Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
February 15, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: The subtly named Valentine's Day achieved a self-fulfilling prophecy by dominating the Valentine's weekend box office with $52.4 million. How did Warner Bros. achieve such a remarkable result?
Josh Spiegel: Marketing, marketing, marketing. In the same way that horror movies do well with teenagers, romantic comedies do well with plenty of men looking to please or placate their women, or women who want to go out with friends, even if said movie is apparently neither romantic nor funny. It also helps that the marketing team tried to make people assume, correctly or not, that Valentine's Day was the American version of Love Actually (which has the distinction of being both romantic and funny). Also, it really can't hurt a movie if every single actor in the world is in it. Because that appears to be the case here.
Calvin Trager: There are two factors here. One is the title, and the second is the release date. Ultimately it proves we are a crass, baseless society.
Michael Lynderey: I seem to remember that Valentine's Day was announced just a few days after He's Just Not That Into You hit it real big, and the film serves as a demonstration of a process Hollywood does best: take something that worked on a lower scale and replicate it, but make it bigger on every level. In this case, that meant almost three times as many name actors and subplots, with a perfect release date and a title that was unreservedly unapologetic about its intentions. It looks like they're doing another one of these for New Year's Eve, and I hope they make a 2010 release date - I always enjoy old-school showmanship like that, especially the concept of a sequel being greenlighted, produced, and released in the same year as the film it's following up (see Breakin' (May 1984) and Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo (December 1984) for another example of this phenomenon).
Tim Briody: They put out a movie called Valentine's Day over...Valentine's Day. It doesn't take a bunch of geniuses to figure that one out. I look forward to the 80% collapse next weekend, which just so happens to not contain Valentine's Day.
Shalimar Sahota: Movie studios have always tired to capitalize on dates on the movie calendar, so putting out a movie called Valentine's Day on Valentine's Day means that regardless of the quality people (or couples who are happy to be spoon fed whatever trash comes their way) will flock to see it. It's like brainwashing for the brainless. Warners must have known this and pictured that couples would opt for the easy choice this weekend:
COUPLE AT MOVIE THEATER TRYING TO DECIDE WHAT TO WATCH:
Hot Woman (dressed in "Guaranteed To Get Some Tonight" clothes): Hmm, what to watch? Well, it is Valentine's Day, and there's a film called Valentine's Day. It would be wrong not to watch Valentine's Day on Valentine's Day.
Man (realizing that the film is going to be awful but also knows that the woman he's with is too hot for him, so goes along with every decision she makes because he's afraid of losing her): Okay!
But then mindlessly following on pretty much sums up the day itself – people give flowers and chocolates to their loved ones, not really questioning why they have to do it on February 14th since they can do it on any other day of the year. I guess it's for couples that are unable to spread love all year round so they need a day to remind them.
Next year, Valentine's Day Part 2: Breaking Up.
Calvin Trager: Shalimar, your screenplay was funny but lacked an emotional core. It should be more like that movie "Valentine's Day: Any Of You Know Who Robert Altman Is? No? Good!" I have several more thoughts. First, how is Will Smith not in this movie? Taylor Swift and Taylor Lautner will "break up" via their publicists within three months. And lastly, somewhere out there a very deluded screenwriter is talking themselves into taking a crack at St. Patrick's Day: The Movie.
Reagen Sulewski: Calvin, you're about a month too late on the Taylor/Taylor split, though I do hold out hope that Swift will marry Courtney Taylor-Taylor of The Dandy Warhols. If it feels like I'm evading the question, well... hey, look over there!
What's funniest about this result to me is that it flies in the face of all the usual excuse making that studios do when their films flop. Bad weather? Check. Olympics on TV? Check. Strong competition? Check and check. Whenever you see a studio flack spinning a box office report from now on, point them to this weekend.
Kim Hollis: I think that once again we're seeing that the under-served female demographic is turning out for a movie that is targeted solidly their way. Studios are recognizing the power of this group's dollars, and although I don't think they can keep throwing garbage at the screen and hoping it sticks, it's a fine strategy for the short term.
Tom Macy: Man, now that I've vowed to never mention Avatar in an MMQB post ever again (aw, dammit!) I was hoping I'd stop explaining a film's success without using the word "wow." I had no doubt this would be successful but at $52 million, Valentine's Day had almost the highest opening for a romantic comedy ever – a bit shy of Sex and the City's $57 million a couple years ago. With no built in audience to explain this type of breakout success, you have to at least acknowledge the possibility that some guys may not have been just tolerating taking their girlfriends but actually greeted the prospect with genuine enthusiasm. How did WB pull this off? Someone figured out that a movie and popcorn is a lot cheaper than the Valentine's Day prefix at The Cheesecake Factory.
Jason Lee: I look forward to Holiday 2011, when we get treated to "The Holiday Season" by James Cameron, which will appropriately come with the subtitle "Help Me Yet Again Break My Own Record".
The Gods were on his side
Kim Hollis: Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief opened to $31.1 million. Is this more, less, or about what you were expecting?
Josh Spiegel: A bit more, but not too much more. It's no surprise that Fox wanted to make people assume that Percy Jackson was a creative cousin to Harry Potter; along with having Chris Columbus as the director, presenting three young leads, two male and one female, alongside a bevy of well-known actors, from Sean Bean to Pierce Brosnan to Uma Thurman, the Harry Potter connections are inescapable. Also, with Avatar finally winding down (well, maybe not completely, but it's obviously not as dominant with more movies flooding the marketplace), young boys were looking for a new movie to check out. Percy Jackson fit the bill.
Michael Lynderey: It's more than I would've thought, and a decent result for a subgenre that has been faltering lately. But the number isn't as inexplicable to me as, say, Dear John's - Percy Jackson had some summer-esque special effects, the novelty of being the first movie in a while to use Greek mythology, and a few recognizable faces to attract adult audiences. The fact that no children's movie had really broken out so far in 2010 helped immensely, and the lack of anything appealing to a younger demographic until early March is going to help with legs. So, Fox may have the franchise they wanted with this one.
Reagen Sulewski: Let's hear it for formula! From most accounts this series just crosses out "Harry Potter" and "wizards" to make the appropriate changes, so for a series that doesn't have nearly the heat, this is a very good result. Expect them to get at least two sequels out of this.
But you know who's got to be really pissed is the producers of Clash of the Titans.
Tom Macy: It's weird when you start realizing that all the popular movies are ones you absolutely no interest in seeing (now, if the film were called Peter Jackson & The Olympians like I originally thought when I first saw the poster, that would be a different story). When I saw the scope of the special effects in the trailer, I assumed if that much money was being put into this film, there had to be a solid built-in audience somewhere, and it turns out I was right. Not being plugged into the pulse of popular teen books series I don't know if Percy's overall popularity is more widespread than the likes of The Spiderwick Chronilces, Inkheart and The Vampire's Assistant and if that is the chief reason it succeeded in the market where those other films did not. But I will say, based on trailers alone - since that's all I have to go by - of those four films if I had to watch one, it'd be Peter - excuse me - Percy Jackson.
Jason Lee: If it's even possible, I was more surprised by this gross than that of Valentine's Day. How on earth did this cheesy, fantasy kids movie with it's cheesy, nonsensical commercials manage to do what The Golden Compass, Eragon, The Dark Is Rising, etc. fail at doing? The commercials could have featured the line "Watch it at 8:00 pm this Sunday on ABC Family!" and I would have believed it. Kudos to Fox, but I bet you anything that the sequel bombs out.
Kim Hollis: I'm with you, Jason. I saw nothing about Percy Jackson that made it stand out from every other so-so or awful kid flick that has been released over the past few years. I have no idea where this audience came from.
Pete Kilmer: It's about right for this movie. After seeing this movie I expect it to quickly drop off. The direction was a by the numbers route from Chris Columbus and the most of the actors who weren't Kevin McKidd or Sean Bean or really anyone under the age of 30 were terrible. Logan Lerman was pretty flat. He's not gonna be the new Peter Parker anytime soon. The story missed out on tons of things (how can you not use the battle skills of Annabeth when you go out of the way to mention them?). Pierce Brosnan, McKidd, Bean, and Uma Thurman were all excellent in their roles. It would have been cool to see a movie about them.
One thing I hope is that Kevin McKidd gets some play from this for more movies. When I pointed out to the girlfriend's son that he was "Soap" from Modern Warfare 2, he freaked out and wanted to see him in the MW2 movie.