Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
July 10, 2012
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Oliver Stone's ultra-violent Savages opened to $16 million. What do you think of this result?
David Mumpower: This is right in line with other recent Oliver Stone movies such as Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps ($19 million), W. ($10.5 million), World Trade Center ($18.7 million) and Alexander ($13.7 million, also one of the biggest bombs of the 2000s). The average of his four previous releases in the 2000s is $15.5 million, so $16 million feels fairly predictable. The key difference here is that this movie is a successor of sorts to Stone's 1994 work, Natural Born Killers, in that Savages is specifically named to identify its nature. Critical reception has been mixed with the movie being narrowly fresh among top critics at Rotten Tomatoes (60% as I type this), but the aspect that interests me is how divisive the trailers have been. My wife and I almost always agree on movie advertising yet when she watched the Savages commercials, she threw her hands up in the air in frustration. I thought it looked phenomenal. I've seen the same reactions mirrored across the Internet as consumers run to diametrically opposed extremes, and I believe its opening weekend reflects at least some curiosity about who is right.
Reagen Sulewski: I don't think you have to appeal to a huge number of people with a film like this, so if you target well to people who are thinking "why don't they make films like True Romance anymore," you can build a sizable niche audience. A film like this is going to be divisive by nature, but the ad campaign did a great job of highlighting the type of film it was going to be, and hitting the big name cameos. I found it amusing that you would barely even know Aaron Johnson was in this film from the ads.
Felix Quinonez: I think judging by the type of movie it is, the time of year it was released in and the fact that it didn't get great reviews, its opening is pretty respectable. And when you add in the fact that it didn't have a huge budget (I think $45 million) it should do fine when all is said and done.
Matthew Huntley: I'd have to agree with Felix on this. Universal took a big risk by opening Savages against Spider-Man, but they did okay in a manner of speaking, and even if the film shows fair to poor legs (averaging 45-50% drop-offs on a week-to-week basis), I think it should have enough gas in it to get to $40-45 million and will shine brighter on DVD/Blu-ray/cable. July did not seem like the prime time to release a movie of this nature; I think September-October would have treated it better (which, coincidentally, is when Wall Street and W. opened). I think then the movie could have garnered another $3-4 million when it had more moviegoers' attention.
Jim Van Nest: I'm not sure you could expect a whole lot more from an ultra-violent film like this that let everyone know through its ads, "Hey...this is an ultra-violent film." The market for such a film is only so big and I think this did pretty well considering.
Brett Beach: I was very puzzled by "the old Oliver Stone is back" comments from some of the reviews (both positive and not as). He really hasn't made any "straight ahead, little to no political/social implications intended" films in his entire career. The one exception: the 1997 commerical flameout U-Turn, which is the film that Savages most seemed to suggest to me. With not a lot to recommend itself for from a commerical hook standpoint, I think Savages' $16 million is significantly better than what was expected. Positive word-of-mouth seems lax but with only four new films opening in the next three weeks, it could yet see some small declines and at least make back its budget domestically. With that cast, and the prospect that they might all end up dead by the end, I am curious to check it out in a few weeks time.
Max Braden: That number looks about right. I actually didn't realize this was an Oliver Stone film until I saw him interviewed about it. To me it looked more Tarantino or Soderbergh, and that's just fine. It's not going to appeal to a broad audience, but the ones that do go will be enthusiastic. I expect it to have decent legs.
Kim Hollis: I think this is an acceptable result. Considering the violence and the lower-tier stars (sorry, Taylor Kitsch. I love you, but it's true), getting people to theaters was going to be a challenge and $16 million seems like a win to me. It's a movie that reminds me of Way of the Gun from 2000, and these types of films do automatically have self-limiting audiences.
It's tough for a bunch of dudes to discuss Katy Perry and not be creepy about it.
Kim Hollis: Katy Perry: Part of Me, the 3D biopic/concert film, opened to $7.1 million over the weekend and $10.2 million since its Thursday debut. What do you think of this result, and where do you stand on the overall state of concert movies such as this one?
David Mumpower: Let's be honest about the fact that this is a box office non-factor. A movie earning about $2.5 million a day in four days is unlikely to earn $25 million domestically. It is looking up at Jonas Brothers: the 3D Concert Experience, a project we universally agreed was a disappointment at the time. It is not, however, a worst case scenario result as Glee: The 3D Concert Movie only managed $11.9 million during its entire run. Given the high profile nature of a network television program, Glee had a better position to excel in the marketplace. The fact that Katy Perry has done better is at least a minor win in this regard. For whatever reason, the Justin Bieber movie had much stronger consumer appeal, which is why it earned roughly three times as much as the Katy Perry release will manage. Still, with Pepsi attached at the hip to this project, Paramount should have received enough promotional tie-ins and incentives on Katy Perry: Part of Me to justify its release. This is a strange way for multiple corporations to share a part of Katy Perry, simultaneously.
Reagen Sulewski: It's an interesting exercise in timing, to me. The Justin Bieber doc was rushed out as quick as can be to capitalize on the peak of his fame. Perry's certainly not a nobody yet, but there was a lot more free press for her about a year ago when she was still spawning hit singles. I also think we can't dismiss the sex appeal argument so quickly, as squicky as that is to think about with young audiences.
Tim Briody: A Katy Perry concert film makes a lot more sense a year ago when she was attempting to be the first artist to have six #1 hits from the same album. Obviously there's a little bit of lead time needed for these things and the biopic part goes into her divorce from Russell Brand which is recent news. The timing is still odd since she's not promoting a new album (which would make more sense to me), just a deluxe edition of Teenage Dream (though she does have the current #1 song on iTunes).
Felix Quinonez: I never expected this to reach the heights of Bieber's movie but it does seem a bit disappointing. In four days it still couldn't match what the Jonas Brothers did in three, and that was considered a big flop. Even with its low budget I would call this a loss.
Jim Van Nest: I never have and never will understand why anyone goes to see these types of films. If you really want to see someone in concert...buy a frickin' ticket, stop being cheap. And if you want background info, wait for the Behind the Music...you know she'll have one. Maybe two.
Max Braden: I still hear as much Katy Perry on the radio now as I did a year ago, so I don't think her fame is waning to any degree that would affect box office. I'm not a squealing fan like the ones these concert movies are targeted at, so I'm not quite sure about the appeal. I figure they've probably either seen her in person at a live show or seen enough free stuff about her on MTV. Maybe they're completionists or expect a juicy psychological tidbit that will make them feel closer to their idol. Limited audience, limited box office.
Kim Hollis: I don't know that I think the result here has all that much to do with her popularity or decline in popularity. When Miley Cyrus's movie hit, it was actually tough to get concert tickets at a reasonable price because they were selling out all over the place. Justin Bieber has a mini-boy band thing happening, and the movie came pretty much *exactly* when he was ascending. Katy Perry is still a popular performer, but her concerts are "attainable" if someone wants to go see them. I do think that if a One Direction movie gets into theaters quickly enough, it will be huge.