Monday Morning Quarterback
By BOP Staff
September 21, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs opened to $30.3 million. Is this more, less, or about what you expected from this Sony Animation release?
Josh Spiegel: Even though I imagine it will be called only a decent result, I think this result is pretty impressive. This is one of only a few films from Sony Pictures Animation, and may end up its most successful. Granted, with 3-D prices as a positive, Cloudy should have hit closer to $40 million, but the movie may have solid word-of-mouth as it's actually pretty good. Though it only has two weeks with 3-D theatres, the result is nothing to sniff at and may lead to more impressive rewards.
Pete Kilmer: I think it's about right...families were certainly needing something new to see this weekend.
Marty Doskins: I think that you have to look at this less of an animated film versus being a kids' book adaptation. In terms of an animated film, it didn't do that well. However, kids' books being made into movies have had an awful bad streak. I don't think there's really that many breakout successes of this type. I think it did pretty well if you look at it from that perspective.
Reagen Sulewski: We're starting to see a middle ground for animated films being established, behind the Pixars and Shreks and (sigh) Ice Ages, but above your Doogals and such. This release fits right in there, and no small thanks to 3-D, I'm certain. At the risk of being repetitive, I do still wonder how long studios can count on this gimmick to provide an instant hit. I'd say we've got about another year before some major 3-D release gets passed on.
Sean Collier: I think we've finally hit upon a children's 3-D release that there is positively nothing to say about. And yet, opine we must. The result is fine but not all that impressive, which is just about right; it'll have a decent run, sell some DVDs, and escape our collective memory. Again - very little to remark on. I'd say that it could've done better with the good reviews, but I'm not sure that's true - this early in the school year, it had a ceiling, and it just about hit it.
Jim Van Nest: I'll go against the grain here and suggest that the 3-D aspect didn't have as great an impact as others would think. I'd wager that a similar number of butts would have been in seats anyway, because it is a book adaptation and apparently a pretty popular one. Both of my kids have read it and my entire 50+ Cub Scout Pack was jazzed about seeing it. I just think this was a good title to animate and get out there. Now, if they'd only work on A Wrinkle In Time.
Kim Hollis: I feel like Sony missed an opportunity here. This appears to be a very, very well received film, with an engaging-looking animation style and a premise that just naturally lends itself to the 3-D technology. I'm not saying that $30 million is bad, just that I think with a little more oomph in the marketing and a better release date, this movie might have done about $10 million more on opening weekend.
The exclamation point is for extra informing!
Kim Hollis: The Informant!, a Steven Soderbergh dark comedy starring Matt Damon, opened to $10.5 million. Are you surprised that a couple of key cogs from the Ocean's franchise didn't do better here?
Josh Spiegel: No, I think this is right in line with expectations. If anyone thought that simply sticking the Ocean's titles on the posters along with Matt Damon looking like a big goof would lead to huge numbers, they'd be crazy. Though the movie is certainly far more accessible and lighthearted than most movies by Steven Soderbergh, some people may not be in the mood for such an inherently silly movie, even one that tries (kind of) to show how a big company was brought down by scandal. Granted, the movie is entertaining with an engaging, if uniquely odd, lead performance, but seeing as the budget was only about double this take, I doubt anyone's going to be too disappointed.
Tim Briody: Nope, because this isn't the sort of project that's going to do gangbusters at the box office and opening to $10 million is actually pretty darn good considering.
Pete Kilmer: While I'm sure they were aiming for around $18-22 million, the opening it did is right in line with a small fall film, which is what The Informant! is. It's not Action Matt Damon, nor is it an ensemble Soderbergh romp. Word-of-mouth on this movie should make it a little engine that could in a few weeks.
Reagen Sulewski: Tonally complex films often have a hard time finding an audience, because they're never quite sure what they're getting. That doesn't mean it's a bad film, just hard to sell. In this case, it's The Insider, as a comedy, but not really. It's not the kind of thing you can really pitch to a mass audience. The ads they did produce though, are laser focused on Soderbergh's core audience.
Sean Collier: I'm left thinking of the poster - with no idea how to market it, they just used Matt Damon making a funny face. Considering the difficulty in selling more complex, adult fare, I think everyone involved should be perfectly pleased with this opening. There was really no other way to go with it - selling more of a comedy would've made it out to be more of a laugher than it actually is, and playing up the political/dramatic element is clearly not what they were trying to do. I did think that the commercials could've used a bit more of Damon's narration, as that was the funniest stuff and basically the selling point, but so it goes.
Max Braden: The difference between the Ocean's series and The Informant's sense of comedy is charming vs. nerdy. Charming is naturally going to appeal to a broader audience. Plus the Ocean's series had a multiplier effect of Damon plus Pitt plus Clooney. The Informant! just wasn't going to perform like the other movies. But $10 million is a good opening for this project. I think the heavy advertising from a major studio helped what otherwise would have been a limited release. It beat a horror flick featuring the costar of the biggest movie this year, that's impressive.
Kim Hollis: I think Warner Bros. should actually be pretty thrilled with this debut. The commercials for the movie looked weird at best and awful at worst. Most audiences had no idea what the film was about and I can't imagine they really wanted to find out. I'm sure Soderbergh had his reasons, but selling a story like this one as a comedy just isn't going to work for typical movie-goers.
We were not there for her.
Love Happens, a Universal Pictures release with a title in the running for most generic ever, opened to $8.1 million. Why wasn't this film more happening?
Josh Spiegel: The marketing was all over the place, first of all. If, for example, you caught a preview during an NFL game, you wouldn't really see a movie about an outwardly extroverted public speaker with a dark past who meets a new love, you'd see a movie about Aaron Eckhart firewalking to get Jennifer Aniston. Also, the reviews were tepid, it seemed like Aniston wasn't actually a co-lead, no more so than John Carroll Lynch, who's given a pretty hefty non-romantic subplot; in essence, the movie just seemed destined for mediocrity.
Kim Hollis: And with regards to the marketing during football games, how much of a waste of cash was that? Universal couldn't have believed they were speaking to their target demographic there. This was a disaster from the moment they released the trailer.
Pete Kilmer: People are tired of seeing Aniston in these kind of romance films. In fact I might say people are getting tired of seeing Aniston period. She's boxed herself in, movie wise, in hapless romantic pictures. Which is too bad because, like Sandra Bullock, Aniston is a first rate comedic actress. She's more than held her own against Jim Carrey and Ben Stiller. It's beyond time for her to really get with someone who can push her in a comedy. She needs that, because that's when she shines. Right now, she's starring in Jennifer Lopez-like romantic cookie cutter dreck.
Reagen Sulewski: I think it's less that they're tired of these films than that they just plain can't tell them apart, or even know when they're coming out.
Tony Kollath: Not to mention, the title was stupendous in its uninspiredness.
Sean Collier: Tony, I am going to steal the phrase "stupendous in its uninspiredness" as soon as possible. Yet another problem - as much as I love Aaron Eckhart, he's not a romantic lead. He's many things - but romantic lead is not one of them. We've pretty much had a generic romantic comedy every weekend for several months now, with only a few breaks, and exactly none of these films have felt an obligation to distinguish themselves from the pack. That's just plain lazy, and the box office has, for the most part, reflected that.
Max Braden: The rejection of lookalike projects mystifies me a little. It looked like a carbon copy of Sleepless in Seattle, which opened at more than twice this did over 15 years ago. If people loved Sleepless so much, wouldn't they want to see a pleasant, non-Sandra-Bullock-stalker romance like this? I think Pete's right and it comes down to star power.
Jim Van Nest: Maybe it's me...but every single movie Jennifer Aniston is in now, looks like it's nothing more than a Friends spin-off. "Rachel Shares an Apartment with Her Ex", "Rachel Meets a Widower"...Jennifer, I'm begging you, give us something new or just stop giving.
Megan Fox will make out with every one of you if you go see her movie.
Kim Hollis: Jennifer's Body, the first film to test Megan Fox's box office appeal, bombed with $6.9 million. What happened here?
Josh Spiegel: I'm slightly surprised by this result; though Diablo Cody is more associated with Juno (for the all-too-obvious reasons), her name being part of the marketing for Jennifer's Body may have confused or put off some audience members. Then again, some people might be tired of hearing about Megan Fox's foot-in-mouth antics, some people might be tired of horror movies about teenagers. I'm hardpressed to think of one specific reason of why the movie flopped. Bad reviews? Didn't stop The Final Destination from doing well. Either way, definitely the most disappointing and surprising result of the weekend.
Les Winan: It's such a disappointing outcome that one can only wonder which genocidal dictator Megan Fox will compare audiences to.
Tony Kollath: I'm not really surprised by this result. Take away all of the buzz surrounding Megan, and this opening is a little bit above what you expect. When you factor back in all of the headlines throughout the year about Megan, you have to consider that most of them, while building her name recognition, didn't do much for her likability factor. The volume of her self-promotion is impressive, but is in inverse proportion to the quality of it. There will likely be announcements that this "bomb" has done a lot of damage to her bankability, but I think it's just evidence that she needs a team to manage her public image.
Tim Briody: The outstanding failure here actually makes me want to move the Doomsday Clock back a minute or two. I don't understand the appeal of Megan Fox at all and I'm glad that most of the country agreed.
Jim Van Nest - I'm with you, Tim. Sure, she's hot. But there are thousands of hot chicks in LA trying to make it in the movie business. And right now, I'd rather see any of them over Fox. I think the big message here for Megan Fox is that America just isn't that into her. This is a rude awakening to let her know that maybe it was the giant robots that made Transformers a success and not her.
Reagen Sulewski: I'd say it's just time for BOP to declare ourselves victorious and move on to destroying Katy Perry.
Max Braden: Imagine the shift in script quality about to come across her agent's desk. From Transformers 4 to Wild Things 4 in just three days. Ouch.
Sean Collier: Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes no one sees a movie just because it looks really, really awful. This is rare, but we should all be thankful when it happens.