Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
November 24, 2008
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Twilight opened to $69.6 million this weekend. Please explain.
Brandon Scott: A conversation I had a few days ago revealed that my sometimes-girlfriend is starting a book club. The first book they will read is Twilight. These are attorneys, professionals, women in their 20s and 30s. The point? These books have extended beyond the kiddie and teen world. The box office result is a reflection of that. I had seen the trailer about six weeks ago and said to my neighbor, "what the hell is that?" It looks terrible. I thought it was a B-movie with a sub $10 million budget. I have since been educated.
Tim Briody: I got nothing. Seriously, this apparently was the most anticipated book to movie adaptation since Harry Potter, and the difference is that we were pretty much oblivious to it. It's amazing.
Eric Hughes: When the last book in the Twilight saga sold 1.3 million copies in its first 24 hours just a few months ago, I knew something special was going to happen here. Even so, I still didn't predict $70 million. Looking back at my comments in the Prophecy column, I believe I went with an opening weekend take of anywhere in the $40-50 million range.
But one quick thing I do want to say is that after taking a gander at the audience at my Saturday afternoon matinee, I'm not absolutely shocked by Twilight's boffo numbers. I fully expected to be the only 20-something male in attendance, and I was fine with that. Instead there were people of all kinds. For the most part females (of any age), but also a smattering of boys, men (including dads fulfilling their fatherly obligation of taking the kids) and even couples in their 50s and 60s without children. I was amazed by how diverse the crowd was, considering that all you ever heard about the movie was that it targeted tween girls (which I, too, am guilty of declaring).
Scott Lumley: I don't quite get how this flew so low on our radar, either. I agree with the earlier assessment that the trailers looked low budget and didn't impress and I based my estimates on that. It might just be that we aren't in the demographic for Twilight and as such weren't positioned to be excited about it, or even speak to people that would be excited about it.
Max Braden: A friend told me her 20-something roommate really wanted to see it even though she'd never read the books. How am I supposed to explain that? The trailers looked horrible. Pattison looked like he was rejected from a boy band for having no charm. I think I read about this kind of female hysteria in a medieval history textbook.
Marty Doskins: In a previous MMQB, I had mentioned that I was off the bandwagon of young adult book adaptations until a movie proved me wrong. At first I thought this was finally the one, but I'm not so sure after looking more at this series. I had never actually seen the books until this past week. I was substitute teaching at a middle school and some of the kids brought the book along with them. Most of the previous failed book adaptations had come from books in the 150 to 200 page range. However, this book is over 500 pages long.
While I know that quantity doesn't translate to quality, maybe there is something about the amount of source material to work with. I'm almost looking at this as closer to Harry Potter than any of the previous young adult adaptations. Is there a connection between this being a much more lengthy selection versus some of the other films like Because of Winn-Dixie (190 pages), The Water Horse (128 pages), and How to Eat Fried Worms (128 pages). Even A Series of Unfortunate Events had to get material from the first three books in the series to make a single film. This movie did fairly well, but again it had a lot more pages of writing to work with.
Reagen Sulewski: There's nothing quite like lightning in a bottle. The producers managed to get this film out at pretty much exactly the right second to capitalize on the peak of this fad (that's right, I said the f-word). As for the appeal of the material itself, I'm going with mass hypnosis.
Jamie Ruccio: Tween girls have been the engine of pop culture for 50 years now. From Frank Sinatra and Elvis to The Beatles and Titantic, girls from ten to 13 have driven some of the largest pop cultural events in our times. I think the influence of the pre-teen and teen girl set is being understated here and shouldn't be. $69 million is a stellar number that only a highly energized demo (or multiple interested demos) can bring.
They were the ones who propelled it to the opening weekend and may drive it well into the holidays but I suspect their older sisters, mothers and grandmothers went, too. I know one woman who professed the desire to see it again. With these groups also come the captive males (or males who use them as an excuse to go). But again, I don't think the impact of the younger crowd can be downplayed. Without them, I doubt this movie does half of what it did this past weekend.
Jason Lee: I don't think any of us need to feel bad about this film flying under our radar - it flew under EVERYONE'S radar for the past year and only in recent weeks did this industry start to realize how big this film was going to be. For me, I'm simply shocked at how far beyond the teen girl demographic this film got. Women can only get you so far. Clearly this was a two or three quadrant film, something I did not expect at all.
Kim Hollis: I was always feeling like there was a massive built-in audience for this; however, my "massive" number would have equalled around $45 to $50 million. I was off by a ton. This was Sex in the City for a younger generation, and if you think about how loyal they are to their American Idols and so forth, I don't guess it should be a big surprise that they came out in support for a book-based movie that has so thoroughly captured their attention. Will it wind up being a flavor-of-the-week? That's yet to be determined.
David Mumpower: I made a similar projection to Kim when this came up six weeks ago. At the time, I felt that we may be overstating Twilight's upside. That was...incorrect. The explanation for this is relatively simple in my estimation. All of the people who have made the books bestsellers showed up on opening weekend. In addition, the curiosity factor lured in some folks who probably had no idea what Twilight is (and presumably left the theater equally befuddled). $69.6 million is epic. It approaches Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone's $90 million start. Anyone who claims they saw that coming six months ago is lying. And I include the film's producers in that.
A sequel has already been greenlighted
Kim Hollis: Do you expect later films in the franchise to match/exceed Twilight's performance, or do you think it will follow the Prince Caspian model instead?
Brandon Scott: It's difficult to say with this having been out only a few days. I don't know if they are comparable films or series, either. This had a $37 million budget. I think Prince Caspian was $180 million or something? No doubt the sequel budget will increase and I suspect awareness of the franchise will only grow based on this films success. My early prognosis is that it's too early to tell, since we don't know yet where Twilight will end up.
Eric Hughes: I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say it only goes up from here (or at the very least will bank about the same amount of money per release like Harry Potter). Whereas the Chronicles of Narnia movies are based on a series of books from the 1950s, the Twilight saga is IN right now. No question. Plus, the franchise has Robert Pattinson, who I'm told causes just about every teen girl to go weak at the knees.
Max Braden: I'd be tempted to compare sequel prospects to Book of Shadows which didn't even gross as much as Blair Witch's first wide weekend, but Twilight's fans are certainly more locked in on the characters than some plot stunt. I think the Prince Caspian audience had no foundation on the original books, so when the first movie failed to sink in, response to the second was simply based on eye candy. I'll go with the Bridget Jones model. 20% drop for the first weekend comparison, 40% drop in total gross.
Jim Van Nest - Max, I think you're way off on this one. I say the second film blows this one away. From everything I'm hearing, the fans LOVED this movie. The main characters were "perfect" and they stayed true to the novel, is what I've been told. Mix in a larger budget - because let's face it, this looked like a bad CW series from the trailer - and I think we have a potential $90-100 million opener next time out. Also, how many new fans will the series have due to the success of the first film? I'm guessing a lot. Finally, with $69 million in mid-November, they'd be crazy not to make the sequel a summer tent-pole.
Kevin Chen: While it's clear that Kim is trying to be frame the question for debate, The Chronicles of Narnia films are a poorer analogy than the more obvious Harry Potter. Eric's answer is probably closest to the truth. Meyer's books are popular and in the minds of (at least some) people right now. The relative failure of Prince Caspian compared to The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe probably owes to the audience's hazy memories at best of the sequel's plot, let alone its title (and terrible marketing, a fate which Twilight does not share).
Reagen Sulewski: I'm not sure you're going to expand the fan base too much from here - those that aren't already sold are openly mocking the project (yo!). It's pretty black and white on this one. You'll probably get at least one more film to open to this level, but I think it'll start to fade a bit after that. They'd be well served to accelerate that 2010 release date on the next film.
Les Winan: Prince Caspian was also seriously lacking mall appearences with shrieking girls.
Jason Lee: I agree with Max on the Bridget Jones model. I know that I was not an early believer in this film and I know that I could easily be wrong on this again, but I think that one of the things that helped sustain the Harry Potter franchise is the fact that there were still new books coming out as the films were released. Ticket sales and massive book sales fed off each other's momentum and helped turn it into this global phenomenon.
I can't help but feel like this fanbase has nothing to do, no reason to stay together, no reason to say interested until the next film comes out. This is almost as if you'd released the Harry Potter Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone film just after the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows book was released.
Kim Hollis: I have to agree that it's going to lose some momentum here. As Jason mentions, since all of the books have theoretically been released, there's nothing to sustain long-term interest like there is with the Potter films. And even with the continued releases of the books, those movies have seen declines in opening weekends. I see no reason that Twilight would perform any differently.
David Mumpower: I agree with Reagen's evaluation that the next film probably does similarly to this one. After that, the fad will start to die in the same way we've seen recently with High School Musical 3. I don't see this franchise as on the upswing indefinitely. Kevin's point is well taken in that Prince Caspian was a much tougher sell than New Moon will be, but I don't see fans of the franchise being as passionate about the movies three years from now. (My email address isn't being published with this, is it?)
Seriously, WTF?
Kim Hollis: What do you think will be the next "WTF" film, whose success shocks us this much?
Brandon Scott: Probably some other book series I haven't read. I am not shocked simply because of my ignorance of the topic until seeing some predictions for this weekend's haul. I am pulling for Despereaux to do well. I'm not sure if that would shock or not. If not, we are probably looking at something next year. For more information, read the Tipping Point and have Malcolm Gladwell break it all down. Even after reading that, it will still prove nothing.
Max Braden: I'll let you know as soon as I solve chess. My guess would be something from the children's book market.
Tim Briody: It's awfully hard to answer this considering that whatever it is, it's not even on our radar yet. But some group of people, somewhere, are currently salivating over it and will show up in force for it.
Reagen Sulewski: What demographic hasn't been pandered to recently? I'm going to go with something aimed at seniors.
Les Winan: Paging Reagen Sulewski...the director and producer of The Bucket List would like a word with you outside....
Jason Lee: While CLEARLY not in the same WTF level as Twilight, I'll go out on a limb and say that Slumdog Millionaire follows in the footsteps of Sideways and Juno and could end up with $60+ million. It wouldn't surprise me if it didn't ...but at the same time, I think that we've seen in years past that a really well made, audience-pleasing film can make a whole lot of money over the holiday season through the Oscars. Maybe Slumdog is this year's beneficiary?
Kim Hollis: I'll be one of the few people to go out on a limb here and guess My Bloody Valentine 3-D. The novelty of a 21st century 3-D horror film might be enough to make this one something special in the horror genre.
Jamie Ruccio: I don't know what the next biggest WTF movie is going to be but Twilight doesn't surprise me nearly as much as...Beverly Hills Chihuahua. Someone made a deal with Satan for that gross.
David Mumpower: Looking over the schedule for the next 12 months, the titles that jump out at me are I Love You Beth Cooper and Confessions of a Shopaholic. The former is a book whose growing popularity should peak at just the right moment for a movie version starring the cheerleader from Heroes. The latter is the type of novel that can prove to be at least another Bridget Jones' Diary if marketed the right way.
Girl power?
Kim Hollis: Do you take anything from the fact that this is the biggest opening ever for a female director?
Brandon Scott: None whatsoever. Good for her. And hopefully she gets a crack at more sequels. This is good for women directors everywhere and hopefully can open more doors for them. But this is source material driving business, not the direction.
Max Braden: The credit for an opening this large on previously unfilmed book material (especially with a crappy trailer) goes to the author rather than director. Note that the Twilight's author is female, as is the mega-rich author of the Harry Potter series. No doubt though Hardwicke gets her pick of projects now, and copycat methodology may lead Hollywood producers to throw projects at female directors on the hope that they have the magic touch. This movie must be the most successful in terms of the young female demographic, so I'd expect Hollywood to try go after that in future projects as well. And I haven't seen the movie but I suspect that Kristen Stewart didn't have to remove her clothes in order to make her presence known. All around this is a positive for women in Hollywood.
Scott Lumley: I don't think this question even relevant. It's almost insulting to bring it up. If you're the kind of person that even notes that it was a female director and let that influence your decision to watch a movie then there's something wrong with you.
Les Winan: I wonder if Scott thinks it's insulting to note that Barack Obama's about to be the first African-American president? Generally, I'm all for acknowledging these milestones, unless we're parsing the milestone down too far (the first African-American lesbian former nun, etc.), it can't be a bad thing. God forbid the millions of girls seeing Twilight in the theater notice the director was a woman and dream of a career in film.
Daron Aldridge: The first thing that I take away from it is that it is sad that this beat a ten-year old record for Deep Impact, directed by Mimi Leder, with just over $40 million. This says to me that for all its talk of liberalism, it is rare that a studio will give more female directors a shot at a tentpole, action, comic book, sci-fi or Will Smith movie, which account for the majority of big openers. Aside from Kathryn Bigelow (who hasn't made a "big" film since K-19: The Widowmaker), can you name a female action director? I don't think the director's gender played a role in the audience showing up for this. It reminds me of the widely held BOP belief that with the right product the audience will show up even if the movie opens in January. There have to be more female directors who can direct an event movie as well as Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich.
Jason Lee: Frankly, I'm disappointed in Catherine Hardwicke. I LOVED her directorial debut, Thirteen, and even liked Lords of Dogtown. I think Twilight (though a huge financial success) is more of a creative letdown.
Kim Hollis: While I don't think that people were going out to see this movie because it was directed by a woman, I'm pleased if it motivates fans of the film to pursue a career in the creative arts. I do think it proves that women still don't have a lot of the high-profile positions in Hollywood, though - especially when you consider that Mimi Leder held the record for top opening by a female director for so long.
David Mumpower: I think Jason has touched upon the most fascinating aspect of this. Daron's comments drill the madness of the issue that the previous record had stood for a decade, but what I keep spinning over and over in my head is that the director of Thirteen has successfully cribbed off her previous work. I also enjoy the incongruity of her going from The Nativity Story to a supernatural goth story. After the Virgin Mary and Bella Swan, I wonder what teen girl character she focuses on next.