Lilo & Stitch, Final Destination Bloodlines, And Moana 2 All Have Something In Common

Earlier in the year, I was nervous. I was nervous about the continued state of the theatrical experience. The first chunk of 2024 got off to an exceptionally rough start at the box office, and I was sounding some alarms. I wanted nothing more than to be made to look like a fool as the year rolled on, like an alarmist with nothing to truly be worried about. Fortunately, that has largely come to pass, as movies like "A Minecraft Movie," "Sinners," and even the re-release of "Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith" have given the industry reason to be optimistic.

More than anything though, recent weeks have offered up a couple of bigger-than-expected debuts from the likes of Warner Bros.' "Final Destination Bloodlines" and Disney's live-action "Lilo & Stitch" remake. Both movies from beloved franchises, both of which blew past pre-release estimates. "Bloodlines" opened to $51 million, becoming the biggest horror release of the year. It's also already the biggest "Final Destination" movie ever with $190 million and counting to its name.

Meanwhile, "Lilo & Stitch" opened to a staggering $182.6 million across the four-day Memorial Day weekend domestically. The movie will likely touch $400 million by the start of its second weekend, en route to a possible $1 billion global finish. This, despite the fact that it opened alongside "Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning," which also had a big box office debut, with the pair helping to set a new record for the Memorial Day weekend.

So, what do these movies have in common? They were both originally destined for a direct-to-streaming release. Much like Disney's "Moana 2," a movie that made more than $1 billion at the box office in 2024, these movies went from a streaming release to gigantic theatrical hits. Needless to say, there is a major lesson for the industry at large to take note of in light of these recent success stories.

Let's rewind the clock just a bit. In 2019, Netflix was the unquestioned king of the streaming space (they still are), and everyone else in Hollywood was playing catch-up, with Disney+ launching late that year. Then, in early 2020, the pandemic shut down theaters all over the world, leaving the future of the box office on uncertain ground. The one certainty? Streaming was the future.

Understandably, studios went all-in on streaming, but perhaps too much so. Warner Bros. sent its entire 2021 slate to HBO Max the same day those movies hit theaters. That worked for "Godzilla vs. Kong," but that was more of an exception. WB angered lots of talent around Hollywood. Meanwhile, Disney sent several Pixar originals to Disney+, including "Soul" and "Turning Red," which hurt the brand in a big way. Fortunately, "Inside Out 2" proved Pixar still had a lot of power, but there is now a question about originals like "Elio" and whether or not people will turn up.

We could go on examining examples of this thinking at play, but what's clear over the past couple of years is that studios like Disney and Warner Bros. are realizing that sending pricey franchise films directly to streaming services doesn't come with much of an upside. That's why I argued after its release that "Moana 2" should essentially serve as the death of the big direct-to-streaming movie. Amazingly, that was supposed to be a Disney+ series before the studios reversed course.

"Final Destination Bloodlines" and "Lilo & Stitch" have only further fueled this fire. These movies are going to perform better for their respective studios in the long run. It's not just box office dollars that can help theaters keep the lights on. As we've seen time and time again, movies that are hits in theaters are bigger hits on streaming.

"The Batman" did gangbusters numbers on HBO Max after it became a theatrical smash. "The Super Mario Bros. Movie" was a mainstay in Netflix's top 10 for months after its record-shattering box office run. There are near-countless examples of this one can cite, but the point remains.

Even if a movie doesn't perform as well as a studio might have hoped in theaters, it will still perform better in the long run as a theatrical release than a direct-to-streaming release. "Encanto" only did so-so business at the box office before becoming a blockbuster hit on streaming. That probably wouldn't have happened if it were just dumped on Disney+. It's also probably why we got "A Haunting in Venice" even after "Death on the Nile" disappointed in theaters.

A theatrical release brings far more attention to a movie and helps add value down the line on VOD, streaming, etc. That's almost certainly why "Predator: Badlands" is going to theaters this year after "Prey" went directly to Hulu in 2022. It's also why "Alien: Romulus" went to theaters (where it became a big hit) instead of going to Hulu as originally imagined.

Even when it doesn't work perfectly, there's more logic in a theatrical release in most cases. When it does work, though? "Lilo & Stitch" opening to more than $300 million globally against a $100 million budget is the sort of returns any studio would beg for. What good would that $100 million have done had this movie gone directly to Disney+? Is there any chance this movie would have brought nearly as much value to Disney in such a scenario? I kindly doubt it.

I'm certainly not saying no movies should be made for streaming, but those movies should be carefully considered and budgeted accordingly. There's no sense in studios leaving money on the table, particularly when theaters need a steady stream of product. This recent string of would-be streaming releases turned box office smash hits should, ideally, help reshape the immediate future of the industry for the better.

"Lilo & Stitch" and "Final Destination Bloodlines" are in theaters now.