Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
November 16, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Skyline, the District 9 wannabe that critics despised, opened to $11.8 million. Given the modest mid-teens budget, do you consider this an acceptable result, or is it still a disappointment?
Josh Spiegel: I'd say given the fact that everyone I follow on Twitter said that Skyline was not just bad, but hilariously terrible, this number is impressive. Also, the budget for the movie is listed as $10 million, but I've read a few people elsewhere say it's even lower than that. Either way, this gives the special-effects company behind the film ammo to make new films, even if they're as supposedly stupid as Skyline. Enough people were hooked in by the many, many references (or rip-offs, I suppose) to every other alien attack film, hence the not-so-bad number.
Bruce Hall: I am going to start posting on Saturdays, because Josh often takes the words right out of my mouth.
Seriously though, Skyline looks for all the world like one of those critic-proof, low budget fantasies that are almost guaranteed to make their money back by virtue of a bored young target demographic with low expectations. No matter how bad this movie was - and even the trailers were putting people in stitches - it evidently made its production budget back in one fell swoop - from here out, everything else is gravy.
Before you say that this marks the onset of the Apocalypse, or just the death of cinema, take heart. I can think of no better incentive for SciFi Channel (I refuse to call it that other thing) to finally bring Mansquito to the big screen.
Tim Briody: I still think the chili concept is a winner. Wouldn't have gotten worse reviews than this movie did.
Brett Beach: This seems like one of those "made to cash in on a blockbuster of the moment" flicks that pop up on DVD or cable the week before or after said blockbuster hits the theaters with a title so very similar it may actually fool the less discerning film watcher. The TV-marquee headliners (Donald Faison and Eric Balfour) bear this theory out. Apparently, the plot is a mashup of virtually all the aliens attacking Earth scenarios that have come before with the special effects either being the sole raison d'etre or absolutely nothing special either. For what it's worth, the TV trailers I saw had me tuning out before the 30 seconds was up. I got the sense that expectations were becoming ridiculously inflated just before the release (with a Skyline 2 already announced in advance, a practice that annoys me to no end.) Thus, even with a budget this small, I would call this opening weekend, in light of expected swift and terrible falloffs in the days to come, a disappointment.
Matthew Huntley: Bruce, along with Mansquito, they can also bring Sharktopus to the big screen. What a great double feature that would be.
To answer Kim's question, though, a near $12 million opening is acceptable for a movie like Skyline, especially when you consider how much of a disaster it could have been. And speaking of being a disaster, isn't it that characteristic of Skyline that makes it look entertaining? It was marketed as a B movie, and I doubt the filmmakers even thought it was going to be as highly regarded as Independence Day or District 9, so I think audiences are going to try and enjoy this movie for what it is, and I think it will have enough of an audience to be considered a success.
Edwin Davies: Considering how bad people are saying this movie is*, I'd say that $11.8 million is pretty great for Skyline. Even though there are conflicting reports about how much the film cost, most agree that it probably made its budget back by Sunday, and even if its legs get beamed up out from under it next week it it'll all be profit. Factor in worldwide numbers and it'll wind up being a moderate success all round and justify a stupid, stupid sequel.
*Though I'm not sure yet whether the consensus is that it's just bad or so bad it's good, what I've read about the ridiculous ending suggests that it starts at the former and ends at the latter. Seriously, look it up on Wikipedia. We're talking Orphan-level crazy.
Shalimar Sahota: This was a straight-to-DVD movie with actors you've barely heard of, special effects that just don't look so special anymore, and it miraculously got a cinema release and did better than expected. To be fair, I thought the marketing trailers, ending on a clump of people screaming while being risen up to a mothership, were frighteningly good. It also sounds like those trailers sold a number of people expecting an action packed alien invasion, since some reviews highlight how the film actually stays in a condo building most of the time.
Michael Lynderey: Considering this movie just sort of mysteriously appeared on the release schedule a few months ago, and was apparently never intended to be a blockbuster, I'd say this number is more than sufficient. These low-budget "mystery projects" have a spotty track record, and it's on a rare occasion that they end up being a Cloverfield or a Paranormal Activity. Sometimes, precisely because so little is known about these films, box office forecasters dare to dream big on them (and I myself briefly entertained the possibility that Skyline would make $100 million), but reality usually sets in, Snakes on a Plane-style. As for the movie itself, it's probably those fairly sturdy similarities to the Clover film that kept it from breaking out.
Reagen Sulewski: It's funny how last week we were wondering if the concept of star power was dead, when here we have a film that badly needed some star power. This is exactly the kind of effects-driven spectacular that could and has opened July 4th to ridiculous numbers. Forget the bad reviews - if you can convince, say, John Cusack or Christian Bale to appear in this, your opening weekend triples. Now, it's something of an achievement that they got this film out there on such a small budget, but it's still a blown opportunity in some respects.
David Mumpower: I will speak as one of the people who thought the trailer for Skyline made it look interesting. I was seriously considering going to see this right up until the reviews starting pouring in. These are the "villagers with torches and pitchforks" type of reviews. I mean, we might owe Mansquito and Sharktopus an apology for equating them to Skyline in terms of quality. And the ending of this does sound like one that will live in infamy for an indefinite period in the realm of pop culture. All things considered, I'm not sure where this leaves me in terms of its opening weekend performance. On the other hand, they disguised a cinematic abomination well enough to get it into double digits. On the other hand, it's going to have a train wreck of a final box office multiplier. Without knowing the specific marketing costs, my inclination is to think that this is a draw trending toward a loss as Brett had indicated. If the negative cost winds up at $25 million or less, however, I'd call it a win since Skyline will be permanently ensconced on SyFy's schedule.
What's the frequency, Kenneth? What's it all about, Alfie? What's the story...
Kim Hollis: Morning Glory opened to $11.8 million over five days, including $9.2 million over the weekend. How should Paramount feel about this result?
Josh Spiegel: Am I the only one who thinks it's odd when movies are released on a Wednesday when it's not a holiday weekend? This happened with Knight and Day over the summer, and it's happened again with Morning Glory. Knight and Day, at least, is an action comedy, so a mid-summer release makes sense, but you can't tell me Paramount expected a ton of adults and folks on dates to spend their Veterans' Day at the movies. I've heard mixed to positive reviews for the film, but I think Paramount screwed the pooch big time by not just opening it on Friday. Also, maybe I watch the wrong talk shows, but when notoriously gruff guest Harrison Ford is the most notable actor doing appearances for the movie, it's not a good sign.
Bruce Hall: Not only that, but Harrison Ford couldn't have looked less interested in this project as he promoted it. Part of that is just him, plus the fact that at this point in his career he can essentially phone in six weeks of work a year and call it good. And that's okay; I suppose he's earned that.
While I guess it is fair to make the argument that Paramount might have forgone the mid week opening on this one, I think this may have been a no-win situation for the studio. This is a film with rather lukewarm appeal to begin with. Throw in a seemingly scattershot demographic, and the fact that you're opening between a bigger than expected family friendly animated film, and some sort of special effects extravaganza called "Larry Potter", opening next week.
Anybody's guess what that one's about.
So, if someone gives you 60 seconds in a room with a pile of money and two other people twice your size, you just grab what you can get and consider yourself lucky. Of course in this case, with its $40 million price tag, "lucky" might be a subjective term.
Brett Beach: The puzzling mid-week opening is the big story for me here. It may have made sense if Paramount had opted to open this against Harry Potter (still an unwise decision) and wanted two days of early reviews and buzz to avoid being swamped by the behemoth (which I think is what will happen to The Next Three Days). Otherwise, they lost the chance to at least finish a spot higher in the top five. This one had been batted around on the schedule long enough that I honestly expected to see it staring out of my nearest Redbox before too long. The budget was on the low side, Ford can take solace in knowing this will at least outgross Extraordinary Measures and the good notices for McAdams help to alleviate too much of a whiff of failure.
Matthew Huntley: Another interesting note about the mid-week opening is I still see posters/billboards around town that advertise "November 12th," (instead of November 10th), so it seems the date was changed rather late in the game. Maybe the studio thought teenagers who had Veteran's Day off from school would want to check it out, but that's a bit of a stretch.
Regardless, Paramount should be disappointed by this result, especially given the caliber of talent/star power attached to the project. And yet, I can't imagine they're too surprised, since the subject matter doesn't exactly scream "cinematic," as if it had to be seen in the theater to be fully appreciated. It feels more like a DVD rental on an otherwise quiet evening. Plus, I didn't think the marketing was too aggressive in showing off the movie's funny/heartwarming scenes (if there are any). All in all, it seems like the movie was advertised as a vanilla story that happened to have some famous people in it, and audiences weren't convinced it was essential viewing.
Edwin Davies: Paramount should be kicking themselves for deciding to open it mid-week since, even though I don't think it necessarily lost money by doing it, no good can come from reports that your film earned only just over $1 million on its first day. It might not have made all that much difference in the long run, but at least it would have made for a better story to start its run than the one it got.
Apparently the film is good, not great, kind of a not-as-good Broadcast News for the 21st century, and the star power of the film might carry it far enough for it to earn its budget back, but that seems to be a best case scenario based on how it has performed so far.
Michael Lynderey: Not good, this. It's basically ended up on the level of Did You Hear About the Morgans?, When in Rome, and You Again, except with much better reviews, this time. But looking at the bigger picture: it's getting harder and harder to forecast romantic comedies, which are going all over the place at the box office lately, often irregardless of quality. Star power is tough to gauge. For example: since Jennifer Aniston's The Switch arguably underperformed, does that mean The Bounty Hunter's fairly solid success was all because of Gerard Butler? (Questions like these keep us up at night, I know). Next, considering Morning Glory's performance, does that mean that The Time Traveler's Wife was all Eric Bana? But even keeping in mind that Ford, Keaton, and McAdams are not necessarily outright draws, I think Morning Glory should have done better. As with Skyline, it's possible that the concept just felt too similar to a much bigger recent film - in this case, I'd say The Ugly Truth, for starters. All of this isn't a very coherent explanation, but then, it's getting to be more and more of an unruly genre.
Max Braden: On paper, a project like this should open in the upper teens. Imagine if Sandra Bullock had starred instead of McAdams (perhaps not this year, or perhaps this year in Diane Keaton's role), it might have opened in the mid 20s. And on paper, these aren't small time players. All you have to say is The Notebook to know who McAdams is, and Keaton and Ford have been around forever. Way back in 1998, he opened Six Days, Seven Nights in a similar curmudgeon role to $16 million. But the three of them combined, plus the teased love story with Patrick Wilson, may have ended up splitting the vote. With no real focus on one character, audiences didn't have much to invest in. That said, I don't think this hurts McAdams at all. And this being her second movie with Keaton, you can almost see her following Keaton's path in the tone of her movies.
Reagen Sulewski: I don't really blame the mid-week opening for much other than sucking a little momentum out of the weekend - but please, please, please let this be the death knell for this ridiculous idea. It's becoming a hallmark of films that studios have run out of ideas to try and promote them. The calendar move lets them appear to have done something.
One big problem that the movie had was that absolutely nothing stood out about it. There wasn't one notable or memorable gag in the ads, so all you had was "It's Rachel McAdams! And she's doin' stuff!" While she's charming and lovable, that doesn't make for a good way to convince me to spend $12.
David Mumpower: I agree with the group think that this is a disappointment. I disagree with the assessment that the Wednesday opening was problematic. The premise behind such a move is to build buzz for a release through word of mouth. It rarely works, but there are some grand scale instances of success such as Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. There are also several notable failures wherein the Wednesday move is a Hail Mary play without the positive result the Jacksonville Jaguars had against the Houston Texans Sunday. Some of those have been documented here. In the case of Morning Glory, I feel that the data tells a story. The film starts horribly on Wednesday but then rises 44% on Thursday, doubles on Friday and rises another 28% on Saturday. It's rare in this box office era to see a movie increase for four consecutive days. That's usually an example of positive word-of-mouth enhancing awareness. While I cannot rule out this behavior being a quirk due to the anomalously low Wednesday box office, the first five days of data suggests that the Wednesday opening helped a modest production build awareness. And while that $2.6 million of extra revenue is not a huge deal, it could wind up being the difference between this project finishing the red versus the black.