Monday Morning Quarterback
By BOP Staff
October 5, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Audiences flocked to Zombieland this weekend, as it opened to a surprising $24.7 million. How did Sony manage such a strong debut from a film starring mostly unknowns?
Tim Briody: The marketing clearly worked and "nut up or shut up" is one of the best taglines of the last few years. I hope the folks involved find something extra in their paychecks this week.
Michael Lynderey: It's the same basic strategy as District 9. Zombieland didn't look like much on paper, but they "chose" to make a good movie out of it and so the buzz grew in all the right places. It's one of those bi-annual occasions in the horror genre when quality wins out at the box office. As we saw with Drag Me to Hell, good reviews don't necessarily buy you much clout when it comes to horror.
Reagen Sulewski: The ad campaign seizing on the film's Rules for surviving the Zombie Apocalypse certainly had a large part of it. There's an unconscious association there that the film has a lot more to show you than what they're giving you in the ads, which could alleviate the kind of "one-joke" fears that people might have had with this. But overall, they were dealing with some quality comic mayhem, and had a pretty easy job to sell this, just needing to push fence-sitters over.
Shane Jenkins: Zombieland is the odd genre mashup that actually delivers the goods. I think the overwhelmingly positive reviews managed to expand its audience beyond the usual gore-hounds and bored teens. And if my audience is any indication, word-of-mouth should sustain it nicely in the upcoming weeks.
Pete Kilmer: Marketing, marketing, marketing. I think the time was right for a comedic look at the zombie genre here in the U.S. Yes, I know Shaun of the Dead was there first, but it really faded once it opened here in the states (though it took off on DVD). It certainly helped pave the way for Zombieland to come about. I think the movie going audience was also ready for a horror comedy that actually looked funny.
Max Braden: It made zombies feel safe. Filmgoers who are turned off by gore-fetishists like Rob Zombie (did he ever get around to trademarking that word?) could see that they weren't going to be bombarded by grossness or "mean" violence. That tone can sell itself, but the people who put the trailers together really went above and beyond in selling the comedy and the action. I think they were a couple of the best trailers we've seen in a year.
Sean Collier: People want to love zombies. Every fourth discussion on the Internet involves zombie apocalypse survival strategies (something that Zombieland knew,) and of all the horror tropes, they're probably the most enduring and versatile in terms of plot possibilities (again, something the producers were aware of.) The trouble is in the preponderence of bad zombie films, particularly the more extreme horror entries. These turn casual audiences off, but a tongue-in-cheek treatment isn't bound by the same effects that a violent film has on the crowds. Zombieland is just a smart, well-timed project.
David Mumpower: Marketing campaigns are like quarterbacks. They get too much of the credit when a film excels and too much of the blame when a film...performs like Jennifer's Body. Acknowledging that in advance, the marketing campaign for Zombieland is the gold standard in what advertising firms should be attempting to accomplish. The film lends itself well to short clips anyway since it has several of those cute little truncated segments that end with clever text graphics. Utilizing those in the trailers was the right move, as well as highlighting the silly nature of much of the violence in the movie. They went a long way in showing that this film has less of genre master George Romero's gore but a lot of his silliness. Of course, what helps the most is that the movie is great, a Tremors for this era.
Zombie #7 probably really gets the most heat from this performance
Kim Hollis: Do any of the actors get a huge bump from Zombieland or is this a situation where the potential franchise is the big winner?
Tim Briody: I think the franchise wins over any of the other actors. Woody Harrelson is still Woody Harrelson. Jesse Eisenberg is still the go to guy when Michael Cera isn't available. And Abigail Breslin's (still only 13, by the way) plot to take over the world will continue.
Michael Lynderey: I don't see Zombieland as much of a franchise, but I could be wrong. I'd say Jesse Eisenberg pretty much gets first dibs on all those sensitive Michael Cera roles from now on (dibs over Cera himself, that is). Harrelson gets to keep character acting, maybe in something really awards-worthy (like say, the Messenger, next month). I don't think this helps Breslin much. She seems to have slid out of those cutesy Disney-type movies, and the terrain is kind of rough for actresses her age outside of the Magic Kingdom. And it's hard to say on Emma Stone. Maybe she should try out for the lead in Scary Movie 5.
Kim Hollis: Well, a sequel is already being bandied about (naturally), so I surely wouldn't rule it out as a potential franchise. It's a great concept and will have built-in goodwill.
Reagen Sulewski: Oh, I would definitely say Eisenberg wins over the franchise itself. For one thing, people have now heard of him. He also gets a leg up in the on-going feud to the death between himself, Michael Cera, Justin Long and Seth Green. I think Harrelson gets a bit of a bump too - this is his biggest hit in awhile that he can really take credit for.
Shane Jenkins: As far as actors, I would say that Harrelson is the big winner here. He sort of slipped off the radar the last few years, but his performance is what has people talking about Zombieland. Eisenberg is great too, but he just does his usual schtick, this time surrounded by zombies instead of distant parents. I know it's skirting the question a little here, but I think the real winners are director Ruben Fleischer and writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick, all of whom hail from television. With a film this clever and successful, I doubt they'll have to worry too much about going back to Jimmy Kimmel Live and The Joe Schmo Show.
Pete Kilmer: I think everyone wins this round, certainly Harrelson and the girls of the film. Jesse Eisenberg, of course, continues to raise his profile.
Max Braden: I think it helps sustain Woody's career. Maybe not boost it but still keep him fresh as a lead casting choice. Eisenberg is the biggest percentage gainer of the actors, because he can use this success as a solid stepping stone in his career moving forward. I saw the trailers a number of times and couldn't tell you that Breslin was in it. As far as the genre goes I think this is another reminder that if you do more with zombies than just splash blood, you can sell it. Funny gore works.
Sean Collier: I wish it were Emma Stone, but she can't seem to truly catch on. She's now the girl from Superbad and Zombieland, but for some reason (possibly because she changes her look for every role,) people still don't know who she is. I agree with the comments about Harrelson. I can't see it being a jump for Eisenberg, since any possible goodwill may be balanced out by the fact that this is, note for note, the EXACT same character from Adventureland, down to the last detail. I was half waiting for him to say, "Yeah, I used to work at this amusement park..."
Reagen Sulewski: Yes, but no one actually saw Adventureland. For the most part, this is the first introduction of Jesse to the world.
David Mumpower: Despite the fact that he's the (ostensible) lead, I don't see Jesse Eisenberg as getting a huge spike from this. He's going to get the roles he was already going to get, but it's the Orlando Bloom scenario where nobody is going to buy him as a lead in non-comic action roles. I disagree a bit about Emma Stone in that I think she has leveraged the cancellation of Drive, the short lived role that was supposed to be her big break, into Superbad, The House Bunny and now Zombieland. She's the go-to hot but nerdy comedic actress in the industry at the moment. Given that she doesn't even turn 21 until next month, that's rather impressive. In the end, however, I believe that Occam's Razor applies here. The person who gets the biggest bump - if he wants it - is the person who offers the best performance. Everyone knows that is Woody Harrelson, who found his Jack Sparrow/Tony Stark. I always felt he was the most talented member of the Cheers cast...which is like being the most attractive of Charlie's Angels. This film role puts him back in the high life again and his asking price for the sequel (which is as inevitable as a Lindsay Lohan sex tape) is going to be huuuuuuuge.
Woody+Buzz=$$$$$$
Kim Hollis: The Toy Story/Toy Story 2 3-D double feature earned $12.5 million this weekend. Should Disney be pleased with this result?
Tim Briody: Considering these movies are 14- and ten-years-old, yes, it's remarkable. The timing is a little odd since Toy Story 3 is still eight months away but it's a nice way to build the momentum going forward.
Michael Lynderey: The real idea here was to remind us all that the Toy Story movies existed, so we wouldn't be too confused when part 3 opened with $101 million next summer. I guess most of us didn't need reminding.
Reagen Sulewski: This is one of the most successful re-releases already, and coming as it does in the era of DVD and home theatre, it's pretty much found money for Pixar.
Pete Kilmer: It's a great way to build notice that Toy Story 3 is coming. Disney should be very pleased, of course.
Sean Collier: A lot of people are wary of spending nearly four hours in a theater under any circumstances, let alone while trying to corral children. This is an excellent result for a project like this.
Kim Hollis: Well, it's a little under three hours, actually, but the point still stands. I would have thought there would be a lot more unhappy kids in the theater when I attended the double feature, but they were (mostly) extremely happy and well behaved.
David Mumpower: This is the most impressive sort of business feat. They got consumers to pay them for what is effectively an extended ad for Toy Story 3-D. Given the euphoric reactions of the people at my theater, the mission was accomplished.
Ricky who?
Kim Hollis: The Invention of Lying, Ricky Gervais' latest attempt to get people on this side of the Atlantic to like him, opened to $7.0 million. What do you think of this result? Do you think this was his best chance to break out commercially?
Reagen Sulewski: Gervais is just too prickly to ever become a major star in the US, but he'll always have his following. If he can continue putting out films at this level with this budget (reported at $4 million - How?!?) he'll always be able to find someone willing to make his films.
Shane Jenkins: It's a nice number for Gervais. But it's a fantastic premise, and I have to wonder how much more it could have done with a more conventional leading man in the role. With Lying's concept and Jim Carrey, Robert Downey Jr., or possibly even *shudder* Matthew McConaughey, this might have been a $20 million+ opener. Personally, I'm happy it played out this way.
Pete Kilmer: Yeah, for its budget, it's a nice return. With his desire for control of his projects, I think we'll continue to see him put out movies like this in the theaters. I would like to see him pop up as a supporting lead in some major comedies that he can work his magic in.
Michael Lynderey: It may not be his best chance, but it could be his last chance. I don't know if studios follow the three-strikes-and-you're-out rule, but if Gervais gets another turn at bat, I suggest teaming up with an A-list actor - or actress (more A-list than Jennifer Garner, that is). It looks like he just can't cut it at the box office on his own, no matter how well his movies are reviewed. Either way, he's got a long career as supporting actor ahead of him.
Sean Collier: I thought that with such an excellent premise and such a strong cast, there might be a bit of a better return. Still, it's profitable enough for Gervais' standards.
Max Braden: The number doesn't surprise me too much. I think for most U.S. audiences Gervais is still largely unknown, and something about this project makes me think that even in the hands of Apatow it would have been a lesser hit. But I look at it as a proof of concept, and I think if you paired Gervais with Apatow, or someone like Ben Stiller, you could see a much bigger result.
Perhaps if it had been a Devo biopic...
Kim Hollis: Whip It, a female empowerment film about roller derby directed by Drew Barrymore, opened to $4.7 million. Why didn't Fox Searchlight make the magic happen here?
Tim Briody: You answered your own question Kim! "A female empowerment film about roller derby directed by Drew Barrymore." That doesn't really scream box office hit to me. Perhaps it should have been platformed or something.
Michael Lynderey: Ellen Page is less of a draw than I would have thought. Really, though, Whip It is the kind of movie that seems to have everything going for it - cast, trailer, reviews - but there's one crucial part missing at the center: a premise that would attract a decent-sized audience. "Shenanigans at the roller derby rink" clearly was not that premise. Too bad for Drew Barrymore, but I think with all the goodwill she still has, she'll live to direct again someday.
Shane Jenkins: Does Fox Searchlight even have a track record for releasing films wide? Whip It is so commercial (well, potentially), that it seems like maybe Searchlight should have left distribution to its more blockbuster-geared big brother.
Pete Kilmer: I think the marketing was really lacking for this film, I saw no serious build up for it until mid last week or so. It's a shame, good cast, Drew's getting good notices as director for it. I hope it builds up next week.
Sean Collier: Because roller derby? Seriously? Roller derby?
Max Braden: Reviews were very good, it's just the marketing that failed. I didn't see the trailer very often, and what I did see of it seemed to sell the credentials of Barrymore and Page rather than the movie itself. The trailers felt like DVD ads, with the movie almost as an afterthought. That's bound to lead to box office as an afterthought. Maybe it'll do better on DVD.
David Mumpower: I see this as a missed opportunity. Roller derby is back in these days with tons of semi-pro leagues popping up across North America. For whatever reason, Whip It seemed to fall into that area of just good enough to get a greenlight but nowhere near good enough to get strong studio support. Fox Searchlight as a group is normally one of the most effective studio arms in terms of maximizing box office revenue, but their passion for this one was non-existent. Ellen Page is gradually slipping into that area of "remember that chick from Juno?" What's odd is that this may be by choice, something of a rarity in this industry. She's not actively running away from marketable movies since I think this looked like a hit on paper, but she does need better career advice. Otherwise, she's going to wind up as an emotionally damaged but good lawyer/doctor/investigator/mentalist lie detector on some mid-season replacement show on Fox.
Pulls out bullhorn to ask next question...
Kim Hollis: Capitalism: A Love Story, Michael Moore's latest polemic, platformed to 962 locations, where it earned $4.9 million. Do you consider this performance good, bad or somewhere in the middle? Do you think the bloom is off the rose for Moore?
Tim Briody: For a documentary, it's still pretty solid. Had this come out a year ago, it may have been bigger, though. And it turns out that Sicko was two years ahead of its time. That would do tremendous business right now with the health care debate still going. Who knew?
Michael Lynderey: It's somewhere in the middle for this film in particular, but bad when you look at Moore's box office storyline as a whole. Sicko came in with about a fifth of Fahrenheit 9/11's total, and now this one's going to finish with maybe half of what Sicko took in. In fact, at the end of his new movie, Moore actually says "I can't keep doing this, unless you join me". Box office-wise, he's right. Maybe this is his last one for a while, but it's certainly capping off a remarkable decade in terms of documentary box office, the biggest since that '70s batch of films like Chariots of the Gods and In Search of Noah's Ark.
Reagen Sulewski: I think audiences are basically feeling like Moore's films are more or less the same trick each time, just repackaged slightly differently. There's only so many times you can try to preach at a mass audience before you turn them off, and I don't think people think Moore has anything new to tell them. That said, it's already halfway to making the list of top ten documentaries of all time, so relatively speaking it's still a pretty powerful testament to Moore's appeal.
David Mumpower: I mentioned when Sicko came out that it was obvious his polemics had grown a bit long in the tooth for mainstream consumers. In hindsight, I have come to agree with Tim's assessment that the film wasn't timed well. If he had done Capitalism first, it would have been timed with the unprecedented economic collapse, albeit in a way that fundamentally alters the content of the film. Meanwhile, Sicko would be a much more engaging today than it was two years ago. Even so, he's still making more money with his documentaries than anybody else on the planet is managing.