Why So Many Summer 2019 "Blockbusters" Are Flopping

It wasn't supposed to be this way. After Avengers: Endgame opened to what was once an inconceivable worldwide opening weekend on April 26 (yes, spring is now the start of the summer movie season), it looked like summer 2019 would be one for the ages. It has been, but not in the way Hollywood wanted or anticipated. The season has proceeded not with a bang, but with a whimper. 

Even accounting for Endgame, this summer is down from 2018 by a depressing 6%. Worldwide grosses, including China (once the saving grace for so-so franchises), are down too. Going into this year, there were some movies that were obviously going to flop, but the bloodbath at the box office has caught much of the industry by surprise. True, no studio makes a movie expecting it to tank, but weekend after weekend has seen one franchise picture after another underperform at best, and flat out fail at worst. What gives? 

In an industry that bases revenue on butts in seats, this is no casual matter. Audiences deciding to stay at home and not to go to the movies during one of the industry's busiest seasons is a major cause for concern. The question is: why? There are many reasons. While these reasons don't apply to every movie that has flopped this summer (there are always caveats), there are some overarching trends we see repeated across the board. Here's why so many summer 2019 "blockbusters" are flopping at the box office.

We said Avengers: Endgame was one the few movies that people went to go see in May, but it most certainly was not the only pop culture milestone people watched. Arguably just as big a "finale" as Avengers: Endgame was the series finale of Game of Thrones. Don't let the fan backlash dissuade you: Game of Thrones' finale was one of the biggest events in all of pop culture, with viewership figures that won't be repeated anytime soon. Sure, critics were underwhelmed and fans were disappointed (though we doubt HBO will reshoot S8 over a fan petition), the fact that millions of people were complaining about Game of Thrones meant that millions of people were watching it. Yes, hate-watching is still watching. 

In fact, the finale episode of the show, "The Iron Throne," got 19.3 million viewers, which doesn't even include all of the people who watched the finale in Super Bowl-party style groups or hacked other accounts. Not bad for a show that was based on a niche novel series for sci-fi and fantasy fans. It's no surprise, then, if many people weren't going to the movies because they were too busy watching Game of Thrones. There are only so many free hours in the week, and sometimes it's better to spend them watching a show you love (or did once) than spending $10+ to see a new movie you're unsure about.

While famous faces don't matter as much in special-effects extravaganzas, star power definitely can make a difference in certain films. Tom Cruise wasn't a draw in the cataclysmic turkey The Mummy, but he is a draw in Mission: Impossible. Will Smith has had a lackluster run lately, but he was a draw in Aladdin (one of the season's lone bright spots), and his absence was felt in MIB: International. Chris Hemsworth is a draw as Thor; not so much on his own. Dark Phoenix starred popular actors James McAvoy and Jennifer Lawrence, but lacked the face of the franchise, Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. And while Keanu Reeves went years without a hit after The Matrix, he's struck gold as John Wick.

In short, franchise success is less about star power ("I'm going to see X-Men because of Hugh Jackman"), and more about stars playing their signature characters ("I'm going to see X-Men because of Hugh Jackman as Wolverine"). Removing beloved characters from a pre-existing franchise and shoving new performers in, no matter how talented they are (MIB: International; Dark Phoenix) can be a hard sell. True, there are exceptions. Jurassic World re-launched the franchise with none of the original characters (though having mega-star Chris Pratt helped). But there are way more examples like Ghostbusters (2016), which featured none of the original characters and failed, which is why Sony is going back to the well once more with the original cast in Ghostbusters (2020).

If a movie makes money, Hollywood is going to make a sequel. Hot take, right? And it can get awkward (just look at these cringeworthy sequel ideas). But it isn't always a purely craven money grab. It's Economics 101: if audiences like the first movie, they probably want to see a sequel. When your customer demands something, you supply it. So was anybody demanding 2019's summer sequels? 

Thanks to buzz-worthy marketing, 2014's Godzilla opened to $93 million, but after mediocre audience response it closed at $200 million, the lowest gross for a movie opening over $90 million. MIB III also opened high, but had the lowest gross in its franchise (before MIB: International, of course). X-Men: Apocalypse received bad reviews and earned much less than its predecessor, X-Men: Days of Future Past. So if sequels are simply the studios responding to audience demand, it appears the audience wasn't demanding sequels to many of these movies. 

However, even sequels to films that audiences loved have underwhelmed (Toy Story 4 and The Secret Life of Pets 2). What gives? Back to marketing. The Secret Life of Pets 2 felt like a "been there, done that" retread offering the audience nothing new, while the Toy Story franchise ended perfectly with Toy Story 3, making Toy Story 4 ("this is the end guys, for real") seem like a cynical cash-grab.

Try to consider summer 2019 through the eyes of someone who isn't an avid filmgoer, or a fan of the respective franchises on offer. Some of these storylines are pretty confusing, really. Dark Phoenix is a sequel to the original X-Men that debuted in 2000, but is also quasi-prequel/reboot, and also kind of a remake of X-Men: The Last Stand. It's also the same franchise as Deadpool. Oh, and it's a Marvel movie, but not part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe... what?!?! 

Then there's Godzilla: King of the Monsters. It's a sequel to the Godzilla movie that came out in 2014 (remember that one?), but with only two returning human characters, because the characters in the first one were just that forgettable (except for Bryan Cranston, who died in the first half hour anyway). Oh, the human characters in this new one are forgettable too. Or Men In Black: International. It's a sequel, but with none of the original cast members you loved, so while it exists in the same universe, it's really a reboot. 

Now imagine you don't read about movies, haven't seen every film in these respective franchises, and have only watched the trailers. You'd be confused too. Heck, for some of us, keeping up with these things is literally our job and it can still sometimes be a struggle. Compare this to Aladdin's positioning: Disney is remaking its classic films in live action and Aladdin is next. Simple. Got it. Or John Wick: Chapter 3. It's John Wick... number three. Did you see the first two? Then you're set. Don't remember them all that well? That's not much of a problem, because the story's pretty straightforward. 

One of 2019's movie morals: confuse your audience and they'll keep their cash.

"I'll just wait for the Blu-ray/DVD/On-Demand/Netflix/home viewing service" is a common refrain. Moviegoers are becoming movie-stay-at-homers, particularly since streaming options have made it so you don't even have to leave the house to rent a new release. With increasingly advanced home theater systems, it's easier than ever to replicate the plusses of the theater (sound, resolution, screen size), with none of the minuses (cost, noise, other people's smells). 

For avid movie theater goers, the feeling of being in the movie theater simply cannot be replicated anywhere else. Clearly, a lot of movie watchers don't feel the same way. Where some see a communal atmosphere in which strangers come together to share an experience, many others simply see a noisy, dirty, time-consuming task that costs a lot of money and runs the risk of not being worth it. Your comfy couch may not offer any surprises, but it rarely offers any disappointment either. 

If you watch a movie in the theater, you're out the movie's two-hour runtime, the extra 30 minutes it takes to get there, the $10+ per person for the tickets, and potentially the cost of babysitters and snacks as well. It's a lot. Conversely, if you watch a movie at home, you're only out the time it takes to watch the movie, and maybe a couple dollars to rent it. Sure, you'll see the movie later than everyone else, but only by a few months, and if it's not an event picture (i.e. Avengers: Endgame), no big deal. If you're not that interested in a movie, and it's getting bad reviews? Just wait.

"Franchise fatigue" has been overstated. If people want to see a sequel, they will, but it has to promise something new and deliver. Most of summer 2019's films feel like tired repeats of pre-existing formulas. Blame the IP culture, where every movie has to be based on a pre-existing property. Alas, sometimes the IP is just not that compelling to general audiences. For every Mission: Impossible, there's a S.W.A.T. or The A-Team. Summer 2019 has just had the misfortune of having a lot of IPs that don't much interest audiences who are clearly clamoring for fresher material. 

Take one of summer 2019's hits, John Wick: Chapter 3. Yes, it's a sequel, but the series is about an original cinematic character, not a pre-existing property. That's shockingly rare these days. Or Us, one of the year's other biggest hits, a completely original story from a popular horror director. We can also look at the small screen, with shows like Stranger Things and Ozark dominating the pop culture conversation. 

There's no one reason why summer 2019 has failed to deliver the expected results. But if we're looking for a thread that ties all of the flops and under-performers together, it may be this: with so much content there out to consume, audiences don't have time to waste watching something they feel like they've seen before. Whether it's a sequel or an original film, audiences are clamoring for something new. Summer 2019 just hasn't delivered. One thing's for certain: it will be interesting to see what lessons Hollywood learns from this season, and how it applies those lessons to future summers.