Monday Morning Quarterback
By BOP Staff
April 10, 2012
BoxOfficeProphets.com

We've always wanted a guy named Bubba to win the Masters.

You never forget your first slice...until you're so old that you forget it.

Kim Hollis: American Reunion opened to $21.5 million. What do you think of this result?

Matthew Huntley: This figure isn't as strong as I had hoped. When inflation is taken into account, it's the lowest opening weekend for the 13-year-old franchise, so either the core fan base has moved on or it wasn't the right weekend to open it. I think the latter is a more valid explanation. Had Universal waited until August to open American Reunion, I think it would have had a better chance to have a $30 million+ weekend all to itself (plus, it would have been consistent with the previous American Pie theatrical releases).

Another reason it's disappointing is because the movie is actually funny and entertaining. It reinvigorates the series after American Wedding and offers broad humor that's vulgar yet enjoyable and works hard to appeal to non-AP fans. Bottom line: it deserved to open bigger.

Brett Beach: I echo Matthew's disappointments (though I am glad to hear I may yet enjoy the film when I see it). And these are the times where it becomes hard for me to sever my hopes for a film to do well from the reality of how it probably will do/the excitement that others may or not feel. Would it have reached the $30 millions in the summer months? I rewatched the trilogy for this week's Chapter Two column and I found that I loved the first one as much as I did in 1999. The affection I have for the characters (and to an extent the actors) has always been enough to rose-tint over the lesser moments in the following films.

This opening is, to me analogous to Scream 4's from last year where a long-dormant franchise was "continued" rather than being re-booted/imagined/furbished. All those DTV films may have kept the name alive, but they did diminish the brand as well, as did the successively lackluster (though popular) Pie 2 and Wedding. I don't see this doing more than $50 million, which would at least make the budget back domestically. Still, in 15-20 years, I would be up for American Middle Age (aka American Viagara).

Max Braden: I'm of the opposite mind here. I'm really surprised that American Reunion broke $20 million. The series is so old now that it's into Hall Pass territory (which opened to less than $14 million), but with less well known actors. For younger viewers who hadn't even been old enough for a sex ed class when American Pie was first released, this must have looked tame and tired compared to Project X. Scream 4 at least offered a genre movie with a kick, for those also unfamiliar with its origins. I'm going to say they got lucky and benefited from some Hunger Games box office overflow.

Tim Briody: I had forgotten that all three American Pie releases broke $100 million ($101, $145 and $104 million respectively) so going back to the well for a high school reunion was probably a no-brainer. That said, too much time probably passed to go to that well one more time, though I'm sure Jason Biggs was thrilled to find work again. Scream is a pretty decent comparison. The audience this was going for was in kindergarten when this American Pie was released. The appeal/point of this franchise was probably lost on most of them.

Bruce Hall: Could this be a little of that "Dubiously Necessary Sequel" issue we've gotten so much mileage out of lately? Although the first three American Pie films were solid earners, I'd hardly call these characters iconic. The real question for me is: Who Cares? You could blame this on The Hunger Games, and a lot of people whose jobs depend on it will do just that. I'll even concede that opening the fourth installment of everyone's favorite pie f***g franchise on Easter weekend might not have been the best idea. But I am also hard pressed to think of another time of year where more people would care about yet another American Pie movie than they do now. You can get out your slide rule and analyze this to death but the simplest answer is just that not as many people CARE any more.

I sure don't. The first pie f*****g movie was worth a chuckle but I was sort of done with it after the second one. The title doesn't even make any sense any more. Of course it's an American Reunion. They're Americans. So if you want to go see it with the uninitiated, you have to explain the whole pie f*****g thing from 12 years ago and no, it has nothing to do with the song, and by then it's not funny, it's just kind of gross and stupid.

Then again, this was a $50 million movie. It's going to make a profit, and a nice tidy one when all is said and done. So at the end of the day this is all academic. I doubt we've seen the last of this franchise, and even the modest success this film is likely to enjoy may be enough to revive other '90s mainstays. Anyone up for There's Something (Else) About Mary? Wayne's World 3? Dumberer and Dumbererer? With two jowly old guys well into their 50s farting and making faces?

Don't laugh. I was only kidding about two of those.

Kim Hollis: It's a good thing you're only kidding about two of them, because for those who are unaware, Dumb and Dumber 2 is filming in September. Really.

David Mumpower: This is similar to the television returns of 90210 and Melrose Place. There is a fine line between welcome sentimentality and abject desperation. I disagree that the weekend of release matters in that I have always maintained that any film can triumph at any point on the schedule if there is desire for it. The Hunger Games is the absolute extreme of this philosophy. What went wrong with American Reunion is not the date of release nor the marketing campaign. It's the cast. We can tapdance around the subject all we want, but this is the elephant in the living room. All of these people are cautionary tales about the logical conclusions for most young celebrities in the industry. They make for better "Where Are They Now?" conversations than anchor players in a franchise independent of whether American Pie was once popular...and I say that as someone who owns all of these titles, even the inferior American Wedding, the one that ruined the franchise.

Felix Quinonez: I think if you compare it to the last three Pie movies, a $21 million opening weekend sounds disappointing but I think that's an unfair comparison. The last one came out almost a decade ago and was pretty terrible. Actually, I would say the second one was terrible too. So maybe lot of its target audience either moved on or was too young to see the first one (the only good one) and had no reason to see this one. But if you judge it on its own merit and take into consideration that it's not exactly a hot franchise, I'd say it did well enough.

Now with more expensive movie tickets!

Kim Hollis: Titanic returned to theaters in all its new, improved 3D glory, earning $17.3 million over the weekend. Is this more, less or about what you expected?

Matthew Huntley: This is actually a lot less than I expected. If The Lion King can open with $30 million after a 3D conversion (and show good legs), I assumed the second biggest movie of all time would have been able to do the same, if not better (I was expecting at least a $35 million opening). What I failed to consider, I suppose, was that all those people who saw Titanic two, three, four times in the theater back in 1997-98 (and I admit I'm mostly thinking of women here) would not be doing that again. Fans of the movie have moved on and grown up, and the Leonardo DiCaprio heartthrob factor no longer seems to fit into the equation.

Still, speaking simply as a film buff, I thought moviegoers would have been eager to see Titanic on the big screen again, if only for cinematic nostalgia, and, knowing how high James Cameron's standards are, would be curious to see how it looks with an added dimension. Clearly, I was wrong.

Reagen Sulewski: I was a little confused by the early tracking numbers being lower than I expected too, and I still over shot the mark on the prediction, but they do make a good deal of sense to me in retrospect. Yes, it was at one time the highest grossing film ever. But so much of that was made up of repeat business and/or people who never went to the theater except they heard about this movie Titanic, that the actual number of people interested in this was much smaller than, say, your Lion Kings or Beauty and the Beasts. Not only did more individual people probably see them, but more of the right type of filmgoer (e.g. frequent) saw them, and their family status also allowed the film's audience to grow. Titanic's is pretty static.

Brett Beach: I will do the obligatory "let's wait for the second weekend grosses before we start slapping Cameron around post" but this is underwhelming to me. They made back the conversion cost in five days. It's all gravy. It's the second highest grossing film of all time. It will make it past the $2 billion international mark shortly. But finishing in third behind a film's third weekend and a 90s comedy reunion? It feels a little "king" of the world instead of "KINGOFTHEWORLD".

Max Braden: If you can't convince an audience to come see a ginormous ship snap, crackle, and pop in 3D, what does that say about the format? Every once in a while when I see anniversary showings of my favorite '80s films at the local indie theater, I think "I'm definitely going to see that." And I never do. They're movies that I'm glad exist and are available to see in the theater, but I'm not moved enough to go because I catch them on cable every now and then. That's Titanic 3D to me.

Bruce Hall: James Cameron made Titanic and Avatar. Both were massive, glitzy vanity projects that went way over budget, had failure written all over them and the entire industry licked its collective chops waiting for the John Carter sized crater they would both inevitably make on impact. Except they didn't. They became the two highest grossing films of all time, and by a considerable margin. One was about a silly boy, a silly girl, and a Billy Zane on board the post industrial age embodiment of all man's hubris - in a film where everyone on earth already knew the ending. The other was basically Dances With Wolves in Space.

Stupid? Yes, so stupid that Cameron knocked them out of the park. I don't really care for either film - except for the part where the boat sank, which was awesome. But Cameron hit the cover off the ball and sent it into the stands. He crushed it. You can argue about the plot, the characters - with anything you want - except a pile of money so big it would tilt the earth off its axis and destroy all life as we know it.

So while this is a lot less money than I'd have expected to see out of Titanic 3D, I don't think it means a damn thing. I'll bet you four billion, six hundred and eighty seven million dollars that James Cameron is still King of the World.

Felix Quinonez: I'll admit I got a little carried away with my expectations and I actually wondered if this could put Titanic back in the number one spot. But in the end I have to say it's a pretty impressive number. A lot of people see the fact that the second biggest movie of all time "only" made $17 million dollars in a 3D re-release as somewhat disappointing. But the fact that its the second highest grossing movie of all time means a huge number of people have already seen it...probably a few times. Also a lot of people are comparing it to Lion King's 3D performance. Yes, Lion King 3D made more but I think it kind of benefited from being the first (or one of the first) movie to embrace this whole 3D re-release thing. Plus the people who made Lion King a huge hit might have kids now and they probably want to take their kids to see it in theaters. I don't think that the teenage girls who saw Titanic six times in the theaters last time have the urge to introduce their kids or younger siblings to the magic that is Leonardo DiCaprio circa 1997.

Kim Hollis: Look, I'm a person who did see The Lion King 3D in theaters on opening night. And when the 3D Titanic was announced, I thought, "Awesome. Sure, I'll go see that." But then after I thought about it, it occurred to me that I didn't really want to sit in a theater for more than three hours to watch something in 3D. The Lion King's 90 or so minutes of it is perfectly fine. And I will absolutely sit and watch Titanic every time I find it on cable - I think it's a marvelous technical achievement and I think it's an engaging film, to boot. In the end, I just wasn't really motivated to get to the theater. I think a lot of people feel the same way.

David Mumpower: Following up on Kim's point, I too saw The Lion King in the theater and then a few weeks later, I purchased the 3D Blu-Ray disc. The latter was cheaper than the former as well as more permanent. At that point, I didn't realize it but this proved to be the rationale for why I didn't see Titanic again this past weekend. I consider the film to be among the most important features of the past quarter century, maybe even THE most important. Still, I felt no onus to watch the 3D re-release during opening weekend. I fully expect to watch the title in 3D at least twice in the next six months as I trust James Cameron more than anyone else in the world with regards to 3D technology...and deep sea exploration. If I don't go on opening weekend, I understand why so few other people did. Leo's diehard fans are not 15 any more, either. They have jobs now and cannot pine for him all day at the theater. That's a sloppy logical inference and yet there is validity to it.

Biggest achievement? How about diving deeper into the ocean than anyone ever has?

Kim Hollis: With the benefit of some distance, which film's performance impresses you more, Titanic or Avatar? Which is the more impressive technical achievement?

Brett Beach: Hmmm. Amassing a massive amount of money in one fell swoop, or in a slightly more molasses crawl fell swoop (at lower ticket prices, natch). I go for Titanic, if only because its "performance," including people globally swooning over the characters and the romance and seeing it an ungodly amount of times, and for spending four months at number one. I don't feel like Avatar produced that much passion then or with hindsight, though it may have been similarly as successful at getting people who "don't go out to see films" to see it. As for the technical achievements, my 3-D bias keeps me from making an objective assessment of that. I defer to my colleagues.

Max Braden: Given the choice, I'd prefer to watch Avatar. But performance-wise, Titanic is an easy pick. Megaplexes were firmly established by the time it was released, but Titanic was a true throwback to the time before the impact of opening weekend box office. Titanic audiences just kept coming and coming. Titanic held the top spot at the box office from before Christmas until the end of March, and only then did it fall below a ten-million-dollar weekend. Avatar, over a decade later, only held on to the top spot from pre-Christmas through January, and fell below a ten-million-dollar weekend at the beginning of February. And that was with boosted ticket prices. It was also made a decade later in a highly technical era, with funds and experience thanks to Titanic. Titanic impresses me more on both fronts. But I've only seen it twice, and I'm not moved to seek it out again.

Bruce Hall: [Spoiler alert - if you're one of the two people who have never seen Titanic] I am a sucker for period films, so I'll sit through Titanic ten times before I sit through FernGully 2: Blue Boogaloo again. It would be easy for me to say that Avatar represents the greater technical achievement because...well...duh. But I am more impressed with the fact that for all the CGI that was necessary to pull off Titanic, you never really notice it - unless you're one of those people who insists you can see it because you already know it's there. The love story behind Titanic was silly. And I can't get over how Rose apparently married another man, had a big, loving family with him but never told any of them she was TOTALLY in love with someone else all these years.

But Titanic was a movie that made people (girls) want to see (drag their boyfriends to) it again and again, and it became a true cultural phenomenon. And, it's hard not to feel something at the end when the boat hits the thing and the thing happens - but I won't spoil it for you.

Oh! And, and by the way - she had the damn rock on her the whole time. Lied to her family for generations and then SAT there telling that stupid story, watching those scientists spend millions of dollars risking their lives to go down to the wreck looking for something she had IN HER PURSE WHOLE TIME. No, don't leave it for your family - that you LIED to for your whole life. Just throw it over board, all weepy and sentimental - because you love some street urchin you banged down in steerage more than you love your own family. You suck, Rose.

Felix Quinonez: Can I say a draw? I first picked Titanic because, well...damn. That movie opened pretty small and then just kept going. I can't think of any movie that had better legs and yes the ticket prices were cheaper.

But Avatar, like Titanic, had a lot of people who thought it was going to flop. It opened to a bigger opening weekend number but at $77 million, it wasn't even the biggest opening weekend of December. Its opening weekend number was big but it was by no means any indication that it was going to dethrone Titanic. And yes, its legs weren't as good as Titanic's. But Avatar opened to a much bigger theater count. Because of this more people could go see it right away then when they saw Titanic. I also think movie going habits have changed drastically. A lot more people are rushing out to see movies as quickly as possible. Did they even do midnight screenings in 1997? Not only that but did Titanic's performance really change the industry? Avatar, on the other hand started this whole 3D craze and I would argue that it even helped make movies like Clash of the Titans and Alice in Wonderland into much bigger hits than they would have been if not for Avatar.

Sooo, I have to say a tie or that they are both so insanely impressive that it doesn't even matter which is more impressive.

Kim Hollis: My answer is going to be Titanic, both financially and technically. As everyone else has mentioned, its longevity in theaters is just unbelievable. I actually did not see it in movie theaters until it hit the dollar theater, and I believe that was sometime in August of 1998. That was *nine months* after it initially debuted. I accept that movie-going habits have changed these days, but it's just a stunning accomplishment. Let us also remember that it held the record for top spot at the box office for more than a decade. I can't imagine that Avatar will do the same (though I don't rule anything out).

As far as the technical accomplishments, I would argue that bringing a true story as epic in scope as Titanic is a far bigger challenge than a fantasy, where you're creating your own world with its own rules. I had read some history of the Titanic prior to seeing the film, and I was always impressed by the film's overall accuracy. Yes, there are liberties here and there, but when it comes to the actual sinking of the boat, it happens exactly as books describe the events. There are a lot of little marvelous touches, too (I will always believe that Victor Garber's character fixing the clock as the boat is near to fully sinking is one of the finest moments in movie history). I admit to being someone who was jaded about Titanic in the few years after its release, but I've come around to really finding it to be an outstanding film that truly represents everything that is grand about Hollywood.

David Mumpower: This is one of the trickiest topics we've ever had on MMQB. I have vacillated on the subject many times. In terms of overall achievement, Titanic wins because of those 11 Academy Awards. With regards to technical achievement, Avatar requires the creation of an entire world that stimulates the senses in historically unprecedented fashion. Titanic mines the depths of the ocean floor to uncover long lost mysteries about a fatal journey. Each is dazzling. From a financial perspective, Avatar is more noteworthy due to the fact that nobody ever does this well with two different projects. George Lucas is a distant second in the discussion. Nobody else is even close. But I do not view this question as determined by box office. Instead, it is about pure technical achievement. In modern cinema, we can create virtual worlds that come to life onscreen. Yes, Cameron did this better than anyone else. It's not that novel, though. Titanic, on the other hand, is almost impossible to duplicate. The underwater exploration phase alone sets it apart. Avatar is a movie that Cameron couldn't do until the technology caught up to his vision. Titanic is a movie that nobody else could do because the wreckage alone is impenetrable to any other filmmaker in the industry. Someone can make another Avatar at some point. The same is not true of Titanic.