Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
June 21, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com

How appropriate that Lebron is the out-of-focus guy.

Horrible movies=$$$$$$!!!

Kim Hollis: Green Lantern becomes the latest example of a poorly-reviewed film that opens big. Why do you think action films have been bulletproof on opening weekend?

Edwin Davies: I think it varies from case to case. Sometimes, it might be because of a lack of other options for people who just want to watch stuff explode and see people get punched in the face. At this time of year there is a veritable glut of explosion/facepunch heavy fare, so it might otherwise be the result of franchise loyalty, or at least recognition. The latter is, in my mind, the reason for Green Lantern's "success" so far. Fanboys had decided they were going to see Green Lantern, so they went to see Green Lantern.

Bruce Hall: I agree that this is sort of a case to case thing. In this instance I think part of it is the fact that if you wanted to see a slam bang popcorn film, there was only one option this week. Reviews may have been poor, but we're not talking Duke Nukem level disaster here, either. This is a lowest common denominator society and I think a lot of people who were in the mood for action felt that while The Green Lantern may not have been good, it was good enough for this weekend.

Reagen Sulewski: I'm not sure I'd call this a case of being bulletproof, exactly, as it's clear that reviews did knock off some large portion of the opening weekend. It's not like Thor was better known than Green Lantern, for example. But it does show that for some comic book projects that there's a floor that you're not going to break through. Nerds are loyal.

David Mumpower: Reagen's point is well taken. Something Green Lantern did have going for it was the passionate support of DC Comics fans. While people who do not follow comics at all have no idea who this character is, the sales for Sinestro Corps War and Blackest Night were tremendous with the latter actually performing better than a similarly timed Marvel comic book event. This is a weird situation wherein some people are passionate about it but most of the public is utterly unaware. It's a larger scale version of BOP's beloved Scott Pilgrim.

In addition to this aspect, we have frequently discussed the impact of positive reinforcement. The two most recent comic book movies, Thor and X-Men: First Class, were both well regarded. While those are Marvel projects and this is a DC outing, I doubt the general movie going public cares about such distinctions. They simply focus upon the fact that Thor was a fun 3D outing and that makes them more likely to enjoy a 3D spectacle such as Green Lantern. Let's also be honest about the fact that for all of its other failings, Green Lantern looks shiny. This is a key aspect of summer popcorn films. People want their action to be visually stimulating, because that is how George Lucas trained them. Green Lantern looks very much like a Lucas-flavored comic book adaptation. That helps it in terms of being at least somewhat review proof at the start.

We're waiting for the re-release of Love, Actually in 3D

Kim Hollis: We readdress this questions a couple of times a year. What are your thoughts on the current state of 3D/IMAX cinema?

Edwin Davies: I think that IMAX is in a pretty healthy state, if only because no one (except Christopher Nolan) has been touting it as the future of cinema. 3D is, I think, in a somewhat sorry state. One of the big stories about attendance this summer has been that a number of high-profile 3D titles (namely Pirates 4 and Kung Fu Panda 2) have seen their share of tickets sold for 3D screenings fall below 50%, which essentially means that people are opting to see these films in 2D, rather than spend the extra money. There have been some notable 3D successes in the last year and a bit, but it's hard to argue that, say, Toy Story 3 wouldn't have been a huge hit if it hadn't been in 3D. Whilst I don't think that 3D is in its death throes, as some articles have said, the perception of it has shifted from being something that can potentially enhance the viewing experience to an expensive, inessential gimmick. Unless something comes along that makes people fall in love with 3D the way that Avatar did, or until Hollywood stops doing rushed conversions of 2D films into 3D, I don't see this trend abating.

Brett Beach: No extensive 3-dimensional bashing from me for once. I think Werner Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams has done fairly well for a documentary 3D specialized subject (over $4 million in its first six weeks) and points to a creative employment of the format (taking the viewers inside a place that none of them has ever been and will most likely never have a chance to see in person.)

This year Michael Bay and then Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg will release pics in the format and I am curious if critical skeptics like myself will be won over by good reviews and if audiences will reverse the trend of the last few months of seeking out 2D options.

I would recommend interested BOPers and column readers check out Roger Ebert's excellent and painfully ironic essay "The Dying of the Light" in which he reports on the observations of others that where once moviegoers might get screwed by projectionists/theater owners attempting to save money by turning down the wattage of the bulb in the booth, thus rendering many scenes darker than intended (esp night sequences), now state of the art equipment is in the hands of minimum wage workers who are not properly trained on how to use it resulting in 3D filters and lens being left on in theaters even when a 2D film is being shown, thus undercutting what should be a premium experience with images that are (yup) too dark. This is why I am finally realizing I have no choice but to invest in a home theater package to give me ideal viewing circumstances.


Shalimar Sahota: After Avatar, it's like all the studios suddenly had to cash in, and 2010 resulted in studios saying, "Hey, look, our film is in 3D too! Okay, our film wasn't shot in 3D but we hastily converted it just so we can charge you extra for an effect you're not really going to notice midway through. You were only going to spend the money on alcohol and cigarettes anyway, so you might as well give it to us."

This year we can see that audiences have caught on, and it shows, for as Edwin has highlighted more people are going for the 2D versions. For me, if it's a film that has been converted to 3D, then I'll go for the 2D version. Lastly even with the emergence of 3D TV screens (the prices are coming down but I still say they're too high), I still see 3D and IMAX as the one major thing that can't be "fully" replicated with the home cinema experience.

David Mumpower: There have been several astute points already in this thread. Shalimar is right in that no matter how good a person's home set-up may be, a 3D movie is better in a theater. I also agree with Edwin that IMAX continues to distinguish itself as a movie going experience. In fact, we've already purchased tickets for each upcoming major IMAX release this summer, because we have been so satisfied with our recent IMAX movies.

The key aspect in our evaluating this discussion is that Avatar changed everything. That was the production that evaluated the benefits of the emerging technology and explored them in the correct way. It's the anti-Clash of the Titans in this regard. There was always going to be a bit of consumer disappointment on the heels of a feature as novel as Avatar. We don't judge other baseball players by Albert Pujols or football players by Peyton Manning for the same reason. They simply cannot measure up. The key is whether we are making forward progress or not.

For the first time in a while, I am pleased to say that I do believe there is headway being made in the realm of 3D cinema. I found the implementation in Thor to be the best I'd seen in a while, I was satisfied by Kung Fu Panda 2 and the Green Lantern viewing experience was unquestionably aided by 3D. There aren't a lot of satisfactory truly three dimensional effects (a sword through the screen toward the viewer is the "in" effect of the moment as utilized in Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides and the Puss 'n Boots trailer), but the visuals are quite a bit better than 2D. That's really all I ask of the process.

Face it. People just prefer their penguins with a touch of Morgan Freeman.

Kim Hollis: Mr. Popper's Penguins opened to $18.4 million. Do you consider this a good enough result for a Jim Carrey family film? Why or why not?

Edwin Davies: If this film didn't star Jim Carrey, but starred some lesser known or completely unknown actor, and it opened to more than $18 million, I'd say that it was a pretty solid result. But since it does star Jim Carrey, and since he used to be able to open these kinds of high-concept comedies to huge numbers, this is a pretty poor showing.

Bruce Hall: I agree. If you take out Jim Carrey and drop in a flavor of the week actor from Mad Men or The Office, this is a relatively successful weekend. But $18 million? I smell an impostor. The real Jim Carrey doesn't even get out of bed for chump change like that.

Reagen Sulewski: Jim Carrey is not Jim Carrey anymore. This is about equal with what Yes Man opened to, for example. There's a bit of a Tom Cruise effect here where people just got tired of him, and a little disturbed by his public persona, so he's not the $70 million film opening guy anymore. Then again, did anyone over the age of 14 think this film looked good?

David Mumpower: Reagen, my response would be that while the trailers were disappointing, this is such a popular children's tale that I am still surprised it didn't do better. This is a good example of a movie that lacked marketing support. Everyone knew it was a dog, so they relied upon Carrey's name to sell the opening weekend, unwilling to risk further financial exposure to buy a better debut. This project has a modest budget of $57 million, and that means it will be profitable. Between this and Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events, however, I think it's fair to say that any Jim Carrey film needs more than just Jim Carrey's name to become a mega-hit these days. I consider this box office debut to reflect a significant amount of audience apathy. We are collectively over Jim Carrey. Who would have thought that Adam Sandler would win in the end?