Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
March 22, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Paul, the latest film from BOP's beloved Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, opened to $13 million. Is this more, less, or about what you expected for the alien fanboy comedy?
Josh Spiegel: Hot Fuzz made less than six million bucks in its opening weekend in North America. That is pretty mind-boggling, but then again, Pegg and Frost have never fully hit the mainstream. So, all things considered, this is a really, really good opener. Obviously, having more well-known performers such as Seth Rogen, Jason Bateman, Kristen Wiig, and Sigourney Weaver involved helps things out. Though it didn't open as well as Superbad did (the last big box-office hit from Paul's director, Greg Mottola), Universal is probably pleased.
Edwin Davies: This is more than I expected but less than I hoped, if that makes sense. I love Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, so I wanted them to have a big breakout success on the par with what Seth Rogen did with Knocked Up, but I was also aware that they aren't big names to a mainstream audience and the film, despite being easily their most accessible work to date, is still too geek-centric to really make any sort of impact. This splits the difference nicely, suggesting that they managed to get a pretty decent sized audience interested. I don't expect the film to have the greatest legs because it is quite a niche interest, but it'll make a good amount to add to its already solid overseas earning. Good on them.
Reagen Sulewski: Pegg and Frost have shown consistent growth in their films, which is all you can ask for a comedy team targeting a very specific niche - if you want to look at how things could go wrong, check out the trajectory of the Broken Lizard films, or try and find that second Kids in the Hall feature. This film is also in the unusual case where the domestic box office is a bit of a sideshow - as you could imagine, it's doing a lot better in the UK already. So it's unlikely to match that $40 million budget States-side, but then again, it doesn't have to.
Max Braden: I'm a big fan of Pegg and Frost's previous two films because there's a lot of brilliance hidden in the stupidly funny premise, but Paul just looked stupid to me. Which on second thought means it should have opened to Jackass numbers. My guess is that any excess they earned over Hot Fuzz was due to Seth Rogen's attachment.
David Mumpower: I think so much of Greg Mottola's talent as a director that I was able to overcome my intense dislike of Kristen Stewart long enough to enjoy Adventureland quite a bit. I have been a huge fan of his going all the way back to his days working on Undeclared, one of the many, many Fox sitcoms that deserved a better fate. Combining him with the Spaced team is a dream project for me; I had been curious to see how receptive North American audiences would be to such an offbeat premise. I think I would call this a slight win as $13.0 million represents steady improvement from Adventureland's $16.0 million domestic result. This total also destroys Simon Pegg's last two North American opening weekends, Run Fatboy Run and Hot Fuzz, which combine for about $8.2 million *between* them. Max's point about the appeal of Seth Rogen is valid, though. I cannot dismiss the thought that any increase in performance from the prior works of the major talent involved is directly due to his presence in the project. Whatever the reason, it's a solid global hit, which is a good news for our staff's SPACED RULEZ crew of which I am a charter member.
Doom! DOOM!
Kim Hollis: We have been shying away from this story thus far, since the discussion is warped by Avatar, but box office is down year-over-year almost every weekend in 2011. Are you troubled by this, or do you think it's coincidence rather than a pattern?
Josh Spiegel: Since January 1st, I have seen a grand total of one 2011 release in theaters (and, due to me being on vacation until today, that movie isn't Paul, but I'll be seeing that soon). I'm kind of curious about Rango, and...other than that, I'm waiting for the summer, and movies like Super 8. I'm only troubled by this news in that it speaks to how crappy the movies coming out in the first three months of the year are. If the studios want to make more money year-round, start making better movies. Rango and Just Go With It are going to end up being the first $100 million grossers of 2011, but as of March 20th, they haven't even gotten there yet. I'm sure we can chalk some of the low numbers up to coincidence (or at least to there not being an Avatar-esque film out there), but it's not all happenstance.
Brett Beach: I have seen a few more than Josh, but mostly leftovers from last year's collection. I am inclined to agree with his assessments, but want to put it in personal terms (and since I have ranted and raved at length in previous weeks about my over all dissatisfaction with this year's calendar of major studio releases, I'll try a new tack): Excepting April 8th, where I am actually excited for three out of the four new releases, there are only 10-15 out of the 100 films between now and the end of the year that I would consider paying full price to see in the theater. Even allowing for trailers or more info that would allow some of those 85 to become more appealing, I find that to be a ridiculously discouraging figure. And I don't lay the blame at cynicism, or even my changing tastes as I get older (although that is a factor), simply that this year's crop appears at first (and second and third) glance to be ridiculously underwhelming. The summer blockbusters may be counted on once again to save the day, but if the bodies aren't in the theaters now to see those trailers, then there may be trouble ahead.
Reagen Sulewski: I wouldn't place it all on the absence of an Avatar, though it certainly had a large hand in the gap both directly and indirectly. Audiences were still yet to be burned by the 3D phenomenon, and made Alice and Wonderland a bafflingly large hit, and were throwing crazy opening weekend figures at things like Legion, Cop Out, Dear John and Valentine's Day. So even though 2011's slate has been underwhelming in quality, it's not like 2010 was throwing out Ghostbusters and Honey I Shrunk the Kids every weekend at this point.
Shalimar Sahota: I think the lack of an Avatar-like film is a possibility. It brought 3D in a big way with a must-see movie. Like Reagen says, audiences were burned out, since now there are many films using 3D (or cheapo conversions). People simply want a good quality film to draw them out of their homes. I don't see another behemoth on the horizon until the release of Pirates of the Caribbean. I've only seen four films so far this year, and two of those were 2010 releases. Having the time certainly plays a factor, but Like Brett, there isn't a lot out there that I'm wanting to pay full whack to go and see. Also, films I may have been on two sides about are suddenly dropped once the reviews come in (I Am Number Four, Drive Angry 3D, Battle: LA). Then there's the usual - the shortening gap as films make it to DVD/Blu-Ray and ticket prices getting higher. Some people are happier with their home theater experience.
David Mumpower: I feel that the topic does touch upon several issues at once. I think that Avatar stopped working as an excuse at the start of March. That's when the movie was down to single digits on the weekends and was around $1.5 million on weekdays. Those numbers don't skew anything. If you want to argue that $5 million weekdays in mid-January skew the picture, I'm right there with you on the point, but we're past that now. Avatar was just another movie in the top 10 for most of March of 2010.
With that factored out, Shalimar introduces an excellent point in saying that there are no 2011 equivalents of Avatar thus far. If we substitute Alice in Wonderland in Avatar's place, this creates the skew for the past couple of weeks. By March 22nd last year, Alice in Wonderland had already earned $268 million domestically. Shutter Island was also at $116 million and I mention it for a specific reason. The number three performer of 2010 (counting Avatar's isolated box office in calendar 2010) had earned more by this point last year would be the top performer of 2011. Just Go with It, Gnomeo and Juliet and Rango are all in the $90 million range trying to break $100 million. Rango should get there this week and Just Go with It probably will as well, but those totals are still $15 million down from Shutter Island and all of them have to be combined to get to Alice in Wonderland's total. So, there is a still a skew at work since Alice in Wonderland was such a historic performer in the first quarter of 2010.
Josh's point is the one that interests me, though. I started thinking about this when I tallied my Big Board for 2010. Out of the 145 or so wide releases I've seen from last year, I only watched about 30 in theaters. This is a record low for me in the 2000s and I'm nowhere near that pace in 2011. Rango is the only release from this year that I have watched thus far although I will be watching Paul soon. Had it not been scheduled against the NCAA Tournament, I would have seen it on opening day, but that's only two Must Watch titles I have graded thus far. The way that I utilize Redbox, Netflix and Amazon Streaming, going to the movie theater feels like an inconvenience rather than a fun source of entertainment these days and I do believe that a lot of consumers are starting to agree with me on the point. We are the people Shalimar mentioned before. If we represent expanding consumer behavior, I expect that the theatrical window is poised to shrink even further over the next couple of years. That's got to be a terrifying thought for exhibitors, which is what I presume is the explanation for Regal's announced intention to create their own movies.