Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
November 15, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Unstoppable, the latest Tony Scott/Denzel Washington collaboration, opened to $22.7 million. Do you consider this result good, bad or about right?
Josh Spiegel: This number is almost exactly what The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 made in its opening weekend, and Denzel Washington is a movie star, but this is just about what he brings in with his movies these days with only one or two exceptions. So, yeah, this seems pretty well in line with what the movie was going to make. I've heard some good word-of-mouth for the film, so it may hold up well over the holiday season and get solid legs. That said, I doubt this movie will top $100 million, as only three of Washington's films have ever done so (and The Pelican Brief only barely topped it). I would expect better numbers than what Pelham did, but this seems almost boringly expected.
Bruce Hall: Den-Z-Washing-Tone meets James T. Kirk - a serviceable opening weekend haul, if you want to look at it in a vacuum. The problem is that the film cost around $100 million to make. Even eventually taking the international gross into account, this one stands a good chance of ending up on the wrong side of its production budget. I don't know that there's a lot more you can draw from this right now; this is just one man's opinion but I think the jury is out on Unstoppable until we see how it performs second frame.
Luckily, I don't see anything significant opening next week except for some silly movie about a boy wizard and his friends. And come on, who the hell wants to see that?
Matthew Huntley: I think the result is both good and bad (which I guess is another way of saying it's about right). It's good because the movie was able to overcome its rather formulaic/"inspired by true events" story, proving once again audiences are willing to pay for product that still sells itself with this tag line, even though they can anticipate the story's overall direction. It's bad because the movie reportedly cost $100 million to produce, and even with good legs through the holidays, it will struggle to recoup its budget. I'm actually surprised Fox put up so much money for this one, since Scott and Washington haven't exactly been huge box office draws in a while.
Edwin Davies: I personally thought that it might have opened a teensy bit higher - not much so, but I didn't think that the $30 million mark was out of the question - based on the largely positive reviews, which, with the exception of Crimson Tide, have always eluded the Scott-Washington team-up, and a concept that sounded like it would appeal to action fans looking for some simple, undemanding fun. However, as everyone else has said, $22.7 million is very much within their wheelhouse based on their previous work, and whilst the reviews could give it decent legs over the coming weeks, I don't see this one making its budget back until foreign box office gets added into the equation.
So, to answer your question, Kim, it is about right as an opening, but they probably wanted a better start before Harry Potter starts Apparating into every available screen.
Shalimar Sahota: Pretty much with Josh on this one. It sounds about right to me. I am rather surprised at the overly positive reviews on this one, which I didn't expect. There have been stories about the budget, and Washington leaving the project at one point. I don't think it'll make its $100 million back till worldwide takings come in, though the reviews might equate to a strong hold and low drops.
Michael Lynderey: Weird, isn't it, how The Book of Eli outperformed most of Washington's recent output, and in January, too? But putting that one aside, Denzel is easily one of the most consistent movie stars out there (along with Madea, Adam Sandler, and, it would appear, Matt Damon). I was thinking that the insertion of Chris Pine - in what is just a pitch-perfect post-breakout role - would really up the numbers here, and I'm a little surprised that wasn't the case. The material was probably just too familiar, and adult audiences seem to have milked Red dry when it comes to getting their action fill as of late. So, I'm a little disappointed, but the movie should still top out right by $70 million - not so bad in a month that also has The Next Three Days and Faster on the horizon.
Reagen Sulewski: When Tony Scott plays it straight, he is an unbridled hit making machine. For as much as he gets criticized for excess, he seems to have a preternatural understanding of what audiences want from an action film. It's almost a bigger surprise to me that Denzel keeps getting embraced as an action star - he never really was one in his younger days and the transition to these roles has felt like a bit of a left field turn. He's 56-years-old, after all, even if he doesn't really look it.
While this probably won't make it to the $100 million mark, I have to think that no one's really that concerned - this has DVD/Blu-Ray and cable hit written all over it, and as long as Scott's films continue to open in this neighborhood, he'll continue to get to make them.
David Mumpower: The films Scott and Washington have created together over the past few years have averaged a $22.2 million opening; Unstoppable winds up with $22.7 million. This debut is so uniform that it almost circles back to being an amazing box office quirk in terms of predictability. I agree that it's boring to an extent, and I would put my vote in the "This is not good news for Chris Pine" camp. On the plus side, he's made a very good, mostly successful film with a noted director who likes to re-hire people on later projects. On the minus side, the film would have done basically the same if they had cast any other actor in Hollywood instead of him. He's earning his stripes, but there wasn't much interest in seeing him in a non-Captain Kirk role. That's unfortunate given the near-universal praise for this film.