Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
December 22, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Do you think Avatar's opening weekend, with its $242 million worldwide and $77 million domestically, can be judged now, or do you think we need to wait until the holiday season has played out to make a call about its performance?
Reagen Sulewski: If it had only done, say, $40 or 50 million, the knives would be out already, so I'd say it's fair to look at this opening weekend and say that it's done a good job so far. The final judgment is going to vary a lot depending on whether it peters out at $250 million, or makes it to $400 million plus.
Sean Collier: Basically, this weekend kept the books open on Avatar. $50 million or less and we would've been calling it a flop; $90 million or more and we would have been calling it Titanic 2. In this range, it's doing fine, and we have to wait to pass judgment. One of the more interesting aspects of the run is going to be how much of a sci-fi fanbase it'll build up; that will go a long way to determining the practicality of all the sequels and encyclopedias and theme parks in outer space and genetic research into manufacturing big blue actors Cameron is talking about.
Tom Macy: Check back after New Year's. Sure it can be judged. I'm judging it right now. But I don't think this past weekend is the full story of Avatar, it's just - pun alert - the tip of the iceberg. Maybe I'm overly optimistic about its legs - I was certainly wrong about Princess and the Frog, which I'm totally bummed about - but judging by the nearly universally positive response - the audience I saw it with was totally enthusiastic - anyone who was on the fence about whether to see Avatar will probably come out during the holiday period.
Michael Lynderey: It's definitely too early to judge Avatar now, and that's always the case for a movie like this, which has no ingrained fanbase and was always going to glean a large chunk of its box office from word-of-mouth and Christmas legs. How long those legs are, and how sturdy, is the key factor that'll make the difference between Avatar being just a solid grosser or a real box office monstrosity (a $300 million+ earner, say). $200 million domestically now seems like an easy lock, so I'd say the movie's traveled beyond the worst-case-scenario levels.
Matthew Huntley: I think we (and Fox) will have to wait until the holiday season has played out to know whether or not to call the film's performance a full-fledged victory. With a production and marketing budget that supposedly runs close to half a billion dollars, the film isn't in the green yet, but I think it's safe to say a collective sigh of relief can be had for how well the film has done so far.
Max Braden: I think given how strong the response has been from people who have seen it, we can expect strong performance into the coming weeks. I don't get the feeling that this was tremendously front-loaded. I want to say it will cross the $300 million mark, but I wonder if the possible loss of IMAX box office in the next couple months might make that hard to reach.
Pete Kilmer: It's going to be "THE" Christmas family movie to see. Sorry Sherlock, you'll do well no doubt, but Avatar is going to be an "experience" kind of film that the whole family will do.
Kim Hollis: With all the reports of repeat viewings, I'm really thinking it's got a great shot at being something really special. I'll reserve full judgment until I have a little more information, but it's feeling like a very strong start to me.
I'll never let go, Avatar. I'll never let go.
Kim Hollis: Ultimately, how do you think Avatar will be remembered?
Reagen Sulewski: Jurassic Park seems like a decent enough analog, as far as the idea of what movies can do visually. I think other filmmakers are going to drool at the idea of getting their hands on these tools and putting them to better use.
Sean Collier: The film that made most movies cost $4 more, and made me wear uncomfortable glasses for a couple of hours every week.
Matthew Huntley: If the film's story feels derivative, it's the visuals that stand out as something truly awesome and one-of-a-kind. I'm sure a lot more films will be shot in this 3D fashion, but it's always the first one that's the most indelible.
Tom Macy: That's tough. I think financially and critically it will be remembered as a success and usually that's all a film can hope for and more. But from the beginning Avatar was being touted as the movie that was going to change the medium forever, and on the front it came up a little short. It is definitely on a scale unlike anything we've ever seen and motion capture will probably be utilized more now after the stunning results Cameron turned out. But ultimately I think Avatar will be remembered as a sturdy stepping stone in the evolution of films, but not the all out game changer some were (perhaps unfairly) hoping for.
Max Braden: I'd have to see it to go so far in putting it up there with Jurassic Park. I think The Abyss and Terminator 2 were actually more groundbreaking for Cameron because of their photorealistic effects on fluid cgi in general, and Jurassic Park was kind of a first in making organic objects look convincingly real. Without having seen Avatar I feel like it's more the next step in an innovative process than a first, but I'm willing to be convinced once I see it.
Pete Kilmer: I think it will be placed alongside Jurassic Park and then kind of set aside. I think the somewhat lackluster story (and I loved this film) will limit its DVD sales until home 3-D is a reality and then the movie will get another look as the groundbreaking visual spectacle it is.
David Mumpower: I think it has a chance to be mentioned in the same breath as Wizard of Oz and Toy Story in terms of technological advancements creating an unprecedented movie-going experience. It's also going to be the Lou Gehrig to the Babe Ruth-ian Titanic in his filmography. More than anything else, what Cameron has done here is prove once and for all that he should not be underestimated in any circumstance. His next failure in this industry will be his first.
Reagen Sulewski: What's interesting to me is that this film is becoming a lot of people's first real introduction to the new 3-D style. I'd seen a bit of the technology before so I knew what to expect, but it's first film that has to has to has to be seen in 3-D to really be appreciated. Even though it's not all that different than a lot of the animated films that have come out in the last year or so, Avatar is going to get a lot of the credit for pushing the tech.
Kim Hollis: Reagen, I've seen pretty much every animated film in 3-D this year, and I believe Avatar's 3-D is worlds beyond it. Before I saw Avatar, I would have gone so far as to say the only movie that was actually worth seeing in 3-D was Coraline. Now, with Avatar, I think it must be seen in 3-D to get the real effect. The viewer is immersed in the film. It's spectacular. My only question is how its longevity is impacted by TV viewing. It is simply not going to be the same. I wonder if that will hurt it in the long run.
Love is not actually all around for Hugh during this holiday season
Kim Hollis: Did You Hear About the Morgans finished in fourth place with $7 million. Why couldn't Sony turn this one into a hit?
Sean Collier: Hugh Grant, Sarah Jessica Parker: Old and busted. Now, someone please find every single poster and billboard bearing the phrase "Did You Hear About the Morgans?" and write "No" on them.
Reagen Sulewski: Dear Sony: Next time, include jokes.
Tom Macy: I'm slightly surprised this didn't fare better. I would have thought if movies like Ghosts of Girlfriends Past and Confessions of a Shopaholic could open to $15 million this could too. There always seems to be a place for lighthearted fare this time of year. I guess Mr. Grant just doesn't have the Two Weeks Notice pull he used to. Also, it might be a stretch, but the only images I have of this film are of a summer-y/wilderness landscape. Doesn't exactly evoke the holidays. Look for Streep and Baldwin with It's Complicated to show 'em how it's done next weekend.
Michael Lynderey: This for me is the real box office story of the week (no, really). The low-key numbers here are just weird, especially in a year that has turned so many similar movies (comedies with name actors) into inexplicable mega-hits. Yes, the reviews on the Morgans seemed more negative than usual for this type of picture, but it should still have been able to open decently - if on star power and high concept alone. Maybe the target audience is holding out for It's Complicated. Color me confused.
Shalimar Sahota: Although it involves an already married couple, it still has the stench of, "seen-all-its-unfunnyness-before" about it.
Matthew Huntley: I think it's simple: nothing seemed original or funny about this movie's idea. We've seen it before with City Slickers and For Richer or Poorer, and also Sweet Home Alabama - the idea of, well, city slickers trying to survive in a rural environment. Because the script is (likely) hackneyed and we know the actors are above this material, audiences were probably thinking, why even give this movie a chance? Next to Avatar, Morgans looks so plain and ordinary. It's a movie that should have been released in the spring, when an opening of $7 million wouldn't seem as bad.
Max Braden: Could it be that audiences have become too sophisticated to laugh at big city folk yukking it up in rural settings? Wait, who am I kidding?
Ben Farrow: They skipped this movie because it looked exactly what it was - jokes about how urbane sophisticates bumble around until they find the real meaning of life. the trailer with Grant talking to the bear about how he meant to join PETA was crap. I don't think hicks passed on this, because it wasn't aimed at hicks. Your urbane city dweller decided he didn't want to see it because it's Christmas time and two hours of your life is too much to give up for crap.
Reagen Sulewski: Hix Pix in Stix Nixed by Mix.
Pete Kilmer: No one wants to see Sarah Jessica Parker out in the forest. Her movie persona is not believable out there. Plus, she's not Jennifer Aniston.
David Mumpower: This entire discussion reminds me of the time that The Love Letter was sacrificed to the gods of cinema as a tribute to the other weekend's release, Star Wars: Episode One - The Phantom Menace. We're talking about a movie that is a historical footnote of trivia and little else. I blame Sarah Jessica Parker, mainly because I dislike her in everything (L.A. Story excluded).