Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
April 21, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: State of Play, the political thriller from Universal, earned $14.1 million this weekend. Where does this one fall on the good/bad/indifferent scale?
Josh Spiegel: I say indifferent. We saw from the performance of Duplicity, another Universal release that's targeted squarely at adults and stars two leads who either were or were almost stars at one point in the past decade, that $14 million is a pretty in-the-middle number. The high praise from critics may help this one have some legs or, like Duplicity, they may not help at all. Considering that the movie discusses the newspaper business being in trouble, new media, politicians mired in scandals, and the like, people may not have wanted a movie that talks about such familiar, real-world topics. Still, for a movie like this, its result isn't too bad.
Brandon Scott: I think the audience's reaction was certainly indifferent in hitting only $14 million, so I would call it a bit of a disappointment for them. Crowe's star wattage has faded in recent years and Affleck has been out of the mix as an actor for the most part over the last few years as well, so he didn't ring up many hits at the turnstiles either. Throw in McAdams and I think they thought there were three reasonably well known names to anchor a film and bring in people and it didn't really happen. I would say it is more disappointing than pleasing, if nothing else. I think the Duplicity setup Joel mentioned is appropriate in a sense, and I think the opening weekend here is just kind of a blah number. Too bad, in my mind.
Tim Briody: Political based films are always tough sells, especially in the big opening department. As I said in the Friday update, I think its best chance is for some legs over the next couple of weeks. I know a couple of you folks absolutely loved it so I'm sure the possibility is there for it to hold well.
Reagen Sulewski: Part of the problem with selling these films is that you can almost never sum up what they're about quickly. That means you're pitching them almost exclusively to fans of the genre, which has been a declining number of people in recent years. This actually gives me a little hope that a film with a couple of actors often thought of as box office poison can pull these modest numbers, and it's actually pretty well positioned for the legs Tim talks about.
David Mumpower: I'm one of the people Tim mentioned as absolutely loving the film. I think it's got a decent shot to wind up being the best film of 2009. There were only three films I saw in 2008 that I liked as much as this one. Having said that, it's an extraordinarily difficult box office seller due to the subject matter, as has been mentioned here. It's a taut political drama with a terrifying underlying premise. The Paul Blart crowd is never going to buy in here. Beating Duplicity's $39 million is probably a worthy goal here, but for the people reading BOP who expect more from their films than funny fat guys falling down a lot, let me say this definitively. State of Play is worth your money.
Scene: Brad Pitt is eating a taco while sitting at his news desk. Ed Norton walks in, gesticulating wildly...
Kim Hollis: Do you think State of Play would have done better at the box office if Ed Norton and Brad Pitt had remained the leads? Do you think it would have been as well-received (State of Play currently has a RottenTomatoes score of 80%)?
Josh Spiegel: I doubt having Norton and Pitt would have helped much. Neither of them equals immediate success or death, so a result like the one we have would have probably occurred. Also, I'm not sure the film itself would have been as well-received, as I'm not sure either actor could have played the Russell Crowe character as effectively as Crowe did, mostly because the part requires the actor to at least feel like a middle-aged man. I know Pitt's 45 years old but...come on, does he look a day over 35? He's aging very well, and Norton's also a boyish-looking actor. That alone would have made the movie come off a bit worse in the critics' eyes.
Brandon Scott: This question is way too hypothetical from a critics score standpoint. I mean, Pitt and Norton are probably combined more respected actors than Affleck/Crowe, though its not a big, big difference. It might have made a difference at the box office, but with the same story, probably not tons. I think if they changed the title to Fight Club 2, and had Pitt and Norton really be the same person, but this time, their roles were reversed, it is a $100 million hit. I'm good at hypothetical analysis like that.
Reagen Sulewski: Maybe it opens better but I think it makes the film worse. I don't buy Norton as a Congressman, nor Pitt as a hard-bitten cynical reporter. If the Affleck/Crowe version has legs, ultimately I think it's a wash.
David Mumpower: Reagen has broken it down the same way I do. I think that Brad Pitt sells more tickets than anyone else mentioned here (right now, today). So, it probably opens better, but I'm certain he would not have been as good in the movie as Russell Crowe was, and I am *not* a fan of Crowe as a rule. Meanwhile, going from Norton to Affleck fundamentally alters the perception of the character. Norton as a congressman would be instantly assumed to be villainous while Affleck is the All-American boy. The switch may not have been good for the box office, at least not at first, but it's better for the movie as a whole. It's funny how that worked out.
Sean Collier: I'm going to disagree, but only because I think the film would've been marketed much more heavily with Pitt and Norton. The marketing was heavy for State of Play, but had a sort of "let it sell itself" thing going on, what with a number of big stars and a tough-to-pitch plot. I feel like if it had stayed with Pitt and Norton, it would've been marketed as a heavyweight acting clash, the Fight Club connection might've been played up, and a lot more effort would've gone into familiarizing potential audiences with the plot. So I say a bit better off - probably winning the weekend - but still not a knockout.
At least there shouldn't be a Crank 3.
Kim Hollis: Crank: High Voltage, the latest proof that Jason Statham can't say no to any role, opened to $7.0 million, with a per venue average of $2,928. Why wasn't Crank 2 as well-received as Crank?
Josh Spiegel: I think it's possible that maybe - just maybe - Jason Statham's star power is dimming quickly. I mean, for a few years, I've liked him in spite of just about every movie he does, mostly because it seems as though he doesn't take his work too seriously, but after a while, people get a bit bored of the same shtick. Statham's not a bad screen presence; aside from the potential of him not being popular for much longer, Crank was never a movie that did fantastically well at the box office. That, and the fact that his character does die at the end of the first one, may have not dragged many audience members into seats.
Brandon Scott: I have never seen the first, and heard it was bad, but for some reason the raunchiness and spastic style in the trailers kind of enthused me to this movie. I still haven't seen it, but I am a little saddened by the number. In part, because as Josh suggested, I think Statham may be burning the candle at both ends now, and I like the guy, especially when in a Guy Ritchie film. But I think his one-track action persona may be running its course. I mean, The Bank Job was one of the great underrated films of last year, and he actually acted in it, and it didn't require him to smash up cars and kick general ass. He can tone it down if he so chooses, I am just not sure now if he will have a choice in the matter. He might HAVE to tone it down for the studios' sake (as well as audiences).
Eric Hughes: Brandon's right about the trailer. I found its spastic images mashed up with Linkin Park to be a quite brilliant pairing. I usually HATE action movies. So for me to have a slight interest in this franchise - I even skipped the first one - is intriguing to me. (Not that I'm any sort of box office barometer). I'm thinking Lionsgate should've released it in the summer.
Reagen Sulewski: It's weird what action fans will and won't buy in their films. All the impossible stunts in Fast & Furious or Transporter don't cause people to blink, but an obvious, over-the-top cartoon stuff like this gets savaged. See also: Shoot 'Em Up.
David Mumpower: While we're recommending films today in MMQB, Brandon is right that The Bank Job is a great film and exactly the sort of title Jason Statham should be seeking. He's a fine actor who is being diminished by his propensity for paycheck jobs like this one. He's 2009's answer to what Jean-Claude Van Damme and Steven Seagal were to the 1990s, which is tragic since he's a legitimate talent. I guess that from Statham's perspective, he's a champion diver (no, really) who stumbled into acting by accident. He'll take pretty much any role that pays him his quote. If I were Lord of All Cinema, I would handcuff Guy Ritchie and Statham together and never let them part, but movie fans of both men are left wanting them to realize that until they get back together, both men's futures are more along the lines of Crank: High Voltage and Swept Away than Snatch.
Sean Collier: Look, I actually LIKED the first movie, but seriously - it ends with him PLUMMETING FROM A HELICOPTER. And then his HEART EXPLODES. There are tenuous sequels, and then there are "ain't no way, ain't no how" sequels.