround Plan

Published

on

Nike to Cut 1,400 Jobs as Part of Its Turnaround Plan

Nike is cutting about 1,400 jobs in its operations division, mostly from its technology department, the company said Thursday.

In a note to employees, Venkatesh Alagirisamy, the chief operating officer of Nike, said that management was nearly done reorganizing the business for its turnaround plan, and that the goal was to operate with “more speed, simplicity and precision.”

“This is not a new direction,” Mr. Alagirisamy told employees. “It is the next phase of the work already underway.”

Nike, the world’s largest sportswear company, is trying to recover after missteps led to a prolonged sales slump, in which the brand leaned into lifestyle products and away from performance shoes and apparel. Elliott Hill, the chief executive, has worked to realign the company around sports and speed up product development to create more breakthrough innovations.

In March, Nike told investors that it expected sales to fall this year, with growth in North America offset by poor performance in Asia, where the brand is struggling to rejuvenate sales in China. Executives said at the time that more volatility brought on by the war in the Middle East and rising oil prices might continue to affect its business.

Advertisement

The reorganization has involved cuts across many parts of the organization, including at its headquarters in Beaverton, Ore. Nike slashed some corporate staff last year and eliminated nearly 800 jobs at distribution centers in January.

“You never want to have to go through any sort of layoffs, but to re-center the company, we’re doing some of that,” Mr. Hill said in an interview earlier this year.

Mr. Alagirisamy told employees that Nike was reshaping its technology team and centering employees at its headquarters and a tech center in Bengaluru, India. The layoffs will affect workers across North America, Europe and Asia.

The cuts will also affect staffing in Nike’s factories for Air, the company’s proprietary cushioning system. Employees who work on the supply chain for raw materials will also experience changes as staff is integrated into footwear and apparel teams.

Nike’s Converse brand, which has struggled for years to revive sales, will move some of its engineering resources closer to the factories they support, the company said.

Advertisement

Mr. Alagirisamy said the moves were necessary to optimize Nike’s supply chain, deploy technology faster and bolster relationships with suppliers.

Continue Reading

Business

Senate committee kills bill mandating insurance coverage for wildfire safe homes

Published

on

Senate committee kills bill mandating insurance coverage for wildfire safe homes

A bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to homeowners who take steps to reduce wildfire risk on their property died in the Legislature.

The Senate Insurance Committee on Monday voted down the measure, SB 1076, one of the most ambitious bills spurred by the devastating January 2025 wildfires.

The vote came despite fire victims and others rallying at the state Capitol in support of the measure, authored by state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Pasadena), whose district includes the Eaton fire zone.

The Insurance Coverage for Fire-Safe Homes Act originally would have required insurers to offer and renew coverage for any home that meets wildfire-safety standards adopted by the insurance commissioner starting Jan. 1, 2028.

Advertisement

It also threatened insurers with a five-year ban from the sale of home or auto insurance if they did not comply, though it allowed for exceptions.

However, faced with strong opposition from the insurance industry, Pérez had agreed to amend the bill so it would have established community-wide pilot projects across the state to better understand the most effective way to limit property and insurance losses from wildfires.

Insurers would have had to offer four years of coverage to homeowners in successful pilot projects.

Denni Ritter, a vice president of the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn., told the committee that her trade group opposed the bill.

“While we appreciate the intent behind those conversations, those concepts do not remove our opposition, because they retain the same core flaw — substituting underwriting judgment and solvency safeguards with a statutory mandate to accept risk,” she said.

Advertisement

In voting against the bill Sen. Laura Richardson, (D-San Pedro), said: “Last I heard, in the United States, we don’t require any company to do anything. That’s the difference between capitalism and communism, frankly.”

The remarks against the measure prompted committee Chair Sen. Steve Padilla, (D-Chula Vista), to chastise committee members in opposition.

“I’m a little perturbed, and I’m a little disappointed, because you have someone who is trying to work with industry, who is trying to get facts and data,” he said.

Monday’s vote was the fourth time a bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to so-called “fire hardened” homes failed in the Legislature since 2020, according to an analysis by insurance committee staff.

Fire hardening includes measures such as cutting back brush, installing fire resistant roofs and closing eaves to resist fire embers.

Advertisement

Pérez’s legislation was thought to have a better chance of passage because it followed the most catastrophic wildfires in U.S. history, which damaged or destroyed more than 18,000 structures and killed 31 people.

The bill was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles advocacy group Consumer Watchdog and Every Fire Survivor’s Network, a community group founded in Altadena after the fires formerly called the Eaton Fire Survivors Network.

But it also had broad support from groups such as the California Apartment Association, the California Nurses Association and California Environmental Voters.

Leading up to the fires, many insurers, citing heightened fire risk, had dropped policyholders in fire-prone neighorhoods. That forced them onto the California FAIR Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort, which offers limited but costly policies.

A Times analysis found that that in the Palisades and Eaton fire zones, the FAIR Plan’s rolls from 2020 to 2024 nearly doubled from 14,272 to 28,440. Mandating coverage has been seen as a way of reducing FAIR Plan enrollment.

Advertisement

“I’m disappointed this bill died in committee. Fire survivors deserved better,” Pérez said in a statement .

Also failing Monday in the committee was SB 982, a bill authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, (D-San Francisco). It would have authorized California’s attorney general to sue fossil fuel companies to recover losses from climate-induced disasters. It was opposed by the oil and gas industry.

Passing the committee were two other Pérez bills. SB 877 requires insurers to provide more transparency in the claims process. SB 878 imposes a penalty on insurers who don’t make claims payments on time.

Another bill, SB 1301, authored by insurance commissioner candidate Sen. Ben Allen, (D-Pacific Palisades), also passed. It protects policyholders from unexplained and abrupt policy non-renewals.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

How We Cover the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Published

on

How We Cover the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Times Insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.

Politicians in Washington and the reporters who cover them have an often adversarial relationship.

But on the last Saturday in April, they gather for an irreverent celebration of press freedom and the First Amendment at the Washington Hilton Hotel: The White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

Hosted by the association, an organization that helps ensure access for media outlets covering the presidency, the dinner attracts Hollywood stars; politicians from both parties; and representatives of more than 100 networks, newspapers, magazines and wire services.

While The Times will have two reporters in the ballroom covering the event, the company no longer buys seats at the party, said Richard W. Stevenson, the Washington bureau chief. The decision goes back almost two decades; the last dinner The Times attended as an organization was in 2007.

Advertisement

“We made a judgment back then that the event had become too celebrity-focused and was undercutting our need to demonstrate to readers that we always seek to maintain a proper distance from the people we cover, many of whom attend as guests,” he said.

It’s a decision, he added, that “we have stuck by through both Republican and Democratic administrations, although we support the work of the White House Correspondents’ Association.”

Susan Wessling, The Times’s Standards editor, said the policy is a product of the organization’s desire to maintain editorial independence.

“We don’t want to leave readers with any questions about our independence and credibility by seeming to be overly friendly with people whose words and actions we need to report on,” she said.

The celebrity mentalist Oz Pearlman is headlining the evening, in lieu of the usual comedy set by the likes of Stephen Colbert and Hasan Minhaj, but all eyes will be on President Trump, who will make his first appearance at the dinner as president.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump has boycotted the event since 2011, when he was the butt of punchlines delivered by President Barack Obama and the talk show host Seth Meyers mocking his hair, his reality TV show and his preoccupation with the “birther” movement.

Last month, though, Mr. Trump, who has a contentious relationship with the media, announced his intention to attend this year’s dinner, where he will speak to a room full of the same reporters he often derides as “enemies of the people.”

Times reporters will be there to document the highs, the lows and the reactions in the room. A reporter for the Styles desk has also been assigned to cover the robust roster of after-parties around Washington.

Some off-duty reporters from The Times will also be present at this late-night circuit, though everyone remains cognizant of their roles, said Patrick Healy, The Times’s assistant managing editor for Standards and Trust.

“If they’re reporting, there’s a notebook or recorder out as usual,” he said. “If they’re not, they’re pros who know they’re always identifiable as Times journalists.”

Advertisement

For most of The Times’s reporters and editors, though, the evening will be experienced from home.

“The rest of us will be able to follow the coverage,” Mr. Stevenson said, “without having to don our tuxes or gowns.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending