One Month Out Part I
By BOP Staff
March 18, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: We keep joking that studios keep trying to start summer earlier and earlier each year. Warner Bros is taking that argument to its logical extreme by releasing Clash of the Titans the first week of April. What are your expectations for the film and do you believe the presence of Sam Worthington helps the bottom line? What about Liam Neeson?
Josh Spiegel: First of all, I don't think this is a heralding of the summer movie season starting any earlier. Once Warner Bros. decided that it would be worth the money to convert Clash of the Titans into 3-D, they pushed the release date from March 26th to April 2nd. I do expect the movie to come somewhere close to 300's numbers, even though I don't think it has much to do with Sam Worthington. Yes, he's in the biggest movie ever, but people aren't watching it for him. I think that the previews have emphasized a connection to the kind of sword-and-sandal epics that have done well in the past. That's what will work for Clash of the Titans.
Michael Lynderey: Neeson and Worthington probably help equally if unspectacularly, and not as much as do the special effects and 3D. Titans will probably perform more or less like Fast and Furious did last year. Looking at the bigger picture, it's unlikely that summer will be moved up to, say, April 30th, but there definitely seems to be a higher influx of blockbusters being scheduled for the spring (something that's not necessarily unprecedented - I always flash back to March 1990, with the trifecta of Hunt for Red October, TMNT, and Pretty Woman - three titles that clear $200 million adjusted).
Tom Macy: I think the all-tentpoles-all-the-time thing is just the way of things these days and Clash of the Titans in just further proof of that. Honestly, I'm intrigued by Sam Worthington's presence here - not that I expect much of a character to be drawn for him to work with. The movie is called Clash of the Titans, after all. But considering the slate that was set up for him in T4, Avatar, and Clash of the Titans - three massive releases, all partially human roles - I'm curious to see if he's going to handle that by offering any variation in his performance. Since he filmed all three before any were released. I'm even more curious to see how he follows up one of the biggest platform introductions of an actor in history. Hopefully he does better than Orlando Bloom. Titans prediction: Swords + Monsters - character development = $70 million opening weekend.
Jim Van Nest: I don't know that they're trying to kick off summer sooner as much as they're just trying to be the first out of the gate with their huge special effects-o-rama. Too bad for WB Disney and Alice kinda stole their thunder. I don't think Neeson or Worthington do much to add to the box office right now. Worthington is just now starting to be known as more than "that new guy." As for expectations for the film, this one is screaming to me of not living up to expectations both in terms of quality and box office.
Max Braden: Were it not for some ridiculously large openings in the past year or so, I'd say they were dumping it in April because it's not up to summer tentpole standards but see it as a big fish in a little spring pond. It reminds me a lot of The Scorpion King, which was released April 17, 2002. That movie opened to $36 million but couldn't pass the $100 million mark in total domestic grosses. To me, the effects of the original Clash of the Titans (and it pains me that most of the target audience for Worthington's version have no idea this is a remake) look superior to the current one. What's with the starburst effects on Neeson's chrome armor? I expect this movie to mimic the box office behavior of Scorpion King's: an undeserved big opening and a fizzle in the later weeks.
Jason Lee: I don't think any of the actors will help this movie - I think it'll live and die on how cool the special effects look. That said, I'm looking for something in the middle between Warner Bros' previous March CGI spectacles: 10,000 BC ($35.9 million opening) and 300 ($70.9 million) . . . so say maybe $50-$55 million opening weekend.
Kim Hollis: I think people are underestimating this thing. It's got tons of appeal plus 3D, along with two actors who have have plenty of recognition thanks to Avatar and Taken. It's going to open around 300's range, and I don't necessarily see it fizzling out immediately, either.
David Mumpower: I think Jason Lee has touched upon the key aspect here. In terms of re-making Clash of the Titans, the conversation that drives the project is, "Think about how great the Kraken will look." Then, they enhanced that by bringing in a couple of the best character actors in the world in Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes to assure audiences that independent of the leads, there were would be some quality performances in the film. Then, the project caught a pair of breaks when Taken took off right before production began then Avatar did what it did, thereby establishing Sam Worthington as the next big thing in the industry. This is a potent mix and, most importantly, The Kraken DOES look great. I expect this to open better than 300 did and fully expect a finish north of the $200 million range.
McLovin!
Kim Hollis: Kick-Ass, a comic book adaptation about a powerless guy who becomes a viral video sensation as a presumed superhero, stars Nicolas Cage (that's bad) but is directed by Stardust's Matthew Vaughn (that's good). Is this going to be one of the Nic Cage movies that does really well or one of the Nic Cage films that in no way involves National Treasure or Ghost Rider?
Josh Spiegel: Based on the previews and advance buzz, I think it's safe to say that this won't be the same type of movie as Ghost Rider or National Treasure. For better or worse, this looks like one of those movies where Nicolas Cage gets a part to play. I don't know if it's good or bad, but at least it's different. I'm hoping it does well, if only because of Vaughn's involvement, and the raunchy humor infusing the preview footage. But, of course, the movie might do better than expected, if certain groups continue the pointless shouting about how shocking - shocking! - it is that a girl swears in the movie. Any publicity is good publicity.
Michael Lynderey: I wouldn't really think of Kick-Ass as a Nic Cage movie, and I'd say there are two ways this one can go: cult classic or unabashed box office hit. There's been a strong precedent lately of well-reviewed, much-anticipated genre films breaking out well beyond the pale of message board fandom and into the big leagues (District 9, Inglourious Basterds, and, uh, Avatar), and Kick-Ass seems to be cut from the same cloth, especially considering the large dozes of hype already boiling out there. Usually, this wouldn't have been something I'd peg as much of a hit, but all the right pieces are in place. $100 million is definitely not out of the question.
Shalimar Sahota: Michael pretty much said what I wanted to say. Cage is taking a back seat as a supporting character in this. It will do well because of a concept that's breaking all the groundrules set up by the onslaught of former comic book movies, and because of Chloe Moretz.
Tom Macy: I think it will do well and win the Nic Cage sweeps by defeating the movie with one of the "best" worst trailers of 2009, The Hour of the Witch. Maybe this is just the marketing, but I'm concerned that Kick-Ass won't be as edgy as it clearly is being made out to be. Like Watchmen, it's a movie that's supposed to subvert our preconceived notions about superheroes, making the the leads less infallible and more vulnerable everyday people. But judging by the trailer, they still fight like they're in the Matrix, just as with Watchmen. What's interesting about that? Regardless, this is the only Nicolas Cage release I'm likely to see in the foreseeable future.
Kim Hollis: I think that the marketing is making it look very appealing, emphasizing the humor and the McLovin aspects of the film rather than the violence and the Nic Cage bits. They might be tricking people into seeing something that Kick Ass is not, but I'm inclined to give it a shot for the sake of Matthew Vaughn (even if the comic is from the same dude that created Wanted - a movie that I loathed).
David Mumpower: I fully agree with Michael Lynderey's assessment of the two ways this can go. In fact the thought that keeps running through my mind when I see the trailers is Mystery Men. I think the marketing has been clever enough to avoid that film's box office fate (it was annihilated by The Blair Witch Project), because it has celebrated the fun nature of the idea. I expect audiences to find the film much different than they expect, but early reviews are quite positive, which is always a good sign. The question is whether this project suffers the same fate as director Matthew Vaughn's last one, Stardust, in that it was a great film with a large budget that failed to make the money it should have. I'm inclined to believe that Kick-Ass has enough going for it to become a solid box office performer, at least matching its $70 million budget domestically. I'm hoping for an even better showing that establishes this as a franchise, because it's the type of clever idea that deserves such recognition. Of course, Mystery Men looked great on paper, too.