Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
September 1, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: The Final Destination improved significantly from its predecessors in earning $27.4 million for the weekend. How did Warner Bros. inject new life into a franchise that seemed past its expiration date?
Josh Spiegel: The easy answer is, of course, 3-D. However much money this film made, it would have probably made a little less had the film not been shown in the 3-D format. It's important to note, though, that this franchise only "seemed" to be failing. The third film actually grossed more than the first two films in the series, if only by a few million dollars. Creatively, it would seem that the idea is a bit stale, but financially, this series isn't as old hat as we might think.
Tim Briody: I don't think it was past expiration, really. It has been three years since the last one, and less renowned horror films and franchises have thrived over the last couple years. The bump up from the $19 million of Final Destination 3 is a surprise and is most likely attributable to the 3-D but to say that the Final Destination franchise had run its course is inaccurate.
Max Braden: I really think it was the one clip in the trailer where the girl gets nailed by the flying tire. Wanting to see bratty characters get killed in creatively different ways must be a universal desire.
Jason Lee: I half wonder if the ability of Final Destination to maintain box office longevity is due to two factors: an entertaining (if predictable) gimmick and the staggered release schedule of the four films. Seeing hapless teenagers get skewered by rube goldberg machines is never boring and if you cough up $13 to see a Final Destination film, at least you know what you're in for. And if you look at the dates of the past releases (2000, 2003, 2006, 2009) and the three-year gaps between films, you are marketing the next film to a completely new set of high schoolers every time. Combine these two advantages and I think it accounts partly for the endurance of the Final Destination franchise.
Reagen Sulewski: Not to give away the game, but as analysts, our tendency is to look for the complicated answer to explain things, because otherwise what do you need us for? But in this case, it really doesn't have to be any harder than it has to - we're still in the beginning period of 3-D being enough of a novelty to get people to see movies they wouldn't otherwise. Compare this to the period about five or six years ago when anything they slapped together with computer animation opened to $40 million. Lest we forget the double-down effect earlier this year - Ice Age 3 is now the highest grossing animated film in worldwide box office history largely on the back of 3-D. I think we're going to look at this period of box office like Barry Bonds' home run records.
Sean Collier: 3D made it remarkably successful, but it's (shockingly) even simpler than that - any horror movie that started with a hit is going to stay profitable, at least for a half-dozen films or so, since these sequels are so cheap to make.
Reagen Sulewski: Well that explains the fact that it's gotten a third sequel, but not this jump in box office. If it opens to $15 million, this is a very ho-hum conversation.
Sean Collier: Right - I think the 3-D was the difference between $15-$18 and $25+. But "Horror Sequel Becomes Profitable" is never news.
Kim Hollis: I actually think that there's something more than the 3-D happening here. Sure, some of the increase can be attributed to the 3-D, but I don't believe that's all of it. I think that we have a situation where they let the series sit for long enough for audiences to want a sequel, and then they very cleverly build it up and market it.
David Mumpower: In addition to the comments above, what always jumped out to me about The Final Destination is that this premise is organic with the 3-D concept. One of the most memorable shots from the second film in the series was a crane hook heading toward a car. That looked great in and of itself as it created suspense and terror. In 3-D, it would have been breathtaking. I strongly suspect that at several points along the line, the producers of this franchise lamented the fact that they couldn't do some of their ideas in 3-D. Conveniently enough, cinemas outfitted themselves with new technology that afforded just such an enhancement in fear-mongering.
Michael Myers is very disappointed in all of you.
Kim Hollis: Halloween II opened to $16.3 million, a solid result for the Weinsteins, but well short of the $26.4 million from the previous film. Is this a good enough result?
Josh Spiegel: The result is solid, indeed, especially considering that Halloween II opened against another horror movie and, unlike in 2007, doesn't have the Labor Day weekend boost. However...why did anyone think it was a wise idea to open two horror movies against each other? Certainly, it would seem that the mood of each film was different, even if both had the outcome of lots of bloody deaths. Still, pitting two films that want pretty much the same audience is an odd move. For The Final Destination, who knows if more money could have been made; I'd wager, though, that Halloween II could have had a big boost by not being against another film. Hey, maybe if it had opened towards...Halloween, it'd have done better?
Sean Collier: Yeah, Josh, the most bewildering thing of all in this is the distance from Halloween. It's a normal technique to open a horror film in late September so that the growing Halloween crowd gives it legs through October, but August 28th? That's just a hard move to defend, and more so for Zombie and Co. - the holiday is in the damn film's title. They didn't open My Bloody Valentine on December 8th. Anyway, considering how atrociously bad the first remake was, more attention-grabbing competition, and the questionable timing, this is a great result. I was expecting a sub-$10 million opening.
Reagen Sulewski: I don't particularly buy the release date angle - Halloween movies have opened well in August before. Furthermore - to see people talk about the Halloween or Labor Day weekend *boost*?. That's like talking about the health benefits of drinking mercury. Again, I think the answer is relatively simple here - it was plainly foolish to have two horror movies open up against each other and Halloween got beaten out by the shiny new technology.
David Mumpower: This was almost exactly the result I expected. Ignoring the presence of a direct demographic competitor for a moment, Halloween as directed by Robb Zombie sounded fresh and (relatively) original. Halloween II sounded like a money grab. An inferior sequel should open to less than its predecessor and that is exactly what happened here.
Kim Hollis: I agree with Reagen that release date really doesn't make a difference here. I'm sure that direct competition was a factor (more on that later) to some degree, but we've also seen that the market can expand to accommodate situations like these. I think the marketing on The Final Destination was certainly better, and I also believe that some of the decisions made in the first Halloween turned people away. People are getting weary of the over-saturated gore, and there's a difference in what you see in a Final Destination film (stylized, clever, sometimes tongue-in-cheek violence) versus Halloween (dark, oppressive, hyper-realistic stuff).