‘Maleficent: Mistress of Evil’ was #1 at the box office, yet the film ‘stumbled’

Angelina Jolie and Michelle Pfeiffer attend the Maleficent photocall in Rome, Italy

The first Maleficent movie was released in 2014, and its domestic box office on opening weekend was just shy of $70 million. The film ended up making more than $750 million worldwide in its theatrical run, making it Angelina Jolie’s most successful film of all time. Disney seemed very pleased with the property, and they were always open to making it a franchise, which is how the sequel was greenlighted. Maleficent: Mistress of Evil opened last week and its opening weekend box office was… not the best? It wasn’t amazing.

There was nothing magical about the domestic box office debut of the Angelina Jolie-starrer Maleficent: Mistress of Evil over the weekend. The sequel stumbled to first place with $36 million from 3,790 theaters, well behind expectations and more than 45 percent behind the $69.4 million launch of Maleficent five years ago. It also supplanted Dumbo to mark Disney’s lowest opening of the year so far (excluding Fox titles).

Maleficent 2’s fate will now largely depend upon its performance overseas, where the first film made 68 percent of its total haul. The $185 million sequel bowed to $117 million from 56 material markets for an early worldwide total of $153 million, the third-biggest global start ever for the month of October. China led with $22.4 million, 15 percent ahead of the first film’s start (in a surprise upset, Maleficent 2 beat Gemini Man, which started off with $21 million in China).

“Overall, we are seeing a solid start for the film around the world, although it’s not as strong as we hoped for domestically. But we have a nice run up to Halloween and the audience reaction has been very positive,” says Disney distribution chief Cathleen Taff.

Todd Phillips and Warner Bros.’ Joker continued to frolic in its third weekend, grossing $29.2 million from 4,090 theaters to come in second. Overseas, the pic took in another $77.9 million for a dazzling global cume of $737.5 million, including $490.3 million internationally — the fourth-biggest showing ever for a DC title, not adjusted for inflation.

[From THR]

So the story is that Joker is still making buckets of money, but that Angelina isn’t successful enough even though her film debuted at number one? While I’ll admit that Maleficent could have done better – I didn’t see it this weekend either – I think it’s fine. It’s making tons of money overseas and I bet it will be yet another family film which will be enjoyed over and over again. Personally, I wish Disney had leaned into marketing Maleficent to little girls again, like they did with the first one – at so many events around the first film, Disney was handing out those Maleficent-horns for kids to wear. There wasn’t much of that this time around? I don’t know. Let’s just celebrate the fact that Angelina’s movie debuted at #1, I guess.

Angelina Jolie and Michelle Pfeiffer attend the Maleficent photocall in Rome, Italy

Photos courtesy of Disney and WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

51 Responses to “‘Maleficent: Mistress of Evil’ was #1 at the box office, yet the film ‘stumbled’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Devon says:

    The $185 million sequel is going to be hard to make a profit.

    • crogirl says:

      It already made almost all of that worldwide i

      • Mia4s says:

        No. Once again people need to understand the budget number does not include promotion and advertising. Plus whatever it makes in box office they barely keep half. More like 25% from China. Theatres don’t show movies out of the goodness of their hearts, you have to pay them!

        It’s a weak domestic number. The movie likely won’t lose money (maybe a modest profit). But as a franchise it’s dead. Not everything needs 8 sequels, studios are just terrible at figuring out what works as an ongoing story and what doesn’t. Jolie’s moving on to Eternals. She’s fine. This just was a poorly executed studio idea.

      • Jellybean says:

        I agree with Mia, I estimate it would need a minimum of $600M to make a profit, I would put it at maybe $550M if the bulk if the take was domestic.

      • JulieCarr says:

        That’s not how it works.

        Generally speaking films (especially blockbusters) need to make at least twice their budget to reach break even. Even that’s often not enough. Three times their budget is where it’s usually safe to to call them successful, but for a big Disney film that’s still a pretty weak showing.

        These days if a studio spends almost 200 million on a film (not even mentioning promo costs), they’re looking to make at least 750 million at the box office. This is going to be lucky to make half that. It’s a big disappointment for Disney.

    • Oy vey says:

      I liked the first movie a lot. I’ll see this one with family. It’s a movie my 80 year old mom can see with me and my kids in their 20s and all will enjoy.

  2. Becks1 says:

    I think the marketing stumbled, for sure. I follow a bunch of Disney accounts on IG And twitter so I felt I was seeing so much about this movie, but I dont think I saw a single ad on TV for it, nothing on Facebook, etc.

    That is a big drop from the opening box office for the first movie, so it will be interesting to see how the movie does domestically overall. But it sounds like its raking in the money internationally, so I’m sure Disney will be fine.

  3. Erinn says:

    I mean – if I didn’t read celebitchy, I don’t think I’d have known this movie was out. I don’t go to the theatres often, and ours doesn’t show the ‘now playing’ on a sign like it did when I was growing up. We don’t have cable, so I honestly could have gone on not knowing if it weren’t for the site. I also was surprised that there was a new (animated?) Addam’s Family.

    So part of me isn’t super surprised it didn’t KILL it – even though it’s still number one. I think the expectations of a Disney movie are so high money wise, that anything that isn’t a crazy immediate money maker is kind of side-eyed.

  4. Div says:

    It is kind of weird how some films are seen as “moderate successes” and others as soft. In this case, the budget definitely plays a part as this being seen as a weak opening but still….

  5. Talie says:

    It was a movie that really didn’t need a sequel. But what it did, spawning the villain perspective movies like Emma Stone’s Cruella, was a good thing. But they don’t need to continue every film just because it makes a lot of money.

    • FilmTurtle says:

      If you follow the box office numbers (as I have for years) it’s interesting to see which films are cast as “disappointments” or “stumbles,” and others, which may have even done worse, are given a pass. It’s like a memo goes out to the 2-3 people who do original box office reporting and then everyone just copies them.

      “Maleficent 2” is suffering from its own success; it will make money, just not the bucketloads the studio wants.

  6. CICILY says:

    Just like the comments above have mentioned the marketing of this movie was very poor i think Disney relied on its being Disney for it to be marketed. The Movie premiers for once was not even remarkable. No TV ads and even billboards like the first one so i guess Disney has no one to blame but themselves i think.

  7. Truth hurts says:

    It wasn’t promoted much in the Us. Why? Don’t know, but for the critics hammering it saying it wasn’t good and it wasn’t for kids, it did very well. They want her and Disney to fail. Lol.The sad part is the CinemaScore 10. People who gibwatcgt
    Angie did no press in the US. Nothing! but People mag. That number that is being tossed around for the budget is probably wrong. What did they promote? These studios are competing with each other and lobbying now. It’s hysterical. Maleficent 2 was the third highest grossing film internationally in Oct.yet it’s a flop? GMAFB! They are salty mainly because Angie flipped off the US media off so bad it hurt! Good for her.

    • Emilia says:

      The budget is probably accurate given how cgi heavy the film is and how they have two mega A-listers, who can command large upfront fees, headlining the movie.

  8. Cindy says:

    I completely forgot this movie was coming out so soon. I thought it was supposed to come out around the holidays.

  9. Sierra says:

    The first one released over bank holiday so a 4 day opening weekend.

    Globally this movie has earned 150 millions already in 3 days. This movie has a pretty high audience score of CinemaScore A- and RottenTomatoes of 96%.

    Word of mouth will make this a success movie.

    But yes, a female oriented movie beat a male oriented movie at the box office. Let’s celebrate 🎉

    • Ferdinand says:

      It has 40 something percent over Rotten Tomatoes with critics. Audiences seem to like it so maybe word to mouth works is what helps this movie at the end.

  10. Valiantly Varnished says:

    The film has already made $153 mil worldwide. It’s doing fine. I saw it this weekend akd it was fantastic. I liked it better than the first one. Michelle Pfeiffer is SO evil in it. I hated her lol.

    • Guest says:

      I saw it on Friday. Thought the same – better than the first. Michelle was fantastic as evil queen.

    • Truth hurts says:

      It will will do fine. If it does 400 500 million total that’s good for a sequel to a sub par first movie. And they can thank Angelinas star power for that period!

  11. Adrien says:

    This is Disney’s lowest opening. Maybe it’s the dark tone that scares the children. They should be taking Joker’s audience by now since it is now on the wane on its 3rd/4th week and it is R-rated.

  12. crogirl says:

    So it was the third biggest October opening ever.
    If it were anyone else’s movie the headlines would say it was super successful.

    • Valiantly Varnished says:

      Yup. But the goal post is always moved for female-driven films.

      • DiegoInSF says:

        There’s obviously a bias against women led films but to be fair, when (Female director and writer and 90%POC female cast) Hustlers shattered all expectations, the mainstream media reported on its success. It just crossed the $100 million mark. I love Angie and I will go see this one because I loved it but actually I didn’t see a single ad anywhere?

    • JulieCarr says:

      It opened with half what the first film did, on the same massive budget. There’s no way to spin that as a success story.

  13. Lili says:

    I saw it and it is much better than the first one.

  14. Truth hurts says:

    It was great and they are trying to kill it and it’s not a failure but because its Angelina people want it to fail especially in the US and it didn’t! Lol Disney didn’t make a mistake with the marketing! They know what they are doing! Little to no press in the US. Month interview 1/2 magazine interviews from its biggest star. That’s suspect and I said it two weeks ago. They hated and dragged the first one now they do it again. What’s new.
    Will they do the same to Marvels Eternals! We shall see?

    • skeptical says:

      “They” are trying to kill it? Who’s they? No one spends this kind of money to make someone fail. Maybe those divorce stories didn’t make any appeal to children?

      • Truth hurts says:

        They would be critics. They have collectively tried to kill all Disney this year. Have you seen the critics reviews for most this year? Rotten Disney. Seriously. Lion King was gonna make money anyway. So was Aladdin and even Dumbo because they weren’t sequels.

      • skeptical says:

        Nah, they’re part of the movie machine. I think you just have to consider that Disney is making some crap movies and that some of them simply don’t have mass appeal.

      • Truth hurts says:

        If they didn’t have mass appeal each one that I mentioned made 1 billion him! If that’s not mass appeal I don’t know what is💯

  15. Lwt00 says:

    I saw this promoted HEAVILY on social media and Hulu. It just looked like such a thin story. The first film was enjoyable and novel – this just feels like a cash grab and since the numbers show it won’t be the same hit as its predecessor, we won’t get a third. Fine with me, honestly.

    • lucy2 says:

      I saw a lot of ads for it online, but few elsewhere. Though I haven’t watched much tv lately.

      I think it will probably end up slightly profitable for them, especially with all the tie-ins, and DVD sales around the holidays I assume, but I don’t think it will be as financially successful as the first. They were probably counting on $200 million from the US, and I don’t think it will quite get there. Weaker reviews, weaker opening, though the audience scores were good.

  16. Grant says:

    I wanted this to succeed mostly because of Michelle Pfeiffer, who I always find transcendent on screen. I can take Angelina or leave her. She’s beautiful but I think she’s a pretty one-note actress.

  17. Bonita says:

    I don’t think it’s a matter of who is starring, male vs female etc.
    3 weeks ago Variety was estimating a 50 million box offfice opening. Both the first and second films had a budget of 180 million. I don’t think anyone expects the sequel to do as well as the first (they never do), but it appears that they were expecting it to open better than it did.

    I haven’t seen it (and almost certainly won’t, it’s not really my kind of film), but I understand the plot is essentially about a war and there are scenes of cute little animals being killed. If that’s the case, it might have deterred parents taking younger kids to see it.

    • JulieCarr says:

      This. The far out estimates had it opening on par with the first film and the budget suggests that’s what Disney was aiming for. Closer estimates were down to 50 million, and dropping daily. Even with that it was expected to reach 40 million, so it still ended up with less than expected.

      It’s a not a disastrous flop, but it’s a big disappointment whatever way you want to look at it.

    • petee says:

      I saw the first one when it came out.There was a bunch of kids running around and I kept thinking this isn’t a movie for children even though it was made by Disney.This one look’s little darker and more action packed.I have heard good reviews and think it will be a word of mouth film.I like Angelina.I always did but I think because of her break up with Brad Pitt hurt her public image and people dont look at her the same way.I know I will get slammed for saying it but it is sad but true.

      • Bonita says:

        @petee: To be fair, her image radically changed after she and Pitt got together as well. She was pretty much a goth, wears a vial of blood, has a stripper pole in her kitchen, has sex in the limo coming to an award show (and tells the press) brother snogger up until then. The outrageous don’t GAF girl that half the time made you cringe and the other half, wish you didn’t GAF with as much brio as she did.

        I KNOW I’m going to get hammered for saying this, but Mr. White Bread Pitt served in a way as a shield of respectability which allowed her to reinvent herself.

      • Truth hurts says:

        And all that you said they still watched her action roles. The way she was dragged for getting with perfect Pitt didn’t clean anything she had already gotten a little subdued. The public has always had their opinion about her and it didn’t hurt her film career. That film made 117 million foreign in a weekend yet people don’t like her? Even the critics in HW wanted her in the film more and said it hurt it. So what hurt Pitts movie numbers of Ad Adstra and in fact Once upon because two gigantic stars and Tarantino should be far more imho?

      • Bonita says:

        @truth hurts
        I think the audience for action films tends to be, for the most part, men under 25 or 30. I don’t think her image back then would have been an issue for that demographic. The audience for family films is vastly different. Apples and oranges really.

  18. jammypants says:

    Saw it this weekend. Really liked it, as much as the first one. In a way, I like it more?

  19. No Doubt says:

    I didn’t think the first one was all that amazing so I’m not surprised. It’s a sequel that wasn’t necessary.

  20. skeptical says:

    It’ll do fine. This kind of movie has a long retail cycle.

    I do wonder if a sequel was necessary. Even the animated version was more of an acquired taste and less of a favourite. And the “marketing” I saw seemed heavy on post divorce strum interviews and light on kid friendly confection.

  21. serena says:

    I think it’s quite normal for sequels though and it still is a great success, so..

  22. Trish-a says:

    How do they do those cheek bones? I know they can do a lot but they seem seamless.
    I’m going to see it. Love the first one. Magical. Anything that puts me in a dream world for 2 hours. I’m in.

  23. Lory says:

    I saw it this weekend with low expectations (it IS a sequel) and enjoyed it a lot.
    I wonder if Disney doesn’t mind taking the hit because the will definitely get their money back with Jolie cast in The Eternals. I also wonder if she pushed for the sequel and they agreed, knowing it would give them leverage for locking her down into a multi-movie contract.

  24. Oy vey says:

    I gotta say…I really hate Jolie’s top (yeech!) But she and Pfeiffer look so absolutely adorable in this pic together!