Digger Reportedly Poised to Lose $250 Million as Skydance Opens Warner Bros. Discovery's Books

Digger is reportedly set to lose Warner Bros. even more money than previously indicated, potentially a massive $250 million, according to TheWrap. We knew it was going to lose money, but now it's poised to lose even more, and Mark Ellis and I sat down to talk about the numbers and our thoughts on the movie itself.

Mark had asked me if I'd seen Digger. I had, and as it turns out, the two of us came out of it in pretty different places.

TheWrap reports Digger's loss could hit $250 million

Skydance has been taking over Warner Bros. Discovery, and they're opening up the books. Seemingly, they're not liking what they find. TheWrap reports that Digger could lose the studio a potential $250 million. That would be one of the biggest losses for a film in years, if not ever, up there with the kind of losses seen on The Marvels, John Carter, Strange World and The Lone Ranger.

That figure is almost double previous reports, which put the losses at around $125 million to $150 million while still factoring in revenue streams after the theatrical run. The film debuted to just $21 million worldwide in its opening weekend, and insiders at Skydance are now estimating it won't clear the $40 million mark worldwide.

Insiders for the film claimed the budget was $163 million to $173 million, though an unexpected insurance settlement played a part in that, with about $100 million spent on marketing. Warner Bros. Pictures also fully financed the film, unlike other projects that have financial partners. So this is a nightmare for them.

Mark Ellis thinks the bomb label could hurt Tom Cruise's awards run

Mark pointed out that you might expect the movie to pop back at the box office a little if it gets nominated for a bunch of awards, even though money has nothing to do with awards on its face. His worry is about reputation. In his words, the film is now "mostly known for being a bomb versus this transcendental performance by Cruise."

He compared it to Waterworld, which he said could have been a cool Kevin Costner action adventure but became so famous for being a bomb, even though that movie ended up making its money back. Mark thinks Digger is a really well done movie with a very different, off center performance from Cruise, and he believes it's going to get him an Oscar. But he thinks that kind of stink is tough to get off when you're campaigning for awards.

I agreed 100%. I've talked about this before: last year Warner Bros. had a really good year, so they took a shot with One Battle After Another, which cost $170 million too. It lost them money but returned accolades and awards prestige. They tried to do that again with Digger and landed on their face this time.

You can see the money on screen in Digger

That's a lot of money to lose, and I do wonder who is okaying that kind of budget. But I'll say this: when you see the movie, you can see the money on the screen. It's not like anyone was pocketing the production budget. You can tell they spent a huge amount to make it.

Mark noticed I didn't seem as high on it as he was. That's true. I have a strange relationship with the movie right now, and it goes back to something that happened before I ever saw it.

A dinner after my Brad Bird interview spoiled Digger's big turn for me

I interviewed Brad Bird, and we talked about Star Wars, because he was in line to do The Force Awakens. He explained that Tomorrowland was already in production, he already had Clooney committed, and he didn't want to bail on it. I always have my phone off during interviews, but this time I didn't. Right as he was telling me about having to pass, my wife called, and her ringtone is the cantina song. It started blasting, and he loved it. He said, "That's amazing. That's great."

Afterward there was a dinner in the city where people who had interviewed him sat down together. I was one of the first to show up, and I ended up sitting with another critic, one of those guys who just needs to be the one who tells everybody everything. Digger came up, I said I was going to see it soon, and he told me it's not the movie they tell you it's supposed to be. Then he asked if he could tell me what the thing was.

He said it happens right away, as soon as the movie starts. If that was the case, I figured, sure, tell me. So he told me. Then I'm watching the movie, and the thing isn't happening. Fifteen minutes in, still not happening. Twenty minutes in, it happens. I was not pleased with him. But I was prepared for it.

Mark Ellis missed the twist on a bathroom break

Mark had the opposite experience. He'd had a lot of Diet Coke before the movie, and once he felt he could see where it was going, and the issue the story would have to solve had been introduced, he figured he could sneak out for a quick bathroom break and not miss anything.

He came back and that thing had already happened. For the next 30 minutes he was trying to piece together what was going on. He said he eventually got there because he is, in fact, a Wake Forest University graduate, but it took a minute.

I only got on board with Digger in the last 15 minutes

For me, when that thing happened, I just wasn't invested anymore. By the time I got to the last 15 minutes, I was really on board with it, but it was only the last 15 minutes. For the majority of the movie, at one point I asked myself if I should leave. I didn't. I finished it.

I still don't know. It seems messy, but maybe it wasn't. It's definitely a rewatch movie, if you're curious to see whether you'll like it again.

I recently did JTE's podcast, and they asked whether we'd recommend it to anybody. The three of them said yes, for sure. I said I wouldn't recommend it to the casual moviegoer, and I think the $250 million loss shows you why. Who is this marketed to? It's for the auteur kind of film lover, which is not a bad thing, but at that price, it is. This movie is for people who love film. It is not for the casual fan, and that is where they made their mistake as far as letting it cost that much.

Mark Ellis thinks audiences sensed a heavy political and environmental statement

Mark wondered whether audiences are smart at sniffing stuff out. He compared it to standup: audiences may laugh at sophomoric humor, but they can tell when a comic is feeling it or panicking a little. He thinks with Digger, they read the tea leaves leading in and realized it was going to make a big statement that's political and environmental in nature, and that might have been part of the reason they pulled back.

He was clear that it's not a criticism, because he thinks the film does an excellent job executing that theme. But it is, from a certain point of view, a very depressing watch. Whenever he sees Oscar bait, he asks himself whether his mom, who loves watching whatever gets nominated, would get into it. Walking out, he just didn't know. He called it "a lot of movie," in a good way and a bad way.

He contrasted it with The Revenant, something Alejandro has done before. Mark's point was that it's a survivalist movie, not a grandiose statement about our times and what we're doing to the environment. It was about whether a super famous actor everyone loves could survive, with the bear attack everyone talked about.

The new owners inherited Digger's loss

I think it just didn't do what they wanted it to do. The funny part of that report is the picture of Paramount looking over what the outgoing leadership left behind. It's like opening a birthday present in a nice box and finding something awful inside, and realizing you've got some work to do.

The people who were let go don't have to walk into the shareholder meeting and deal with it. So this is all on Paramount now, and they've got a lot to turn around. We'll see how that goes.

Would you see Digger in a theater, or wait to catch it at home?