Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
October 19, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Where the Wild Things Are opened to $32.7 million in 3,735 locations. Is this a win for Warner Bros.?
Tom Macy: I'm going to go with a solid hell yes! Sure, buzz ramped up for WTWTA (eh, that doesn't work so well as an acronym does it?) pretty impressively over the last two months. It was on everyone's radar, I felt like I could strike up a conversation with anyone about it and they'd be eager to continue, as opposed to what usually happens when I strike up a conversation about movies. "What? Oh someone's calling me." So maybe with the ultra saturated release, some feel this opening is about on target, no more, no less. But think about the perceived state of the production before the trailer came out. It was a punchline. Yes, there was curiosity but it was never a built-in-audience-shoe-in. Six months ago WB would have salivated at the thought of a $30 million opening.
Josh Spiegel: Considering that the project has been in development for years, there were rumors about the movie going over-budget, the film potentially not being a winner for kids, and the like, seeing this movie top the box office with over $30 million without any big-name stars is a big win. I'm not sure if the movie's going to act like a typical kids' movie, based on how it performed each day this weekend. The legs may not be as strong as something like Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, but that this movie got made and did successfully enough in its opening weekend is enough of a pleasant surprise.
Jim Van Nest: As much as I love the book, I really thought this had disaster written all over it. There's not enough book to make a movie...which means there has to be a ton of stuff added in to fill out the time, which is a scary proposition, to me anyway. So, I'd say that $32 million is a huge win for them. This should have solid legs and like Josh said should make up for all the time spent in development.
Reagen Sulewski: As beloved as Spike Jonze is among a certain segment (one I include myself in), he's never been a commercial filmmaker. This is just $10 million shy of the combined gross of Adaptation and Being John Malkovich, so to say that this was something of a dicey commercial project is an understatement. I think he was working with a lot of public good will towards the subject matter, thin as it is, and we can't underestimate the effect of those early rapturous reviews. Warner Bros. did a fantastic job of getting the movie out early to the right people to spread the good word.
Brett Beach: As further validation of my fear that I no longer sail on the shiny seas of pop culture information, I must confess that a) I was amazed to realize this was Spike Jonze's first big-screen helming credit since Adaptation in 2002 and b) I was ignorant of any indication there was a wall of negative buzz surrounding the production. As aware as I was of the book and certain that I did read it as a child, it did not impact me in the way it seems to have hit others of my generations (my favorite childhood book was "Oliver Button is a Sissy" for the record.) For Warner Bros. to entrust an $80 million venture with a director who could aptly be described as both visionary and off-putting was a leap of faith on their part. To stick with him and allow him to maintain his vision (as I understand it), financially scared though they may have been, may qualify as a latter-day miracle. Somebody contact the Vatican (if it hasn't been sold yet). Solid an opening weekend as this is, it's too early to pin it as a win. I think the second weekend will tell if word-of-mouth is enough to bring in the fence sitters and concerned parents who may not have brought their kids yet. Sigh. This makes me wish Babe: Pig in the City had been allowed a fighting chance. . .
Jason Lee: Anytime a movie is in development for almost ten years, alarm bells automatically go off in my brain. The fact that this movie will end up in the black before international and overseas grosses are factored in is fantastic for WB.
Max Braden: I think it's impressive in that this movie falls between a kid-friendly movie like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and an adult fantasy like Lord of the Rings. The demographic for this movie was largely adult and more of an art film than action piece. Plus Where The Wild Things Are had no visible stars like other movies.
George Rose: This is the worst of the best case scenarios, which still makes it pretty good. Over $40 million would make it a breakout success. With just over $30 million, it's going to need Cloudy With a Chance of Meatball-style legs for it to be a big win in the long run. For now, it's a pretty good result considering the source material is a nine-sentence kids book. Maybe I just expected more considering its great $12 million start on Friday.
Nothing like a hot mess for tearing up the box office
Kim Hollis: Law Abiding Citizen, the latest Taken-esque revenge flick, opened to $21.0 million, torching expectations. Explain this.
Josh Spiegel: Well, is there an explanation? We can't chalk this up to Gerard Butler being the star (or co-star with Jamie Foxx, but Butler's got the flashier role), because Gamer didn't do too well. Maybe it's that people still love revenge movies? I don't know, sometimes you just wonder if people go to movies because they feel like they should go to movies. This one amounts to a disappointed shrug at its success.
Jim Van Nest: I think it's 100% that people like revenge movies. People like the thought of having the balls to go on a rampage like that when they are wronged. 99% of them, however, DON'T have the balls...so they go to the movies and yell at the screen, "That's EXACTLY what I would have done!!!!"
Tom Macy: I'd rather not have to explain it. My forehead is still red from the abuse it took while watching he Taken numbers roll in. Maybe Gerard Butler personally went door to door wearing a six-pack T-shirt (because there's no way that thing was real in 300) with a boombox blasting Nine Inch Nails screaming: THIS! IS! GERARD!!!! BUTLER!!! ROOOOAAAARRRR! Personally, I would have just shut the door in his face, but some folks are mesmerized by six-packs.
Other than that scenario, which I think is the most plausible, there really hasn't been another straight up action/thriller option for manly men who don't watch baseball or football in awhile. I know Surrogates, but come on. People like Jamie Foxx, they like Gerard Butler. It was well placed to scoop up the target demographic.
Brett Beach: An opening north of $20 million? Very surprising . Here are my three key theories: 1) Everyone kept hearing it pitched as Saw meets something something (Law and Order or Taken were referenced a lot) and the women thought, "Ooh, it's Saw but with more hunky people at the core," while the men observed, "Dude, it's going to be like Taken but more violent." Voila! A de facto date movie that pleases both genders is born. 2) A male variation on the Halle Berry/Swordfish gambit where a brief hyped nude scene is worth at least a few million more in box office. I don't know how much Butler laid on the line, but it got mentioned in a number of reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. 3) F. Gary Gray's fanbase is a lot larger than people remembered and they have been patiently biding their time since Be Cool.
Reagen Sulewski: This had to be the most ridiculous premise for a film in ages - and maybe that's the point. It went so over the top that audiences were left thinking, "well, OK, let's see how they pull this off." I'm a bit flabbergasted that this is worth $20 million plus.
Tony Kollath: I'm not saying that the name of this movie sucks, but the title writing team that came up with "Law Abiding Citizen" thinks that the guys that did "Love Happens" are geniuses.
Jason Lee: Color me stunned that this movie opened over $20 million. It boggles the mind to think about how much money and time was siphoned off by this film from hard working Americans this weekend.
Max Braden: Last year, Max Payne opened this weekend to $17.6 million, and Gamer opened to just over half that. I think a contrast between those two and Law Abiding Citizen is that LAB doesn't go for the sci-fi angle. Both it and Taken are revenge action pieces, but they also share a realism (not in plot, but just environment) that I think appeals to audiences. I'd attribute it to Jason Bourne and the reboot of Bond away from the sci-fi gadgets to something grittier.
Sean Collier: Something about the plot just resonated with crowds - when I went in for my Friday morning radio reviews gig, I was stunned to find that the hosts wanted to hear about Law Abiding Citizen over Where the Wild Things Are. Maybe the pairing had something to do with it as well - while Butler and Foxx have both failed to draw in audiences all on their own, perhaps the combination had some casual fans intrigued.
George Rose: I think people want Butler and Foxx to succeed. I know I sure do. Their problems seem to be more with the roles they chose, not their ability to act or connect with an audience. Butler's Gamer and Foxx's The Soloist both looked like easy paychecks taken without much attention paid to the script. I've been excited about Law Abiding Citizen since the first trailer. I wanted to see it even after all the negative reviews came in. I like the actors and this is their first film in quite some time that looks tolerable. Given the rarity of such a film on their resumes, "tolerable" quickly becomes "must-see". Better this than Stealth 2.