Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
October 28, 2008
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Are you surprised that over-saturation hasn't become an issue for the Saw franchise?
Sean Collier: I've always been very impressed with the Saw cottage industry. Remember, this isn't a franchise with a new entry out every two to four years, like the major horror brands of the '80s and '90s; there has been a Saw out every October for the past five years. As soon as a film is released, the next film begins production. In doing it this way, they've successfully made themselves something of a Halloween institution; go to the haunted house, buy a sexy nurse costume, see the latest Saw. The rhythm of it has a lot to do with the series' success, I think.
Eric Hughes: What Sean said. Also, some remarkable stats are that Saw made Hollywood history last year with the release of Saw IV, in that it was the first time a franchise released a new movie for four consecutive years. Saw V only adds to that fact. Also, if Saw V grosses more than $62.8 million, the series becomes the top-grossing horror franchise of all time. It's just astounding. And I don't think it has reached a point of over-saturation because it's a film franchise that people, for whatever reason, enjoy seeing. It's not like there's a spinoff TV show, a musical on Broadway (wouldn't that be interesting?) and the like. It's just a series of movies smartly released at the same time every year.
Brandon Scott: Am I surprised it hasn't reached over-saturation levels? Yes. But both Sean and Eric make good points. Apparently the method is working. By the way, I am typing this with one hand...I had to eat the other. (It's actually not bad with some fava beans.)
Scott Lumley: I think the concept of Saw is about as creepy as it gets. There's nothing supernatural about the bad guy. It's just a sociopath putting people into crappy situations again and again where they have to mutilate themselves or someone else to live. Everything in the film could actually happen. Pair that with some decent cinematography, some creepy trailers and some even creepier posters and you've got a franchise that's practically guaranteed to make money. I am impressed with the steady hand guiding the course of this franchise. Really impressed.
Eric Hughes: Scott's right about the posters. The one for Saw III where the guy's three bottom teeth are stand ins for the roman numeral three is particularly memorable.
Kim Hollis: I am surprised that oversaturation hasn't become a problem, but I also think that you can see from the answers above that they do seem to be reaching the target audience with their marketing. They're not trying to aim their ads/trailers/posters at me, a 40-year-old female (*arches eyebrow at anyone who is thinking about making an age comment*). They want to reach 17- to 30-year-old males. The creepy posters and the blood drive and all the other stuff they do to promote the film do a fantastic job of keeping awareness exactly where they need it.
Reagen Sulewski: I think there's a lot of value in being the originator of this kind of film (or at least seen as being the originator). With the slip from IV to V, I see this franchise as becoming unprofitable somewhere around Saw XXVI.
The title is a pretty significant misnomer at this point.
Kim Hollis: Pride and Glory, the police drama starring Colin Farrell and Edward Norton, opened to $6.3 million. For a film with a production budget of $30 million, how disastrous a result is this?
Brandon Scott: A loss of $15 million domestic disastrous apparently. Call me crazy, but I still want to see this. Johnny Voight was the only thing that has kept me away to this point. I always see Angelina in him, or he in her, or something like that. You think Brad Pitt does too? Or can he even see her through the forest of kids? Off topic, I guess...
Scott Lumley: This is pretty disastrous. This is barely going to make its money back on DVD. Either someone in the marketing department is going to get fired or New Line rightly saw that this one was a dog and decided to not waste any more money on it. I'm thinking this was probably option B here. The whole crooked cop/straight cop thing has been pretty played out, hasn't it?
Max Braden: That's half the take of Street Kings, and We Own the Night opened at $10.8 million this month last year. It just demonstrates that the genre isn't bankable unless you have big stars like Pacino and De Niro (sorry, Colin, you no longer qualify.)
Sean Collier: I say it a lot, but I think we've seen a lot of bad marketing this year. (Everyone enjoying the trailers for The International, for example? Banks! That are evil! OMG!) I've seen the commercial ten times, but all I know is the stars and the genre. Someone's doing a bad job of selling the film if that's the case.
David Mumpower: I think disastrous is a bit of an exaggeration, but it's certainly proven to be a bad investment. Best case scenario for the film is a $20 million domestic take with $15 million being the most likely range. That's prior to considering negative cost expenses and the exhibitor take. This is the type of film that sounds like a safe risk on paper but in practice reveals that C-grade box office draws should only be given movies that sell themselves. The cast will not do it otherwise and the investment winds up being money burned.
Kim Hollis: I think it's a case where the studio just decided to cut its losses and release it for whatever nominal box office it could get. They knew it wasn't good and they knew it was difficult to market, so just put it out there and get what you can back.
Whozie and whatsit?
Kim Hollis: Why are Colin Farrell and Edward Norton, who are both considered very famous actors, not box office draws?
Brandon Scott: Probably because they are both good actors who can take on challenging roles. In Bruges was a great movie (my favorite of the year to date) and Norton has a history of great roles since his introduction to us in Primal Fear. Farrell had his run I guess, back when he was dating Britney Spears, but Norton never really quite clicked. He did date Selma Hayek, though, and that is worth a few somethings. Agree? I get the sense that neither of them really cares about stardom at this point, either, so there isn't a lot endearing them to the public, so to speak, especially in Norton's case. Too bad, because I like him a lot.
Scott Lumley: I think Brandon nails it. Both these guys have achieved so much notoriety and have achieved such financial independence that they don't have to be careful with their careers any more. At a certain point, they both went, "Screw it, I'll do what I want!" and it's hard to fault them for that. I don't know if Farrell is going to have a long-term career based on what he's done lately, but I think Norton is pretty much bulletproof.
Max Braden: Farrell was never clean enough to achieve Brad Pitt-type status and wasn't odd enough to achieve Johnny Depp status (though outside of franchises, those two haven't demonstrated draw power either...) I think the bottom line is for all their apparent talent, Farrell and Norton just haven't done anything interesting with it in a long time. I look down the recent filmographies and just see ho-hum performances in ho-hum movies. They had moments in the past, but what have they done for us lately? Taking roles in a floundering genre movie like Pride and Glory isn't helping.
Sean Collier: Miami Vice, The New World, Alexander, S.W.A.T, Daredevil. Kingdom of Heaven, 25th Hour, Death to Smoochy, The Score, Keeping the Faith. Questions?
David Mumpower: So, only SWAT and Daredevil, then?
Reagen Sulewski: I guess I don't get this tendency to make everyone either Brad Pitt or Kevin Costner (and even Brad Pitt isn't always Brad Pitt. See: The Assassination of Jesse James. You didn't? That's my point). There are worlds of room in between box office champ and box office poison, and that's OK.
Kim Hollis: I think you have a good point there, Reagen. Farrell and Norton are what they are - recognizable faces who add a little something to a movie if you cast them, even if they're not huge draws. I honestly think both are better off doing smaller-scale films with some sort of hook to them than trying to be big box office draws.
Kim Hollis: The Saw franchise will overtake Friday the 13th this week to become the most successful horror franchise of all-time. Why?
Brandon Scott: Sean and Eric were kind of on top of this a few questions back. The blending of realism, good marketing (love that skin mask on this year's poster), and unlike the Sopranos when it was on the air, a steady release pre-Halloween every year has kept this thing going. I have only seen the first one since I always figure once I have seen something once, what more to it is there really going to be? Especially in the case of a horror franchise like this. Now a Bones 2, that would be sweeeeet! Snoop as the devil or whatever he was in that? The comedy in and of itself should have warranted another film or two.
Max Braden: The old horror flicks featuring lumbering hatchet men just aren't enough to do it for today's kids. The Saw series elevated sadism to new heights and developed a villain with sophisticated methods. Add modern studio marketing, and you have yourself a cash cow.
Sean Collier: Well, you have to look at what the franchises had to work with. Friday the 13th needed the killer and the setting to stay the same (mostly - the less said about Jason Takes Manhattan, the better,) so the later films didn't have much to change, so lost audiences. The charm (charm? is that right?) of Nightmare on Elm Street wore off a couple films in. The Halloween series was so all over the place in terms of plot that it couldn't keep an audience. Saw's big advantage is its ability to keep throwing new stuff at you - the star of the series is the game, not the killer, and that keeps audiences coming back wonder what they'll try this time.
David Mumpower: Monosyllabic titles are where it's at in the 2000s. All kidding aside, it's a combination of box office ticket price inflation and a studio's willingness to release a product a year more than anything specific to Saw.
Kim Hollis: I do think that Saw offered something different upon its release "back in the day". Slasher films were old and tired, Saw films brought a fresh approach to scare tactics, and it worked for people due to its gore and legitimately scary situation. The horror genre needs something different every now and again. I'm sure in a few years we'll see some entirely new trend emerge that results as a reaction to the torture porn.