Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
August 25, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Inglourious Basterds opened larger than Tarantino's previous film, Grindhouse, made in its entire run. Three out of his last four films are hits to the level of at least $65 million. Is he becoming commercial?
Josh Spiegel: I'm not sure there's a yes or no answer here. Tarantino has only made (when counting Kill Bill as separate entities) seven movies, only one of which made more than $100 million. Moreover, he is not a director who is like Woody Allen or even Scorsese, churning out movie after movie (I grant you, neither director is immensely commercial, but their output is great); Tarantino probably doesn't need to make movies one after another, either. Tarantino's doing what he wants to do; right now, that leads to him making a big buck on this movie. Next time, who knows?
David Mumpower: I like Josh's answer a lot. What I note about the previous three films is that when word was leaked that Kill Bill was over three hours long and needed to be split into two titles, that production's buzz was venomous. Everyone was certain it was a bomb. Then, it proved to be a pair of wildly entertaining films. Conversely, from the moment it was announced, Grindhouse was viewed as a perfect Tarantino project right up until it made its debut and nobody showed up. Suddenly, that $53 million budget was difficult to explain. Tarantino's successes appear to come when least expected. This is the first time when a film of his was expected to do well and followed through with immediate triumph. I'm not sure if that means he's become commercial or if it indicates that audiences were less confounding about what they wanted from him this time. Maybe it's a bit of both.
Max Braden: In interviews about this film, Tarantino has said that he realized his lack of discipline on previous projects lead to stories that meandered and ran long, so for this one he made a deliberate effort to make the film more streamlined and commercial. (Personally I think 150+ minutes is still too long). I think as he's come to that conclusion and sees that it works both critically and commercially, he'll repeat the process in the future. His style may not be always accepted as broadly commercial, but I do think he's headed in that direction.
Jason Lee: Taking out Grindhouse (which was cinematic excess at its most unappetizing) I wouldn't necessarily say that Tarantino is getting more "commercial," I just think that this is the result of moviegoers finally becoming accustomed to what they can expect at a Tarantino film and appreciating it for what it is. I think rule #1 of marketing is "tell the customer what they're going to get and satisfy that promise." Since Tarantino draws from so many cinematic sources in any given film, early moviegoers just didn't know what they would be getting. Six films later, I think they get it and enjoy it.
Sean Collier: I like Jason's example - he's not becoming commercial, we're just getting used to him. A significant part of the movie-going public has now grown up during Tarantino's career, with Quentin as a cultural force for most of our lives; as we go back and see his stuff, we get used to his style and appreciate his humor and technique. With that, we're more likely to buy a ticket. Seventeen years is a long time to build a fanbase, but it worked.
David Mumpower: I agree with Jason and Sean's points. To wit, I think that there is some self-fulfilling prophecy here, for lack of better terminology. Many of the artists who have made great television programs and movies over the past decade have been influenced by Tarantino. What was once the counter-culture style of entertainment has become much less maverick in tone, meaning that even without him changing much, his work has become more mainstream.
But it's shorts season!
Kim Hollis: Shorts, the latest children's film from Tarantino's buddy Robert Rodriguez, failed to match the magic of the Spy Kids franchise or even Shark Boy and Lava Girl, opening to only $6.4 million. What went wrong here?
Josh Spiegel: Despite the fact that I've been seeing ads for this movie since Memorial Day, the problem may lie in the fact that the plot was never particularly clear. A kid gets a phone through his head, a baby is a genius, James Spader is evil....the actual concept was relatively obscured. Or, maybe Rodriguez should stop listening to his kids' ideas; wasn't Shark Boy theirs, too?
David Mumpower: This isn't the most shocking result of the summer or anything, but I have to say that I am deeply surprised it didn't do any better. We have been in several theaters that showed the trailer to young audiences. Their reception was universally positive. Like that YouTube video of the kid getting a Nintendo positive. I had already mentally prepped my explanation of why it had done so well, most of the logic based on how well Rodriguez relates to children. This turn of events has left me totally perplexed. In fact, I'd like to hear some good explanations of why this one was a box office non-entity.
Tim Briody: I think the title is a failure here. Spy Kids? Easy. Sharkboy and Lava Girl? Pretty self-explanatory. Shorts is probably the worst title this could have had. "Magic Rock" or something to that effect would at least get the point across.
Max Braden: Does school schedule have anything to do with it? This opening is fairly close to what Aliens in the Attic opened a few weeks ago. August hasn't been a great month in recent years for kids movies. Last year's Daddy Day Camp opened to under $5 million and 2006's Zoom was about the same (though the second and third Spy Kids movies did well in August).
Jason Lee: A bunch of kids wishing on a rock whose rainbowed hues make it look like a coaster from the Gay Pride gift shop. Based on recent elections in California, Arizona and Florida, I wasn't too surprised that this bombed.
Reagen Sulewski: I wonder if they needed to push the adult cast more to convince parents into the theaters, or if Rodriguez needed to call on more of his Spanish buddies again or something. It's puzzling for a director that's done so well with kid wish fulfillment to fail on quite literally that premise.
Sean Collier: Tim and Max have it. The title couldn't be more bland if it tried, and the kids have just gone back to school. Two big misses, and they're sunk.
Where she led, people did not follow
Kim Hollis: Post-Grad opened $2.7 million. Why isn't Rory Gilmore worth more than this?
Josh Spiegel: Was Alexis Bledel ever worth a lot? She's only been in a few films, and this is her first as the lead. Moreover, nothing about this movie screamed entertainment, any more than the other options at the cineplex. It is sad, though, to see Bledel and Friday Night Lights' Zach Gilford suckered into such a flop.
David Mumpower: As Josh touches upon, at least they got the lead casting right. There is a strange phenomenon about box office that says that at any point from high school up until fraternity pledges, movie characters are worth a look from the teen audiences that drive the market. From the time these characters are 22-30, however, they're only appealing as sex objects, action stars, horror film victims or war movie cannon fodder. I have no idea why that is, but naming this film Post Grad was the same as naming it Do Not Go See This Movie. As a diehard Gilmore Girls fan (you heard me), I adore Alexis Bledel and I enjoy the eclectic films she has chosen recently such as I'm Reed Fish, Life Is Short and this. At some point, she's going to have to do something conventional (a hard to explain return in Sin City 2?) or go back to television to sustain her career, though.
Tim Briody: Apropos of nothing, Alexis, call me. This kind of smacked of something that Isla Fisher passed on and as with her Confessions of a Shopaholic earlier this year, this movie may have hit too close to home for their target audience. It was like they titled it "You, Yes, You, Upcoming College Graduate! You're Totally Screwed!" Who wouldn't want to see a movie about that?
Max Braden: I'm watching the wrong channels I guess, since I don't recall seeing a single ad for this. I think I only ever caught one episode of Gilmore Girls (was it ever high in viewership?), and I'd probably even have trouble picking Bledel out of a lineup. It's so under the radar for me that I won't even catch it on DVD.
Jason Lee: I saw one ad for this and I was half-expecting a "coming to ABC Family this Sunday!" tag at the end of it. Maybe I'm just cynical (cynicism at BOP? what?) but a wholesome, feel good movie about a smart, young adult female character surrounded by good people sure doesn't feel like box-office fodder nowadays.
Reagen Sulewski: On a related note, at least we can call off the search party for Michael Keaton.
I'd say something about a fakie into a half-pipe here but I'm not sure if it would be right
Kim Hollis: X-Games 3D: The Movie opened to $837,216 in 1,399 exhibitions, a per location average of $598. Whoa. Say something funny about X-Games 3D: The Movie.
Josh Spiegel: X didn't mark the spot this time, I guess.
David Mumpower: The best part is that this includes 3-D ticket price inflation. At least, it would if anyone had actually bought a movie ticket.
Jason Dean: I saw this and I thought it was a rather entertaining and interesting sort of documentary kind of thing...err, though I saw it on an AMC pass so I guess that makes me part of that "didn't buy a ticket" group.
Max Braden: You'll see better x-treme fails at Break.com.
Jason Lee: Why Disney decided to distribute this film, I will never understand.
Reagen Sulewski: Finally, the movie to make Marci X look like a blockbuster.
Sean Collier: So we take something that people will barely watch on TV anymore and ask them for $10 for it? Brilliant.
Eric Hughes: Does its opening weekend qualify for the cash for clunkers program?