Dacre Montgomery recently revealed that while the 2017 Power Rangers cast signed four-picture deals, Lionsgate scrapped sequels after the film lost an estimated $74 million. Now, as Montgomery promotes the Faces of Death remake this weekend, the franchise shifts from theatrical failure to a modern Disney+ series development.
In the high-stakes game of Hollywood IP, there is a massive difference between a “deal” and a “guarantee.” For Dacre Montgomery and his costars, the four-picture contract was the ultimate promise of a cinematic universe. But as we’ve seen time and again in the era of the “franchise pivot,” those contracts are often just options for the studio—a way to lock in talent at a fixed rate before the movie even hits screens. When the numbers didn’t align, the dream of a Red Ranger cinematic empire evaporated.
The Bottom Line
- The Financial Gap: Despite a $142 million global haul, the film’s $100 million production budget and massive marketing spend led to a roughly $74 million loss for Lionsgate.
- The Contract Illusion: Montgomery’s “four-picture deal” was a studio option, a standard industry tool that allows executives to kill a project without paying out future salaries.
- The Platform Pivot: After a failed Netflix reboot in 2024, the IP has migrated to Disney+, where Jonathan E. Steinberg and Dan Shotz are currently developing a series.
The Brutal Math of the “Front-Loaded” Flop
To the casual observer, a $142 million return on a $100 million film looks like a win. But if you’ve spent any time in a boardroom at Variety or the halls of Lionsgate, you understand the math is far more sinister. Here is the kicker: theaters typically take about 40% to 50% of the ticket price. That immediately slashed the film’s $142 million gross down to roughly $71 million in studio returns.
But the math tells a different story once you factor in P&. A (Prints and Advertising). For a global IP like Power Rangers, the marketing budget likely mirrored the production cost. When you add another $50 million to $80 million in global marketing, the film wasn’t just “underperforming”—it was a financial sinkhole. This is why the “front-loaded” opening of $40 million was so deceptive; it signaled interest, but the rapid drop-off in subsequent weeks proved the film lacked the “legs” required to sustain a multi-film arc.
| Metric | Value (Estimated) | Industry Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Production Budget | $100 Million | High-risk baseline for mid-major studios |
| Domestic Gross | $85 Million | Insufficient to cover P&A and theater splits |
| Global Total | $142 Million | Failed to reach the “Break-Even” threshold |
| Estimated Loss | $74 Million | Killed the four-picture trajectory |
Why the “Four-Picture Deal” Failed the Talent
Montgomery’s reflection on the “formative period” of his life highlights a recurring tension in talent contracts. In the industry, these are known as “option contracts.” The studio doesn’t commit to making four movies; they commit to the right to hire the actor for four movies. If the first one bombs, the studio simply declines to exercise the option. It’s a risk-mitigation strategy that favors the corporate entity over the artist.
This structure was famously used during the peak of the Hunger Games era—which Montgomery explicitly mentioned—but the landscape has shifted. In 2017, studios were still chasing the Marvel blueprint of “interconnected universes.” By 2026, we’ve entered the era of “franchise fatigue,” where audiences are no longer blindly loyal to a brand name if the execution is mediocre. As noted by Deadline, the current market demands “event cinema” or “prestige streaming,” leaving mid-budget IP reboots in a precarious dead zone.
“The industry has moved away from the ‘throw it at the wall and spot what sticks’ approach to IP. We are seeing a consolidation where only the most bulletproof brands survive the theatrical gauntlet, while others are relegated to the streaming graveyard or perpetual development hell.” — Industry Analysis, Entertainment Economics Quarterly
From Lionsgate to Disney+: The Streaming Migration
The journey of the Power Rangers IP over the last decade is a case study in the “Streaming Wars.” First, it was a theatrical gamble with Lionsgate. Then, it became a target for Netflix, where Jonathan Entwistle attempted to build a series that was eventually scrapped in 2024. Now, the baton has passed to Disney+.
Why the shift? Because Disney+ operates on a different economic engine than a theatrical release. For a streamer, the goal isn’t necessarily a $500 million box office return; it’s “subscriber churn reduction.” A Power Rangers series is a low-risk, high-reward play for Disney+ because it captures two demographics: nostalgic Millennials and their Gen Alpha children. By utilizing the duo of Jonathan E. Steinberg and Dan Shotz—the minds behind the successful Percy Jackson and the Olympians—Disney is betting on “prestige adaptation” rather than “blockbuster spectacle.”
This transition reflects a broader trend in the entertainment landscape. We are seeing a massive migration of “B-tier” cinematic IP into “A-tier” streaming content. It’s a safer bet for the studios and, arguably, a better environment for the stories to breathe without the crushing pressure of an opening weekend quota.
The Cultural Afterlife of the Red Ranger
Montgomery’s grace regarding the reboot is a masterclass in reputation management. By positioning himself as a grateful alumnus of the franchise rather than a victim of a failed deal, he maintains his standing as a versatile lead—a move that likely helped him land the Faces of Death remake. It’s the “Hollywood Handshake”: acknowledge the failure, praise the cast, and pivot to the next project without burning the bridge to the IP holder.
Power Rangers is a brand that refuses to die because its core appeal—teamwork, transformation, and neon aesthetics—is timeless. Whether it lives as a cinematic universe or a Disney+ staple, the IP’s survival depends on moving past the “nostalgia bait” phase and delivering a narrative that justifies its existence in 2026.
But I desire to hear from you. Do you think the Power Rangers belong on the big screen, or is a high-budget streaming series the only way to actually do the lore justice? Drop your thoughts in the comments.
