Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
December 2, 2008
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: After The Others and Moulin Rouge!, Nicole Kidman appeared to be poised to become a box office draw. What happened?
Brandon Scott: She took her career in the "serious" direction far more than a box office draw can warrant. I personally like her choices more often than not (Keith Urban notwithstanding), but I don't particularly have mainstream sensibilities, nor millions in the bank. Just kidding ladies, I do have millions in the bank. I guess I am not as serious as Nicole. She's still one of my favorite actresses though when she is "on."
Scott Lumley: I would honestly say that she still is a box office draw, despite her somewhat brutal track record. She just really hasn't found the right film that has allowed her to have the breakout moment that we're all waiting for.
Reagen Sulewski: Except at some point that becomes self-fulfilling, Scott. She's not a draw unless she gets exactly the right premise and the moon is in the exactly right position in the sky? Then she's not a draw. It's like saying I can lift a Buick, as long as Magnus ver Magnusson is helping me.
Shane Jenkins: She has such an off-putting presence. I think people legitimately don't like her, and yet she continues to get work and crank out the flops. I've read that she is the most overpaid actor working in Hollywood today (salary vs. box office), and I have no trouble believing that.
David Mumpower: I think that Kidman capitalized on all of the positive press that came from her split with Tom Cruise. The timing of that coincided with a couple of her strongest projects to date in Moulin Rouge! and The Others. Since that time frame, she has made two good decisions with Cold Mountain and The Interpreter. Otherwise, her choice of projects has been disastrous. Due to the misfortune of injury, she had to drop out of the one that would have been a hit, Panic Room. Then, she chose to do a romantic drama with a 12-year-old (hello, Mary Kay Letourneau), a remake of a beloved 1960s sitcom that had a god-awful script, and a pair of genuinely regrettable projects with Daniel Craig. I feel that women like her more than men, which means a film like Australia is at least the right idea, just the wrong selection in particular. She needs to find more roles like The Interpreter and Cold Mountain that are a good combination of awards bait with box office potential. Australia was never going to do much beyond Moulin Rouge!, and that limited its upside as a project.
Daron Aldridge: I hate to be playing the track record card again, so soon after addressing Witherspoon but I think it bears noting. That this is fairly consistent with her openings for Cold Mountain ($14.6 million), Stepford Wives ($21.4 million), The Interpreter ($22.8 million) and Bewitched ($20.1 million) with Cold Mountain still making $95 million. It's when she ventures into the popcorn fare that her box office falters, like Stepford Wives and Bewitched.
David Mumpower: Bringing up standard opening weekends is a shaky proposition for Thanksgiving releases since they are their own entity. A film released on a normal weekend should make a factor of three to four more over the length of its domestic run than it does on opening weekend. A Thanksgiving release, on the other hand, is much lower. The numbers are inflated at the start then deflated for the rest of the run. So, while this may be in the range of prior Nicole Kidman openings in general, it's indicative of a much worse overall performance than those films. Its legs are automatically truncated by its holiday release.
Marty Doskins: Another aspect to consider is the audience seeing this film. My 13-year-old daughter talked a friend into seeing it. She thought she would enjoy it (which she said she did) because she's hooked on all things Australian. She told me they were by far the youngest people in the theater. Since this film doesn't appear to be grabbing the people that spend the cash, I don't see it holding on very long.
Jamie Ruccio: I think we need to readjust our expectations regarding what a "box office draw" is. I don't think it's fair anymore to suggest that actors can open films based on the strength of their body of work for more than two or three consecutive films. Eventually, the most consistent actor movie draws fail. I think with the advent of additional, competing sources of entertainment it's that much harder for movies and those who are in them to draw people to the product. The audience is far more selective than they ever were.
He just belongs in Ohhhhhhhhhklahoma!
Kim Hollis: Is Hugh Jackman a star, or is he just a guy lucky enough to have played Wolverine?
Brandon Scott: Both - only because "star" is kind of a vague term. There are stars and there are mega-stars or constellations. Then there are planets. Then there is the solar system. Hugh Jackman is a star on Earth, which is part of our solar system...or not, I skipped Science and Astronomy. Nevertheless, he was lucky to play Wolverine. And he is the Sexiest Man Alive, so I have to classify that as a star. He's no Spencer Pratt...shoot me for even knowing that name, seriously take my life...now, but he's still a star.
Pete Kilmer: He's a star. But he can't open movies. Let's face it. The X-Men movies were ensemble movies where he did indeed stand out. And the upcoming Wolverine movie will be another ensemble movie. Granted he will be the lead, but the character is so much bigger than Jackman that it will be tough to say if it's Jackman or the character that opens the movie (in reality it's both).
Tim Briody: Actual conversation I had this week:
"Australia? Who's in that?"
"Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman."
"Who?"
"Wolverine."
"Oh, right."
I think that kind of sums it up.
Scott Lumley: I would say he's a talented actor who has been extremely lucky to have been cast in a role as iconic as Wolverine. If you think about it, aside from the X-Men franchise, he's appeared in Van Helsing (which was atrocious...), he co-starred in Swordfish with John Travolta and Halle Berry's breasts (which were not atrocious....) The Prestige (Which was a very good movie that hardly anyone watched...) and the Fountain (which has to be seen to be believed and practically requires Cliff notes.) This is not a spectacular track record.
Yet, looking back, I can't say that any one of those performances was terrible. He might just be a guy who was lucky to play Wolverine, but I can't think of anybody else out there who could pull of this role believeably. He really fits the part. If it's luck, then I think we have to credit the luck to Jackman's surprising talent.
Max Braden: I don't know if he's too much of a good thing or if he's got the Clive Owen curse, but he's the type of tuxedo wearing smile that you'd expect Hollywood to rush to exploit. Too charming to play everyman, too sophisticated to play Will Smith, too approachable to play Tom Cruise, too strong to play vulnerable, maybe? I'd almost suggest he get an iconic villain role but his last two have been hack thrillers. I think he'd be great in a reimagining of Gordon Gekko.
Reagen Sulewski: He's a less violent version of Russell Crowe.
David Mumpower: Jackman is lucky he's not a big enough star for people to take note of everything he does. If he were living in more of a paparazzi fishbowl, The Fountain would have been Gigli X Glitter. My take on Jackman is that people are inclined to like him then have utterly no recollection of him the instant they leave the theater, change the channel or whatever. He's a nice guy with quite a bit of charisma who simply does not linger in the collective conscious for whatever reason. Without Wolverine, he'd be having a Thomas Jane type of career. Dougray Scott should hate his guts oh so much.
Daron Aldridge: Lucky is a great and apt word. While I like him as an actor, (completely biased because of the Wolverine connection), he is not a box office draw alone. He needs the right project. In my opinion, The Prestige is the barometer for what both Bale and Jackman's box office appeal outside of a comic book film truly is at this point, with $15 million opening and total in the $50 or 60 million range. Not a judgment on the acting skills, just their drawing power.
Reagen Sulewski: What I keep coming back to with all these conversations on who is and isn't a draw now is just how few real, solid box office draws there actually are. Perhaps it's just foggy memories, but it seems like it's shakier now than it ever has been for marquee names. Producers must be tearing their hair out trying to figure out who to cast for sure things.
Marty Doskins: Or maybe they're not pulling their hair out. Maybe they're letting their own foggy memories guide their casting decisions, which is why we're not seeing that much high box office consistency from anyone. There are probably a lot of conversations like: "Remember how good Reese was in Sweet Home Alabama?" "Yeah! Let's put her in our sci-fi action thriller!"
For those English teachers keeping track, I used "they're", "their", and "there" correctly in the above paragraph.
Jason Lee: Frankly, I think Jackman is a talented actor whose thespian prowess is best showcased in the type of films that display malaise at the box-office. Stated in simpler terms: he's great in films that don't make money. While he got lucky with Wolverine, in the long run, I see him as a much more successful dramatic leading man in Oscar-ish films.
Jamie Ruccio: The Thomas Jane comparison is very apt. I think without the career tent pole of the Wolverine character he'd be a Thomas Jane or older Josh Hartnett or Hayden Christensen or James Franco or...
I think Hollywood is littered with decent if not great talent that looks good, gets a particular role and turns it into a career. Actors, if they're lucky, always have what I call the Fall Back Movie. It's the movie the can always make a sequel, prequel, etc to and regain some career clout. Jackman just manages to have a Fall Back Franchise Character. He had the good fortune to be able to depict well one of the most iconic comic book characters of the last 25 years.
He's not someone I expect an award winning performance from but he is someone I don't mind seeing in a movie. But as mentioned, again by David, once it's over I pretty much forget he was involved.
David Mumpower: The particularly interesting aspect of Jamie's point about a fallback movie is that Marvel Comics is currently running an Old Man Logan storyline wherein the character is retired and long past his prime. Theoretically, in 2025, it's not outside the realm of possibility that Jackman could still be doing a Wolverine role in this manner.
Jason Statham will ride this and Crank to the bitter end
Kim Hollis: The Transporter 3 earned $18.2 million over five days. Is this more, less or about what you expected from this project?
Brandon Scott: Yes. Though on a personal note, I ran into (kinda sorta, read: he was stalking me) Jason Statham a few months back here in LA and I can tell you he is not environmentally conscious. He drives a V-12 Audi of some sort and I can't help but think he would have been better off car-pooling for the benefit of our children. They are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way. Show them all the beauty they possess inside. Give them a sense...of pride. Sexual Chocolate.
Pete Kilmer: I think so. Jason Statham has become one of my favorite action guys in the last few years. After seeing him in The Bank Job, which he is terrific in, he's now become one of the guys who I really want to see push their acting skills. My hope is that he can balance the action films with movies of the quality of The Bank Job. And I totally endorse him as the future Matt Murdock aka Daredevil when they relaunch that movie series.
Scott Lumley: That's a surprisingly good result for what is really the third go around for a fairly mindless action series. I had this pegged at $10 million for the weekend with fair to middling legs finishing out at about $38 million total. The Budget for Transporter 2 was about $32 million. If this is a similar budget then this is a fantastically profitable movie in short order. And in regards to Statham, I can't buy into him as Daredevil. But if there's a more perfect casting than Statham as Bullseye, I haven't thought of it.
Max Braden: Hitman opened to $21 million this weekend last year. I'd expect Statham to perform a little better except that there's nothing memorable about this series than some kick ass fighting.
Reagen Sulewski: Certainly less considering how well Transporter 2 did, but I can't for the life of me figure out why they opened this one with a Bond film in the marketplace.
Shane Jenkins: Reagen, I was thinking the same thing. I think they left money on the table by opening this in such a crowded and competitive period. Why not save it for January, when the only things competing for our attention are Leprechaun direct-to-video sequels and seasonal depression?
David Mumpower: As Reagen said, it's a step back from The Transporter 2, which did $16.5 million in three days. The third outing has barely matched that in five. Of course, Lionsgate acquired domestic rights to this project on the cheap, so this transaction borders on arbitrage for them.
Jason Lee: I agree with what's been said so far. While this a solid opening for a moderate franchise in its third outing, it baffles me as to why Lionsgate would release this in the holiday timeframe. They absolutely robbed themselves of having any chance to play top dog.
Jamie Ruccio: Having not taken a look at any of the numbers save for what's been mentioned here I agree that it's on the underside of average for his box office track record.
That being said, I hope it does well. I don't know why (mancrush?) but I enjoy his movies. I'm with Pete, he's my favorite action guy out there. Between his earlier films, the criminally under-appreciated Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, the supremely criminally under appreciated Snatch, the Transporter Series and the polarizing Crank, he is the only action star out there that I care to watch right now.
And for what it's worth I agree with Reagen. The people who scheduled this against the recently opened Bond are probably the same people who scheduled Bolt up against Twilight. Unless there are circumstances that I'm not aware of there has been some pretty wonky scheduling as of late.
David Mumpower: For a while now, I've considered him the new Jean Claude Van Damme. Nobody remembers it now, but there was a period of time where that waste of space consistently found success in low budget action films. They made enough in theaters to justify their production cost then they cleaned up on home video. Statham has become that guy in the 2000s. It's not glamorous, but Statham has an asset Van Damme never did. He can still prestige work in roles like The Bank Job as well because when all else fails, he can act.