Zack Snyder v Aquaman
Is Snyder's latest Netflix movie, "Rebel Moon," a hit? And is he worth the money?
“Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” made $108 million globally in its theatrical debut over the weekend, including a catastrophic $28 million in the US, marking a disappointing end to the DC Extended Universe.
That was on the big screen. In people’s homes across the world, millions of Netflix subscribers clicked “play” on director Zack Snyder’s “Rebel Moon — Part One: A Child of Fire.”
The matchup is notable considering Snyder was the filmmaker responsible for launching the DCEU with “Man of Steel” and its follow up, “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.” If you don’t follow film business news, you may not know that Snyder’s DC career was plagued by behind-the-scenes drama. In short, he departed the “Justice League” movie late in production, and after the finished product was nowhere near what Snyder’s fans hoped it would be, they rallied for a director’s cut to be released that nobody thought would actually happen — until it did. Snyder effectively remade the movie as he intended, and “Zack Snyder’s Justice League” was released on HBO Max (now just Max) in 2021.
Since then, Snyder has seemingly washed his hands of DC. In a recent Atlantic profile, he said that the “holy grail” is original IP and that he’s not knocking on James Gunn’s door to make another DC movie. “Rebel Moon” is his latest original IP, though it blossomed from an R-rated “Star Wars” pitch he made years ago. He’s not shy about vocalizing the movie’s roots and inspirations. He’s plenty vocal about a lot of things, which I think is why many of his fans adore him so.
I’ve interviewed some of them before in my previous life as a Hollywood business reporter. The hyper-stylization and violence of Snyder’s films can be a turn off for many, and ultimately put him at odds with Warner Bros. over his DC films. But it’s exactly why his fans eat his movies up: in a world that has been dominated by the lighter toned Marvel Cinematic Universe, they like his dark vision. Now, he has a darker take on another Disney property. I ran a poll on Twitter (that admittedly didn’t get much engagement) that asked whether hardcore Snyder fans had any interest in seeing the new “Aquaman” movie. Of the 13 responses, a dozen answered “no.” A hardly scientific study with a microscopic audience, sure. And there are plenty of reasons why DC movies tanked at the box office this year. But I still believe that there’s a good chunk of Snyder loyalists who probably boycotted the movie, and every other DC movie this year; this time, they had a Snyder film to watch at home instead.
I find Snyder’s career fascinating, and the legion of fans he’s accumulated even more so. But is that reason enough for Netflix, and WB before him, to write him blank checks?
Snyder’s movies are mostly shunned by critics, and they don’t even seem to be loved by general audiences. There are plenty of flaws with Rotten Tomatoes, but for the sake of argument: “Rebel Moon” has a 65% Rotten Tomatoes audience score, and “Army of the Dead” has a 75%. Those scores aren’t outliers. You’d have to go back to 2007’s “300” to find a Snyder film with an RT audience score in the 80s or higher (that’s not counting “Zack Snyder’s Justice League,” which was designed to be watched and adored by a specific, and dare I say niche, audience). And his movies aren’t exactly box office juggernauts, which is actually the best indicator of whether the public at large likes a movie (keep in mind he doesn’t have to worry about box office at Netflix).
“Watchmen” grossed $185 million globally with a $130 million budget; “Sucker Punch” a measly $89 million; “Man of Steel” fared well enough with $670 million that it gave Warner Bros. the confidence to hand him the keys to the DC kingdom, but “Batman v Superman” was considered a disappointment. Again, you’d have to go back to “300” to find a Snyder film that could objectively be considered a sensation: it cost $65 million to make and grossed $456 million worldwide, including $210 million in the US. In today’s dollars, that would be over $300 million.
Snyder built a following after “300” that only grew with his DC installments, and now they’ll follow him wherever he goes. There’s value in allying with a filmmaker who has such a devoted fanbase. A company like Netflix, which doesn’t rely on box office revenue, might see the benefits of converting and keeping his fans as subscribers. The larger public may not love Snyder’s films, but his loyal fans most certainly do. It can be a blessing and a curse, as WB found out the hard way. People online still beg the studio to let him complete his DC saga, even after he was given millions of dollars to make an extended/director’s cut of “Justice League.” They even, desperately, point to Netflix as a potential savior.
But is that enough for Netflix to buy into the Snyder stock long term? “Army of the Dead” spent some time in the company of the streamer’s top 10 biggest movies ever after it was released in 2021. Two years, and a couple methodology changes later, it has fallen off that list. I predict that “Rebel Moon” won’t even make it into the top 10 at all. According to Netflix, users spent 54 million hours watching the movie in its first three days over the weekend, which it says equates to 24 million views. Compared to this year’s other Netflix hits that did make the list, “Rebel Moon” has a steep hill to climb if it wants to surpass them. “Extraction 2,” currently No. 10, gained about 43 million views in its first weekend, and “The Mother,” which sits at No. 7 on the all-time list, racked up 83 million views in its debut weekend. They went on to have 135 million and 136 million views, respectively, over their first three months on Netflix, which the company uses to determine its all-time list. “Rebel Moon” has a lot of ground to cover.
That also doesn’t mean the movie is a flop. Did more people watch “Rebel Moon” over the weekend than “Aquaman”? Probably, and Netflix’s ultimate goal is to get people to watch movies at home. And both parts of “Rebel Moon” (yes, “Part Two” is on the way) reportedly cost $165 million total, meaning Netflix gets two movies for less than traditional Hollywood studios spent making some of their own major tentpoles this year (including “Aquaman”). Like I said, if they can attract and keep Snyder fans as paying subscribers, then maybe it will be worth it to Netflix — in the short term, at least.
But if Netflix wants to make original franchises that can compete with the likes of Disney, WB, and other legacy movie studios (which, by the way, it definitely does but has struggled to do), then Snyder may not be the guy. I’ve spent this post elaborating on how Snyder has cultivated a loyal fanbase, but he lacks the kind of appeal that has made other filmmakers like Christopher Nolan such brand names with the larger public. I don’t think Netflix wants to shell out millions of dollars just for Snyder to play in his toy box. “Army of the Dead” was a respectable hit for the company, but it was hyped up as the start of a universe that has yet to pay off (a spinoff that was quickly released that same year, “Army of Thieves,” landed with a shrug).
If Snyder can’t deliver on the promise of his “Rebel Moon” universe, if the movies can’t even crack Netflix’s own popularity lists, then how can it ever compete with something like “Star Wars” — the franchise it is so clearly inspired by and that Netflix wishes it had?