One of the more peculiar, but ultimately enduring, adages in history involves the concept of âless is moreâ or âaddition by subtraction.â
Sure, on its surface, it doesnât seem to make a ton of sense, but in practice, itâs rather obvious why this oxymoron has lasted as long as it has.
Leaner operations tend to yield more productive (or, at least, cost-effective) results, and a shining example of that can actually be found with⌠Disney?
Yes, believe it or not, you donât even have to look back that far to see examples of the House of Mouse stretching its dollar, particularly with its incredibly lucrative Marvel Cinematic Universe.
He may be a bona fide movie star these days, but people forget that in 2008, prior to the MCUâs inaugural âIron Manâ film, Robert Downey Jr. was damaged goods as an actor due to a litany of personal issues, and the titular superhero Iron Man was firmly entrenched as a B-tier Marvel property.
And yet, with an actor whose reputation was effectively in the gutter and a superhero that was not quite âSpider-manâ or the âX-Men,â Marvel turned those humble beginnings into a genuine cinematic empire.
Marvel would continue to churn out these big hits with lesser-known actors and heroes (Did anyone care about âThorâ or âThe Guardians of the Galaxyâ before the MCU? Did anyone even know who Chris Hemsworth or Chris Pratt were, apart from the latter being the chubby comic relief of âParks and Recâ?) and it appeared they had stumbled on a genuinely winning formula.
Well, fast forward all these years (and innumerable Marvel projects) later, and it seems Marvel needs to learn this lesson of doing more with less anew â and it could learn that lesson from a direct rival.
Itâs beating a dead horse at this point, but it cannot be understated how much of an unmitigated disaster that Disneyâs âThe Marvelsâ film has been at the box office.
As Deadline notes, the film has a bloated budget of over $200 million ($274 million is the price tag being bandied about by some Entertainment sites) and has suffered the second-biggest second-weekend dropoff in the MCUâs history.
The poor box office returns combined with the exorbitant budget virtually ensures that âThe Marvelsâ will be a Money sink for Disney.
Now, one would think that similar box office returns for Lionsgate prequel film, âThe Hunger Games: Ballad Of Songbirds & Snakes,â would mean similar headache-inducing news for that studio.
Well, not quite.
As Deadline notes, the Hunger Games prequel film, which opened this weekend, is projected to bring in about $45 million at the box office â a number not dissimilar from âThe Marvelsâ and its opening weekend box office receipt of $46.1 million.
The difference, however, is that Lionsgateâs film had a much more modest budget of around $100 million â or basically half of what Marvel spent on âThe Marvels.â
Between that and some of the other smart financial maneuverings from the studio (including a $20 million tax credit from Germany), âHunger Gamesâ is already 65 percent of the way to being a profitable film.
(To address the elephant in the room, yes, âThe Hunger Games: Ballad of Songbirds & Snakesâ stars the imminently unlikable Rachel Zegler, so it may have been a blessing in disguise for Lionsgate that she was unable to speak about the movie due to the recently-ended actors strike.)
Unlike Disney, who seems insistent at either throwing away or burning its Money with each new disastrous film it releases, Lionsgate pretty clearly saw the landscape for what it was: $200 million budget blockbusters just donât work in 2023.
$200 million is the sort of price tag that makes a movie a must-win. To ensure that profitability, studios (namely Disney) will go with increasingly risk-averse strategies until theyâre left with a homogeneous gray mass thatâs indistinguishable from the next superhero or animated project.
Learning to do more with less is critical, particularly at this juncture in time when âBidenomicsâ has everyoneâs wallets in a vice grip.
Disney either seems too stubborn or too stupid to learn this lesson.
Will a rivalâs modest success of a female-led action film (especially compared to their own) be the impetus for change at the House of Mouse?
The gut instinct is to say ânoâ given recent history, but if thereâs one language Hollywood executives speak, itâs in dollars and cents, so maybe, just maybe, theyâll have the sense to not just throw their dollars away anymore.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
