Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
November 29, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Hugo, Martin Scorsese's movie for kids, opened to $11.4 million in three days and $15.4 million over the holiday period in only 1,277 exhibitions. Out of the top 12 movies, only Breaking Dawn and The Descendants had a better per location average. What do you think of its box office? Do you agree with the assertion in the weekend wrap-up that it's well positioned to do the best of the three new Thanksgiving openers?
Edwin Davies: Contrary to what I just said about Arthur Christmas, which took more money than Hugo and cost a little less to make, I think this is a very good start for Hugo. Considering its esoteric subject matter (it's part adventure film, part paeon to the birth of cinema and silent film) and that it was on only about a third of number of screens that Arthur Christmas was, this is a very encouraging beginning to its run. The studio has made a very canny decision by starting with such a relatively small release this week, since the word-of-mouth and reviews drove people who were in locations where it was playing to check it out, and helped create demand in places where it wasn't which will pay handsome dividends as it expands.
I think that The Muppets will prove to be the more successful of the three films released this week since it's established a solid lead so far and appeals to such a broad selection of people (it's got almost 40 years and multiple generations of nostalgia on its side, whilst Hugo is based on a moderately popular book from only a few weeks ago) and even though it has a chance of becoming Scorsese's most successful film, it still is a bit of an oddity that might not be able to go beyond that.
Matthew Huntley: Let it be said that Hugo is a wonderful film - beautifully designed, exciting to behold and full of wonder. But it is not, in my opinion, destined to be box office hit. Why? Because, as Edwin alluded to, its subject matter is not universally relevant or appealing to the general populace and I don't think it will reach beyond the more hardcore film fans who believe it's not just a small deal every time a Martin Scorsese movie comes out. I can see it grossing about $50-$60 million, which would be too low to cover all its expenses, and ultimately getting overshadowed by The Muppets (and to a lesser degree, Arthur Christmas). I hope I'm wrong, because the movie is not only highly imaginative but serves as a history lesson on the origins of cinema. I would love to think this will be a smash, but I just don't see it.
Kim Hollis: I do think that this is a film that is well positioned to do well moving forward. It might be too arcane for most audiences, which is what will prevent it from being a big hit. On the other hand, I also think it has a shot at some awards recognition, which should bolster its cachet. It's also the kind of film that people will wait to see rather than running out and seeing it right away on opening weekend. With all that said, I think it's a big unknown. With other, more accessible family films available, I'm not sure that this will be option #1 in the coming weeks. I think Matthew is correct that it's going to appeal to film-lovers, but will it be able to reach more to the mainstream? I'm inclined to think no. I'll be delighted to be proven wrong, though.
David Mumpower: I agree with Edwin that if we are talking only in terms of box office and bang for the buck, The Muppets is the clear winner of the three. Having said that, I see symmetry between all three titles in that each one is intended to maintain a theatrical presence into early 2012. While The Muppets and Arthur Christmas are more family oriented, Hugo is attempting to do so as awards bait. I agree with Matthew that the esoteric subject matter reduces the potential number of customers for the project. Still, its early performance is so strong and its pedigree so solid that I believe it will ultimately be remembered fondly even if it fails to recoup its massive budget. This is the type of imaginative storytelling we need to see more. I give Martin Scorsese a lot of credit for taking on a project this daring so late in his career.
Reagen Sulewski: While I think that Muppets will end up the winner of these three films in terms of box office, if we're talking maximum potential, Hugo could certainly surpass it. It definitely feels like something that could be a grower, thanks to its smaller debut and the extreme critical acclaim. I can totally imagine this becoming the kind of film that people "discover" over the next few weeks, and there's little better marketing than that.
All of them!
Edwin Davies: It used to be Gonzo, since as a kid I was quite weird and never felt like I fit in anywhere, and since that's basically what Gonzo is as a character I think I was drawn to him. Now, I think it'd probably be Kermit since, even though he's kind of dull compared to say, Animal, he's a bit of dreamer, but mainly he's a decent guy trying to get by, and I kind of like that the star of The Muppets - if you can say that they have a star amongst that ensemble - has always been the one character just trying to make it through the show without everything falling apart.
Brett Beach: Beaker (naturally). On a related note, I think the perfect human analogue to Beaker is David Lynch.
Tim Briody: I believe we all have a soft spot for Beaker, as sometimes we all feel that we're all just meeping at the world.
Matthew Huntley: Definitely Kermit. He's so chill, happy and all around pleasant. How can anyone not like this guy, er, frog?
Kim Hollis: When I was a child, watching The Muppet Show on television was a family event. We all gathered around, my parents and sisters and I, and watched as these delightful characters lit up the screen alongside their usually very funny special guests. I had a stuffed Kermit. My grade school chorus sang songs from The Muppet Movie in front of an audience. To say that the Muppets are special to me would be an understatement. For this reason, my favorite muppet has changed often over the years. Kermit's genuine qualities make him appealing, but I've also favored Animal, Dr. Teeth, Janice (my dad always thought I looked like her), the Swedish Chef and Statler & Waldorf over the years. I guess for right now, I'll go with the cranky duo of Statler & Waldorf. I always figured the Duke Brothers (Trading Places) were inspired by them.
David Mumpower: You people are only Gonzo because he is the muppet with the harem. On a related note, is there any other children's programming that embraces polygamy as much as The Muppets? The inevitable Jim Henson biopic is going to be a real eye-opener. It'll make Auto-Focus look like Frosty the Snowman. But I digress. As far as Muppets go, I really want to answer Cookie Monster but I'm told that this would be cheating. So, I will pick the artist who has been carrying Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem all these years, Animal. I mean, come on. Def Leppard even named a song after him. And he's friends with Jack Black! Okay, his life isn't perfect but still. Animal (quite obviously) rocks.
Reagen Sulewski: While the unbridled chaos of Animal certainly puts him up there for me, I have to side with my northern European roots and pick the Swedish Chef. This is only partially because I can do a decent impression of him, by the way.