Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
December 12, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: New Year's Eve opened to $13 million, well short of expectations. How surprised are you by this result? What do you think the problem was?
Bruce Hall: I hate to sound so unscientific, but I just don't think anybody really cared about this film. This just LOOKED like the kind of film that assumed your interest due to the cast while the trailers left the story looking like incomprehensible, sickening treacle. Maybe Garry Marshall was hoping for lightning to strike twice in the same place. Valentine's Day was more or less the same gimmick, but that particular holiday lends itself naturally to this sort of horrific fluff. I'm not sure stuffing the same trick into the same treat on a different holiday quite passed the sniff test with moviegoers, and I'm not sure there's even the same level of interest in a formulaic rom-com at this time of year.
But that's just my gut talking. I'll leave the science to my esteemed colleagues.
Tim Briody: In the end, it was released just a little too far away from the holiday it's named after. It might need a small miracle to be a box office factor in two weeks, which is when most of the money is to be made.
Brett Beach: In theory, this is the kind of film that can hold up during the holiday season where even a lackluster opening weekend can wind up with a final multiplier of between 4 and 8. And it may also be true that its primary target audience (women) might be busy in the days leading up to Christmas and catch up with it as it will be the only romantic comedy in town the rest of the month. But... I think that people (rightly) felt that it looked exactly like Valentine's Day, with only slightly different stars, and the dreadful reviews and opening weekend word-of-mouth and Flixter ratings bear this out. I wouldn't put this past making it to its budget ($56 million) and then some in the weeks to come, but I think it will be an afterthought by the time the dozen or so big ticket items and small indie films platforming out start hitting the multiplexes on the 21st.
Max Braden: Somehow (though I strenuously object to it), Christmas movies can play before Thanksgiving. But mid-December just seems too early to start celebrating the next year when you're not done with Christmas yet. Saturday Night Live also parodied it this weekend, noting the endless lineup of stars. How can there be any story there? It's like watching a red carpet promenade when nobody's wearing anything interesting.
Shalimar Sahota: I remember when this was called 200 Cigarettes. Valentine's Day had the benefit of opening on the weekend the day actually fell on. New Year's Eve has kinda started the party a little early by opening a few weeks before schedule. However, even if it was released appropriately at the end of the year, I think people would more interested in going out to parties rather than paying to see other people party. Plus, those who did end up viewing Valentine's Day weren't going to fall for the same film twice, as the trailer tries to convince us that New Year's Eve is also about "love." I guess the idea is to turn every holiday into a film about love. Now maybe if it were an action/horror film where you try and guess who will survive before the clock reaches midnight...
Jim Van Nest: If ever there was a film that screamed "Watch me for free on Netflix" this one was it.
Edwin Davies: I think it's a case of "fool me once, shame on you" in that the people who showed for - and largely hated - Valentine's Day decided that they didn't need to see New Year's Day, especially since it didn't have the gimmicky release date to compel people to see it. More than that, it seemed like such a mercenary move that it could have put people off. Exploiting Valentine's Day by using it as the setting for a romantic comedy is one thing, but anyone with half a brain could see that in this case they had arbitrarily picked a date and thrown some celebrities at it.
David Mumpower: I agree with all of you that New Year's Eve fell victim to the lingering aftertaste of Valentine's Day. If you are going to make a de facto sequel to a movie that had innumerable fatal flaws (the casting of Taylor Swift and, worst yet, Eric Dane being two of them), you have to distinguish why the new version is also the improved version. I would be hard pressed to name a moment from the New Year's Eve trailer that differentiates itself or provides a distinct identity. There just isn't enough originality there to dissuade the skeptics.
Who knows? They might have more luck with Good Friday.
We miss you, Robert Altman
Kim Hollis: Do you think that consumers are growing tired of superstar ensemble films, or is that reading too much into the weekend result for New Year's Eve?
Bruce Hall: I'm not sure if it'e even a matter of fatigue. I think it's possible that the traditional idea of the "Movie Star" is a little dated. Celebrities on the whole are trotted before us on a flavor of the week basis these days. That's not to say that there aren't and won't probably always be stars with enduring appeal, but everyone is so busy looking for the Next Big Thing, and audience attention spans are so short that it's hard for consumers to stay focused. Doesn't it seem like Zac Efron was a much bigger deal not long ago? Remember Channing Tatum? Taylor Lautner could be making sandwiches at Subway two years from now. It's just one Vaguely Androgynous Spiky Haired Tween after another. I can't tell them apart any more.
I think a big part of what happened with New Year's Eve was a matter of timing. Let's not forget that the predecessor to New Year's Eve - Valentine's Day - was a very successful flick. Red is getting a sequel. And the Ocean's Eleven trilogy concluded relatively successfully not long ago. But one movie does not a trend make. So while it's definitely worth noting for future reference, I'd be reluctant to overstate this individual result.
Brett Beach: I think that true ensemble pictures in the hands of directors who give a diverse cast the space to create a character in only a few minutes of onscreen time (Taranatino, the Coens, et al) are beloved by audiences of all stripes. When I see 20-odd "big" names in a film like this that clocks in under two hours, all I can think is "so they'll each be on screen for five to 10 minutes tops, and, far from making themselves stand out, they'll all kind of blend into the sitcom-ish beige-walled background."
Max Braden: It's all about story. As long as the audience doesn't get the impression that the producers are coasting on names rather than plot, they'll buy tickets. Of course, I'm going to see The Expendables 2 because of the cast list, but mostly that's because they're blowing up stuff *together*. And blowing up stuff isn't sappy.
Edwin Davies: I agree with Max that story is key to these things. There's a massive difference between something like Red, which has a lot of famous faces running through a simple, easily digestible plot, and New Year's Day, which basically says "Look at all these stars! Aren't they great? Don't you want to see them, I dunno, do...something?" There needs to be something more to the movie than, "Oh, love and stuff" to get an audience interested.
David Mumpower: I agree that the story is the imperative here. The lingering issue of discontent I had with New Year's Eve is that it seemed like the (latest) return of The Love Boat but with superstars instead of Charo. There is simply nothing memorable about the trailer, which is a far cry from Ocean's Thirteen ("Well, I know all the guys that you'd hire to come after me, and they like me better than you.") or The Expendables ("They are the world's greatest mercenaries."). Even Valentine's Day had the cute bit with the boy buying flowers for his girlfriend. There has to be a means through which the consumer can identify that there is a concerted effort toward quality. In lieu of the pervading presumption is that everyone stopped trying the instant the agents and studio bosses had finalized the contracts for the talent.