One Month Out
May 2010 (Part II)
By BOP Staff
April 14, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: The fourth and allegedly final Shrek film (yeah, right) opens on May 21st. Where do you expect this one to fall among the top summer contenders and in comparison to previous Shrek films?
Josh Spiegel: I would guess, if only because the film has a built-in recognition, it'll do somewhere around $100 million (as its two predecessors surpassed that number). However, unless it's incredible, I don't see it having the legs of the first two Shrek films. Obviously, 3-D theaters will help boost the box office, but I don't think there's the same pent-up interest and demand for this as there would be for Toy Story 3. It'll do well for those first four weeks, but then, it's done.
David Mumpower: Nothing makes me believe in evil ruling our world more than the notion that the worst performing Shrek film would be the third most popular Pixar film and the most popular Shrek film has the Pixar library beaten by over $100 million. The good news is that the world seemed to awaken from an extended bout of mass hypnosis in 2007 and realize that Shrek the Third was horrible. Yes, they should have noticed that with Shrek 2 three years before, but I digress. The point is that the brand may have been damaged by the waning quality of the franchise. Alternately, that was just a blip on the road with DreamWorks Animation recognizing that the best way to reinvigorate the franchise is to pretend that Shrek is going away. By forcing consumers to quickly move past their frustration over the third title through threats and fear, Shrek Forever After has less stink of failure on it than should be the case.
I do not believe it will do as well as the third film under that same premise I mentioned for Iron Man wherein the quality of the prior film directly correlates to the box office of its successor. I do, however, expect this to be the third consecutive Shrek film to open north of $100 million, a full $30 million beyond anything Pixar has managed to date. Which is sad. Shrek Forever After should make around $300 million and could do another $75 million more if public opinion is again positive. Dear naive consumers: please stop falling for this.
Max Braden: I don't think it's all naive consumers. Kids love the green ogre. But we're almost a decade into the series, so at this point the first wave of kids has started to outgrow it, and the newest wave of kids may not have been hooked so hard on it. So the series is in decline. But to be honest, WALL-E and Up were nice movie experiences but they were more adorable than hilarious. And Monsters vs Aliens and Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs felt like they were going through the motions. If I get the sense that Shrek 4 is where I have to go for animated comedy, so be it.
Jason Lee: My opinion on this could totally be naive given that I have A) no kids and B) no desire to have kids, but I really believe that the shine has come off of the Shrek brand. I think it's a little old and a little dated, and despite its rapid use of pop-culture funs, I don't think people have as much fun with Shrek as before (though the ratings for the Christmas special were strong). I see this opening below $100 million and I see it falling short of $300 million.
Kim Hollis: Sure, it's a little old and moldy, but Shrek is a very comfortable movie franchise for families. They know exactly what they're going to get, and the prospect of seeing these silly characters in 3D makes it a little more enticing. I actually think it does about as well as the third film, but that's partly due to ticket inflation and 3D pricing. I will say that even though I don't love the Shrek films particularly well, I do think they're fun enough and that's probably the general consensus of most family movie-goers (caveat: I have never seen Shrek the Third, which is kind of a big deal when you consider that I see almost every animated film).
Sex and the City 2: Arguably the Most Pointless Sequel of All-Time
Kim Hollis: Sex and the City 2, arguably the most pointless sequel of all-time (unless you're an accountant), debuts over Memorial Day weekend. Do you believe they can catch lightning in a bottle a second time? What would be a good result for this film?
Josh Spiegel: The first film opened with just over $57 million, so I'd expect at least that much for this sequel's first weekend. However, unless I've just missed it completely, there's been very little marketing on this film, and with it coming in just over six weeks, I assumed I'd once again have to acknowledge the existence of this series. Frankly, a good result for this film would be it flopping, because we wouldn't have to see a third film. But that's just me dreaming.
Daron Aldridge: I haven't seen any actual advertising for this one either. That being said, the studio is getting significant mileage from the various mentions of the sequel in the "People"-s and "InTouch"-es of the world. My guess is that this one will play more like the Charlie's Angels films than the Twilight films. Instead of increasing box office (probably due to the film being the appendix or tonsils of the franchise...no real purpose but it still exists), I think this will hit just around $50 million on the four-day holiday opening and a $125 million total, which is only a slightly diminished multiplier from the first film.
Max Braden: I think there was an absence-makes-the-heart-grow-fonder element to the first movie's success that won't be repeated with the sequel, but above $40 million for an opening wouldn't surprise me. Do the girls have a Twilight book circle scene? Add ten million.
Jason Lee: I agree with Max. Fans have been sated somewhat by the last film, so I don't think we're going to see as large of an opening-day rush as we did last year. A $40 million + opening would not surprise me, though I think legs will be questionable. Will women still be looking for an excuse for a Girls Night Out? Yes. Will they be interested in seeing another escape by Bradshaw and Co.? Yes. Is demand and anticipation as high? No.
Shalimar Sahota: Maybe it's just because we're mostly all guys, but I would not underestimate the power of sex. Even if there is a lack of marketing, women have it on their radar. With the lead actresses in their 40s (Kim Cattrell is in her mid 50s) it's worth mentioning that there aren't many films that often play for women the same age. Since the release of the first film, I imagine that none of you, off the top of your heads, can think of one that has played to that demographic. I certainly can't. I feel that a $60 million opening weekend is possible, but a Persian Prince opening the same weekend is likely to hinder that and stop it from reaching #1. But it'll behave much like the first film, with heavy front loading and huge drop offs in the subsequent weeks. Hopefully it'll be the last, unless people want to see oldies getting it on.
David Mumpower: The only demographic cross-over between Prince of Persia and Sex and the City 2 is that all of them wore diapers at some point. Otherwise, their target audiences are as diametrically opposed as is humanly possible. Neither film's presence in any way hinders the other.
In terms of the opening weekend of Sex and the City 2, I think some of you are saying "fluke" a bit too easily when considering what the original accomplished. If we assume that most of the people who went to see the first movie enjoyed it (and the metrics indicate that they did), why wouldn't they want to attempt to repeat that action? It's the underlying premise of positive reinforcement.
Kim Hollis: I did hear a lot of fans of the first film say that they thought that movie brought everything to a satisfactory conclusion, so I'm wondering if there might not be a little bit of resentment toward the makers of this film for an obvious attempt at a cash grab. Even so, there's just not much that satisfies the needs of women who want a ladies' night out that a Sex in the City film offers. I don't think it does quite as well as the first film, opening weekend or otherwise, but it doesn't really have to.
Jake Gyllenhall: Big Action Star
Kim Hollis: Price of Persia: The Sands of Time also opens on Memorial Day weekend. This is probably the big-budget early summer release we've discussed the least. What are your expectations for it? What are your thoughts about the film itself?
Josh Spiegel: My thoughts on the film are that Jake Gyllenhaal just doesn't look like an action hero. He looks like a kid playing dress-up. I've got no interest, not being familiar with the source material. If there's enough marketing, the movie might do well, but I would not be surprised if this movie flops, and flops hard. Gyllenhaal's not a typical hero, the source material isn't (I think) the most popular among video games, and it just looks a bit silly. But this movie could just as easily do Pirates of the Caribbean numbers and surprise me. But I've got zero interest here.
Daron Aldridge: Great. Another video game adaptation that stars Ben Kingsley. The plus side is that this time around, the very talented Mike Newell is directing as opposed to a director that is a favorite critical/commerical black hole. I have high confidence in Newell, who made Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire a fun ride of a film and Donnie Brasco a highly underrated and tense mob film. Gyllenhaal doesn't bother me in this role but I did find it curious that the trailer I have seen sidesteps giving Jake too many lines. The big question for me is if his British (as a substitute for Persian) accent, will rival Costner's Robin Hood? Disney is aiming for another Pirates-esque franchise but I am not buying it with this one. Curse of the Black Pearl had ridiculous legs that its own sequels couldn't match. Given that this one is opening on Memorial Day weekend, my estimate is this one will edge out the Carrie Bradshaw sequel to win the long weekend but not by much. Say $60 million over four days and a $150 million total, which isn't good since that is the reported budget.
Jason Lee: I agree with Daron -- between the the Walt Disney brand name and the wider appeal, this film should win the weekend (especially given SATC's Thurs opening). I do think, however, that between Clash of the Titans and Robin Hood, people might be a little tired of sword-and-sandal (or bow-and-arrow-and-leather-boots) epics by the end of May. I think this could hurt Prince of Persia.
Shalimar Sahota: Having played, and enjoyed, the Sands of Time video game, I was expecting awful things from this, but the trailers have me convinced. It has an Indiana Jones/The Mummy kind of rush to it. Daron has already mentioned that Mike Newell is directing, which should hopefully suggest quality. However, also on board is the game's creator, Jordan Mechner, something that just never tends to happen, credited for the story and as a producer. I'm actually quite excited about this and hope it delivers. Hell, Bruckheimer made a blockbuster franchise out of a theme park ride. Whose to say he can't do the same with a video game?
David Mumpower: Like Shalimar, I am speaking as someone who owns a couple of the videogames. I have mixed emotions about this feature, though. The concept of the current games (not the 1980s ones) lends itself well to a movie adaptation, because the ability to slightly alter fate makes for great special effects opportunities. I notice that the trailer does incorporate some of the best stylistic visuals from the game. What jumps out at me, however, is how little Jake Gyllenhaal is allowed to talk. That's probably not a good sign about his performance and I agree that it's right to question his capabilities as a potential action hero. The odd aspect is that he was going to be handed the keys to Spider-Man, the Rolls Royce of movie franchises once upon a time, meaning that studio execs have more confidence in his appeal than we do.
When I start trying to gauge the potential of this, I'm all over the place. The tone of the trailers mirrors the first two titles in The Mummy franchise, particularly the "I hate you and cannot wait to sex you up" quarreling between the two leads. I just don't think that Gyllenhaal has anywhere near the charisma of Brendan Fraser and I say that as one of the few people in this world who loves the movie Bubble Boy. I do believe Gemma Arterton can match Rachel Weisz since Weisz wasn't exactly a strong female character in the first Mummy film, but there are just too many question marks here for me to feel confident about the film breaking out. Honestly, if this were not a Disney release and a Jerry Bruckheimer production, I would be expecting it to bomb. Since that talent is behind the project, I think it will wind up making enough in worldwide box office to justify its lofty $150 million production cost. I just don't think it will be very good. My most significant concern here is that if I am a fan of Prince of Persia as a videogame and someone who likes Gyllenhaal well enough and Arterton more than I want my wife to know and I'm still not sold on the movie, why would a casual movie goer be excited about it? The marketing campaign for this needs to find a good angle over the next month if they're going to push this one into the Win column.
Kim Hollis: Like Robin Hood, something just feels off about this one to me. I think it could be fun - maybe silly fun, but this feels like a movie in search of an audience. And I'm in complete agreement that Gyllenhaals seems very out of place here. I like him a lot (in movies like Bubby Boy, Donnie Darko and even Brokeback Mountain to a degree), but he does not inspire confidence in Prince of Persia.