It was another big blockbuster showdown at the box office this past weekend as Paramount's Sonic the Hedgehog 3 went toe-to-toe Disney's big prequel to Mufasa: The Lion King. Not that the third entry in a successful franchise should necessarily be considered a full-fledged underdog here, but for a variety of reasons, it might have seemed like "Mufasa" had the edge here. However, that was how things were going now.

Instead, director Jeff Fowler's Sonic 3 triumphed with an estimated $62 million domestic opening, good enough for first place and essentially right in line with industry expectations for the "Sonic" trio heading into the weekend. Meanwhile, Disney's prequel to The Lion King, from Oscar winner Barry Jenkins, didn't fare nearly as well. It earned only $35 million, taking second place on the charts. For context, 2019's The Lion King opened to more than $190 million domestically, before eventually grossing over $1.6 billion worldwide, becoming literally one of the highest-grossing films of all time. Needless to say, we're off to a slow start here.

"Sonic 3" doesn't begin its international release until this week, but "Mufasa" earned $87.2 million overseas, making it the number one movie worldwide this past weekend. Even so, a $122.2 million global opening isn't enough for a film of this size, and Disney will now have to rely on unusually long legs and higher-than-anticipated attendance outside the US from this point forward.

So what went wrong with "Mufasa" here? How could Sonic 3 triumph so easily in what should have been a much closer contest? We'll take a look at the biggest reasons why this high-stakes box office duel went down the way it did. Let's get into it.

It's not like critics are the be-all and end-all of a movie's box office performance. But given that video game movies have been, for so long, generally terrible, here's the thing. In the case of Sonic the Hedgehog 3, Paramount and Fowler managed to cook up another winner, and the criticism only gets stronger as the franchise continues. /The movie B.J.and the audience seems to agree.

Mufasa, on the other hand, found itself in similar territory to 2019's The Lion King. Critics were mixed on the film, while audiences seem to prefer it. But the response from critics and audiences was not resounding enough to motivate families to seek this out. Case in point: "Sonic 3" carries an A CinemaScore, while "Mufasa" earned an A-. Don't get me wrong, it's still very good, but that downside is important when we're talking about a weekend where moviegoers have plenty of options to choose from. It was certainly important here.

Speaking of plentiful options, it looks like Disney suffered pretty badly from the direct competition this past weekend. "Mufasa" was targeting the same potential ticket buyers that were also targeted by "Wicked" ($13.5 million fifth weekend) and even Disney's own "Moana 2" ($13.1 million fourth weekend). Yes, it's true that "Sonic 3" also goes for the same family crowd, but "Moana 2" in particular is literally the same target demographic for the movie "The Lion King". Not that Disney planned it that way; Moving Moana 2 from a Disney+ streaming series to a theatrical movie was a great movebut it's also what might come at Mufasa's expense, at least to some extent.

Another thing to consider is that audiences weren't starved for family fare like they were in the early part of the pandemic era. More recently we've had the likes of Red One and even Lionsgate's spoof hit Best Christmas Match Ever there to fill that void (not to mention Wild Robot and its ridiculously great run). The point is, without rave reviews or super strong word of mouth, "Mufasa" was going to have an uphill battle on such a packed weekend.

On the other hand, Paramount did a downright stellar job keeping the good vibes going with Sonic the Hedgehog 3. Until the third installment didn't quite open as high as Sonic the Hedgehog 2's record ($72 million) in 2022that $62 million keeps the franchise on the right side of the financial line given its budget, which is said to be in the $110 million range. That number suggests that Paramount did its job well, and that job was selling this third Sonic movie to fans. The studio had to make people understand that this wasn't just more of the same. What's the reason you're rushing out to the theaters to see the third Sonic movie in less than five years?

The trailers, in particular, effectively marketed Keanu Reeves' Shadow the Hedgehog as an attractive villain. Even for more casual fans who weren't aware of Shadow from the Sonic video games, the Sonic 3 marketing made him feel important and look cool. It also made it clear that the film would have higher stakes, which was enough to keep the audience interested. And that's easier said than done, as evidenced by what happened to Mufasa. Being part of a franchise doesn't automatically guarantee victory, even if Hollywood sometimes thinks it does.

One thing that needs to be addressed here is the cost of both of these movies. On the one hand, Sonic the Hedgehog 3 was in the $110 million range before marketing. That's a slight increase from the $90 million Paramount spent on the first two Sonic movies, but it's still reasonable for a third-part franchise. Meanwhile, "Mufasa" was significantly more expensive, coming in at around $200 million before the expensive global marketing spend. And yet here we are with the far cheaper film on top.

It's not exactly a David and Goliath story; we're talking about two huge films in equally famous franchises. Disney's 1994 animated original The Lion King was heralded as a box office hit while the character Sonic was a pop culture staple for decades long before he began dominating the big screen. Still, it's telling that a reasonably budgeted film aimed at its core audience wins the day here. Not that the price of the film affects the ticket sales directly, but it does affect the success bar. In this case, Paramount cleared that bar while Disney tripped right over it.

As important as it is, it's hard to quantify, but there's something to be said for making a sequel in a timely manner. 2019 The Lion King was a billion dollar hit and one of the biggest parts of Disney's most profitable year everbehind only "Avengers: Endgame" ($2.79 billion at the global box office). When success happens at that level, a follow-up will always happen. In this case, Disney went with a prequel. Unfortunately, these movies take a long time to make and in 2020, the pandemic shut down Hollywood for months. That, along with last year's SAG and WGA strikes, led to a massive delay on this film.

Did Mufasa hit theaters two years ago, who knows? Maybe the interest would have been there. It might have benefited if it didn't go head-to-head with another long-awaited blockbuster sequel. While not always the case, sequels that are more than a few years away can suffer as audiences move on and/or lose interest. $1.6 billion suggests an awful lot of interest.

On the other hand, Paramount released the first Sonic of 2020 just weeks before the pandemic closed theaters, and it was a huge success. Despite production difficulties, it got "Sonic 2" in theaters by the summer of 2022. Again, even with the strike delays, Sonic 3 followed roughly two and a half years later. The studio made these films like clockwork and built a loyal audience as a result. There is something to be said for that.

There are a lot of great movies to look forward to in 2025but almost none of them come to us in January. Because of that, both Sonic 3 and Mufasa can potentially send him off well into the new year. Who knows? Maybe "Mufasa" will find its audience as the weeks go by. In any case, one has to imagine that the five-year gap was a factor here. How big a factor? It is impossible to measure.

"Sonic the Hedgehog 3" and "Mufasa: The Lion King" are now playing in theaters.