Monday Morning Quarterback
By BOP Staff
October 12, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Couples Retreat opened to $34.3 million in 3,000 locations. How did Universal turn this into a must-see opening weekend comedy?
Josh Spiegel: Looking at other recent Vince Vaughn comedies, it would seem like Couples Retreat is in line with the others. Unlike Four Christmases, though, Couples Retreat was emphasizing the big cast of generally funny people (Vaughn, Jon Favreau, Jason Bateman, Ken Jeong, Kristen Bell, among others); also, setting your film in a tropical paradise probably helps arouse audience members' interest. Granted, the previews and reviews were tepid, but as an escape (visually, at least), this movie did pretty well, all the more so after Universal Studios had some recent turnover among its top execs.
Max Braden: The trailers made Couples Retreat look like it has about the same tone as The Hangover, which was hugely popular this summer. But where The Hangover probably had a biased appeal to men, Couples Retreat seems more accessible to women, which I think helped boost the box office this weekend. Of course, Couples Retreat isn't going to come near The Hangover's $275 million gross.
Pete Kilmer: The casting here really did the trick, I think. With the past movie history of Vaughn, Bateman and the others I think it made it okay for the guys to be dragged to it by the girlfriends and wives. Plus it really was right time and right placement of the film.
Eric Hughes: I think people were just ready to see Vince Vaughn loaf his tall self around the big screen again for two hours. As a friend was saying to me, people have a fascination in watching Vince motor his mouth through disgusting amounts of dialogue. I think she's right. "Oh, Vince talks fast in this one? Then let's go spend $20 on a crap movie by seeing Couples Retreat."
Michael Lynderey: Couples Retreat is a textbook case of a meticulously-prepared studio package. You've got an A-list comedy star, some recognizable female leads, a funny character actor or two, a good-looking setting, and a trailer with a handful of money shots. That adds up well. Besides, who doesn't want to go to an exotic, sun-drenched resort right in the middle of cold, windy October? That's half the attraction right there.
Tim Briody: If you look up "broad comedy" in the dictionary, you'd find the one sheet for this movie. Younger audiences, older audiences, date movie audiences, whatever. Couples Retreat, as meh as it looked, was going to be the number one choice for all of those groups. Also, you could argue that the box office has been pretty devoid of comedies lately and this was due.
Jim Van Nest: I think Tim just nailed it. There haven't been many comedies rolled out in the last few weeks. And the trailers worked. I feel confident saying that all the funny parts of the movie are probably IN the trailer. But it's still funny and showed exactly what it needed to to attract an audience. My wife, who never cares to see a movie out, actually may end up dragging me to see this...all based on the trailer.
Jason Lee: Sounds like I'm in the majority but I found neither the trailer funny nor the commercials. I will say, however, that they both succeeded in telling audiences exactly what they were getting. All Vince Vaughn has to do is utter one line and then have the title of the film splashed on the screen and every customer knows exactly the type of movie experience that they'll be paying for. Promise and then deliver, that's all you need to do.
Reagen Sulewski: I didn't think they were brilliant ads or anything, but the guy who cut the trailer for this probably deserves some kind of medal, as he apparently mined every ounce of comedy out of this film for the commercials. I'd admit I was taken by surprise by the bad reviews, as everything I'd seen up until a couple of days before release made me think this was going to be a solid, if unspectacular couples comedy, and not Ishtar with yoga. It's like a case study of how to hide the fact that your movie sucks. It also doesn't hurt that people are willing to give Vince Vaughn the benefit of the doubt in films like this.
David Mumpower: Every time I saw a commercial for Couples Retreat, my expectations for it diminished a bit more. The fact that they were ubiquitous had me expecting a mid-teens opening for one of the least funny looking comedies in recent memory. This success is like Beverly Hills Chihuahua in terms of "HOW???" performances. Like everyone else, I love the cast here, but my love has limits. A dude in a shiny banana hammock face-sitting on a recovering child actor is beyond said limits. There is a fine line between this scene and that soft-core porno Dana Plato did right before she overdosed.
Couples Camp, Couples Big Day Out, Couples on a Train...
Kim Hollis: Do you expect to see a lot more films in this vein, where half a dozen or so relatively established comedians and attractive actresses are thrown into a broad comedy?
Josh Spiegel: I don't think that Couples Retreat is going to start some wild trend; frankly, the movie is just a continuation of the trend, only there are far fewer films that fit the qualifications. Going all the way back to the 1960s, to movies such as It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World, big-budget comedies with big stars aren't too out of the ordinary. However, it may fit Vince Vaughn's future well to stick with these types of movies; Four Christmases was similar, in that there was a huge cast surrounding him. Maybe it's best for him to be part of a larger ensemble.
Pete Kilmer: I totally agree with what Josh says in that Vaughn made a very successful career by doing that when he came back to comedy with Old School, Wedding Crashers and Dodgeball. I think we'll continue to see him do this. He really plays well off others and it shows.
Jim Van Nest: Honestly, Vaughn can't be but two summers away from his starring role in some sort of cross-country car race movie.
Michael Lynderey: Well, there's Valentine's Day (coming out you-know-when), where it looks like they've got three dozen or so actors of all types strewn together. It's a fairly old Hollywood tradition to sell movies based on a laundry list of stars, but you have to have just the right balance. That said, I frankly don't expect it to become any bigger a trend than it already is (i.e. He's Just Not That Into You, Ocean's Eleven, and so on).
Jason Lee: I would be more inclined to attribute the success of the film to its premise over the cast. I think there was some fun to be had with "four different couples, each dysfunctional in their own entertaining way." I think was certainly brought alive by the attractive cast but I think the premise allowed them to succeed.
Reagen Sulewski: There's no way this happens with a more generic cast, Jason. It doesn't have to be exactly this cast, maybe - Will Ferrell or Steve Carell could have subbed in somewhere and it would probably have done about the same - but you need at least one comedy headliner and two or three decently known female leads.
David Mumpower: I guess it depends on how we define the variations. Do I think we'll see a Couples Retreat 2? Oh God yes. It sounds like there was a lot more fun to be had on the shoot than there was in the film itself. Do I expect a lot more of these films where people from the Apatow group romance women who are waaaaaaaay out of their league? Sure. In fact, this isn't the first film this year to follow such a playbook. We already saw a $94 million hit in this genre with He's Just Not That Into You. Locality is the primary difference between the two...well, locality and movie quality. Instead of overpaying one established star, casting several well liked but relatively cheap actors is a savvy move.
Who else is so money but doesn't even know it?
Kim Hollis: We would all agree that Vince Vaughn is the most established person in the film. Who do you believe is the second most famous right now? Who do you think will be the most famous in about three years?
Josh Spiegel: Well, in my wildest dreams, the second most famous is Jason "Michael Bluth" Bateman. It's hard to peg Jon Favreau as close to being as famous for his onscreen work, though being the guy behind Iron Man boosts his name a lot. Kristin Davis, however, might be next famous, simply for being part of Sex and the City. Who I think will be most famous in three years is (again, wild dreams here) Kristen Bell, who's been begging for superstardom since Veronica Mars. She's got a leading role in a romantic comedy in a few months, she's been working with big-name actors...it would be only a just world if she becomes a huge actress.
Michael Lynderey: It's a tough one, but I'd say Jason Bateman. He pops up way too often in too many big movies not to notice, even if something he headlines doesn't do very well (Extract). Malin Akerman and Kristen Bell are still kind of up-and-comers, and Kristin Davis seems stuck playing suburban housewives - Rita Wilson-land. As for three years from now, I'd say Kristen Bell. She's got two big romantic comedies coming out in 2010 where she's the clear star, and I expect both to do pretty well. Katherine Heigl may have some competition down the line there.
Pete Kilmer: I have to think second most famous is Jason Bateman. He's got that face that a lot of people are really starting to recognize thanks to Hancock and other work. Kristen Bell is right on that cusp of being huge. She's shown the dramatic chops in Veronica Mars and jumped off Heroes while it was still a respectable show, and has a nice little deal on Gossip Girl as the narrator. She showed her comedy skills in Forgetting Sarah Marshall and she's earned geek cred many times over. The rest, as actors, are journeymen that will continue to do quality work out there as they are solid, solid utility players for directors.
Max Braden: Thinking about the trailer, the next person that pops into mind is Malin Akerman. Along with 27 Dresses and Watchmen, she's building a notable resume, even if audiences aren't going because of her. She strikes me as someone who could have a Cameron Diaz-like career if she gets lucky. But in three years I'd still expect Kristen Bell to be the more famous.
Tim Briody: If everyone here doesn't say Kristen Bell, this site is not called Box Office Prophets.
Jim Van Nest: Right now, it's Jason Bateman. I mean, who doesn't know and like the guy? In the future...I don't know that any of these folks will be huge stars, but Kristen Bell is the most obvious choice here.
Jason Lee: Considering the mass amounts of boyfriends and husbands that surely got dragged along to see this, I gotta think that Kristin Bell was the second biggest star.
Reagen Sulewski: I think that's a question with a number of different answers. Before the film released: probably Jon Favreau. After the film: probably Malin Akerman. Able to have the most people correctly name them from a lineup: Jason Bateman.
David Mumpower: I would maintain that the silent majority of movie goers recognize and like Kristin Davis the most. Everyone else under discussion has been in stuff like Arrested Development and Veronica Mars. Even their movies are along the lines of Forgetting Sarah Marshall and...well, Jason Bateman has only been the star of Extract. He's been a supporting player in everything else on his recent resume. Unless we think Favreau is well recognized as the director of Iron Man - and we don't, which says a lot about the madness of the industry - the dainty star of Sex and the City the show and the movie wins this by default. Three years from now, I'd like to think that it's Kristen Bell since she's the perfect combination of funny, gorgeous and talented, but Emma Stone is coming up fast in her rearview mirror. This is the period when she has to prove herself if she doesn't miss her window.
Zombies are really rather easily distracted. And zombie fans.
Kim Hollis: Zombieland fell 40% to $14.8 million. Is this better, worse or about what you were expecting?
Josh Spiegel: Considering that Zombieland is a mix of horror and comedy, and its opening weekend could have been considered something of a surprise, this result is pretty solid. The word-of-mouth on the movie is impressive (and accurate, as I finally found out this weekend), it's coming out near Halloween, and it's all about warding off the zombie apocalypse, which is becoming a less-than-cult idea these days. Sony should be thrilled and working on a deal to make a sequel.
Michael Lynderey: Horror movies, even excessively well-reviewed ones with doses of comedy, have a hard time keeping their composure on week two. But Zombieland was a nice, clean choice this weekend for anyone who didn't want to go to problem island, or risk it on that little movie playing at 160 theaters. Next week's remake of Domestic Disturbance ought to nibble at Zombieland's box office a little, and of course there's the sleeping shaky-cam giant that could really be waking up any week now.
Pete Kilmer: I think any movie that doesn't drop over 60% on the following week is looked at as a positive. It's going to chug along and make some serious money when it's all said and done. Woody Harrelson has said that this the only movie he's wanted to do a sequel to, so I suspect they'll get to it.
Max Braden: Around 40% is good, especially for a movie that opened higher than initially expected. Looking at last year's chart, Zombieland's box office is behaving like Eagle Eye's (which opened at the end of September), which grossed just over $100 million.
Jim Van Nest: I have to think this second weekend is huge for Zombieland. There's no reason to think that this $15 million shouldn't have been its OPENING weekend take. So for $15 million to be the second weekend, everyone has to be ecstatic.
Jason Lee: 40% is fantastic. Consider that in the last ten weeks, only three films have been able to open in the top five and keep their second weekend drop below 40%: Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (kids flick), The Informant! (adults flick) and Julie & Julia (chick flick). The fact that a horror comedy title could join their company is stellar.
Reagen Sulewski: I haven't run the numbers for this year yet, but it definitely feels like we've had a bit of a turning-back-the-clock on legs. While there's still the incredible 60 and 70% drops, we've seen a lot more films manage 35, 30 or even 20% drops in their second weekends, and not just one a quarter. The notion of the value of word-of-mouth seems to be returning, and Zombieland is just the latest beneficiary of this.
David Mumpower: What Reagen is referencing is that as yet undefined but intriguing aspect of social media we're currently calling The Twitter Effect. People know what the majority opinion is and that can really crush a sucky film or it can carry one like Zombieland that has glowing word of mouth. This film has already made more than I was expecting it to earn in its domestic run. And I strongly encourage anyone reading this who hasn't seen it yet to make plans to do so as soon as possible. It's hard for me to imagine anyone coming away from this film feeling like they weren't entertained.
Coming soon, to a theater near you...
Kim Hollis: Paranormal Activity, a movie someone made at their house for $15,000, became the first film released in under 400 venues to finish in the top five at the box office. With $7.9 million and an increase in per location average of $16,129 last week to $49,690 this week, it's the new Blair Witch Project. When did you first hear of this movie and how shocked are you by this turn of events?
Michael Lynderey: I vaguely remember something with this title being scheduled for a limited release on September 25th, but the rest of the story seems a little blurry to me. When was this one okayed as a surprise word-of-mouth hit? I certainly missed the vote there. Seriously, though, Blair Witch had half a year's worth of buzz and anticipation, while Paranormal Activity came out of nowhere and just seems like a generic camera-in-your-face horror movie to me. Anyway, once Paranormal Activity gets to the kajillion dollar mark, I really hope it doesn't inspire a decade's worth of shaky-cam rip-offs. Blair Witch had the grace not to do that, but times have changed. You just can't trust horror movies these days. They turn on you.
Josh Spiegel: I heard about this movie a couple of weeks ago; even though I have absolutely no interest in it (my stony heart doesn't go much for faux-documentary horror movies like Blair Witch), it doesn't shock me that the movie is doing well. The ads, both online and on TV, are straight to the point. Moreover, using the old "See how people reacted to our movie!" bit works here, only heightening the possibility of scares. Finally, I think people are just looking for a different way to be scared than 3-D or cheapo sequels. Paranormal Activity is hitting the multiplexes at the right time.
Eric Hughes: I actually heard of this one a few months ago. (They were conducting free screenings of it as they do on streets here in L.A.). But based on the posters and lit they were passing out, I figured it was some low budget crapfest and declined to check it out. Then the firestorm happened. Honestly, based on the fact that this one quickly hit more than 1,000,000 demands on Eventful (and thus will have a nationwide release) AND was the #1 trending topic on Twitter for most of the weekend, its huge haul didn't shock me. I didn't know what the number would be, but I knew it would be significant.
Tim Briody: I'm still trying to stop feeling old that The Blair Witch Project was 10 years ago, but I had not heard of Paranormal Activity until its initial release in 13 "college towns" designed to build up buzz. Looking at the journey it's taken to get this far, including a planned remake that was scrapped when they decided to just release the original film straight from the camcorder, this is still a truly remarkable story (despite the comparisons to Blair Witch) and the success is definitely impressive.
Jason Lee: I heard about this relatively recently but saw its "word-of-mouth" power firsthand this Friday when I went to see the Toy Story double feature and witnessed huge lines of teens waiting in line. Its weekend venue average of $49,690 is outrageous, though I'll be interested to see how it performs as it continues platforming out.
Reagen Sulewski: It's about time that someone used the power of this recent iteration of viral media to launch an underground film. There's a lot of power in the collective experience and in being on the cutting edge of something, and this campaign utilizes both of those. Not to mention the idea of getting people to request the film - not to get all marketing weasel here, but encouraging people to take ownership of a project like this is powerful stuff as far as inspiring action.
David Mumpower: If you ever meet anyone who claims they knew this would happen, they are either lying or have no idea how box office behavior works. Consider the following: Paranormal Activity's first weekend per-venue average was $6,489 at 12 theaters. The second weekend's per-venue average was $16,129 at 33 theaters. The third weekend's per-venue average was $49,694 at 160 theaters. These numbers are exactly backwards of how the process is supposed to work. In fact, the third weekend per-venue average by itself represents a factor of three more than the film cost to make. I guess that audiences want to be shocked about once a decade by a homemade horror film. Odds are that we are watching the box office story of the year with Paranormal Activity.
Reagen Sulewski: That's somewhat mitigated by expanding to more regular screenings from midnight only stuff, but any way you slice it, those are huge per screen numbers this far into its release.