The fourth and latest installment in the Bridget Jones Universe (BJU) has surpassed a global box office gross of USD $110 million in just over three weeks across 78 countries, save for the United States, where the film is skipping movie theatres in lieu of a direct-to-streaming release. With a reported production budget of USD $50 million, the move has confounded industry pundits and frustrated US cinema operators who were left wondering why a major Hollywood studio would skip a theatrical release for “Bridget Jones: Mad About The Boy,” a sequel to a popular series starring an actress whose last film earned her a second Oscar. 

Based on the popular 1996 novel by Helen Fielding and starring Hollywood starlet Renée Zellweger, the original “Bridget Jones’s Diary” was released worldwide in movie theaters  in the spring of 2001. The film was a resounding success, with critics and audiences embracing the film and Zellweger earning numerous Best Actress nominations for her performance in the title role from the likes of the Academy Awards and BAFTA. It would ultimately gross USD $71.5 million in North America and another USD $210.5 million around the rest of the world for a total global take of USD $282 million. 

However, sometimes the true measure of any film’s success is whether it facilitates a sequel, which in Bridget Jones’ case, came along swiftly in 2004; , “Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason.” The second installment grossed USD $40.2 million in North America and USD $224.9 million internationally. The third entry, “Bridget Jones’s Baby” was delivered in September 2016 and marked Zellweger’s return to the screen after a six-year hiatus from acting. The film would go on to gross $24.1 million in North America and $187.9 million overseas for a total of $212 million. While grosses for Bridget Jones films continued a downward trend, the third film was critically viewed as a return to form. 

That brings us to 2025 when a fourth chapter in the Bridget Jones’ universe, “Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy,” recently opened in theaters on Valentine’s Day weekend all around the world… except for the United States), where the film landed on Peacock, NBCUniversal’s  streaming service.  

In 71 countries, “Mad About the Boy” has grossed USD $35.5 million on its opening weekend and at the time of writing, has reached a cumulative of USD $90.1 million and counting (good enough to be the third highest grossing film worldwide at this point in time).

The burning question on many people’s minds is why didn’t “Mad About the Boy” open theatrically in the US? Perhaps the better question is: what if it had?

While many have prematurely and frequently predicted the outright demise of cinema exhibition, especially in a post-pandemic world, the business has persevered and adapted even in the face of slate-disrupting industry strikes, changing moviegoer habits and shrinking theatrical windows. In fact, it’s the latter that most industry experts point to as one of the most seismic of the challenges exhibitors have weathered. Much of that stems from the fact that a number of studios have invested billions in their own streaming services, a venture accelerated by the pandemic. With so much invested in these platforms, the pressure was on to keep them viable (and eventually profitable). This, of course, lit the fuse on the streaming versus theatrical debate that rages on to this day and for the foreseeable future.

When it comes to day-and-date releasing with a streaming platform or opting for a theatrical release, there are two inarguable truths: 1) a theatrical release automatically adds legitimacy to any film once it does hit streaming and 2) audience viewing habits have changed.

Make no mistake, with a veritable glut of content now available to at-home subscribers 24/7 365 days a year, certainly not all streaming movies are suited for theatrical release. Studios all have their reasons for picking and choosing which titles follow which path to the screen, be it the big screen or the small one. But as theaters fight for their survival, it becomes particularly attention-getting when a title such as “Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy”, an established and profitable IP with a built-in fanbase, bypasses cinemas entirely in a market such as the US in favor of a streaming platform.

Let’s look at some of the all-time highest 3-day openings in North America when Valentine’s Day fell on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday as it did this year:

• “Deadpool” (2016) opened to USD $132.2 million
• “Captain America: Brave New World” (2025) opened to USD $88.8 million
• “Fifty Shades of Grey” (2015) opened to USD $85.1 million
• “Sonic the Hedgehog” (2020) opened to USD $58 million
• “Valentine’s Day” (2010) opened to USD $56.2 million

Two of those are big superhero tentpoles and one is a PG rated videogame adaptation (that opened on the eve of the COVID-19 outbreak). The other two are bona fide female-audience-skewing date movies.

Now, let’s take a closer look at the broader competitive landscape specifically on this year’s V-Day weekend box office:

1. “Captain America: Brave New World” (USD $88.8 million) NEW
2. “Paddington In Peru” (USD $12.7 million) NEW
3. “Heart Eyes” (USD $9.8 million) WEEK 2
4. “Dog Man” (USD $9.7 million) WEEK 3
5. “Ne Zha 2” (USD $7.6 million) NEW

We have a Marvel movie, a PG rated family film threequel, an R-rated slasher/comedy, a PG rated animated film in its third weekend of release and an Anime sequel that broke records on its home turf of China but catered purely to a niche audience stateside.

What did women go to see? What constituted a “date movie” on this romantic holiday weekend? Marvel’s gonna Marvel, even in its current stretch of audience MCU malaise, but is there any question “Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy” would have come in a strong second? It’s often said that female moviegoers drive the box office (see “Barbie,” “Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour,” “It Ends With Us” and many more). What gross could women have driven “Bridget Jones” to on opening weekend? Let’s not forget that Monday was also a holiday in the US (President’s Day) which may have added significant receipts to the 4-day totals.

Does this mean comedies are dead when it comes to a North American theatrical release?  Some “hybrids” have worked (i.e. action-comedies). But what about romantic comedies? They’ve certainly struggled as of late. You can throw out 2020. In 2022, “The Lost City” with Sandra Bullock and Channing Tatum worked pretty well (USD $105 million domestic). “Ticket To Paradise” with George Clooney and Julia Roberts is a good older audience comp, though it opened in October of 2022 and grossed USD $68.2 million domestic. In the summer of 2023, Jennifer Lawrence’s R-rated romp, “No Hard Feelings,” underperformed a bit with USD $50.4 million domestic. Then, Sydney Sweeney and Glen Powell overperformed with “Anyone But You,” grossing a leggy USD $88 million domestic between Christmas 2023 and Valentine’s Day 2024. Hell, even “It Ends With Us” with all of its on (and off) screen drama surprised everyone last August by taking in USD $148 million stateside.

Even though rom-coms are best enjoyed with a theater full of strangers all laughing and swooning in unison, it seems that these types of films are the most susceptible to being banished to couches at home via streaming. As of the fourth quarter of 2024, Peacock counted 36 million paid subscribers, a 16% increase over 2023. At the time of this writing, no viewership numbers have been released pertaining to “Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy,” so all we can do is speculate. It’s unlikely Peacock gained very many new subscriptions or reduced the churn of existing subscribers just because they dropped the new “Bridget Jones” movie on the platform with minimal marketing effort.

Of course marketing is one of the deterrents preventing Universal from releasing the film stateside. Conventional wisdom would suggest that a major studio would have to spend approximately USD $40 million in marketing costs to open a mid-size picture. I ask, why so much? In this age of experimenting with different release strategies, I would love for someone to take an existing intellectual property with a built-in audience (like “Bridget Jones”) to try rewriting the rule book. Universal clearly didn’t spend USD $40 million to market the film for its Peacock debut.  

What if they had kept their marketing spend at a minimum and then at least went day and date with theaters and Peacock? That’s what they did with the horror release “Five Nights At Freddy’s” and that movie still managed an eye-popping USD $80 million opening take over the 2023 Halloween weekend. Even a one-week engagement (similar to the anemic 600 theatre release Netflix did with “Knives Out: Glass Onion,”) likely would’ve generated a respectable gross, while also acting as a marketing tactic to raise awareness for the film being available on Peacock simultaneously. Production costs are what they are but if studios eliminate a lot of the hard costs associated with marketing and tailor their efforts to impactful digital buys and exhibitor-driven efforts, studios could still make money on a popular film brand such as this. At least give moviegoers the option to go out to cinemas or stay home. I suspect many wives and girlfriends would’ve liked the opportunity to go out and make a true date night out of it. I can’t imagine many women were begging their husbands and boyfriends to go see “Red Hulk” or the “Heart Eyes killer” with them.

Sure, it’s been nearly nine years since the last Bridget Jones movie. But absence makes the heart grow fonder. It’s true in relationships and it’s true of movies as well. Sequelitis is real but there are many instances where a gap in between franchise entries can spark nostalgia and help goose the grosses after a hiatus, especially if the new movie is actually good. With worldwide grosses approaching USD $1 billion, Bridget Jones is one of the most beloved female-centric franchises and characters of the last 25 years. Again, I ask what IF it had opened theatrically in the US? Would it have been a hit? Would it have made enough money to justify the release? Would Peacock have been any worse off without having that “exclusive” streaming drop or would it have benefitted more after a theatrical run? We’ll never know for sure.

While we continue to play a game of Monday morning movie mogul, we do know that the cinematic landscape has changed. Many studios now also have a vested interest in their own streaming service, many for the long haul, and that’s a beast that’ll have to be continuously fed. But they can’t ignore the theatrical space, otherwise the death of moviegoing as has oft been prematurely heralded will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Big spectacle event films will drive theatrical attendance as they always have but diversity in cinematic choices are essential in preserving the long-term health of the theatrical experience and, in turn, the appeal of the studios’ streaming services. Man (and woman) cannot live on a steady diet of Marvel alone. Sometimes it’s even more refreshing and rewarding to visit an old friend… like Bridget Jones.