I watched Ballerina a week ago.

With an IMDb rating of 6.8 and a box office result of $135 million against a $90 million budget, the movie somewhat flopped. It certainly wasn’t the biggest flop of the last few years, but it clearly underperformed.

Technically speaking, the movie wasn’t bad. A rating of 7 out of 10 is perfectly fine. Compared to its parent franchise, John Wick, it was weaker, though. The direction, action choreography, and overall aesthetics were a step below what audiences expect from a typical Wick movie, and the world-building wasn’t as innovative.

That said, it was still a decent action flick with a very typical storyline for the genre.

So why did it flop?

I think it’s the thin line between art and marketing that ultimately caused the movie to underperform.

Every time a new idea works even somewhat, Hollywood tries to milk it dry: sequel, prequel, spin-off, remake. It becomes too much, and it’s obvious when a project exists mainly as a cash grab that studios want to force down our throats.

With Atomic Blonde, they had already given us a “female John Wick” without the John Wick label. The movie made $100 million on a $30 million budget, which was respectable but not enough to build a major franchise. As a result, the studio decided to make the next “female John Wick” more directly connected to the original franchise, hoping this would pull more people into theaters.

In short, Ballerina doesn’t feel like it was made primarily for art or entertainment; it feels like a marketing strategy.

And while people are aware that marketing is everywhere—and even necessary to some degree—nobody wants it shoved in their face. Ballerina practically screams: “Hey, movie lovers, we heard you like John Wick. So here’s the female version. Now give us your money!”

A good rule for any franchise is to only make a spin-off when audiences actually ask for it. If they don’t, it just feels like a sales tactic rather than a story that needs to be told.