Posted, it was a very disappointing weekend at the box office. 2025 did not take place at the biggest start, with even "Captain America: Marvel's brave new world", just okay in cinemas, despite the massive windmills we will expect from these films in recent years. Save for the unexpected Chinese blockbuster of $ 2 billion "NO HAA 2," " It's hard to get down. In line with that feeling, the long -awaited scientific flick of director Bong Oonun Ho, "Mickey 17" hit theaters last weekend with disappointing results.

The good news for Warner Bros. is that "Mickey 17", who starred Robert Pattinson ("Batman"), shot down the $ 19 million home graphs. It led a weekend with very little new competition except for Paul W.'s fantasy Anderson "in the lost countries". who barely managed $ 1 million in their debut. Overall, domestic box office for the weekend was just over $ 53 million. That's bad, and the news is unfortunately deteriorating for the sb and director Bong.

With a huge budget and so many reviews, Mickey 17 is now firm on the territory of Flop. After opening in several overseas markets, the film's total film is at $ 53.3 million. The road to profitability is now a dream of pipes. So what went wrong here? We're talking about some of the biggest reasons that this promising venture derives from the rails. Let's get into that.

First and foremost, Warner Bros. simply spent too much money on Mickey 17. The production budget alone, after reshaping and what it was $ 118 million. It's cheaper than the Marvel movie (many), but it's wildly expensive for what is translated into an original audience movie. It is technically based on Edward Ashton's book "Mickey7", but it is difficult to make a picture of a franchise in the eyes of the ticket buyer. Right or wrong, Hollywood has a budget problem for years Because studies are trying to make pleasures of the crowd that are becoming more expensive for production. In this case, mathematics proved to be very not.

That $ 118 million does not include marketing, so we look at even about $ 400 million worldwide, as the WB reportedly spent about $ 80 million on marketing. Keep in mind, theaters keep about half of the money from ticket sales. Not all this does not enter the studio's pocket.

Yes, Bong Oonun Ho is a master director who directed the winner of the best image "Parasite", which was a huge success for non-English. Success is still relative, however, as The Parasite made just over $ 50 million domestic. Giving him This A lot of money for a science fiction movie that is not a tricky premise was a huge risk. The WB probably had to try to mitigate that risk by spending less. More easily than done, I give it to you, but the realities are like that.

Another big question is that Warner Bros. seems to get cold feet when it comes to "Mickey 17" The studio postponed the film several times, expelling it from 2024 and initially until January 2025. January is, historically, not where blockbusters are born. It is often considered a "landfill month". They eventually transferred it to March, but all that changed, offered a window in the uncertainty behind the scenes.

After all, the sb wanted to be in business with the director Bong, but "Mickey 17" could not be different from "parasite" And it was quite possible that the studio didn't know what they were paying for. However, when the final product appeared on their threshold, it is clear that they did not know what to do. It's a shame, but that's what it is. To what extent it hurts director Bong to get green films in the future remains uncertain, but something tells me it will be good. In the meantime, the WB must leave the weight of the probable flop. It's a heavy swallowing pill.

When it comes to original, non -franchise films in the Pandemic era, they are heavy sales. Unless it is a reasonable budget horror movie, the audience simply does not appear for them more massive (for the most part). The rare exception is a film that receives that stamp "we must see" approval. In the case of "Mickey 17", the consensus is greatly good, but not excellent, which did nothing to help things.

The film, which takes place in the future where people can register to be "consumer" that are cloned and dying over and over again, currently has a decent 78% approval rating on rotten tomatoes from critics to go with 72% of audiences. It puts it in the camp "Ill I wait to convey it" for many people. Certain critics have been studied in their praise, with /The film is labeling BJ Coalzelo "Mickey 17" as a "masterpiece" in its review. But without such praise from the majority, the fate of this film was sealed.

The biggest obstacle to this film-and every film that is not a franchise for the near future-is to make people care for something that is not based on something they are already familiar with. "Mickey 17" is a major example of how difficult it is to get people to care for. We have a director who won an Oscar, an cast -cast and an interesting premise. Not to mention, it was announced at the weekend where nothing prevented him from succeeding. And yet, it didn't turn out well enough.

The fact is that almost every film in the first ten global level in 2024 was a sequel, except for "wicked". The biggest franchise film was "He's ending with us" ($ 350 million), but that had a very reasonable budget. The biggest original? "If" ($ 190.5 million), and that film certainly didn't make his money theater. Christopher Nolan directs biopic as Oppenheimer to nearly $ 1 billion Globally, it is very exception and extremely far from the rule. The originals are still needed, but budgets can be so high until the audience habits change - or If They change. In the era of water and streaming, they will never return to what they once were.

Let's not clutter here, but the success of this film by Robert Pattinson was also a risky move. Not because he is not a great actor, because he is probably one of the best things in Hollywood today. Pattinson is praised for his wild performance in "Mickey 17"The problem is that Pattinson, with full respect, is not a movie Starwar" Butts in Seats ", unless we talk about an already established franchise. At "Twilight" or "Batman", he made people go out. In something original? Not so much.

Just looking at Pattinson's biography, his hits out of the big, established franchises are little and far between. Maybe Warner Bros. had hoped that after Batman, things changed. It does not bring me joy to say that they do not, at least not in this case. Very few movie stars that work today can sell tickets just because they are included. Even with all the talent in the world, Pattinson, unfortunately, is not on that list.

We talked more about the performance of the box office of today's episode of /film daily podcast, which you can hear below:

You can subscribe to /movie every day Apple podcasts, Over, SpotifyOr wherever you get your podcasts, and send your feedback, questions, comments, problems and mail pouch issues to us at bpearson@slashfilm.com. Please leave your name and general geographical location in case we mention your email to the air.

"Mickey 17" is now in cinemas.