In the end, we may be looking at Baywatch as one of the defining releases of the summer. No, it wasn't the biggest bomb or the worst major studio release or anything like that. But it was something of a talking point concerning how critical reviews, be they related to Rotten Tomatoes or not, seemed to have a real (and real-time) impact on box office fortunes even for previously critic-proof movies. But the picture actually didn't do half bad, $152 million worldwide, disconnected from expectations and budget.
The film was pegged as a $40-$45 million Thurs-Mon opener heading into Memorial Day, but after getting sandbagged with mostly very negative reviews, that number dive-bombed and the Paramount/Viacom Inc. release ended up with just $26m for the weekend. But even as we debate and discuss whether negative reviews hurt the movie, here's a wrinkle: The film actually did pretty well worldwide.
The Dwayne Johnson/Zac Efron/Priyanka Chopra/Alexandra Daddario action comedy was not a good movie. And while Dwayne Johnson may have argued that it was for fans and not critics, I attended a pre-release "fan screening" courtesy of AMC Stubs (specifically to see how the film played to a packed audience of civilians) and they didn't laugh that much more than I did. Granted, I'm not a huge fan of Seth Gordon's previous (fictional) comedic ventures, but Johnson generally makes entertaining fluff (alongside meatier work like Pain and Gain or Snitch) and the rest of the cast has delivered when the occasion demanded it.
Maybe the reviews hurt it. Maybe the R-rating both left out the kids and didn't quite justify itself (it's an awfully tame movie, perhaps in hopes of a China release or being bigger in India). Or maybe general audiences didn't want a Baywatch movie and fans of the IP didn't want a self-satirizing version. But nonetheless, the film still made $57.2 million domestic and $152.1m worldwide. Had the film not cost $69m to produce, it probably would have been a solid moneymaker.
Truth be told, right up until the release, I presumed the film cost around $40 million. Production budgets are notoriously hard to verify (for understandable reasons) before the release date, which frankly is an occasional issue when I try to write about movies well before their release. The delightful Central Intelligence, which had Johnson and Kevin Hart, cost $50m which made it a big hit for Warner Bros. and Universal when it made $126m domestic and $217m worldwide. New Line and Warner Bros.' San Andreas cost $110m and Paramount's Hercules cost $100m, thus despite loads of effects work and/or period-piece production design and costuming.
Brett Ratner's Hercules (which I adored) wasn't a massive hit, but it was okay at $271 million thanks to its comparatively modest costs. The issue wasn't that Baywatch didn't perform as well as hoped upon its release, although that's arguably true. The issue is that, at a cost of nearly $70 million, it essentially had to perform at best-case-scenario levels in order to make money.
Paramount surely had images of Sony's 21 Jump Street in their brains. But that release made $201 million worldwide, which was great on a $42m budget. Had it cost $70m, it would have had to hope for strong post-theatrical before that sequel became a smart play. Even 22 Jump Street, which explicitly made fun of overbudgeted sequels, cost just $50m which made its $333m worldwide gross a major win three summers ago.
Yes, there are some comedic TV adaptations that made decent coin over the last few decades. But even something like Get Smart, which had a white-hot Steve Carell and Anne Hathaway, along with (hey!) Dwayne Johnson in a buzzy supporting role, arriving in 2008 when more folks went to more movies (and bought more DVDs) and existing as an outright action-packed farce, made $230 million worldwide on an $80m budget. That's not terrible, but that's why the sequel went direct-to-DVD.
Baywatch had to pull in 21 Jump Street/Get Smart-level money just to justify itself. In essence, Baywtach violated the cardinal rule of franchises: Don't spend Return of the King money on Fellowship of the Ring. $69 million is what you spend on Baywatch Nights after a $50m Baywatch earns good reviews, solid word-of-mouth and a $200m+ worldwide gross.
And, truth be told, $58m domestic and $151m worldwide on an R-rated comedy isn't a terrible result. But at that budget, and with those expectations, it's now a genuine disappointment. Sure, we can all say that they should have made a better movie, but I would argue that quality is the least predictable variable when it comes to moviemaking. A budget that didn't require a Dwayne Johnson comedy to perform like a Dwayne Johnson action movie would have protected the film from bad reviews and comparative viewer disinterest.
Baywatch underperformed due to reviews, word-of-mouth and a conflict between general audience disinterest in the IP along with a bawdy tone that turned off fans of the squeaky-clean original property. But that overly large budget is the reason it's a genuine bomb as opposed to a mere disappointment.
