Blue Sky’s ‘Rio 2′ Opens In Second Place in the U.S.

Blue Sky’s Rio 2 failed to unseat Captain America 2 at the box office last weekend and settled for a second-place opening of $39.3 million. The opening was virtually identical to the original Rio’s $39.2 million opening in 2011.

As far as 2014 children’s animated films go, Rio 2 topped The Nut Job’‘s $19.4M debut and Mr. Peabody & Sherman’s $32.2M opening, though it didn’t come anywhere near The LEGO Movie’s debut of $69.1M.

Whether Rio 2 achieved the number one spot is irrelevant in this case. The Carlos Saldanha-directed film performed close to expectations for the U.S. market, which isn’t as important for Blue Sky franchises as other studios. In fact, none of the Ice Age sequels or the original Rio made more than 30% of their global gross in the United States. True to that trend, Rio 2 will end up performing disproportionately stronger in overseas markets than in the United States. Last weekend, the film pulled in $62.3M from foreign territories, boosting its international total to $125.2M.

Meanwhile, Disney’s Frozen scored an additional $8.4M from global audiences, mostly from Japan where it has been the number one film for five weeks in a row. Its global total of $1.11 billion has now surpassed Skyfall to reach 8th place on the highest-grossing films of all-time list.

Ernest & Celestine grosses are typically released mid-week. Visit back for final numbers.


  • Inkan1969

    Any reason why Blue Sky has much stronger numbers outside the US/Canada?

    • RCooke

      Yes. Fox has a very strong international marketing initiative, which is paying off in spades. They cast local popular voice talent in each region for the film rather than rely on the standard international casting methods, which don’t take advantage in the same way.

      • Funkybat

        Did any of that make “Epic” less of a clunker overseas?

    • http://the-animatorium.blogspot.com/ Natalie Belton

      Everybody just seems to love those Ice Age movies for some reason.

  • Mister Twister

    Watched Rio 2 and loved it.

  • DangerMaus

    I thought the film was decent. It basically followed the template of the first one, but the number of songs and choreographed numbers were pushed up a notch, making it a semi-musical. The choreography in this flick was actually better than in some live action musicals: “Mama Mia” comes to mind when I say that.

    I have to admit, I found out about this site only recently and after reading quite a few threads, new and old, I almost find it depressing. Reading this site almost makes me want to quit watching animated films. I mean, I can ignore the opinions of film critics when it comes to these types of films because film critics have no respect for this form from the get go; however, when I read the comments of animators and other people who work on these films and they generally think of them as awful, then I have to start re-evaluating whether I’ve been or am being an idiot for liking this medium.

    • mud

      I understand your dismay, but we criticize these films because we know the medium is capable of so much more than, say, the likes of Rio 2. I think it would be rather unfair to demand that everyone involved or invested in the field to like a film simply because it’s animated. Respecting the medium, or supporting the industry isn’t the same as not being critical of it.

  • George Comerci

    I still don’t know whether to see this this weekend or not. Any suggestions?

    • Mister Twister

      See it.

  • bob

    your credibility for you finding this site is pretty much gone now…

    People are critical as they should be. People want high quality. That doesn’t mean avant garde.. it doesn’t even mean great technical achievements. It means good story telling. Today’s film market relies more on effects than it does on story. That’s not to say effects aren’t worth while, but it all means much less without a solid reason to be telling the story in the first place.

    As an artist doing the same thing every day, making the same stories every day, year after year, it’s natural to long for something more advanced or at least something new.

    That doesn’t mean everyone wants to see grave of fireflies. The definition of “good” isn’t necessarily dark, edgy or serious, although those things could show up if the story permitted it.

    It is absolutely fine for people to want progression in this medium.

    But to on of your points… no one should want a studio to fail. Animation doing well means more stability for the entire industry. It means less layoffs, more opportunity and also… a chance for studios to try new things.

    • DangerMaus

      Sorry if my credibility is gone, but then I never claimed I had any. I’m not an industry worker or an animation historian. I’m just someone who has watched 40 years worth of this medium and has seen various phases that it has gone through. Would I like to see “good storytelling” (whatever those terms actually mean) in animation? Yes, but then “good storytelling” is a subjective term that is dependent on one’s point of view. I don’t think that RIO 2 is bad storytelling; it is just familiar storytelling which is what 90% of Hollywood storytelling is, no matter whether it is live action or animation.

      AVATAR is the biggest grossing film in history and yet the story is as mundane and familiar as it can get. FROZEN is the biggest grossing animated film in history and it is as familiar and mundane as Disney can get. The fact is that people can talk all they want about wanting to see films that “push the envelope”, but the reality is that the majority of people want to see stories that are familiar to them.

      Disney is a case in point. People constantly complained about them being “formulaic”, so they try something a bit different in the form of “Atlantis”. It bombs. They try “Treasure Planet”. It bombs. They go back to the “formula” and make FROZEN and it makes a boatload of money. What message is being sent since commercial film making is more about profit and less about artistic concerns? It seems pretty clear to me.

      People seem to think that commercial film making is some sort of artistic endeavor when it is pretty well just a manufacturing business cranking out movies, exactly like FORD or TOYOTA cranking out automobiles. If something artistic or different happens in a Hollywood movie, it happens in spite of the process, not because of the process. Sometimes people don’t even realize something different has occurred until years later (e.g. Blade Runner).

      I suppose I and others could stop going to these films, effectively
      sending a message that we’re tired of these familiar retreads and want
      to see something different; however, from what I have seen in following this medium, the only result would be most of these studios would shut down and lay everyone off. That doesn’t mean trying something different shouldn’t occur. I would welcome that myself, but at 140,000,000+ a pop for one of these films I can also see why the tried and true is so prevalent in both animation and live action.

      Also, the animation medium has to be the only medium where the process becomes branded as in “this isn’t the kind of story Pixar tells” or “this isn’t a Disney story” or “this isn’t a Dreamworks story”. It’s bizarre. When is the last time anyone has heard WB, Paramount or Universal say “this isn’t a (fill in the blank) studio film because it doesn’t contain certain required elements”?

      • bob

        I agree with pretty much everything you said… its just that artists are allowed to react to what they’re helping to create.

  • bachelorrj

    I thought the first one was cute and this looks good. I’m going to wait for the DVD release before checking it out though!