One Month Out: Part Two
By BOP Staff
April 16, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: What are your thoughts and expectations for the box office performance of Angels & Demons?
Josh Spiegel: I would expect that, in the coming month, Angels & Demons will not be the true box-office victor. Of the major releases, it seems most appropriate for the over-30 audience, although the previous week will have a property that first began in the mid-1960s; the younger and rebooted Star Trek may indeed siphon a few paying customers away from this latest film. I'm also not sure how much of a clamor there is for this film; Da Vinci Code was based on an incredibly successful book, whereas Angels & Demons is based on a slightly less successful book. I'd be surprised if it doesn't hit #1 during its first weekend, but would be shocked if Angels & Demons passes $200 million domestic before its run is out.
Brandon Scott: Yeah, I don't see this being as big as Da Vinci. I am certainly not clamoring for this film after Da Vinci failed to excite me. I am sure mid-$100 millions are in order, beyond that, hard to say.
Joel Corcoran: The Da Vinci Code was one of the most atrocious pieces of warmed-over pablum to hit the box office in the past ten years. I'm not sure if people are going to remember that, but if they do, they'll have second thoughts about seeing Angels & Demons. And, as Josh pointed out, the novel for Angels & Demons wasn't nearly as popular as the one underlying Da Vinci Code. So, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Star Trek will retain its #1 position in its second week with Angels & Demons coming in second on its opening weekend.
Tim Briody: Yeah, by most accounts The Da Vinci Code sucked but it still made $217 million. I don't think Angels and Demons does that and there's a chance enough people disliked Da Vinci Code that it flat out bombs but there's a high probability it wins the weekend and then vanishes quickly.
Jason Dean: On the minority side of things, I went into the series of books well after Da Vinci Code had made all of the news and read the books in order (Angels & Demons first). I think that that Angels & Demons is a far more cinematic book and have been looking forward to this movie more than I was looking forward to the second book. Of course, Hollywood logic has A&D as a sequel...
Sean Collier: I don't remember anyone actually saying they, you know, liked Da Vinci. Which makes me wonder just how Angels & Demons is going to succeed, especially after the craze over the books has solidly subsided. I think curiosity will certainly lead to a big opening weekend, but that'll be more or less it.
Max Braden: The first movie opened to $77 million, a number probably inflated by the phenomenal success of the book. I expect the sequel to drop down into more realistic territory and at least open along the lines of the National Treasure franchise - about $45 million. From there it will have to be a better movie than The Da Vinci Code was to have decent legs.
Jim Van Nest: I'm with JD on this one. I've yet to hear a person who's read both books that has said that The Da Vinci Code was the better book. The worry for the film, though, is that Joe Moveigoer doesn't know that Angels & Demons is the better book. They just know that The Da Vinci Code sucked.
I think we're looking at less than $40 million to open and probably a final take in the $120-130 million range. But I also think we'll be looking at a much better film this time around.
Reagen Sulewski: Everyone tells me Angels & Demons is the better book of the series, but that's damning with faint praise. And for all the hype surrounding The Da Vinci Code, even fans admitted it wasn't a good movie. I wouldn't be shocked at a halving of TDVC's totals.
Pete Kilmer: I really liked A&D as a book, and the movie should be decent. Will it be as big as The Da Vinci Code? No. Will the dvd double package sell a ton of discs? Hell yes.
David Mumpower: I think Angels & Demons is the most interesting of the major May releases. $217.5 million worth of people wanted to see The Da Vinci Code. What they discovered was what probably seemed to them like a National Treasure clone although the reverse was actually true. There were also quality issues with the movie that have been referenced already here. I'm not sure what percentage of that $217.5 million of consumers liked what they paid to see, but I doubt it was more than 50%. Is this going to be another Prince Caspian scenario? That franchise lost over 50% of its customers when it dropped from The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe's $291.7 million to $141.6 million. Rather than assuming that Angels & Demons drops 52% from The Da Vinci Code, let's assume it earns roughly that same amount as Prince Caspian's $140 million. Is that enough to justify the sequel? I'm posing that as a theoretical, because that's about what I expect from Angels & Demons. I don't think it completely falls apart as it is a sequel (which is idiotic, as JD points out) to a hugely well known and discussed film. I also think it suffers from the problem Calvin Trager diagnosed last year with Prince Caspian. It lacks the name recognition tie to its predecessor that would help it the most in terms of branding. Still, this is Tom Hanks doing a sequel, which is very rare in and of itself, a first if we don't count Toy Story vocal acting. I have to think that matters enough to carry this into the $140-$150 million range. I would not be shocked if this wound up being one of the biggest disappointments of the summer, though. There seem to be more negatives than positives.
Kim Hollis: I agree that Angels & Demons has a lot of potential to disappoint, but it's also the kind of movie that might just get enough pull from the 30+ demographic - one that is pretty severely underserved - to do better than we might expect. Tom Hanks is still a draw, I think, and you don't ever want to count out a tentpole release with his name attached. The marketing of the film is going to be critical, because they're going to need to distance themselves from The Da Vinci Code somewhat even as they establish that Angels & Demons is a sequel. This is going to be a fine line to walk, and will make the difference in opening weekend as well as overall box office.
Monkeys slapping Ben Stiller=$$$$$$$$$
Kim Hollis: What are your thoughts and expectations for the box office performance of Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian?
Brandon Scott: It will do well, as sequels generally do, and it seems the box office climate is ripe for this one. The first was a shocking success, so I anticipate this to be less successful in net dollars but perhaps equal or slightly more in gross dollars. This is of course, me reaching with no stats/data in front of me.
Joel Corcoran: A few months from now, when we're looking back fondly on the 2009 summer box office, I think we're going to be scratching our heads and wondering just how Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian beat out Terminator Salvation on the opening weekend. I don't have any stats or data in front of me either, but just looking at the release schedule, Night at the Museum is poised to sweep up as the "family film" of Memorial Day Weekend. It'll probably get crushed by Up the next weekend, and then will face direct competition in the family action-comedy genre by Land of the Lost on its third weekend, but it could hold up nicely (particularly if Land of the Lost is as bad as some rumors say it is).
Tim Briody: Quick, name the second highest grossing film of 2006. Yes, because I'm mentioning this here you can probably guess it was Night at the Museum. $250 million is nothing to sneeze at. It's going to clean up handily as a top line option for families for the first part of the summer.
Josh Spiegel: As mediocre as it will likely be (if it's anything like the first film), Night at the Museum 2 will indeed probably hit some high numbers next month. Adults can take comfort with comic actors they love for not being so often family-friendly, such as Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson, and the kids will get a kick out of the goofy goings-on. I imagine that Up and Night at the Museum will be fighting for the top family film of the summer.
Sean Collier: Anything that's going to work across so many demographics is bound to be a juggernaut on Memorial Day Weekend. The first one was an unexpected (and unexplainable) success, and the timing is right for a sequel. It's an easy hit.
Max Braden: The change in seasons makes me wonder a little since the first Night at the Museum opened at Christmas, going from $30 million to $250 million with a six month run in theaters. That ratio will tighten up with a summer release, but I don't think $200 million will be a problem for the sequel.
Jim Van Nest: Fine...I'll say it. $100 million over Memorial Day weekend. I think that's a very good possibility here. Everyone keeps talking about this being the "family film", but the first one proved to be more than that. Almost everyone went to see it and those that didn't have certainly seen the DVD by now. As much as I love me some Pixar...I don't think Up stands a chance against this one. I see high $200s for Night at the Museum.
Reagen Sulewski: I think the potential is there for some of the box office that you guys are talking about, but the Christmas season helped this film to a gigantic degree. Is it ready from prime time against some of the other franchises out there? I think it'll "suffer" a little to the tune of about $200 million.
Pete Kilmer: I went to see Monsters vs. Aliens in 3-D and the poster for the new Night at the Museum was getting people standing around it saying they want to see it...
David Mumpower: I agree with Tim, Jim and Reagen, which isn't that easy to do given your diverse opinions. Tim is exactly right that Night at the Museum is one of the quietest blockbusters in recent memory. Because of the way it performed, opening to "only" $30.4 million then excelling thanks in no small part to holiday box office inflation, it didn't get the attention that would normally be the case. It actually went up 20% in its second weekend to $36.8 million and its third and fourth weekends of $23.7 million and $17.2 million all represent remarkable holdovers from its debut. That is over $100 million worth of box office coming from its first month of weekends. The other $85 million came from weekdays. Even during the summer, we won't see a performance like this. Despite such concerns from Reagen, I agree with Jim that this could feasibly be the "surprise" $100 million opener of the summer. It circles back to the "your last film buys a line of credit for the debut of your next film" theory we've been espousing. Night at the Museum is a much beloved family film, a live action rarity these days. It has that broad type of CGI-humor that was popularized with Jumanji that adults can enjoy while their kids celebrate the shiny. It's also a huuuuuuuge deal that the producers were allowed to do a direct tie-in with the Smithsonian, an industry first. I don't think the sequel is going to have the legs of the original, but I still expect this to be a $225 million earner with a debut that is going to shock a lot of people with its girth.
Kim Hollis: Night at the Museum isn't just a kid flick. It's a movie that parents are happy to go see with their children, mostly thanks to the presence of Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson, guys who are usually more known for their broad, adult-targeted comedy. Yes, it was the beneficiary of legs during the holiday season, but what this means is that you're going to see Night at the Museum 2's box office performance flip a bit. It will have a massive opening weekend - perhaps three times that of the original, and then ride that to a solid $200 million or more.