Monday Morning Quarterback
By BOP Staff
August 14, 2007
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: The Rush Hour franchise became only the 12th franchise to ever have multiple $49 million opening weekends, as Rush Hour 3 earned $49.1 million this weekend. What do you take from this result?
David Mumpower: I consider this to be a good but not great result for Rush Hour 3. An argument could be made that this is the least impressive opening of the series in that the original Rush Hour inflation-adjusts to $47.8 million. Barring something unforeseen with actuals vs. estimates, Rush Hour 3 will have sold more tickets, but it's not the shocking surprise the original was. After Rush Hour 2's performance, which inflation adjusts to $81.0 million, $49.1 million seems like a step back albeit an expected one. I think the sequel missed its window a bit, but a $49 million opening is still perfectly respectable.
Joel Corcoran: It's kind of an "oatmeal opening" - good, filling, but really not all that exciting. And it's certainly not a strong enough performance to warrant a fourth movie. However, it does further demonstrate that jokes about the French are still money-makers.
Tim Briody: Considering the last Rush Hour film (and last time Chris Tucker worked) was back in 2001, it's pretty impressive. Like David said, a couple years earlier and it's probably even with Rush Hour 2's opening, but since Tucker has had zero movies in the last six years and Jackie Chan hasn't had a hit since then, getting $50 million is quite the solid opening.
Max Braden: I find it very impressive considering that I didn't think the trailer was worth more than a $30 million opening. Bruce Willis should kick both of their butts for this. I take it to mean that America audiences will see anything that appears remotely related to comedy and action in the late summer. (I actually saw Rush Hour 3 and I don't think it was terrible.) I wonder if Owen Wilson was on the phone with Jackie Chan shortly after the numbers came out.
Reagen Sulewski: I don't know if nostalgia would be the right word to explain this opening, but they were really banking on good feelings about the previous two films in this series to bring people in for this one. "Remember how you liked those films? Well here's a big heaping pile more of it!"
Dan Krovich: I think it's the sort of opening where everyone is basically satisfied that they got one more movie out of the franchise, but they're probably not looking to do another one unless somehow it shows huge growth overseas. This way they get to call it a trilogy and have a 3-DVD box set out in time for Christmas.
Three! Three! Three! Three! Let's sing a song of three!
Kim Hollis: Rush Hour 3 is the sixth three-quel of the summer after Spider-Man 3, Shrek the Third, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, Ocean's Thirteen and The Bourne Ultimatum. With all six now in the books, how do you rank their performances?
David Mumpower: I guess it would be a bit obvious to rank them simply in terms of box office. Having said that, I don't think anyone will question the fact that Spider-Man 3 and Shrek the Third are first and second on such a list. Both improved upon already impressive performances from their direct predecessors. I believe the debate lies in ranking titles 3-6. I am of the opinion that The Bourne Ultimatum, the most successful of its franchise, is the third most impressive followed by the sheer volume of At World's End, even if it is substantially lower than Dead Man's Chest. Between the final two, Rush Hour 3's opening wasn't an unpleasant disappointment like Ocean's Thirteen was.
Joel Corcoran: I'm going to rank the six series from a different point-of-view, that of whether the relevant box office performance exceeded or fell short of expectations (rather than simple raw box office revenue). From that standpoint, I think the Bourne Ultimatum is the clear winner. The movie vastly outperformed each of its predecessors, even The Bourne Supremacy, which opened to $52.5 million three years ago. Even adjusting for inflation, this third movie made almost as much in its opening as the previous two movies combined. That feat alone puts it orders of magnitude above the rest of the pack. I disagree that Ocean's Thirteen was "an unpleasant disappointment." The movie earned a touch more than $36.1 million on its opening weekend, compared to $39.1 million for Ocean's Twelve and $38.1 for Ocean's Eleven. Given the dismal train wreck of a movie that Ocean's Twelve was, I expected this latest movie to open at around $20 to $25 million, so I'd place it in second place (though a very distant second behind The Bourne Ultimatum). I could virtually lump in the rest of the films together for the reasons David mentioned, though being pressured, I'd have to rank them as: Shrek the Third; Spider-Man 3; Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End; and Rush Hour 3. However, none of this changes the absolute, unquestionable fact that Lord of the Rings is still the best trilogy ever made in the entire history of motion pictures.
Michael Bentley: I'm with Joel; Ocean's Thirteen wasn't a disappointment because everyone was turned off by how terrible Twelve was. So, considering that, Ocean's Thirteen did pretty well. It's hard to really separate the BIG 3's for me as they all had similar sky-high openings, tepid critical and audience reaction, and lukewarm finishes. Bourne is obviously doing very well, though I wasn't really surprised by its success since Supremacy did well and it's been such a big hit on video. I yawned when I saw how Rush Hour 3 did this weekend, so I wasn't really surprised but I wasn't impressed either. Gun to my head I'd rank them: 1) Bourne, 2) Ocean's, 3 tie) Spider the Third: At World's End, 6) Rush Hour.
David Mumpower: I don't understand how people can say that Ocean's Thirteen's opening weekend was not a disappointment. The tracking data said it would do mid-40s. Even the studio had acknowledged on that Sunday that they had expected quite a bit more from it. If you want to make the argument that the $115.9 million is a triumph given that Ocean's Twelve might have ruined the franchise, be my guest. Everyone involved was disappointed with the initial three-day numbers, though. Saying otherwise is revisionist history.
Dan Krovich: Worldwide, Spiderman was the only "3" movie that improved on the performance of the second film (though Bourne will likely do that as well.)
Reagen Sulewski: Even accounting for the badness of Twelve, Thirteen didn't perform that well. They had really poisoned the well, and it didn't even show legs.
David Mumpower: I disagree with that. Ocean's Thirteen opened to $36.1 million and wound up with domestic receipts of $115.9 million. That's a final multiplier (final domestic gross/opening weekend gross) of over 3.2 in an era where a little over 2.7 is the norm on non-holiday weekends. Ocean's Thirteen showed solid legs. It just didn't open to the level that was expected of it.
Buddy cop movies with kung fu in the middle are sooooooo five years ago
Kim Hollis: Do you believe Rush Hour 3 would have done better if it had been released two or three years ago?
David Mumpower: There is no doubt in my mind. As I alluded to in a prior topic, a Rush Hour movie would have felt fresher and better timed prior to 2007. Six years is a long time to go between buddy cop outings. After an interval like that, you are almost better off waiting a decade and completely rebooting a la Die Hard. Then again, it's unlikely a studio could find a couple with the comedic chemistry Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker have. Tucker's reticence to work hurt this project from a financial perspective.
Joel Corcoran: The six-year delay absolutely hurt this movie, and not just for the reasons that David mentioned. The Rush Hour franchise is in the same genre as Bad Boys, Lethal Weapon, Beverly Hills Cop, or 48 Hours - buddy copy movie with lots of action and a bit of slapstick humor thrown in. Rush Hour added the twists of racial (though not racist) humor and some great martial arts sequences, which did sometimes drift into the chop-socky end of the spectrum. The franchise grew a bit stale in the six-year absence, but we've also seen a number of movies in those intervening years that provided fans of the first two movies with similar elements of action, humor, martial arts, and "buddy cop" atmospherics - Bad Boys II, Kill Bill (both movies, but especially the first one), Around the World in 80 Days, Cradle 2 the Grave, and Kung Fu Hustle, just to name a few. Thus, part of the franchise's appeal became washed out with other similar offerings.
Max Braden: I think the answer is yes, though I can't imagine it have ever been able to open at more than $60 million in any year. Chris Tucker tops Owen Wilson in this format, and Shanghai Knights was a February release in 2003, but it only grossed $60 million over its run. I think Rush Hour 3 was lucky to do as well is it did now.
David Mumpower: The basis would be that Rush Hour 2 already had an opening well in excess of $60 million. It was the fourth biggest opener of all time at that point in 2001. The last title was a record-shattering performer, so a fresh, well timed sequel should have been able to milk that for a lot more money.
Michael Bentley: My answer isn't very original, but yes - without a doubt it would have done better a couple years ago. It was just too long of a period, and Rush Hour doesn't have the rabid base like a Star Wars that can carry it after a long absence.
Apologies in advance to Mr. Gaiman, who we really, really love
Kim Hollis: Stardust, a Paramount release featuring such notable stars as Robert DeNiro, Michelle Pfeiffer and Claire Danes, opened to $9.0 million from 2,540 exhibitions. The movie is currently 73% fresh at RottenTomatoes. Why didn't that translate into more opening weekend success?
Tony Kollath: The marketing didn't seem to have any direction to it. The lasting impression in the trailer was of nearly 50-year-old Michelle Pfeiffer dropping her robe and admiring herself. I'm not sure who that's aimed at.
David Mumpower: Paramount has acknowledged that they had no idea how to market the title. It was too dark to market to kids and it was a bit too fantastical for mainstream adult audiences. Having seen Stardust, I'm not sure if there was a good answer on how to sell it. This is a gorgeous movie with some fine acting, but the process of selling a title unfortunately requires more than simply delivering a good flick.
Joel Corcoran: I'm a huge Neil Gaiman fan, and I saw no comic-related advertising anywhere. MirrorMask was heavily pitched to the Gaiman fan-base, but I hardly saw a vague wave at that fan-base from the people behind this movie. Not to beat a dead horse even more, but a better, broader, and more targeted advertising campaign would've done wonders for this movie.
Max Braden: The marketing failed to exploit either a sense of the plot, or the actors involved in the project. It's too bad, since the first trailer I saw months ago really caught my eye. Since then the trailers have actually worked against my interest to see it, and I think they had the same effect on the rest of the public. I knew nothing about the source material, and I would be surprised at general audience knowledge of it either. Leaving that, it's an aimless fantasy film. "Aimless fantasy film" usually inspires thoughts of "Disney direct to video" in me.
David Mumpower: "Aimless fantasy film" seems to be the second largest trend of the remainder of 2007 after "Oh no, terrorists!" There were three or four completely indistinguishable LOTR wannabes shown prior to Stardust. And it concerns me that the one starring Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig (No, not that one. The other one.) didn't stand out any from the rest.
Dan Krovich: I still think the fantasy genre isn't a particularly strong genre in the US. The only real successes have been book series with huge followings. Stardust might get saved overseas though like Eragon did.
David Mumpower: Coincidentally, when I was watching the trailers for movies like The Spiderwick Chronicles and The Seeker: The Dark Is Rising, I keep thinking, "Didn't anybody learn from Eragon?" That one cost $100 million to make and grossed only $75.0 million domestically. Like Dano points out, it was redeemed a bit by international receipts in excess of $170 million, but the studio's cut of that is so small that it generally doesn't stop the bleeding much.
Reagen Sulewski: Spiderwick at least looks mildly interesting, like a Max Fischer Players version of The Lord of the Rings, but you really have to keep the budgets on these ones down. You're not going to get a single person in the audience over the age of 15.
Dan Krovich: David, I'm curious as to where that information comes from. I believe Fox has a worldwide distribution network and can handle its own distribution in many territories without having to contract it out, so would more of the money come back to them that way? I always feel it's difficult to point out winners and losers just by seeing a budget number and box office because you never know where the money is coming from and going to. I know that Fox had equity fund investment in Eragon for instance so who knows how much fox itself had to put into the movie and how the box office was divided. And I don't think it was the case with Eragon there are times when the foreign territories are pre sold and the film has made a profit for the production company before it brings in one dollar.
David Mumpower: As a general rule, a studio receives 15% of the money from each international ticket sold. Due to various licensing agreements as well as legal hurdles that would not be faced nationally, it's pretty rare to recoup more than 35% of international revenues. Even a well oiled machine of vertical integration is still going to struggle to do better than that.
Cuba Gooding Jr. totally wants your Hanes. Beware.
Kim Hollis: Daddy Day Camp managed $5 million in five days, including an opening weekend per venue average of only $1,522. Someone should be fired for greenlighting this, right?
James Wood: I seriously would have bet a kajillion dollars that Cuba Gooding Jr. and the other guy were in Daddy Dare Care. I was floored to find out neither appeared in the original. As bad as the trailer looked, it kind of sort of made sense to me do a sequel even if not all the leads from the first showed up. But there's no carry over at all? Not even any of the kids? That's just brutal.
David Mumpower: Daddy Day Care's first five days: $30.0 million.
Daddy Day Camp's first five days: $5.0 million.
This is quantifiable proof that Eddie Murphy's career is six times better than Cuba Gooding Jr's.
James Wood: CGJ really wasn't in the first one? Huh.
Joel Corcoran: I think the most interesting part about this movie is that Fred Savage directed it. I miss Fred Savage ... .
Tim Briody: If nobody was going to back up the money truck to Eddie Murphy's house for this one, really, they shouldn't have bothered. This is further evidence that Cuba Gooding, Jr. should never get to use the phrase "Academy Award Winner" in anything he makes in the rest of his career.
Max Braden: Any exec getting chewed out for greenlighting this will be crying out "But look at the numbers for RV! Explain that one!" It's the only straw worth grasping at.
Michael Bentley: What was the budget for this one? With video rentals and sales (I'll ignore the question of "who would buy this??") I wouldn't be shocked if it ends up at least breaking even, when all is said and done.
David Mumpower: The first title, Daddy Day Care, had a budget of $60 million and the initial trade reports indicated this one would be more. I haven't seen a confirmed budget item at either of the major trades; however, Wikipedia, a very shady source for such details, lists production cost at $76 million. Even if it's half of that, it's going to be in the red forever.
Michael Bentley: Wow! I didn't expect it to be that high. You're right, it's a total failure in that case.
Kim Hollis: My favorite thing about this movie is that Cuba Gooding Jr. is playing the same character that Eddie did (and presumably, the fat guy is playing the same character that some other fat guy played). I can't understand why this didn't scream straight-to-video to the studio.
James Wood: Wait, CGJ and the fat guy weren't in the first one?
Dan Krovich: I thought it was originally planned as a straight-to-video title, but that Sony decided to put it into theaters.
Jason Bourne just "borrowed" your car. It's okay. He'll return it in excellent condition.
Kim Hollis: The Bourne Ultimatum fell 51% to $33.7 million, giving it a ten day total of $132.3 million. Do you expect it to pass The Bourne Supremacy's $176.0 million to become the most successful title in the franchise?
David Mumpower: Oh, I think that's a foregone conclusion at this point. It should make another $30 million over the next seven days, putting it at $162 million after 17 days. At that rate, it should pass The Bourne Supremacy around day 25. The question at this point to my mind is whether it reaches $200 million. I don't think it's going to quite have enough steam to get there, but it should be close.
Joel Corcoran: I don't see how The Bourne Ultimatum could avoid hitting at least $180 to $185 million, and I'll even go out on a limb a little bit here. I think the movie could edge over $200 million, particularly with a little creative marketing around Labor Day into early September. Only one action movie, War, seems to be its only direct competition in the immediate future, so the field does seem open to bringing some repeat viewers back into the theater.
Max Braden: I myself saw it three times already. Fine, I'll go again.
Michael Bentley: I'm with Joel - I expect it to just get past $200 million. The big question is how much money it will take to convince Damon to do a fourth film.
David Mumpower: At this point, I have to believe that Universal would write him a blank check to get him signed up for a fourth outing. The Bourne Ultimatum slots behind only The Chronicles of Narnia in terms of best domestic box office potential among existing franchises...at least until some decisions are made with Spider-Man. I'm not ever sure Shrek tops it from here on out given the fact that Shrek the Third was such a franchise killer.
If it doesn't have Colin Firth, it's crap. (Good news, The Last Legion!)
Kim Hollis: Becoming Jane added 501 locations this weekend and earned $3.0 million, giving it a running total of $4.6 million after ten days in platform release. Its per venue average of $5,005 is a 48.5% drop from last weekend's $9,721. Do you believe the Shakespeare in Love treatment of Jane Austen is likely to see significant success in wide release or has it already reached a plateau?
Max Braden: I think it has very weak awareness, though I heard it discussed in a restaurant this weekend. The girls wanted to go, the guys didn't want to be dragged there. The guys won. I expect the plateau will only stay up because of the extra sites.
Michael Bentley: I'm amazed it earned as much as it did. I haven't heard or seen a single thing about this. Unless it quadruples its screen count for some reason, it's already hit the peak.
Finally - a summer that makes us remember why we loved movies in the first place
Kim Hollis: In terms of quality and box office, is this the best summer for movies that you can recall?
Joel Corcoran: Surprisingly, yes. Given the trend over the past few summers, I didn't expect such a good crop of movies this summer. However, every weekend since Memorial Day, there has been at least one movie that I've really wanted to see, and sometimes two or three. Additionally, I didn't expect the box office records of last summer's box office smash - Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest - to fall nearly so quickly. But Spider-Man 3, Shrek the Third, and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End managed to blow most of those records out of the water (no pun intended). Also, when you look at opening-day gross revenues, four of the top ten movies on that list were released this summer. The same for single-day gross (though five of the top eleven films are summer 2007 releases; Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End missed knocking the original Spider-Man from the #10 slot by a mere $700,000).
Max Braden: I think 2005 easily offered a stronger crop in regard to quality and entertainment: Batman Begins, Layer Cake, March of the Penquins, Wedding Crashers, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Constant Gardener... The summer of 2007 has been more consistent with a solid selection, I think, but I haven't been entertained as much as I'd hoped. As box office goes, I'd be satisfied with the way this summer's movies have performed.
Michael Bentley: For box office, it has definitely been a good summer for Hollywood. I'd have to think about it a little more, but for me there have definitely been better years for quality. 1997 comes to mind. I weep for the lack of original movies (non-sequels, non-comic adaptations, non-tv shows, etc.).
Reagen Sulewski: I think the fact that the vast majority of the summer's big movies have been sequels and that they've still been this good is remarkable. Normally at this point we'd be talking about Hollywood's lack of originality and why it's going to doom them. This year, they've all hit home runs.
David Mumpower: I've gone back fifteen years trying to come up with one that had such a unique combination of quality releases that were also bread winners. There just isn't one. The only big budget movies this summer that were both poorly received and financially disappointing were Evan Almighty, Lucky You and Surf's Up. Every other major title can claim at least one of the two and the majority can claim both.