Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
March 30, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Do you expect the glowing reviews for How to Train Your Dragon (currently 97% fresh at RottenTomatoes) to lead it to strong legs, or do you believe the brutal competition for 3-D/IMAX screens starting with Clash of the Titans next week will prevent it from an extended run?
Josh Spiegel: I think that the reviews are going to help, but only if the movie is in enough 2D theatres; even if Clash of the Titans doesn't dominate the marketplace in the same way that Alice in Wonderland did in its opening weekend, having three movies in 3D theatres just screws things up for everyone. I know that, in my area, one of the major chains is either showing Dragon in 3D or not at all, so that may damage the film's legs.
Michael Lynderey: Next weekend is going to be massive, with what I believe to be three $20 million+, or potentially $30 million+, openers (needless to say, one of those three releases is going to outrank the other two by a bit). That general atmosphere won't help How/Train/Dragon, especially since two of the new films possibly snatch away both the female (Last Song) and male (Titans) portions of its tween demographic. I think we're looking at maybe a 40% drop; yes, the movie has been well received, but so was Monsters vs. Aliens, and that one decreased by 45% over the same weekend last year. There have just been way too many children's films lately, and so they've started having drops more typical of non-kids fare (Diary of a Wimpy Kid's 54% downturn is a good example).
Shalimar Sahota: Only if audiences have it in their mind that they've got to see it in 3D or not at all. There isn't going to be another animated film till May, with DreamWorks' own cash ogre, Shrek. So I can see How to Train Your Dragon hanging around the top ten for a long while, largely from good old 2D screenings.
Jason Lee: I agree with Shalimar. Quality is quality, and there isn't another family-targeted movie until arguably the end of April. How to Train Your Dragon should show some good legs.
Reagen Sulewski: Losing some 3D screens won't help, exactly, but then again it sure doesn't seem like it got a huge boost from them either. If it's the case that audiences aren't really buying 3D animation, then it leaves a lot more room for it to have a lasting run.
David Mumpower: A lot of this depends on how we're defining good legs these days, which is a debate that is still in flux at the moment. Up had a final multiplier (final domestic box office divided by opening weekend domestic box office) of 4.30 while Monsters vs. Aliens had a 3.34. I'm inclined to believe that How to Train Your Dragon winds up splitting the difference between the two since it has a lower opening weekend number to match but doesn't have anywhere near the longstanding overall appeal of Up. The math on that would give How to Train Your Dragon a final tally of about $160 million and my gut instinct is that even that is a bit high. There isn't a lot of good news here for DreamWorks, which must be frustrating given what a great job they did in saving this project from abject disaster 18 months ago.
Crossover!
Kim Hollis: Hot Tub Time Machine, a movie about, well, pretty much that, opened to $14.0 million. Should MGM be pleased with this or is it another Snakes on a Plane?
Josh Spiegel: I think that the movie did...okay. All things considered, I expected the movie to open higher, somewhere around $20 million. However, what I forgot is that the main audience for this movie is probably at home watching March Madness on CBS. I'm guessing MGM hoped people would check the movie out after the games, but the appeal wasn't there. And, considering that this movie has a budget near $50 million (having seen the movie, I have NO idea where that money went, because the film looks so cheap), it may not have the legs to survive the potential onslaught of male-friendly Clash of the Titans.
Michael Lynderey: Hot Tub Time Machine did pretty well for what it was. Here's a movie with just one kind-of-sort-of-maybe a star, and three other lead actors who don't even (yet) fit that description. If the reviews weren't as generally pleased with the film as they are, I don't think it would've pulled in half of what it did. The Hangover's 100 box office days of summer '09 may have bumped up some people's expectations, but since I never learn from my mistakes, I didn't think another movie could do what The Hangover did, or even come close. As for Snakes on the Plane - I wouldn't necessarily make that comparison; Snakes seemed for some reason like a summer blockbuster ready to erupt. It sputtered. Hot Tub Time Machine never reached that level of message board anticipation. It just looked like maybe a neat little comedy, and the numbers reflect that.
Jason Lee: To me, Hot Tub Time Machine was always destined to be a moderate BO success, a strong player on the DVD Sales/Rental chart and a Cable TV favorite for years to come. It's performing up to my expectations so far. Color this a win for MGM.
Reagen Sulewski: I think it's correct to say that it's almost impossible to lose with a title like this, with the potential rewards being massive. But the comparison with Snakes on a Plane is accurate in one respect - the title failed the laugh test for most audiences. Another example: Dude, Where's My Car?. Expect this to be ubiquitous on cable for years to come, though.
David Mumpower: I expect Hot Tub Time Machine to be more fondly remembered than what its box office run will indicate. It's a sloppy mess of comedy and the commercials failed to deliver that one killer joke that would sell most consumers on the product. I understand why others here are saying this isn't that bad a performance, but I disagree. We're only talking about $4 million more than She's Out of My League made with its debut. That film starred Jay Baruchel. This title has John Cusack and several other recognizable faces in comedy. All other things being equal, this one should have done quite a bit better. The problem is that Hot Tub Time Machine tried to co-opt the idea of making fun of its title in the commercials, which has proven to be a miscalculation. In the future, what I would like to see done with these clear, semi-lampooned movies is to play up why they are worth seeing. Let the easily identifiable branding work its magic without embracing the silliness of it. Otherwise, you're needlessly diminishing your own property.
Reagen Sulewski: I disagree on the self-aware tone, David. I think they needed to address the ridiculousness of the premise early on to let people know that, no, you weren't supposed to take this seriously. It's a calculated gamble.
David Mumpower: I would imagine we're having exactly same debate that the people cutting the trailer did. They had that choice of being self-aware or not and I am of the opinion that in showing Craig Robinson make that joke, they took a needless risk that failed. I think they would have been better served playing up all of the 1980s retro jokes straight down to the presence of Chevy Chase. All of those are better, funnier gags. They also do not diminish the product. You say it's a calculated gamble while I say it's a miscalculated one.