Better Man Bombs At The Box Office: A $110 Million Mistake
Better Man, the Robbie Williams biopic film, is set to be one of the biggest bombs in box office history. Who thought spending $110 million on this movie was a good idea?
Musical biopics are having a moment right now. From Freddie Mercury and Elton John to Bob Dylan and Amy Winehouse, they seem to be Hollywood’s go-to genre when they want to make us laugh, cry, and try to win someone an Oscar. But sometimes, producers get a little too ambitious, and that’s exactly what’s happened with Better Man, the Robbie Williams biopic. With a reported $110 million production budget and another $25 million spent by Paramount for the rights, it’s shaping up to be one of the biggest box office flops in history after taking in less than $10 million globally to date. Seriously, who signed off on this?
First, let’s address the elephant (or should I say, the CGI monkey) in the room. Robbie Williams is a big deal… if you live in the UK. Outside of Europe and Australia, though, his fame barely registers. Sure, the guy’s had an amazing career, but expecting his story to pull in global audiences on a nine-figure budget? That was never going to happen.
And about that CGI monkey. Apparently, it’s a surreal representation of Robbie’s inner demons. I’m all for creative risks, but was this really worth it? The CGI monkey alone probably cost enough to fund a decent indie film. Audiences aren’t shelling out $15 to watch a digital primate emote existential angst; they want them to fight against the humans in post-apocalyptic wars. Planet of the Apes works for a reason. It’s cool. A singing monkey? Not as much.
Let’s put this into perspective. The Substance, an indie hit that crushed it at the box office, was made for just $18 million. Imagine what could have been done with $135 million: five $25 million movies, each with its own unique voice and audience. Instead, we’ve got one overpriced misstep that’s limping into theaters. Even Rocketman, the Elton John biopic, was made on a modest $40 million budget and managed to turn a tidy profit because it understood its audience and stayed in its lane.
But the kicker? Even Wicked, a Broadway mega-hit with universal appeal and a $700 million box office haul, was made for $145 million - just $10 million more than Better Man. Let that sink in. Wicked had decades of global fans, iconic songs, and a proven track record, and it still cost less than this biopic about a guy most Americans confuse with Robin Williams.
This whole debacle just underscores Hollywood’s current obsession with spectacle over common sense. Instead of spreading the wealth and taking chances on a slate of smaller, more interesting films, studios and investors keep throwing ridiculous sums of money at projects with questionable ROI. It is boom or bust, with no in between. Maybe this will be the wake-up call they need.
So, here’s to Better Man serving as a $135 million reminder of what not to do. Let’s hope the CGI monkey at least gets a spin-off. Better luck next time, Hollywood.
When I look at the films that Hollywood is putting out, compared to the rest of the world, I'm seeing big budget and lots of CGI. Wicked, Gladiator II, etc. What I'd like to see is more plucky films (Godzilla Minus 1--had a controversial $15 million budget [reports came in that many of the digital CGI team weren't properly paid]). Smaller budget films, that pay their workers well, would be great. Sometimes having a constraint forces directors to make interesting creative choices. I'm thinking back to The Creator's budget: $80 million for some pretty impressive CGI. It would be great to see better films come out with smaller budgets. Frankly, I'd like to see less $310 million Gladiator II films and more films that have smaller budgets.
$25 million on the rights...
$110 million on the movie...
Don't forget the millions they spend on advertising and marketing the movie. (Which they never tell us how much they spent on...)
Even a modest campaign would run 10 or 20 million.
No matter how good the story is or how creative they are telling it, it still has to draw in the audience.
Even if they took away the CGI monkey, there isn't anything about this movie that would encourage me to see it.