Tom Cruise has had a miserable opening weekend with Digger. The film took an estimated $8 million in North America and $12 million overseas, according to the Associated Press, putting its worldwide start at around $20 million.
The bill for making it is considerably bigger. Even allowing for a long cinema run, that’s a lot of ground to make up.
Cruise plays an oil tycoon facing an environmental disaster in Alejandro González Iñárritu’s black comedy. It’s a departure from Ethan Hunt, and an intriguing pairing of actor and director. But a film still needs paying customers, however interesting the names on its poster might be.
How much did Digger cost?
There’s no single agreed figure in the reporting. The Wall Street Journal puts the production cost at about $125 million, citing Warner Bros. Variety reports a higher $160–180 million budget, plus another $100 million for worldwide marketing.
A difference of that size deserves to be spelled out. Neither readers nor the studio benefit from treating the largest reported number as a settled account. What the estimates do agree on is that this was an expensive gamble.
Against the studio’s reported $125 million production figure, the $20 million worldwide opening amounts to roughly 16%. That isn’t the percentage of the budget recovered, though. The studio doesn’t pocket everything collected at the box office, and production isn’t its only expense.
So there’s no neat subtraction that gives us Digger’s final loss today. There is, however, a very small opening beside a very large bill.
Variety also reports that Warner Bros. tried to turn negative reviews into a reason to buy a ticket, inviting audiences to “decide for yourself”. It’s an understandable pitch for a divisive film. So far, it hasn’t delivered the opening the studio needed.
Getting attention and selling tickets
Cruise’s involvement makes a project newsworthy. Persuading someone to spend their evening watching it is another job.
For a regular cinema visitor, an action franchise offers a reasonably clear set of expectations. There’s a familiar character, a recognisable style and some idea of the spectacle on offer. A new satire has to make its own case from scratch.
That could help explain why Digger was a difficult proposition. It doesn’t tell us why any particular person skipped it. Box-office totals can’t separate the effects of a trailer, a review, the premise or the price of a night out.
Still, the turnout raises a fair question about the scale of the investment. How many people did Warner Bros. realistically expect this particular film to reach?
A star can make an unusual movie easier to finance. That doesn’t mean the audience for it suddenly becomes as large as the audience for a familiar franchise.
Verity had a much better weekend
There was another new release for audiences to choose. Amazon MGM’s Verity, starring Anne Hathaway and Dakota Johnson, opened at number one in North America with approximately $32.6 million, the AP reports.
Deadline reports that both films received a C+ CinemaScore. Similar audience grades, very different starts.
Verity has a smaller budget to cover, too. Variety puts its production cost at $40 million. An opening weekend doesn’t guarantee profitability, but it leaves Verity with a less daunting job than Digger has.
It’s tempting to turn that result into another verdict on original films. That would be asking two releases to carry an awful lot of evidence. A book adaptation doing well while a satire struggles doesn’t tell us what audiences will want from every film next year.
The more practical question concerns spending. If a studio finances a film for a relatively narrow audience, can it keep the cost within a range that gives that film a chance? An audience doesn’t have to be enormous to matter. The budget has to leave room for it.
An awkward moment for Warner Bros.
Digger arrives as the studio prepares for a change of ownership. Reuters reports that Paramount’s roughly $110 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery cleared a court hurdle last week. The combined company is due to adopt the Skydance name on 6 October.
Incoming management will have plenty to examine. An expensive film with weak opening receipts is an obvious candidate when executives start questioning past spending decisions.
The risk is that one disappointment becomes an excuse for a much broader retreat. It’s reasonable to scrutinise the financing of an expensive satire. It’s a bigger leap to decide that established actors should stop trying unfamiliar roles, or that original films are no longer worth backing.
The first decision is about managing a bill. The others would affect what reaches the screen.
What can change from here?
The next few weekends will tell us whether Digger can hold on to its audience and attract people who waited. Later rentals, purchases and licensing will contribute revenue as well. Only a fuller account of the receipts, costs and contractual terms can establish the eventual profit or loss.
For now, the overseas opening has provided little relief, and the domestic debut is well below what either reported production budget needs.
Cruise trying something different remains an interesting creative choice. Spending this much on that choice is the part Warner Bros. is going to have to answer for.
Reporting checked on 5 October 2026. Opening-weekend grosses are estimates.
Last Updated: October 5, 2026
