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.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

Cookies, Cocktails and Mushrooms on the Menu as Justices Hear Bank Fraud Case

Published

on

Cookies, Cocktails and Mushrooms on the Menu as Justices Hear Bank Fraud Case

In a lively Supreme Court argument on Tuesday that included references to cookies, cocktails and toxic mushrooms, the justices tried to find the line between misleading statements and outright lies in the case of a Chicago politician convicted of making false statements to bank regulators.

The case concerned Patrick Daley Thompson, a former Chicago alderman who is the grandson of one former mayor, Richard J. Daley, and the nephew of another, Richard M. Daley. He conceded that he had misled the regulators but said his statements fell short of the outright falsehoods he said were required to make them criminal.

The justices peppered the lawyers with colorful questions that tried to tease out the difference between false and misleading statements.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked whether a motorist pulled over on suspicion of driving while impaired said something false by stating that he had had one cocktail while omitting that he had also drunk four glasses of wine.

Caroline A. Flynn, a lawyer for the federal government, said that a jury could find the statement to be false because “the officer was asking for a complete account of how much the person had had to drink.”

Advertisement

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked about a child who admitted to eating three cookies when she had consumed 10.

Ms. Flynn said context mattered.

“If the mom had said, ‘Did you eat all the cookies,’ or ‘how many cookies did you eat,’ and the child says, ‘I ate three cookies’ when she ate 10, that’s a false statement,” Ms. Flynn said. “But, if the mom says, ‘Did you eat any cookies,’ and the child says three, that’s not an understatement in response to a specific numerical inquiry.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked whether it was false to label toxic mushrooms as “a hundred percent natural.” Ms. Flynn did not give a direct response.

The case before the court, Thompson v. United States, No. 23-1095, started when Mr. Thompson took out three loans from Washington Federal Bank for Savings between 2011 and 2014. He used the first, for $110,000, to finance a law firm. He used the next loan, for $20,000, to pay a tax bill. He used the third, for $89,000, to repay a debt to another bank.

Advertisement

He made a single payment on the loans, for $390 in 2012. The bank, which did not press him for further payments, went under in 2017.

When the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and a loan servicer it had hired sought repayment of the loans plus interest, amounting to about $270,000, Mr. Thompson told them he had borrowed $110,000, which was true in a narrow sense but incomplete.

After negotiations, Mr. Thompson in 2018 paid back the principal but not the interest. More than two years later, federal prosecutors charged him with violating a law making it a crime to give “any false statement or report” to influence the F.D.I.C.

He was convicted and ordered to repay the interest, amounting to about $50,000. He served four months in prison.

Chris C. Gair, a lawyer for Mr. Thompson, said his client’s statements were accurate in context, an assertion that met with skepticism. Justice Elena Kagan noted that the jury had found the statements were false and that a ruling in Mr. Thompson’s favor would require a court to rule that no reasonable juror could have come to that conclusion.

Advertisement

Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh said that issue was not before the court, which had agreed to decide the legal question of whether the federal law, as a general matter, covered misleading statements. Lower courts, they said, could decide whether Mr. Thompson had been properly convicted.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked for an example of a misleading statement that was not false. Mr. Gair, who was presenting his first Supreme Court argument, responded by talking about himself.

“If I go back and change my website and say ‘40 years of litigation experience’ and then in bold caps say ‘Supreme Court advocate,’” he said, “that would be, after today, a true statement. It would be misleading to anybody who was thinking about whether to hire me.”

Justice Alito said such a statement was, at most, mildly misleading. But Justice Kagan was impressed.

“Well, it is, though, the humblest answer I’ve ever heard from the Supreme Court podium,” she said, to laughter. “So good show on that one.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

SEC probes B. Riley loan to founder, deals with franchise group

Published

on

SEC probes B. Riley loan to founder, deals with franchise group

B. Riley Financial Inc. received more demands for information from federal regulators about its dealings with now-bankrupt Franchise Group as well as a personal loan for Chairman and co-founder Bryant Riley.

The Los Angeles-based investment firm and Riley each received additional subpoenas in November from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission seeking documents and information about Franchise Group, or FRG, the retail company that was once one of its biggest investments before its collapse last year, according to a long-delayed quarterly filing. The agency also wants to know more about Riley’s pledge of B. Riley shares as collateral for a personal loan, the filing shows.

B. Riley previously received SEC subpoenas in July for information about its dealings with ex-FRG chief executive Brian Kahn, part of a long-running probe that has rocked B. Riley and helped push its shares to their lowest in more than a decade. Bryant Riley, who founded the company in 1997 and built it into one of the biggest U.S. investment firms beyond Wall Street, has been forced to sell assets and raise cash to ease creditors’ concerns.

The firm and Riley “are responding to the subpoenas and are fully cooperating with the SEC,” according to the filing. The company said the subpoenas don’t mean the SEC has determined any violations of law have occurred.

Advertisement

Shares in B. Riley jumped more than 25% in New York trading after the company’s overdue quarterly filing gave investors their first formal look at the firm’s performance in more than half a year. The data included a net loss of more than $435 million for the three months ended June 30. The shares through Monday had plunged more than 80% in the past 12 months, trading for less than $4 each.

B. Riley and Kahn — a longstanding client and friend of Riley’s — teamed up in 2023 to take FRG private in a $2.8-billion deal. The transaction soon came under pressure when Kahn was tagged as an unindicted co-conspirator by authorities in the collapse of an unrelated hedge fund called Prophecy Asset Management, which led to a fraud conviction for one of the fund’s executives.

Kahn has said he didn’t do anything wrong, that he wasn’t aware of any fraud at Prophecy and that he was among those who lost money in the collapse. But federal investigations into his role have spilled over into his dealings with B. Riley and its chairman, who have said internal probes found they “had no involvement with, or knowledge of, any alleged misconduct concerning Mr. Kahn or any of his affiliates.”

FRG filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in November, a move that led to hundreds of millions of dollars of losses for B. Riley. The collapse made Riley “personally sick,” he said at the time.

One of the biggest financial problems to arise from the FRG deal was a loan that B. Riley made to Kahn for about $200 million, which was secured against FRG shares. With that company’s collapse into bankruptcy in November wiping out equity holders, the value of the remaining collateral for this debt has now dwindled to only about $2 million, the filing shows.

Advertisement

Griffin writes for Bloomberg.

Continue Reading

Business

Starbucks Reverses Its Open-Door Policy for Bathroom Use and Lounging

Published

on

Starbucks Reverses Its Open-Door Policy for Bathroom Use and Lounging

Starbucks will require people visiting its coffee shops to buy something in order to stay or to use its bathrooms, the company announced in a letter sent to store managers on Monday.

The new policy, outlined in a Code of Conduct, will be enacted later this month and applies to the company’s cafes, patios and bathrooms.

“Implementing a Coffeehouse Code of Conduct is something most retailers already have and is a practical step that helps us prioritize our paying customers who want to sit and enjoy our cafes or need to use the restroom during their visit,” Jaci Anderson, a Starbucks spokeswoman, said in an emailed statement.

Ms. Anderson said that by outlining expectations for customers the company “can create a better environment for everyone.”

The Code of Conduct will be displayed in every store and prohibit behaviors including discrimination, harassment, smoking and panhandling.

Advertisement

People who violate the rules will be asked to leave the store, and employees may call law enforcement, the policy says.

Before implementation of the new policy begins on Jan. 27, store managers will be given 40 hours to prepare stores and workers, according to the company. There will also be training sessions for staff.

This training time will be used to prepare for other new practices, too, including asking customers if they want their drink to stay or to go and offering unlimited free refills of hot or iced coffee to customers who order a drink to stay.

The changes are part of an attempt by the company to prioritize customers and make the stores more inviting, Sara Trilling, the president of Starbucks North America, said in a letter to store managers.

“We know from customers that access to comfortable seating and a clean, safe environment is critical to the Starbucks experience they love,” she wrote. “We’ve also heard from you, our partners, that there is a need to reset expectations for how our spaces should be used, and who uses them.”

Advertisement

The changes come as the company responds to declining sales, falling stock prices and grumbling from activist investors. In August, the company appointed a new chief executive, Brian Niccol.

Mr. Niccol outlined changes the company needed to make in a video in October. “We will simplify our overly complex menu, fix our pricing architecture and ensure that every customer feels Starbucks is worth it every single time they visit,” he said.

The new purchase requirement reverses a policy Starbucks instituted in 2018 that said people could use its cafes and bathrooms even if they had not bought something.

The earlier policy was introduced a month after two Black men were arrested in a Philadelphia Starbucks while waiting to meet another man for a business meeting.

Officials said that the men had asked to use the bathroom, but that an employee had refused the request because they had not purchased anything. An employee then called the police, and part of the ensuing encounter was recorded on video and viewed by millions of people online, prompting boycotts and protests.

Advertisement

In 2022, Howard Schultz, the Starbucks chief executive at the time, said that the company was reconsidering the open-bathroom policy.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending