5 reasons why Sonic 3 beat Mufasa at the box office

It was another big blockbuster clash at the box office this past weekend, as Paramount’s Sonic the Hedgehog 3 went head-to-head Disney’s big prequel to Mufasa: The Lion King. Not that the third entry in a successful franchise should necessarily be considered a complete underdog, but for various reasons it might have seemed like “Mufasa” had the upper hand here. However, now things have gone like this.

Instead, Jeff Fowler’s Sonic 3 triumphed, earning $62 million in its domestic opening weekend, good enough to take the top spot and essentially right in line with industry expectations for the Sonic triquel heading into the weekend. Meanwhile, Disney’s Lion King prequel, from Oscar-winning director Barry Jenkins, didn’t fare so well. It earned just $35 million, peaking at number two on the charts. For context, 2019’s The Lion King grossed more than $190 million domestically before eventually amassing more than $1.6 billion worldwide, becoming literally one of the highest-grossing films of all time. Needless to say, we’re off to a slow start here.

Sonic 3 doesn’t open in international release until this week, but Mufasa did earn $87.2 million overseas, making it the number one movie worldwide last weekend. Even so, a $122.2 million worldwide opening isn’t enough for a film of this size, and Disney will have to rely on unusually long legs and a bigger-than-projected turnout outside of the US from here on out.

So what went wrong with “Mufasa” here? How was Sonic 3 able to win so handily in what should have been a much closer matchup? We’re going to look at the main reasons why this high-profile box office duel went the way it did. Let’s figure it out.

It’s not that critics are the main thing for a movie to do well at the box office. But given that video game movies have been routinely awful for so long, it does matter. In the case of Sonic the Hedgehog 3, Paramount and Fowler managed to cook up another winner, and the reviews only get stronger as the franchise progresses. /The Movie’s BJ Colangelo described the third Sonic movie as “bigger, bolder and better”and the audience seemed to agree.

Mufasa, on the other hand, found itself in the same territory as 2019’s The Lion King. Critics gave mixed reviews to the film, while the audience liked it more. But the response from critics and audiences wasn’t loud enough to encourage families to seek out this film. Example: Sonic 3 received an A CinemaScore and Mufasa received an A-. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still very good, but this downside matters when we’re talking about the weekend, when moviegoers have tons of options to choose from. It certainly mattered here.

Speaking of tons of options, it looks like Disney was hit pretty hard by its direct competition this past weekend. “Mufasa” was pitching itself to the same potential ticket buyers that were also targeted by films like “Wicked” ($13.5 million in its fifth weekend) and even Disney’s own “Moana 2” ($13.1 million in its fourth weekend). Yes, it’s true that Sonic 3 also caters to the same family crowd, but Moana 2 in particular literally the same target demographic for the film “The Lion King”. Not that Disney planned it that way; Moana 2’s transition from a Disney+ streaming series to a theatrical film was a great movebut it’s also something that, at least to some extent, may have come at the expense of “Mufasa.”

Another thing to consider is that audiences weren’t starved for family meals like they were at the beginning of the pandemic era. Recently, we’ve had the likes of “Red One” and even Lionsgate’s sneaky hit “The Best Christmas Pageant Ever” to fill that void (not to mention “The Wild Robot” and its ridiculously excellent release). The thing is, without great reviews and super strong word of mouth, “Mufasa” was going to have an uphill battle on such a crowded weekend.

Paramount, on the other hand, did a great job keeping the mood going with Sonic the Hedgehog 3. Until the third part opened as much as the record-breaking “Sonic the Hedgehog 2” ($72 million) in 2022that $62 million keeps the franchise on the right side of the financial line in light of its budget, which is said to be in the $110 million range. This number shows that Paramount did their job well, and that job was selling this third Sonic movie to fans. The studio had to let people know that it wasn’t just the same thing. What reason is there to rush to the theater and see the third Sonic movie in less than five years?

The trailers, in particular, effectively sold Keanu Reeves’ Shadow the Hedgehog. as a compelling villain. Even for casual fans who didn’t know about Shadow from the Sonic video games, Sonic 3’s marketing made him feel important and look cool. It also made it clear that the film would have higher stakes, which was enough to keep audiences interested. It’s also easier said than done, as evidenced by what happened with “Mufasa.” Being part of a franchise doesn’t automatically guarantee a win, even if Hollywood sometimes makes it seem like it does.

One thing that needs to be addressed here is the cost of both these films. For one thing, Sonic the Hedgehog 3 cost $110 million to launch. That’s a slight increase from the $90 million Paramount spent on the first two Sonic films, but it’s still reasonable for a third installment in the franchise. Meanwhile, “Mufasa” was notably more expensive, reaching $200 million in expensive worldwide marketing costs. And yet, here we are with a much less expensive film at the top.

This is not exactly a David and Goliath story; we are talking about two huge films from equally famous franchises. Disney’s 1994 original The Lion King was announced as a box office smash while the character of Sonic has been a staple of pop culture for decades long before he began dominating the big screen. Still, it’s telling that a movie with a reasonable budget, aimed at a mainstream audience, wins here. Not that the cost of a film directly affects ticket sales, but it does affect the bar for success. In this case, Paramount cleared that bar, and Disney tripped right over it.

To what extent that matters is hard to determine, but there’s something to be said for a timely sequel. 2019 The Lion King is a billion-dollar hit and one of the biggest parts of Disney’s highest-grossing year yettrailing only Avengers: Endgame ($2.79 billion worldwide). When success is achieved at this level, the following will always occur. In this case, Disney went with the prequel. Unfortunately, these movies take a long time to make, and in 2020 the pandemic shut down Hollywood for months on end. This, combined with last year’s SAG and WGA strikes, caused a major delay with this film.

If Mufasa had hit theaters two years ago, who knows? Maybe there would be interest. Perhaps it would have been beneficial if it hadn’t clashed with another long-awaited blockbuster sequel. While this isn’t always the case, sequels that take more than a few years to come out can suffer as audiences move on and/or lose interest. $1.6 billion is a lot of interest.

Paramount, on the other hand, released the first Sonic in 2020 a few weeks before the pandemic closed theaters, and it was a huge success. Despite production difficulties, Sonic 2 was released in theaters in the summer of 2022. Then again, even with the delays, Sonic 3 came out about two and a half years later. The studio made these movies like clockwork and as a result built a loyal audience. There is something to be said for that.

2025 is full of great moviesbut almost none of them come to us in January. Because of this, both Sonic 3 and Mufasa could potentially end in the new year. Who knows? Perhaps “Mufasa” will find its audience as the weeks go by. Either way, one has to imagine the five-year gap was a factor. How big is the factor? It is impossible to calculate.

Sonic the Hedgehog 3 and Mufasa: The Lion King are currently in theaters.