What happened to Warner Bros. this summer? or “The cold streak that just wouldn’t end”

Roger Colton

18 years ago

Over the past few months, JHM has been paying an awful lot of attention (Some might say too much attention) to how "Cars" and "Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest" have been doing. With numerous articles that discussed in minute detail the box office receipts for these two Walt Disney Pictures releases, which then tried to determine whether these two films were actually as financially successful as the Walt Disney Company claimed that they were.

Me personally? If I were the head of the studio that had released the year's top two grossing films to date, I know that I'd be a pretty darn happy guy. At the very least, I know that I'd be a lot happier than the head of Warner Bros. Studios. That particular studio has had such a cold streak this summer, you'd think that it was based in Alaska. Rather than just down the street from Disney in beautiful downtown Burbank.

I mean, if earlier this year, you'd look at the slate of films that Warner Bros. was going to release during the Summer of 2006 … Well, you'd have thought that the WB was going to be rolling in dough by the time August rolled around. But here we are, with just three weeks to go 'til Labor Day. And Warner Bros. has yet to come through with a really-for-real hit.

Okay, sure. Were you to go over to Box Office Mojo, you'll see that this studio does have at least one film in the top ten: Bryan Singer's "Superman Returns." Which is currently the 6th top grossing film for 2006 with domestic ticket sales of $192.9 million while overseas ticket sales currently stand at $155 million.

Which is all well & good. Except that (As Mr. Hill has explained ad nauseum with all of his various "Cars" / "Dead Man's Chest" articles) a film has to earn at least three times its production budget before it can finally turn a profit. And given that "Superman Returns" cost a reported $260 million to produce … Well, it may be quite a few years now before the Man of Steel can officially fly into the black.

But trust me, folks. Compared to how some of Warner Bros. other films did this summer, "Superman Returns" was a cinematic titan. Take — for example — Wolfgang Petersen's $160 million dollar remake of Irwin Allen's cheesy 1972 disaster flick, "The Poseidon Adventure." "Poseidon" did so poorly at the box office (grossing only $60 million during its stateside run, with an additional $119 million coming from overseas) that the studio is rushing this film out on DVD. So look for "Poseidon" to pop up on store shelves next Tuesday.

Then there was "The Lake House." Which Warner Bros. PR department trumpeted as the long-awaited cinematic reunion of Sandra Bullock & Keanu Reeves. Who'd appeared together in 20th Century Fox's 1994 high speed thriller, "Speed."

WB's only problem was … Well, evidently movie-goers weren't all that eager to see Sandra & Keanu reunite. This Alejandro Agresti film (which cost an estimated $70 million to produce) only pulled in $51.6 million during its domestic run. Which is Warners is also hustling "The Lake House" out onto DVD. So look for this space / time continium-bending romance to turn up in Walmart on September 26th.

And then there's "Lady in the Water" … To be honest, I think that too much has already been written about how this highly anticipated M. Night Shamaylan film sank without a trace at the box office. So there's no sense now in beating a damp narf.

That said, isn't it kind of ironic that … Well, here's Warner Bros. — inside of a span of three months — releasing three different motion pictures that prominently feature water. And yet this studio has been experiencing one of its worst dry spell at the box office in years. That's gotta mean something.

Anyway … Bruce Willis took to the streets in “16 Blocks." With a worldwide gross of $53 million plus against a reported budget of $80 million … It's going to take this Richard Donner film quite a few years to finally recover all of its production costs.

And then there's “The Ant Bully.” Which a lot of JHM readers have already given me plenty of grief about because I dared to write three stories about this new CG feature from WB [Check the masthead of this website, people. What does it say? "News, reviews, history and commentary about the entertainment industry (But mostly about the Mouse)." Please note that it doesn't say "Exclusively about the Mouse," but — rather — "Mostly about the Mouse." So as long as Jim says that it's okay to write about other studio's animated films {My understanding is that Mr. Hill is already at work on a couple of stories about Sony's upcoming animated feature, "Open Season"} … Well, that's what we're going to do here at JHM].

Anywho … "The Ant Bully" started small at the box office. And — in spite of the fact that this John A. Davis film was screened in IMAX 3D on large format screens all over the country — "Ant Bully" 's box office stayed small. To date, this DNA Productions film worldwide has only taken in $27 million. Which — given that CG feature reportedly cost at least $45 million to produce — means that it's going to be quite a while before this motion picture turns a profit too.

So now — if we were to add this all up — it's not pretty, people. Six pictures. Total gross so far for the summer? $737 million, give or take a few. Production costs? $637 million and change. So if we apply the old a-film-must-gross-at-least-three-times-its-production-costs-in-order-to-turn-a-profit rule … Warners Bros. really took it in the shorts this summer. I'm surprised that there aren't production executives lining up on the lot right now. Waiting for their turn to perform ritualistic suicide by diving off of the Warners water tower.

Okay. Maybe it's not as bad as all that. If you factor in what these films will eventually earn through DVD sales, pay-per-view, premium cable, the sale of network broadcast rights & syndication … Most of these pictures will eventually probably eek out some sort of profit for Warner Bros. Studio.

But — for now — most of Hollywood is snickering behind this studio's back. Positively gleeful about Warner Bros. flop-filled summer. And studio execs on the Burbank lot? Well, they're looking for someone to blame for this long string of failures. And right now, the smart money is on Warner Bros. publicity department taking the brunt of the blame for all of these films failing to connect with audiences.

I mean, even movie-goers have begun taking the studio to task for its poor marketing of this year's assortment of movies. At a "Superman Returns" panel at this year's Comic Con in San Diego, one fan stood up during the Q & A and quizzed Bryan Singer about how he thought his movie had been marketed. Singer struggled for a moment, clearly wanting to say something about how disappointed he was with WB's promotional campaign for "Superman Returns." But in the end, given that Bryan still hopes to make a "Superman" sequel for the studio and have it out in theaters by the summer of 2009, Bryan decided to be a diplomat. Opting to say instead that " … I'm not going to talk about the marketing."

Well, say what you will about the Walt Disney Company. But at least they know how to market their motion pictures. By that I mean: There wasn't a person on the planet this summer who didn't know that "Captain Jack is Back" in "Dead Man's Chest".

Whereas Warner Bros. … Well, even with a can't-miss title like "Superman Returns," there's no guarantee that that studio is actually going to get a return on its $260 million investment.

So if you were an executive at WB, what would you do to guarantee that your next set of motion pictures actually connected with movie-goers? Besides — of course — hiring away Disney's entire promotional team away to come promote your films?

Your thoughts?