BOARDROOMS & BLOCKBUSTERS
Lionsgate is Hollywood’s most vulnerable studio
Before “Ballerina” releases, let’s analyze the unique situation Lionsgate is facing.
Before “Ballerina” releases, let’s analyze the unique situation Lionsgate is facing.


In Hollywood, there are many keys to success, but two of the most important are financial stability and intellectual property. I’ve written a lot about intellectual property, or IP, in this column, explaining how important it is for studios to have characters and franchises to draw from time and again for easy profits. But it’s not enough to have a collection of lots of IP — a studio must also know how to maintain it while also creating new properties.
Lionsgate is in a singular position in Hollywood, as it lacks both of those keys. Its next release, the upcoming “John Wick” spinoff “Ballerina” premiering on June 6, is attempting to fix this problem. But one spinoff won’t magically fix the huge disadvantage Lionsgate finds itself in.
Let’s start with financial stability. Lionsgate is a rarity in modern Hollywood: a major independent studio. Sony, Universal, Disney, Warner Bros. and Paramount are all part of massive media corporations. Then there’s Apple and Amazon, whose film studios are just small parts of the greater business. Of course, there are plenty of other independent film and television studios, but none make big-budget blockbusters quite like Lionsgate does.
That being said, Lionsgate was part of a larger corporation for a bit. The studio, along with premium cable service Starz, was a division of the larger holding corporation — which was somewhat confusingly named Lions Gate Entertainment. But on May 7, Lionsgate separated its film and television business from Starz in a corporate spinoff, meaning its film and television businesses will now be responsible for all of the studio’s profits.
Without a streaming service or network to its name, Lionsgate must license its shows out to other services — meaning the studio will only control its film profits.
As for IP, the list of Lionsgate’s highest-grossing films is dominated by a few franchises: “The Twilight Saga,” “The Hunger Games,” “Divergent,” “Saw” — and more recently, the aforementioned “John Wick.” Of those series, “Twilight” and “Divergent” have not seen a new film in years, and the next “Saw” movie is having trouble getting over the finish line.
So, what’s left? After “John Wick” returns with “Ballerina” this Friday, the next major franchise in line is “The Hunger Games,” which will see a new entry in November 2026, titled “Sunrise on the Reaping.” Lionsgate eagerly greenlit an adaptation of the novel by the same name last June — even though the novel itself wouldn’t publish until nearly a year later — so it could continue its most consistent film series. “John Wick” will also continue after the Ana de Armas-led “Ballerina” with a fifth mainline movie, despite its titular character dying in “John Wick: Chapter 4” (2023).
As discussed in my report on CinemaCon 2025 in April, the other piece of intellectual property Lionsgate is actively developing is its magician heist series “Now You See Me.” The third entry, “Now You See Me: Now You Don’t,” is scheduled for a fall release, and a fourth film is already in development. But “Now You See Me” is not exactly a box-office powerhouse; the first two movies combined made less than the first “Hunger Games” movie did.
Lionsgate’s IP strategy, so far, is to develop new “Hunger Games” movies as fast as author Suzanne Collins can write novels, bring John Wick back from the dead and attempt to revive a mediocre magician franchise. That’s not great, but the alternatives don’t look good either: The most recent entries in other Lionsgate franchises like “Rambo” and “The Expendables” did terribly at the box office.
That leaves Lionsgate in an impossible position in modern Hollywood: making original blockbusters and attempting to create new franchises out of thin air, all without the backing of a big corporation to help fund these box-office gambles. Of course, “The Hunger Games” and “John Wick” franchises started out as original blockbusters, but that doesn’t mean every Lionsgate movie can become a worldwide sensation.
Plus, Lionsgate has been trying to launch new franchises — the results have just been abysmal. Variety reported that in a span of just nine weeks in Fall 2024, Lionsgate released seven consecutive flops. Notable among these flops were “Borderlands” (2024), an adaptation of the popular video game series, and “White Bird” (2024), a prequel to the decently successful “Wonder” (2017).
Lionsgate is going to have to keep trying to strike gold — because as Marvel Studios can certainly agree, too much of a beloved franchise can have surprisingly negative results. Releasing a “John Wick” movie every year would almost definitely be a disaster waiting to happen.
The studio does have some potentially successful upcoming projects. A Michael Jackson biopic, which could be split into two parts, is coming next year. A sequel to “The Passion of the Christ” (2004) is in development as well. The rest of 2025 will feature the aforementioned return of “Now You See Me” and Sydney Sweeney’s next project, “Americana.”
None of these are slam dunks, but if even one spurs nationwide interest, that could inform a new strategy or even start a franchise. Lionsgate is betting that “Now You See Me: Now You Don’t” will pay off, but the first test will come with “Ballerina.” In it, Keanu Reeves will return as John Wick, but the film is just a spin-off. Lionsgate better hope fans show up anyway, because in 2025, a major movie studio built on original projects is as stable as a house of cards.
Sammy Bovitz is a rising junior writing about the business of film. His column, “Boardrooms & Blockbusters,” runs every other Friday during the school year.
We are the only independent newspaper here at USC, run at every level by students. That means we aren’t tied down by any other interests but those of readers like you: the students, faculty, staff and South Central residents that together make up the USC community.
Independence is a double-edged sword: We have a unique lens into the University’s actions and policies, and can hold powerful figures accountable when others cannot. But that also means our budget is severely limited. We’re already spread thin as we compensate the writers, photographers, artists, designers and editors whose incredible work you see in our paper; as we work to revamp and expand our digital presence, we now have additional staff making podcasts, videos, webpages, our first ever magazine and social media content, who are at risk of being unable to receive the support they deserve.
We are therefore indebted to readers like you, who, by supporting us, help keep our paper independent, free and widely accessible.
Please consider supporting us. Even $1 goes a long way in supporting our work; if you are able, you can also support us with monthly, or even annual, donations. Thank you.
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept settingsDo Not AcceptWe may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.
Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.
These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.
Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.
We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.
We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.
These cookies collect information that is used either in aggregate form to help us understand how our website is being used or how effective our marketing campaigns are, or to help us customize our website and application for you in order to enhance your experience.
If you do not want that we track your visit to our site you can disable tracking in your browser here:
We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.
Google Webfont Settings:
Google Map Settings:
Google reCaptcha Settings:
Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:
The following cookies are also needed - You can choose if you want to allow them:
