Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
August 7, 2012
BoxOfficeProphets.com

We understand why she's closing her eyes here.

You're probably not even really reading this column right now.

Kim Hollis: Total Recall, the 2012 reboot that attempts to convince people Colin Farrell is Arnold Schwarzenegger, opened to $25.6 million. What do you think of this result?

Edwin Davies: This is pretty middling considering the $100+ million budget, which it almost certainly won't recoup domestically, and downright disastrous when you consider that the original Total Recall opened to the same amount 22 years ago when tickets were much cheaper. This suggests that enthusiasm for this film is virtually non-existent, as evidenced by the fact that its Friday was pretty frontloaded. When all is said and done, it won't be a complete loss, but this is a very poor start.

Jason Barney: $26 million has to be on the low side of what the studio was hoping for. I have to say I am a bit surprised at the low number as well. The trailers did look pretty good, from my opinion, and I know at least a couple of science fiction fans who were planning on going to see it. That said, it is obvious the film and the lead actor were not able to be much of a draw. From a timing perspective the numbers have to be almost put in the category of really bad. Dark Knight was floundering, and the last couple of weeks have not had many action or science fiction related films. I get the sense this should have been much bigger. Don't know if it should have been #1 this weekend, but $26 million is not great.

Felix Quinonez: I actually wanted this to do a lot better. I've always liked Colin Farrell and I thought the trailers looked pretty good. I'll admit I don't remember the original as fondly as a lot of people. Maybe I was too young but I remember being kind of confused when I saw it all those years ago. But considering the budget and the fact that it barely beat the opening of the original (with the help of 22 years of inflation), I'd say calling it a disappointment would be very generous.

Matthew Huntley: Looks like we're all in agreement that $26 million is simply too low of an opening for a movie that reportedly cost $150 million to produce. The question I have is, why did it open so softly? I was expecting at least $35 million because, like Felix, I thought the trailers and advertising were pretty slick and updated/differentiated the movie enough from the 1990 Arnold Schwarzenegger-Paul Verhoeven actioner to raise people's interest, but we're obviously in the minority on this.

Should Colin Farrell be blamed? I don't think so, because the former bad boy has actually gained a lot of respect the past few years with movies like The New World, Crazy Heart and In Bruges. It can't be the females, because Kate Beckinsale and Jessical Biel are hot right now. So everything about this movie made it seem poised to open big and become another formidable blockbuster (or at least more formidable than its opening would indicate). Only after this weekend are we learning the movie might not be that good (I personally haven't seen it yet), but given that remakes tend to do fairly well (even though no one is really asking for them), I can't help but be dumbfounded by Total Recall's performance. Maybe it's the Olympics still going strong or moviegoers simply being action movie'd out. Given TR's numbers, though, I'm curious how the new Bourne installment is going to perform next weekend.

Jim Van Nest: I'm sure we all talked about this with friends/family before it opened and I know in my circle, the response to Total Recall was almost unanimously, "Why?" The original was awesome, and everyone loved it - so why remake it? I know I was going to wait to see what people thought of it before I went and saw it and when I checked in with RT on Friday...it was sitting at 19% Fresh (It's up to 31% now). So it was unnecessary and crappy. No thanks.

Reagen Sulewski: In researching some recent remakes, the ones that have actually done well have been the films that have actually given people some reason to think there's reason for the remake to exist. Just straight-up copies or updates are mostly dead in the water. This Total Recall isn't quite as pointless as the Conan the Barbarian or Footloose updates, but it's pretty close, and just putting modern style action sequences in a film that was mostly about satirical takes on action and gonzo set design isn't a recipe for success. Maybe in the hands of an accomplished director instead of Len Wiseman, but then we're talking about an entirely different film.

David Mumpower: Mr. Huntley has provided an excellent summary of the situation. Nobody here is crazy enough to argue that an opening weekend in the $25 million range is good enough for a movie that cost at least $150 million and possibly as much as $200 million as the negative cost. Where I disagree with him is whether Colin Farrell should be blamed. Perhaps blame is not the word I would choose in this instance. What I would point out is that Farrell, an actor I like a great deal, has been given several attempts in high budget, high profile potential tentpole films. Those titles include Alexander, Miami Vice and now Total Recall. Yes, he had achieved success as an antagonist in titles such as Daredevil, Minority Report and Horrible Bosses. When Farrell has been the primary lead of films, however, this has become the de facto performance with the only arguable exception being 2003's SWAT. If anything, the casting department for Total Recall doubled down on this when they added Jessica Biel, the breathing definition of box office poison. Her track record includes duds such as The A-Team, Next and Stealth (one of the worst bombs of all time). I thought Len Wiseman did everything he could and that the commercials looked great. There is no disputing the fact that people were unenthusiastic about a Total Recall reboot with these two leads, though.

Shalimar Sahota: I thought this would surely open to over $30 million. The trailer looked action packed to me, and despite the negative reviews, I thought it was strong enough to still get people to go see it. It seems to come off as an impressive looking dumb action flick wearing a cheap knock off of Philip K. Dick's clothes. However, even as a remake, I'm guessing there are just too many shades of other films in here as well - Blade Runner, The Fifth Element, Ghost in the Shell, Minority Report. Maybe people were put off because they felt they had seen it like five times before. I'm still quite curious myself, though.

Max Braden: I'm convinced that the calendar and production have a symbiotic relationship in a movie like this. It *looks* like a height-of-the-summer (June or July) tentpole action movie, but there's little to support it under the surface: no Schwarzenegger or Cruise or Smith. August to me for a long time has been the month for the summer remains: typically raunchy comedies and horror movies, and below-the-fold sci-fi and action. So if you're going to target your sci-fi movie for August, you want to lowball your budget as a hedge. If you want to make a tentpole actioner, you have to go all in and deliver it in early summer. The result here is a mix of both, with a big budget but not-surprising weak opening.

When did Rodrick stop ruling?

Kim Hollis: Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days opened to $14.6 million, the worst debut weekend of the three films in the franchise thus far. What do you think of this result?

Edwin Davies: This is eerily similar to the pattern that the Chipmunk films followed, albeit on a somewhat smaller scale, and the drop-off can be attributed to the same key factor that hurt those: a decent chunk of the audience has outgrown the films. How much remains to be seen since opening in summer means that opening weekends will be deflated and weekdays might be stronger. Even so, films aimed at a fairly young audience have a very limited life-span before that audience moves on, and I think we are starting to see that with Diary of a Wimpy Kid.

Tim Briody: Dog Days didn't match the opening of the previous Wimpy Kid films partially because of the release date (there's way more time for parents to take kids to a movie in the summer than there is at other times) and partially because the audience for the books getting is older. I haven't read any of the series, and I hear that it's decent, but it's not something that's caught on like wildfire with each new passing group of middle schoolers. Plus, the cast is growing up too, which could potentially make things awkward for future films, if any are planned. Next thing you know, the actor playing Greg Heffley (the titular Wimpy Kid) will be starring in Magic Mike 2.

Jason Barney: I'm not surprised there was little interest this weekend. I am not sure any of the other movies were that big, and frankly it is a franchise I am aware of but have no desire to explore. I know it is based on a book series, but I doubt the film efforts will have much support going forward.

Felix Quinonez: I was very surprised to see such a big drop. I figured there would be some franchise fatigue but I didn't think it would be that much. But considering the budget, I'm sure they'll see some profit but I doubt it will be enough to keep the series going.

Matthew Huntley: I too am surprised Dog Days opened so low, especially considering the second one opened slightly bigger than the original, which meant the series was gaining an audience from picture to picture. I might attribute its numbers to the target audience getting older, but given that the children/family demographic has been under-served since Brave opened more than a month ago, I'm not completely convinced that's the case, because there's always more little kids out there, and it's not like they needed to see the first two movies to know what's going on in the third one. One other factor to consider is that kids and parents are already in "back-to-school" mode (shudder), and going to the movies isn't their biggest priority right now. Still, the film only cost $22 million to make, and I'd say it's bound to gross at least double that by the time its run is over, so Fox should be pleased. Any profit for a film studio is still a profit.

Jim Van Nest: I have two sons who really like the Wimpy Kid books. They've seen the first two movies. I am a member of BOP staff and I swear that this thread is the first time I heard that there was a third Wimpy kid movie. How can anyone go see it if no one knows it's there?

Reagen Sulewski: I think the release date issue is just a convenient (and advance-placed) scapegoat for the fact that you just can't get a lot of films out of a tween franchise before your actors and/or your audience outgrows you. Still, as mentioned, they've done a smart thing with the budgets of these films and no one will be crying poverty over them. Sane fiscal management isn't a sexy thing exactly, particularly when it comes to the movies, but it saves jobs.

David Mumpower: I don't line up with everyone on this topic (except for Jim, who is right about the lack of awareness). I think you're offering conventional explanations that don't quite fit here. The first Diary of a Wimpy Kid movie opened in March of 2010. We are only 28 months down the road for the third film. The audience hasn't grown up that much nor have the actors aged a great deal since principal photography started on the original. Instead, I think we are looking at a combination of two factors. The first is that three films in 28 months is...a lot. Saturation becomes a factor after this much product is released in such a short period. The other aspect ties into the first, at least somewhat. The quality of the first one, a more than satisfactory adaptation of a much loved book, enhanced the appeal of the second movie. When Rodrick Rules proved to be lackluster, the combination of lessened demand due to the lackluster quality of the predecessor and the sheer volume of product damaged Dog Days. Combined with the lack of advertising for the third movie relative to the other Diary of a Wimpy Kid movies, nothing that has happened here surprises me. Fox is hoping that a late summer release will extend the legs of Dog Days enough to absorb the opening weekend loss. While I agree with Reagen that release date isn't a factor in its box office, I do feel the film made more sense in June since school starts much earlier these days. There is opportunity cost lost revenue by waiting until now rather than playing the movie all summer.

Max Braden: I was vaguely aware that this sequel was coming but saw no advertising for it this weekend amid all the Olympics I was watching on vacation. I think the problem here is not the age of the audience, but that the material has aged beyond its medium: Wimpy 3 would have been a fine project for a direct-to-video title with an awaiting market. But to release it in theaters and not support it, with no eager kids and parents who don't want to pay those ticket prices, was just a waste of money.