Arthur the King had an anticipated opening weekend, but fell short with only $7.5M at the box office. Despite having an “A” CinemaScore and a major star, the movie underperformed. The trend of mid-budget movies struggling at the box office is becoming more common, even with positive audience ratings.
The movie was marketed towards male sports audiences, rather than families or faith-based viewers, which may have contributed to its lackluster performance. Additionally, the choice not to target family audiences was due to the movie revolving around a troubled dog, rather than a cute one.
Despite its shortcomings, Arthur the King did well in certain regions, such as the West and South. However, it failed to attract audiences in the Northeast, where spring break was not in full swing. The movie also missed out on Canadian theaters, as it was exclusively sold to Prime Video in that region.
The real cost of the movie was $40M before presales, which was considered too high for its concept. Paramount initially passed on the project, and Lionsgate acquired it after shopping it around domestically. Some believe that the movie may have performed better on a different weekend, such as Easter, if it had targeted faith-based and family audiences.
Overall, the underperformance of Arthur the King raises questions about the future of mid-sized movies in the post-Covid era. Will studios continue to invest in these types of films, or will they focus solely on big-budget blockbusters and horror movies?
