Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
May 31, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: The Hangover Part II had a blistering five-day total of $135 million. What do you believe is the key to this historic opening weekend for a live-action comedy?
Edwin Davies: It's hard to say what specifically allowed The Hangover Part II to do this (in all honesty, I'm struggling to take in just how well it's done so far) but it'd be remiss of us not to point out just what a phenomenon the first Hangover was. It was a film with no expectations and starring no one which managed to turn a simple premise and a killer trailer into a $45 million opening and $277 million domestic total. With that sort of a start to the franchise, demand for a sequel was always going to be high.
I've also been wondering if part of the success might be due to the fact that none of the principle cast became over-exposed as a result of the first one, so people haven't had time to get sick of them. They've all been in films subsequently, but I personally haven't felt like any of them have been ubiquitous, so the thought of spending time with them again is still an appealing thought to people.
Joshua Pasch: On the surface this is question is simple enough to answer. The sequel to the one of the biggest comedies ever should potentially open as the biggest comedy ever. But this opening is truly epic in size and it really hits home just how beloved that first Hangover trip was.
The success of this picture is the hook of spending more time with these three friend/non-friends again. Box office history is littered with the failures of comedy sequels, but The Hangover featured the appeal of an unlikely combination of characters coming together, and just one trip with them wasn't enough. Hangover Part I is the type of movie you can have on all the time. You watched it two or thrree times out of the gate, and now whenever it's on TV you can leave it playing while you do your laundry, reading a magazine, or have friends over with it playing in the background. I know I'm not alone in this. When you're that happy to hang out with Stu, Allen, and Phil, going on another trip with them to a new location was a no brainer for most moviegoers. Reviews be damned, we just want to hang out with the wolfpack again.
Matthew Huntley: I agree with Josh the reason The Hangover Part II opened so huge was because of the affection millions of people had for the original, but I doubt that same love will be shown toward The Hangover Part III, at least I hope it won't. This first sequel in what is sure to be an extended franchise was a real disappointment, and based on the reactions of people leaving the theater, I'm surprised the movie held up as well as it did over the weekend. If there is any justice, it will collapse by 60%+ in the wake of X-Men: First Class.
My own thoughts aside, Warner Bros. was smart to get a sequel out so soon after the original. The first one was still fresh in people's minds and fans wanted to relive the same experience as soon as possible (hence why Part II is more or less a carbon copy of Part I). The other reason would be that action movies have ruled theaters for the past five weekends and, aside from Bridesmaids, audiences simply wanted a different kind of mindlessness to entertain them over the long weekend. With a saturation release, and WB promoting it as an event movie, The Hangover Part II was the only choice.
Kim Hollis: I don't think we really have to work too hard to get at this answer. People who liked the first movie wanted to see the second movie. That first film did very well in theaters, and only grew in popularity once it hit home video. While it's still possible to get the gang back together, the studio needed to strike while the iron was hot and they timed it perfectly. I think that the original Hangover is a bit overrated, but it's very obvious I am in the minority there.
David Mumpower: We touched upon this somewhat in the Bridesmaids discussion a couple of weeks ago. What we are witnessing with the exploding popularity of these films is that consumers want to live vicariously through the actions of others. This was something we previously discussed when The Hangover debuted to a slew of stunned critics in 2009. The genius of the concept is that every urban legend about bachelor parties can be explored in a manner that is ripe with the potential for hilarity. The first film *ahem* had better luck in this regard than the second. Still, the second one has been warmly received as good enough, which is all that was needed here. I expect the debate we'll be having in 2013 is whether the quality of the second film negatively impacted the performance of its successor as we have witnessed recently with Little Fockers, but nobody involved with The Hangover Part II cares about that right now. This film will probably become the most successful domestic comedy performer of all time (not adjusting for inflation). That's a staggering triumph.
Critics have no sense of humor.
Kim Hollis: Of the films to open to at least $80 million, The Hangover Part II represents one of the greatest divides between critical reception and box office opening in the modern era. Its 22% fresh rating among Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics is the second lowest on record for a debut of at least $86 million. Only Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is more despised. Oddly, the next lowest number after The Hangover's 22% is Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides' 31%. Why do you think audiences are ignoring critics so much this month?
Joshua Pasch: I don't think its that they're ignoring critics more or less than usual - these last two weeks have had two features that personify critic-proof to the fullest. Pirates is a four-quadrant entry into one of the most popular franchises of all time. If anything you could say its opening was actually hampered a bit by its critical reception and that some moviegoers were convinced to stay away.
I'd liken the Hangover Part II's opening to the second Pirates film in that neither were well received critically but critics never stood a chance in deterring ticket buyers who wanted to hangout with Captain Jack Sparrow and the Wolfpack respectively. Those characters simply had to much appeal and too much pull to be denied.
Tom Houseman: Every review I've read said the exact same thing: "it's exactly the same as the first one." Every friend I have who's seen it said the exact same thing: "it's exactly the same as the first one!" The critics made it very clear whether or not people would want to see this movie, which is their job. Critics aren't supposed to tell you what movies to see, but rather to help you make informed decisions. I found The Hangover mediocre, so I knew based on the reviews that I would be waiting to see the sequel on DVD. Most of my friends, however, loved The Hangover, so reading the reviews would have in no way dampened their expectations.
Matthew Huntley: I think moviegoers are avoiding critics' reviews because they'd rather be part of a pop culture phenomenon and (potentially) endure bad/lazy filmmaking than not be in the know. I don't think it's a conformity thing, but rather about being in tune with the collective consciousness and being able to discuss the latest "it" thing with others. Summer movies like The Hangover Part II are "event" pictures, and people inherently want to be a part of it, no matter how temporary or inconsequential it may be. I think Kim's question would make a good sociological case study.
Edwin Davies: Reviews tend to have more of an impact on the performance of a film when it is a new, untested product than they do on established brands because they can convince people to take a chance on something with which they aren't familiar. We've seen the extremes of this behaviour illustrated beautifully in the last few weeks with Bridesmaids, which has seen great reviews and solid word-of-mouth turn into consistently good holds, and The Hangover Part II, which owes its huge opening weekend to the goodwill generated by its predecessor. A lot of people liked the first Hangover, so they were going to see it regardless of what critics said. The greatest effect I can see the reviews having is over the coming weeks, since they might be bad enough to dissuade people who didn't see the first film, or who did and didn't like it, from taking a chance, but the momentum that this opening gives the film means that this impact will probably be pretty negligible.
David Mumpower: The critics forgot to focus on what's important about The Hangover II: it has a monkey. I agree with Matthew that this is a sociological phenomenon worthy of detailed examination. What I can say with certainty is that all of my life, there have been films that I have just known people were going to see no matter what was said of them. We delude ourselves into seeing things that aren't true of them as well. I've seen intelligent people offer reasoned treatises on what Michael Bay was trying to accomplish artistically with Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. I've looked on quizzically when people justified the boring economics seminar of the first Star Wars prequel or the real estate transactions of the latest Superman film. And I myself have passionately defended The Matrix sequels as worthy of their predecessor.
We all have our cinematic blind spots. This is exactly the reason we asked Samuel Hoelker to write his Guilty Pleasures column and his bravery shines through at those times when he stands up and says, "The Happening is actually pretty entertaining." I...don't line up with him on the topic, but that's exactly the point. Do you know anyone who agrees with you on even 90% of the movies you watch? North American consumers looked at the reviews this weekend and said, "Who cares? WE'RE GOING TO BANGKOK!!!...vicariously." And they did.