One Month Out: Weekends of July 23 and 30, 2010
By BOP Staff
June 29, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Josh Spiegel: I know that Ramona and Beezus is from a book series I read when I was a kid. I just found out that there's going to be a movie--like, found out by reading this. Could be big for a kid's movie, but I know nothing about the movie, from who's in it, to whether any kids are chomping at the bit for such an adaptation. Salt could be a hit, but the marketing isn't too heavy and I don't find myself dying to see Angelina Jolie be a blank-faced action star again. Neither of these movies are for me, but I've long since stopped wondering why people see most Hollywood movies.
Matthew Huntley: I've yet to see any marketing for Ramona and Beezus (I learned it was a book series only a couple months ago), but if I had to make an educated guess based on the popularity of the literature, I'd say it could open with $14 million and show respectable legs. I can't imagine it cost too much to make or that the expectations are very high from Fox.
Salt will determine if Angelina Jolie is still a formidable box-office draw, but it looks intriguing and I like how the trailer is ambiguous by not telling us whether Salt is a good guy or bad guy. I'm not convinced it will open as high as Wanted, but it'll be close. Female action fans have been underserved lately, but this should bring them out in full force.
Jason Lee: Ramona and Beezus makes me laugh, simply because we have acclaimed hottie Josh Duhamel playing Ramona's uncle. Is no one interested in seeing his abs anymore? This movie practically has "straight-to-DVD" written on it, IMO, though Selena Gomez could pull in the Disney Channel crowd.
I can see why Matthew brought in Wanted as a potential high-water benchmark. Both films, just based on their trailers, looked cool (though, of course, for different reasons). During the summer, that can be reason enough for a strong opening.
Kim Hollis: I think a lot of moms my age or younger could have some fond memories of the Ramona Quimby series to the point that they might warm to taking their children to see it. It's more "of my generation" than something like Nancy Drew (though I read that, too), so it's got that going for it. Along with that, Selena Gomez is a popular Disney Channel star, and that should carry some weight with the teenagers and pre-teens who would be up for attending the film. With that said, I wouldn't expect a huge breakout. I still think it can be a decent performer, though (and its budget is probably very small).
I don't have a great feel for Salt, partly because the only marketing I've seen so far is the trailer (which is to say, not very much at all). I do believe that Angelina Jolie's name means more to a movie now than it used to, and seeing her back in the action genre is just the sort of thing audiences should want.
David Mumpower: Ramona and Beezus reminds me quite a bit of a 2008 release, Kit Kittredge: An American Girl in that it skews very young and very female and is a well established classic. Nancy Drew also comes to mind for obvious reasons. Assuming the comparisons are valid, we’re talking about a performance in the $17 million to $25 million range, which seems fair to me, a person who is neither very young nor very female. Having said that, it’s tracking well enough that a double digit opening is in the realm of possibility. Were that to happen, I think that Fox should be ecstatic. This is not a target demographic that generally demonstrates that sort of box office pull.
Salt is a different story altogether. As I have mentioned, I believe that this strikes me as a female Bourne Identity and I anticipate a very solid performance. Angelina Jolie is the rare lead actress who has demonstrated the ability to open action films very well. Salt looks like one of the best projects she’s been involved in recently, functioning somewhat as a Mrs. But No Mr. Smith prequel (or sequel?), if you will. The marketing has cleverly dialed down the aspects that remind viewers of The Interpreter but dialed up the ones that remind people that they like loud noises, punched faces and crashed cars. I think this opens in the upper $30s and goes on to earn at least $100 million domestically.
Daron Aldridge: I think that a couple of factors going for Ramona and Beezus are the presence of Selena Gomez and the nostalgia factor for women between the ages of 25 and 40 who grew up on the books. Gomez has a built-in base that Abigail Breslin and Emma Roberts didn't bring to Kit and Nancy, respectively. Those factors I think account for the double digit tracking it is registering. One huge negative is that I haven't seen a single preview, trailer or TV ad for this film but I don't camp out on the Disney Channel and Nickelodeon on my DISH. I think it more than doubles Nancy Drew's numbers all around with $15 million open and a $60 million total gross.
For some reason, Salt immediately brings up memories of Minority Report. I don't know if it's the fact that Tom Cruise was once the star for Salt or the cop/spy on the run from their own employer. Whatever the reason for the comparison, if this delivers, it looks to be a fun, action movie. So, a debut of $35 million could turn into about $130 gross (again if the quality is there and legs result).
Kim Hollis: The movies opening the weekend of July 30th are Cats and Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore, Charlie St. Cloud and Dinner for Schmucks. What are your thoughts and expectations for these three films?
Brett Beach: Side note - I would love to be the fly on the wall for the parents who have to explain to their kids why Kitty Galore is supposed to be knee-slapping funny.
Seriously, though. 10 years after Cats and Dogs barely eeked out a first place victory from Scary Movie 2, is anybody asking for this? They are basically looking at starting over with their family audience as I don't imagine there are now-17-year-olds who will be lining up for nostalgic kicks. I realize the first one did make nearly five times its opening gross so maybe this will play out similarly but considering that Marmaduke was rejected, I have a feeling and a hope that this will flame out. I say $40 million tops.
Charlie St Cloud is a film whose trailer I keep actively avoiding so I am not sure what it is all about. From what I have heard of the plot, it is a fantasy drama (as opposed to the fantasy comedy of 17 Again) and I don't think Efron will be enough to bring it to that film's respectable numbers. Call it about half that film's total or $30-35 million.
Dinner for Schmucks is one I am severely on the fence about. Will this be the Jay Roach who manned the first Austin Powers and Meet the Parents or the one who helmed Spy who Shagged Me and Meet the Fockers. The trailers I have seen have been underwhelming but I like Carrell and Rudd (and Gary Cole) and so I hope this is funny/silly with heart (but not too much). I think $70-75 million is a safe bet.
Josh Spiegel: I'm with Brett on Cats and Dogs. Why does this movie exist? Also, I haven't seen a thing about the movie, so I'll be shocked if it dominates over previous family films like Despicable Me and Toy Story 3. Charlie St. Cloud is a movie I've heard of, but I've seen no trailers (not even during the execrable MTV Movie Awards, which would've seemed like a good time to advertise, considering the film's lead), so who knows if Zac Efron can use his power to sway in teen girls to this?
Though I'm not a huge fan of either trailer, Dinner for Schmucks could easily be a major hit. Jay Roach has made a lot of popular comedies in the past 15 years, and with such a great duo at the head of the film, I could see it making over 100 million, easy.
Matthew Huntley: Wow--three very different movies on one weekend. It'd be nice if all three could grab a piece of the pie and keep 2010's numbers up.
I did not see the original Cats and Dogs, but I know it did respectable business back in 2001. The question is, was anyone really craving a sequel? All the kids who liked the first one are now in their mid to late teens and if Marmaduke proved anything, it's that talking animal movies without the Disney label on them don't do that well. I could see this movie grossing up to $100 million because of the 3D surcharges, but it won't do as well as G-Force. If the production budget was high, this may not be enough to make the studio happy.
The first half of the Charlie St. Cloud trailer intrigued me, but then it descended into melodrama and schmaltz. All I can hope is the movie doesn't do the same, but I have sneaking suspicion it will. I've never seen a Zac Efron movie before, but he seems talented and likable, and it'd be nice if he was cast because of his acting ability and not because the studio thought he could lure in all those girls who liked him in High School Musical. To me, this is a movie geared toward mature females, but I don't see it breaking out and becoming a big hit. I can see a final gross of $52 million, which is similar to The Lake House, and that should be enough given its dramatic subject matter.
A friend of mine told me Dinner for Schmucks has been floating around Hollywood for a long time, and its two trailers, while not very funny (I agree with Josh) do lead me to believe it will be a different kind of darkish comedy. I don't think $100 million is in the bag, though, because nobody is really talking about it or responding to the early ads. I know Steve Carell is supposed to play an obnoxious character in the movie, but he also seems obnoxious to watch on screen. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if the movie did poorly--not in the way How to Lose Your Friends and Alienate People did poorly, just not live up to expectations.
Kim Hollis: The fact that there is a sequel to Cats and Dogs makes me want to curl up in the fetal position. Seriously. The first film was a crime against humanity. I know I listed it amongst my worst movies of that year. And I say this as someone who *likes* both cats and dogs very much. I have at least one of each.
My own feelings aside, I think the long distance between the films can't bode well for the sequel's success. The kids who liked it back in the day are older teenagers now. I guess we could see a new set of children go crazy for more talking animals, but we've seen that people do show *some* discretion with their talking animal dollars. I hope that Cats and Dogs 2 is not one that unpleasantly surprises me.
As for Charlie St. Cloud, I'm not sure I'm qualified to give an unbiased opinion. I think an awful lot of Zac Efron's talent (really) and I also think that the studio is doing a really good job of marketing this film to the right people. Right now, they have a social networking aspect to getting the word out amongst its demographic - all run from the movie's official site. By completing various activities, users score points, with the person receiving the most points getting a screening of the movie. Let's just say that I think there's a reason CBS Films ran far far away from this date with Beastly (starring Efron's girlfriend Vanessa Hudgens).
Finally, Dinner for Schmucks looks absolutely awful to me, but I have heard a lot of the people I believe to be its target audience saying how funny they think it is. I don't think it's going to knock our socks off or anything, but an opening around $30 million wouldn't surprise me at all.
David Mumpower: Yes, Cats and Dogs was a terrible movie, but that’s not the point. It is a terrible movie that earned $200 million against a $60 million budget. Talking animals films are every bit as tantalizing to children as beer commercials with buxom women are to grown men. Independent of what we think of a sequel, it is one of the safest box office titles in the marketplace this month. I’ll be surprised if it opens under $20 million and flat out stunned if it finishes less than $70 million. It’s box office arbitrage.
Dinner for Schmucks is exactly the sort of role that some agent convinces Steve Carell is a great career move a few months before Carell fires the agent with gross prejudice. If it earns a lot of money, humanity as we know it is lessened. I’m expecting it to make about $17 million in its debut then finish with $55 million worth of very bitter consumers.
Charlie St. Cloud is fascinating to me in that as much as I want to hate Zac Efron for being the object of lust for an entire generation of Disney watchers (and my would-be cougar wife), he is a very engaging actor. No matter what you think of the High School Musical movies, you have to be impressed by the singing/dancing/acting combination he pulls off with aplomb at such a young age. In addition, you have to give him credit for not letting his celebrity go to his head the way a few unnamed graduates of Disney University did. Finally, 17 Again is a pretty great movie that really brings the funny and he pulls off the Chandler in High School role quite well. I think he’s a legit talent, unlike certain vampires and lyncanthropes with bad hair and great abs. I believe that Charlie St. Cloud will perform almost as well as 17 Again, probably around $18 million at the start and $55 million during its domestic run.