Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
July 10, 2007
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: License to Wed earned $17.8 million since Tuesday including $10.4 million over the weekend. Should Warner Bros. be pleased with this result?
Reagen Sulewski: They did well to break out of the single digits on the weekend. Things weren't looking very good for it before that. This sort of puts it in line with the "average" Robin Williams comedy these days, the sort of thing that becomes a consensus pick when it's time to rent a movie for the family. I got a little bit depressed writing that sentence.
Joel Corcoran: Pleased? Maybe. Perhaps in that sense of "Gosh, that could've been a whole lot worse, huh?" I can't believe that Robin Williams comedies have become the Unitarian Universalist option for the movie-going public: an experience without the slightest possibility of insulting, offending, annoying, or even provoking anyone in the audience.
Tim Briody: John Krasinski deserves better. Jury's still out on Mandy Moore for me.
Michael Bentley: I don't think I would say "pleased", but certainly not "suicidal" or anything like that. That said, if this has anything like RV-legs than I would imagine that WB will be fairly pleased.
David Mumpower: I recognize that the movie only cost $40 million to make, but even allowing for this, $17.8 million comprises over half of what it will earn during its domestic run. I just can't see that as a positive, particularly given a talented cast. They had John Krasinki and Mandy Moore on-board then they turned around and didn't trust them enough to make a movie around them, instead settling for wacky Robin Williams hijinks. People have seen that plenty enough. They were ready for something new, but Warner Bros. was unwilling to give that to them. What a shame.
Kim Hollis: At $17 million or so, License to Wed has already outperformed my low expectations. I can't wait to see how Robin Williams' buddy movie with John Travolta does. (Yes, he really has a buddy movie with John Travolta. Perhaps they can reminisce about how fun it was to dress in drag.)
David Mumpower: Robin Williams got cast in Wild Hogs 2?
Jim Van Nest: After the stunning success of RV and the insanity of Wild Hogs, I'd bet they're pretty messed up over this opening. With those two flicks, you could almost look at it as a potential trend that Licensed to Wed hoped to piggyback on. I'd say that they should have made a better film, but I can't imagine it's too much worse than RV.
I'd bet this one stings quite a bit. But if the above is true, the Travolta/Williams flick will be GOLD, BAYBEE!!!!
Max Braden: I think the only reason to be pleased that their summer comedy made $10 million over the weekend is that the paint-by-numbers trailer managed to pull in that many paying attendees. I haven't seen the movie but I'm guessing that when they saw the finished print they were probably hoping to coast over this release on the legs of Ocean's Thirteen while waiting for the Harry Potter dollars to roll in.
Ratatouille brings home the bacon
Kim Hollis: Last weekend, we were all worried about the performance of Ratatouille. Now that it's at $109.5 million after ten days, within $12 million of the performances of Monsters, Inc. and Cars, do you feel better about its chances?
Reagen Sulewski: I would have liked to have seen a couple million more on the weekend to feel really good about it, but it probably lost those two or three million to the kiddie (and kiddie at heart) audience of Transformers. I think we're still looking at close to $200 million here, though, which is still excellent. I think we all just got a bit spoiled by Finding Nemo's ridiculous success, which is looking more and more to be their "Lion King".
Michael Bentley: I'm not sure I like the The Lion King comparison because that would suggest that Pixar is on the decline (a la Disney's alarming fall from grace in the 1990s). But, I do agree with you, Reagen, that I would have preferred to see it somewhere north of $30 million this weekend. It's certainly a disappointment relative to what it should be making. Though $200 million is nothing to sneeze at, and of course you can probably double that when you factor in DVD sales (not to mention foreign revenue).
Kim Hollis: I'm generally happy with the performance but would like to shake my fist at anyone who hasn't seen it. Ratatouille is just a wonderful, glorious movie that deserves all the success in the world. I think that it suffered a bit because of the massive glut of other CGI animation that just hasn't been very good.
Jim Van Nest: Bottom line for this...the cream always rises. After all the opeing weekend inflated summer popcorn crap goes bye bye, the good stuff always hangs around.
Give it a couple weeks and when all the event films are out of steam and families are looking for a movie, the little rat movie will still be there and they'll still go. Everyone knows when you see Pixar on the marquee, it's a quality flick. Because of this, I see the rat's chances only getting better over the next few weeks.
Also, as a parent of eight- and nine-year-old boys...it'll be a cold day in hell before I take my kids out to a Pixar flick in the first week of release. I don't have that kind of patience. We'll be catching it here soon, as I expect many families will.
David Mumpower: I think it's in great shape now. $200 million appears to be a strong possibility now and I wouldn't even rule out more. It is relatively clear that people who held out on opening weekend due to the off-putting premise were firmly steered into theaters afterward by their friends who had seen it. Ratatouille is one of the finest two or three films in Pixar's illustrious history, which is as complimentary as I can be about a movie. I only like The Incredibles more for certain with Monsters, Inc. being on the same level as Ratatouille. I am happy to see it earn $62.5 million over the past seven days. Here's hoping that degree of staying power continues.
Max Braden: It's the most solid comedy out there right now, and I expect it to have strong legs even after The Simpsons opens. I really feel like the lack of huge numbers is due to a lack of the kind of marketing I remember for Cars and The Incredibles.
There's life in the old man yet
Kim Hollis: Live Free Or Die Hard fell 48% to $17.4 million this weekend, giving it a grand total of $84.2 million. Do you consider it a hit, a miss or a performance somewhere in the middle?
Reagen Sulewski: This is the point where some quiet, polite applause kicks in. A sub $40 million (and hell, if we're talking expectations, sub 60) opening could have been disastrous, with it ending up around $80-90 million. Look at how fast things like Fantastic Four cratered. There was no guarantee it'd even be a factor for its third weekend, which it now will be, at least to some degree. It seems like action movies have moved on a bit from Die Hard, which is deeply ironic, considering how Die Hard killed off a lot of the old style action films.
Tim Briody: It was fairly obvious it was going to get kneecapped by Transfomers, but that it just beat 50% is cause for some celebration, and probably a go-ahead for a fifth entry.
Kim Hollis: I think the performance has to be considered a strong one. Once total receipts, including international and DVD, are figured in, it's going to be profitable. It's a great popcorn action movie, too, so there's a lot to be happy about here.
Jim Van Nest: Considering we're 12 years off the last Die Hard and come on, did anyone actually expect it to be good??...I'd say it's doing quite well. And I'll say it now...as long as Bruce is involved, they can keep making McClane flicks til he dies (Hard, of course).
Live and Let Die Hard
To Die Hard For
Die Hard Another Day
Make em all!!!
David Mumpower: I think Jim has hit on the key. Like Rocky Balboa, the announcement of this production seemed like an Onion joke project rather than a real one. Seeing both of them turn out to be very good movies perfectly in keeping in tone with the originals from their respective franchises is a shock. To my mind, Live Free Or Die Hard is the Mission: Impossible 3 of 2007. It is a great action movie that probably deserves a better box office fate. Given its lowered expectations, however, it still feels like a financial success story. I also equate it to The Bourne Identity in that it will find even greater popularity on DVD when more people realize just how good a movie it is.
Max Braden: When I first saw the trailer back in the spring, I expected a bomb ("Is he flying the jet? That's just absurd."), so I guess the moderate opening wasn't surprising. But I think audiences have seen it and heard positive word-of-mouth, so its box office is recovering from what have might otherwise have been a flop.
Is Sicko a bit...unhealthy?
Kim Hollis: Sicko fell 19% to $3.7 million this weekend despite expanding 60% to 702 play dates. It has earned $11.5 million thus far. Why do you believe it is not doing better? Do you envision any sort of recovery as it expands further?
Joel Corcoran: The subject matter in Sicko - deplorable health care - simply doesn't have the sexy divisiveness and conflict as gun control (Bowling for Columbine). Nor is this film anywhere near as controversial as Fahrenheit 9/11. And maybe Roger Moore should just stick to releasing films six months before Presidential elections - that seems to work better for him.
Reagen Sulewski: Well honestly, it's not that bad a performance at all for that kind of expansion. It's more or less in line with the "Rule of Two-Thirds" for significant expansions - it halved its per screen while moving into some more marginal territories. And lest we forget how much of an outlier Fahrenheit 9/11 was, Bowling For Columbine topped out at $21 million, which this one is already at half of. An Inconvenient Truth made $23 million. It did it a little more organically, if you'll pardon the pun, but it chugged along at a couple mil a week, and while I doubt this film will stay until October, it's got a good chance to get to that mark. As advocacy docs go, this is still way up there. I think we're all just gotten spoiled by how well F 9/11 did.
Tim Briody: Forget Fahrenheit 9/11 ever happened. $11.5 million for a documentary that has been in release for two weeks is fan-fricking-tastic. It's already one of the top ten grossing documentaries ever. It's a Big Mac shy of Super Size Me's total, and Michael Moore will have three of the top five ever after next weekend. Stupid question.
Joel Corcoran: I don't think it's a stupid question at all, but you've glanced off an important distinction, Tim. I was looking at Sicko solely in the context of Michael Moore's past work. And there's even an argument to be made that "Michael Moore documentaries" are off in a category by themselves apart from "documentaries in general." Sicko is on par with Super-Size Me, but it's already falling far short of Bowling for Columbine. Given the tremendous box office performance of Fahrenheit 9/11, I think Sicko is falling short of expectations.
Reagen Sulewski: Fahrenheit 9/11 was the result of a number of fortuitous circumstances that really aren't in effect for Sicko, including yes, the impending election. Expecting that kind of result to continue was frankly unrealistic. As far as falling well behind Bowling For Columbine, I don't see that that's the case. Even if it doesn't expand another screen, it's going to be at $15 million by next weekend, about $18 the weekend after, and $20 million by no later than two weeks after that. Calling this a disappointment would be like calling a 25 TD season from LaDainian Tomlinson a disappointment.
Kim Hollis: It's not a disappointment by any means, but somehow it seems like it should have done better. Clearly, health care isn't the hot button issue it deserves to be. No matter what, it's still going to be a remarkable documentary performance (that will be surpassed by Arctic Tale in a few weeks).
Amanda Jones: Forgetting Fahrenheit 9/11 is kind of silly. Without Moore's name behind it, Sicko would be nothing. An astonishing performance from a documentary, yeah. But if you or I had made it? It'd be at $914 in total box office on one screen. Sexiness of the issue is immaterial. It's Moore's applicability and sexiness that matters here. Nothing else.
Max Braden: Fahrenheit 9/11 presented itself as a treasure trove of secret knowledge - "the stuff the networks won't show you." But everyone knows the healthcare system is a mess, and Sicko isn't much more than a testimonial piece with material we're all familiar with on our own or through the network news. Also, Fahrenheit 9/11 featured a polarizing central figure - Bush as the villain - which Sicko lacks.
I'd expect regular business as it expands on the strength of Moore's name, but no special surge in box office as its available to more audiences.