How Not to Release a Film: With ‘Juror #2,’ Warners Cemented Its Anti-Filmmaker Reputation
Let’s start by giving Warner Bros. Discovery credit. They took a risk in financing “Juror #2,” a $30 million adult drama by a nonagenarian auteur whose last film (“Cry Macho”) grossed $16.5 million worldwide. And here, movie star Clint Eastwood was director only on the intimate, complex morality tale in the shape of a courtroom drama.
Without a seven-decade studio relationship, perhaps no one would back this. But Warners did — and having done so, dropped the ball.
More from IndieWire
“Juror #2” opened last Friday with little fanfare and less marketing in 31 U.S./Canada theaters as well as six European countries, where it had a more elevated presence. A handful of additional dates were added in the second week, with new cities that included Houston, Austin, Denver, and Portland. Press screenings were also limited; many entertainment writers complained of not being invited.
Warners also took the unusual step of blocking any reporting of its domestic grosses — even on Comscore, which receives same-day grosses from over 95 percent of theaters. Published reports suggest it will start streaming on Max in late December.
Despite the neglect, “Juror #2” appears to have grossed somewhere between $250,000 and $300,000 last weekend. It played in 17 states and in Ontario in some of the best theaters available. It also did $3.1 million in France (1,438 theaters) and an additional $1.9 million in five other European countries with wide releases.
The spin from WBD is “Juror #2” was always intended for Max, but there was zero mention when the production was announced to considerable fanfare in 2023. When the film failed to appear on the studio’s release schedule for late 2024, sources at other studios indicated to IndieWire that they heard only recently that it was going to Max; Warners didn’t confirm that until this week. In September, the studio announced its premiere as the closing film at the AFI Film Festival and its limited domestic release. (Eastwood did not attend the premiere.)
While WBD distribution executives aren’t eager to discuss this, rival distributors suggest that members of the studio’s distribution team — some with much deeper ties to Eastwood than David Zaslav — pushed hard to ensure the film received some theatrical release. However, they also knew that, without the usual marketing, the grosses might embarrass the director; hence, the blocked reporting.
The “Juror #2” experience isn’t an outlier for WBD: At this point, the studio has earned its reputation for deprecating filmmakers’ concerns. Among them: The 2021 policy of same-day theatrical/Max release (which contributed to Christopher Nolan moving to Universal); the burying of “Coyote vs. Acme” and “Batgirl”; the disappearance of animated regulars from Max and the diminishing of the Cartoon Network; termination of many Turner Classic Movie staff members; and CNN dropping original documentaries.
Zaslav has made himself a lightning rod for criticism. A Wall Street Journal article quoted him as questioning why the studio made “Cry Macho” without expectation of profit. (The film debuted on Max parallel to theaters, one reason its grosses were disappointing). An earnings call in 2022 saw him viewing the studios’ films as “fandoms” or “genredoms,” and crediting himself as being courageous for not releasing completed films.
A low-end domestic wide opening costs around $20 million. That elevated exposure can pay off in VOD and streaming interest. Direct streaming avoids most of that expense. Industry sources agree that in wide release, “Juror #2” might have opened to $8 million-$10 million. With good word of mouth, that could yield $30 million domestic, with around half going back to WBD.
Given the competition from other adult titles (with “Conclave” and “Anora” leading the way), another release date might have been considered to maximize theatrical. Was any consideration given to playing Cannes, either this year or in 2025, where Eastwood has a major track record? That would be ideal if the goal were to give what may be his final film maximum honor.
WBD continues to act like it is embarrassed by “Juror #2.” Even VOD platforms, which almost always offer pre-orders on opening day, have no link for the film. By refusing to address a strange release strategy for a well-reviewed film by an iconic director, the studio appears to disrespect a great director and major star who’s responsible for contributing billions of dollars in revenue.
Even with the distribution team’s salvage efforts, Warners found another way to suggest that the creative community and cinephiles are irrelevant to top executives. That’s suicidal, and stupid. Why would you do that versus take the risk of a minor loss that would be meaningless against over $40 billion in debt?
Best of IndieWire
Sign up for Indiewire's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
Solve the daily Crossword
