Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
November 29, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Tangled opened to $68.7 million over five days, including $48.8 million over the three-day portion of the weekend, almost matching Harry Potter's second weekend in the process. How impressed are you by this result? How do you stack it against competitors like DreamWorks?
Josh Spiegel: I'm pretty impressed by this result. I'm not sure that the predictions - which seemed to think the movie would do half the five-day number - were closer to my expectations. That said, I'd assumed the movie to do a little less, partly because Harry Potter and Megamind were still in theaters, and partly because the marketing seemed so baffling to me. The CinemaScore, though, shows that those who saw the movie are loving it, which means the movie could be as powerful over the holiday season as the boy wizard. Good for Disney - and I sincerely expect them to backtrack the "No Princesses" edict within about...oh, one week or so.
Bruce Hall: I've read in a handful of places that this was projected to open around $40 million or so, even by Disney. I have the impression that even Mickey himself was surprised by this result. It is entirely possible that many of the parents who want their kids to see Harry Potter or Megamind have already made it happen and with the long weekend plus the excellent word-of-mouth, Tangled seemed like just the ticket.
I've seen a bit of advertising for this movie and although I am familiar with the source material it was hard for me to see the appeal just from the ads, which seemed uninspired to me. But then, I am not really the target audience I guess. On the other hand, it is hard for me to think of anyone I know with kids - especially little girls - who have not been to see Tangled or expressed interest in it. That isn't exactly scientific, of course, but I have noticed palpable buzz around this movie just in my little corner of the world, and it seems to be the same around the country.
This is great news for Disney and I am pretty sure that if you're walking the streets of Burbank, CA tonight and you listen very closely, you can hear Disney executives screaming from open convertibles: "Pixar? We don't need no stinking Pixar!"
And for the record, especially in light of this result, I expect Disney to stop making movies about Princesses the same day Michael Bay stops making movies about things blowing up.
Brett Beach: Maybe Hollywood has learned that if you swear that something will be the "last", even if people aren't necessarily aware of this statement, it creates an anti-self-fulfilling prophecy, whereby profits are maximized and you are proven wrong (in the best possible way) when you "must" make another. Disney could probably get away with making a sequel to Tangled and still claim that since it is the same princess, it is still the "last of their princess films." Cynicism aside, this is a truly stout and hearty Thanksgiving gross: the second best debut over the five-day period (after Toy Story 2); a significant percentage improvement over the similarly themed and successful Enchanted; and indications that this may play better over the next month than ol' HP himself. I think it compares favorably to other studios' animation in that something like Shrek would seem to have more of a inherent crossover potential among to bring in girls than Tangled would boys, and this already seems to have been proven false. Mandy Moore, at least, must be breathing a sigh of relief that License to Wed is no longer her highest-grossing feature as a lead actress.
Joshua Pasch: I find this result to be absolutely incredible.
I was about to note as Brett did that this move soundly trumps the five-day gross of the Enchanted - a movie that was considered a resounding success for Disney - and one that reinvigorated the "princess" sub-genre for them.
Tangled's three-day gross (having been deflated substantially by a large Wednesday/Thursday total), still trumped Megamind's 3-day total by $3 million and with a great holiday season in front of it, Disney's other animation team has a chance to reach Pixar-level heights with this winner (both critically and financially).
Matthew Huntley: I don't know if "impressed" is the right word so much as the phrase, "exceeded expectations." An opening of $69 million is by no means shabby, but given the movie's theater count and the 3D surcharges, plus the benefit of HP being in his second weekend, I can't say I'm overly surprised by this result, not at a time of year when families are invading theaters. I've no doubt this movie will show some remarkable legs (and may even claim #1 next weekend) over the holiday season, and I could see it grossing about as much as Despicable Me when all is said and done, but it has a reported budget of $260 million (although this seems high to me), so it will have to make a killing both domestically and internationally to show the Mouse House a profit. But its opening, as well as its reviews and audience reception, suggest it's clearly on its way.
Shalimar Sahota: Kinda with Matthew on this one. Obviously great, but impressed? This one was obviously going to come out on top of all the new releases. I'd be more impressed if this stays in the top ten longer than Harry Potter, and so far I think it could just do that. When I saw the first trailer, it did almost look to me like Disney wanted to take a fairy-tale and Shrekerise it. It's supposedly six years in the making, which is why the budget is a rather ridiculous $260 million. The film should be able to make it back once worldwide totals are taken in.
Joshua Pasch: I'm really surprised by the lack of enthusiasm for this opening. It came in roughly $20 million above expectations. That is nothing to sneeze at. This is Pixar/DreamWorks territory in terms of opening weekend - something Disney animators/marketers have not been able to achieve without the Pixar brand name attached.
I will say that this is the first I'm reading about that $260 million budget, which does admittedly temper my enthusiasm considerably. But that shouldn't take away from what is a surprising total over opening weekend. I think it has a solid shot at matching that $260 million - or at least it can come within spitting distance.
Reagen Sulewski: I could be bitter about being talked out of a $50 million prediction or just impressed with what Disney has been able to pull off here, and I'll probably live longer if I go with the latter. I think what we're seeing here is that Disney has been able to adapt their formula to the new reality of animation, particularly 3D animation. Now, it helps that they've had Pixar carrying their water for a decade and that the Disney brand still means something, but they've pulled themselves back into the game, and they're just one great idea away from another Lion King.
I too think the "no princesses" edict is a rash decision - but it probably won't kill them to try and think out of the box for awhile.
Michael Lynderey: I'd rank it right up there with anything DreamWorks has put up this year, even if it won't have the legs (won't it?). Disney has managed to not only replicate but surpass what they did with Enchanted three years ago this weekend, but with a product that looked far less innovative and original. The big appeal to pre-teen girls (something most CGI animations don't possess) combined with the Disney stamp of approval certainly must have helped. But still, coming in just five days after Harry Potter, this is a pretty remarkable achievement that goes beyond the normal reasoning for such openings.
They should get naked-er in a movie called Burlesque
Kim Hollis: Burlesque earned $17.3 million over five days, including $11.9 million over the Friday-to-Sunday portion of the weekend. Is this more, less, or about what you were expecting from the Screen Gems release?
Josh Spiegel: Seeing as this movie was branded as camp before it even came out, yeah, the result's about what I expected. Obviously, Cher and Christina Aguilera are still well known quantities, but nothing about this seemed particularly eye-catching, unless you're into gaudy faux-musicals. Anyway, considering the reviews, I'd say Screen Gems should be happy and hoping for a strong bit of business on DVD.
Bruce Hall: I don't think I was asked but if you had, I'd have said "under $20 million." This result isn't surprising to me, but it is worth noting that a lot of bread was spent marketing this thing, and that's money that must be accounted for. Meanwhile, the production budget was evidently around $60 million. I have to believe that someone is going to spend Monday enduring some icy stares across the conference table from their higher ups.
On the other hand, Burlesque strikes me as the kind of film that may well develop a significant following over time. It's earning fair word-of-mouth, with CinemaScore showing an A-. And despite the poor critical feedback at Rotten Tomatoes, 80% of patrons say they enjoyed it. No, that isn't very scientific but I think it is telling. This is a niche film that will attract generally favorable crowds because they already know what they're going to get. If you like gaudy musical numbers, sequins, bright lights, divas and drag queens, and by God if you like Cher, you're bound to be entertained.
When Burlesque opens worldwide, it will be interesting to see how it plays. Sony (who is taking point on international distribution) seems to feel it can be profitable in this way. Over time, when we look back at the overseas numbers and eventual DVD sales, they might end up being correct.
Joshua Pasch: Burlesque reminds me of an even campier version of last year's non-success Nine, and that one finished with less than $20 million total domestically. I'd say with that consideration, that Screen Gems (which rarely opens a film to less than $7 million or more than $25 million on opening weekend) will be at least mildly pleased to have achieved the status quo with something that is a bit outside their traditional genre wheelhouse.
I completely agree that this will be a film with a long shelf life and I do not look forward to the distantly foreseeable day when it is playing on TV and I am forced to sit through it.
Matthew Huntley: Does anyone else think Burlesque could be trashy fun? Is that not the definition of "burlesque" in the first place? If people keep that in mind when going into this movie, I think they'll be pleasantly surprised and/or at least their expectations will be met. That's probably what's keeping the movie's head above water and preventing it from being an outright bomb.
Yes, $17 million is more or less what I expected. With huge post-holiday drop-offs sure to come, I think it will earn $6-$8 million next weekend and then be all but gone by Christmas, but a close of about $40 million seems likely. Sony/Screen Gems took a gamble by releasing it at Thanksgiving, but I think this result is what they would have got at any time of year. Better to earn back two-thirds of your budget than none at all.
Brett Beach: I am of the opinion that this does not look fun enough to be trashy fun. I think bets were definitely hedged by making this PG-13. A "burlesque" that the MPAA has deemed fit for a barely teen ain't no burlesque at all. The timing is also funny in that this is Cher's first lead role in ten years and this movie should have been made about that long ago, when Xtina was still the new former Mouseketeer on the block and not pushing 30 (although I do like that for balance, Kristen Bell, who plays her rival in the film, is about the same age as the pop star). This opening is better than I thought it would be for a project long past its sell by date. But set against that reported $55 million budget (!), it won't be turning a good profit until its theater days are as faded as a worn out tassel.
Reagen Sulewski: "Consider the alternative" does seem to be the story of this one. Glitter finished with $5 million. I have to concur with those that think this feels like a film that will exhaust the core of its audience rather quickly - though midnight screenings do seem to be in its future. They're going for the long tail on this.
Michael Lynderey: It's about what I was expecting at this point, but it's probably less than what the studio had in mind when they greenlit the film. I think the expectations for Christina Aguilera's film debut may have been bigger, even if the film didn't really come at her peak of popularity. Now it's looking to finish in the lower tier of musicals, even if it won't go down as another Rent or The Producers. The intriguing thing about the film is that it's going to end up as the highest grosser of Kristen Bell's three 2010 films. If you'd asked me a year ago, I would have guessed that Bell was really going to break out in 2010. But, through unfortunate luck or circumstance, she's somehow ended up in three box office disappointments. What I'm trying to say is: Katherine Heigl's knack for picking scripts shouldn't be so casually knocked.