Monday Morning Quarterback
By BOP Staff
April 17, 2012
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Tom Houseman: For a movie aimed at kids based on a several decades old TV show, with no big-name star (Except Sofia Vergara, I guess) this is a number that Fox should be very pleased with. The most obvious comparisons are the one-two punch of The Rocky and Bullwinkle Movie and Dudley Do-Right, which had combined budgets of $145 million and combined grosses of $36 million. I'm no mathematician, but that first number seems much higher than the second one. Clearly there is no guarantee that these kinds of adaptations are going to find audiences. The Three Stooges was never going to be a huge hit, but it will be a money maker and it should have solid legs.
Bruce Hall: I think that this film with Carrey, Penn and Benicio Del Toro might have been better, but the odds of that film being profitable are the same as the odds of me achieving my childhood dream and becoming Secret Agent Quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys. What's been clear for a long time is that this was probably going to be a niche film. Making the picture with a physically suitable set of stunt doubles allows The Three Stooges to live up to its middlebrow roots while still somehow ending up in the black when it's all finally over. Someone deserves at the very least, a good pat on the back for this better than expected but not entirely impressive result.
Edwin Davies: My main takeaway from this result is the knowledge that somehow the ads for this one didn't horrify enough people. Seriously, the marketing for this film has - at least until recently - been horrible, and I can only assume that the recent shift away from showing clips from the film to joking about the film convinced people that the people behind it might have produced something that was as kind of clever as those adverts. Yeah, more fool them.
This is neither a good result nor a worst case scenario. The Three Stooges isn't going to be troubling us much beyond the next two weekends - except in our collective nightmares, obviously - but it's made over half its modest budget back already, so the studio will be woop-woop-woop and nyuk nyuk nyuking all the way to the bank.
Matthew Huntley: I think it's safe to say we're all generally surprised by this result, especially considering, as Edwin suggested, the "horrifying" ad campaign. But the trailers notwithstanding, it's not THAT much of a shock, because I'm willing to bet most kids, particularly boys aged 10 and under, DID like the trailer and therefore asked Mom and Dad to take them. Fox worked the same twisted magic with the Alvin and the Chipmunks movies. But unlike Alvin, Stooges, believe it or not, is actually funny and appealing for adults too. Yes, I just wrote that and I must admit I laughed during this movie. Maybe it's because I was expecting it to be disastrous and wasn't pleasantly surprised when that wasn't the case, but regardless, it works as a comedy. If it does turn out to be a moneymaker from here on out, I can at least sleep easier knowing it's a semi-decent movie instead of an unbearable one.
Tom Houseman: Matt, you should read my review when it gets posted. I say almost the exact same thing. The suffocating dolphin and the peeing babies were awful, but other than that I was thoroughly entertained throughout the film.
Tim Briody: I think you guys nailed it. We heard about a Three Stooges movie, went "really?" and then lamented on the descent of humanity as we saw the trailer and ads. But it's not for anyone who may have stumbled upon an old Stooges episode on some lazy weekend afternoon back in the day. It's targeted at the 12-year-old demographic. And it hit pretty solidly with them.
Felix Quinonez: I think they should be happy with this result. It had a pretty low budget and I think it looks so bad. Also, it's aimed at kids that more than likely never heard of the three stooges so I'd say it’s a win for the studio.
Reagen Sulewski: There's a double edged sword to those ads - yes, they're terrible, but then again, that's what actual Three Stooges films were like back in the day. It's jarring to see that kind of slapstick transposed into modern settings, kind of like (although nowhere near as offensive as) if someone remade The Jazz Singer complete with blackface. It's a cultural artifact best left in its original context, but I can kind of see why people might want to see this. I'm still ashamed of those people, and they should know better, of course, but they were probably mostly all under 13-years-old, so that's at least something.
David Mumpower: Reagen touches upon the key aspect in my estimation. The Three Stooges are iconic and this sort of humor is broad and timeless, independent of what that says about humanity.
Kim Hollis: The Cabin in the Woods, an instant BOP fave from Team Whedon, opened to $14.7 million this weekend. The genre-defying feature received glowing reviews yet mediocre word-of-mouth, including a C Cinemascore. What do you think of this result and what is your overall perception of The Cabin in the Woods?
Edwin Davies: This is about as good a result as we could expect considering that there was always going to be a major problem with the film: how to sell it to an audience without actually telling that audience what it is about. The joy of the film lies in seeing how it reveals itself to be more than just a generic horror film, but the only way to avoid spoiling the twists lay in selling it as a generic horror film, which may have turned off people who wanted to see something a bit more fresh and original - the very people who would love Cabin In The Woods, ironically enough - and would inevitably lead to people who went in expecting a generic horror film being disappointed, hence the C Cinemascore.
I think that this result shows that enough people got a sense that there was something worth checking out, but considering that this was always going to be a tough sell, it's towards the upper echelons of what was expected. The good news is that the people who love the film really love it, and the stellar reviews should help it to finish north of $40 million (though probably not more, unless it holds up way better than your typical horrors and satires tend to do). Since it was made for a fairly thrifty $30 million, and since it will probably do okay overseas, this will wind up being a solid win for all involved. Though obviously it'll be overshadowed by Whedon's OTHER film of the year: that version of Much Ado About Nothing that he has filmed in his apartment (which, yes, is a real thing).
Matthew Huntley: Given its boldness and originality, a $14 million opening is somewhat of a disappointment, and unfortunately I don't envision it grossing more than $25-$30 million overall. It's too much of a niche film - that is, a horror movie with brains. I have a feeling most audiences are going to describe it as "slow," "weird," "not what I was expecting," etc., which will sadly encourage most people not to see it in theaters. It's a shame, too, because the film's intrigue hinges on the audience being ignorant and it was refreshing to see a movie resist falling for the same old routines. For once, we can't call things out ahead of time, which shakes the traditional Hollywood movie-going experience up a bit, something you're either into or which turns you off. Too bad the general populace seems to be turned off by it, because Cabin deserves better.
Shalimar Sahota: Well, given the tough sell, because there's only so much you can show without ruining it, I'd say it's okay. Though I will mention that I've seen a couple of TV ads that have managed to give the whole film away! Despite the positive reviews and that amazing poster, the other factor behind the low opening might be the bland title itself, which I understand is there to conceal the surprise. Edwin kinda got there before me, but similarly I imagine that by trying to disguise itself as generic it may have put people off into thinking that it actually is generic. This reminds me a bit of Drag Me to Hell; a decent horror film with overwhelmingly positive reviews, yet hardly anyone went to go see it. Personally I thought The Cabin in the Woods was great, but the reasoning behind “why” it's all happening just doesn't gel with me.
Felix Quinonez: I have to echo Edwin's argument. I totally believe that by trying to be secretive, it made the movie look generic and turned off people who might like it and the people who did see it are disappointed that it's not what the trailer made it look like.
But I find it hard to believe that the only way hide the movie's twists is by making it look like a generic horror film. There has to be a way to be secretive without being deceptive. I thought the trailers looked like any other generic horror film with a generic title. Even after finding out that it's something completely different and reading some great reviews I still don't think I'm going to see it in theaters. I think they dropped the ball and they could have had a bigger hit.
Tim Briody: I haven't seen this yet, but from the word-of-mouth I'm pretty sure I'm going to as well. I've avoided everything I possibly can about it, but I think more than a few may have gone in expecting Generic Horror Movie of the Week and got the Joss Whedon Experience, and that's something you kind of have to be ready for. The opening isn't bad at all considering it cost $30 million and sat on the shelf for three years, but this is probably going to be a huge cult fave on DVD and Netflix.
Reagen Sulewski: I think it's possible to be a little too inside baseball on this. Most people don't care or have no idea that the film sat for three years, don't care about "John Sweden", barely recognize Thor. They just see that there's another horror film out there that looks kinda scary, and they think it looks spooky. Those people probably left the film a bit disappointed, since as just about everyone's noted, this is not the typical horror slasher film that those people are looking for. I think it's a good lesson for filmmakers who are looking to be subversive - sneak your message in through a horror film! - but in a larger cultural context it probably doesn't mean a lot.
David Mumpower: What amuses me about our box office analysis in this thread is that it mirrors the movie itself. We are all over the place with our expectations. We also have no idea what will happen next. Edwin is projecting solid legs while Matthew believes the wheels will come off. Both scenarios are equally likely. The Cabin in the Woods is a triumph of creativity that may prove too unconventional for normal movie goers. Alternately, the impeccable quality of the movie may lead to passionate word-of-mouth that carries The Cabin in the Woods to much better legs than usual for horror films. While we all agree that the movie is an instant cult classic, looking into the box office crystal ball reveals little about its short term popularity. Even the quality of its $1.2 million Monday take is in the eye of the beholder. All aspects of Cabin in the Woods are a mystery, which is indescribably refreshing to me as a box office evaluator. I love these wild card films.
Kim Hollis: Luc Besson's Taken-esque sci-fi film starring Guy Pearce, Lockout, opened to $6.2 million. Should FilmDistrict/Open Road Films be satisfied with this result?
David Mumpower: Lockout is a particularly difficult performance to evaluate in that this was a cheap production ($20 million) that FilmDistrict purchased cheaply. Then, they turned around and cut a deal with Open Road Films, the joint movie distributor of AMC and Regal. And Open Road Films has a sweetheart deal with Netflix to license this content almost immediately after it enters the home video phase. In other words, nobody is spending a lot of their own money while everyone involved is financially protected through side deals. Red Dawn's release pattern later this year is constructed in the same manner. As such, a $6.3 million result sounds unimpressive yet it borders on being arbitrage. Consider that since the two main movie theater chains involved are vertically integrated in this endeavor, the revenue splits on opening weekend are night and day better than normal. Ergo, their $6.3 million is better than the average $10 million opening weekend. I know that the surface level evaluation appears otherwise, but I maintain this is a decent sized win for all involved.
Bruce Hall: This result comes in somewhere behind some recent Luc Besson-led projects like Columbiana, which was terrible, and From Paris With Love, which was slightly less terrible. But one of those movies cast Zoe Saldana, and the slightly less terrible one boasted John Travolta, finally back within striking distance of the legendary form he displayed on the set of Battlefield Earth. Guy Pearce is also better than this but I'll bet his mortgage is getting paid. And there's always enough half baked charm to these films to make them sound investments, at least on an international scale. It's tempting to chortle at a low six million opening until you realize that somewhere, Luc Besson is busy planning his next production and someone is happy to let him. Because quality aside, they know everyone is getting paid. It doesn't always make for good movies, but it's a good way to keep oneself working.
Max Braden: This was the movie I wanted to see this weekend, in part because Guy Pearce was finally being a badass, but mostly because I'm a fan of Luc Besson. So I went. My brother, sitting next to me as the end credits rolled, chuckled and asked "Okay, let's hear your honest assessment." What amused me most about the movie is how fixated Besson is on this 1980s Hollywood action template. Lockout is a movie that would have been a hit 20 to 25 years ago, back in the era of Total Recall, Under Siege, and Demolition Man. Like many of other movies, this one follows the template of an antihero paired up or facing off against a corrupt cop. In short, it took this movie to make me see what general audiences have probably already realized: Besson is retailoring one dress more often than Andie Walsh in Pretty in Pink. This result accurately reflects the quality of the product. And aside from story and character weaknesses, the editing in Lockout was particularly sloppy.
Felix Quinonez: I was ready to call this one a flop. I mean $6 million? And I don't see this one having strong legs so I strongly doubt it will even make its modest budget back but after reading David's comments, I have to say it's a win for the people who worked out the deals.
Reagen Sulewski: Bear in mind that Luc Besson is the slightly more well-funded version of Roger Corman these days, and most of his productions barely even get to America, let alone to 2,000-plus theaters. We're the bonus market to him, not the other way around like with most films. Especially considering I saw like, zero advertising for this, this is a pretty solid win in my books.