Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
November 23, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: For those of you who have seen Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One, what do you think of it?
Josh Spiegel: I thought it was very well-done, and is the first one of the series that felt more like a movie with something close to realistic characters. Now, I'm an ardent fan of the books and I think the movies have all improved in some way on their predecessors, but the many stretches in Deathly Hallows - just like in the book - where Harry, Hermione, and Ron are by themselves in various parts of the English countryside were beautifully rendered and poignant. If it was a perfect world, the climactic sequence at Malfoy Manor might have been a little longer, but in general, I think it's potentially the strongest entry in the series, if only for being so unlike the others.
Matthew Huntley: I'm in total agreement with Josh about his "realistic characters" comment. This was the first HP movie where I felt I could identify with the characters' ordeal and really empathize with them (that's pretty impressive when you consider they're wizards and witches). They didn't just seem like fantastical characters this time around, but real people with real problems.
Along with its keen character observation, the movie also displays a lot of patience and reflection (perhaps too much), but we walk away more invested than ever, and for once, I wasn't certain of the characters' safety. I haven't read the novels, and I'm pretty sure I can anticipate the overall saga's conclusion, but the idea that the movie was able to make me fear for the characters' well-being is a testament to the film's power. In my opinion, it is not the best in the series (that recognition still goes to Goblet of Fire), but it is close. And, as usual, the production values and special effects, especially with the scenes involving a snake, are exciting to watch. To say the least, it is a very rich film (no pun intended given its grosses so far).
Edwin Davies: I thought that it was great, and whilst not on a par with Prisoner of Azkaban, which is my personal favorite, it is certainly on a par with the excellent work that David Yates has been doing since he took over the series with Order of the Phoenix.
I was one of those people who moaned when it was announced that the book was going to be split into the two films because I thought that it was just a cynical cash grab and that it would make for a long, boring film in which nothing happened. Whilst the huge success of Part One suggests that the former may still be true, the latter absolute isn't. The extra time afforded by the fact that much of the resolution will lie in a second film means that the cast and crew can explore the fears of the characters without rushing to get to the finale as a lot of the other films have done. It is all set-up, and I can see that annoying a lot of people who just want, to quote The Simpsons, to get to the fireworks factory, but I found it to be a fun, exciting blockbuster that also doubled as a sad and mournful prelude to the final chapter.
It also features two scenes which I think rank with the series' best; the Tale of Three Brothers, which is a stunning piece of animation, and the dance between Harry and Hermione. Then again, I might be biased because I love Nick Cave and The Bad Seeds and was really, really excited to hear "O Children" used in the one place that I would never have expected to hear them.
I have a general question for those who have seen it; what were the reactions of kids in the theater to the end of the film? When The Character That Dies died, I heard some muffled but audible sobs around me and one child started shouting "someone stop him!" when Voldemort...well, when he does what he does at the very end. Were there any points in the film where you thought that perhaps the series had progressed beyond the point where it was suitable for kids?
Kim Hollis: I agree that Prisoner of Azkaban is my favorite of the films, and I also agree that the character development in the newest film is spectacular. I thought all three of Radcliffe, Grint and Watson were amazing in their roles, and have really grown into them over the years, which is something that had to happen organically and could never have been predicted. I loved Deathly Hallows Part One and I have to say, Edwin, that I was surprised to be as affected as I was when the Character That Dies died. Very. I didn't cry, though.
Michael Lynderey: I'm not saying this to be snarky but, while I liked the film, it's probably my least favorite in the series. It just seemed a little too meandering, and not enough time was spent on the supporting characters (who usually liven up the proceedings). Take this opinion with a grain of salt, though, because I'm somebody who at one point thought that the second film was the best in the series (and I still might). So what do I know?
David Mumpower: When we discussed the seventh Potter book in a MMQB in 2007, I stated that I loved everything about the story. There were criticisms at the time that the first half was too slow, meticulous in the wrong way. I dismissed them in that I loved the characters so much that the journey to the finish line felt appropriately paced. This is not the case with the movie, which simply lacks enough action to give a foundation to two and a half hours of character development. What works in the novel fails onscreen to a degree. Yes, there are magical moments, particularly the dance sequence wherein the two characters seem to regress to their childhood right before my eyes. I think that will be the best scene of 2010 when I vote in The Calvins. I also enjoy the visuals that Josh mentions above. I just don't think that this type of detailed character study stands well enough on its own. When added in tandem to the second movie next July, that may not be the case but as I type this, I feel like this is the worst Potter film to date or at least on a par with the first one, which had been my least favorite up until now. Deathly Hallows Part I lacks a hook in my estimation. I understand the need to split the book into two movies; it just didn't work for me as a standalone piece.
Goodbye, Harry.
Kim Hollis: Do you think that the final Harry Potter film will break the opening weekend record?
Josh Spiegel: Clearly, it's possible, all the more so when we see how much the opening weekend for Part One grew on the opening weekend for Half-Blood Prince. What Part Two needs to top the record is for enough people to actually want to see Part Two; I saw the movie with a friend who's only seen the movies, and he admitted he felt kind of lost at various points. Will the people who see Part One who may not have read the books want to see Part Two? Will the curiosity factor that may have boosted Part One's opening weekend cross over? Again, it's possible, but there's not a huge precedence for Harry Potter to do THAT well.
Bruce Hall: If we're talking about the $158 million earned by The Dark Knight in 2008, I think it is entirely possible. It is easy to forget but the hype around The Dark Knight was insane. Even asleep in bed at night, I could still hear people gushing over that film. Even Avatar - which went on to earn more money than God - only managed just under an $80 million opening, if I remember correctly.
The hype around the final installment of the Potter franchise will be deafening, in ways that I am not sure we're all ready to experience. Part 1 of Deathly Hallows is earning high praise from all quarters, so it is reasonable to expect Part 2 to resonate as well or even better with audiences and critics.
They sky is the limit, if you ask me.
Brett Beach: As has been noted, they could, can, and will, unless they make the bonehead move to open it on Wednesday. I actually think they should really set the hysteria to its final fever pitch and not have any midnight screenings. Pressed for figures, I'll call it $38 million at midnight, $80 million opening day and $165 million Friday through Sunday. As the first film did nearly ten years earlier, it will hold the opening weekend record. Putting myself out on a limb: The record will stand . . . and will not be supplanted by The Dark Knight Rises.
David Mumpower: Yes.
I was tempted to make that my entire answer, but the longer explanation is this. If Warner Bros. wants the record, they can have it, assuming they still have it when the final Potter movie is released. The tricky aspect here is that they already do have it since they distributed The Dark Knight as well. There is a thought process that maybe they won't push as hard as a competing studio would. I don't buy it, though. They would love the bragging rights of having the top two openings of all time and I see the demand for Potter rising to an unprecedented crescendo. The Potter film franchise encapsulates a decade of movie-going from 2001-2011. This is the brass ring of box office. Expecting a $35 million opening weekend spike from one film to the next is ordinarily a dicey proposition. The final Potter movie is different. It will SHATTER box office records.
Matthew Huntley: No, because I can't see Deathly Hallows Part 2 making $35 million more than Part 1I to overtake The Dark Knight's current opening weekend record. If Part 2 had come closer, I would have said yes.
Kim Hollis: There are a couple of reasons I'm going to say yes, it attains the record number. First of all, it's opening in the summer, which automatically changes box office behavior to some extent, and therefore, will inflate the total number accordingly. Also, I would be very surprised if Part 2 is not released in some form of 3D, especially since they have time to get it all right by the time it is due for release. Just the ticket premium alone will be enough to account for the record. More than that, though, it will be a perfect storm of mania about the final chapter.
Edwin Davies: I'm going to say "Yes," because I think that whatever mania that currently surrounds Part 1, and there is a lot of it, will be increased ten times over when Part 2 comes out. As I've already said, this is only the beginning of the end, and it opens to $125 million. Extrapolating that, the actual end of the Harry Potter series will be just as seismic a pop cultural event as the release of the final book was back in 2007. As far as I am concerned, the only thing that can stop Harry Potter unseating The Dark Knight is if Warner Bros. decide to open it on Wednesday, which I don't think they will do because, even if Deathly Hallows Part 2 doesn't take down The Dark Knight, it'll still probably end up with the second biggest opening weekend of all time and, as David said, the bragging rights from that will mean a lot to the studio.
Shalimar Sahota: As already mentioned, provided that Warners releases it on a Friday, then it's certainly possible. Since The Dark Knight, the only film that has come close to toppling the record is Twilight: New Moon. From this I can gather that it has to be a film with major, "got to see it immediately" appeal and the final Harry Potter does fit that description. Also Twilight: Eclipse might have actually done it had it opened on a Friday. I think the main factor here is that Part 2 will be shown in 3D, and this could certainly help boost the final total, but enough to beat The Dark Knight? For now, all I'll say is that I think it'll be intimately close, but the kind where you're not quite touching each other.
Michael Lynderey: No. That's the simple answer. There's going to be a lot of anticipation and buzz, no doubt about that. But I just don't think we're going to see attendance go up all that significantly. The fans always turn out on opening weekend, anyway, and I suspect people who've sort of lost track of this series aren't necessarily going to come back to this one. So, it's possible, but in short, I would say no.
Reagen Sulewski: The Harry Potter franchise has always been hamstrung to some effect by the fact that a large proportion of its audience isn't paying full price for its tickets. By all rights, it'd have the record now if that wasn't the case. I definitely expect Warners to pull out a few stops to try and get it to the record mark, but I ultimately feel it's going to fall short.
This is payback for those times that Gladiator and Crash won Best Picture
Kim Hollis: The Next Three Days opened to $6.8 million. What went wrong here?
Josh Spiegel: I don't think this is a failure of marketing, and counterprogramming an adult-targeted thriller against Harry Potter makes sense. I think a big part of the problem is that there are still a lot of movies for adults still in theaters, such as The Town, The Social Network, Secretariat, Red, Unstoppable, and so on. The Next Three Days, while having a simple premise and a big star as the lead, just didn't ever seem like something I had to see. I'll probably check it out on Netflix, but it's not a priority right now. That could be the nail in this film's financial coffin.
Bruce Hall: Let's put aside, for a moment, the fact that opening against a Harry Potter film is suicide.
I do agree with Josh's assessment that if you are an adult who does not care for boy wizards and ancient prophecies, there are choices still out there. There are several viable options in the top ten, with even Secretariat still hanging around at number eleven. I am going to make the obvious suggestion that Russell Crowe's box office star has simply dimmed. For a time, his name was attached to almost any and every decent script floating around Hollywood. It still is, but he just doesn't seem to be getting those roles any more.
For the record, I reject the argument that he's "overrated". I just think that uneven choices with respect to the roles he's taken and poor decisions by studios who overestimate his appeal have softened his impact. Master and Commander was a thing of beauty, except for its terrible pacing. Another run through the editing room and we'd have had a different story. Meanwhile, Body of Lies was so laughably preposterous that not even pairing Maximus with Jack Dawson could save it. And Robin Hood..."Braveheart on Valium" is the nicest thing I've heard said about that one.
Personally, I'm a fan. But he doesn't always place himself in ideal situations and again - opening against Harry Potter, while not his decision - is still not a good one. And these sorts of results end up damaging Crowe the most. So to directly answer your question Kim, the easy answer to "what went wrong" is "Harry Potter." But I think that there's more to it than that. Unstoppable still managed to pull in $13 million in its second frame, so you can't tell me that there wasn't money out there somewhere.
Brett Beach: Just to put the film's opening in (positive) perspective: at least it opened better than Meet Dave, A Good Year, and In the Valley of Elah. What went wrong? 1) This didn't get marketed well or strongly, as far as I can tell. 2) Russell Crowe is not a consistent or reliable box office draw or all that beloved. He is a gifted character actor in the body of a leading man who has had some anomalous financial successes that are not all that attributable to his presence. (To circle back and tangent to Bruce's comment on Master and Commander, I think he's half right. I loved that film, didn't think it suffered from any issues of pacing and should have won Best Picture the year it was nominated.) With the same premise starring Denzel, Bruce, or even the Liam Neeson of 2009-2010, this would have opened anywhere from bigger to much much bigger.
Final analysis: If this had opened any time outside of a holiday period, I would peg this as DOA ($15-20 million final domestic). With Thanksgiving to goose up grosses a little, I think this has a chance, in tandem with strong word-of-mouth, to get close to making its budget back.
David Mumpower: I think you guys are dancing away from the core of the issue here. The Next Three Days is on the shortlist for most ridiculous premise of the 2000s. Apparently, a wife being framed for murder isn't enough of a stretch. The producers of this film have to throw in a jail break wherein a guy who has never planned a crime before is suddenly John "The Cat" Robie. I was more horrified by this trailer than I was by the eyeball scene in Hostel. This movie has like three years worth of soap opera plots loosely thrown together like paint splatter.
Matthew Huntley: David, yes, the premise does look ridiculous, but I think any movie can successfully be about anything. It's how it's about it that counts, and judging only by this movie's trailer, I think how The Next Three Days was about its premise did, indeed, make it look ridiculous. You're right, it was an awful trailer and it gave away practically everything except what is sure to be the foregone ending: when the wife admits she either did or did not commit the crime (I'm guessing she did, and that's the big twist at the end, making her escape all for not). I speculate another reason the movie failed was because of its title. I'd like to think audiences aren't so superficial that they'll judge a movie by its title, but we all know that's not the case, and The Next Three Days just sounds lame. Maybe the movie will prove us wrong when/if we see it.
Edwin Davies: I think everyone is missing the bigger picture here. It's not that the plot is ridiculous, it's that the film seriously expects us to believe that someone who looks like Russell Crowe could get someone who looks like Elizabeth Banks.
The execution is all important with that plot because I saw the original French version (yes, The Next Three Days is a remake) Pour Elle (or Anything For Her, if you want to check it out in Netflix) last year and it was one of the best thrillers I have seen in a long time. It's almost as good as Tell No One, that other great modern French thriller, because it takes a thoroughly down-to-earth approach to a preposterous story, making the audience care about the characters enough to make us forget that the story is really silly. It also spends a lot of time showing how the husband would go about effecting an escape, spending months planning and planning and planning. The remake, on the other hand, is all about how Russell Crowe goes from mild-mannered schlub to Houdini in three easy steps, and that makes for a film which looks downright silly, especially when you consider the wealth of non-silly adult fare out there at the moment.
Seriously, though, everyone should check out Anything For Her. It's a really, really good film.
Reagen Sulewski: If I may take a swerve here, in my opinion, it's that it wasn't ridiculous enough. They needed to go full Law Abiding Citizen here just to create some mystery about how the hell they were going to pull this ridiculous premise off. We need spectacle now.
Max Braden: See, as ridiculous as the premise is for The Next Three Days, it doesn't seem much crazier to me than Unstoppable. (Seriously. One guy running on the back of a mile long train manually turning on brakes while the engine is still pulling at 70 mph with only five miles of track to disaster? Come on. Seriously??) And I think swapping Russell and Denzel, all else being the same, doesn't change the results that much. To me that just says Unstoppable had better timing, in part because it got there first.