Many people both inside and outside the film industry have bemoaned how theatrical exhibition has declined in recent years, with more and more high-profile projects that might well have been big box office hits in previous eras being put on streaming after truncated and limited theatrical runs or skipping movie theaters altogether. That includes George Clooney and Brad Pitt, the stars of the upcoming Apple TV+ action-comedy "Wolfs."
The New York Times reports that both Clooney and Pitt took less money than they could have gotten up front to do the movie with the understanding that Apple would shepherd a wide theatrical rollout for the movie. "Less" is a relative term here to be sure, with both Clooney and Pitt getting reported paydays of more than $35 million each for their work on the film (which includes work as producers in addition to acting), while director Jon Watts made more than $15 million. If that sounds high for a purported pay cut, Clooney agrees with you, having spoken on the NYT story at the premiere of the film at the Venice Film Festival (via The Hollywood Reporter):
"[It was] an interesting article and whatever her source was for our salary, it is millions and millions and millions of dollars less than what was reported. And I am only saying that because I think it's bad for our industry if that's what people think is the standard bearer for salaries...I think that's terrible, it'll make it impossible to make films."Whatever he and Pitt actually made on the movie, it seems clear it was less than what they could have been paid up front in the hopes of getting that theatrical rollout. In an interview with Deadline last year, Clooney characterized his and Pitt's compensation like this: "Brad and I made the deal to do that movie where we gave money back to make sure that we had a theatrical release."
Then, weeks before the movie was set to come out, Apple abruptly changed its tune and announced that "Wolfs" would instead only get a weeklong limited theatrical run before hitting Apple's streaming platform on September 27. That also must be a disappointment for "Wolfs" director Watts, who recently spoke on the importance of the theatrical experience with regard to the film he had made in an interview with Vanity Fair:
"I always thought of this as a theatrical movie. We made it to be seen in theaters, and I think that's the best way to see it. It's funny. It's filled with twists and turns. I tried to do some interesting things visually and I still think that the best way to see it is in theaters."It's not hard to see why Apple might have gotten cold feet on a wide movie theater rollout for "Wolfs" given the soft box office reception of some of its recent releases. It joined with Paramount to put out Martin Scorsese's "Killers of the Flower Moon," which grossed $157 million against a production budget of $200 million. Matthew Vaughn's action-comedy "Argylle" was released in conjunction with Universal, cost just as much to make as "Flower Moon," and made a paltry worldwide gross of $96 million. The $100 million historical comedy "Fly Me to the Moon," starring Channing Tatum and Scarlett Johansson, cost $100 million to make and made just $40 million in theaters. One recent Apple release did manage to turn a small profit: The $200 million historical epic "Napoleon" starring Joaquin Phoenix made a worldwide box office gross of $221 million. But that doesn't factor in marketing and distribution costs, which in Apple's deal with Sony (which released "Napoleon" in theaters), are shared in half between Sony and Apple.
At some point, Apple evidently lost faith that "Wolfs" could break its theatrical losing streak, pulled back on a big marketing campaign they'd planned for the movie, and switched to its current limited release plans. For Pitt and Clooney's part, they reportedly didn't fight the decision despite their purported cut in pay since it was feared that without a big promotional campaign, the movie might flop in a wide theatrical release.
Of course, even if a movie loses money in theaters, it can still recoup costs and drive subscribers to a streaming platform. But it has generally been the case that subscriber counts go up higher for films that haven't already come out in theaters. It's a push-and-pull that every company in the streaming business is still trying to figure out.