Tom Cruise Really Did Save Movie Theaters

Paramount has announced that Skydance’s Top Gun: Maverick will debut on PVOD and EST (priced to buy) on August 23, a week from today. That gives it the standard 90-day theatrical window, although the film’s DVD, Blu-ray and 4k HD release aren’t until November 1. That’s 22 weeks after its May 27 opening day. That’s on par with Batman back in 1989, which opened theatrically on June 23 and arrived on priced-to-buy VHS on November 18. That was considered early, as was Alice in Wonderland dropping on DVD after 88 days in 2010. The massive gap between the PVOD date and the DVD date offers lessons learned concerning theatrical windows. Moreover, Tom Cruise’s blockbuster made the difference between a decent summer and a movie-starved box office disaster.

PVOD is not cannibalizing theatrical revenues.

First, if Paramount thought the PVOD window would cannibalize the film’s still strong ($7 million in its 11th Fri-Sun frame with a halfway decent shot at topping the box office this weekend or next) theatrical box office take, they wouldn’t be dropping it on digital next week. As we’ve seen at least since A Quiet Place part II in the summer of 2021, a hit theatrical movie doesn’t automatically drop dead when it arrives on PVOD aft 45 days, let alone 90 days. The streaming debut is a different story, especially if more services (not just Netflix and the brand-specific Disney+) become more commonly used by general audiences, which is why Elvis debuted last week on PVOD but not (yet) on HBO Max.

Tom Cruise famously wanted a 120-day theatrical window for the long-delayed legacy sequel. Its jaw-dropping domestic (it’ll pass Avengers: Infinity War’s $679 million cume in a matter of days) and global (it should be just over $1.38 billion worldwide) box office means he had a bargaining chip. Even after opening weekend, I argued, just offhand, that Cruise might be inclined to agree to a ‘mere’ 90-day window with the caveat that the last two Mission: Impossible movies also get 90-day windows. Regardless, the film arriving on PVOD and EST after 90 days but on physical media (and streaming?) after 5.5 months is a sign that Cruise presumably saw the numbers arguing that PVOD is a concurrent revenue stream that doesn’t leach off theatrical potential.

Spider-Man: No Way Home earned $804 million domestic and $1.91 billion worldwide and still shattered EST (‘electronic sell-through’) records following an 88-day window. The Batman pulled such strong HBO Max viewership despite or because of its $370 million domestic grosses that Discovery’s David Zaslov proclaimed that Warner Bros. would again emphasize theatrical revenue over streaming gains. With Sony’s normal-sized windows and first-window TV pay deal with Netflix, Universal’s copious theatrical releases and concurrent PVOD revenue, and Paramount’s apparent Maverick profits, Disney is (thus far) the only major studio still arguably prioritizing streaming. Although, 38 days since opening, we have yet to hear a word about a Disney+ premiere date for Thor: Love and Thunder. Maybe they are giving Marvel and Lucasfilm releases some breathing room.

Paramount is gunning for the Oscars.

I’m guessing November 1 is also the Paramount+ debut for the Tom Cruise-led actioner. Offering the physical media release in early November means the film’s physical media debut coincides with A) holiday shopping for stocking stuffers (it could be the biggest selling DVD in a decade or so) and B) the awards season screeners being mailed out to participating awards voters. It also keeps the film in the conversation amid the Oscar season releases, meaning that Paramount correctly thinks that its once-in-a-generation blockbuster can score a Best Picture nod and (less likely but plausible) a Best Actor nomination for Tom Cruise. I’d rather he win for that than for some “old guy rekindles his spark via a platonic relationship with a 22-year-old muse” prestige picture.

Top Gun: Maverick has a better shot at a Best Picture nomination than Spider-Man: No Way Home, Star Wars: The Force Awakens or even The Dark Knight partially because the film qualifies as aspirational. When Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings opened 20 years ago, they were seen as unprecedented artistic and commercial triumphs for unprecedented fantasy-adventure cinema. By the time Harry Potter 7.2 opened in the summer of 2011, there had been enough of a turn toward IP-centric action-fantasy franchises that such a relative commercial ($1.342 billion) and artistic triumph was seen as par for the course. Likewise, the success of Guardians of the Galaxy (rave reviews, long legs and $773 million global) meant little more than Hollywood continuing to case the MCU.

The smaller, star-driven, adult-skewing studio programmers felt comparatively aspirational. You can make a case for aspirational representation helping push Black Panther over the goal line, although rave reviews, white-hot buzz and $700 million domestic didn’t hurt. I’m guessing Wonder Woman probably just barely missed the cut in 2018. However, the notion of Spider-Man: No Way Home getting in never felt plausible. Its box office success didn’t help anything else in the marketplace. Its biggest triumph was contract negotiation which saw three generations of Spider-Man heroes and villains interacting. Paramount will argue that the artistic (mostly rave reviews and an A+ from Cinemascore) and commercial (including James Cameron-style legs) success was aspirational. It’s a star-driven, real-world, adult-skewing Hollywood blockbuster that scored with adult-skewing and irregular moviegoers.

Top Gun: Maverick really did save movie theaters this summer.

The film is a metaphor for how Hollywood so egregiously failed to create a new generation of Tom Cruise-level movie stars that Cruise had to get off the bench and save the industry. That subtext resonated in the summer of 2022, when it seemed like theaters might only be safe for Marvel/DC movies and high-end horror flicks. While the film is a nostalgia-tinged, IP cash-in legacy sequel, its success was partially driven by older and irregular moviegoers who hadn’t been to theaters in years. It was a Passion of the Christ or American Sniper-level event which legged out to near-Force Awakens-level success. And at least some of that audience then showed up for regular movies like Elvis, Where the Crawdads Sing and Bullet Train.

Top Gun: Maverick’s exceptional success supplied a giant lifeline to theaters and cover for studios willfully underdelivering regular theatrical products in an uncommonly sparse summer. Top Gun: Maverick accounted for 23% of the domestic summer movie line-up. That is partially because it earned around $500 million more than even the rosiest projections. The summer season is down 28% from 2019, even as the total number of theatrical releases is down 55%. The likes of Doctor Strange 2 ($411 million), Jurassic World Dominion ($375 million), Minions 2 ($350 million) and Thor: Love and Thunder ($325 million) all pulled as-expected business. Moreover, the strong earnings of Elvis and Where the Crawdads Sing show that Maverick didn’t harm its competition (all due respect to Lightyear and Nope).

Had Top Gun: Maverick only earned $150 million domestic, it still would have been Cruise’s second-biggest non-Mission: Impossible grosser since Jerry Maguire. However, the overall summer box office would have been down 41% from 2019. The massive overperformance made the difference between a halfway decent summer season and a product-starved catastrophe. We have entered a studio-created two-month slump. Blame concurrent factors, like Disney and 20th Century mostly sticking to streaming until November, Covid-caused post-production delays for tentpoles and studio programmers being sent to streaming. Meanwhile, the commercial reception of Tom Cruise’s legacy sequel was the summer movie miracle theaters needed. Its domestic and global grosses represented miracle #1. Its pull among irregular moviegoers was miracle #2. If those moviegoers stick around, that’ll be miracle #3.