Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
January 20, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Paul Blart: Mall Cop became the second biggest January opening ever with $33.8 million. WTF?
Tim Briody: My faith in humanity is shattered once again.
Scott Lumley: I did the BOP movie of the day for this one a while back, and it actually looked not bad from a dumb comedy perspective. I thought this had a shot at being a breakout film, but I honestly never thought it would pull in $33 million. Look on the bright side. At least a dog-centric film didn't take the top spot again.
Joel Corcoran: Every time I think that Hollywood might turn the corner and stop putting out crap like this, a piece of crap like this comes along and opens to over $30 million. What the hell were people thinking? When did Kevin James riding a Segway become comedy gold?
Brandon Scott: This means next to nothing to me. Hollywood has been putting out tripe along these lines for ages and America consistently turns out with the films raking in the dollars. This shocked industry expectations but truly should shock none of us. This is an indefensible offense.
Sean Collier: I think I've convinced them to stay away from Blart, but my parents - two intelligent, thoughtful, educated people - are huge Kevin James fans. They've seen him do stand-up, they've watched every episode of King of Queens, they wonder why everyone isn't in agreement on his merits. I think that whatever it is that he does resonates really well with suburban Americans in their 40s and 50s, and apparently that demographic was willing to turn out in force for a so-so looking comedy in the middle of winter. We also can't discount a counter-programming effect against a lot of heavy, dark Oscar contenders.
Jim Van Nest: I think Sean is on the right track with this one. It's Oscar season, so every "we have to take it very seriously" movie made in the last year is in theaters right now. Given that and the fact that everywhere you go now, you get nothing but depressing news over and over and over, I think people are/were ready for mindless comedy. I've been seeing the TV ads for weeks and even though I know the movie is going to be horrible...watching a fat guy bounce off a glass door is still funny and I'd rather spend money to see stupid stuff right now than the more serious films.
Reagen Sulewski: But, $33 million of funny? I'd understand The Love Guru making $33 million before this, since this seemed to not have even bothered with the jokes.
Daron Aldridge: Exactly, Reagen. I optimistically thought that we had moved beyond this with the flop of Disaster Movie. To build on Brandon's comment, sadly, Chris Farley (and John Candy before him in the 1980s) mined this same schtick-y route over ten years ago but without the one-liners. Fat guy (no offense, Mr. James) falling down, lather, rinse, repeat. All three are likable guys that I find funny but can fall into this rut of films that is ultimately unsatisfying. Hopefully, James can use this momentum to try something with fewer pratfalls.
David Mumpower: Funny fat men continue to be cat nip to movie goers. I don't claim to understand it; in fact, I rather resent it. I'm all over the place on what I think of this performance. On the one hand, I've known for a while that Kevin James is more popular than the movie industry was acknowledging. King of Queens was like comfort food for people still wincing over the cancellation of I Dream of Jeanie. But a film about an out-of-shape mall cop on a Segway should never ever never earn $38 million in four days. You can see that any day of the week on a trip to Spencer's Gifts...assuming there are still Spencer's Gifts. I haven't been 15 in a while, so I don't know.
Jim Van Nest: All you skinnies out there are getting ready to understand. This is the beginning of the Fat Boy Era. Paul Blart is only the first step. Brace yourselves...that IS Louie Anderson's music you're hearing!!
Keep the guy away from Weight Watchers. That's all we're saying.
Kim Hollis: Between Paul Blart, Hitch and I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, doesn't Kevin James have a pretty nice movie career evolving?
Scott Lumley: He's a likable, funny guy with zero baggage. His schtick is to essentially mock himself and try not to offend anybody. He might very well be the next Adam Sandler, because people certainly do seem to enjoy watching him.
Joel Corcoran: I like Kevin James as an actor, and I agree with Scott. Hitch was a good comedy, and I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry wasn't too bad, either. James is a likable, talented guy, and he should have a good, solid movie career ... assuming Paul Blart: Mall Cop is an aberration of poor judgment and not a sign of things to come.
Brandon Scott: No doubt I agree with the overall perception of KJ, though I am of the minority (shockingly, I know). I don't like the guy's schtick and I never have. Does it mean he is a bad guy? No. Is he funny? Equally, no. His career is on the rise in Hollywood's eyes without question after this one. We will see Mall Swine Deux: The Pig that defended Macy's in two to three years.
Sean Collier: Until Blart, I would've said no. When you starred with Will Smith and Adam Sandler in your previous hits, you can't really assume that you were the draw. Pulling these numbers in on his own, though, James should gain the notoriety that'll allow him to avoid more movies like this one.
Jim Van Nest: As a goofy fat guy with a hot wife, I can most definitely relate to King of Queens. Like Ray Romano, Kevin James mastered the role of everyman for several years on TV. Unfortunately for James, I don't think that will translate to a huge movie career for him, unless he continues to work with solid co-stars. Hitch and Chuck and Larry, I give credit to Smith and Sandler. Mall Cop is solely on James and that's great. I just don't think you can determine from one success that James will have more. He'll definitely have to branch out of Paul Blart territory if he wants to have a long movie career. I honestly think the public will only give him one of these stupid comedies and they'll expect more in the future.
Max Braden: He's approachable and goofy like Adam Sandler and Will Ferrell but isn't as noisy. I could see that translating into a Ben Stiller/lovable loser type of career.
Daron Aldridge: I agree in part that he has a nice career as a sidekick/supporting person but as a lead, let's see. I think he can be a dependable box office draw but with more diverse comedy choices. Alas, from 1995 to 1997, the aforementioned Farley headlined Tommy Boy, Black Sheep and Beverly Hills Ninja, which all grossed between $31 to $32 million or nearly identical to Blart's opening. So, there is money in Xeroxing a film but like Jim said today's audience will want more from him.
David Mumpower: I agree with the comments that his previous two films starred Will Smith and Adam Sandler, so he had a crutch. I did, however, always believe that James' presence on Hitch was a key reason why it became the most popular romantic comedy ever. He was perfectly cast in that role, and it's not a coincidence that the trailers featured him so prominently. With Paul Blart's success now established, here is what we can say for certain about Kevin James. He's made three films. Two of them have earned almost $300 million in combined receipts and now the third, the one that is undeniably all him, has opened to $38 million in four days. While this may be an overreaction based on what has happened to date rather than a prediction over what happens next, at this point, an argument can be made that Kevin James - God help us - is a box office draw. People keep mentioning Chris Farley, but the scale of that is way off. "Successful" Chris Farley films like Tommy Boy, Black Sheep and Beverly Hills Ninja all earned around $32 million. James' film has just opened to that and should triple it in final receipts, thereby effectively matching the three films being equated to him. Spin that over in your head for a moment.
Jim Van Nest: Maybe it's not fair, but I still can't jump on the "Kevin James as a box office draw" bandwagon til he does it again. One more and he'll be on the road to joining Belushi, Farley and Candy in the Fat Boy Hall of Fame.
Happy Valentine's Day!
Kim Hollis: My Bloody Valentine 3-D, the first horror flick to use the emerging Real-D technology, opened to $21.9 million. Should Lionsgate be pleased with this result?
Brandon Scott: Hell, yes. I think this is a spectacular figure. I think we (those that have seen it anyway, not I..."we" figuratively) have witnessed the re-birth of horror in the movies. This is what will keep people going to theaters and not catching this type of film at home. A gimmick that worked.
Joel Corcoran: Lionsgate shouldn't be pleased with this result, they should be ecstatic. They not only managed to rehash a crazy little '80s slasher flick into a great box-office performer, they managed to overcome the stigma of old-style 3-D glasses. That's a pretty damned good result.
Sean Collier: Horror needs gimmicks to survive, and this is a good one - Lionsgate should be very pleased, but not surprised. The fact that My Bloody Valentine managed to get a few positive reviews can't hurt, either. I maintain, though, that any half decent horror movie without direct competition will pull in a quick $20 million.
Max Braden: Other than the breakout Cloverfield last January, horror/thrillers typically make half that, so they should be very pleased. Like Paul Blart, My Bloody Valentine may have been a tension breaker from all the serious award contenders in theaters right now. It makes me wonder how well it would have done on Valentine's Day weekend, though.
Daron Aldridge: Since it performed in line with many of the horror movies as of late, I think they should be pleased. If they were hoping for more of a bump from the 3-D hook, then they might not be too pleased.
David Mumpower: My Bloody Valentine 3-D cost about $13 million to make and has already earned $24.2 million domestically. Obviously, we haven't seen much of this lately in the current economic climate, but I believe this is what used to be described as "profitable" back when we still saw such economic behavior.
Save your 3-D glasses and watch Chuck in 3-D!
Kim Hollis: Do you consider Real-D the future of the industry or just a novelty that will be largely forgotten in ten years?
Brandon Scott: I kind of addressed this in my last post, but I think in particular for horror, this is something that could work. I haven't seen the technology and to suggest it will be here in ten years is way too long a time frame, simply because the tech will change and evolve, but I think this is the start of what theaters need to bring to keep asses in the seats going forward. With the evolution of home theater, stereo, etc., movie houses need something to continue to separate themselves and offer a unique experience.
Joel Corcoran: I think it'll be a little bit of both. I don't see the Real-D technology as it is now sticking around for ten years. The Real-D company, or someone else, will come along and make a newer, better version of the technology. But I think ten years from now, we'll be looking back on My Bloody Valentine and Journey to the Center of the Earth as pioneering films in 3-D technology, just like we look at Toy Story as the pioneering film for CGI or The Matrix as the pioneering film for "bullet-time" effects.
Sean Collier: I wouldn't suggest that Real-D is the future of the industry, but I do think that it'll make 3D a viable option for filmmakers. Audiences seem to be okay wearing the glasses (and paying a couple bucks more,) and studios seem willing to put the extra money behind the projects. I think that ten years from now, it'll be expected that every theater has one 3D offering at any given time.
Max Braden: 3-D has been around in the movies for decades as a fringe novelty and I don't think Real is going to suddenly enlarge the market. Think about other potentially transforming elements in the movies; about the only one that has had a serious impact has been computer-generated effects. But the industry has been talking about digital actors replacing humans for over 20 years, and that's still not a likely prospect. Like CGI, Real 3-D will probably be used to enhance certain films, but not become the standard for most.
David Mumpower: The agreement by Disney/Pixar and DreamWorks Animation to do all of their CGI films in Real D goes a long way in legitimizing the longevity of the technology. I am reticent to say that this will be the case for the next ten years, however, as that's a lot of research and development cycles away. Ten years ago, there was no such thing as Google, Wikipedia, or (worst of all) BOP. DVD was not popularized yet, HDTV seemed to be on indefinite delay due to a lack of government standards, and movie downloads seemed like an impossibility. So much can change in just five years that I'm not willing to say that Real D is the long term future of the industry, but I do believe that the next three to four years are going to be very, very good ones for that technology.