“The Running Man” had all the necessary factors for success but failed to connect with the audience at the box office. Directed by Edgar Wright (Hot Phase and Baby Driver) and starring Glenn Powell (Top Gun: Maverick and Tornadoes), the big-budget adaptation of Stephen King’s beloved ai-utopian novel, how could it fail? In this article, we examine the reasons for the failure of the movie “The Fugitive Man”.
With an opening of $16.5 million, “The Fugitive Man” failed to top the box office even in its first week, handing over the top spot to Ruben Fleischer’s “Now You See Me 3.” The film also sold 11.2 million dollars iernationally, bringing its total sales to 28.2 million dollars. It wasn’t a very promising start, especially considering Paramou’s $110 million budget for the film. This was also the first time that a Glenn Paul film – in rece years – did not take its first step firmly. His other films all sold well. But the poor performance of the film was much worse news for Edgar Wright, whose previous production, “Last Night in Soho” failed at the box office and this may be the last time he will be given a dece budget.
The performance of the film did not improve in the second and third weeks and recely it has reached the sales mark of 50 million dollars. Note that half of the film’s revenue goes to the box office, so The Runaway Man has only grossed $25 million so far, leaving Paramou at a loss of around $80 million. We didn’t take io accou the marketing costs, which makes the situation even worse.
The story of the film takes place in the near future; It revolves around a popular TV competition where the coestas must survive for 30 days, which is not easy as they are hued by both professional huers and ordinary people. The Fugitive Man also has an impressive cast: Cathy O’Brien, William H. Macy, Leigh Pace, Emilia Jones, Michael Cera, Jamie Lawson, Coleman Domingo and Josh Brolin. At first glance, everything was set up for a blockbuster blockbuster, which didn’t happen, but why?
Astronomical and irrational budget of the movie “The Fugitive Man”
This is the biggest problem of the movie; A project that cost too much from the beginning. Spending $110 million on a Stephen King adaptation that doesn’t belong in the horror genre, doesn’t have a superstar like Tom Cruise, and doesn’t have a director behind the camera who has experience making such big-budget movies was not a logical decision from the start, especially in an era when the box office is more shaky than ever.
This case has nothing to do with the artistic value of “Runaway Man”; The thing is, making such a movie with this amou of money was risky even in the pre-Covid era, let alone today. The number of blockbusters that can have an annual budget of over 100 million dollars and succeed has become much smaller. Today’s audiences are only willing to go to cinemas for certain movies; Under such circumstances, the $110 million cost for “The Runaway Man” was an unreasonable gamble.
By comparison, “The Long Walk” – another adaptation of King – was made on a reasonable budget of $20 million, and it was clear exactly which audience it was aimed at. But the “runaway man” we the other way; The film was made for the American market, but to return the investme, it needed to be successful in the iernational markets as well. The studio was overly optimistic about the project, when all indications were that the film would not be able to recoup its budget. Edgar Wright deserves such budgets and Glenn Paul is also considered a rising star, but this project was not a project that would revolutionize the artistic career of these two and set the box office on fire.
Not so positive reactions to the film
The problem with “The Runaway Man” was not that it was universally hated by critics or audiences; The thing is, for a film of this magnitude, that “necessary buzz” never materialized. A 110 million dollar blockbuster, in order not to fail at the starting line, must attract differe groups and most of them are satisfied with the film. But the mature (R) rating was the last straw, narrowing the poteial audience. On the other hand, the film was not good enough to benefit from word of mouth.
The film currely has an average rating of 64% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 6.7 out of 10 rating on IMDB. The audience has also given it a positive B rating in Cinemascore; A score that does not mean “must watch” for a blockbuster. The digital version of “The Fugitive Man” will probably find a lot of fans, but to make up for its budget, it must have sold in theaters.
Chris Evangelista said a key seence in his review of this movie: “We’ve seen these things before; In better movies.” And he is right. “The Fugitive Man” is a good movie, but it has nothing new to say. It never feels like a “cinematic eve” and it doesn’t really have the quality and elegance of Edgar Wright’s previous works.
Released at the worst possible time
The release date is not everything, but sometimes it can turn a bad movie io a success and sometimes it can make a good movie fall. The fact is that the Paramou studio did not choose the right date to send “The Fugitive Man” to the screen. The film faced too much direct competition in its opening week and experienced more difficult conditions in the following weeks. It was obvious that “Now You See Me 3” and “Marauder: Badlands” would attract their special fans to the theaters, and “Villain: Forever” would pass over everyone like a tractor.
As meioned above, “The Fugitive Man” should have been successful in iernational markets, but it was almost lost among other importa films. With “Villain: Forever” and “Zootopia 2” coming in, Edgar Wright’s production has almost no room to breathe, and there’s no timeline or universe that can be imagined in which this film could sell well.
Glen Powell; A star that is still not enough
In the lead-up to the release of The Fugitive Man, there was a buzz that Glenn Powell might be the “next big star”; Someone who can shake the box office just by his presence on the poster. After appearances in Top Gun: Maverick and Anyone But You, many believed Powell was on his way to becoming a full-fledged superstar. But the reality is that there is a ceiling to stardom, and right now Powell’s ceiling is lower than previously thought.
The number of actors who can save a movie with their name alone is far less than Hollywood likes to pretend. Even Dwayne Johnson couldn’t stop the “Smash Machine” from falling just a few weeks ago. Still, there was hope that Powell would be the next Tom Cruise: good-looking, good-natured, and reliable at the box office. “Whirlwinds” became a $372 million hit last year, and Paul’s coribution to “Maverick’s” $1.49 billion sales is undeniable.
But “The Fugitive Man” was the first time that the eire heavy burden of a big project fell on his shoulders. Timothee Chalamey is one of the few youngsters who has shown that he can bear such weight; Powell, at least this time around, couldn’t. It was also logical that he waed to use the wave of his popularity and accept the lead role of a blockbuster, and even in this direction, he rejected the offer to appear in “Jurassic World Rebirth”.
“The Fugitive Man” was not the movie that people expected
Studios certainly aren’t going to make decisions based on the random whims of Twitter users, but cinema, like any other industry, revolves around supply and demand. And sometimes the market loudly announces: “We don’t need this one.” Stephen King is a big name, but “The Man on the Run” wasn’t what people were couing on his return. The 1987 version starring Arnold Schwarzenegger was also a failure in its time. Maybe that was enough to make a remake with a lower budget.
King is best known for the horror genre. That’s why “It” was able to conquer the horror cinema with sales of 700 million dollars. That movie was a remake, but a remake that the audience was waiting for and of course it was made with a budget of 35 million dollars.
Many of King’s adaptations are gaining traction on streaming platforms after failing at the box office. “Incendiary” (2022) failed in the cinema, but found an audience on Netflix. Again, we remind you: it was a horror movie with a budget of 150 million dollars. The miscalculation of “The Fugitive Man” was that it tried to sell a work with the price of a blockbuster, which does not have a place in the circle of “esseial films” of today’s audience. If The Runaway Man had been made for half that budget, it would have still failed, but at least we could call it a bold risk, not a stupid one.
“The Fugitive Man” is not a reputable brand
Even in 1978, “Runaway Man” was not a catchy name. The original film version was, at best, a “normal” film; The 30th highest-grossing film of the year, which was easily left behind works like “Date Two Unknown” and “Mannequin” (two films that today no studio is willing to hold even a think tank meeting to remake). In all these years, Arnold’s other sci-fi works like “Total Recall” or the first two “Terminator” films have been so culturally popular that “The Fugitive Man” seems like a forgotten footnote next to them. It does not have lasting dialogue, nor a legacy that the next generation will refer to, and it is not one of those films that will gain value over time.
This means that Edgar Wright was free to do whatever he waed and probably could have delivered a better work than the original version. On the other hand, the lack of a well-known brand means that the film has a problem in marketing. The name “fugitive man” has almost no meaning for today’s audience; It is neither nostalgic nor exciting.
Given that the same 80s adaptation didn’t blow up the box office, it was clear that convincing the 2025 audience to care about the franchise was a lost battle. And Paramou failed to compensate for this weakness with advertising.
Edgar Wright is not a big figure to the general public
Scott Pilgrim Against the World (2010) failed at the box office, but quickly became a cult film. This incide, however, reminds us of a clear fact: Edgar Wright’s films are not made for the “general audience”. The Three Flavors of Cornetto trilogy never grossed more than $26 million. “Last Night in Soho” (2021) barely crossed the 10 million sales mark. “Baby Driver” was an exception; A film that no one predicted would sell 107 million dollars.
Money is not the right measure of the artistic value of cinematic works, but it is an accurate indicator in market analysis: Edgar Wright is a respectable figure for movie lovers, but for the family deciding what movie to watch on Friday night, he never was and never will be Nolan or Cameron. His name alone cannot bring people to the cinema.
Remakes have long since lost their magic
Aside from Disney’s few flashy live-action remakes, the rest of the remakes—especially big-budget actioners like “The Man on the Run”—have long been Hollywood’s high-risk gambles. Before Corona, the new versions of “Breaking Poi”, “Death Wish” and “Complete Reminder” were dropped.
It must be accepted that sticking a familiar name on a story that has already been told no longer has its old function. Instead, heritage-based sequels like Creed, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, or Beetlejuice are better: both reviving nostalgia and iroducing new characters. But rebuilding? Even when it’s a faithful adaptation of the book and not a rehash of the old movie, like The Runaway Man, it still fails to attract reviews. Besides, the rece failure of Disney’s “Snow White” showed that even this studio has lost its usual magic in remakes. What exactly were the producers of The Fugitive Man expecting when “Iron Cop” for all its popularity failed to take off in 2014? Don’t let the successes of The Lion King or The Little Mermaid fool you, modern remakes are often expensive and rarely profitable.
Source: slash/film
