Though this week at the box office saw Robert Zemeckis’ Here underperform, Clint Eastwood’s Juror #2 left Warner Bros. on the witness stand — the film continues to bring in strong numbers despite being given a limited theatrical release. Kim Masters and Matt Belloni examine Warner Bros.’ knee jerk reaction to the film’s success and break down the studio’s recent spending habits.
Was Juror #2 done dirty? Clint Eastwood has a long and fruitful history with Warner Bros., but his latest film Juror #2 narrowly avoided a direct streaming release on Max. The film scored a 92% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and raked in a strong per-screen average opening weekend despite showing on less than 50 screens. Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav’s “big on theatrical experiences” promise left people wondering if the film is being left out to dry. “A lot of people around town feel like Warner is leaving money on the table by not getting behind this movie,” says Belloni.
Bigger bets? Warner Bros. film heads Mike DeLuca and Pam Abdy have reportedly spent large sums on upcoming projects from Paul Thomas Anderson and Ryan Coogler, a stark contrast to Eastwood’s $35 million dollar budget for Juror #2. The studio also obtained the rights to Emerald Fennell’s Wuthering Heights adaptation, paying around $80 million for the package. “These are movies that any studio would probably make,” says Masters. You know, Margot Robbie in something, Leo DiCaprio in something.”
Letting the chips fall? DeLuca and Abdy previously ran MGM’s film division and historically spent more on talent as a result of being a last pick for projects, but “they don't have that excuse at Warner,” says Masters. Their decision to maintain a small release with Juror #2 is “quite a gamble.”