Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
November 7, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Edwin Davies: This is towards the lower end of expectations for me and I can't help but see it as a disappointment considering the stars, the director (say what you will about Brett Ratner, like how his films are bad and he should feel bad, but he's had more than his fair share of hits) and the reviews, which were a lot more positive than I anticipated. This seemed like it was going to open above $30 million, and whilst $24 million isn't a complete disaster, it does suggest that people are getting a bit tired of Stiller and Murphy (more so in the case of the latter than the former).
David Mumpower: As a child of the 1980s, I am one of those pop culture dinosaurs who remember a time when Eddie Murphy was the edgiest comedian in the world or, at the very least, marketed as such. Seeing his later life as a fat-suit wearing, transvestite-hooker driving, day care providing toothless paycheck performer is depressing to me. The moment I saw the Tower Heist trailer, I was excited because THAT was the Eddie Murphy I remember from the days of 48 Hours (NOT Another 48 Hours), The Golden Child and Beverly Hills Cop 1 and 2 (NOT 3). Teaming him with Ben Stiller struck me as a masterstroke and that's why I had high expectations for Tower Heist. This is not the worst case scenario result (Ben Stiller *and* Eddie Murphy both have the occasional box office disaster), but it's also quite a bit less than I had expected. I feel like money was left on the table here, at least on opening weekend.
Bruce Hall: I keep hearing this is about $10 million under expectations for this film. I keep thinking it's about $10 million more than a Brett Ratner film even deserves, so nobody in America should be sad about this. I do think there will be disappointment at Universal, and not just for the dollars and cents. Ben Stiller is not what I'd call a superstar, but he's a known quantity. Eddie Murphy has been in more punch lines than he's delivered lately, but I think there was hope this film might help springboard his career back in the right direction. Matthew Broderick plays the likeable neurotic guy. And they're all comfortably typecast. Slam dunk, right? Well, I think that audiences in general are a little more savvy than they were a decade ago. They weren't entirely fooled.
What's this? A generically titled film from the maker of the amazingly suck-tastic Rush Hour 3? Starring generically inoffensive funny man Ben Stiller, 80's icon Eddie Murphy, who is apparently still alive, and that guy married to Sarah Jessica Parker who I swear was in War Games but that couldn't be him because he looks so different now? Yeah. No. I'll take the talking cat.
Tim Briody: This is a bit of a head scratcher. The trailer, for the most part, kills, and this is the Eddie Murphy we've been waiting forever to see again. As David said, it's no Pluto Nash or Envy, but somehow this didn't quite connect with audiences in the way anyone expected it would. It's a little weird to see a $25 million opening as a disappointment, but there you go.
Matthew Huntley: The $24 million figure is more or less what I expected from this safe, generic comedy, and I'm with Bruce in that I'm not sure why anyone expected anything more than this. Consider the factors: Ben Stiller is playing his usual average, quirky self (you could probably transplant his character from any one of his comedies and put it into another one and they'd be exactly the same); Eddie Murphy is returning to his classic, albeit old-fashioned (and therefore not as bankable) routine; and the entire plot has an overly familiar, Ocean's 11-type vibe that's been done too many times before. Given the facts of the case, why would this movie open in the more prestigious $30 million + range? Nobody involved in the movie - the cast, the filmmakers, the studio - seemed to take any sort of risk and they got what they bargained for: a respectable but relatively modest opening. This is hardly a surprise, but for the sake of the industry, at least it's not a disaster. And for the record, the first Rush Hour is still pretty good.
Max Braden: It's a welcome sight to have the old Eddie Murphy back on screen, but that sentiment is one of "Finally, you've brought yourself back to Acceptable performance." not one of "Finally, this is the movie I've been waiting to see all year." Take Murphy's icon out of the equation and you really just have another bumbling-bromance type of genre film that (off the top of my head) The Hangover spawned. In just this year we saw The Hangover 2 do very well on opening weekend, but Hall Pass opened to $13 million in February and Horrible Bosses opened to $28 million in early July. The Tower Heist trailer wasn't without its faults either, showing very little other than reaction expressions, especially the perfectly understandable "I don't know what I'm doing here" one on Matthew Broderick's face. In that light, $25 million is acceptable for what Tower Heist was going to be.
Jim Van Nest: It would seem that everyone here at BOP was excited to see the old Eddie Murphy again. Here's a thought: what would this have done without Eddie Murphy? Apparently, it would have tanked hard, and that has to fall on Stiller, I think. I think it's that Stiller is headed in the opposite direction of Murphy and what we got at the box office was the middling result.
Shalimar Sahota: Along with Matthew, this is pretty close to what I was expecting too (I didn't think it would break out to over $30 million).
That the screenplay is co-written by Ted Griffin, who also wrote the remake of Ocean's Eleven, is also why I found it a bit too similar to that heist movie (hell, they both even star Casey Affleck). Still, I find this an okay result. Not something to jump for joy about, but I wouldn't cry about it either. I think it'll still make its production budget back domestically. Also, after the failure of Meet Dave and Imagine That, I wouldn't have been all that surprised if Murphy stuck to lending his voice to animated films. He's part of a very good ensemble cast here that must have been attracted to something good to consider working on this. Personally I'd like to see Murphy back in R-rated territory.
Kim Hollis: Happy Holidays, everyone! A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas opened to $13.0 million. What do you think of this result?
Edwin Davies: This is a little bit less than I was expecting since I thought that, considering the cult audience the series has and the increased revenue potential of 3D and inflation, that it would at least overtake the second film to have the biggest opening weekend of the series. I didn't expect it to become a breakout hit, but I thought that a result in the $15-19 million was highly possible. Considering that apparently 95% of the tickets sold were for 3D screenings it seems that fewer people showed up this time around, which either means that the bloom has gone off the rose for Harold & Kumar a bit or that a sizable proportion of the target audience intended to see the film, decided to smoke a little bit of weed beforehand, then realized that it was 2 in the morning and that they'd have to go next weekend.
However, it only cost $15 million to produce, the reviews are strong enough that it'll probably hold up fairly well going forward, and you've still got the home media market, which has been incredibly kind to Harold and Kumar over the years, which is where the film will really shine. This is a perfectly fine, unspectacular start, but not bad by any means.
Bruce Hall: This result is less than we saw from the last installment, even considering the 3D bump in ticket price. On the surface that's not good news. But as has been pointed out, this almost covers the production budget. To New Line and Warner Bros, the modest budget and built in audience is like ATM card with access to other people's money. By now, everyone knows what to expect from Harold and Kumar. If you're a fan, you're a fan. If you're not, you're not. If you're the kind of person who likes to wait and see how it does before making your decision, you'll probably go next week. Or pick it up on video. Any way you look at it, easy money.
The franchise is running out of gas and whether this is it for Harold and Kumar or not, at the end of the day this will be a counterculture Christmas classic. It'll be remembered as more of a success than it really was, but it will nonetheless be a success.
Tim Briody: It was never going to build off of Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay, and based on the trailer everyone involved realized a third movie was a stretch, so they totally ran with it. This is fine. It'll be profitable by next weekend, enjoy a cult following on DVD and we can still be amused that when Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle was released, Neil Patrick Harris was in the "wow, what happened to him?" stage of his career, and now he's by far the biggest name among the cast.
Matthew Huntley: It's disappointing, in my opinion, for all the reasons listed elsewhere in this thread (3D surcharges, ticket price inflation, growing popularity of franchise, etc.). I was hoping it would open closer to $20 million to help give the overall box-office a much needed boost going into November, not that I hold this movie completely responsible, but I expected greater numbers from it (and its Friday to Saturday dip is a little unnerving). Still, at least we can consider it a success already and, who knows, with its holiday theme, maybe it'll pull a Santa Claus 2 or Polar Express and show remarkable legs through the season. Not likely, but stranger things have happened.
Jim Van Nest: While this obviously isn't your typical holiday film, I'm wondering if it wasn't a tad early to release a movie with Christmas in the title. All over the place there seems to be a backlash to stores having Christmas decorations out in October and maybe people just weren't ready to see a Christmas movie yet. Or, they could just be done with the series.
David Mumpower: Everyone here is absolutely correct when they point out that with decline in opening weekend revenue as well as the 3D ticket price inflation, the number of actual tickets sold is way down for the third Harold & Kumar film. I have three avenues to explore with my evaluation. The first is whether people who made the movie are disappointed with the first three days of numbers. My answer is that yes, they almost assuredly perceive this as a soft debut. The second is whether they believe that the capital expenditure on this project was worthwhile and my suspicion is that unless it falls off the table next weekend, the answer is again yes. Everyone will wind up relatively satisfied with the return on investment, as long as it doesn't suffer a harsh second weekend drop. And the third is whether anyone expected Harold & Kumar to become a three film franchise (and counting). Let's be totally honest about the fact that the answer to this question is HELL NO!!! Given that perspective, I consider this to be an acceptable result, all things considered.