Well well, they hit $1.403Bn, paying $8.26, which is 34.7% of original pay.

$1.404Bn, paying $8.26, now at 34.7% of original pay.

Thinking about what propels a sequel beyond the original's pay, or holds it below, there are myriad factors that vary in weight (story, payroll, budget control, marketing, intangibles like release timing, economic and political climate, to name just a few...) - figuring out the right mix to maximize profit is elusive, which is why some sequels absolutely bomb when everyone on the project hoped they'd find success with it.

While elusive, it is also a skill that some movie makers (producers, directors, actors) are better at than others, not unlike in any field (like the best/worst sports team, or competitive corporations in any industry or sector).

This movie was "in the can" a while ago, and release was delayed/postponed/pushed back, as they looked for what they felt would be better release timing (as did the studio who released the last Daniel Craig Bond movie).

At the same time, there are those franchises whose first sequel out-payed the original. In my movie ROI database of over 2550 titles from 1924 to present, I have 220 franchises, of which just 38 (17%) made more money in the first sequel than in the original. It's rare, but not so rare that it's not worth shooting for. So, for all the accolades and praise being heaped on Top Gun: Maverick, hitting the average of 35% of original can be seen as pretty good, or can be seen for what it actually is - average, if not underperforming expectations.

What may have held back this installment from out-paying its 1986 original surely must include the controversy surrounding Tom Cruise's personal life (specifically, his affiliation/promotion of Scientology) - there are people who simply will not pay to see a Tom Cruise movie because they do not want to support Scientology - through his success - with their money (and I personally know people firmly in this camp).

Clearly, the pandemic was a factor - pushing off release was all about concern for how many people could, or would want to, sit elbow to elbow in a relatively small space for a prolonged period of time. And, even after most social distancing had been uplifted, there would be those hesitant to "go back out to the theatre".

I suspect that, were it not for these two factors, TG: M would have earned a lot more. Perhaps not out-paying 1986's TG, but more no less.

However, at the end of the day, regardless what factors went in to it paying more or less, the bottom line is, all the available factors came together to land it squarely on the average.

It's hard to escape math.

A quick note of clarification (especially for one person I long ago blocked)...

I started this thread to track the progress of this movie in real time against the statistical average of sequels of the averages I'd derived from building my database.

I had to go on record before the movie came out with a prediction, based on math; and then track its progress to see if/how close it would perform against the historical numbers I've collected from over 2550 movies since 1924.

I suspect the reason "no one on this forum asked how I was so obsessed with how much Tom Cruise makes" because anyone who possesses basic reading comprehension skills understood from my first post that this was not about any obsession with how much Tom Cruise makes, nor whether I like Tom Cruise or not, or was affiliated with the producers or the studio - it was a statistics exercise - one which happened to ably demonstrates the veracity of the mean.

While I long ago decided I wasn't interested in anything this blocked person had to say, I did not want the criticism to go unchecked given it was (surprise surprise) off-base and missed the entire point of my updates to this thread.

And there we have it.

$1.422Bn, now paying $8.36 (it beat $8.33!), which is 35.1% of original pay.