Monday Morning Quarterback
By BOP Staff
November 3, 2008
BoxOfficeProphets.com

You can't catch me. No, really.

The scariest thing on Halloween is how empty the movie theaters were

Kim Hollis: High School Musical 3 somehow survived the first 90% drop in Friday box office history to repeat as champion with $15 million. Which part of this do you find the most amazing, and why?

Pete Kilmer: Well, considering its audience and the fact that Halloween was on Friday, I'm not really surprised that it rebounded on Saturday and Sunday. I am surprised it beat Saw V for the weekend.

Brandon Scott: Pete actually kind of said it. I WOULD HAVE been surprised at a 90% drop, an unprecedented figure. Even so, $15 million from $42 million is damned steep. Nevertheless, the long-term view is always the key here. The film reportedly cost $11 million to make and we are looking at $57 million after ten days. That's nothing to shake a stick at, regardless of the varied expectations we and the industry might have thought would come from this pic.

Sean Collier: In a weird way, I think this speaks to long legs for the film. See if you can follow this logic: the huge drop on Halloween day indicates that HSM3's audience, if we didn't know it already, is very young - young enough to be distracted by family Halloween activities. Yet, these kids managed to convince their exhausted parents to schlep them to the movie theater on Saturday night. The idea I'm getting at: there are still plenty of kids insisting that they see HSM3 for the first, second, or third time. A long run may be ahead.

Tim Briody: Just when I thought I'd seen everything, High School Musical 3 drops 90% Friday to Friday and then has a 8.7 Friday to Friday multiplier. You cannot make this stuff up anymore.

Kim Hollis: You said it, Tim. I'm just blown away by everything pertaining to High School Musical 3 this weekend. I knew Halloween would have an effect - but *that much* of an effect? I honestly have no idea what any of this even means for its future. This movie is a total wild card.

David Mumpower: I agree completely with Sean. I was ready to hold last rites for High School Musical 3 after Friday's numbers came in. I expected some recovery on Saturday but a spike from $1.7 million to $8.2 million? It was historically unprecedented both ways. In the end, its weekend drop was about what was to be expected for a film negatively impacted by Halloween but how it got there is something box office wonks are going to be discussing for years.

Zack and Miri were not happy with their tricks or treats

Kim Hollis: Zack and Miri Make a Porno overcame a disastrous Friday (stop me if you've heard that one before) to earn $10.7 million over the weekend. What do you take from this result?

Pete Kilmer: Opening a movie on Halloween is not a move to make at all. There are too many parties and functions to go to.

Brandon Scott: Again, I would echo what Pete said. The target demographic is the same group that should be out living life rather than being locked in a theater on a Friday night Halloween. I saw this film a few weeks ago and while I admit that I thought it would be bigger than this, I am silently (okay, maybe not so silently), hoping that this is Seth Rogen fatigue. The guy is not a lead actor, not interesting enough to carry a film. While I know he has had great results to this point and I appreciate his talents, he is a supporting player and should be used as such. When you have him carrying the majority of frames in a film, the results are not pretty or interesting. He has been in the news and has been increasingly featured in films of late, and I suspect that he should not follow the Nic Cage route, and instead step back and keep out of the limelight for a few months at least. I do feel sorry for Elizabeth Banks, though. She gave a great performance here and she deserved more people to witness it. So that is too bad.

Sean Collier: Kevin Smith films do not have big theatrical hauls. They make about $60 million, then sell eleventy billion DVDs. This is the natural order of things.

Kim Hollis: While I do think it was foolhardy to open Zack and Miri on Halloween, I do wonder if there isn't just a typical Kevin Smith box office total as long as he stays within his sex/gross-out comedy world. Will his "horror" film Red State attract a different group? I'm not even sure that's going to be the case since he's still working safely within his target demographic.

David Mumpower: I fall somewhere between Kilmer and Kim on the subject. I do feel that Kevin Smith has a core audience that is going to follow him in anything and that group seems to be the body of his theatrical support. I am, however, certain that had this film not been released on Halloween, it would have been his most successful debut. What everyone has witnessed this weekend is just how much of a negative impact this calendar configuration of Halloween has on box office. Zack and Miri Make a Porno was one of the principal victims of it.

Behind the scenes of No Man's Land might have performed as well...

Kim Hollis: Much has been made of advertisers' skittishness over the phrase "Make a Porno". Do you think this nervousness is unjustified or do you think that Kevin Smith would have been better off dropping the second half of the title?

Pete Kilmer: Yeah he should dropped the "Make a Porno" art of the title sooner rather than later like he did for a lot of markets. The country has moved to be more and more conservative, compared to when he first started out. It really hurt Smith in the opening weekend, I think.

Brandon Scott: Well, first off, let's clarify that this was not his choice. This was the studio's decision. They removed it from all ads on TV, they couldn't get any reasonable poster approved and had to go with the stick figure poster. When you have Utah banning the film from theaters, it's not a good sign, I guess. Zack and Miri is not a very good title, agreed? The only interesting aspect to selling the movie is the "Make a Porno" phrase. I think advertisers do what they feel is necessary to protect themselves. It's a tough, slippery slope on all fronts. Would it have been any better if they had made it a more PC title like "Zack and Miri Have Sex on Camera in Hopes of Making Money"?

Sean Collier: The few theaters who won't show it aside (theaters that are showing Saw V, by the way,), I don't think it made much of a difference. Anyone who is turned off by the words "Make a Porno" probably isn't going to see the film either way, and if they did, they probably would've demanded a refund. It's a wash, I'd say.

Marty Doskins: I thought they had removed the "Make a Porno" from *all* TV ads, but I still found that they seemed to alternate between the "with" and "without" versions when I was watching. The "without" version really seemed like a much friendlier title to me. Maybe friendlier isn't the right word, but it just seemed more appealing. While I know that Brandon was joking, maybe a different ending to the movie would've worked also. "Make Ends Meet" would've had an subtle sexual connotation. It may have sounded more appealing, but I don't know that it would've made that much difference.

Kim Hollis: I'm thinking having it in the title didn't make a difference to the people who were going to see it anyway. It's not like a bunch of grandmothers are going to go see the movie thinking that there is something in that movie for them. It all seemed to be much ado about nothing. We know porn exists. The movie itself is not porn. Let's not get overreactionary, here.

Marty Doskins: You're definitely right, Kim. Personally, I think it just sounds better without "Make a Porno", but by no means do I think anyone would've been fooled into going if they had just called it 'Zack and Miri". People watching the trailer or commercial would've made their decision from what was presented.

David Mumpower: There is a story floating around about Smith's pitch of this film to the Weinsteins and he claims the greenlight was given immediately. He says he asked, "Don't you want to know what the movie is about?" and the response is, "Is it about anything other than the title?" That's exactly the problem with dropping that half of the title. Nobody would have gone to see a movie called "Snakes on...", after all. Okay, that may be a bad example since not as many people showed up for that as expected, but you get my point.

That Chace Crawford sure is dreamy.

Kim Hollis: The Haunting of Molly Hartley opened in fifth place with $6 million this weekend. Is this a good enough result for Freestyle Releasing to build upon?

Brandon Scott: All they can do is try. I'm not sure what the production cost was on this, but I can't imagine to be very big, so this might make enough to give it another go and continue to learn the business. My awareness was sky high on this film, (read: I didn't even know it was coming out nor who was in it until I became "aware" of it - and I use the term loosely), over the weekend. If Freestyle can re-pay their financiers, its all good. The film business, especially for indies, is changing and in flux. The talk is that the traditional models are no longer in place. Freestyle Releasing might have a place in the new millennium - who knows?

Sean Collier: No. No. No. PG-13 horror films where nothing happens are never going to make money. The first half of this decade featured a few fluke-y profitable tame horror releases, but it's usually a recipe for a) disaster and b) me falling asleep in the theater. If a horror film is good, it will find an audience, no matter what the rating. If it is not good, allowing pre-teens to attend will not save it. Adjusted for inflation, The Exorcist made something in the neighborhood of $725 freakin' million. In 1973. R. Rated. Horror. Can. Make. Money. Hollywood. Get. Over. It.

Kim Hollis: I guess it's an okay result for the studio (especially compared to their "scary" movie of last year, Sarah Landon and the Paranormal Hour), but it's basically forgotten after this weekend. It can't have cost much, so I suppose it will be profitable. I'm just not really sure why you bother with theatrical release on stuff like this. Just send it straight-to-DVD.

Kevin Chen: So you're saying that the rating doesn't matter, but only R rated horror films are good enough to make money?

David Mumpower: I always liked the Sarah Landon people. They had exactly the correct level of excitement for a group making their first studio picture. Too many people in this industry are so jaded that they have lost the thrill of the game. I wish the results had been inverse with the impossibly awful Molly Hartley, but Chace Crawford would have had to switch films for that to happen. I also think something that helped The Haunting of Molly Hartley a lot is its similarity in title to the wildly successful The Exorcism of Emily Rose (a PG-13 horror blockbuster, Mr. Chen!), which wasn't accidental, I'm sure.

Kevin Chen: I'll see your Exorcism of Emily Rose and raise you a Sixth Sense.

My point is not to suggest that a PG-13 rating is a major determinant of box office for horror films (either up or down), but to note that Sean rhetorically asserts that quality, not rating is what ultimately matters (a point I agree with) and then immediately, in a series of heavily-punctuated but related breaths, entreats Hollywood to make R-rated films.

The writers' strike has wreaked some havoc on awards season, for sure

Kim Hollis: Changeling expanded to 1,850 venues this week and wound up with $9.4 million. Is this a good enough result to keep its end of year awards candidacy alive?

Brandon Scott: No. Although I wouldn't think that the box office business it does is crucial to this effort. Reviews were too mixed and early word is that this is Clint's least effective directorial effort in recent years. Since he has another movie coming out before year's end, I say bring on Gran Torino!

Kim Hollis: It's good enough to keep Angelina Jolie's awards hopes alive, but nothing else. People always seem to forget that the actress category frequently reaches to find candidates, and she's one the Academy will like to reward. Reviews and box office don't even necessarily matter.

David Mumpower: Given that its box office is probably going to fall somewhere between Letters from Iwo Jima and Flags of Our Fathers, I think we all would agree that it is a relatively disappointing result for an Angelina Jolie film. There is clearly a line of demarcation her action movie fans see with her independent work. They don't want to see her justify her Academy Award. They just want to sexualize her while blows stuff up. For the life of me, I cannot decide if that's a problem for her or not.

Saw will return to torture another day

Kim Hollis: Saw V fell 66% to $10.1 million this weekend. Do you believe this is the end of the line for the franchise or do you expect us to be having the same conversation next year?

Pete Kilmer: For what these things cost compared to what the make internationally and on DVD, we'll be back here next year. Though I think next year is the make-or-break year for the franchise, I heard from a lot of people who didn't like last year's and this year's edition of the movie.

Brandon Scott: Yeah, it's definitely in wind-down mode. How long can these really go? Saw VI, VII, VIII all in theaters? I am not so sure. I can see them getting to X with the straight-to-DVD model, but their theater releasing run has to be dwindling. I think there is a chance for one more, as we must bear in mind it did $32 million last weekend. That's still a big opening weekend number and a sure money maker with V currently at $45 million here vs. its $11 million budget. But this can't go on forever. Something new has to come into place.

Sean Collier: Depending on which horror fansites you believe, Saw VI already has a director and elements of a plot. (I mean, they all barely had anything more than elements of a plot, so they're about done, as far as I can tell.) And, seriously, we're coming up on Jason Voorhees' 12th trip to the box office. Mark my words, Saw X will have a theatrical release.

Kim Hollis: I think it's back next year. These movies keep right on being profitable and they continue to leave doors open for sequels. I would have to think interest would have to drop down to around a $10 million opening before they'll stop with the sequels. They're a license to print money and I'm sure Lionsgate likes money.

David Mumpower: I interpret the question as being done in the short term or not rather than being done forever. We all know that at some point in the next ten years, there will be another Saw title. The question as I see it is whether there will/should be one in the next two years. I am of the opinion that this franchise needs to take a break and come back with some new and original ideas, but Lionsgate's CFO probably disagrees with me.

Hooray for November!

Kim Hollis: The next three weekends see openings from Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa, Quantum of Solace, and Twilight. Rank these three films in terms of their expected opening weekends.

Pete Kilmer:

1. Quantum of Solace
2. Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa
3. Twilight

Though I think Madagascar and Twilight could flip positions.

Brandon Scott: I'm not sure what the number of theaters are for each. With word coming in that Quantum just smashed opening day records for the region in the UK, I suspect it to be big here. I can't imagine Twilight being the next Harry Potter, though green-lighting a second movie prior to this one even being released makes you wonder what it can do. I would suspect these to fall as Quantum first, Madagascar second and Twilight third, though again, consider me in the dark about Twilight as when I first saw the trailer I turned to my companion in the theater and said, what the (blank) is this? Completely cheesy. But then I was informed of the supposed popularity of the books, so I consider Twilight to be the wild card here.

Sean Collier: In a just world, I'd put Quantum first...but I'm calling Madagascar the big winner here. I expect Twilight to finish with a huge number thanks to a long run, and Quantum to have a big couple of weekends, but the kiddies will be out in force for Generic Talking Animal Cartoon #1850B.

Kim Hollis: I think Madagascar makes about $60 million, Quantum of Solace makes $55 million and Twilight makes $45 million. That's a good few weekends.

Marty Doskins: I'll say Madagascar gets $55 million and Quantum of Solace gets $52 million. However, I'm still not convinced about Twilight. Everyone (myself included) seems to overestimate the attraction of the latest young adult book-to-movie adaptation. Maybe this will be the one to prove me wrong, but I'm off this genre's bandwagon for now.

David Mumpower: I feel comfortable saying that we are going to have three straight weekends of $40+ million openings, which is a pretty spectacular November if it happens. I see Quantum of Solace as being the biggest opener, the Madagascar sequel being the second biggest (but still over $50 million) and Twilight a massive hit relative to budget with a mid-$40s debut. In the long run, I expect Madagascar 2 to be the most successful title in title in terms of domestic revenue. Given what has happened with The Dark Knight, however, I am no longer as certain of this as I would have been six months ago. I believe strongly in the idea that movies buy a line of credit for their sequels through the quality of the current outing. Batman Begins (plus the introduction of The Joker) bought The Dark Knight's larger success in the same way that Spider-Man 2's quality hugely impacted Spider-Man 3's debut. If this line of thinking is sound, Casino Royale's impeccable quality could secure a mega-launch for Quantum of Solace, lousy title notwithstanding.