Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
May 26, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian finished in first place over the holiday weekend with a four-day total of $70 million. Should Fox be pleased with this result?
Pete Kilmer: Heck yeah. A $70 million opening is the new $20 million opening from ten years ago.
David Mumpower: We oftentimes pull the win, lose or draw stunt with our post-opening weekend evaluations of titles. The reality is that this one is still up for debate for any of those three eventualities. A lot of people will be quick to point out that Night at the Museum only earned $30.4 million during its first three days, which is true. The problem with such a direct comparison is that while it needed a full week to earn $70 million, the total Battle of the Smithsonian has managed in three days, its 21-day total was $168.7 million. If we use Shrek the Third and The Longest Yard as recent comparisons for post-Memorial Day box office legs, each of them wound up with right at $100 million from this point on. It's a reasonable conclusion, at least for the moment, which would indicate a final domestic take of $170 million. If that happens, I would paint this sequel as a draw bordering on a win for a $150 million production with respectable overseas earning potential. If it flames out more quickly than that, then it becomes closer to a loss for Fox. It is imperative for Battle of the Smithsonian to survive its direct demographic competition showdown with Up next weekend in order for it to be declared a success.
Scott Lumley: It all depends on the drops, or the legs, depending on which slang you prefer when describing it. Personally, I think Reagen analyzed it best when he pointed out that there really hasn't been any big market family friendly fare since Monsters vs. Aliens and that alone should give this better legs than it deserves. So until Pixar's Up comes along to control the family friendly market, this isn't going to drop much, and that probably makes it a winner... Oh, wait. Up opens next weekend, doesn't it? Yeah, looks like the Battle of the Smithsonian just got cut awfully short.
Max Braden: Well it won the weekend against Terminator Salvation, which up until a few weeks ago everyone (right? not just me?) thought was going to be the big Memorial Day weekend winner. And if we decided that Wolverine's $85 million was a success, can't this be considered good? They were bound to face a different box office dynamic by shifting the sequel from the first's Christmas frame to a summer release. Sure, Up will cut the Smithsonian's legs, but it also means Up faces established competition. I wouldn't be surprised if Up struggles to beat Smithsonian's ten-day take, which could put Battle of the Smithsonian at the top of the family film genre this year. That's something to be pleased with.
Brandon Scott: The fact that this film made a single dollar makes it a success in my mind...add an extra $69,999,999 to it on opening weekend alone, then yes, it is a success. Consider that the first film came from nowhere to huge box office numbers and the reality is that this film is an afterthought, one that should really never have even been considered to be made in the first place. And yet, here it is, easily topping the charts. Do you tell the baby duckling that might not have been born if its father were not to have found and mated with its mother, it's not a success? You do? That poor baby duck.
Reagen Sulewski: It used to be a rule of thumb that studios wanted sequels to make two thirds of what the original made, and this would meet that mark. However, that's not quite what people expect anymore. We want our sequels to break free and fly into the stratosphere, building each time out. They see the growth from something like Batman Begins to The Dark Knight and take that kind of expansion as a given. So by that measure, they didn't quite get what they wanted out of this one. But let's step back and look at the idea that this is a live action family franchise that's going to have two films approach, if not reach, $200 million, which is a hell of a rare thing these days.
Jim Van Nest: I think from a total dollars standpoint, they have to be happy with this result. They also have to be thrilled to go head to head with the Terminator and come out on top. I do think, however, that from an expectations standpoint, they're probably a bit disappointed. With a holiday weekend as a launching pad, I know I expected to see $100 million over the four-days as I expected this to do much better than the original. I don't know that I'm ready to call a win, lose or draw on it, though, until I see what Up does to it next weekend.
Amy Adams has nice legs, though.
Kim Hollis: Night at the Museum 2 obviously isn't going to have as good of legs as the first film since it opened in December, but how do you think it will hold up in the coming weeks?
Pete Kilmer: With Up on the way, I think it will settle into a comfortable third or fourth place run for the next few weeks or so.
David Mumpower: I just gave a general numeric reply of $170 million as a positive outcome during the last topic. In reality, I think it will fall a bit short of that as I think its word-of-mouth is not as glowing as would be needed to siphon another $100 million out of consumers. I think this one winds up in the mid-$150s range, which is an okay result but certainly far short of the $250 million performance of Night at the Museum. The Smithsonian tie-in was a clever ploy by the sequel's producers, but there just wasn't a lot of passion for this sequel. Being confined to museums makes it feel like more of the same rather than a unique new product.
Tim Briody: It's going to run smack into a wall in the face of Pixar next weekend, while the original had a free run through the holiday season.
Max Braden: I'd be surprised if it makes less than $160 million in its full run. It's not getting bad reviews, and it would have to have a pretty poor multiple for a family film not to reach that mark.
Reagen Sulewski: I share the perception that there just wasn't a lot of passion for this sequel, which seems pretty paint by numbers. And with lots of other summer options, and a big ol' kneecap coming next week, this is more than likely done by the third week of June.
Jim Van Nest: Considering the around the corner competition, I'd wager even the studio has switched their focus to the "just in time for Christmas" DVD release.
The Rising Machines are better than Salvation. Who knew?
Kim Hollis: Terminator Salvation had a three-day total of $43 million, a million less than the $44 earned by Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines in three days. It has a five-day total of $67.2 million. What should Warner Bros. take from this result?
David Mumpower: I think I speak for the entirety of BOP's staff when I say, "WHAT IN THE BLUE HELL JUST HAPPENED???" I know that we had some diverse opinions about the potential upside of Terminator Salvation with Reagen and I being on the upper end of the spectrum, but absolutely none of us had expected this degree of failure from such an established movie property. Just to put this in the proper perspective, Nick Stahl as John Connor did better than The freakin' Dark Knight as John Connor. The first six days of Rise of the Machines saw domestic revenue of $72.4 million before we adjust for inflation. After we take into account 2009 ticket pricing, we're talking about $86.2 million. Terminator Salvation has fallen WELL short of that target despite having the star of the #2 film of all-time joining one of the most storied franchises in the industry. If someone had told you in December that Paul Blart Mall Cop would have a better domestic total than Terminator Salvation, you would have laughed in their face and bet all of your worldly possessions against such an outcome. Stunned isn't a strong enough term to describe my shock over this turn of events. This is a worst case scenario result for Warner Bros. that probably mothballs the franchise for at least half a dozen years.
Pete Kilmer: Word-of-mouth just killed this movie. After a stellar set of commercials and trailers, it really looked like McG had made something that was just going to KILL at the theaters and get the fanboys in seats and shut them up, what he delivered...well, not so much. We got a story that didn't follow the franchise's internal logic, the woeful misuse of cast members (Bryce Dallas Howard) and the lack of John Connor for a good chunk of film, and some other critical missteps in the story really hurt this project.
Tim Briody: This is a massive rejection of...something. I haven't figured out whether it's the "louder is better" motto of Big Event Films these days (if it is, Transformers 2 is screwed), McG, Christian Bale or something else.
Scott Lumley: I think we've seen the first really solid example that a franchise reboot isn't always entirely successful. It's a little shocking to me, (Ok, *REALLY* shocking...) that McG, the man responsible for my beloved Supernatural, can't quite seem to capitalize on what would seem to be an opportunity to print money.
The legs on this one had better be amazing, and I don't think they will be.
I wonder if this film wouldn't have done better if it had been given a November time slot. Some action packed advertising on NFL games, a little competition from the Oscar crowd, this film seems misaligned somehow.
Max Braden: If I were Warner Bros. I'd actually blame this as much on Bale as anyone else. His voice wasn't much different from Batman. Because he's trying to act tough? More likely because he's struggling to hide his accent. In any case the result is an action hero that is off putting. Did anyone want to be John Connor while watching this movie, or were they instead rooting for Worthington and Yelchin? Aside from the actors, during the movie I felt like it was a rehash of The Matrix Reloaded, and I could see a lot of audiences making comparisons with Transformers and thinking rightly that Revenge of the Fallen will be more fun and adventurous. Prior to the movie I got the impression it couldn't lose, but in hindsight I think it just had to hit too many notes perfectly to be a winner. At this point the series feels like it's reached Underworld territory.
Brandon Scott: WB should realize that they shouldn't have made this movie. That the franchise was really dead in the first place. That McG was the wrong choice for director. That Batman is really only a big star as Batman. That on set blow ups don't help matters. And that every indication is that they made a very average or below average movie. WB should be pissed that they are going to lose money on a budget of a reported $200 million.
Reagen Sulewski: *takes out ceremonial sword, nods grimly, thrusts into own chest*
Jim Van Nest: I think one of the biggest missteps for this one was the Bale casting. John Connor is the savior of the human race. You want to root for him, you HAVE to root for him. So, naturally, you cast one of the most unlikable stars in Hollywood to play him. When my wife, who is by no means a movie buff or expert, tells me that she'd rather see the kid from Carnivale back for #4 than Batman, I should have known this was in trouble.