The international worldwide box office has never been this
big or this competitive. 2018 proved to be a record year as Comscore reported
that the worldwide box office peaked at $41.7 billion. This is already a 2.7%
upward shift from last year’s $40.6 billion and marks only the second time ever
that it has cracked $40 billion.



At a time when blockbuster films are all but devouring the
lion’s share of traffic at the international turnstiles, we thought it
appropriate to pause and take a look at just what these figures mean for the
future of film and film releasing. Is Hollywood cannibalising itself by
creating these juggernauts?



Well, let’s take a look at the latest numbers sensation, Avengers: Endgame. The film broke a few records. It had the biggest international opening of all time raking in just over $1.2 billion in its first 11 days of release, an unheard-of figure. 



READ MORE | <a rel="noreferrer noopener" aria-label="Will Cinema Just Disappear? (opens in a new tab)" href="https://www.forbesafrica.com/arts/2019/03/28/will-cinema-just-disappear/" target="_blank">Will Cinema Just Disappear?</a>



As of May 13, Avengers: Endgame is sitting on a worldwide total of $2.5 billion and is guaranteed to go even higher in the weeks ahead. But where does this leave variety, where does this leave the smaller film, the adult-orientated film, the arthouse film?



The reality is that the mere existence of films like Avengers: Endgame means that this leaves such kinds of pictures nowhere. It’s impossible for any other picture to compete with a $356 million budget superhero movie with at least another $200 million in worldwide marketing costs behind it. 



Hollywood’s technique is complete saturation and to kill the competition. So while the film may have performed exceptionally, let’s be honest, with the kind of market saturation, brand name power and the sheer size of the international release, it should have.



Another important point when reviewing this film’s incredible box office performance is again to take into account the all-important Chinese market. Avengers: Endgame has already grossed over $600 million in China accounting for over a third of its total gross already. 



READ MORE | <a rel="noreferrer noopener" aria-label="How I marvelled at Black Panther’s reimagining of Africa (opens in a new tab)" href="https://www.forbesafrica.com/life/2018/02/21/marvelled-black-panthers-reimagining-africa/" target="_blank">How I marvelled at Black Panther’s reimagining of Africa</a>



But how has it performed from a historical perspective? When looking at ticket prices adjusted for inflation based on grosses in the United States only, the film slips all the way down to number 24 on the all-time grossers list. Top of the pops is still Gone With The Wind from 1939, followed by the original Star Wars from 1977. 



This brings me to my next point. Whatever happened to films that had legs, such as Steven Spielberg’s E.T. from 1982 or The Exorcist from 1973? The grosses of these films adjusted for inflation would be billions of dollars worldwide. The key to their ongoing longevity is that they had legs. 



These were films that discovered their audience week by week and although they were smash hits, they often grew in terms of their numbers from one weekend to the next as word-of-mouth spread, increasing their turnover. 



In this age of instant gratification and mass saturation, Avengers: Endgame is doing the opposite – it dived by 70% in its second week, numbers showing no signs of any real longevity.



So is Avengers: Endgame going to be the ultimate releasing strategy going forward? Does one push the film out into as many cinemas as possible, spend the equivalent of a small country’s GDP in terms of marketing power and try and pack in as many viewers into your first seven days with sell-out performances, then take the money and run?



Speculation is always circumspect so I’d like to pose
another question. If film is a business, should the business strategy be hit
and run? 



Will any of these films have the kind of longevity from a film fan perspective or will they disappear into the chasm of disposable entertainment. 



READ MORE | <a rel="noreferrer noopener" aria-label="Marvel Money: How Six Avengers Made $340 Million Last Year (opens in a new tab)" href="https://www.forbesafrica.com/arts/2019/07/12/marvel-money-how-six-avengers-made-340-million-last-year/" target="_blank">Marvel Money: How Six Avengers Made $340 Million Last Year</a>



Again, only time will tell. Where to from here for Hollywood? 



This kind of maximum impact output surely isn’t sustainable
and is surely too risky. You can’t spend half a billion dollars on producing
and marketing a film and then have any kind of risk in terms of the film not
connecting with its broad-based audience. 



All you need is two or three box office bombs and you’ll
sink a studio.



The old cliché that you can’t put all your eggs in one
basket exists for a reason. If entertainment tastes continue to split into
niches, the theatrical movie-going experience will also continue to take a
backseat to Video On Demand, and Hollywood may just be shooting itself in the
foot with this glut of summer tent-pole pictures. 



I sincerely hope this doesn’t mean the death of
“word-of-mouth”. Bigger does not necessarily mean better. 



– Robert Haynes is Executive Producer of entertainment at CNBC Africa and owner of film and TV production company, 42nd Street Films, in Johannesburg.

Tag: Steven Spielberg

FORBES AFRICA SOCIAL MEDIA

Worldwide Box Office, The Best It’s Ever Been