Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
March 8, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Beastly sparkled its way to a $9.9 million opening for CBS Films. Should the studio be pleased with this result?
Brett Beach: It's inexpensive, it has recognizable stars on-the-rise who don't really open films big, it has terrible reviews, and it features the always awesome NPH in a supporting role, so yes CBS films should be happy with what they have here. By next weekend, it should have made back its budget and Alex Pettyfer can keep looking for "that role" to break him big.
Josh Spiegel: If the alternative was this movie being wildly popular, I'm glad with the result. CBS Films can, I guess, be glad, too, but they're probably tired of making movies on shoestring budgets without making lots more money. Just like Lionsgate in 2004, I bet they're waiting for their Saw. It'll happen soon, or I wonder if they'll just become another Screen Gems.
Matthew Huntley: CBS Films should be pleased but not ecstatic. The core audience for this movie is teenage girls, who drove the film to a $5,000+ screen average. But just like we've witnessed with the Twilight series and Justin Bieber: Never Say Never, movies intended for this demographic often collapse by 55%+ during their second weekend. That will still be enough for this low-budget romance to be considered a mild hit but it's still a far cry from what the studio needs to considered a major player.
Bruce Hall: I was just smirking a little at the flame out that is Never Say Never. Not because I have any particular opinion on it and not because it wasn't highly successful anyway. It's because that type of long term result for certain niche pictures is so predictable. So for the same reasons that have already been mentioned I expect to be similarly amused when Beastly does the same thing, on a smaller and less successful scale. But this flick is going to fall into the "made a solid profit" category. It will accomplish exactly what all movies of this type set out to do. And that's to give face time to certain hot young actors with certain clamorous demographics, and not lose money doing it. It's not a formula that makes you rich, but it works and a profit is a profit.
Kim Hollis: Bruce, you might smirk less when you hear that The Bieber's movie has out-earned Miley Cyrus's concert film. I don't think we would have seen that coming a few weeks ago and certainly not after its initial weekend.
Reagen Sulewski: Stop trying to make Alex Pettyfer happen, Hollywood. It's not gonna happen!
David Mumpower: Unless he gets cast as Peeta in The Hunger Games, Reagen.
Just like Ronnie say...
Kim Hollis: Take Me Home Tonight, the Topher Grace project that has languished on the shelf for approximately four years, opened to $3.5 million. Why wasn't this one (Eddie) money? (And the crowd groans.)
Brett Beach: Topher and Anna were hoping for Two Tickets to Paradise, but even they can't Walk on Water every time at the box office. I didn't know until a few days ago that this had been held back for so long. It makes me wonder if it was worth it to pay for nearly 2,000 prints, even as a half-hearted marketing campaign so that its existence would roll around foggily in the back of some minds three months from now as a by default Redbox choice at 2 in the morning. What I want to know is: Why was Young Americans the original title? This current title may be generic and desperate, but using a Bowie title from the mid-'70s for a film set in the late 1980s was hopelessly out of place.
Josh Spiegel: Even though this movie looked forgettable, I imagine it holds a special place in the hearts of all my friends who were extras in it. (Yes, that's true; the movie was shot in Phoenix, and some friends are in some major party scene.) Who knows what the studio was thinking with either title. As much as I like Topher Grace and Anna Faris, who needed to see this movie? Aside from my friends, so they could point out their scene to the two other people in the theater with them? Nobody.
Matthew Huntley: Funnily enough, "Take Me Home Tonight" (the song) isn't even in the movie. I guess it was only used for the trailer (and if the title was changed, this makes sense).
Anyway, this movie's performance baffles me a bit. It is a decent comedy with a well-known cast and it had an amusing trailer. Why would I be wrong to expect at least a $10-$13 million opening? I can only speculate its R rating kept a lot of teenagers out and for people who grew up in the '80s (who are now in their late 30s-early 40s), it just didn't seem appealing. If that's the case, who's left to see it?
I personally enjoyed the movie for what it was and others should too, but as far as the cast and filmmakers are concerned, I'm sure they're thinking (or singing), "I want to go back, go back, and do it all over but I can't go back I know." Wah wah.
Bruce Hall: Sometimes the title of a song seems like it would make a good title for a movie. And on that basis alone films are often made. Human nature is to lean toward the lowest common denominator, and the song-title-as-movie-name denominator is usually pretty low. I don't know if that was the case here, but when it happens I automatically (and perhaps cynically) expect the project to under perform. This week I was correct. I'm winning too, Charlie!
Daron Aldridge: I have to join in the befuddlement of why after four years the studios didn't just release it on DVD and call it a day. Maybe, Topher Grace has another project with Relativity Media or Imagine that he was able to bargain to see this one get a theatrical release. He does have a "Story by..." credit on the film after all. That's probably not right because, while I think Grace has an endearing onscreen personality, he has never been the big draw for a film and wouldn't have that kind of pull. Finally, the trailers were amusing enough but as someone who is in the 30s-40s demo that Matthew accurately identifies as the primary audience, there wasn't anything that would make me choose spending $8 now over $1 in a couple months to see it.
Reagen Sulewski: The apparent reason why this got release is that Ron Howard pulled some strings. No, really. Of course, just because they're releasing it doesn't mean the studio has to support it - which they apparently did not. I've never seen someone bust their hump for a film that was so obviously about to fail as Topher Grace did this week, and all credit to him for doing that, but without the TV ads (I think I saw all of two) this was never going to hit.
But, take heart: Dazed and Confused grossed $8 million.
Max Braden: I love anything '80s related and even though I will eventually see it as a rental, the trailers didn't jump out as me as promising. Neither did Hot Tub Time Machine, though, and I was at least suitably entertained. But even taking the product as it is and just swapping in Heigl and Duhamel for example, watch the opening go gangbusters and... triple. The last time Topher Grace could have been reasonably called a lead was In Good Company, with the help of Dennis Quaid and Christmas season money.