Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
May 4, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Wolverine, the non-sequel X-Men Origins film, opened to $85 million this weekend. Is this win, lose or draw for Fox?
Josh Spiegel: Draw, definitely. Obviously $85 million is a big number, but considering that the last X-Men film (as execrable as it was) made just over $100 million on its first weekend, Fox can't be too thrilled. Of course, on the up side, the leaked print added with all of the reshoots didn't make this anywhere close to a failure. Still, with Star Trek coming next week, I don't see Wolverine having very good legs. It's a good start to the summer, but I bet Fox would have loved a $100 million opening or more.
Brandon Scott: I was ready to dismiss this as an obvious win until I read Josh's perspective. I still think it is enough of a win, but it's not a blow me away total. The reviews have been increasingly getting worse, not that they matter for this sort of film, but better reviews would have made the movie more attractive to me. Good trailers, a likable star, people are hyping Jackman's Oscar publicity as helping this film, I guess it is a slight win, certainly not a disappointing figure.
Pete Kilmer: I think it's a draw. Word-of-mouth on how lackluster this movie was and Star Trek are going to pound this movie into the dirt the coming weekend. The fact that 20th Century Fox claimed that they spent 12 days of shooting new material, and reviewers who've seen the leaked print and the new print point out that the only difference was the special effects added, really ticked off the comic fanbase. A lot. And it's a shame since Jackman, Danny Huston, and Liev Schreiber turned into some fantastic performances.
Reagen Sulewski: Tough crowd. I consider this a decent sized win. There was no chance it was going to match X3, and considering all the bad buzz this had gotten due to the piracy issue, as well as the mediocre reviews, they have to be happy that it got into mega blockbuster territory. With a somewhat reasonable-for-this-type-of-film budget of $150 million, it's not like they needed to break records. And I still can't be blase about a film nearly making $90 million in one weekend.
Max Braden: I overestimated my prediction. They were probably hoping for Wolverine to be this year's Iron Man, but $85 million is a good result. The success is if this movie helps extend the brand. Wolverine should do well on DVD and will enable Fox to go ahead with another X-Men Origins movie. I'd bet a significant portion of the audience would want to see a Gambit movie based on Taylor Kitsch's performance.
Tim Briody: I still can't get over the multiplier this pulled in this weekend. I really thought it'd throw something similar to X3, since this was ostensibly the fourth X-Men movie. Instead it behaved like an original franchise. I'm reasonably sure it goes into freefall mode after this weekend since the core fanbase didn't even seem to find the movie redeemable but this is a big, big win.
Jim Van Nest: I'm with Reagen on this one. $85 million. In three days. And this is being called a draw? Considering what a disaster The Last Stand was, I'm surprised Wolverine pulled in this much coin. I think it's a pretty good sized win. Folks are talking about an expected lack of legs and they'll point to Iron Man when they say how pathetic Wolverine performed. But let's break it down, Iron Man had two full weeks with no competition. It made $191 million before Prince Caspian hit and took the #1 slot. Wolverine will get all of seven days before Star Trek comes in to take the #1 spot. Will Wolverine drop like a stone? Of course, and it will likely be a huge drop. But with competition, I don't think that should be a big surprise. I also don't think Iron Man is a very fair comparison for this flick.
Sean Collier: I'm with Reagen and Jim. This one'll be a $100 million movie by the time Star Trek hits - and it might be by the time this column runs. X3 went a long way towards tanking the franchise - a franchise that was already seen as somewhat passe with the coming of more serious comic book flicks in Iron Man and the Batman movies. Furthermore, there isn't much evidence that Jackman could open a film by himself - and, perhaps most importantly, this is NOT the fourth movie. It's a spin-off. Think of it as a side project, which is certainly going to have more limited appeal than a straight sequel. This is definitely a win.
David Mumpower: I am not with Jim, Reagen and Sean on this. $85 million sounds fantastic until we put the performance into perspective. It's only the third largest opening for the franchise, and that's not even adjusting for inflation. Reviews and word-of-mouth for this are terrible albeit still stronger than X-Men: The Last Stand. There is no causal basis for the expectation of legs already. Now consider the trajectory followed by the third X-Men movie. That film had a final multiplier (final domestic box office divided by opening weekend box office) of under 2.2. After a $102 million debut, the film fell to $34.0 million in its second weekend. It earned more on its first day in theaters, $45.1 million, than its second weekend. Titles do not come any more frontloaded than that one, and Wolverine is showing signs of flaming out even faster.
A sub-$30 million weekend is feasible here and a final domestic tally under $170 million (a sub 2.0 final multiplier) wouldn't shock me. Those numbers would barely surpass the original X-Men film's $157.2 million before we adjust for an inflation. Once we do that, X-Men shoots all the way up to $210 million, making Wolverine effectively the first title in the franchise to earn less than $200 million in 2009 ticket pricing terms. For a title with a $150 million budget and negative costs approaching $200 million, that's a disappointing result. Wolverine has behaved similarly to The Scorpion King as a non-sequel that is less welcome to fans than its predecessors. It will have to rely on international receipts to carry the day for it to be firmly in the black as it exits theaters. It feels like a miss to me.
It really doesn't make sense that Baz didn't have him singing and dancing in Australia
Kim Hollis: Does this opening prove that Hugh Jackman is a star, or does it reinforce the thought process that he is a one-trick pony?
Josh Spiegel: I think this opening says more about the name Wolverine than it does about Hugh Jackman being a star or not. I'm a relative know-nothing in the world of X-Men, but even I know who Wolverine is. For Jackman, it does help his career, but without those claws on his hands, I'm not sure he's a bona fide cash cow.
Brandon Scott: I agree with Josh. Wolverine is a known entity. Jackman is a star but not a box office shape-shifter. Australia proved that I think. This is the official opening of summer, so while I personally like Jackman, and he IS a star, he isn't mega-star. If you put, say Chris Pine, in the role of Wolverine, the movie doesn't do nearly this sort of business, so Jackman deserves credit for being a pull, but in a non-Wolverine role he hasn't exactly bankrolled other movies. This figure can only help him, but I dont think it elevates his profile much higher than where he has already been.
Pete Kilmer: Jackman *is* Wolverine. He's solid in the role. But he'll need to continue to do some more action films to become a huge star, his stabs at other kinds of movies just haven't worked out (Australia, Kate & Leopold, The Fountain). But when he takes the safe action role movies like Swordfish and Van Helsing, he brings people to the theaters.
Reagen Sulewski: Let's look at all the hits Chris Reeve had where he wasn't in blue tights. No, I'll wait.
Max Braden: It demonstrates the match of a highly marketable character with perfect casting. That shouldn't take away from Jackman's stardom, though. Tobey Maguire had three huge movies with Spider-Man, but isn't nearly as recognizable as Jackman. If you wanted to sell magazines, which one would you rather have on the cover? I think that measure is enough to call him a star even if he's not as bankable as Will Smith.
Jim Van Nest: I can tell you this, Jackman is a star in MY house. I've had to see them all. That rom-com with Ashley Judd? Oh yeah, we own it. The aforementioned Kate and Leopold? Yep, it has a slot in our DVD case. I was able to draw the line at Van Helsing, though. Outside of my house, I don't think he's that big of a star. And I honestly think the Oscar gig will go further to making him a huge star than Wolverine. People saw in that one night, that he has more in him that just a really bad hairdo and metal claws. But what do I know...we also own The Fountain.
Sean Collier: The bump in the Oscar ratings are the proof that he's a star. Keep in mind that he's the first non-comedian to take on the ceremony in...ever? Not to mention the fact that there is probably more general cultural buzz around the previous two hosts, Jon Stewart and Ellen DeGeneres, then there ever was around Jackman. People just like him. Would I trust him with a movie that had no other appeal but the stars (like, you know, Ghosts of Girlfriends Past)? Maybe not yet. But he is definitely something of a star, and still probably on the rise.
David Mumpower: Jackman is a fascinating celebrity in that his appeal is wide ranging. He reminds me of Mel Gibson pre-police incident where almost everyone I know seems to at least like him if not love him to the point of wanting to steal his skin and pin it to their dresser mirror. In spite of this popularity, no one is willing to pay see his movies. Australia and The Fountain were both unmitigated disasters. Van Helsing earned $120 million, but it's still generally acknowledged as a huge box office disappointment. His most successful project relative to expectations outside of the X-Men universe is probably The Prestige, a $53 million earner against a $40 million budget. If that is a star's biggest hit, they really don't have one on their resume. I am convinced that Jackman added $25 million or more to the opening weekend of Wolverine by playing that character rather than having it re-cast a la The Hulk. Despite this, I also do not view him as a box office draw even by accident. The disconnect between his popularity and his appeal is irregular in the industry. I have a hard time coming up with other examples of this scenario. He's almost the anti-Ed Norton.
Well, Ian McKellen *does* have six $200 million plus earners on his resume
Kim Hollis: The Magneto origins film was put on hold in order to evaluate Wolverine's results before proceeding. Do you think Fox should go ahead and make Magneto, or should they move away from these origins films?
Josh Spiegel: It all depends on how well Wolverine does, I think. The opening is good, but not amazing. Moreover, having not only a known character but the same actor playing the role helps this movie do well enough. Presuming Ian McKellen wouldn't be playing Magneto (or not for an entire film, if it's an origin story), going forward with that film may be iffy. But, then again, if Wolverine ends up with fantastic legs, they may go forward without hesitation.
Brandon Scott: I don't think origins movies as a whole will entirely go away, since Iron Man proved that they can work and do big dollars. As for Magneto, ummm, that will not be a box office magnet. No interest from me: it should be permanently shelved or shredded by Wolverine's claws.
Pete Kilmer: 20th Century Fox, since Bryan Singer has left, seems to be unwilling to really "go for it" in terms of super hero movies. They've not learned the lessons that Marvel Studios has been teaching with Iron Man and yes, even the second Hulk movie. Finish the special effects, quit lying about shooting additional footage that never showed up and if you're going to do special endings, make them worthwhile. And in the case of the Fantastic Four, you have the complete miscasting of Sue Storm, Reed Richards and Victor Von Doom, plus letting Tim Story direct two extremely limp movies that had nothing in the way of the Fantastic. If Wolverine hits over $180 million domestic, look for a Deadpool movie instead of a Magneto movie. No way will 20th Century Fox take the risk of making the Magneto movie that was once talked about, with the past history of Nazi Death Camps in Magneto's past. I'd also expect a Young X-Men movie sooner rather than another solo X movie.
Reagen Sulewski: The Magneto movie has always struck me as a bad idea anyway, with big time Phantom Menace Syndrome issues working against it. While the fact that he'd be fighting Nazis at least gives him a plausible villain, you're asking audiences to root for someone you've spent three films building up as a villain. There's an interesting story to tell there, but not in two-hour comic movie form.
Max Braden: I have trouble imagining any big action sequences for Magneto that would make that movie a blockbuster, but he's not the only choice to go to. I'd want to see Gambit first. They could return to a sibling rivalry story with Havok and Cyclops and play with love triangle issues with Emma Frost.
Tony Kollath: I'm holding out for a Storm movie, so that we can delve into her rich history of finding out what happens when toads get hit by lightning.
Jim Van Nest: The thing is, people WANT to see more of Wolverine. He's a bad-ass character. Magneto, while a fabulous villain (if that's the right word), I've seen plenty of. We know he was in a Nazi prison camp. How much more do we really need to know? Wolverine had so much of his past shrouded in mystery, people wanted to know about it. Magneto? Notsomuch.
Sean Collier: As a non-fan, I'm far less interested in Magneto than several other characters. After the Wolverine movie, I'd be far more interested in another film focusing on Gambit or Cyclops than Magneto. It might be more bankable to somehow build a franchise off of this film than continue to arbitrarily tell somewhat disconnected origin stories. Then again, with Marvel's ambitions for a dozen Iron Man spin-offs or whatever it was, oversaturation is going to hit soon.
David Mumpower: As I referenced in the first topic regarding Wolverine, my take on this is similar to The Scorpion King, a Mummy film that wasn't Mummy enough for fans of the franchise. I don't consider Iron Man an original film inasmuch as it's an introductory piece for the character. The X-Men films had already established who Wolverine was and that he really wasn't that complex. Forming an entire film around that character seemed like a mistake to me, and the handling of the premise was passive/aggressive to boot. Other X-Men wound up being utilized in relatively reckless ways, almost as if people working on the production got cold feet about having not enough recognizable characters. Magneto would allow for the introduction of his children, a couple of key players for The Avengers movie, but since there doesn't appear to be any tie-in likely there, it's just a bad idea all around. Fox needs to go back to the entirety of the X-Men with an overarching story such as Apocalypse, House of M, or Days of Future Past. Whatever the choice they make, story needs to be the priority. This is two straight special effects X-films that had no cohesive backbone. We're getting into Joel Schumacher territory here.