Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
October 3, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Courageous, the faith-based film about cops from Sherwood Pictures Ministry and Sony, earned $9.1 million this weekend in only 1,161 venues. How did the studio accomplish such a result?
Edwin Davies: I think they realized that making Christian films in a predominantly Christian nation is a pretty solid business plan. They've been very shrewd in targeting their audience, getting the word out to the churches and focusing on the connection that Courageous has to Fireproof, selling it almost as a sequel to that film (which it kind of is if you swap out firemen for cops) and so far it has acted like a sequel. They are preaching to the converted here and it's paid off handsomely.
Brett Beach: I agree about the de facto sequel aspect this has to Fireproof, but the fact that this opened stronger than that without a Kirk Cameron lead (more theaters, yes, but a fairly similar per theater average) suggests that writer/producer/director/actor Alex Kendrick has officially become the "new" Tyler Perry hypenate-type in targeting films at an audience that is frequently underserved. His name and work is becoming associated with quality and allows his films to break out in a way that something like the recent Seven Days in Utopia did not. All that, and he does it quite inexpensively (this is his first film to breach the $1 million mark in budget costs).
Reagen Sulewski: I like that we're considering the absence of Kirk Cameron as a potential drawback to this film. I think we're definitely seeing a renewed rise in the ability of small, but focused groups to drive demand of specialized projects. The question becomes how much staying power they have, and I think the example of Tyler Perry is a salient one. Those films, despite their positive reception from their intended audience, never have anything in the way of staying power. They're not getting a lot of looky-loos, as it were. Maybe that's not really necessary to get more of these type of films into theaters, though, and if they can keep costs down, one or two of these a year can cater to their niche.
Bruce Hall: Americans live in a nation where some 75% of the residents identify themselves as "Christian." I don't doubt that's true. I would further wager that a minority of that number fall under the heading of "Evangelical." For better or worse, these are the people who tend to drive Christian related media in America, and for some reason they see themselves as horribly persecuted. You'd think more people would take advantage of this, because it sure works well for Fox News. There are huge segments of the population out there hungry to be told things that they already believe, and it's not just Christians. It doesn't take a lot of money to tell a very human story, and in this case it paid off well. It also doesn't hurt that the premise is somewhat realistic. Religion is something that most non-evangelical people tend not to think about until they have to - and tragedy makes us all introspective regardless of our faith, or lack thereof. Audiences respond to relatable stories, and when the message and the target are on the same wavelength, it's usually a recipe for success.
Max Braden: "Niche market" is about the long and short of anything I can come up with about this one.
David Mumpower: The greatest surprise for me with regards to Courageous is that it was fairly frontloaded. With $3.1 million in the bank on Friday, I felt quite confident that Sunday would be its biggest day due to church congregations spreading the word about its quality. This is the rare movie with an A+ Cinemascore and while there is merit to the argument that that metric is flawed, the reality is that the people who went to see Courageous on opening day were given exactly what they wanted. I expected a surge as the positive feedback was relayed but instead the "de facto sequel" aspect we have discussed meant that its Friday and Saturday filled most of the demand. I considered a final domestic take well in excess of Fireproof as a foregone conclusion; that is no longer a certainty. Either way, for a $2 million production, a $9.1 million weekend is the proverbial jackpot. Sony made a savvy move in acquiring distribution rights for Sherwood Pictures releases.
People just don't want cancer stuff to be funny. Unless it's Archer.
Kim Hollis: 50/50, the comedy/drama featuring Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Seth Rogen, earned $8.6 million this weekend. How should Summit Entertainment feel about this result?
Edwin Davies: They will probably be pretty disappointed in the short term given the name recognition of the two stars (this is the lowest opening of Seth Rogen's career since he became a star, Joseph Gordon-Levitt seems to be perpetually on the verge of becoming a bona fide star) and the great reviews and word-of-mouth, all of which combined probably led them to expect the film to open in the $12 million range. However, we shouldn't lose sight of two key factors here; the film was very cheap to make (it apparently only cost $8 million, so it has already made its budget back) and it is a comedy about cancer. That is a very tough sell, and I think that the fact it opened to this amount is a testament to the strength of the material and the actors to overcome a premise that could have been toxic. It's not going to be a huge hit, but I think that the next couple of weeks will be kind to 50/50 as word-of-mouth spreads, so in the long run this will probably wind up being a minor success for Summit.
Shalimar Sahota: I expected an opening of $10 million+. I imagine Summit won't be too pleased, but they knew this was a tough sell before agreeing to distribute, and kudos for taking the risk. That a majority of people have been affected by cancer in some way (be it themselves or someone they know) means that audiences probably don't want to be reminded about it, even if it is a well received comedy. Despite excellent reviews, I would normally say that word-of-mouth well help it hold (and I hope it does), but I'm worried that it's going to end up dropping fast. Still, given the small production budget it'll make for a minor hit.
Brett Beach: I would think that the disappointment of it not hitting double digits should be countered with the inexpensive nature of the project and the realization that it was always going to be a risky and uncertain proposition given the subject matter. Although it is unlikely, maybe some on-the-fence potential viewers might be up for checking this out now that the word-of-mouth mirrors the pretty incredible critical reaction, and it won't fall off entirely next weekend. I applaud Summit for giving this project the push they did and for selling it exactly as it is: as a comedy drama about cancer.
Reagen Sulewski: This isn't as dramatic a swerve for an actor as when Adam Sandler did Punch-Drunk Love, but it's close, and relative to the actor's status, perhaps more significant. I'm speaking here of Seth Rogen, who, let's face it, as great an actor that Joseph Gordon-Levitt is, the film was really being sold on. People aren't thinking "Hey, let's go see that Seth Rogen film about cancer! That sounds funny!" Looking at it in "guyjerker" terms, it's about a middle of the road result. You'd hope that the actors would count for something, and they do (that the film even got a wide release is something), but not as much as they would in their wheelhouse.
Bruce Hall: I generally agree with the consensus so far. Even with Seth Rogen in the cast, a story about a guy having cancer will usually drive away more people than it will attract. But it took courage to make this movie with the actors they did, and to sell it for exactly what it was, rather than try to hide it. And as has been pointed out, the movie made back its budget already. Like they say in Vegas, not losing is still winning. Anything this film brings in from here on out is gravy, and the fact that it's getting very good reviews should only enhance the careers of Seth Rogen and Joseph Gordon-Levitt down the road.
Max Braden: Speaking of Adam Sandler and Seth Rogen, this opening pales in comparison to their kinda-cancer-comedy Funny People, which opened to $22.6 million during the summer of 2009. That movie had a fairly weak trailer from my memory, but did at least feature an established actor and rising star. I've admittedly been away from the TV most of the last 10 days, but I think I saw one trailer for 50/50 (sidenote: as I was typing this I actually had to scroll up to remember the title of the movie we're discussing) and I can't recall anything about it except that it's a comedy about cancer. I think you generally have an easier time selling disease coupled with romance and angst, but then you could this opening didn't suffer much more than Love And Other Drugs did last November. Still, I don't think this result is a surprise much either way.
David Mumpower: Obviously, Seth Rogen connects the dots between Funny People and 50/50, making me wonder why he's so drawn to scripts about people dying. What 50/50 did not have is Adam Sandler and even with him, Funny People was a box office disappointment. This circles back to the topic we broach a few times a year about the nature of the movie going experience. One of the fundamental laws is that going to see a movie is intended to be a form of escapism. A distributor automatically alienates the overwhelming majority of their viewers by releasing titles with morose themes. It's not a totally debilitating scenario all of the time but there has to be enough added incentive in the ad campaigns to coax viewers to overlook the (cancerous) elephant in the living room. I thought 50/50 had a chance to earn box office in the range of $12 million, but I am not surprised by this lower result. This is the sort of film that most people want to enjoy in the comfort of their homes where they have the ability to parachute out if it's too depressing.