Monday Morning Quarterback Part III
By BOP Staff
June 27, 2012
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter only swayed $16.3 million worth of box office. What do you think of this result? Do you think this concept was too out there for most consumers?
David Mumpower: At times, I use various family members as litmus tests for the box office potential of particularly divisive titles. When I asked my brother about his thoughts on Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, the look on his face told me that he wouldn't see this if his seat were guaranteed to have a winning lottery ticket under it. This is the struggle Fox was always going to have in trying to capitalize on the odd melding of classic literature and gothic staples. Curt David mentioned in his most recent column that while he was less enthusiastic about Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter than Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and that struck me as the fatal damnation of the project. If someone inclined to enjoy this storytelling style is not juiced to watch Honest Abe slay New Orleans' answer to the Cullens (I guess that's the Comptons, right True Blood-ers?), what is the average movie goer going to think of it? This $70 million production has an unknown lead, a distracting title and a premise that alienates a *lot* of people. I attribute the body of the film's debut to the visual style of Timur Bekmambetov, which did entice us into going to see the movie on opening weekend, a regrettable mistake in hindsight. On the plus side, with the director's popularity in Europe, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter has a decent chance to wind up profitable before it exits theaters, even allowing for mediocre to terrible word-of-mouth.
Edwin Davies: I was discussing the film with some friends a couple of days ago and one of them said that they weren't interested in it, even though it's exactly the sort of film that they usually go nuts for, because it all seemed forced, and that the ads seemed to suggest that they were taking the premise deadly serious. Whilst I enjoyed the film for precisely that reason - I was impressed that the film-makers really committed to the idea and kept it reasonably grounded up until it goes a bit stupid in the last half an hour or so (why would the vampires get on the train AND burn down the bridge they knew it would be heading towards? That's a sure-fire way to end up un-undead) - it's also probably the very reason that a lot of people would not have bothered with it, especially since the buzz going into the weekend was not good enough to make people decide to take a chance on it.
On a somewhat related note, I think that the main problem with the film, quality-wise, was that the film-makers never found a way of transferring the unique selling point of the book to the screen. I think the absolute best version of the film that anyone could have made would have been a Ken Burns-style documentary done in a completely deadpan style. It would have made even less than this version, but it would have probably been truer to the original conception of the story.
David Mumpower: Edwin, I'm interested in your comments in that my main criticism of the movie is that it takes the story of Abe Lincoln far too seriously. You say that the film makers committed to the idea and that you enjoyed it. My thought during the movie, somewhat reinforced now, is that the story is more engaging to non-Americans in that the whole thing felt like a particularly indulgent History Channel alternate reality episode of Biography. The moment I recognized that the film would explore the entire life of Lincoln rather than that of him as a young hunter is when I turned on it, partially because the pacing was glacial. The other part is that I know the story so well that covering that ground feels like seventh grade Civics rather than gothic action. The frustrating part is that I believe The West Wing meets Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a money concept. This movie is a worst case scenario for that premise in my estimation.
Matthew Huntley: I think one of the core problems related to AL: VH's lackluster opening was its title. Any time the trailer played and the title was revealed, audiences simply laughed it off and probably forgot about it seconds later. It's a silly name, sure, but it's also non-descript, so it didn't really pique anyone's curiosity. Plus, people didn't know whether to view it as a satire or a serious action movie adapted from a graphic novel. In the end, the movie was more serious than goofy, but the plot never really gives us a reason to get behind it (or the characters). I guarantee poor word-of-mouth started on Friday and was already swaying people not to see it on Saturday or Sunday (I know, because my co-workers were bashing it after seeing a midnight showing Thursday night). This will be just another movie people may catch down the road but won't really remember, kind of like last year's Priest. The worlds of these movies are interesting, but the stories don't do anything interesting with them.
By the way, did anyone else who saw Abraham Lincoln find the sound effects to be especially loud?
Max Braden: You know what would have sold this movie better? If Hugh Jackman has starred in it. That would have automatically lumped it into mindless quality fare like Van Helsing, but it would have sold more tickets. It's amazing that in publishing, anything with the name Lincoln on it turns to gold, but in movies, mid-19th century subject matter is a damper on box office success. It could be too that my impression of Lincoln is a slow-moving, sonorous orator, not an action hero. I get that the mashup is part of the point, but I just don't buy it. Now Teddy Roosevelt, there's a president I could see kicking some vampire ass.
Jason Barney: I have not seen this one, yet. I will, though. I am a history buff, and want to see the world they have created. I am not familiar with the book at all, and don't want to spend the time reading it. I am not really a vampire fan. True Blood is very annoying at times, never watched Buffy. Only saw one of the Twilight films. I am presenting all of these facts, because maybe it gives some mindset into those few people who will go and see this one. I want to see the creativity they have put into the time period.
Honestly, I think the trailer may have turned some people off. It is very action based, almost putting it into the "stupid action" genre. Lincoln dangling off the side of a train as it races around a corner? Taking one swipe with an ax and taking down an entire tree? People remember the Battleships of earlier this summer and groan.
I want to see the film because I want to be entertained by the story. I wonder if they had given us a different trailer if this would have had a bigger opening.
Bruce Hall: A movie called Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter should be the funniest thing you've ever seen. But the last time I watched the trailer in a theater the crowd emitted the closest thing to a collective scoff I've ever heard (at least until we got to the the trailer for the "bike messenger saves the world" picture). Here was somber, Gothic imagery as self reverent as that for the last Underworld movie. And it also had Abraham Lincoln, our 16th president, who it is said was born in a log cabin in Kentucky, sounding every bit the Harvard man as he busts out the Matrix style karate moves on...vampires...for some reason.
And it's called "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter". Regardless of the quality of the movie, this one didn't sell itself well. And when you've got a cornball premise like this one, you need to sell it well. Like the way you'd sell a movie about Andrew Jackson as a homicidal maniac, or Teddy Roosevelt as a wild eyed adrenaline junkie who wrestled bears and laughed when people shot him in the chest. Too realistic? Well speaking of Harvard men, how about one where the Kennedy brothers destroy Zombie Nixon by transforming into a sixty foot mechanical Joe Senior?
Felix Quinonez: I don't think I'm going to see this movie. I'm going to be echoing some people but I found it really odd at how seriously they were taking this movie. With a title like that I was hoping for some campy fun but the trailers seemed to be going in a different direction. I was really put off by that and it seems that I wasn't the only one. I think they kind of dropped the ball with this one and its opening is a bit disappointing.
Shalimar Sahota: Some people have no idea that Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is actually based on a book. Forget viewing ads, or glancing at the poster, those people had made their mind up from the plain and simple mash up title, taking it as a stupid idea for a film. I've actually been wanting to watch this ever since I first heard about it, and unlike most on here I quite like the serious stance the trailers took. While general things have gotten in the way, the one thing preventing me from viewing the film is that none of the cinemas in my city are showing this film in 2D. I refuse to pay extra to view a post 3D conversion, and if that means I end up missing out on watching this on the big screen, then so be it.
Daron Aldridge: Box office-wise, $16.3 million comes as the best case scenario because of the very niche appeal of the movie and even the book, which is about $5 million higher than I expected. The frightening part is the fact that the studio gave this movie such a large budget (a reported $70 million) and I personally didn’t see where the money went. Unless Rufus Sewell is commanding a bigger salary than I thought or the book’s author Seth Grahame-Smith fleeced them on the book rights and then again on his screenwriting paycheck.
This is where I will part ways with the primary criticism heaped upon the film – the level of campiness. I know this ages me but I was working at a theater with Abe’s older cinematic sister film Buffy the Vampire Slayer came, so I initially expected at least that level of camp. (I vividly remember a young couple that left the movie after 30 minutes because “it’s just silly.” To which I couldn’t help but think, “Did you really think with that title it would be a true horror film?”) Admittedly, I haven’t read the book but the friend I saw it with did and we talked about it beforehand. From his description of the novel, it seemed to follow Smith’s novel’s dry, direct approach. Anyway, I actually felt playing it straight was the best way much like Edwin said (sorry, David but I guess I’m the anomaly to your non-American appeal theory). Don’t get me wrong, I would in no way classify it as a very good film. But I would have truly hated the film if it had been over-the-top campiness. Of course, I am one of the few that thought the non-tongue-in-cheek approach was the best way they could have made Cowboys & Aliens.
Kim Hollis: The more I think about this movie the more I dislike it. I don't even care if they took the straightforward approach (though I do think campy would have been more fun). The movie is just boring. The lead character has the charisma of a pile of wood. The tertiary characters are silly. The villain is...not that menacing and not particularly interesting. And the action is hazy and ridiculous. I'm not surprised at this opening, but I am disappointed in the final product.
What kind of bird...are you?
Kim Hollis: Moonrise Kingdom increased 52% this weekend to $3.4 million. It has a running total of $11.6 million. What do you think of its platform release performance so far? What are your expectations for it over the next couple of months?
David Mumpower: To my mind, the stunning aspect of Moonrise Kingdom's performance to date is that it still hasn't surpassed 400 exhibitions yet. $11.6 million is earth-shattering box office for such a small scale release pattern. Let me use an arbitrarily selected comparison film, The Artist. The reigning Academy Awards champion for Best Picture, The Artist required 58 days in theaters to reach this amount. Its per-location average during its first five weeks in release was $11,340. Moonrise Kingdom is at $16,873, roughly 50% better. And it is paramount to note that Moonrise Kingdom has managed this in over triple the locations. The more expansion a movie has, the lower its per-location average should be. Moonrise Kingdom is wiping the floor with The Artist in the simplest terms possible. It is selling $1.50 on the dollar thus far against the defending arthouse champion. Will it maintain this pace long term? Almost certainly not. The Artist earned 75% of its domestic revenue after its second month in theaters. That's the power of an Academy Awards favorite on display. Thus far, Moonrise Kingdom has wrecked it, though. I find that amazing.
Edwin Davies: I've been very impressed with the performance of the film so far. It started great with a record-breaking limited release weekend (it holds the record for opening weekend per-theater average for a live action film, and it ranks ninth overall behind a host of Disney animated films) and has performed consistently well since then. Going forward, I wouldn't be surprised if it eventually overtakes The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou to become Wes Anderson's second most successful film (it only needs to make more than $24 million to achieve that) which would be a great result for a really terrific film.
Max Braden: I've heard plenty about Moonrise Kingdom (though I listen to NPR all day) so I'm surprised too it hasn't reached wide release yet. That's pretty impressive. I think the success here is largely due to Anderson's name. That pedigree is a huge selling point; anybody else, and I doubt this project would have gotten the initial attention from press to keep it going. And I wouldn't be surprised if I asked my friends about it, that they'd know Wes Anderson made it, but they wouldn't be able to tell me who's in it or what the plot is about.
Samuel Hoelker: My theater has been showing Moonrise Kingdom for the month of June so far. We opened it in two theaters, and sold out every show after 1 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. We cancelled other films to put in a third theater of Moonrise Kingdom, also which sold out. Its opening weekend was the most successful a film had ever done at my theater opening weekend, beating out Black Swan by over $10,000. We weren't even the only theater in Boston showing it that weekend. Since then, we've had it consistently on two screens, sometimes selling out shows on weekdays. Even though it has expanded into just about every multiplex in the city, we still sold out multiple shows on Saturday and Sunday. I've never seen anything like this in my three years at my theater, even when we had Midnight in Paris and The Tree of Life showing on seven of our nine screens. I don't see this slowing down any time soon.