Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
December 21, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Yogi Bear opened to $16.4 million. Is this more, less or about what you expected?
Edwin Davies: Two or three months ago, if you had told me that Yogi Bear was going to open to under $20 million, I'd have been surprised since it seemed to be just the sort of terrible talking animal movie that does spectacularly well at this time of year. (Those Chipmunks have a lot to answer for.) As the release date neared, and as it became apparent that next to no one was interested in seeing this abomination, I readjusted my expectations and $16.4 million is perhaps a little bit higher than I thought it would make. Every once in a while, the public seem to decide en masse that a film that looks terrible probably is terrible, and it warms my tiny, Scrooge-like heart to see it open to such "meh" numbers.
Of course, the best thing about this release is that it has given rise to that "alternate ending" video in which Boo-Boo plays Robert Ford to Yogi's Jesse James.
Bruce Hall: Somehow, I had no idea this movie even existed until I ordered tickets online for something else this weekend and saw it. When I watched the trailer I almost became physically ill thinking about all the weary, dead-eyed parents who were going to be forced to sit through this unholy creation and buy $40 worth of snacks. With an $80 million price tag to cover, this qualifies as a very soft opening. But if there's one time of year a movie like this is going to have legs, this is it. With the added holiday business here and abroad, and the fact that there doesn't seem to be a marketing budget to recover, maybe Warner Bros can break even on this one. Someday.
And just maybe by the first of the year I'll have forgotten the terrifying thought of Elwood Blues wearing bifocals and voicing a hideous cartoon bear.
Brett Beach: Not knowing the exact currency exchange rate, but is Yogi's $16 million with 3D assist perhaps equal to Marmaduke's $12 million? Anyway, I think this is about what I expected. We may still be shocked at the $200 million plus of both Chipmunks epics, but there simply is not the love for Yogi Bear that would have given this the chance at pulling off even half of those opening weekends. The holidays will help lessen the stench, but probably not shield us from the pic-a-nic basket puns that will endure for the next month or so.
Michael Lynderey: I predicted just a little under kajillion dollars in my forecast, so, um, yes, it's definitely a lot less than I was expecting. What went wrong here is a terrific question, and I really have a hard time understanding what Alvin and co. possess that Mr. Bear does not. Is it the melodious singing voice? If so, was that really worth the roughly $150 million in box office difference that's going to end up separating these two? And does this mean no Yogi Bear: The Squeakuel?
Reagen Sulewski: It's significantly less and I couldn't be more pleased. I've cynically expected most of these talking CGI animal films to do well because I, well, because I hate people, really, and their tastes typically disappoint me. If they're learning to avoid the crappiest of pandering children's films? Well then I may have to reevaluate my world view. It's a Christmas miracle!
David Mumpower: Warner Bros. avoided their presumed Marmaduke-ian fate, so I'm calling this a win. With regards to Brett's comment about 3D, the thought process is valid in the short term. The difference is that Marmaduke had a woeful final box office multiplier (final domestic box office divided by opening weekend total) for a family film. That is a tribute to how poorly considered that product was. Even if people are disappointed by Yogi Bear, it will still have a killer final box office multiplier due to holiday box office inflation. While $16 million boosted by 3D looks equivalent to $12 million in June without the 3D ticket price inflation right now, it won't in three weeks. Yogi Bear should at least double it domestically if not more.
Mark Wahlberg would like you to say hello to your mother.
Kim Hollis: The Fighter expanded to 2,499 venues this week, and earned $12.1 million in the process. How should Paramount feel about this result?
Michael Lynderey: Excellent. That's exactly the number you want for a drama that's heading into awards season with excellent reviews. I don't think we'll see three digits, but a total around as much as $80 million isn't out of the question. And if you look at the ghosts of Oscar seasons past, recent years haven't offered a lot of these Oscary dramas doing even as well as that.
Edwin Davies: I think they should be very happy. They seem to have chosen just the right time to move it into wide-release, capitalizing on the awards attention that the film has received as well as the strong reviews and word-of-mouth. Of the Oscar contenders that are out or are about to come out, it's easily the most conventional and crowd-pleasing and so will probably wind up being a consensus choice over the coming weeks for people who want to watch a good film but are too weirded out by Black Swan. With the holidays still ahead and awards season just starting to heat up - a season which will probably reward Christian Bale a fair amount - then this could be a strong start to a very successful run for The Fighter.
Probably the biggest winner out of the situation, though, is director David O. Russell, who has spent the better part of the last decade in the wilderness, as far as Hollywood is concerned. Seems that taking over the film from Darren Aronofsky (who left to direct Black Swan, also in the Top Ten) has been the right move for him, since it might provide him with the sort of sizable critical and commercial hit that will allow him to keep making movies. Which is good news since he's an interesting, if volatile and a teensy bit crazy, guy.
Reagen Sulewski: It's funny how even a token limited release can change the perceptions of a film. This film's limited run was a one-week, three-venue blip, which then expanded immediately into a 2,500 venue release. And with that one week, The Fighter changed from a Mark Wahlberg sports film to a prestige release and gets treated with different rules.
It's not without reason - with those Oscar noms forthcoming, we know that the box office is going to be unusually strong. But a $12 million opening for Invincible or Shooter is a disaster. Here, it's a great start.
David Mumpower: Reagen's point regarding perception is exceptional. Acknowledging that, we as a group reached a universally positive consensus regarding Black Swan's $3.3 million in 90 locations last weekend. With another exceptional expansion this weekend, that Oscar contender is at $15.8 million after 17 days. Yes, it still has one more significant expansion to go; still, The Fighter is already right on its heels with $12.6 million after ten days in release. If we liked what Black Swan pulled off over the last two weekends, we must similarly praise The Fighter even if it did skip bases in expanding into 2,499 new locations, an exhibition number Black Swan may never see. What I take from all of this is that I believe both of these films have gone a long way toward securing Best Picture nominations through their expansion performances. These awards season buzz films need positive reviews (unless they're trying to get Golden Globes nods...then, they just need Johnny Depp or Angelina Jolie) and enough box office to avoid the perception of bombing. Each has done so with The Fighter appearing to have the most long term upside in terms of domestic revenue.
Eat James L. Brooks's shorts, jerks.
Kim Hollis: How Do You Know opened to $7.5 million. Why do you think this one hasn't done any better thus far?
Brett Beach: Perhaps the National Society for Proper Deployment of Punctuation has a lot of pull with potential theatergoers? From what I gather from the reviews I have read (the positive, negative, and very negative), this is a very conventional and straightforward romantic comedy, albeit with the idiosyncratic rhythms and characters that have marked both James L Brooks' critical and commercial highs (Terms of Endearment, As Good As It Gets, Broadcast News) and lows (Spanglish, I'll Do Anything). And yet, none of the advertising seemed able to convey this, or make any of its appealing stars seem all that star-riffic. We bandy back and forth here at BOP about star power and whether it "still matters." I will simply comment that it is distressing that four commercially viable actors and one of the most honored and successful writer/producer/directors in Hollywood either collaborated on a terrible comedy costing $120 million or made a great comedy that the studio could not market to save its life. This should pull in more than Did You Hear About the Morgans' $30 million, but whether, even with the 12 Days of Christmas of looming, it can top Spanglish's underwhelming $43 million is iffy.
Michael Lynderey: It's tough to say, but the unenthused reviews, lack of mega-draws in the cast, and general lack of buzz seem to have really pulled their weight here. It'll rebound just a little over the holidays, but history is really repeating itself here with James L. Brooks, whose Spanglish also underperformed just as the Fockers were hitting town the last time around. How Do You Know is also going to be the least grossing Paul Rudd starring role since Over Her Dead Body, and that is unfortunate, but he'll bounce back.
Edwin Davies: I'm inclined to think that the mediocre-to-bad reviews had a lot to do with it. How Do You Know is the sort of film that can benefit hugely from good reviews since it's a romantic comedy with no easily defined gimmick to sell it on. Good or great reviews can persuade people to take a chance on the film when they might not otherwise really know what it has to offer. In this instance, the reviews seem to have said that it's not worth bothering with, and most of America agreed.
Reagen Sulewski: It's a bit bizarre, really - audiences apparently no longer want attractive casts spouting witty dialog in their romantic comedies. At least not those people under the age of 50. I look forward to this trio reuniting in 2030 for It's Really Complicated wherein Rudd leaves Witherspoon for Wilson.
David Mumpower: Reagen touches on something that is fascinating to me. It's Complicated earned $112.7 million domestically, $225 million globally. And we should note that How Do You Know could find renewed life thanks to the magic of December box office inflation. As of right now, though, what we can say for certain is that this is Jack Nicholson's worst opening weekend performance since the long forgotten debut of The Pledge in 2001. Relative to expectations, this is his most disappointing opening since The Evening Star, the poorly received sequel to Terms of Endearment, in 1996. There is just no way to spin what has happened here into a positive. It's almost as if the title of the film is the producers asking North American audiences, How Do You Know it's bad and going to bomb? This is James L. Brooks, movie goers, show a little f'n respect. I hope Sideshow Bob tries to kill the lot of you for this.