Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
July 26, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: How well do you think that Marvel has done in building to The Avengers movie? What has gone right? What do you believe they could have done better?
Edwin Davies: In terms of what has gone right, the obvious answer is "casting Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark". That was a masterstroke of casting that made the entire Avengers project a possibility, and as much as I like Thor, it is clear that the success of The Avengers rests on Iron Man's shoulders at this point. Outside of Iron Man, Marvel has done a pretty good job getting the right people in for the roles both in front of and behind the camera. It's all too easy to envision a world in which Jon Favreau didn't get Iron Man, or Chris Hemsworth wasn't cast as Thor, but Marvel seems to have gone with their gut and it has really paid off. They have taken some pretty ballsy risks considering the money and prestige involved, and that should be applauded.
What they could have done better; Hulk. They tried to make movies about him twice and both times they came up short. I don't know how they could have treated the character better, but that seems to be the one real weakness in their strategy so far.
Bruce Hall: I am generally agreement with Edwin, although I would cast a wider net and insist that casting overall has been overall very strong for recent Marvel adaptations. Chris Hemsworth was as ideal a choice as Robert Downey but let's not forget, the supporting cast around both men was quite good as well. Iron Man was a good film that loses some of its luster upon successive viewings, and the sequel was atrocious. Thor was absolutely pedestrian, and while the Hulk reboot was an improvement over the original, I can't say I remember much about it. But the one thing all these flicks have in common are very strong leads and a solid supporting cast, and that works wonders. Great casting can save cheesy movies just as great quarterbacks can breathe life into a shabby team. Captain America didn't feel nearly as stupid as it really was, in part because Chris Evans was just so damn likeable. I've said what they did right. What could they have done better? I'd say make a movie that I actually want to see more than once, like Spider-Man 2 or The Dark Knight. I don't know how likely that is to happen, though, because Thor and Captain America were less enduring stories than two hour trailers for The Avengers. They only have to get you in the theater once, and it's beginning to feel as though that's all these movies aspire to any more.
Jim Van Nest - Again, to throw the non-comic guy opinion in here...I think they've done fantastic getting ready for Avengers. Average folks knew very little about Iron Man, Thor or Captain America. These three properties have been huge hits. Without them, no one but comic geeks cares about The Avengers. With them...Avengers becomes a legit tentpole release that could be in the discussion for taking down Deathly Hallows Part 2.
Kim Hollis: I think that the best thing that Marvel has done is to make enjoyable, crowd-pleasing films in the lead-up to The Avengers. I disagree with Bruce about Iron Man and still believe it to be one of the four best superhero movies ever - and I say that as someone who genuinely disliked Tony Stark the comic book character. Thor was a lot of fun, and Hemsworth was perfectly cast for the role. I had low, low expectations for Captain America, but I'll be damned if I didn't enjoy the hell out of it. The only misstep has been the handling of Hulk. I thought the first version was deadly dull to the point that I never even bothered to see the Edward Norton version. The good news for Avengers is that Mark Ruffalo will play the Bruce Banner role this time around, and who doesn't love him? Anyway, I do think that Marvel has built up plenty of goodwill toward the majority of the characters in the film, and people love Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark. Add the fact that the Whedonites will be out in full force whether they know the character or not, and you've got a pretty solid build-up to the 2012 release.
David Mumpower: I agree that the casting is the key aspect in the What Went Right category. Edwin is ten thousand percent correct about Robert Downey Jr. and I concur with Bruce about Chris Evans making Captain America more engaging. Also, while I had huge reservations about Chris Hemsworth, someone whose natural accent makes him utterly unintelligible, his performance in Thor is quite winning. I like Captain America so much more as a character than Thor, yet the latter is a vastly superior movie. All of that is one man's opinion, though. What cannot be denied is that between Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor and Captain America, we are discussing $360 million worth of opening weekends. These four movies have averaged a $90 million debut. Considering the wildly disappointing performance of Superman Returns, I am blown away by Marvel's ability to develop less established comic book characters into bona fide box office gold.
Maybe next we can mix and match Ashton Kutcher/Justin Timberlake and Natalie Portman/Mila Kunis
Kim Hollis: Friends With Benefits opened to $18.6 million this weekend. What do you think of this result?
Edwin Davies: I was expecting it to at least break the $20 million barrier because, based on the ads, this seemed a heck of a lot funnier than the eerily similar No Strings Attached, which opened to $19.6 million back in January, and because it is the only half-decent romantic comedy to be released for a while now. Then again, NSA had the dual advantage of being released at just the right time to capitalize on the success of Black Swan and *not* coming at the tail end of a long and storied parade of R-rated comedies, as Friends With Benefits does. Considering that it didn't have the buzz or uniqueness of No Strings Attached, for Friends With Benefits to open within $2 million of NSA's opening is pretty good, and I wouldn't be surprised if word-of-mouth carried it to a final total in the same ball park as NSA's $70.6 million.
Brett Beach: This is a decent opening, and I don't want to throw it under the bus, but my opinion about this film underwent a 180 in recent weeks and I too thought it had a shot at low to mid-$20 million opening. The trailers and ads looked funnier than No Strings Attached, the plot sounded more intriguing (well, as a setup for two hot people to have meaningless hot sex needs to be), and it was from the director of Easy A. Is this a case of R-rated comedy fatigue? "Meaningless hot sex" comedy fatigue? People waiting for The Change-Up? Some of the women who would be rushing to check out JT busy at bachelorette parties? I don't know.
Bruce Hall: I think that the reboot has been replaced by the xerox. Just make the same damn movie again at a different studio with new actors. I know I am not alone in my thinking because if you go to IMDb and search "Friends With Benefits", the first result that comes up is actually "No Strings Attached". Talk about eerie.
Jim Van Nest - I think this is an okay result for a film that may be better suited for DVD anyway. You have two leads, both successful and well known...but neither of which has even been asked to carry a movie. When comparing this to No Strings Attached, I would have expected Strings to far out perform this one based solely on the fact that people know what they're getting with Kutcher and Portman. Justin Timberlake, while incredibly entertaining and absolutely hilarious on SNL, is on his first shot as a leading man and I think that has to be factored in. Once he starts to be taken more serious as a movie star (and not a singer who does movies), I would expect to see his box office clout grow exponentially.
Kim Hollis: I agree with Jim that this did about as expected, maybe even a bit better. Ashton Kutcher is consistent whether we like it or not, and Natalie Portman was skating on her Academy Awards heat at the time of the release of No Strings Attached. And yes, we pretty much have to compare the two films because they're so similar, even down to the fact that their female leads were both featured in Black Swan. Timberlake and Kunis are not quite established draws, but they are well liked, which helps. I also believe that the recent ads were very funny and probably did a lot to bring some extra business down the stretch.
David Mumpower: Jim touches upon a key aspect of this evaluation. Friends with Benefits stars Mila Kunis and Justin Timberlake. These are the annoying chick from That 70s Show and the guy from N'Sync. Kunis has methodically built her reputation thanks to solid work in projects like Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Black Swan while Timberlake broke out in a showy role in The Social Network. So, they are on the upswing right now, but neither of their presences in a project sells tickets. This movie sold based on two factors: premise and trailer quality. Given those constraints, I see this as a solid debut for a movie I am confident will enjoy great legs and a warm reputation on the home video market. Friends with Benefits feels like a win to me.