One Month Out: Part Two
By BOP Staff
November 4, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Rather than do something mainstream like Halo or continuing the Lord of the Rings franchise with The Hobbit, Jackson chose to do something more somber and bittersweet with an adaptation of the popular novel The Lovely Bones. What are your expectations for this film with regards to box office, quality and awards contention?
Josh Spiegel: My guess is that everyone involved should be focusing solely on the latter two elements, quality and awards potential. If The Lovely Bones had been released a few years ago, back when the book was still massively popular, the box office numbers could have gone pretty high. It's been a while, though, since the book hit the big-time, so mass appeal may have cooled a bit. If Lovely Bones brings out the same Peter Jackson as, say, Heavenly Creatures, Paramount could get some big nominations (and frankly, because of its prestige and Paramount's already-known choice to keep this film in 2009 awards contention, the movie's probably going to get a Best Picture nod unless it's truly awful). For its box office, though, Lovely Bones may get respectable numbers (somewhere around a total of $100-125 million), but I'd be surprised if it dominates the holiday box office in the same way as movies like Alvin and the Chipmunks or Marley and Me have.
Kim Hollis: I think it's interesting that you mention Heavenly Creatures, Josh, because that's the previous Jackson film this reminds me most of. It looks similarly otherworldly and ethereal while being grounded in a story that is based in the real-world rather than the Shire or Skull Island. Yes, it's able to have some intriguing and engaging effects because the lead character is in some form of heaven, but that's not the basis for the entire film. I do think this has a strong chance to be one of the leading award contenders of the year and with December legs, financial prospects are solid, particularly with good reviews and word-of-mouth.
Max Braden: I don't know anything about the source material, but from the trailer I get a mixed vibe of Mystic River, The Sixth Sense, Nicholas Sparks, Dead Like Me, Touched by An Angel... Peter Jackson's name will certainly be a boost to both the box office and award prospects. I would expect around $100 million total gross and a top contender for Best Picture Oscar.
Brett Beach: The Lovely Bones. My marketing tactic: I think Peter Jackson should go on a video blog and make an appeal to everyone of his worldwide fans who has seen The Lord of the Rings trilogy more than twice to go see The Lovely Bones the weekend it opens in their city. Just to completely mess with everyone's ability to predict how it will do. I started the book once and was not able to get through it. I think it's a fascinating premise that may work better (for me) as a film than it did as a novel. The cast is impeccable (Tucci as a killer!) and the production design will probably give us one of the most spectacular "heavens" ever. I put it in my top 10 for the fall films I am most excited about. But all this is tempered with the fact that I did not did not did not like King Kong. And Peter Jackson lost a lot of luster for me because of it. It will be the second most nominated film of the year at the Oscars (after Nine, because of the latter's very nominate-able cast and The Weinstein Machine gearing up to come roaring back to life). With awards and buzz and talk, it will clear $125 million before leaving the theaters.
George Rose: Quality will be through the roof, no doubts about that, and it will hopefully (fingers crossed) dominate the awards season. As far as box office, I'm not so optimistic. It's a pretty obscure premise and, while people have yet to catch on to James Cameron's pretentiousness, the Peter Jackson name doesn't seem to carry Cameron-style weight. Nothing would make me prouder, though, than to see it outgross Avatar. I don't see that happening, though. Based on absolutely no data, my gut says I'd be content with $100 million, thrilled with $150 million, and would consider it one of the biggest surprise stories of the year if it breaks $200 million.
Michael Lynderey: The Lovely Bones comes off like one of those Oscar shoe-ins that opens just OK but then ends up with Departed- or Beautiful Mind-type numbers. I suspect the reviews on this one are going to be strong, and it's going to play like out like an A-list Best Picture contender, on the level of Benjamin Button at the very least. But it won't come close to any of Jackson's other December movies.
David Mumpower: I'm less optimistic about this one's box office than most of you. Unless it becomes a serious awards contender, something that would probably double its domestic revenue, I see this as another disappointment in the vein of King Kong. The subject matter is simply too depressing otherwise. I see this as a different take on the Mystic River premise, and that's a film that failed to earn $100 million. Given that Peter Jackson's name didn't seem to matter much in selling an already marketable film in King Kong, I'm not sure why we are expecting this to be a blockbuster. All of this changes, of course, if the film garners glowing reviews. Until then, I see this as a film that nestles in the $75 million range and everyone involved should be pleased with that.
Elementary, my dear...
Kim Hollis: After divorcing Madonna, Guy Ritchie did the unexpected and chose a very commercial project. Sherlock Holmes has name recognition and one of the hottest actors of the moment in Robert Downey Jr., plus Rachel McAdams and Jude Law. What are you expecting from this film?
Josh Spiegel: Unless audiences get wind of some pretty terrible word-of-mouth before Christmas Day, I would expect Sherlock Holmes to at least start out with solid numbers. Every time I see the trailer, I'm reminded of Downey Jr. in Iron Man; if everyone makes that association, what with Holmes being more physical and seeming more raffish than, say, the original character, it may lead to good numbers. Of course, anyone familiar with the Sherlock Holmes mythos may wonder what Guy Ritchie and company have done to the detective, but I'd wager that the movie will have a good-to-great opening.
Kim Hollis: I don't think it matters to *most* people whether the literary character has been violated. Yes, there are some diehards who are pretty likely to be upset about the changes to the story, but for most people who just like to go to the movies and have fun, everything I've seen with regard to the film looks like it's going to deliver precisely that. It's not quite going to have the full benefit of December legs, but I expect this to do around $220 million by the time it's all said and done.
Max Braden: I'm personally giddy over the combination of Holmes, Downey, McAdams, and Ritchie. Holmes is a well known character and Ritchie has a reputation for telling dynamic stories. But he's clearly chosen a studio-style reboot look to the project, moving away from the snooty egghead to more physical Bond/Batman action hero. I expect Sherlock Holmes' box office to be similar to (if slightly a little less because it's a period piece) the National Treasure series. They opened at Thanksgiving and Christmas with $35 million and $44 million, and finished with $173 million and $220 million.
Jim Van Nest: I like the potential for Sherlock Holmes. It WAY outranks Avatar on my most anticipated list. I think Josh nailed it, as long as it doesn't suck, Holmes could be the winner of the holiday season. Robert Downey Jr. is hot right now and the trailers look pretty damn good.
Sean Collier: I'm going out on a limb and predicting Holmes to win December. It strikes me as the painfully obvious choice for the omnipresent family-at-the-movies demographic over the Christmas season; Avatar is a bit too cumbersome for the whole family, and the kid's movies that are coming out are too young-skewing. I'm betting that nearly every family in America who pops into the multiplex between the 25th and the 1st will pick Holmes, to say nothing of how well it will do if it's actually well reviewed.
Reagen Sulewski: What's interesting about this to me is that as famous as Ritchie is, there's a strong chance that this will open to over twice the combined total domestic gross of his previous films (about 85% of which is due to Snatch.). It'll be something to see if mass audiences really respond to his style of film making, or if he's toned it down some for the franchise.
Eric Hughes: This movie - or at least its trailer - feels so Pirates of the Caribbean-esque to me (with Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law and Rachel McAdams filling in for Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley, respectively). It looks so goofy and playful, and I'd expect it to open with fairly decent numbers. I'm with Josh in that Sherlock will at least open with solid numbers. It can then potentially sprout Pirates-like legs if the product is good.
George Rose: It looks like the offspring of Pirates of the Crribbean and any one of the Three Musketeer incarnations. Since both have been done and overdone already, I don't see it becoming any sort of classic. The cast looks great, I'll give it that, but I don't see this coming close to owning the holiday season. It needs to make at least as much as G.I. Joe's $150 million to not look like a total fool and over $200 million to justify a sequel. I see it making just about that, but not much more.
Michael Lynderey: This may be one of those holiday movies that seems to have done everything right, but then goes ahead and disappoints anyway. I don't know what it is, but I just get a bad feeling about this one. Call it a hunch. Either the movie will be too weird, or people won't care about Sherlock Holmes enough to see it, or the kids will rebel, or something. Bottom line is, I wouldn't be surprised if the total came in under $100 million, perhaps even significantly so.
Brett Beach: Sherlock Holmes. Robert Downey Jr.? Yay! Jude Law? Woo-hoo! Rachel McAdams? Tah-rah! Guy Ritchie with the biggest flipping budget of his 15 year career? Very, very scary. I think it could be a roaring big spectacle full of fun and wit and action or a complete mess with some redeeming features. The trailers so far offer me no indication to cast a deciding opinion. Best case scenario: a triple feature of this and It's Complicated and Up in the Air (along with some fortified eggnog) could be just what the doctor ordered on Christmas Day.
David Mumpower: I wish I got the Pirates of the Caribbean vibe from the trailer. I love Guy Ritchie, I love Robert Downey Jr. and I love Rachel McAdams. I have been fired up about this project from the moment it was announced in spite of the presence of Jude Law. That's why I was so surprised to find myself disappointed by the trailer, which felt like that Three Musketeers re-make Tim Roth and Stephen Rea did in 2001. From talking with other people, I seem to have a minority opinion here, so I feel comfortable saying this will be a box office blockbuster. As a movie fan, I am very worried that the quality may be lacking here although it's possible that the best parts aren't easily encapsulated in a trailer.
The thrill of a nothing-nothing tie...
Kim Hollis: Up-and-comer Clint Eastwood had the most successful film of his career at the tender age of 78 with Gran Torino. Now he follows that up with a movie that looks like a combination of Victory (an underrated Sylvester Stallone film) and Remember the Titans but is in reality a Nelson Mandela biopic starring Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon. Do you think this is another $100 million film for Eastwood? And is he about to take home his 75th Oscar nomination?
Josh Spiegel: I think it's a double yes; granted, the box office question is a bit more nebulous, but I will be shocked if Invictus doesn't get Picture and Director nods at the Oscars, if only because Eastwood's still working. Frankly, by starting out with advertising the film during the World Series, Warner Bros. is aiming at mass audiences, some of whom might not be aware of the movie, even with Jason Bourne being one of the stars. This is easily one of my most anticipated movies of the upcoming season, and considering that I disliked and hated Eastwood's last two films, respectively (Changeling and Gran Torino), it proves how interesting a filmmaker Dirty Harry can be. Warner Bros. most likely has a big winner here.
Max Braden: I think no on the $100 million box office. Gran Torino appeared to offer more action than something like Mystic River and featured a cast of young actors in addition to himself. But the audience that relates to what they saw in Gran Torino are probably too young to have much Mandela awareness. The title "Invictus" isn't going to draw anyone in. I'd expect a total box office in the range (under $40 million) of projects like Milk, Frost/Nixon, and The Last King of Scotland, maybe more if Warner Bros. expands the release from limited to wide release. Chances of Oscar nominations are pretty high though, I think.
Kim Hollis: I think I fall in with Max's opinion, here. Invictus does not feel like a film that is going to attract a wide audience. There's no angry Clint, Matt Damon isn't kicking any Bourne-style ass, and Morgan Freeman has just been creepy recently. This will be a small-scale success, and certainly has awards potential, but it's a mid-level box office performer at best.
Jim Van Nest: Gran Torino had something going for it that Invictus does not. Gran Torino, to many people, was their last chance to see Clint as a badass. At 78-years-old, he doesn't have many parts like that left in him...probably none. Invictus is probably a shoo-in for several Oscar nominations, but box office wise, it's going to fare as many Oscar nominees do, $25-35 million with wonderful reviews.
Sean Collier: The plot is probably going to be a little too highbrow for mass audiences. Oscar noms, certainly, especially with 10 Best Picture nominees, but I can't see this resonating with crowds.
George Rose: I remember glimpses of the one time I saw this trailer and I wasn't impressed. I know I only saw it one time because I had no interest in checking it out again online, which I often do when intrigued. Damon isn't exactly aging as well as, say, George Clooney, and Freeman isn't a big box office draw. Nothing about this movie screams "must see" for me. If it's lucky it'll crawl towards $100 million, but that's an uninterested guess. It could make $200 million and it wouldn't faze me. If a success, I'd chalk it up to goodwill towards the cast and crew. If a failure, I'd chalk it up to crap marketing. Either way, I probably won't see it unless/until it gets awards recognition.
Michael Lynderey: I really wanna say no to that $100 million, but then, that's what almost anyone would have said about Million Dollar Baby and Gran Torino even a month before they came out. These December Eastwood movies really have a habit of shaming box office analysts (to me, the Torino numbers still stand as a beacon of inexplicability). That said, I'm indeed going ahead and saying "no" to $100 million, though I will no doubt once again be proven wrong. It's really hard to screw up a ready-made Oscar package like this one, so yet another nod for Eastwood is pretty likely. But there's no way he's gonna win.
Reagen Sulewski: I'm a lot more positive on this than the rest of you, I think - uninviting title aside, it's hard to think of someone more respected than Mandela, and Damon playing a straighter role is something with a lot of potential. And it's not strictly a biopic, but it's close enough and people love those. I think the toughest thing for people to get over will be the accents.
David Mumpower: Like Reagen, I see this as the most commercial project he's done in ages. I will be amused if it does significantly worse (say 50%) than Gran Torino for that reason. Invictus actually feels like a Disney movie a la Remember the Titans more than an awards contender. Of course, the story is probably much more involved than what the commercials are indicating but thus far, it seems like it should be a double feature with The Blind Side. The combination of Damon, Freeman and Eastwood looks like a huuuuuuuge winner on paper, but we should keep in mind that Angelina Jolie + Clint Eastwood looked great on paper as well. Eastwood plus a lot of non-actors was the $150 million blockbuster, though. That man's career in the 2000s seems to grow more obfuscating with each new release. I think Invictus is a $100 million movie, but nothing surprises me about Eastwood's movies these days.