Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
June 9, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Land of the Lost, the latest attempt at '70s nostalgia cinema, opened to only $18.8 million against a production budget of $100 million. How big a bomb is this for Universal and where did it go wrong?
Josh Spiegel: It's about as big a bomb as the summer movie season may give us, I think. Universal can't be happy, but I can't say I'm too surprised at this outcome. Though the marketing for Land of the Lost was arguably equal to that of The Hangover (if not more), the fact that the film was rated PG-13, yet was somewhat marketed for families didn't help out. Even if the film had been rated PG, it would be up against Night at the Museum 2 and Up (which had a fantastic weekend of its own, let's not forget), in vying for the younger audience members. Also, but most importantly, kids don't know what Land of the Lost is. It was a cult show from the 1970s that aired 40-odd episodes; the only people who would know the old series probably weren't happy about the changes the film made. Add the bad reviews from critics, and you have a widespread disaster.
Scott Lumley: This is thermonuclear. This is Fat Man and Little Boy territory. This is as bad a result as Speed Racer posted last year, if not worse. The only people happy with this result are the production crew for Terminator Salvation, because they have just moved out of the lead for the Flop of the Year award.
Actually, going back and looking at the numbers, this EXACTLY parallels Speed Racer. Speed Racer opened to a $18.5 million opening against a $120 million budget. Land of the Lost opened to $19.5 million against a $100 million budget.
It's a shame, really. I wish Hollywood would figure out that special effects are the LEAST important thing in a Will Ferrell movie. If you put that man in an empty room with a coffee cup, a mop and a half empty bag of chips he could probably find a way to turn that into a $20 million opening all by himself.
Max Braden: That's also only $5 million more than what Love Guru and Semi-Pro opened with. Pretty lousy company. Plus it's as bad for Will Ferrell as it is for Universal.
Daron Aldridge: It somewhat feels guilty to revel in such a tremendous flameout but I never saw this one going anywhere, a la the aforementioned Speed Racer, for which this will be eternally compared. The nostalgia/kitsch appeal that people may have brought to it was betrayed by the updating that put it outside the "family film" arena. Simply, Universal seemed to ignore that aspect. Also, for something that costs such a ridiculous amount, it really felt "small" from the previews, aside from the T-Rex.
Reagen Sulewski: A big part of this was a wild miscalculation of how deep the fanbase was for this property. Anyone under 30 and over 45 was just going "huh"?
Eric Hughes: Yeah, I can't say I was ever interested in seeing this one. I kinda passed it off as Will Ferrell kidvid (Kicking and Screaming anyone?) and forgot about it. Then I come to find out it's actually rated PG-13, which drew a huge question mark over my head.
David Mumpower: First of all, between this and Bewitched, it's safe to say that Will Ferrell should never do a television show re-make again. Second of all, this is the latest example of something fundamental that bothers me about the studio system. Too often, the question asked is "can we re-make this classic property" when the more pertinent question is "SHOULD we re-make this classic property". Execs starting seeing dollar signs based around ancillary merchandising revenue and they get ahead of themselves. If you took 20 movie analysts, stuck them in a room and asked, "Would Land of the Lost make for a good movie adaptation?", at least 18 would say "I doubt it." The fact that $100 million got thrown at this production anyway frankly astounds me. There needs to be some sort of Vice President of Basic Logic at the various studios/corporations. Things like this wouldn't slip through the cracks.
Pete Kilmer: As well managed the marketing was on The Hangover you can say the exact opposite happened here, as it was marketed as a tweener/family film. And it wasn't. Not at all. In fact, I know a couple of parents who were extremely ticked at some of the subject matter in the movie. I think the idea of a Land of the Lost family movie really could have worked. A father and his kids lost in some distorted Earth could have been really fun. Remember the opening of Jurassic Park when Grant and the kids got there and then things went bad? They surely could have done something like that here, a real adventure romp that families are looking for (how else do you explain Brendan Fraser's Journey to the Center of the Earth). Instead, you get Will Ferrell doing his man-child act again, which hasn't worked for a few years now, and you get a movie with material that isn't really right for kids. The beauty of the TV show was that there was all kinds of stuff that the adults at the time really got, but sailed over the kids' heads. Instead of doing that with this movie, they went for the lowest common factor in comedy and bombed with it. I also think that Twitter, with the instant analysis that it can provide from everyone, might have played a huge role the word-of-mouth of this product. It should be interesting to see the fallout.
Didn't Land of the Lost have enough yelling for everyone?
Kim Hollis: Land of the Lost starred Will Ferrell, while The Hangover starred that guy from Alias and Kitchen Confidential. Does this prove once and for all that with comedies, it's about how funny the trailer looks rather than who stars?
Josh Spiegel: I'm not sure we can pin down the success of one comedy over the other to one definable characteristic. For one thing, the ads for The Hangover were diverse enough, moreso than those for Land of the Lost. The former had ads showing many different gags, not just the same four or five one-liners, as I felt was going on for the latter film. Will Ferrell hasn't had the most perfect career at the box office, but he is, more often than not, good for about $100 million when he stars in a movie. As long, that is, as he stays away from movies based on TV shows. I think that this may be more of a statement that audiences don't always need spectacle to be satisfied; obviously, humor plays a major role, but one of these movies wasn't excessively CG-driven, and that may have helped, too.
Max Braden: I agree with the CGI-overkill, but I think the two movies were appealing to different audiences. Land of the Lost was competing for audiences against Up (the number one movie of the weekend) and Night at the Museum 2 (number four at the box office). The Hangover was after the R-rated crowd.
Daron Aldridge: I must lean toward the affirmative on that, Kim. When the trailer delivers, it isn't too important who is starring. Specifically for this weekend's film, the ads I saw for Land of the Lost were woefully unfunny except for the sparse lines from Danny McBride. Honestly, Will Ferrell was funnier on Conan O'Brien's first Tonight Show than anything I saw in the Land of the Lost previews, which didn't bode well for the film. In contrast, The Hangover went a couple different directions with Mike Tyson essentially doing the Boogie Nights/Sister Christian scene to Phil Collins, and, most memorably in my mind, the "Where's Doug?" ads. Those ads made me want to see a movie that otherwise I could wait for DVD.
Reagen Sulewski: I thought it was interesting that Land of Lost started running radio ads that we're practically begging people to ignore their TV ads. "I'm Will Ferrell!" just doesn't cut it, and he's not Adam Sandler ca. 1999 where he could get his fans to see any old crap.
David Mumpower: Paul Blart: Mall Cop excepted, 2009 has been a strong year to date in terms of dreck performing like dreck and great-looking projects doing as well as they deserve, the horror genre notwithstanding. It's strange watching Will Ferrell come full circle here. He's an ugly guy who never should have become a leading man in the movie industry. Old School, an unheralded and sophomoric Todd Phillips film, was the film that made people see him in a different light and Elf sealed the deal on him as a comic force to be reckoned with in the industry. Now, he is the one acting in these instantly doomed projects that used to go to Robin Williams and Eddie Murphy. Meanwhile, Phillips himself has again taken a cast of virtual unknowns and created a jaw-droppingly successful title. 11 years ago, I wrote an entire column on why trailers are far and away the most important aspect of a film's success and nothing has changed in the interim. With comedies in particular, the names in the title matter so much less than whether the commercial makes people laugh. What was true of There's Something About Mary remains true for Land of the Lost and The Hangover today.
My Big Fat Greek Life in Ruins might have gotten more butts in seats
Kim Hollis: My Life in Ruins, Nia Vardalos's latest attempt to have a big fat Greek wedding, opened to $3.2 million with a per location average of $2,769. Is it accurate to say that we know exactly what her carryover audience is?
Josh Spiegel: Certainly, the amount of people interested in My Life in Ruins was low. I think that this film's performance is more indicative of one fact: My Big Fat Greek Wedding was a big, fat fluke. Nia Vardalos managed to capture lightning in a bottle with that 2002 indie comedy with some similar ingredients (if the critical thought is correct): sitcommy humor, broadly drawn characters, predictable storyline. The formula worked better then, obviously. Moreover, with the way pop culture works these days, having one successful film seven years ago seems like a lifetime has passed, not just a few years.
Tim Briody: This is pretty close to what Connie and Carla (remember that?) made as well, so it's good to know that we've established her wheelhouse.
Scott Lumley: I haven't seen it. I know nothing about it. I didn't see one print ad, movie poster or trailer for it. I suspect if she had not created that monster seven years ago she would not even be in the conversation.
Before we make caustic, mocking jokes, though, does anyone know the production budget for this film? Is it a huge flop or is it something closer to Fireproof?
Max Braden: Like Scott, I saw nothing about it in advertising, so it was lucky to make that much. Maybe ticket buyers thought it was an alternate title for The Hangover.
Daron Aldridge: Not sure on the budget here but it was distributed by Fox Searchlight, so it might not have carried too hefty of a price tag. With regards to the film, the filmmakers and producers (namely, Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson) should have been weary of the drawing power of Nia Vardalos when she was only able to translate a $241 million behemoth into a TV series that lasted seven episodes. Obviously, the shine wore off that penny within a year of My Big Fat Greek Wedding, so this performance should surprise no one.
Reagen Sulewski: I'm ready to chalk up the summer of 2002 to a collective hypnosis at this point. Clearly the rest of the movie going public is with me on that.
David Mumpower: The title has a $17 million production budget, meaning it's exactly the sort of low-risk investment that should pay dividends, at least in theory. A $3.2 million result, however, means final domestic box office in the $8-$10 million range, indicating that this title is unlikely to ever wind up in the black. I would have taken this chance for Vardalos making a comeback, but it is safe to say that water has found its level here. Whether it was hypnosis, lighting in a bottle, or Klingons (Vardalos' species), My Big Fat Greek Wedding remains the unlikeliest phenomenon we've witnessed in BOP's history.
Scott Lumley: $17 million? Commence caustic mocking.
David Mumpower: It's what we do here at BOP.