Paramount and Spyglass’ Scream debuted on VOD this past weekend, immediately vaulting to the top (or near the top) of the charts on all relevant VOD platforms. Vudu lists it as the top title over the weekend, but as of now it’s second to Sing 2 on Vudu, Google and iTunes. It’s tops on YouTube but third on Amazon behind Sing 2 and Blacklight, which is arguably about the Liam Neeson actioner playing better to the deluge of Amazon subscribers who spent all of summer 2020 devouring episodes (and entire seasons) of Paramount’s Yellowstone. Regardless, Scream arrives on VOD (priced to rent for $5 and buy for $20) after successfully rejuvenating a seemingly dead franchise. Scream has thus far earned $80 million domestic and $138 million worldwide on a $24 million budget.
That’s, in terms of “rate of return,” more profitable than Scream 4 ($38 million domestic and $98 million worldwide on a $40 million budget) in 2011 and Scream 3 ($89 million/$161 million/$40 million in 2000. The film earned around 80% domestic/worldwide of what Scream ($103 million/$173 million/$15 million in 1996) and Scream 2 ($102 million/$172 million/$24 million) grossed in their initial runs. Yes, rising ticket prices complicate the comparison (Scream and Scream 2 would both be over $200 million domestic when adjusted for inflation), but a hit is a hit is a hit. Thanks to just being a better, more disciplined movie than the last two sequels, as well as capitalizing on now-hip legacy sequels while taking earned shots at toxic fandom, Scream pulled of the trick of playing to the fans while being of-the-moment relevant.
Moreover, it pulled this off amid a pandemic with a shorter theatrical window. The film arrived at home closer to 45 days than 90 days. Yet, like Paramount’s A Quiet Place part II (which still earned $161 million, or 86% of A Quiet Place’s $188 million cume) and Sony’s Venom: Let There Be Carnage (which topped its predecessor with $214 million domestic), it would seem that the 45-day window brings about the same result, at least for now, as a 90 day window. That’s encouraging news for The Batman and upcoming “new normal” theatrical releases like Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, Morbius and Sonic the Hedgehog 2. The question is whether it’s about consumer preference or consumer ignorance, and whether a push for streaming gains will cause more emphasis to be placed upon post-theatrical distribution.
I mean, that’s arguably what’s happening at Disney (save for the Marvel movies) with Encanto and the straight-to-Disney+ Pixar flicks (Soul, Luca and Turning Red). Disney, at least at the top of the food chain, treated Encanto as a “wait for streaming” title, and they didn’t even bother giving the last three Pixar films a domestic theatrical release. I get the desire to use Pixar’s prestige as a lure for streaming subscribers, but I’d argue Sing 2 is evidence that Disney could have had its cake and eaten it too. The Illumination toon, which debuted on PVOD on day 17 of its theatrical release, has been at or near the top of the VOD charts for the last two months. It has also earned $155 million domestic and $360 million worldwide on an $80 million budget.
I’m not even comparing Encanto to Spider-Man: Way Home. However, I don’t think I’m being out of line to suggest that if Sing 2, which was enjoyable and engrossing but not exactly a new classic of the form, could earn almost as much as Secret Life of Pets 2 ($160 million/$430 million in 2019), then Encanto, which earned rave reviews and white-hot buzz (along with a Billboard-topping soundtrack), might have earned twice its eventual $225 million global gross. Either Disney undersold (or underestimated) the film’s theatrical potential, or we’re now in a scenario where Universal can sell a big(ish) budget animated theatrical better than Walt Disney. If that’s where we are... and Disney theatrical really is all about/dependent upon Marvel, Star Wars and IP-specific toons (like Lightyear), well, even a streaming service cannot survive/thrive on two brands alone.
As popular as Luca, Encanto and (presumably) Turning Red is/will be on Disney+, right now the allure is that they were initially theatrically-specific animated fantasies, with all the money, production value and artistic ambition associated with that designation. Fair or not, that’s still what separates Mulan from Lady and the Tramp. Would viewership be as high for Encanto if it were announced from the get-go as a Disney+ original feature? Or would it be about as popular as the last Ice Age movie? A huge reason that Turning Red is a big deal is because it was supposed to be in theaters. Once you lose that “forbidden fruit” aspect, well, I don’t know what happens. However, I genuinely believe that Disney could have had its cake and eaten it too.
They could have treated Encanto like a real-deal theatrical release, including a 60-90 day window with a priority on making real money from theatrical and a downplaying of the eventual at-home availability. I have little doubt that no matter how it played theatrically, whether closer to Wreck It Ralph ($490 million) or Moana ($648 million), it would still have debuted on Disney+ to huge viewership and buzzy online chatter just a little bit later. I’d argue Sing 2 and its “pretty much as expected” global grosses is evidence, right alongside Scream, A Quiet Place part II, Venom: Let There Be Carnage and The Batman, that streaming and theatrical can coexist. That is, if they are allowed to. Anyway, Turning Red is terrific, another homerun from a studio that’s almost made it look too easy.
