Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
February 17, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Friday the 13th became the biggest horror opening of all-time with a $42.2 million three-day total against a production budget of $16 million. How did Warner Bros. pull this off?
Tim Briody: They lucked out with the calendar. And even though horror is so tired these days, there was enough nostalgia for a nearly 30-year-old franchise that it clearly drew a few folks who grew up with the original films.
Pete Kilmer: I don't know if it was so much nostalgia for it as more a recognition of the name brand. Let's face it, the VHS tapes and DVDs of the original series have been sitting on dusty Blockbuster shelves ever since the that store franchise started and little kids saw them throughout the years. Cut to 2009 and here's the new version...plus, it's a great date movie!
Brandon Scott: People never fail to amaze me by turning out for this sort of thing. I honestly have no idea how this happened. I mean, tired concept, old re-hashed name, the umpteenth horror movie this year already...what is fresh and exciting about this title? I remain oblivious as to how they pulled this off.
Shane Jenkins: Okay, I'm one of the contributors to this box office haul, so I can tell you this: it was an event. Like Cloverfield last year, the theater was packed with young people (and me *sigh*) ready to be scared in a safe environment and scream with their friends. The show I was at even had a seven foot tall guy in full Jason regalia chasing screaming girls around the lobby. It almost seemed like a holiday, and oh man, is it ever going to drop like a ton of bricks next week when the opening weekend party is over.
Jim Van Nest: For some reason right now, you can take just about any old slasher flick, update it, call it a re-make and people will turn out. My Bloody Valentine opens over $20 million...and it was one of the more fringe titles in the '80s. Same goes for Prom Night. When Rob Zombie decided to reboot the Halloween series, he opened it to $26 million. Friday the 13th is arguably the grand-daddy of all the slasher flicks of the late '70s and early '80s. It only stands to reason that a film marketed as a re-make would this kind of cash. The thing that pisses me off (as a fan of the franchise) is that this really ISN'T a remake...it's little more than Jason 11 (or 12, if you count Freddy vs. Jason). But if they called it Jason 11...it would have opened a lot like Jason 10 - $6 million with a $13 million final take. I put a HUGE chunk of this opening directly in the hands of whoever decided to call this a re-make/re-boot rather than the sequel it actually is.
David Mumpower: I feel it's important that we give credit where it's due here. Michael Bay, for all of his failures as a content creator, is an entrepreneurial genius. He understands what will sell independent of quality, making him cinema's finest used car dealer. When the writer's strike ended, he got his people in a room and he had them evaluate the opportunities for taking advantage of the movie vacuum. Re-making Friday the 13th is a masterstroke of short term commerce. The movie is already dead at the box office after only four days, but it virtually re-made its budget within 24 hours. They made the most tired and over-saturated of products feel new and fresh, even if it was just for a day. For that, they are to be commended and people like Shane who enabled this madness are to be spit upon.
Kim Hollis: I agree with David. This one was carefully planned and cultivated. Bay and Co. realized that 2009 is a year with *four* Friday the 13ths on the calendar as it's configured. They could rush together a film and open it on *any* of those dates and find some success with some clever marketing and work at making it an event. The same will happen with the Nightmare on Elm Street reboot, I'm sure.
Max Braden: I totally underestimated this one, but come on, even the Saw series couldn't manage $40 million at Halloween. Who were the stars in this? What was the hook? Why didn't The Strangers do this kind of business? I think Jim's kind of right with the marketing as remake rather than sequel. This way the kids get a Jason they can call their own. Though if the demographic was just old enough to see an R-rated movie, they've probably never seen the original(s) to know any better.
Coming soon: a remake of The Strangers
Kim Hollis: Is this the last great horror remake possibility? If not, what remake do you think has the potential to match this?
Pete Kilmer: Nightmare on Elm Street could be a monster of a relaunch if they don't mess it up.
Jim Van Nest: I don't know how big it would be, or how sucky...but I'm shocked that they haven't tried to update The Exorcist.
Brandon Scott: I don't think that there will ever be a "last" title the way this thing is going. Yes, Nightmare seems the most likely to have a shot and Exorcist is a good call, but as time passes the titles that will all be ripe for a rebirth will only continue to grow. I don't see an end to this...ever, at this point. And I continue to be livid about it. There is little hope for mankind. Just take one dip and end it.
Shane Jenkins: I agree with the others about Nightmare, which if done even half right could be huge. I also remember hearing talk about a Poltergeist remake, and, while it would be particularly inessential, I think it could really do well with a new generation that hasn't had a real haunted house movie to call their own. Well, aside from the awesome Monster House...
Jim Van Nest: I think a re-vamped Nightmare would, in fact, be huge. But I also think it would, in fact, be horrible. You're not going to find another Freddy Krueger like Robert Englund. And if they GET Robert Englund, well now...all they've done is made Freddy 9, rather than an actual re-make. (I know, I FEEL like a broken record.)
David Mumpower: I agree with Remlik that Nightmare on Elm Street is the logical candidate in this discussion. I do not, however, feel it will perform as well since it is by nature a less realistic take on the genre, one that does not lend itself well to modernization. All of these recent horror re-makes have been sincere, not an appropriate descriptor for the Freddy Krueger character. With regards to The Exorcist, I think that this is a bit of a tweak in terms anyway since we had an Exorcist prequel just a few years ago. Sure, the shoot was a disaster and the movie a train wreck, but I'm not sure we have gotten enough distance away from that film to have a re-make feel special. This is somewhat tragic since The Exorcist isn't like all of these garbage horror films under discussion. It was nominated for ten Academy Awards, for God's sake. In fact, if you want to impress your friends with some Academy Awards trivia leading up to the show on Sunday, get them to bet against you on whether it won an Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay. They'll never believe you that it did.
My wife has the best idea for a re-make. She thinks that Evil Dead is the perfect candidate and I'm inclined to agree with her on the point.
Max Braden: I agree that the sci-fi aspect of Nightmare would make it a tougher sell; the more realistic horror movies seem to be scoring well. On the other hand, I Am Legend was huge. And with the success of less campy comic remakes of Batman, Spider-Man and X-Men, I think it would just take a smart screenwriter to turn the Nightmare angle around. I was going to suggest American Werewolf in London but just remembered that I'd forgotten about Rise of the Lycans.
We're just not that into Confessions of a Shopaholic
Kim Hollis: Confessions of a Shopaholic opened to $15.4 million, falling $4 million short of the second weekend He's Just Not That Into You. Why did this one fail to catch on as much as last week's big winner?
Tim Briody: Shopaholic didn't scream so much "date movie" like He's Just Not That Into You as it did "chick flick." I'm sure many men agreed to see the more tolerable HJNTIY over Mrs. Borat's movie.
Brandon Scott: Yeah, Tim is right. This one definitely had the, "why would any self-respecting man see it?", taint to it. With He's Just Not That Into You, the themes were more "universal" in nature. Guys don't get shopping, nor should they aspire to want to "get it." It's a little too bad for Isla Fisher, because I think she missed her shot at solo stardom.
Shane Jenkins: Did Isla get to headline this movie based solely on her role in Wedding Crashers? She's pretty and funny, but who thought she was a big enough name to open a wide release film?
David Mumpower: Shane, I would argue that most actresses who steal the show in a smaller role in a $200 million blockbuster get a trial run as a lead actress in a romantic comedy. The question is what they do with it, and Isla Fisher has done okay but not great here. I think she's a funny woman who has shown a lot of promise in Wedding Crashers and Definitely, Maybe, but circumstances were against her here. At the end of the day, Confessions of a Shopaholic is just too shallow a concept to work as a movie. The books sell because the writer is gifted, but it's quite difficult for that humor to translate to film. And I think that we all know from the reviews that it certainly didn't happen here. Even were there not the issue of our next topic working against the production, I still don't think this one would have ever broken out.
Max Braden: There was no passable appeal to men like He's Just Not That Into You had, and no passable appeal that any self-respecting woman should have. That's being a little harsh, but it just didn't look anywhere near up to snuff compared to The Devil Wears Prada. The economy may have made people more aware of rampant consumerism, but I don't think that trailer would have played well anytime other than maybe 1987. Still, I wouldn't blink at giving Isla another start. The camera loves her, but the chemistry just has to be right.