A Geeky Viewpoint

A few weeks ago I wrote that Christopher Nolan's The Odyssey was one of the most difficult films to forecast in years. Since then, trailers have been released, long-range tracking has tightened, and new pieces of the puzzle have emerged.

Instead of making the outlook clearer, they've made it more intriguing.

Early in the year, industry optimism suggested The Odyssey could open near $200 million domestically with an outside chance of reaching $1.5 billion worldwide.

Today, long-range tracking has settled into a much more conservative range of $80–100 million for its domestic opening weekend.

That doesn't mean the film is in trouble.

It does mean expectations have changed.

The Better Comparison

Many analysts continue to compare The Odyssey to Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer.

I think the better comparison is Ridley Scott's Gladiator.

Like Gladiator, The Odyssey is a large-scale historical epic relying on spectacle, storytelling, and audience enthusiasm rather than an established franchise. Adjusted for inflation, Gladiator's box office would approach $1.3 billion worldwide today—a benchmark The Odyssey is clearly capable of reaching.

Christopher Nolan has earned the benefit of the doubt. His recent track record includes Dunkirk and Oppenheimer, and his name alone makes this one of the year's most anticipated films.

But unlike Oppenheimer, this is a three-hour mythological epic asking audiences to embrace one of the oldest stories ever written.

That makes forecasting considerably more difficult.

Why I See Two Outcomes

I've been asked several times where I think The Odyssey will finish.

My answer hasn't really changed.

I think this film either performs near the top of expectations or near the bottom.

If everything comes together, I could see:

• $125 million domestic opening

• Approximately $275 million worldwide opening

• Around $400 million domestic

• Roughly $1.2 billion worldwide

If audience enthusiasm is more limited, I could just as easily see:

• $75–85 million domestic opening

• Approximately $225 million worldwide opening

• $300–350 million domestic

• $800–900 million worldwide

To be clear, $800 million worldwide is an enormous success for almost any movie.

However, with a reported production budget around $250 million and a global marketing campaign likely exceeding $100 million, the margin for error is much smaller than many people realize.

Word of Mouth Will Decide Everything

Unlike many modern blockbusters, I don't believe opening weekend will determine The Odyssey's fate.

Its legs will.

If audiences leave theaters saying:

"You have to see this on the biggest screen possible."

the film could enjoy the kind of sustained run that made Gladiator, Titanic, and The Lord of the Rings cultural phenomena.

If audiences instead say:

"It looked incredible, but it never really connected with me."

then the film could experience a steep second-weekend decline, making a billion-dollar worldwide finish much harder to achieve.

For this movie, word of mouth isn't just important.

It is the entire game.

The Trailer Conversation

One thing that has surprised me is how much discussion has centered on the trailers rather than the filmmaking itself.

Critics have questioned:

• Modern-looking armor and costumes.

• Actor accents.

• Historical authenticity.

• Whether Nolan's interpretation truly captures Homer's work.

That conversation should sound familiar.

Ridley Scott's Napoleon generated many of the same debates before release. While the two films are very different, it demonstrates how quickly enthusiasm for historical epics can shift when the conversation becomes focused on authenticity instead of storytelling.

The trailers won't determine the movie's success.

But they have undoubtedly shaped the discussion.

The Influencer Question

One development that continues to intrigue me is Universal's decision to cancel influencer screenings.

Many people have argued this simply reflects Christopher Nolan's longstanding dislike of influencer culture.

That may well be true.

However, I keep coming back to the business side of the equation.

This is a film carrying one of the largest budgets of Nolan's career. By most estimates, it needs somewhere between $600 million and $750 million worldwide simply to become profitable.

When the financial stakes are that high, every positive piece of marketing has value.

Influencers alone won't make or break a billion-dollar movie, but they can reinforce momentum, encourage fence-sitters, and help create the feeling that a film is a genuine cultural event.

Viewed in isolation, canceling those screenings isn't particularly meaningful.

Viewed alongside softer tracking, mixed trailer reactions, exceptionally strong IMAX demand but less enthusiasm for standard-format presales, and a shortened theatrical runway, it becomes another interesting data point.

The Spider-Man Problem

Unlike Gladiator, The Odyssey won't have a month to dominate theaters.

Only two weeks after its release comes Spider-Man: Brand New Day.

That means The Odyssey has very little time to establish itself as the movie people simply have to see.

If audiences embrace it immediately, the two films can coexist.

If they don't, losing premium screens and casual moviegoers that quickly could dramatically affect its long-term box office.

The Next Indicators to Watch

Over the next few weeks, I'll be watching four things very closely.

Review embargo timing.

Studios don't choose review embargo dates at random. If reviews are allowed to publish well before opening weekend, it suggests Universal is confident enough to let critical praise become part of its marketing campaign. If reviews are held until Wednesday or Thursday before release, it doesn't automatically mean the film is in trouble, but it does become another data point worth noting.

Standard-format presales.

We already know IMAX demand is extraordinary. The unanswered question is whether that enthusiasm extends beyond Nolan's core audience into traditional multiplex screenings.

The first audience reactions.

The real test begins when paying audiences walk out of the theater. If they're telling friends, "You have to see this," then the box office ceiling rises dramatically.

The second weekend.

This may be the single most important statistic of all. Opening weekend measures anticipation. The second weekend measures audience satisfaction.

Final Thoughts

I'm not predicting failure.

Far from it.

I believe The Odyssey has the potential to become one of the defining films of 2026.

I also believe it's one of the most volatile box office forecasts I've seen in years.

Right now, I don't see a comfortable middle ground.

Either Christopher Nolan has delivered the next great historical epic—one that approaches Gladiator in cultural impact and earns around $1.2 billion worldwide—or the film settles into the $800–900 million range, a remarkable achievement by most standards but one that inevitably raises questions about expectations, marketing strategy, and return on investment.

The next few weeks will tell us a great deal.

The tracking numbers, the review embargo, the presales, and the first audience reactions will each add another piece to the puzzle.

And when opening weekend finally arrives, the number that interests me most won't be Friday night's gross.

It will be what audiences are saying as they walk out of the theater on Saturday.

Recently I've been asked about several films and what I think about them.

That always makes me smile because it reminds me of a different chapter in my life.

Back in the early days of the internet, I maintained a movie review blog. I reviewed films, analyzed box office performance, tracked DVD sales, and spent an unhealthy amount of time trying to understand why some movies succeeded while others failed.

Eventually I built a box office prediction model that incorporated roughly a dozen factors. For genres I followed closely, the results were surprisingly accurate. For genres I didn't particularly care about, the model's performance could generously be described as "aspirational."

The important thing is that I learned something.

Movies are both art and business.

Many critics focus exclusively on the art.

Many studio executives focus exclusively on the business.

The reality is that success usually requires both.

That perspective colors how I look at movies even today.

So when people ask me what I think about a film, my answer is rarely just whether I liked it. I tend to think about audience expectations, marketing, release windows, competition, and how the film was constructed.

Three recent conversations illustrate exactly what I mean.

The Mandalorian and Grogu Problem

The first film people asked me about was The Mandalorian and Grogu.

The question was simple:

Why didn't it connect with audiences?

There are several answers.

First, there is a portion of the audience that feels personally burned by previous Lucasfilm projects. Whether those feelings are justified or not doesn't really matter. Some viewers have simply disengaged from the franchise and were never likely to buy a ticket.

Second, the economics of movie-going have changed.

Going to a theater today is expensive.

Most people own large televisions. Many have decent sound systems. Streaming services have conditioned audiences to wait.

A decade ago a theatrical release felt like an event.

Today many viewers simply ask:

"Will this be worth seeing now, or can I watch it on Disney+ in a few months?"

That question alone has changed the industry.

But I don't think either of those issues is the biggest problem.

The biggest issue is structural.

The Mandalorian is a television series.

Its strengths are television strengths.

The series thrives on character moments, episodic adventures, side stories, and gradual development. It gives characters time to breathe.

The movie felt like multiple episodes compressed into a little over two hours.

Some people I've talked to felt it was three episodes.

Others thought it felt like five.

My estimate is somewhere around four.

Regardless of the exact number, the effect is the same.

The connective tissue gets removed.

Character development gets compressed.

Background information disappears.

The quieter moments that make audiences care about characters are shortened or eliminated.

The result is a film that feels uneven.

Not because the individual scenes are bad, but because it was originally designed to function as serialized storytelling.

The irony is that the film's greatest weakness may be the very thing that made the television series successful.

The Odyssey: Billion-Dollar Success or Expensive Disappointment?

The second film people keep asking me about is Christopher Nolan's The Odyssey.

The first question is always:

"What do you think of it?"

The second question is usually:

"Will it make a billion dollars?"

Let's start with the movie itself.

As a history major who has read far too many books on the Bronze Age, I was put off by the trailers.

What I saw didn't feel much like the Bronze Age.

That doesn't automatically mean the movie will be bad.

Historical authenticity and cinematic storytelling are often different goals.

Still, my initial reaction was concern.

Hollywood has a long history of historical epics where the filmmakers decide they don't particularly like the appearance of the period they're depicting.

The result is often a movie that looks more like a modern interpretation of history than history itself.

When I watched the trailer, I didn't think "Homer."

I thought "Christopher Nolan's version of Homer."

That may prove to be a masterpiece.

It may prove to be a mistake.

We'll find out soon enough.

As for the box office, I think this is one of the easiest films to predict and one of the hardest films to predict simultaneously.

My take is simple.

There is no middle ground.

I don't see this film quietly making $950 million.

I don't see it barely crossing a billion.

Instead, I think we're looking at one of two outcomes.

Either it finishes in the $750-900 million range and is viewed as a disappointment relative to expectations.

Or it explodes into the $1.2-1.4 billion range and becomes one of the biggest hits of the decade.

Why?

Christopher Nolan.

After Oppenheimer, Nolan is one of the few directors whose name alone sells tickets.

The question isn't whether Nolan's fans will show up.

They already have.

What concerns me is that large-format screenings are selling well while standard screenings appear much softer.

That suggests the core Nolan audience has bought tickets.

The question is whether everyone else follows.

The film also has limited time to establish itself before Spider-Man: Brand New Day begins consuming screens and premium formats.

The opening weeks will determine everything.

The Collision Course: Avengers vs. Dune

The third conversation is actually two films.

Avengers: Doomsday and Dune 3.

Why discuss them together?

Because they are currently scheduled to release on the same day.

That alone makes this one of the most fascinating box office battles in years.

Even more interesting is how the studios appear to have divided the battlefield.

Warner Bros. has secured the IMAX screens for Dune 3.

Disney has secured virtually everything else for Avengers: Doomsday.

Both studios are playing to their strengths.

Warner Bros. is betting that audiences want to experience Dune in premium formats.

Disney is betting that Marvel wins through scale.

If both films remain on the same date, I think the opening weekend is relatively straightforward.

Avengers: Doomsday is likely looking at an opening north of $200 million domestically.

Possibly much higher.

Dune 3 probably lands in the $50-60 million range.

At first glance that looks like a blowout.

I don't think it is.

The two franchises behave differently.

Marvel films tend to be front-loaded.

They generate enormous opening weekends.

The Dune films rely more heavily on premium-format sales, critical reception, and audience word of mouth.

The real battle won't be opening weekend.

It will be the weeks that follow.

Can Dune 3 dominate premium formats long enough to build momentum?

Can Avengers: Doomsday reestablish Marvel as appointment viewing?

Both films have enormous stakes.

For Warner Bros., Dune 3 is prestige filmmaking with potential Oscar implications.

For Disney, Avengers: Doomsday may be the most important Marvel film since Endgame.

Neither studio wants to blink.

Yet history tells us studios are brave until the spreadsheets tell them not to be.

Would I be shocked if one moved?

Not at all.

Would I be surprised if both held their ground?

Not really.

There is simply too much at stake for either company.

Why I Still Enjoy Talking About Movies

The funny thing about these conversations is that they remind me why I enjoyed reviewing movies all those years ago.

The movies themselves are interesting.

The audience is fascinating.

The business can be downright unpredictable.

Most people ask whether a movie will be good.

I find myself asking different questions.

Who is the audience?

What are they expecting?

What experience are they paying for?

And perhaps most importantly:

Does the movie understand what its audience wants?

Because more often than not, that answer determines the box office long before the first ticket is sold.

The other day Marvel Comics released the latest re-imagination of Mr. Fantastic, Reed Richards of the Fantastic Four.   The new version of Reed Richards either looks like Jimmy Kimmel or John Krasinski. 

Comic book fans of the Marvel Cinematic Universe have long for John Krasinski to take on the part Reed Richards for the past couple of years.    Is the redone comic book character a hint that the deal is done?

Over the years many Marvel characters have been updated and changed, I mean we have had 60 years with some of these characters.  New artists, new spin on the characters.  But this change is clearly made to look like what a potential John Krasinski's portrayal would be.   is this Marvel saying we hear you and here is an example or is this we got him moment.

As I look at the upcoming movie release schedule, we have Black Widow solo film and The Eternals upcoming.    The more I though about it I was convinced that we will see the Fantastic Four in the Eternals, it just makes sense.    It also makes sense when you throw in the fact I believe the next five year story arc will be Secret Wars.

With that and looking at who has been connected with Marvel roles recently I believe the casting has been made for the entire Fantastic Four team, and they will be announced this summer.

Reed Richards / Mr. Fantastic - John Krasinski
Sue Storm (Richards) / Invisible Woman - Charlize Theron
Ben Grimm / The Thing - Dwayne Johnson
Johnny Storm / The Human Torch - Zac Efron

and we need a villain

Doctor Doom - Brian Cranston

A quick comment.   Emily Blunt, the wife of John Krasinski in real life, has been offered numerous roles in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and has turned them all down.   I have no doubt that if John Krasinski was offered the role of Reed Richards than Marvel Executives would have offered the role of Sue Storm to Emily Blunt.    However she has a pretty full dance card of upcoming movies and with the history of turning down superhero roles I think it is semi-safe to say she turned down the role again. 
Charlize Theron, Oscar Winner for Monster, highly acclaimed for her action/stunts in the role of Lorrine Broughton in Atomic Blonde has suddenly become a hot topic again in Hollywood. 

Dwayne Johnson and Zac Efron have been frequently linked to roles in the Marvel Universe, both have reportedly meet again very recently with Kevin Feige and other Marvel Studio executives.    Fans have suggested that Zac Efron would make a great Adam Warlock, I think he would make a better Johnny Storm. 

Another name for role of Johnny Storm, Andrew Garfield.

Effective immediately Disney will take full control of streaming service Hulu.

The deal allows Comcast (NBC/Universal) content licensing to lapse in three years, allows comcast to move forward with its own Streaming Service and has an option to sell its share of Hulu to Disney for at least $27.5 Billion dollars.

The control of Hulu allows Disney to move its "less family friendly" oriented content to hulu while leaving Disney+ as a more family oriented streaming service.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/14/comcast-has-agreed-to-sell-its-stake-in-hulu-in-5-years.html