$134 million. That’s how much the superhero spectacle “The Batman” did in the first weekend at the North American box office; more than any film this year. The studio Warner Bros. had expected only 90 million dollars, and because in Hollywood the rule “every dollar over the forecast is good, a dime under is bad” has always applied, this result is a terrific success. It is only the second film since the beginning of the corona pandemic to break the 100 million mark in the first weekend. The other, and this is still important: “Spiderman: No Way Home” with 260 million just before Christmas. “The Matrix: Resurrections”, on the other hand, which will also be important, was disappointing at $21.1 million compared to a $40 million forecast.
You have to be careful with the numbers, because: The AMC cinema chain has increased its prices for “The Batman”, as managing director Adam Aron confirmed when speaking to journalists: In the Los Angeles branch, for example, a ticket cost $ 19.49, at the same time you could see the adventure film “Uncharted” for 17.99 dollars in the same multiplex cinema. A departure from the American tradition that every ticket costs the same at the same time; In some multiplex cinemas, you only pay for admission to the cinema and only then choose the room and the film.
Almost a third of the “Batman” proceeds in North America came from the 620 AMC cinemas: 38.9 million dollars. It’s not worth calculating how much more has come about through increased prices; you don’t know how many people would have come if the prices were lower. What counts in the US is total sales, period. That’s why Aron says: “We made this courageous decision and we will continue to do so in the future if we expect something from it.”
Hollywood is now debating these variable prices, which are not uncommon in Europe. Aron says: “We’ve been doing that there for years; better seats also cost more there. That’s only new in the USA.” There is also debate as to why AMC is so aggressive in dealing with the price increase. It’s no exaggeration to say that Aron is celebrating like he’s just saved Hollywood and Gotham City at the same time: “We’ve had the Bat-Signal shine over our cinemas around the world, and people have been following the sign. We’re ready “To take risks and lead this industry. And we see tremendous opportunity for us if we continue to be imaginative.”
A bucket of popcorn with caramel butter sauce: $12.40
Sure, you have to celebrate successes, especially in the film industry, which has been badly hit by Corona; only not everyone is happy about how aggressively Aron deals with the result. The high-ranking manager of a film studio, who does not want to read his name in the newspaper in this context, says to the SZ: “Who in the world is celebrating publicly for raising prices?” Indirectly, you tell the people who are already unsettled by the inflation: Hihi, we got your turn. That’s more foolish than clever.
The second reason for displeasure: “Batman” appeared when, for example, numerous Covid regulations were relaxed in Los Angeles and people were allowed to go to the cinema again without a mask. You have to see a film like this on a huge screen, in a hall with rich sound, and AMC didn’t just reach out for this spectacle at the entrance. A bucket of popcorn with caramel butter sauce: $12.40. A liter of soft drink: $7.79. The “Batman” cocktail: $16.33. A family visit to the “Batman” AMC cinema can quickly cost as much as a full tank of truck, the currently recognized unit of measurement for so many things.
The third reason for the debate: AMC did not first increase its prices for “The Batman”, and was not the only cinema chain to do so – as the figures from the box office analysis company EntTellgence show: For “The Batman” demanded AMC averaged $1.28 more across North American stores, compared to 77 and 84 cents at rivals Regal Cinemas and Cinemark Theaters. For “Spiderman,” both AMC (71 cents), Regal (82 cents), and Cinemark (56 cents) charged more than other films at the same time. So it was more of a superhero blockbuster price hike across all multiplex operators rather than some savvy exclusive move by AMC. Above all, it took place in secret, almost in the shadows, only Aron’s jubilation threw the spotlight on it.
You have to look at all of this in a larger context, which ultimately culminates in one question: How do you measure the financial success of films these days? What do the producers rate as a success? And how do you take the most? That leads to “The Matrix: Resurrections”, and first of all: it doesn’t matter whether you see the film in the cinema or at home on the couch; the plot is unoriginal, uninspired and illogical in both places. That can’t be the reason that the Village Roadshow Entertainment Group (VREG) has sued its longtime partner, the film studio Warner Bros. (yes, the one from “The Batman”).
Specifically, the renaissance of the “Matrix” franchise has grossed $37.6 million in North American theaters to date – a seemingly disastrous result given the $190 million in production costs; it doesn’t help that revenue in the rest of the world is $118.9 million. The lawsuit, which is available to SZ, states that the result in North America is due to the fact that Warner released the film on HBO Max at the same time – to strengthen this streaming portal, which, like the film studio, belongs to the AT&T telecom group.
The pandemic accelerated the digital strategy
To put it simply, films were financed like this up until ten years ago: producers collected money for a project and hoped that this money would be brought in via the traditional distribution channels (cinema, home entertainment such as DVD sales, TV rights – for franchises such as ” Matrix” nor: toys, video games, spinoffs such as TV series). Partnerships such as those between VREG and Warner emerged, which jointly financed a total of 91 projects within 25 years – for more than 4.5 billion dollars. That was important because in this way mega successes such as the first “Matrix” trilogy, “Sherlock Holmes” or “Joker” compensated for the losses of flops like “King Arthur: The Legend of the Sword” or “Jupiter Ascending”. .
For the producers, the business model changed due to the disruption of the entertainment industry by streaming portals – again to put it simply. If Netflix pays around 75 million dollars for the film “Don’t Look Up”, then that means planning security for the producers, but also little prospect of higher profits. It’s said there are bonuses, but Netflix isn’t particularly talkative, as the company only releases viewership numbers when it fits in with corporate communications.
Then the corona pandemic came and shook everything up even more.
People couldn’t go to the cinema, so many corporations accelerated their digital strategy. Warner Bros. has been part of AT&T since 2018 and is scheduled to merge with Discovery in April. This is part of “Project Popcorn” to build a competitor to Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu with HBO Max. The “Matrix” sequel was the perfect opportunity for a nudge in that direction. The result in North American cinemas, once the Holy Grail number, is now just one number among many. This means more choice for viewers: they could choose between the cinema and the couch for “Matrix”, and between price models for “Spiderman” and “Batman”. AMC also offers a subscription service, but charges a surcharge of around ten percent for online reservations. But that also means more confusion and annoyance when you find out that the people sitting next to you paid less than you did because of the price model.
The industry is still in flux and, as evidenced by this variable pricing debate and the lawsuit against Warner Bros over the “Matrix” outcome, the protagonists are not pulling in the same direction, let alone in one direction. One thing is certain: AMC recently raised $950 million from investors to pay off short-term debt. Overall, the debt is currently more than five billion dollars, the share price has fallen by 40 percent this year. The group can really use good news at the moment, and lo and behold: When the “Batman” figures (and Aron’s jubilation about them) became known, the stock rose by more than ten percent for a short time.