Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
August 3, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Charlie St. Cloud, the weeper featuring the totally adorable Zac Efron (don't you dare argue with me) opened to $12.4 million. How should Universal feel about this result?
Josh Spiegel: Disappointed, to say the least. I could've seen this movie performing as well as Dear John did in February, but apparently Efron's adorability only works in lighter movies. I'm obviously not the right audience for the film, but watching these ads just made me think "Why would I ever want to pay to see this movie when I can see a trailer that shows me just about the entire movie?" I've read that there's a little more to the story, but the majority of the film seems to have been encapsulated in 150 seconds. Why pay 10 bucks for the whole movie?
Reagen Sulewski: One of the biggest struggles for young actors is establishing fame out of their big roles. Twilight fans have shown basically no interest in Robert Pattinson without the glitter makeup, and I doubt anyone's running out to see Daniel Radcliffe's next non-Harry Potter role. Efron's done better than most, and at least he's trying to stretch his legs away from the teen idol-type roles so you have to give him that credit. This is a film with virtually no edge to it, though, and that's a very self-limited strategy. He's got to get dirty with his roles sometime soon.
Kim Hollis: I tend to agree that this is probably a disappointment for Universal, despite my own personal affinity for the young Mr. Efron. I'm sure it seemed like a great idea to re-team him with his 17 Again director, but melodramas like these are hit and miss anyway. I do think it's very interesting that his girlfriend, Vanessa Hudgens, had a movie that had been slated to open on the same weekend, but the studio (CBS Films) ran far away from releasing Beastly here. I tend to agree that a February or March opening might have been more appropriate. And I'll certainly admit that the reviews have me figuring it's a wait-for-DVD film, which is probably a bad sign since I'd planned on seeing it in the theater.
David Mumpower: Does this film involve 9/11 in any way? No? Then, I automatically like it better than Remember Me. Still, this is by all accounts a terrible movie that deserves to fail. While I like to give Ms. Hollis grief about her Efron fandom, he seems to be the rare teen idol who has some talent. 17 Again is one of those films that I watch every time it's on. I guess he was trying to broaden his acting chops and the choice of projects was regrettable. $12.4 million is a scary total for a $44 million production yet I was braced for even worse. It won't be in the red anywhere near as much as it probably deserves.
It was sorely lacking in poop jokes. And by poop jokes, we mean chipmunks eating poop jokes.
Kim Hollis: Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore, the sequel to the 2001 talking animals movie, earned $12.3 million this weekend. How should Warner Bros. feel about this result?
Josh Spiegel: Stupid for opening it as wide as they did. The combination of Inception hitting number-one for the third weekend in a row and Cats and Dogs failing so pitifully proves that, yeah, Americans aren't as stupid as they are thought to be. Why does Cats and Dogs 2 fail where Beverly Hills Chihuahua and the Chipmunks Squeakquel succeed? This sequel comes nearly a decade after its originator; the actors aren't as well-loved, and the cuteness of cats and dogs dies when they're beating each other up in some way. This is a huge, huge failure on everyone's part, especially considering the 3D surcharge.
Matthew Huntley: There must be someone at Warner Bros. who was smart enough to know this would happen. He or she is probably thinking, "I told you so." They probably also know who's getting canned if it's true this movie carries a price tag of $85-$100 million. Ouch.
Yes, there have been a lot of resurrected franchises in the last few years, and although some of them weren't necessary, you could at least justify their production because fans were willing to see them. But did the original Cats & Dogs have many fans? I know it grossed nearly $100 million back in 2001, but all of the kids who saw it back then are now teenagers or older. They aren't going to pay to see this sequel. The reason Alvin and the Chipmunks 2: The Squeakquel did as well as it did (aside from being based on a pre-established franchise) was because it came out only two years after the original. Nine years is too long to wait. Warner Bros. should definitely be disappointed by this figure, but c'mon, they shouldn't be surprised.
Reagen Sulewski: I can see the logic for making this film in a purely mercenary fashion - the first Cats & Dogs film made $93 million domestic, and kids films live forever in secondary markets, plus they've got all these fancy 3D cameras to test out. The actual product was embarrassing looking though, and there seemed to be an attitude that they could just toss out anything with this title, and animals doing human things, and repeat that.
But although this isn't your traditional franchise, waiting nine years between movies didn't make a ton of sense, and it seems hopelessly dated in its references. The Hamster Dance? Who actually remembers that? And that poster looks like they set the summer intern loose in photoshop. Really, this is just proof that you can't take kids for granted.
Kim Hollis: Waiting so long after the first film's success was certainly ill-advised. Of course, I never understood the original's appeal. It's a horrible, horrible movie with an anti-cat agenda (I have cats and a dog, so I'm not pushing an opinion of my own here). I just can't imagine anyone was thinking, "Oh, why haven't we had a sequel to that movie yet?" It was forgotten the moment it left theaters.
David Mumpower: With all of the talking animals films doing so well lately, I understand why the long-rumored sequel to this movie got the greenlight. The problem I see that hasn't been mentioned yet is how vague the ads are. Perhaps this is intentional, but can anyone here who watched the first film says how this one ties back to it? There is a hedged bet here where an assumption was made that the popularity of the original justified a sequel yet there is this washing of hands about it. What we've learned here is that you have to pick a side. You can't say "This was terrible but you liked the idea so we're going to try again in a manner that has nothing to do with the first one" and expect people to go, "Sounds great!" Oh, and the ads they did choose to do looked atrocious. That doesn't automatically exclude a film from selling tickets anyway, but it is problematic to overcome. If my kid laughed at one of these commercials, I'd take them to the doctor for a batch of testing.