Missing Returns

Raise your hand if you watched Missing Link in theatres.

…

That’s supposed to be a rhetorical question. Missing Link, for all its critical brilliance, is ridiculously-underperforming at the box office, with an unbelievably-embarrassing opening weekend. It’s a shame, as the movie looks like a lot of time and care went into every single frame of its runtime, and it deserves better. Then again, seeing as how I haven’t seen it either, I’m one to talk. (It came out during a bad week, cut me some slack!)

A lot of blame is being pointed at general audiences for this one: “It’s your fault that Missing Link underperformed! You knew that this was an interesting, ambitious and original movie, and you didn’t see it anyway! If this movie tanks Laika Animation, it’ll be your fault for watching Generic Sequel #33994939493982839829292 and not unique films!” But as tempting as this mindset might be, it’s reductive and hurts the discourse.

Here are some facts: movies are expensive. They’re expensive to make, and even more-expensive to advertise. A low-end production can go for upwards of tens of millions of dollars to produce, and close to double that to market. In order for a movie to be considered a “box office success”, it has to make back at least double its total production costs. That’s not always easy.

Additionally, movies are incredibly-expensive to see in theatres. I’ve said this before in a previous post, but the average ticket at my local theatre is $13.75. That’s almost a full hour’s wage at an entry-level job, and the price is only projected to go up in the future! And audiences are catching on, with people taking fewer trips to the cinema each year. Add in the aforementioned recuperation costs, and it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy of doom.

You know what doesn’t help? That Missing Link’s a stop-motion animation. Because stop-motion animation has never been too popular in North America, even going back to the 90’s; heck, The Nightmare Before Christmas, arguably the best-reviewed project Tim Burton’s slapped his name on (despite having not directed it), wasn’t exactly setting records in 1993. Instead, it gained its traction in the re-releases that followed, including one where Marilyn Manson sang the opening number. Stop-motion animation’s always been a big risk for studios because of its lack of widespread appeal, hence why it’s so rare to see a movie attempt it.

I know that stop-motion animation gets noticed by The Oscars regularly, leading some of you to doubt me on the above, so think about it like this: look at the IMDb scores for those stop-motion animated films that were nominated for Best Animated Feature. Of those, how many were truly loved by audiences? Maybe one or two, possibly three? Now, how many rank somewhere in IMDb’s beloved Top 250 list? If you said “zero”, you’re correct. And none of them were filling theatre seats when they were released, so…

I don’t mean to demean stop-motion animation. I love stop-motion animation, and that includes Laika’s films! I also want Missing Link to succeed financially, as we need more new and inventive films at the theatres amidst the countless sequels, remakes and reboots. But it should come as no surprise that Missing Link’s not doing so hot right now, as that’s the trend for stop-motion animation. If anything, I pray that its eventual home video sales recuperate the lost costs, like what The Iron Giant pulled off in the late-90’s.

I also wouldn’t feel too bad for Laika. They’ll be fine. The studio’s head’s father, Phil Knight, is a co-founder of Nike, so it’s not like they don’t have a PHD (or “papa has dough”) to fall-back on. If anything, this proves is that a shoemaking company, and a big one at that, trusts gambling their money on financial failures for art’s sake.

Does this mean Missing Link not pulling in the numbers isn’t still upsetting? No, of course it’s upsetting! The movie, like I said, clearly had a lot of time and energy put into it, and it shows. So for people to not watch it? Well, that stings.

But I don’t think it’s the moviegoers’ responsibility to justify the film’s failure. At least, not entirely. As I’d said before, stop-motion animation has never been big here, and theatre costs are already exorbitant as is. Missing Link’s box office failure is a result of a bigger problem in Hollywood, one that’ll eventually cause it to implode like in the 60’s. It’s a problem with a difficult solution, no doubt, but it’s still a problem nonetheless. And I think we should be focusing our energy on that, instead of pointing fingers at general audiences, most of whom are only trying to get by, and saying “IT’S ALL YOUR FAULT!” when a new and exciting idea doesn’t generate returns. Lord knows it’d make us sound far less-pretentious, anyway…