5 Reasons Why Greenland 2: Migration Flopped At The Box Office

Lionsgate

January tends to be a slow month at the box office but there's always room for the right movie to slip in and become a sneaky hit. It worked quite well for "Bad Boys: Ride or Die" in January 2024, for example. Unfortunately for STX, it didn't pan out for "Greenland 2: Migration," which has cemented itself as the first major flop of 2026.

The sequel to 2020's disaster picture "Greenland" opened to $8.5 million domestically this past weekend, which was only good enough for fifth place on the charts. "Avatar: Fire and Ash" ($21.3 million) retained the top spot for the fourth weekend in a row, with the killer chimp thriller "Primate" ($11.3 million) landing at number two, performing the best out of the weekend's newcomers. The good news is that Lionsgate only paid $10 million for the domestic rights, which means they'll be in okay shape. Now for the bad news.

Directed by Ric Roman Waugh, "Migration" carries a hefty $90 million price tag. So, even though STX sold off various distribution rights throughout the world to help cover the costs, this is a terrible opening for a movie with a blockbuster budget. It's now completely reliant on an outsized turnout overseas, which doesn't seem likely. This is a bust. STX, a company that has been financially unstable in recent years, can ill-afford such misfires.

So, what went wrong here? How did STX make such a grave miscalculation with this one? We're going to look at the biggest reasons why "Greenland 2" bombed at the box office on opening weekend. Let's get into it.

Lionsgate

When "Greenland" arrived in 2020, it surprised a lot of viewers. Not just the run-of-the-mill disaster flick, it aimed for something more grounded and harrowing. So there was a certain amount of potential buy in with the sequel. Unfortunately, critics and audiences alike were, generally speaking, a little soft on Waugh's follow-up.

"Migration" boasts a 58% critical approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, as of this writing. That's accompanied by a not much better 65% audience score. Those numbers aren't ones that generally accompany the sort of big-budget movie that will get people off the couch these days. The first movie, by contrast, carries a 78% critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes. The sequel also carries a not-so-good B- CinemaScore which, again, is bad for a blockbuster. A movie this expensive needs to reach the widest possible audience in theaters and can't suffer the "wait to stream" fate.

The sequel picks up in the aftermath of a comet strike that decimated most of the Earth and follows the Garrity family (Gerard Butler, Morena Baccarin, and Roman Griffin Davis) as they're forced to leave the safety of their bunker in Greenland. They must now traverse the wreckage of the old world in search of a new home.

Chris Evangelista, in his review of "Greenland 2" for /Film, called it an "effective sequel" that "never overstays its welcome." Even so, not enough critics were charmed by the movie to give it that must-see buzz, which is a problem when it cost so much to make.

Lionsgate

Put plainly, no matter how the rights were sold, no matter who might do okay in certain territories with this movie financially, $90 million was far too much to spend on "Greenland 2." A sequel did seem to be warranted, but not at this price. The first movie cost $35 million and made $52.3 million at the international box office in 2020, when theaters closed down throughout much of the world due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It was released on VOD in North America, with STX able to sign a lucrative streaming deal with HBO Max and Amazon Prime Video as well.

With a better theatrical landscape and a January release with less competition, there was a chance that this movie could find its audience. But going from $35 million to $90 million was a nail in the coffin here. Expensive disaster movies, historically speaking, have always been a risky bet. For every "The Day After Tomorrow" ($555 million worldwide), there is at least one "The Core" ($73 million worldwide). We could also look at "Moonfall," which was literally one of the biggest flops of 2022 with just $67 million worldwide against a hulking $140 million budget.

"Migration" would need to make at least $225 million worldwide, or 2.5X its production budget, before it could even begin to be considered a theatrical success, before any other revenue streams are taken into account. At this rate, making up the difference on VOD/streaming is going to be a tall order, even if international audiences turn out. The math just isn't mathing, as it were.

Lionsgate

Part of what can make a January release effective for the right movie is a lack of direct competition, as studios tend to favor other months, particularly the summer season, for big releases. But without any real must-see buzz attached to "Greenland 2," the competition that is out there loomed very large, creating a situation where this was far from the first choice for moviegoers.

James Cameron's "Avatar: Fire and Ash" has made well over $1 billion thus far, with a great deal of that money coming from overseas. This is, for the moment, the blockbuster of choice for prospective ticket buyers. "Primate" won over horror crowds, while Paul Feig's thriller "The Housemaid" has become an unexpected, breakout hit, currently closing in on $200 million globally. Even Sony's "Anaconda" reboot has made $110 million worldwide, holding well week to week.

This is to say nothing of Disney's family-friendly juggernaut "Zootopia 2," which is well on its way to becoming one of the biggest movies of all time. When we count Oscar hopefuls like "Marty Supreme" and "Is This Thing On?" as well, the picture becomes more clear. A middling disaster movie is fighting an uphill battle when there is so much else to choose from in the marketplace at the moment.

Lionsgate

There was a time when it seemed like Gerard Butler might be the next massive movie star. Like a Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson level of movie star, back when "300" became a breakout hit in 2007. But that was a long time ago and, though Butler still regularly works and finds himself on the right side of modest hits like "Den of Thieves 2: Pantera" from time to time, it's been crystal clear for some time now that he's not the kind of actor that can carry a blockbuster on his shoulders.

Butler, in fairness, was part of a massive hit last year in "How to Train Your Dragon" ($636 million worldwide), but that was in an ensemble that was already part of a beloved franchise with blockbuster appeal. Most of the actor's hits have come in the mid-budget range, such as "Olympus Has Fallen" or "Law Abiding Citizen." Oftentimes, when he dips his toes into the big-budget arena, it goes poorly. Think the massive flop that was "Geostorm" ($223 million worldwide/$120 million budget) or the disaster that was "Gods of Egypt."

"Greenland" truly suited Butler's strengths as a movie star. A sequel could have as well, if they had managed to keep it in the same budget range. Unfortunately, as a blockbuster, it never made sense. With all due respect, Gerard Butler isn't Tom Cruise. This isn't the lane that he operates best in, commercially speaking.

Lionsgate

In the modern era, it's more difficult than ever to get people to actually show up to a theater and buy a movie ticket. The domestic box office is still far from reaching pre-pandemic levels, with no signs of that changing any time soon. In the case of "Greenland 2," specifically looking at the picture domestically but also operating under the assumption that the vast majority of people globally saw the first one at home, trying to turn a VOD release into a theatrical franchise is exceptionally hard. It's a big ask.

The fact of the matter is that streaming content devalued even once mighty brands like Marvel and Pixar. People already want to stay home and stream stuff. So it's important to take into account that audiences largely came to know "Greenland" as something that they were able to enjoy from the comfort of home — not something that they had to see in a theater. It's tough to reverse course. That's undoubtedly something that looms over this sequel's opening weekend.

Even in the case of the "Trolls" franchise, "Trolls World Tour" kicked off the premium VOD trend in 2020. Universal decided to put "Trolls Band Together" in theaters in 2023 and that went okay, with the movie making $210 million worldwide, but that was a far cry from the first "Trolls," which made $342 million pre-pandemic. The numbers and data don't really lie here. Once people have an expectation that something should be an at-home movie, they aren't terribly likely to get off the couch.

"Greenland 2: Migration" is in theaters now.