MovieChat Forums > Allegiant (2016) Discussion > The Mistake They Made On Allegiant, Acco...

The Mistake They Made On Allegiant, According To The Studio Head


http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Mistake-They-Made-Divergent-Allegiant-According-Studio-Head-133427.html

Allegiant, the third chapter in the ongoing Divergent series, was a terrible movie. On that, we should all be able to agree. It was poorly reviewed. It earned less than half of the U.S. take of the first movie. And it had many questioning whether or not the fourth and final movie in the series, Ascendant, should even happen. Well, it turns out there was a reason why Allegiant was so bad. The studio rushed on it, so they could hit a release date. This bombshell of a reveal comes from Lionsgate CEO Jon Feltheimer, who was speaking on a conference call and admitted, via The Wrap: Maybe we rushed the third movie a bit instead of taking our time with it. We wanted to hit a date. I mean, that’s one

reply

Well I loved it

reply

Didn't find it terrible. Plenty of reviews on IMDB say that others enjoyed it. And Box Office numbers rarely determine a film's quality - since it's entirely subjective. Fifty Shades of Grey and the Twilight films made millions, so by that logic they're fantastic. The Shawshank Redemption - one of the most beloved films of all time - was a Box Office Bomb.

The mistake seemed to be not having a defined release date. They released it on a different day in each region depending on when the school holidays were going on. A lot of people I talked to about it didn't even know it had already been out a week. For example, where I was advertised March 21st as the release date - but my local cinema listed it there a whole week before.

reply

I don't think the disappointing box office of Allegiant can be explained by just one thing. There are many factors that came together.

For a start, there's the general trend of movies based on YA movies earning less with their sequels. The Hunger Games's box office declined with Mockingjay Part 1 and then declined further with Mockingjay Part 2, The Maze Runner box office declined with The Scorch Trials. The Divergent series is just doing what every other YA series on the market is also doing. This trend is probably caused by the market being flooded by YA dystopias and YA fans growing out of the intended demographic. Divergent the book was published in 2011 and 5 years is a long time to a teenage audience. A whole new crop of teens with different tastes has grown up now.

Then there's also significant fluctuations in Shailene Woodley's star power. After The Fault in Our Stars was released in June 2014, Woodley's star power was incredibly high. This helped prop up Insurgent which was released only 9 months later. But Woodley hasn't appeared in any other hits since then and her star has faded somewhat. Some box office analysts have argued that the box office results for Insurgent were over-inflated by Woodley's temporary "it girl" status and that were it not for The Fault in Our Stars, Insurgent would have experienced a much bigger drop at the box office. If Insurgent had experienced that steeper predicted drop, it probably would have meant Lionsgate would have moderately reduced the budget for Allegiant and had more realistic expectations for its box office performance.

There's also the fact that Allegiant wasn't released in 3D but Insurgent was. The extra price added to 3D tickets inflated Insurgent's box office total and made the series seem healthier than it actually was. If Allegiant had been released in 3D, it would have got a bump in box office and would not have seen like so steep a drop from the previous entry.

In addition, the movie was based on the least-liked book of Veronica Roth's trilogy and the book had already garnered fan backlash. Likewise, the trend of splitting final books into two film adaptations was being viewed as increasingly negative because of the underwhelming Hobbit movies and Hunger Games finale.

And there's also the poor critical reception to consider. Lionsgate's decision to release the film on different dates depending on local school holidays meant that multiple negative reviews of Allegiant had been posted days or weeks before the movie was released in many regions. This meant that the film had already become perceived as a "flop" before most audience members had even seen it. If the film had been released on the same day everywhere and reviews were embargoed, it's likely that Allegiant would have had a bigger opening. Just think about how the box office tracking figures for Allegiant dropped steadily from week to week prior to the film's release - 2 weeks before release the film was on track to earn $40-45 million in its opening weekend, the next week estimates dropped to $30-40 million, and the film wound up grossing just $29 million upon release.

And then there's the poor quality of the film itself. Allegiant got an average B Cinemascore which is lower than Divergent's A and Insurgent's A-, which indicates that audiences didn't enjoy it as much. Putting aside whether you personally liked the film or not, Cinemascore is a good indicator of how much audiences in general like a film. (A means good, B means okay, C means poor. Films rarely score below C.). Audiences just didn't think Allegiant was as good at the previous two. The film being rushed into production to hit a release date likely contributed to its poor quality. Certainly, that's what Shailene Woodley thinks. Woodley has reportedly said she was dissatisfied with the script before the movie went into production. Woodley's complaints about the poor quality of the script is also reportedly part of the reason why Allegiant's director was replaced.

There are probably lots of other reasons too. I don't think there's much point in trying to boil down Allegiant's performance to one single issue. Lots of things contributed.

reply

For a start, there's the general trend of movies based on YA movies earning less with their sequels.


Indeed, Allegiant was going to drop anyway because it seems that that's just the way it goes. Those who thought this would make 40-something in its opening weekend were deluded. 40-something is what Insurgent would have done if it weren't in 3D. And speaking of...

There's also the fact that Allegiant wasn't released in 3D but Insurgent was. The extra price added to 3D tickets inflated Insurgent's box office total and made the series seem healthier than it actually was. If Allegiant had been released in 3D, it would have got a bump in box office and would not have seen like so steep a drop from the previous entry.


Agree again, the inevitable drop for Allegiant was going to be made even worse simply for not being in 3D while the previous movie was. The reason Insurgent performed comparatively to Divergent was strictly due to the 3D surcharge inflating the box office haul, but it only makes the drop in Allegiant worse.

In addition, the movie was based on the least-liked book of Veronica Roth's trilogy and the book had already garnered fan backlash.


Yep, yet another mitigating factor is that people just. do. not. like. this. book. Many of the fans who showed up for the first two movies probably already made a decision to sit this one out because they hated the book so much.

And there's also the poor critical reception to consider. Lionsgate's decision to release the film on different dates depending on local school holidays meant that multiple negative reviews of Allegiant had been posted days or weeks before the movie was released in many regions. This meant that the film had already become perceived as a "flop" before most audience members had even seen it. If the film had been released on the same day everywhere and reviews were embargoed, it's likely that Allegiant would have had a bigger opening. Just think about how the box office tracking figures for Allegiant dropped steadily from week to week prior to the film's release - 2 weeks before release the film was on track to earn $40-45 million in its opening weekend, the next week estimates dropped to $30-40 million, and the film wound up grossing just $29 million upon release.


I really don't think the staggered release schedule had much if anything to do with it, and certainly not because of reviews. This genre is more or less critic-proof when it comes to the target audience's and some portions of the general audience's willingness to watch it. Bad early reviews didn't make any difference, and I doubt that was the reason behind the tracking dropping as the release drew closer. I actually don't recall any official tracking reporting a possible $40-45 million opening. I recall an LA Times article that gave an estimate, only days before the release, of that number, but that was based on audience surveys and awareness. Most sources gave conflicting estimates, even leading up to the weekend, varying from low 30s to upper 30s to about 40. None of them predicted it would fall below 30, though. Even I didn't.

All in all, I agree that Allegiant's bad box office can't be pinned on one thing. This had multiple strikes against it from the get-go. But I agree with the CEO's assessment that they rushed to get the movie out. Without having even seen it, I know they rushed it. I've been of the opinion from day one that having each of these movies released exactly one year apart was going to result in poorer and poorer quality. Especially when it's apparent that the studio has no interest in even putting in real effort to crank out the best they can do and just wants to shove something in the theater to milk the fanbase while they're still halfway paying attention. Incidentally, the movie suffered the same problem the book did, as it was clear to me in the terrible quality that the author and editors rushed the book to print just to meet the deadline. Kismet, perhaps?



>>>>>Happy dance!

reply

All in all, I agree that Allegiant had an uphill battle from the moment they announced a Part 1 and Part 2.

Every point (excluding the staggered release dates) was valid, and I have to say, the ONLY positive thing Lionsgate did, was decide to rename the last movie to Ascednant (not a big positive, but at least it's the first YA series to do so). It's funny how anyone expected this to compare well to the first 2, I mean could they be so blind to see all the negatives stacked up against this film? I thoroughly enjoyed the film for its narrative continuance (I went in with low expectations, and came out pleasantly surprised). I don't believe this film deserves all the hate that it's gotten (I sense a lot of "hopping on the hate band wagon" is the popular thing to do now), however, I'm well aware of the glaring mistakes and laziness in the plot and SFX.

For Ascedant, they just need to conjure up a cohesive script that will give us a satisfying conclusion, hire a new marketing team, and plan a better promo schedule. And if anything, I wouldn't mind them pushing the date even more to accommodate any extra editing, or for competitions sake.

PS: I have to disagree with Shailene Woodley being compared to Kristen Stewart, she's definitely in a league of her own.



"We just want to find our way"

reply

the ONLY positive thing Lionsgate did, was decide to rename the last movie to Ascednant (not a big positive, but at least it's the first YA series to do so).


It did seem like a smart thing to do, because it wouldn't give away that this was yet another two-part finale thing, but in hindsight it seems like it wasn't that great an idea because it seems like it just confused people more. Most people don't really keep up with the production stuff and didn't already know that this was supposed to be a four-movie series, and so they went into Allegiant thinking this was the last one because Allegiant was the last book and they were very confused when it didn't feel like an ending. And then they find out afterward that there is in fact supposed to be a fourth movie and they felt swindled, coloring their impression of the movie further. :)



>>>>>Happy dance!

reply

All in all, I agree that Allegiant had an uphill battle from the moment they announced a Part 1 and Part 2.

Every point (excluding the staggered release dates) was valid, and I have to say, the ONLY positive thing Lionsgate did, was decide to rename the last movie to Ascednant (not a big positive, but at least it's the first YA series to do so). It's funny how anyone expected this to compare well to the first 2, I mean could they be so blind to see all the negatives stacked up against this film? I thoroughly enjoyed the film for its narrative continuance (I went in with low expectations, and came out pleasantly surprised). I don't believe this film deserves all the hate that it's gotten (I sense a lot of "hopping on the hate band wagon" is the popular thing to do now), however, I'm well aware of the glaring mistakes and laziness in the plot and SFX.

For Ascedant, they just need to conjure up a cohesive script that will give us a satisfying conclusion, hire a new marketing team, and plan a better promo schedule. And if anything, I wouldn't mind them pushing the date even more to accommodate any extra editing, or for competitions sake.

PS: I have to disagree with Shailene Woodley being compared to Kristen Stewart, she's definitely in a league of her own.



"We just want to find our way"

reply

Having different release days depending on the territory had nothing to do with it. They do that for most movies. They did it for the first two. Different release dates in the international markets does not explain the domestic box office dropping by nearly 50% from the second movie.


>>>>>Happy dance!

reply

So are they still making Ascendant?

"Experience is the teacher of all things." -Julius Caesar

reply

Yes, but they cut the budget so if it fails again, it won't be necessarily worse.

reply