Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
October 18, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Sign of the apocalypse #1: Jackass 3D earned $50.4 million in its opening weekend. Are you surprised that 3D groin shots are this appealing to people?
Josh Spiegel: Maybe, but only just a little. The first film in the franchise opened with $22 million, and the second opened with nearly $30 million. By that alone, we should have figured an equally solid opening, if not higher. Add 3D technology to gross-out stunts, something that managed to sway lots of people, and heavy marketing for a few months, and this result makes sense. I probably wouldn't have figured a number higher than $40 million, but for the right people, this felt like something close to a summer-movie event.
Tom Houseman: This is why studios are investing in 3D technology. Not only would this movie not have done as well if it weren't for the 3D, I doubt it would have done as well as either of the first two films. I feel like the Jackass schtick is getting old, especially considering that you can probably find gags just as outrageous on YouTube. But the enticement of seeing these outrageous stunts in 3D was too much to resist, and clearly its target audience flocked to get in. The real question is what the legs will look like for this one. I wouldn't be surprised if it finished under $120 million.
Matthew Huntley: I'm definitely surprised. For one thing, I thought Red had a lot more buzz going into the weekend than Jackass and would have easily picked the former to take the crown (the latter just didn't seem to have the same enthusiasm as its predecessors). Clearly, this wasn't the case.
Secondly, we all assumed the 3D craze was dying down and even the most ardent Jackass fans wouldn't be swayed to pay the extra surcharges just because "3D" was in the title, but the format was likely a major selling point. Perhaps this is evidence that 3D can still be utilized when it's focused and actually serves a visual purpose (and yes, I can imagine 3D groin shots do serve a purpose in a comedy such as Jackass). Whatever legs it has from here on out is mostly irrelevant because of its moderate $20 million budget, but this opening is good news not only for Paramount, but the industry as a whole.
Bruce Hall: The curiosity factor alone surely accounted for at least a third of ticket sales. Even I was intrigued, and I've been over Jackass for the better part of a decade. There's going to be all kinds of analysis on this one and you could make the argument that the inflated ticket price plus the draw of the 3D gimmick contributed to this. Fair enough, but if you ask me, over-analysis of a movie that revolves around people setting their balls on fire is pretty fruitless (pun absolutely intended). Purists and snobs can say what they want, $50 million is $50 million. Bottom line, most people get a perverse thrill out of watching other people humiliate themselves, and when they're doing it on purpose it becomes an almost irresistible draw. If Jackass the series didn't prove this, then the success of the first two films surely did. And when I first read that the third installment was going to be in 3D, I imagined Bam Margera making a three point shot from mid court, covered with ants, being attacked by monkeys.
Nothing but net. Total, absolute, unmitigated genius. The premise, the title, the timing...it is all according to prophecy.
Once the 3D fever hit Hollywood, this movie was inevitable - like peanut butter and chocolate. If you remember my comments when we discussed The Owls of Ga'Hoole, I mentioned that film's making effective use of 3D less as a gimmick and more as a way to enhance perspective and distance. In that case it worked well and in the case of Jackass, it's just a series of corny physical stunts married to a corny visual stunt. While I think this particular use of 3D will spur imitation, it will wear itself out quickly. But I have to admit that Knoxville and his crew struck while the iron was hot and made it work.
Well done, sir. Now put some ice on it and think about what you're going to call part four.
Brett Beach: To me, this seems like the type of story that might make our best of list at the end of the year. I find this as impressive if, if not more so, than Toy Story 3's triple-digit weekend back in June, both in terms of demonstrating an audience's pent-up demand for a third installment, as well as quite possibly, a case of adults bringing their slightly older but not yet 17-year-old kids. (Anyone back me up on this?) I can see in crunching the numbers that it shouldn't be all that astonishing but I haven't met yet this month's level of agogness so allow me to be slack-jawed.
I never saw the show, but did see the first movie - which is also the case with other adaptations such as South Park, Kids in the Hall, and MST3K - so I remain essentially out of the Jackass loop. In my mind, this was going to play out similar to last month's Resident Evil installment with a loss of audience being made up for by the 3D surcharge and coming in in the low 30s. Instead, we have a film that would have to improbably flame out to avoid hitting $100 million+ final gross. If they keep doing this every four years (which seems to be quite smart) we can look forward to installment number ocho when Misters Clapp and Spiegel and their cohorts near retirement age.
Shalimar Sahota: This is a total surprise to me. I think Bruce nailed it, in regards to the timing. With many films and franchises jumping on board the 3D craze, it wasn't going to be long before someone utilized the technology for stupid yet hilarious jokes. And clearly there's an audience for it. It bemuses me how the slightly similarly themed Piranha 3D can open small and fizzle out, but I imagine part of it is down to being part of a recognizable show and franchise. Even if you've only seen one episode on TV, it's easy for people to identify just what Jackass is. I just didn't think it would open as big as it did.
Joshua Pasch: I am really blown away by this total. If you saw my comments after Social Network opened, I thought maybe, maybe, it would break out to these types of figures. But I had really no idea that this one had a shot at these types of numbers. I am as floored as that guy in the Jackass preview when he gets smacked by the giant hand. If anything I thought this one with trend down a bit from Jackass 2, which felt a bit like an overachiever four years ago. Knoxville and his crew seem less relevant today than they did then, and Knoxville, who once looked like he was going to break out (with leading turns in Dukes of Hazzard and The Ringer) seems less popular as well.
What I don't get is why this movie over-performs by at least $20 million, but the third Step Up flick under-performs by at least $5-10 million. I'm not saying that Step Up 3D is high art and deserving of more, but it was also a franchise that was previously trending up, and it seemingly utilized 3D in a similar fashion (non-immersive, in your face 3D that seems to work with its unique content of either stunts or dance moves).
Reagen Sulewski: It was obvious that Jackass and 3D were a marriage made like chocolate and peanut butter, which then has something disgusting done to it. If you're going to see a movie where people do stupid and incredibly dangerous things for your amusement, why wouldn't you be more excited to see that in 3D? Really all that was left to wonder was how much of an effect this would have, and it's clear it's more than any of us were expected.
The difference between this and something like Step Up isn't that hard to see, in my opinion - 3D doesn't really add anything to people dancing, but it does when they're getting flung through the air in a porta-potty.
Edwin Davies: I'm not surprised that it opened higher than the previous films - as others have pointed out, the increased prices for 3D would ensure healthy numbers - but I am pretty stunned that it opened so much higher than expectations.
It's really a perfect storm of groin-kicking that has come together to make this film a success; a build-up of demand since the second film; a gimmick that is perfectly suited to the crazy stunts that are par for the course with the series; and a lack of similarly ridiculous fare in an October that has been dominated by more adult (and better) fare. It's also worth noting that, unlike other franchises, the participants in Jackass don't generally do other things outside of the films, so it's not like the audience tire of them through over-exposure.
Kim Hollis: I am both surprised and not surprised. While I supposed that this movie would probably be able to open near $30 million, I have to say that the trailer was so good (yes, it really is) that it made me watch an episode of Jackass...for the first time ever. I had never seen either of the films or watched the series, and I say that as a person who really, really (really) likes Johnny Knoxville (yes, I am that person). Every time I saw that trailer with an audience, it killed. The fact that they were touting the 3D was the icing on the cake that made it a must-see in theaters instead of something that was maybe a wait-for-video film for a lot of people otherwise.
Monty Burns had it right.
Kim Hollis: With Jackass 3D, do you think it was elevated by the 3D or is there something else at play in its stunning success?
Josh Spiegel: I think the 3D plays a huge part, unquestionably. I don't think that's the only thing that contributes to this film's bigger success, but having higher prices helps inflate the weekend numbers. Also, as I mentioned elsewhere this week on the site, the first film came out when I was just a freshman in college, and the series started when I was in high school. All of those kids are adults now, and some were probably very psyched about any new Jackass movie, 3D or not. Also, I can't imagine how much marketing the show got on MTV, which has two of the most successful TV shows for teenagers right now, so they probably got excited about such a crazy new movie.
Matthew Huntley: The 3D aspect obviously played a role in terms of raw dollars earned, but I think Jackass's overall performance can be attributed to viewers craving a fun, stupid experience at the movies. If you think about it, the last few weeks have seen serious films top the box-office (The Town, Wall Street, The Social Network), and although they've generally been good and mostly adored by critics audiences, they don't exactly allow you to check your brain at the door. As good of a thing as this is, sometimes all we want is to watch something that doesn't make us think, and Jackass is the epitomic manifestation of that.
Bruce Hall: There's no accounting for age. I started college around the time Beavis and Butt-Head was getting started, and I STILL find myself chortling at their stupidity. As I suggested in the first topic, I think that there's something about human nature that makes us enjoy watching others fail, because it somehow allows us to feel a little bit better about ourselves without actually having to accomplish anything. But whereas YouTube is filled with skateboard crashes and unintentional face plants, the Jackass gang put themselves through this stuff intentionally. As a guy who in many ways hasn't matured much since his 18th birthday, I can tell you that there's something about the premise that can't help but appeal to the mischievous adolescent in me. For some people, no matter how educated or mature you are sometimes you just want to turn your brain off and watch stupid people do stupid things with fire.
And monkeys. Monkeys are funny.
I think that the er..."genius" of Jackass is that more adults than you'd think still get a chuckle out of this, and are either willing to go themselves or willing to let their kids go. Evidently for Jackass 3D, I am reading that 60% of viewers were male, and 67% were under age 25. That's not necessarily all teenagers, and it also means that 33% of these people were NOT under 25. I think there are a lot of kids, a lot of people Josh's age, and a lot of 30-somethings like me who still find this kind of crap amusing. The addition of 3D really seems like a natural fit for this sort of idiocy and if you're anything like me, a light bulb went off in your head when you first heard about it the same way it did when you first saw Mystery Science Theater:
"Of COURSE! Why didn't I think of that!"
In the case of MST3K most people DID, it just never occurred to them to film themselves doing it. In the case of Jackass, I'd just like to keep all my original body parts right where they are, thank you.
Brett Beach: For a show that lasted only three seasons/15 months/25 episodes to give birth to a movie trilogy with a combined domestic gross (so far) of $185 million against $35 million in budgets is one of the more impressive trends of the last decade. Jackass continues to be a cultural phenomenon and in this case 3D simply helped add to its appeal. Spacing these out as they have done and delivering precisely what the audience wants has helped perpetuate an endless circle of quality supply, at a leisurely pace, to inflame ravenous demand. I don't pretend to understand, but I will be making Number Two in Chapter Two at some point, I guess.
Kim Hollis: I will point back to that audience-drawing trailer as well as agreeing with Matt's point earlier. Sometimes, we just want big dumb fun. I know that "check your brain" is a phrase that annoys Josh in particular, but there's a reason that sometimes I like to read James Joyce's Ulysses while other times I just want something fun like Harry Potter. There are times I really crave challenge, and there are times I want escapism. I was very, very close to going to see Jackass 3D this weekend and I say that as someone about as far out of that film's target demographic as possible. They did the job with the marketing on this one.