Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
March 31, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Roughly 1/4 of the theaters that exhibited Monsters vs. Aliens showed it in 3-D. 58% of the overall revenue for the film came from approximately 1,150 3-D equipped theaters. Is this the movie that establishes the fact that 3-D is the future of animation?
David Mumpower: The numbers here are truly staggering. $34 million came from 1,100 venues while $25 million came from the other 3,000. Just roll that over in your head for a moment. Those 3,000 venues had a per-location average of about $8,300 while the 3-D and IMAX locations maxed out around $30,700 (I'm rounding with the venues as well as the numbers, so these calcs aren't exact). That's almost a four to one ratio in terms of revenue. Anyone who thinks 3-D and IMAX sales aren't skewing the equation just isn't paying attention. This is the key aspect of why box office is up so dramatically. Coraline was down 85% this weekend after experiencing only one drop larger than 25% during its first seven weeks. What do the two weekends of dramatic decline have in common? The first was the release of the Jonas Brothers concert movie and the second was the release of Monsters vs. Aliens. The times where it lost 3-D venues are the times when the bottom fell out of its box office. BOP has always stressed that competition is an overrated factor, but we are finding a new variation of this thought process where there is direct correlation. The battle for 3-D/IMAX exhibitions is going to be brutal in coming months. That's where all the money is.
Joel Corcoran: I think we've seen that 3-D is the future of animation for a while, but Hollywood has been very cautious and slow-moving in its approach. This movie shows that any studio that hasn't already implemented a 3-D strategy for its films is not only playing catch-up, they're far behind and plummeting faster.
Josh Spiegel: Joel's right about caution ruling the day, but I feel like it's the exhibitors and theater owners who are at fault for not catching up with 3-D technology. Kudos to Jeffrey Katzenberg, who's been fighting for 3-D for a long time; what's even more impressive is that his desired amount of 3-D ready theatres was, in reality, halved. For Monsters vs. Aliens to do so well with so few 3-D theaters just proves his point; this time, maybe the exhibitors and owners will jump on the bandwagon quicker.
Max Braden: The studios were already announcing 100% 3D slates for the future before MvA's numbers were in, but this movie will certainly be the one they point to as proof of that vision. But I'm not convinced that 3-D is going to sustain the box office all by itself. This year will see an increase in the numbers but I expect a plateau after audiences get used to the nifty gimmick and expect a more comfortable (on the eyes), brighter moviegoing experience.
Brandon Scott: I would echo whatJoel said, and to answer the question, absolutely - yes. The 58% total is a staggering figure. If IMAX ever gets to that point, I will be stoked. Theaters definitely need to get on the ball and add 3-D. We talked about the battle of traditional theaters offering something new vs. our ability to have a nice viewing experience at our exceedingly accessible home theaters, and 3-D is a viable alternative I couldn't get from my LCD at home. I think for me, we are gonna need some 3-D T&A though...just calling it out. Angie Jolie or Megan Fox in a revealing movie in 3-D? Who isn't interested?
Kim Hollis: I think we can perhaps liken this to the early days of CGI animation. All of a sudden, people realized that big boatloads of cash could be made utilizing the technique, and we got oversaturation of the product. I think the same thing is going to happen with Real-D. Yes, the novelty makes the gimmick interesting to audiences right now, but if ten 3-D movies are released in a fairly quick period of time, people will start to be a little bit more discriminating about the ones they choose to see. The tickets are more expensive, it can be hard on the eyes, and sometimes the extra price doesn't really feel worth what you get in terms of the 3-D animation. When used really, really well, like in Coraline, it can make the movie a more immersive experience. But I'm not so sure that the 3-D has added all that much to things like Bolt or even Nightmare Before Christmas.
Ben Farrow: Part of Star Wars' appeal was the huge breakthrough in effects filming. It is old hat now but when that star battleship came over your head in the opening shot, you knew it was going to be something completely different. That was in the days when a movie could be "held over for 16th week!," and to a lesser extent The Matrix Effect.
Stephen King's scary things are migrating, apparently
Kim Hollis: The Haunting in Connecticut earned a surprising $23 million for Lionsgate. How did the masters of horror pull off another big win?
David Mumpower: It had a terrible title and no hook. This is the most surprised I've been by a horror film since The Strangers, but that one at least had a great trailer and premise. The success of this one mystifies me. If I were in the market to release a horror film, I would stand outside the gates of Lionsgate until they let me in and agreed to release my movie. In fact, I think that's my horror movie idea. It's about a guy who stalks the masters of horror marketing. Greenlight or risk making it become a "based on real events" premise, Lionsgate!
Josh Spiegel: On the one hand, I am completely surprised at how well this movie did, what with Virginia Madsen being (I think?) the biggest star in it. On the other hand, as David says, Lionsgate and horror go together very well. They know how to spin straw into gold, as it were. Also, with Friday the 13th having disappeared by from most theatres, plenty of teenagers wanted a good (well...maybe not good) horror movie to satisfy them, and the PG-13 rating meant they wouldn't have to sneak in.
Tim Briody: See, I think the title is genius. As I said in the Friday numbers column, they've got a 50 film franchise all set to go!
Joel Corcoran: I was ready to pass right by this movie until the latest round of TV ads appeared this week, which seriously creeped me out. I really have no idea what this film is about, but I want to see it now. I'm not sure what it is about Lionsgate, but they really do know their stuff when it comes to horror films.
Eric Hughes: I disagree with David. The Haunting is a bad title, but The Haunting in Connecticut makes people assume there's something special about the location, that the movie has to be set there. In addition, when I was making my blog rounds, it seemed like many people were anxious to see this one because of its "true story" claims. Of course, leave it to Hollywood to dress it up some. But people love it when movies, especially horror, derive from somewhere.
David Mumpower: I disagree with Eric's disagreement. To wit, the vaguer title, The Haunting, a largely forgotten DreamWorks horror film from 1998 that co-starred Liam Neeson and Catherine Zeta-Jones, opened to $33.4 million back in 1999. Not only does it wipe the floor with this one in terms of actual gross but if we inflation adjust it, that's a $47.4 million debut. Clearly, specificity hurt the Connecticut title. Okay, I'm joking with a lot of that but I genuinely despise the title of this movie. There is nothing engaging about it.
Max Braden: I can't understand why this horror movie would open to significantly higher numbers than The Last House on the Left. So if they open a possessed serial killer movie on a Friday the 13th, will it open to $50 million? Maybe Freddy vs. Jason redux would do well after all.
Brandon Scott: The number is staggering. I'm shocked to see that. Not unlike the Haunting of UConn, with two dominant basketball teams. If that women's team loses, then I will think something is really Haunting in Connecticut...I am not really paying attention, but 38-0, is staggering as well.
Kim Hollis: I see no logical reason why this movie should have broken out. I'm just going to credit it to Lionsgate marketing it to the right people in the right place at the right time. They obviously know their audience a lot better than I do.
Reagen Sulewski: While I can think of few less scarier places than Connecticut (...wooooo, I am the ghost of the Hartford Whalers...), I thought this actually had a decent chance. The self-mutilation bit, and whatever that was image that closed off the trailer was quite effectively creep. I'm not sure there's any particular rhyme or reason for any of these anonymous horror films to do better than the other ones, but once in awhile they break out like this and they're cheap, so studios will continue rolling the dice.
Can you smell what the...er, wait.
Kim Hollis: 12 Rounds, the action(?) film starring something called John Cena, opened to $5.3 million. Say something funny about 12 Rounds.
Reagen Sulewski: Looks like they just needed one round to knock this out.
Pete Kilmer: *waves hand in face* "You Didn't See Me!" (Tt's a wrestling joke).
Josh Spiegel: Renny Harlin, he of Die Hard 2 and Cutthroat Island, directed 12 Rounds. Statement of fact, but funny (and sad) all the same, right?
David Mumpower: That's not even half a million per round.
Tim Briody: That's about a dollar for every mention it got on WWE programming over the last month. Even John Cena fans didn't want to see this. Throwing under The Marine is pretty surprising.
Joel Corcoran: Twelve Rounds was about eleven rounds too long for John Cena, apparently. But I'm just wondering if John Cena fans are as vitriolic and reactionary as Clay Aiken fans. Actually, that would be a pretty good movie - John Cena vs. Clay Aiken backed by their armies of fans in a clash reminiscent of Gangs of New York.
Eric Hughes: Hey, hey, hey. At least it did better than Delgo!
Max Braden: Everybody knows the movies are rigged.
Brandon Scott: Cena got knocked out faster than Tyson knocked out Spinks back in the day. The man is trying to be the next Rock, but it ain't happenin' just yet. Still, he's got to be better than that Scorpion King sequel dude from MMA (whose name eludes me at the moment). Cena should be in Stallone's upcoming Expendables, not the man whose name eludes me. What is that cat's name? Oh, yes...Randy "Don't call me Juicy" Couture. That guy should wear one of those velour or terry cloth zip-ups that Kardashian loves...marketing mash-up!