Box Office: Why 'Wrinkle In Time' Disappointed With $33M Debut Weekend

Walt Disney’s A Wrinkle in Time was the top newbie of the weekend, even if it placed second during Black Panther‘s fourth weekend. But rank is less important than raw grosses, and the film’s $33.3 million Fri-Sun frame has to be classified as a disappointment. If it’s lucky, it’ll leg it out like the other March Disney biggies (Alice in Wonderland, Oz: The Great and Powerful, etc.) and make it to $97m domestic. If it’s not lucky, it’ll flameout like Where the Wild Things Are which snagged a $32m debut weekend but then ended with just $77m domestic in late 2009. But with a B CinemaScore, a 3.2x multiplier (not great for a leggy kid flick) and mediocre reviews, well, let’s hope for the best…

The Ava DuVernay-directed fantasy cost $103 million to produce, and it was the second time that a female director of color had such a large budget at her disposal, following Jennifer Yuh Nelson’s Kung Fu Panda 2 in 2011. And DuVernay filled the screen with the sort of actors and actresses (Storm Reid, Deric McCabe, Mindy Kaling, Oprah Winfrey, etc.) who don’t usually get to headline a big-scale studio blockbuster. The unfortunate irony is that it was hampered by the unexpected post-debut strength of Walt Disney’s Black Panther, another big Disney flick helmed by a black filmmaker and filled with a majority-minority cast.

data-param-cid="62cec241-7d09-4462-afc2-f72f8d8ef40a"
data-player-id="44f947fb-a5ce-41f1-a4fc-78dcf31c262a"
data-playlist-id=4ed6c4ff-975c-4cd3-bd91-c35d2ff54d17
data-elements-player="true"
layout="responsive"
width="16"
height="9"
>

While they weren’t necessarily in competition with each other, this is another example of Walt Disney arguably opening their big movies too closely together. That’s partially why they shifted Avengers: Infinity War to April 27, giving it three weeks before Solo instead of just two. But save for maybe moving Wrinkle to its initial April 6 date, there wasn’t much to be done in this case. Much of the conversation around the film’s performance will concern the film as a proverbial test-case for a big-budget fantasy flick starring women of varying races. However, the extent to which it’s a disappointment may be more complicated than folks (again) not putting their money where their mouth is.

First, the reviews were mixed-negative, and while that may not have scared off the kid audiences (especially demographics wanting to see a big-screen hero who looked like them), it didn’t help with the sort of adults who now routinely flock to would-be tentpoles alongside the family audiences. Second, this wasn’t a conventional action-packed thrill ride, but something closer in spirit to Tomorrowland. Speaking of which, we should note that Brad Bird’s original fantasy flick cost $190m in 2015. Third, as much as we like to talk about Walt Disney as if they are this invincible blockbuster machine, they have struggled to create new franchises as much as anyone.

Sure, they kick butt when it comes to Marvel, Lucasfilm, their animated output and the “live-action adaptation of an animated classic” sub-genre, but otherwise, they have struggled. Their attempts to recreate the success of Pirates of the Caribbean led to whiffs like Prince of Persia, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, John Carter and The Lone Ranger. Non-IP like Finest Hours and Queen Of Katwe stumbled in 2016. When you discuss big-budget, live-action would-be franchises, they haven’t had a huge non-sequel hit not based on one of their animated flicks since National Treasure in 2004.

Now that’s not entirely fair, as they have focused on their acquisitions, their animated output and live-action fairy tale flicks to such an extent that they don’t need to release somewhat untested properties, and we can debate whether Into the Woods ($200 million+ on a $50m budget in late 2014) counts as a live-action fairy tale. But it does put the potential failure of A Wrinkle in Time in the same relative box as Valerian, Tomorrowland and Jupiter Ascending as an untested fantasy that couldn’t get folks into the theaters partially because they just don’t go to the theaters as much as they used to.

Not even Disney is immune to the challenges posed by Netflix and the at-home marketplace. And it’s no coincidence that the likes of Magic Camp and Noelle may end up premiering not in theaters but on Disney’s streaming service alongside the Star Wars TV shows and the High School Musical episodic. So, relatively speaking, A Wrinkle in Time is in the same relative boat as John Carter and Tomorrowland, as it’s a risky swing from a studio that can afford a foul ball or outright strike-out.

And if they are going to take such risks, it’s better that they do it with the kind of talent who normally do not get their turns at bat due to systemic bias and conventional wisdom. Progress won’t necessarily be if Ava DuVernay’s A Wrinkle in Time legs it out to be a big hit and then she gets another big movie (if she wants one). It’ll be if the film crumbles and she still gets the kind of second chance that saw Guy Ritchie directing Aladdin right as King Arthur was crashing and burning.

Or maybe A Wrinkle in Time will leg it out thanks to its uniqueness and its demographically-specific “event movie” status and will catch on overseas and the initial mediocre reviews and disappointing opening weekend will be mere trivia. We’ll see. But Disney can afford to take the miss and they deserve at least some credit for taking the swing.