Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
March 23, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Repo Men, a dystopian sci-fi thriller starring Jude Law and Forest Whitaker, bombed with $6.1 million. Why do you think this one failed?
Josh Spiegel: Though I'm sure there are many factors (including this one: does Forest Whitaker's presence alongside Jude Law - an actor I like, mind you - scream must-see to anyone?), this is the big one for me: I had almost no idea what this movie was about. For the last couple of months, I saw a poster for this movie at most theaters, but the ads gave nothing away. Sometimes, sure, that strategy works for a movie. Unfortunately, Repo Men didn't seem like a movie whose content deserved the give-nothing-away advertising. What's more, once the ads started giving away some plot, all the movie seemed like was a dark comedy of...some kind. Blame the marketing.
Michael Lynderey: The trailers were okay, but there's nothing about this film that jumps out and really grabs you - or at least, not enough to overcome the lack of strong box office draws, the generally unenthused reviewers, and the oversaturation of depressing futuristic science fiction (at an absolutely inexplicable $93 million, Book of Eli may have really emptied the piggy-bank on that one). I feel for Forest Whitaker, though - here's a guy who got two fairly visible roles in the span of two weeks, but they both opened with basically the same blah-inducing number.
Daron Aldridge: The absence of marketing is my scapegoat because I think that there is enough of a hook/twist on the story that was left too ambiguous. If this one had been a bit more clearly sold to potential viewers then they might have been able to wring out enough to put the opening weekend into eight figures. Similar to my previous assessment of Aniston, aside from Sherlock Holmes and Cold Mountain, Jude Law's films vastly underperform when he has a prominent or lead part. While I enjoy his performances typically, audiences just don't clamor for the next Jude Law film they way the studios would like. I second your sympathy for Forest, Michael. It makes me sad.
Jim Van Nest: I think I missed the marketing for this one. I saw a couple of commercials, but only a few days before the film opened. I asked a bunch of people I know and only a few of them have even heard of this movie. Hard to sell out a theater when no one knows it's there.
Reagen Sulewski: I have to concur with those who say the "what the hell is this about?" factor was high with this one. Universal seemed to be utterly at a loss as to how to sell this, and tonally it was all over the place. Stringing random images and actors saying declarative sentences is no way to sell a high-concept movie.
Jason Lee: Agree with Reagen. There is no possible way to A) explain B) sell this movie in 30 seconds. No wonder people stayed away.
David Mumpower: I concur. In fact, it reminds me a lot of Surrogates in that this must have sounded better on paper. In terms of marketing it, there just didn't seem to be any way to differentiate it from any number of mediocre sci-fi films. Honestly, I kept having to look it up to make sure this wasn't a remake of Repo Man. I must have done that half a dozen times. And the reality is that if it had been, it would have done better.
Max Braden: I wanted to see this despite the failure of the advertising to sell the story. It's pretty simple to me: people in the future buy replacement organs on credit and if they stop paying, repo men come cut out the organs. It's like The Merchant of Venice's whole pound of - okay, fine.
Down the rabbit hole...again
Kim Hollis: Alice in Wonderland finished in first place for the third consecutive weekend and now has a running total of $265.8 million. Do you think that big 3-D films will continue to dominate at the box office with repeat first place finishes or is this a strange confluence of events?
Josh Spiegel: I think that the success for Alice in Wonderland can be chalked up to a confluence of events. Aside from the movie doing well thanks to the major push for Johnny Depp, there's been no strong competition at the box office since it opened. However, next week, How To Train Your Dragon opens in 3-D; the week after, Clash of the Titans opens up in 3-D. Alice's days at the top are likely over. I'll be curious to see how Dragon and Titans do after the weekend of April 9th, when they're the newer 3-D films. My guess is that it's only the rare massive hit (I'm thinking Avatar here, not Alice) that will truly dominate week after week, as opposed to a movie just being the only option.
Michael Lynderey: Yes, I absolutely do think 3D will reign at #1 for the foreseeable future. 2010 will become the first year in history with more 3D titles basking at the top box office spot than regular films (and the victory there isn't going to be by a narrow margin, either). The Dragon picture and then the Titans will lord over April, while Shrek, Toy Story, and a few others will cover most of the summer. Eventually - sooner than later, one would hope - audiences will tire of 3D and we could see a backlash. For now, though, grin and bear it is good advice.
Shalimar Sahota: I think Josh nailed it, in that Alice in Wonderland has had no real competition till now with How to Train Your Dragon. Looking at the foreseeable future, Clash of the Titans, Shrek Forever After and Toy Story 3D are highly likely to be a dead certainty for the top spot. However, the competition over the summer is going to be fierce, and although Shrek and Toy Story will open big, I don't actually see them staying at #1 for consecutive weekends. Lastly, 3D or not, it'll be interesting to see how well How To Train Your Dragon actually does. Dragons haven't exactly equated to box office success, a-la Eragon, Reign of Fire, Dungeons & Dragons. I don't feel drawn to it myself.
Reagen Sulewski: We've definitely just hit a weird spot in the calendar. If Clash of the Titans is out one weekend earlier, we're probably not having this conversation.
Jason Lee: Count Alice lucky -- her bracket certainly opened up for her.
Max Braden: They'll be on top for a while, but I think a backlash is inevitable. Having the trend peak with the first giant movie is problematic, because audiences are going to realize that not every movie is Pandora. It also concerns me that the push for 3D is going to compromise good cinematographers into throwing stuff at the screen or push them out in favor of mediocre artists who will. I don't want to deal with even higher prices and dark glasses on my face for every movie that tries to cover a weak story with the "3D!" silver lining, and I don't think I'm alone.
David Mumpower: I refuse to write this off as being primarily due to a lack of competition. On paper, there were three titles released over the past two weekends that could have challenged it. Two of them opened north of $20 million while the other, Green Zone, is a huge disappointment. Jason's bracketology analogy is dead on in this regard. Even so, Alice in Wonderland's 17-day box office total of $265.4 million is stunning. I think that's the more important aspect of this than the strength of the competition. As Michael states, 3-D is poised to dominate the box office in the short term. Several of us forecast an eventual backlash; I don't think that's the proper wording. The issue of backlash is better described as saturation, that point in time wherein 3-D loses its novelty. As I have said here on multiple occasions, most 3-D films I've seen are not special. The technology was added late in the process, thereby precluding true integration of its benefits. A lot of the titles we'll be seeing over the next little while were always planned to be 3-D. For this reason, they should afford viewers a better movie-going experience. As long as that occurs, this format continues to offer the positive reinforcement needed to encourage the addiction among consumers. In short, I doubt a "backlash" happens any time soon. The next five months are going to be dominated by conversations about 3-D films and their majestic box office performances.