Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
February 14, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Sony's Just Go With It became the tenth Adam Sandler film to open north of $30 million, with a $30.5 million debut. Is this a good enough result? Why do you think Sandler's movies have proven to be more consistent at the box office than any other comedians?
Josh Spiegel: People know exactly what they get with Adam Sandler movies. With each new film since his last good role, I wonder why anyone ever thought the man was funny. I'm right in the sweet spot of audience members who love movies like Billy Madison or Happy Gilmore, but I don't think Sandler's ever made a good movie that wasn't him playing against type. Frankly, the ads for Just Go With It made me think it was a full-length version of one of the parody movies his character in Funny People starred in. Sony will be happy, and even happier if this movie performs as well, in the long run, as Grown Ups did.
Edwin Davies: Given that everything about the film - from the bland title to the tired premise - suggested that there wasn't really anything special about the film, and the absence of any real hook other than "Hey, it's two famous people in a glamorous location being WACKY!" to drag people in, this has to be considered a pretty good result. It's towards the lower end of Sandler's range, but the same could be said about the quality of the film, so that's only appropriate. If nothing else, this result proves what a depressingly consistent draw Sandler remains.
Matthew Huntley: Josh and Edwin pretty much hit the nail on the head, but I'd go further by saying this isn't a strong enough result, not given the popularity of the cast or the $80 million price tag (or the movie's "romantic" subject matter and time of year it was released). It will likely see an unusually large Monday turnout because of Valentine's Day, but beyond that, I can't see it showing good legs and covering the rest of its costs, not to mention its prints and advertising budget.
Sandler is consistent, though, and I think one of the reasons he remains so vital at the box-office is he because he never seems to age. Sure, he's gotten older and bigger, but his personality has more or less remained the same, and that personality is something young people find fresh and appealing. Just as more Sandler fans grow up and move on, new ones come in, which means he consistently has a dedicated fan base.
Bruce Hall: There's not much here I would disagree with. Sandler and Aniston are known for a certain type of character, and they each have enough fans to keep their careers afloat for the foreseeable future. That's a benefit, but both actors also have a similar problem as I see it. What happens when everyone finally gets tired of it? Maybe it'll never happen; plenty of people never get sick of their favorite character actors. But both Sandler and Aniston have hinted at wider career ambitions and I tend to think Sandler is more capable of this than Aniston simply from a talent standpoint - that's just my opinion. But it's hard to see, and if an actor has a niche that they're successful with, who says they should necessarily branch out, anyway? Everyone's goals are different and some of us are more capable than others. It may be that both of these people will always be on screen for what they are today. Regardless, they'll each continue to benefit from the fact that as long as your results are consistently profitable, nobody is likely to ask you to change your game.
Shalimar Sahota: It's a good enough opening, even if it is a touch lower than where I expected it to finish. Kinda agree with Matthew that when it comes to most of Sandler's comedies, he doesn't have to stretch his acting ability. He just plays himself, so audiences know exactly what they're getting. I believe that the film will see a strong Monday, just because it's Valentine's Day, though I can't understand why some people think to themselves, "Oh, it's Valentine's Day. Let's go see an awful film because it just so happens to be slightly romantic."
Reagen Sulewski: Personally, I find this result a little troubling as far as Sandler goes. Yes, $30 million is strong enough on its own, but it's also towards the lower end of Sandler's opening weekend since he hit the big time. And this is after adding a big female lead and making a huge promotional push of Brooklyn Decker's Boobs. You don't do that with the anticipation of getting 75% of your average opening. Sandler's fanbase still can't be in the "girls are icky" stage, can they?
I suppose it's possible a good portion of his fans were waiting for Valentine's Day proper, and the final grosses will have the final say, but to me this is underperforming.
Brett Beach: From the trailers, I noted that Adam Sandler now appears to be at the stage of his career where is the receiver, instead of the giver, of the crotch smash. That marks a slight shifting trend in his mainstream comedies. After Grown-Ups and now this, I also wonder if he has a secret bet to see how generic he can have a title be and not lose any customers.
While I might initially chalk this up as a little underwhelming for a Valentine's Day weekend romantic comedy, I counter that with a) It should have a great night tonight and give a four day total on the closer end to $40 million; b) as Kim notes this is his 10th film to open north of $30 million (and no sequels on that list, just several remakes) and that kind of consistency over 15 years shouldn't be undersold; c)the holds on this will be great and take him over the $100 million threshold yet again.
As for why, it's been stated here already, but he gives the fans what they want and expect in these roles and he has never been too afflicted with the mantel of Hollywood Superstar to undercut his ability to seem like the average Joe Schmo. Plus, his ever so subtle nods to adulthood in these roles and the occasional dramatic role count for some kind of maturity that perhaps also resonate with the audience.
David Mumpower: I am a longstanding fan of Sandler dating all the way back to his being a bit player on MTV's Remote Control. I have always admired him for being genuine. A perfect example of this is when he did a guest appearance on a struggling television show called Undeclared, which was canceled soon afterward. Coming off of The Waterboy and Big Daddy, he had nothing to gain from this yet he wanted to show loyalty to a friend, who happened to be the creator of the show, Judd Apatow. That act of kindness has been rewarded as Apatow jumped ship from television into movies, an area where he's found far more popularity. Sandler is exactly what he seems like, an everyman nice guy who people like. In fact, his character in Mr. Deeds is probably not that far from the truth about who he is. That's why Sandler has so many people who want to work with him again as well as why his vanilla brand of sophomoric humor continues to appeal to an aging fanbase.
Reagen et al are absolutely correct that this performance is on the low end of the spectrum. Just Go With It doesn't have any of the depressing aspects of Funny People; this should have been a return to form. Instead, it's the worst of the ten $30+ million openers. I believe that consumers recognized the transparent desperation of selling Brooklyn Decker's bikini body as a movie. There didn't seem to be any teeth to this premise otherwise. If not for the Sandler name brand attached, I doubt this would have done any better than Ron Howard's disappointing comedy, The Dilemma.
The title of this movie sounds like...well, we don't want to talk about it.
Kim Hollis: Justin Bieber: Never Say Never opened to $29.5 million. How impressed are you by this result? Do you think his career will be more Miley Cyrus or more Jonas Brothers flameout?
Josh Spiegel: I don't know, I figured this would do a lot better. I'm glad I'm wrong it didn't do something closer to $50 million, but with all of the ads over the last few months and the complete media saturation of the kid on The Daily Show, Saturday Night Live, Super Bowl ads, and so on, I thought this would get more than, essentially, 3 million tickets sold. When you consider that this is being heavily touted on its 3D nature, I'm a bit surprised the overall number wasn't bigger. Bieber seems to, at least, have a sense of humor (or acts like he does), so he may do well in the future. It's hard to say, though, until he does something non-Bieberish.
Edwin Davies: It's hard to tell with child stars, but I get the feeling that Bieber could have a fairly long-lasting career if he branches out a bit more. The period when someone can be a teen idol, especially when they start so young, is very limited, and he's going to have to turn his hand to acting or a different style of music before too long otherwise he's just going to be another forgotten relic of an entire generation's childhood. Having said that, he's young, determined and has the right people behind him, so as long as he doesn't wind up doing something completely stupid he could easily have a long career ahead of him.
Matthew Huntley: Believe it or not, I didn't even know who Justin Bieber was until he made an appearance on Saturday Night Live with Tina Fey last April (when Date Movie opened). Apparently, he had been very popular even before that, which shows you just how out of touch I am with Twitter and the likes of teenage girls. So I guess that makes me even more impressed by Never Say Never's box-office results, especially given its negative cost of just $12.5 million. The movie will no doubt erode fast, but Paramount should be ecstatic.
At this point in time, based on the footage I've seen of Bieber on talk shows and awards ceremonies, he seems like a good, albeit naive, kid. He's still very young and I just hope he invests well and avoids the cliche pitfalls of super stardom at a young age. I'd rather him follow the path of Justin Timberlake than of Corey Haim. Not that he has to necessarily become an actor, but if he can keep his head on straight, I think he can maintain a successful career and not fizzle out and become a tabloid joke.
Bruce Hall: I agree that it is hard to say. I can't stand the kid's music but it isn't really made for me. Objectively I'd argue that regardless of how you feel about the music, any kid who's even remotely this musically competent at such a young age has nowhere to go but forward, if not up. He'll always have a career in some capacity. Whether it will be as Justin Bieber the pop star, or Justib Bieber the producer is anyone's guess. But I have a feeling he'll always be doing something.
David Mumpower: I think we're getting too hard to impress if a $29.5 million debut for a concert movie/documentary/home video isn't enough. I had believed for a while now that Bieber's movie was timed better than The Jonas Brothers one that was a disaster. I was not, however, expecting an opening weekend on a par with Hannah Montana & Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert. That movie had the added bonus of being advertised as a one week only event. Yes, there are a lot more 3D venues available now than there were three years ago, but Bieber doesn't have the added benefit of a television show or the Disney Marketing Machine. Just the name Justin Bieber is worth roughly $30 million of opening weekend box office. I'm in awe of that. I am reminded of how Disney execs had a week of meetings scheduled solely to debate Miley Cyrus/Hannah Montana/projects. Bieber is now going to be given a shot to star in movies on top of his music career. This is another Justin Timberlake situation developing.