Monday Morning Quarterback
By BOP Staff
December 26, 2007
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: National Treasure: Book of Secrets, a title we had believed to be on a par with I Am Legend, opened to an estimated $45.5 million. Is this more, less or pretty much exactly what you were expecting? Where do you expect it to go from here?
Pete Kilmer: I thought it was on par with Legend UNTIL Legend knocked out a $77 million opening. But yeah, this is where I thought National Treasure would end up for an opening weekend - which is an excellent opening! As for its legs...well, with the generally terrible reviews I think it'll creep toward about $140 million after things are done.
Joel Corcoran: I expected it to earn a much bigger take at the box office, somewhere around $60 million, but I couldn't be happier with the result. It's a decent, solid opening - nothing special - which has restored my faith in the movie-going public. I think the sublimely average opening reflects that this is the default movie choice for families wanting to get out of the house the weekend before Christmas precisely because it is pablum (and not that very good according to reviewers). And I agree with Pete in that National Treasure will plod slowly onward to a lukewarm finish.
Reagen Sulewski: I'm not sure what faith in the movie going public has to do with it - it's a rather generic action-adventure sequel starring Nic Cage and not some bellwether for high culture. That said, this is pretty much par for the course for a film that became a franchise after the fact. The increase from 1 to 2 was so to the book, we could have almost written this up before hand.
Max Braden: The $40 million range is what I had expected for both I Am Legend and Book of Secrets. Book of Secrets opened a little better than Night at the Museum did on Christmas weekend last year. What I didn't expect were the harsh reviews. I expect a nice bump from New Year's Eve weekend, but not the legs I was predicting prior to Friday. Aliens vs. Predator might take a little of its audience, but I'm thinking the movie will actually do better in the holiday season more than it might have in the summer. Rise of the Silver Surfer, for instance, finished at less than $132 million, and that was with a $58 million opening.
David Mumpower: This is quite a bit less than I was expecting in the short term. The key is not what it does after three days, however, but how it performs from now until New Year's Day. That will go a long way in determining its overall success.
In the future, Nic should always wear a bear suit
Kim Hollis: As chronicled by John Hamann in the latest weekend wrap-up, Nicolas Cage's openings seem to be feast or famine, falling under $10 million or over $40 million. What do you believe is the cause of this vast fluctuation and do you believe him to be a bankable lead actor?
Pete Kilmer: Nic Cage is a terrific popcorn movie actor. He's also a terrific serious actor. He also likes to take risks. He's also been known to be an actor who chooses a lot of crap to be in. The public, I think, has figured out what kind of movie they are getting with him pretty quickly. Get him in the right project and he's bankable. Put him in crap (Wicker Man) and people will wait for him to be in something they want to see him in.
Joel Corcoran: I think Pete nailed it. Nic Cage is that odd breed of actor who can pull in audiences that want to see the Michael Bay-type of summer blockbuster or adventure flick (e.g., The Rock, Gone in 60 Seconds, Ghost Rider, National Treasure), yet at the same time, appeal equally well to the quirky-indie-art house type of crowd (e.g., 8MM, Leaving Las Vegas, Adaptation.). It's those roles that fall somewhere in the middle between these two extremes where he falters. He's appealing to audiences that have almost diametrically opposing tastes, and the movies where he's failed to fill the seats at the theaters are big production-value films without a lot of action (e.g., World Trade Center), or smaller films too mainstream to really be "independent" (e.g., The Weather Man). Put a different actor in either of those films, someone with audience appeal closer to a typical bell curve, and I think they would've performed much better at the box office. But with Nicolas Cage, those roles just didn't make sense for him to take.
Reagen Sulewski: He's got more lives than Travolta. I think a lot of this is residual reputation left over from his late '90s action run with The Rock, Con Air and Face/Off, and I think he's made an incredible amount of mileage off those few films. None of his "commercial" films have even been remotely as good or as fun since then (and yes, I include the NT films in that), but people are still waiting for him to make one of those again.
Max Braden: I don't really get what fans see in him, but I still watch his movies. I think it's because he's a comfortable fit for popcorn movies, and it's the producers providing him with catchy plots that get audiences to keep purchasing tickets. As long as Hollywood perceives audiences to perceive him to be a bankable star, he will be. But by that measure I'd rate his career future as risky as the subprime mortgage market.
David Mumpower: He's just a dink. How he keeps getting cast as an A-List actor is an indictment about the entire nature of celebrity. He's ugly, bald and weird. Were he not a Coppola, he would be the guy women walk across the street to avoid.
Tom Hanks' hair will soon be cast in its own starring role
Kim Hollis: Charlie Wilson's War is estimated to be the second biggest opener of the weekend, earning $9.6 million, good enough for fourth place. Given the star power as opposed to the subject matter, do you consider this a good opening, a poor one, or just right (in the Goldilocks vernacular).
Pete Kilmer: For a subject matter that no movie goer cares about, it's probably fine. As for the star power...well it's not funny Tom Hanks or Oscar material Tom Hanks that showed up, it's someone in between. As for Julia, while she looks great in it, it's not a romantic/sexy/wacky comedy movie for her so no one cared.
Joel Corcoran: I think an apt comparison for Charlie Wilson's War is to look at how Crash (2005) performed at the box office two years ago. Like Crash, this film has immense star power, but an atypical socially weighty theme for a story (war compared to racism). The advertising strategy seems very similar (hint at unusual characters caught up in some big, meaningful context, but don't give away any details at all), and the box office reaction is almost identical. Crash earned $9.1 million it's opening weekend, and if we account for inflation, that would be about $9.7 million in today's dollars (if I'm doing the math correctly). So, I think this opening is just as good as Crash's was two years ago - "just right".
Reagen Sulewski: Hanks always seemed woefully miscast here. I don't blame the guy for branching out, but when I think "womanizing Congressman", I certainly do not think of today's Jimmy Stewart.
Max Braden: I think Charlie Wilson's numbers are just right for an opening, given the mix of high profile stars (though they were really the high profile stars of the 1990s) and the oddly light-hearted approach to a serious topic. The war-in-Iraq movies of the year attempted to tackle the issues pretty much head on; Sorkin manages to address the current state of affairs by reviewing events at some distance from the present, with snappy dialogue and enjoyable performances. I think though that once audiences see the movie, they'll be spreading good word-of-mouth and the box office take will remain steady for some time.
David Mumpower: What we see with this opening are two varying forces of box office behavior colliding. Star power has mattered more than normal in 2007, but people have utterly rejected war movies. The marketing did its best to disguise the nature of this title as an upbeat comedy, but movie goers sniffed out the darker subject matter. Given the quality of the movie as well as the quality of the cast, I would consider its opening a moderate disappointment.
Would you like a meatpie?
Kim Hollis: Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, the latest Tim Burton/Johnny Depp production, earned an estimated $9.35 million. Exhibited in only 1,249 theaters, the musical has the second best per-venue average of the new releases with $7,486 per play-date. What do you think of this performance?
Joel Corcoran: Personally, I couldn't be happier - I've been anticipating this movie for a long time. But aside from that, I think it's a fantastic opening for the movie simply because of everything it had going against it. The story of Sweeney Todd is gruesome, dark, satirical, depressing, and nothing close to "holiday fare," and Johnny Depp is not known for his singing voice. This film is not loaded with cadre of stars and a lot of flash like the musicals Chicago or Hairspray, nor does it have the fun and frothy storyline of most musicals. In fact, I would call Sweeney Todd closer to opera than standard musical theater. When Chicago opened wide in 2003, it grossed $8.2 million ($9.4 million adjusted for inflation), and Hairspray opened this year to $27.5 million with a per-screen average of about $8,800. The fact that Sweeney Todd opened even in the same ballpark as these previous musicals is pretty damn impressive.
Reagen Sulewski: There seems to be a pretty standard opening weekend number for star-studded musicals now. You're never going to open to much more than this, but you'll never open too much below this either. The follow-up weekends are the big story. I'm not convinced this can break out because of the grisly subject matter. There's always the possibility of Depp's raving hordes buoying this, but I think this character might test them just like his character in Secret Window did.
Max Braden: I'd repeat what Joel said. Dickensian period pieces are niche market movies. Plus you're dealing with an R rating. Seven to eight grand per site for a wide release is a good number this weekend for a movie like this.
Pete Kilmer: I think the opening is about right for this project. It will have a LONG life on DVD for the Burton/Depp fans and I truly wouldn't be surprised if some kind of cult following develops around it (i.e. Nightmare Before Christmas, Edward Scissorhands and the like). This movie has a HUGE appeal for the goth crowd that is gonna keep it alive on DVD.
Perhaps Gerard Butler is not quite so romantic as his letter-writing fans would have you believe...
Kim Hollis: P.S. I Love You, the generic looking Warner Bros. romantic comedy, took in $6.5 million from 2,454 locations, a per-venue total of only $2,651. This is a bomb of an opening weekend, right?
Pete Kilmer: Yeah, it was. I could have cared less about it.
Tim Briody: Hate to say it, but really, it's not. Yeah, the opening weekend wasn't all that great, but it did better than Walk Hard, the weekend's true bomb.
Marty Doskins: I think the difference between P.S. I Love You bombing and Walk Hard bombing is the expectations. P.S. I Love You was really marketed heavily by Warner. I think I saw an ad for PS: I Love You during almost every commercial break for a while. They were really pushing the film hard. I think the studio execs will be very disappointed with this per screen average.
Max Braden: Under three grand per site for a wide release is a bomb regardless of its competition. This love letter got a "Dear John..." response from audiences. (weak material inspires weak quips)
Pete Kilmer: Look, I adore Hilary Swank and think she's a terrific actor. But she's not a romantic lead actress for this type of schmaltzy movie.
David Mumpower: If we give out an award for most mismatched on-screen couple since Richard Gere and Jodie Foster, these two get my vote. Swank is as androgynous as women come, and Butler is a block of wood sans personality.
Reagen Sulewski: P.S. Your Film Sucks.
Fall Hard: The Epic Failure of Dewey Cox
Kim Hollis: Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story, a movie Reagen Sulewski over-estimated by approximately the gross national product of Bolivia, earned a pathetic $4.1 million with a jaw-dropping per-venue average of only $1,547. What in the world went wrong here for this one to flame out so dramatically on opening weekend?
Joel Corcoran: Pretty simple really -- it sucked. The story sucked, the commercials sucked, and the really tragic part is that this film probably won't be able to take Alvin and the Chipmunks down with it. I think the problem is that the people behind this film are known for some great movies, some of the best comedies of the past five years. They know how to write, direct, and film great stories that poke fun at people, but do so gently and with a little bit of gravitas - movies like Anchorman, The 40 Year-Old Virgin, Talladega Nights, and Superbad. Those movies are so very good because we're laughing at ourselves as much as we're laughing at the characters on the screen. But here, it's like Judd Apatow was pitching Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story as "Dumb and Dumber meets Walk the Line carried out by the Scary Movie/Date Movie/Not Another Teen Movie/Epic Movie crew." It's just...ugh...I can't find the words...
Tim Briody: It's probably a lot funnier than the advertising indicates, but that's the problem. They didn't make it look funny. It started with an atrocious first trailer, and it was damage control from there.
Reagen Sulewski: Uh yeah, my bad. This is an object lesson in message control. The first thing you put out for a film has to be quality, because that's all that people really remember. I had thought they had done some excellent damage control from that hideous first trailer, but clearly no one was willing to give it a chance after that. Judd Apatow's plan to conquer the world will just have to wait.
Max Braden: In the absence of marketing for I'm Not There, audiences mistook this as a poor representation of Bob Dylan with apparently little screen time for Cate Blanchett and decided that a Nicolas Cage movie looked appealing. Lose, lose, lose all around.
Kim Hollis: I actually think if this were a movie starring Will Ferrell as Dewey Cox, it would have done quite well. At the end of the day, John C. Reilly just isn't a draw and it was a mistake to try to push him as one.
David Mumpower: I strongly suspect that this title is the new Galaxy Quest. That was the last funny December release whose advertising campaign completely betrayed a quality comedy. Something we will explore next week is how this impacts Judd Apatow's assertion that there is always room in the marketplace for a funny movie. He looked like a genius on this topic during the summer, but the holidays have been unkind.
Baby mamas and daddies are in style!
Kim Hollis: Juno expanded into 304 venues after screening in 40 last weekend. The result was a surprising top 10 finish with $3.4 million. How much (if any) do you believe this project was aided by the news of Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnancy? Are you surprised by how well it is doing at the box office?
Tim Briody: As hilarious as that would be, I think it's more the surprise awards attention is what has let it break out so much. It also topped Roger Ebert's list of the year's best films, and that certainly counts for something.
Joel Corcoran: I'll jump on Tim's bandwagon. I think Juno is benefiting from the "Little Miss Sunshine effect" a lot more than the "Jamie Lynn Spears" effect. The movie is getting great word-of-mouth and critical acclaim, it's benefiting from a very well done marketing campaign that brings out some bitingly hip and humorous aspects, and it has Ellen Page. I'm impressed, and I'm a little bit surprised, not so much at how well it's doing, but how quickly it's breaking out into the open.
Kim Hollis: It's a buzz film that deserves the praise it is receiving. I love success stories like these.
David Mumpower: I am not sure if there was any tangible box office impact from the Spears story although the free advertising is always nice. At the end of the day, what is carrying Juno is that it is exactly the type of movie consumers want to watch right now. I've seen no less than three studio execs state recently how hard it is to anticipate 18 months out what a customer will want at that later date. This has been used as an apology for the gross miscalculation on the war movies. Juno is the flip side of that coin. It is charming, low-key, and well intended. It is striking the perfect chord to break out, and I am starting to believe it winds up with $50+ million.
Seriously, people. They eat poop. What are you thinking?
Kim Hollis: I Am Legend fell 56% to $34.2 million this weekend while Alvin and the Chipmunks fell only 35% to $29.0 million. The Will Smith film has current box office of $137.5 million while the CGI-lowest common denominator title sits at $84.9 million. Relative to expectations, is it fair to say that Alvin and the Chipmunks is the more surprising/better performer? Why or why not?
Pete Kilmer: Alvin's performance has to be because of holiday season, kids are out of school and parents need a family movie for the real little ones to take to.
Joel Corcoran: Just when I think I have people figured out, something like this happens. I really can't understand why Alvin and the Chipmunks lasted even a week. I really want to know why and how all these people reached the decision to spend their hard-earned money on this dreck. I mean, for God's sakes, go rent a season's worth of My Name is Earl! You'll get a lot more comedic value for your money in the first 15 minutes of any episode of that TV show than you will in this entire movie!. Or if you want to go see a family film, Bee Movie is still hanging around in second-run theaters - go see that! Heck, The Simpsons Movie just came out on DVD. You can buy that move for the price of three movie tickets to see Alvin and the Chipmunks.
All ranting aside, and speaking purely in terms of brutal economics, I am (grudgingly) forced to admit that Alvin and the Chipmunks is definitely the more surprising performer and the better performer compared to I am Legend. I'd rather sit through a three-hour lecture on post-modernism and critical theory as applied to film (or listen to David try to argue that the SEC is the best conference in college football) than say anything good about the movie, but...there...I said it...
Max Braden: The people paying to see Alvin must be the grandkids of Richard Nixon's silent majority, because the existence of a sustainable market for the movie still baffles me.