One Battle After Another Is Still A Box Office Bomb - But It's Also A Beacon Of Light In The Darkness

It's been a rough stretch at the box office, particularly for movies aimed at adults. It's not that the fall season has been devoid of hits, with anime like "Chainsaw Man – The Movie: Reze Arc" finding success, as well as horror fare such as "Black Phone 2." But original movies, awards season hopefuls, and movies generally made for grown-ups have suffered defeat time after time. While "One Battle After Another" will still go down as a bomb theatrically, it's also, at the same time, offering up a bit of light amidst the darkness.

Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson ("There Will Be Blood") and hailing from Warner Bros., "One Battle After Another" opened to $48 million globally in late September. It arrived with some of the best reviews for any movie this year, serving as a major Oscar hopeful. The only problem? An outsized budget in the $140 million range, with some reports suggesting that figure is as high as $70 million. With $180 million globally to its name thus far, the movie is going to lose money. Period.

But virtually no other non-horror, non-franchise movie this year made with adults in mind has made nearly that much money. Clearly, there is an audience for such movies under the right circumstances. Over/under $200 million worldwide, with a likely big showing during awards season, is nothing to sneeze it. Had this movie not fallen victim to Hollywood's ongoing budget problem, it would be a resounding success.

The movie is loosely based on the novel "Vineland" by Thomas Pynchon. It centers on a washed-up revolutionary named Bob (Leonardo DiCarpio) who is paranoid and living off the grid with his daughter, Willa (Chase Infiniti). When his nemesis (Sean Penn) resurfaces after 16 years, Willa goes missing, leaving Bob scrambling to find her.

While it's true "One Battle After Another" is Anderson's biggest grosser ever (by a considerable margin), it also has to make around $300 million globally to have a shot at breaking even — likely more, based on any logical calculation of box office math. But compared to the rest of the pack of prestige movies made with a similar audience in mind, the contrast in actually getting butts in seats is staggering.

Take Benny Safdie's "The Smashing Machine," starring Dwayne Johnson. Despite good reviews and legitimate Oscar buzz for one of the world's biggest stars, it tanked on opening weekend with just $6 million against a $50 million budget. It has made just $20 million globally to date. A24 is going to take a bath on it. Similarly, Disney recently released "Springsteen: Deliver Me From Nowhere," a Bruce Springsteen biopic that was hoping to pull an "Elvis" ($287 million worldwide) or a "Bob Marley: One Love" ($181 million worldwide). Instead, it opened to just $8.8 million against a $50 million budget, facing a very steep uphill battle to profitability.

There are tons of other recent examples, such as "Caught Stealing" ($32 million worldwide/$65 million budget), "A Big Bold Beautiful Journey" ($21 million worldwide/$45 million budget), or even Daniel Day-Lewis' big return to acting with "Anemone," which bombed with just $1.1 million to date against a $14 million budget. There's also "After the Hunt" ($6 million worldwide/$70 million budget), which is thus far a disaster for Amazon MGM.

Sad to say, the misses far outweigh the hits in this department. None of these movies or others like "Kiss of the Spider Woman" ($1.6 million worldwide/$30 million budget) or even "Roofman" ($25 million worldwide/$19 million budget) got close to the $100 million mark.

Many of these movies were responsibly budgeted. Margot Robbie was coming off of "Barbie" with "A Big Bold Beautiful Journey," yet it flopped, even when paired with Colin Farrell. The Rock trying to branch out into doing something serious with an acclaimed director on a mid-budget film feels like it deserved better than it got. Still, the numbers don't lie.

Many of these movies were met with a mixed-to-negative response, a death sentence for anything that doesn't have a built-in audience these days. It's still remarkably hard to get people to turn up for anything that isn't an "event" movie. (That's why Warner Bros. is going to lose $75 million or more on "Mickey 17.") Big bets on non-franchise fare are riskier than they've ever been.

In some ways, it feels like a miracle that "One Battle After Another" is going to make $200 million or more by the end of its run. Had WB been able to make it for even $100 million (preferably less), we would be singing a different tune. But Hollywood needs to find a way to be cost effective while also offering up something worth seeing in the eyes of the general public. PTA and DiCaprio got close, they just over-spent.

WB is on a tear at the box office this year with "Sinners," "Superman," "Weapons," etc. hitting it out of the park. Some would argue the studio can afford the loss. Maybe so. But it's a situation where two things are true at once. A lot of people are going to see a critically-heralded masterwork made for adults, but that movie was also way too damn expensive. That part can't be ignored.

"One Battle After Another" is in theaters now.