'Johnny English 3' shows why film's budgets are important

'Johnny English Strikes Again' shows how studio budgeting of their franchise and original-based flicks is a crucial factor in a film's success both artistically and commercially

'Johnny English Strikes Again' (Universal Pictures/Comcast. Corp)

by Jack Linsdell

Rowan Atkinson's comedy-sequel 'Johnny English Strikes Again' is in the midst of its second weekend playing at the North American box office. And, I wanted to use this update on its box office progress to highlight a point that it proves, in that when studios give filmmakers a budget for their flick, it'll have an important impact on its artistic and commercial performance in either a positive or indeed a negative sense.

So, without further ado, the David Kerr-directed flick has earned so far $111 million in global box office receipts. Now, the Johnny English series has always gained the majority of its profits outside North America with the UK and Australia making up its biggest markets. Indeed, Peter Howitt's 'Johnny English' earned 85.6% of its $160.6 million global total in international territories alone and a respectably, but small in comparison, $28 million in North America. When Oliver Parker's sequel 'Johnny English Reborn' debuted in cinemas during the summer of 2011, it earned a whopping 94.8% of it's $160.1 million worldwide gross internationally, whilst dropping 71.4% in North America earning 'only' $8 million. 

However, 'Johnny English Strikes Again' has so far earned $2.4 million in one weekend and one week of North American release. Yes, that isn't great but to be perfectly honest no one was expecting anything bigger than 'Reborn's' $8 million gross from 2011. If we are floating numbers around, I think its safe to predict that this Rowan Atkinson-led spy-spoof will be hard pushed to beat $5 million in America by the end of its very limited run. Internationally, the flick accumulated $7.8 million last weekend and just using spitball maths, I'd say this weekend will bring it $6 million, meaning that combined with its total North American gross, the flick has at least earned another $11 million, plus whatever it earned worldwide during the week. So, by the end of this weekend we might be looking at a global total of $125-130 million so far. Depending on how well it can hold out in all its territories the flick might nab $140 million total, which is comparably favourable with the previous two flicks $160 million global totals.

Fewer people visit the cinemas these days and competition, especially in North America, has been particularly harsh with the leggy and popular successes of 'A Star is Born', 'Venom' and 'Halloween' taking many viewers (or repeated ticket sales) away from the British bumbling spy. So, a downturn in global grosses is to be expected. And, with reviews being negative, it's either a film you'll go to watch because you're interested in or not. However, these box office figures and the drop it will take from its predesccors (12% less globally) are made even more positive with the news that Universal Pictures/Comcast Corp. and friends only spent $25 million on the comedy-flick. Now, this is a massive decrease from the first film's $40 million, and the first sequels $45 million budgets. 

On the positive side, the studio was right to budget this third film lower than the previous too as they are now in a position where they have spent 44% less than the first sequel and made 'only' 12% less in global box office receipts. Indeed, if it reaches the $130-140 million bracket, then it will have been very profitable on that mere $25 budget. And, perhaps the studio predicted that the market changes, tough competition and just less general interest would result in a lower total and so by budgeting the film to be cheaper, still guaranteed themselves similar profit margins. Indeed, the first two films made them roughly $115 million in profit and this should achieve $105-115. So, in an age where there have been many examples where studios have kept/increased budgets for sequels not guaranteed to break out it is refreshing to see them still making their films commercially successful by reducing their production costs.

However, on the negative side, I would argue that the considerably lower budget did dent the armour (pun intended if you've seen it) of the flick, artistically. For example, the visual effect work looked really dodgy (especially the third act with the submarine and completely fake looking castle) whereas 'Reborn's' $45 million budget allowed its visual effects to look much better and the film grandeur on scale. Yes, that sequel was film with green screens mainly if locations needed to be added/modified, whereas here, Kerr and his team have used static photos behind the sets (a cheaper medium for those that don't know) which makes the film 'feel' cheap and nasty. Now, money was spent in good places like the swooping aerial shots during the car chase and doing practical stunts/gags on top of buses, in learner cars and in bars. However, its clear that the budget couldn't keep to that approach for the whole film and thus, is let down.

Many will be thinking: why the hell does it matter? But, even though I'm pleased that the lower budget has made it more commercially successful, its artistic impact is frustrating. Universal and friends could still have made over/under $100 million profit if the budget was upped to $45 million. But, there it be. 

The truth is that budgeting movies is a hard balancing act between profits and artistic value. And, it is nice to see some progress in giving films reasonable/modest budgets to make their global totals seem better. However, in the case of 'Johnny English Strikes Again' I believe this is a rare case where the studios have spent too little and considering they're swimming in money from 'Halloween', 'Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom' and other flicks, making $15 million more money and producing a poorer quality film as a result of the lower budget doesn't seem like a fair or necessary decision to have been made. 

But, as long as human beings are alive, people will always want the maximum amount of profit from whatever they are selling. So, their is little hope for us really.