Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
February 8, 2012
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Big Miracle, the Universal Pictures film about Alaskans coming to the aid of whales, opened to $7.8 million. What do you think of this result?
Matthew Huntley: The buzz surrounding this movie was rather low - too low - and when I checked the Friday box-office numbers on Saturday morning, I was surprised to see it charted because I wasn't aware it was even opening. Given the small amount of family product in the marketplace right now, and the recent success of the like-themed Dolphin Tale, I think Universal was right to open Big Miracle this time of year, but perhaps they should have waited one more weekend when families wouldn't be so preoccupied with the big game on Sunday. Unfortunately, it was a misfire, and the movie will have a lot of work to do if it wants to recover its $40 million production budget.
Bruce Hall: I guess I would agree that they might have opened this movie a bit later in the year, but I'm not sure when. A film like this really feels like it needs to open prior to Valentine's Day. On a somewhat unrelated note, I can tell you that this is another film whose trailer I have seen several times in the theater and I can't tell you how many people around me snickered:
"Heh heh...it's Free Willy!"
I realize that is unfair, because Big Miracle is based on an actual event and as far as I know, Free Willy is total fiction AND was released almost 20 years ago. But by my unscientific estimate, there was a general assumption of familiarity with the plot of this movie. And with regard to the recent success of Dolphin Tale, I wonder if there isn't an unofficial critical mass on how many "plucky idealists defend marine life from uncaring corporate machine" movies people are willing to take an interest in over a given period of time?
Brett Beach: Why did they have to hide Kristen Bell in all the advertising! I wouldn't have known but for her sloth meltdown viral video that she was in it. Drew Barrymore and K Bell in the same film and all covered up in parkas?! Mumble mumble.
It's a weak opening. I don't think Dolphin Tale stole the market, but they had bigger stars for such a feel-good genre and there was 3D as well. Plus, Free Willy's success aside, dolphins are always cuter than whales (As Ebert once noted, humans can feel a stronger kinship with any species where we can see big human-y eyes looking back at us.)
Edwin Davies: It just feels like a big misstep to open a family film on a weekend when significant numbers of those families will be occupied watching a major sporting event, especially since family films tend to do their best business on Saturdays and Sundays when all the kids are out of school. I also think that the central hook for this film was not as clear as Dolphin Tale (Dolphin loses its tail, plucky humans help it learn to swim, everybody learns a lesson!) or Free Willy (Whale is unhappy [and has a damaged tail fin] in captivity, plucky humans help it escape, everybody learns a lesson!) since it seemed to have too much going on ("So, the Soviets are involved somehow?") Maybe it's just that people are more drawn to films about aquatic mammals that are maimed in some way.
David Mumpower: You have all touched upon the comparison with Dolphin Tale. Let's throw in the numbers to explain our overall disappointment. That movie opened to $19.2 million and wound up with domestic box office of $72.3 million. Its success was so impressive that we lauded it as a Top Film Industry Story for 2011 in combination with other faith-based cinema. Out of all the titles included in that group (Jumping the Broom, Courageous, Soul Surfer are the others), Dolphin Tale was the biggest box office hit, at least in terms of total revenue. That raises the expectations for a similarly themed title also based in real life events that captivated a town and eventually became a headline grabbing international fixation. The Simpsons already did a parody episode of this last season, as an example. Given the at least vague awareness consumers have of the story and the popularity of a similar title last Fall that people loved, there should have been a stronger performance here. This feels like a huge missed opportunity to me.
This year, we watched the game.
Matthew Huntley: Unfortunately, to me, the quality of the Superbowl ads this year ranged from the awful to the not-so-bad. Nothing stood out to me as good, and definitely not great. Some of the worst were the Coca-Cola ones featuring polar bears (these were so vague and non-descript I didn't know what to take from them); the Clint Eastwood "America's second half starts now," which was overlong; and all the ads for "Celebrity Apprentice," which made me angry because it reminded me that show is still on. The better ones, in my opinion, included the ads for the The Ronald McDonald House and Skechers, where the French bulldog races the Greyhounds. The latest movie trailers (namely The Avengers) didn't offer anything new or exciting. Kind of a blah year overall.
Bruce Hall: I liked the Audi commercial with the vampires. The Chevy Carpocalypse was pretty funny, although I'll still never buy one. Same goes for you, Fiat. Monkeys are ALWAYS funny. I think Pepsi tastes like anti-freeze, but mad props to Elton John. The First Bank spot with the guy in the chair got us all laughing. Simple. Elegant. Now for the things I hated.
1. Online versions of the "Ferris Bueller" and "Seinfeld" ads were much better.
2. Go Daddy.com always sucks. Not sure what they do, don't care.
3. The Coke polar bears? What is this, 1993? Let's bring back Mrs. Doubtfire, or the Budweiser frogs, while we're at it. Which reminds me...
4. Hey Budweiser, were all 127 ads really necessary? Just make good beer. Then you won't have to try so hard.
5. Battleship looked a lot like Transformers, but with more water and less LaBeouf. Lots of aliens, buildings falling over and people saying dumb things like "extinction level event" and "fire everything." But only two shots of an actual Battleship.
6. I have no idea what the hell Clint Eastwood was even talking about. But please don't tell him I said that.
7. Sorry fanboys, but when I see the Avengers I see the Hulk, who is a radioactive freak capable of punching a hole in a skyscraper. I see Iron Man, who wears nuclear powered battle armor. I see Thor, who is...well...a GOD. And then I see a chick with a gun, a guy with a bow and arrow and a 'roided up dude dressed like a member of the 1984 US Men's Gymnastics Team. In real life, they die first. Just saying...
Brett Beach: I am glad I don't have to compete with Bruce's vitriol, but at the risk of drawing unfavorable anti-patriotic sentiment towards me, I didn't watch any of it. Not even the ads (which is the first time as an adult that I can claim that). I watched the ad for the new Chrysler Eastwood this morning and enjoyed it, and heard secondhand about Bundchen's anger and M.I.A.'s middle finger. I am always thankful when games are close and victory (or loss) doesn't involve rioting.
Max Braden: Fiat sold sex far better than the flower company ad did. (Though, let's be honest - as nifty as that car looks, it only works in Europe - no chick in North America is going to bother flirting with a dude who drives of one of those golf carts.) I thought the effects in Battleship looked pretty cool, I'd go to the theater for it despite the inevitable groan-worthy plot. Pretty much any ad with a dog will get the thumbs up from me. I'm also fine with the polar bears - they're like a welcome tradition. But man, Seinfeld is even more dated than they are, and *Broderick* always looks more aged and more tired than Clint Eastwood should at his age (but still looks and sounds badass).
David Mumpower: In terms of the commercials, I didn't have much of an opinion either way about the bears. Last year, there was a strange ad Coke did involving a fortress and a dragon. This felt like the successor to that, an attention grabbing ad without a lot to say. In some ways, that's the point of advertising much more than having a too-clever concept that never clearly identifies the brand represented. Keeping this in mind, I again found this year's batch of ads disappointing and as amusing as the issue is to type out, the problem is simple. Super Bowl ads have become too commercial. Few people making the spots have the correct combination of courage and creativity crucial to the pageantry of the event. The only two spots that particularly grabbed me this year are the one from Doritos with the dog and the bribe and the one that shows the (generally anonymous) inventors of any number of computer applications that have become ubiquitous in our daily lives. And I don't understand what the latter has to do with Best Buy, who licensed the commercial. The Eastwood ad is inspiring but it's a nice message that makes me in no way want to buy a car, which is problematic since I am currently shopping for cars.
With regards to the films, Battleship is one of those hallmark moments in cinema. People will remember the day that they heard that a movie was made out of the board game and they will remember the Super Bowl ad that desperately attempted to link said film to Transformers. I am going to laugh myself unconscious in roughly a year when Battleship gets an Academy Awards nomination or two for technical achievements. And if there is any justice in the world, this movie is going to bomb like Gigli. Sadly, I don't think it will. I'm expecting a G.I. Joe-ish sort of inexplicable global performance. I also feel like The Hunger Games missed an opportunity by ceding the Super Bowl game itself and instead putting an ad in the pre-game show instead. This could/should be the next great movie franchise and the latest trailer is great. They should be highlighting it as much as possible rather than cost cutting with the cheaper air time. Finally, The Avengers trailer looks good enough that I find myself wondering if the gap between it and The Dark Knight Rises will be smaller than we have been expecting.