The King's Man Will Commercially Underperform

'The King's Man' trailer promises a darker, more realistic tone for the series, although it's seemingly superior quality will all but guarantee it's commercial underperformance

'The King's Man' (Twentieth Century Fox/Disney)

by Jack Linsdell

So, a couple of weeks ago, Twentieth Century Fox (now owned by Disney, who just surpassed their previous annual box office record with over $8 billion worldwide) dropped the trailer for Matthew Vaughan's Kingsman prequel/spinoff aptly (and cleverly) titled The King's Man. Yes, after two Eggsy/Harry adventures set in the present day, we're finding out how this secret (?) spy organisation was first formed. 

Now, firstly no one asked for this prequel. Okay, both Kingsman ($414 million on a $81 million budget in 2014) and it's sequel Kingsman: The Golden Circle ($410 million on $104 million budget in 2017) were commercial overperformers so to speak, and although Golden Circle took a domestic downturn of $28 million in North America, both managed to gross the same worldwide. In an era where Marvel's Cinematic Universe formula has successfully spawned the highest grossing series of all time (MCU), and inspired rival studios to do the same with mostly disastrous results (think Universal's failed Dark Universe to name but one), it's no surprise that Fox and Disney want their own piece of the pie with Vaughan's Kingsman property. Added to this, with audiences only flocking to remakes and sequels/prequels to existing and/or popular IP (Men In Black: International, What Men Want, The Lion King etc. this year) bringing about the death of wholly original, star-led movies, it's also unsurprising that Fox are investing in movies connected to the Kingsman brand. 

So, when I say no one asked for a prequel, it's true. Now, audiences have shown up to the first two Kingsman movies partially because they've invested into Taron Egerton and Colin Firth's characters and the relationship they have. So, to have a prequel with completely new characters played by new actors is a risk at best. Vaughan and friends are presuming that audiences are more invested in Kingsman IP over the actual characters (and the actors that play them), although maybe their gamble will pay-off. Either way, The King's Man is bound to gross far less than the prior two movies. Maybe a Kingsman prequel is a safer shout after four or five of these movies have come out, especially as the Eggsy/Harry storyline hasn't concluded yet and Vaughan has stated a third movie is in production looking to shoot later this year. This could mean that audiences ignore the prequel as they await for the third modern-day Kingsman movie in 2021, because they only "care" about Egerton/Firth's characters. 

However, the other problem is in tone/setting. History shows from other action series that the grittier, more real world instalments tend to play far less well with the mass audience, often grossing considerably less than the somewhat more fantastical/comedic/epic ones. Whether that's because for the masses, grittier, more realistic and relatable action movies are less "uplifting" and "escapist" is as good of a guess as any. However, looking at James Bond, the more fantastical, comedic and epic movies in the Daniel Craig era have grossed more (Skyfall $1.1 billion and Spectre $880 million) than the gritter, realistic thrillers (Casino Royale $599 and Quantum of Solace $586 million). Think also who most people's favourite Bond actors are. Sean Connery and Roger Moore always top the list as the more comedic, lighter tone 007's, than the darker, more real-world George Lazenby and Timothy Dalton. Another example is the DC Extended Universe. Think of the darker and more serious instalments (Man of Steel $668 million) compared to the comedic, vibrant and fantastical ones (Wonder Woman $812 million and Aquaman $1.1 billion). So, if nothing else, the darker/violent/realistic tone seemingly the focus of The King's Man (if the trailer becomes an accurate depiction of the finished film) will mean a commercial underperformance in comparison with the campier tones of the first two Kingsman movies.

Yes, I actual didn't rate the two Kingsman movies apart from the introduction of Egerton as a rising star, so I was pleasantly surprised by The King's Man trailer as I do prefer my movies to be nearer the realistic side of the scale. But, regardless of my own preferences, this one will be interesting to watch when it opens in the spring next year. Will it's status as a prequel with new and different characters cause a commercial downturn? Will a darker, more realistic tone turn the masses away? Does a period setting over the modern day have an effect? Do people care more about Eggsy/Harry's relationship than the Kingsman IP?

Providing the budget for this one is kept under $100 million, even a downturn to a $290-$350 million worldwide total would still be good for this one, although the cheaper the budget the more profit the studio is likely to make. Either way, the actual franchise has nothing to lose as I doubt it'll launch a prequel series, and even if audiences ignore it, then Kingsman 3: Which character should die this time? (yes, that's my title suggestion) will still (presumably) score big anyway. Whether Fox decided to give Vaughan a free ticket after his first two instalments combined are nearly at $1 billion worldwide, which is how this prequel (and that presumed Statesman spinoff) have been greenlit, we won't know. However, this one will be a interesting study of current audience movie trends and if truly Marvel's Cinematic Universe of spin-off and prequel movies alongside the convention Avengers films is a one-off phenomenon or can Fox be the holders of it's own mini cinematic universe.

With a stacked cast including (deep breath) Ralph Fiennes, Gemma Arteton, Matthew Goode, Stanley Tucci, Charles Dance, Daniel Bruhl, Rhys Ifans and Djimon Hounsou, and directed by Matthew Vaughan, The King's Man opens from Fox/Disney on 14th February 2020. As ever folks, we'll see.