Ryan Coogler’s Sinners hasn’t even opened yet, and the knives are already out. Not from critics—those folks are lining up with glowing reviews and a 99% Rotten Tomatoes score to prove it—but from within the very system that greenlit the movie in the first place. The word on the street is that Sinners needs to gross around $300 million at the box office just to break even. That’s not a superhero tentpole or a James Cameron underwater opus. That’s a vampire film. A moody, original horror story set in 1930s Mississippi with Michael B. Jordan playing twins.
A film like that is a miracle in 2025. And Hollywood, in its infinite wisdom, has decided it needs to perform like Joker to be deemed worth the risk.
This all started with Coogler’s deal—an absolute unicorn of a contract that’s still making studio execs break out in stress rashes. When Sinners went out for bidding, studios like Sony and Universal wanted in, until they saw the terms. Coogler didn’t just want a big budget (around $90 million, which ballooned a bit by the time production wrapped), he wanted first-dollar gross, final cut, and—here’s the part that sent boardrooms into cardiac arrest—ownership of the film after 25 years. He basically asked for the kind of autonomy that used to be reserved for the Spielbergs and Lucases of a more filmmaker-driven era. And Warner Bros., to their credit or potential regret, said yes.
Was it smart business? That’s debatable. Was it a power move? Absolutely. It was also, depending on who you ask, a dangerous precedent. Industry folks grumbled that giving away backend and rights ownership in an already razor-thin margin market is irresponsible, even reckless. And sure, it’s easy to say “Coogler earned it” after the cultural and financial juggernaut that was Black Panther. But that doesn’t mean the rest of Hollywood’s brass was thrilled about the precedent it sets for future auteurs coming to the table with demands instead of pitch decks.
Still, Warner Bros. is in a precarious spot right now. Pam Abdy and Mike De Luca, who landed Sinners back in February 2024, are navigating some serious pressure following the recent flop of Mickey 17. Despite its Bong Joon-ho pedigree and hefty budget, the film came and went with barely a ripple at the box office, and the fallout has only added to the uncertainty swirling around the studio. David Zaslav, never one to sit still for long, has reportedly been exploring replacement options—whether that’s serious succession planning or just saber-rattling to spur better results is anyone’s guess. Either way, the timing of Sinners couldn’t be more loaded. It’s not just another release on the calendar. It’s a referendum on whether Abdy and De Luca’s bold bets can still pay off.
And the thing is, the movie doesn’t look bad. In fact, it looks great. But it’s opening in April, which has quietly become a cursed month for vampire movies. In 2023 we got Renfield, which leaned hard into the Nic Cage of it all and still tanked. In 2024 there was Abigail, which tried to bring ballerina-horror into the mainstream and barely registered. Now Sinners steps up as the third swing, and it’s doing so over Easter weekend, with a title that’s almost daring middle America to stay home. You don’t call your movie Sinners and expect the church crowd to roll in after brunch.
That said, the box office tracking isn’t bad. As of now, Sinners is looking at a $40 million opening weekend. That’s not nothing, especially for a horror film that isn’t a sequel, remake, or based on a haunted children’s toy. But whether it sticks the landing will boil down to one thing: word of mouth. And that’s where Hailee Steinfeld could be the secret weapon. She’s got a fanbase. A real one. If her performance clicks with younger audiences and becomes the thing people start talking about on TikTok and in group chats, this thing could grow legs. You want Gen Z showing up? Give them Hailee content to obsess over.
My only real gripe—if I’m being honest—is with the trailer. It’s a slick piece of marketing, no doubt. But it also feels like it gave away every twist. Every beat. Every spooky turn and shocking reveal. I get it, horror trailers have to sell the hook, but this one practically throws the whole fishing pole into the lake. I hope I’m wrong. I hope the movie still has secrets. Because even knowing what I think I know, it still looks good. Really good. Moody. Stylish. Thoughtful. A vibe.
And maybe that’s part of what makes Sinners interesting. It’s not just a vampire movie. It’s a horror film filtered through the lens of racial history, personal trauma, and supernatural dread. It’s got dual Michael B. Jordans. It’s shot like a prestige picture. And it’s meant to kickstart a whole franchise—two post-credit scenes and all. This is Warner Bros. betting that Sinners can be their Conjuring—a horror tentpole that spins off into a cinematic universe.
But is that even possible anymore? Can a film like this break through the noise in a marketplace that only seems to reward known IP and safe plays? Is it fair to judge the film on whether it hits $300 million, when it’s trying to do something that actually matters creatively? We’ve spent the last five years asking studios to take chances again. And now that one did, we’re watching the financial bean-counters try to smother the whole thing before it gets a chance to breathe.
Look, nobody’s pretending Sinners is a surefire hit. But it might be a surefire moment. The kind of film that says something about where we are and where we’re heading—both in horror and in the business. It might not be Easter weekend-friendly. It might not cross that mythical $300M line. But it’s trying to be bold, and honest, and weird, and new. And if there’s no room for that kind of movie anymore, then maybe the problem isn’t Sinners.
Maybe it’s us.
Hollywood After Dark 