Dissecting the Globes' Box Office Prize

The Golden Globes have always been a tad ridiculous, and honestly, that's been a good chunk of their charm through the years.  This year, and we'll be visiting this in two articles this week, they largely proved that they weren't, in fact, ridiculous.  For example, the Best Musical/Comedy category, which in the 1990's cited films as indisputably comedic (and otherwise outside of what would ever be considered for a Best Picture award at the Oscars) as Honeymoon in Vegas, Mrs. Doubtfire, and Home Alone has now graduated into only black comedies and "this is actually really funny" pictures like Bugonia, One Battle After Another, and Blue Moon.

So in a way, it's kind of refreshing that the Globes now have a category like "Cinematic and Box Office Achievement" because it's such an absurd throwback to the days when the awards were decided by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (and their frequently eyebrow-raising acceptance of bribes from actors & studios).  The category is supposed to be about recognizing "the year's most acclaimed, highest-earning and/or most viewed films" and in order to be nominated, it must have raised at least $100 million (and at least an additional $50 million internationally) and/or have "commensurate digital streaming viewership."  This year, the nominees are Avatar: Fire and Ash, F1, KPop Demon Hunters, Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning, Sinners, Weapons, Wicked; For Good, and Zootopia 2.

This list is mildly ridiculous for multiple reasons.  For starters, one film 100% does not qualify based on the criteria set forth.  There is no doubt that Avatar 3 will hit the financial markers (only an idiot would think otherwise), and is likely to be one of, if not the highest-grossing films at the US domestic box office...but it technically hasn't opened yet.  How on earth are we to know whether or not it deserves a box office prize when we haven't seen its box office yet?  KPop Demon Hunters was surely a global phenomenon, and almost certainly qualifies under the streaming numbers, but given that there isn't an objective body like there is for the box office for streaming numbers, it's worth noting that it didn't achieve these box office numbers-its global box office was a paltry $24 million, hardly a "box office champ."

Looking deeper, all of the other films that premiered hit the touchpoints, but not all of them are considered to be financial successes.  Wicked: For Good, despite a strong debut and limitless buzz, will make $150-200 million less that its predecessor despite a built-in audience, and while it turned a profit, it definitely didn't hit its overall expectations.  Mission Impossible 8 likely didn't even make a profit, as even if its lowest estimated cost (it was made for $3-400 million) barely covers costs against a $600 million gross.  So if you want to get technical, four of these eight films barely cross the line into being considered an undisputed box office champ.

So I was thinking-if you're going to do this, who should have been nominated?  I'll keep the four that feel qualified as I agree-the box office on F1, Weapons, Sinners, and Zootopia 2 by all measures belong on this list (for the record, I suspect Avatar 3 will be universally-considered success, but it's too early to know that for certain).  For the last four remaining ones, I'm going to break the rules a little bit-I think, regardless of gross, the film needs to have been a true, unexpected outperformer at the box office.  A film that, say, made $80 million against a $10 million budget is far more impressive than Wicked 2.

I would add in A Minecraft Movie, a stupid film that made almost $1 billion against a budget of $150 million despite a critical drubbing and in the process surely started a franchise off of just a computer game (a steep hill in today's Hollywood).  I'd also find room for The Conjuring: Late Rites, another movie that critics didn't like but the box office on it was mammoth-it made nearly $500 million on a $55 million budget, and made $100 million more than the most successful film in the franchise (and more than double the last Conjuring movie).

Both of these two films fit the Globes rules (Minecraft, in particular, feels like a pretty foolish skip for the awards body).  For the final two, I'll bend them, but with good reason.  The first film I'd nominate is Dog Man, an extension of the Captain Underpants franchise, and a movie that did surprisingly well despite a January release date (usually a bad time to open a children's film), making $145 million on a $40 million budget, outearning the first Captain Underpants movie, and launching another franchise.  This feels worthy-it's likely that it can make a ton from merchandising on top of a sizable gross, and if they can keep their future budgets in check (the most famous voice actor in the movie is Pete Davidson, who is hardly in a position to, say, demand Chris Pratt in Mario-sized paychecks), it's a good source of income for Universal going forward.  Certainly they're excited-it should be a movie they nominate.

The last nomination is maybe the year's single most impressive achievement at the box office (aside from Sinners): Materialists.  A romantic drama without any source material (i.e. this doesn't come with a Colleen Hoover name attached) to boost its box office and despite solid reviews, not an award campaign in sight, Materialists made a gargantuan $108 million on a $20 million budget.  Coming off of a string of high-profile flops, this was a godsend for Dakota Johnson (and quite frankly Chris Evans) in terms of keeping them in leading roles, and is the type of film that doesn't make $100 million anymore-can you think of another film this year that so unexpectedly crossed the line into $100 million?  And not that it matters, but Materialists is very good-it having "Golden Globe-nominated" wouldn't be the worst thing...particularly since its box office more than deserved it.