Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
August 21, 2012
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: ParaNorman, the latest release from Laika, the creators of Coraline, opened to $14.1 million. What do you think of this result?
Jason Barney: I'll have to reserve judgment on this one. I didn't see Coraline, but do understand that it was a hit. The holds for that film were significant, and many pundits are predicting ParaNorman to do the same. One of my reactions to this one was the animation factor, and I wondered if it would be appropriate for my seven-year-old son. When I take him to the movies, it is only to see the age appropriate releases. He saw Pirates, Madagascar 3, Brave, and Ice Age 4 this summer. It seems like during each of those films there was a trailer for ParaNorman, so I am interested. Opening in third place is never a great accomplishment, but if this follows along the path of Coraline, the studio will be really happy.
Edwin Davies: Given the nature of the film's animation - stop-motion isn't a draw, by and large - and that the film doesn't have established source material to draw upon, I'd say that this is a very promising start. The ads for this have been consistently great, so awareness is pretty high to begin with, so if the word-of-mouth matches the strong reviews then ParaNorman could have a very good run. Obviously the story of this one won't be determined until two or three weekends' time, but this is a nice beginning nonetheless.
Bruce Hall: The Expendables and Bourne are not exactly The Avengers, but they're the much bigger dogs in this fight. So, to come away with what it did is a solid achievement for ParaNorman. Still, ParaNorman wasn't looking to attract the same demographic as two big budget action films. I found the trailers oddly disturbing, mainly because I have two kids in my life who are in the target audience. I'm pretty sure this film would give them nightmares, no matter how cute it thinks it is. But it's getting pretty solid reviews so despite their initial reluctance, word-of-mouth may be the key for ParaNorman.
This time next week, we'll know more.
Felix Quinonez: I have to admit I'm very disappointed in this opening. Not because I expected it to do so much better but because I really wanted it to. I loved Coraline and I think the animation and story of ParaNorman look phenomenal. I didn't get to see it yet but I'm really rooting for it. However its "B+" cinemascore rating isn't too encouraging. And I went back and looked at Coraline's box office performance, I had forgotten how strong its legs were. I just don't see ParaNorman catching on the same way. But I did read that it didn't have a huge budget so it should atleast be a modest size hit when all it's said and done. But because I had really high hopes for this movie I can't help but feel a little let down.
Shalimar Sahota: As Edwin highlighted, for whatever reason, stop-motion animation doesn't seem to be as huge a draw (it probably just looks too old fashioned for most mainstream audiences). So I'd see an opening of $14 million as good. I can understand how the horror aspect might have actually put some parents off of taking thier kids. Yet, given the references to horror movies in the trailer, I think that as well as kids, a good chunk of the target audience here is actually adults! As well as Laika's Coraline, this actually reminds me more of Monster House, another animated comedy/horror with child leads. Both films finished with a over $70 million domestic. I think ParaNorman should be able to accomplish the same. What works in the film's favour is that Ice Age 4 and Brave are now out of the top ten, meaning that as well as being the most widely available animated film on general release, ParaNorman will have the majority of those 3D screens all to itself till Resident Evil: Retribution and the re-release of Finding Nemo 3D arrive in mid September.
Reagen Sulewski: I sort of view this as running in the same circle as the Wimpy Kid movies, which are pitched at an extremely narrow audience and really have to thread the needle in order to be a success. This naturally limits you to box office in this range, maybe up to $20 million. Interestingly, I kind of wonder if we've gotten to the point where having a male protagonist isn't a net benefit anymore, judging how this performed versus Coraline.
David Mumpower: If we gave a prize for best movie title, ParaNorman would get my vote for 2012 thus far. Unfortunately, box office does come into play. Like Felix, I adore Coraline, a title I would place among the most engaging releases of the 2000s. I would offer an explanation for the legs of Coraline that may have been forgotten over the past couple of years. Not only was the Neal Gaiman story one of the first mainstream 3D titles but it was also arguably the best prior to Avatar. I was one of the many consumers who was suckered into buying a lot of 3D tickets only to realize that I was more annoyed by the glasses than preoccupied by the (theoretically) special effects. Coraline was a step beyond in this regard. This is why it had exemplary box office legs. ParaNorman will not experience a similar fate as Shalimar suggests because there is a different level of competition for those 3D exhibitions now. As much as I want Laika to have all the blockbuster hits in the world (if you read this, Laika employees, you are on the side of the angels with your movie making style), ParaNorman is going to be an okay performer rather than a blockbuster. As Felix suggested, its $45 million budget does keep its potential downside minimized. This is a blueprint example of an August release. It's good enough for the summer but it's not good enough to be a blockbuster.
Edwin Davies: It's worth pointing put, with regards to comparisons between ParaNorman and Coraline, that the earlier film had two major advantages: it was based on fairly popular source material from an author with a dedicated fanbase (Neil Gaiman), and it was one of the first of the most recent wave of 3D films, so it had the additional value of novelty on its side to boost the sales and maintain interest. ParaNorman is based on an original idea and as such lacks name recognition beyond the awesome pun in its title, and 3D is now so commonplace that its impact is negligible except when talking about huge films like The Avengers.
It does have the Coraline connection in its favor, but audiences are savvy enough to know that neither Henry Selick nor Gaiman are involved this time around, so the shared studio aspect can only carry the film so far. The uphill struggle the film has to face in comparison to its predecessor are the main reasons why I'm pretty positive about this result, even if it isn't spectacular.
Max Braden: I have no idea what this movie is and how it's different from Frankenweenie or Hotel Transylvania. By that measure I figure double digits is a positive start.
Kim Hollis: It's truly about exactly what I expected to see for this film. Coraline did indeed have the Gaiman name behind it, which did mean something for its box office. There was no built-in audience for this film, and while the Olympics advertising was good, I felt like Wreck-It Ralph dominated and I wonder if there wasn't some audience confusion about the two movies. Anyway, this is a good start and I'm hearing a lot of people say they loved it, so I still have hopes for its long-term potential.
Tim Briody: I was all set to call Coraline a niche product but it earned $75 million domestically. That's actually very impressive. ParaNorman didn't exactly build off of it, though I doubt there's very much audience overlap between the two. ParaNorman has a lot of work to do to match the legs that Coraline saw, but Laika is establishing itself as a studio to watch.
What a brave corporate logo!
Kim Hollis: Sparkle, a remake of the 1976 movie, earned $11.6 million this weekend. Is this more, less, or about what you expected of the final Whitney Houston movie?
Edwin Davies: This is about what I expected, perhaps a touch more. Sparkle was compared to This Is It, the Michael Jackson concert film/documentary, which celebrated/capitalised on his death in a way that perhaps Sparkle may have for Houston. (A theater near my parents' home in Florida has been advertising this film for months now with a big picture of Houston and her birth and death dates, so it's clearly an aspect marketers are keenly aware of.) Yet I didn't think it would reach those heights since that film was solely about Jackson and his performance, whilst Houston is part of a broader ensemble in Sparkle, rather than the star. Had this been her final lead role, I could see it opening a fair bit higher, or if the hook and/or reviews got the film were stronger. As it is, this is an okay start.
Bruce Hall: Someone had to walk a fine line between drawing attention to Whitney Houston's participation in this film without appearing to exploit it. This is because not everyone was aware she was even in it. Lukewarm reviews won't help. Poignant as it may be, Houston's presence wasn't going to salvage a mediocre film. I viewed Sparkle as more of a morbid curiosity than anything else, and it would seem I was not alone.
Felix Quinonez: I think this is a very good performance. Yes, it's Whitney Houston's last performance but unlike Michael Jackson's This is It she's not the star of the movie. Plus it's not really a showcase for her music. Michael Jackson's movie was him performing the hits that made him a superstar. Plus Sparkle had a $14 million budget so the studio should be very happy with this result.
Tim Briody: Obviously Sparkle got lots of free publicity from containing the final performance of Whitney Houston, but I wouldn't underestimate that it also has the first acting role by American Idol winner Jordin Sparks. In the terms of stardom post-American Idol, there's a pretty huge drop off after you list Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood, but she's smack in second tier, the Adam Lambert/Chris Daughtry/Jennifer Hudson level, where she's still somewhat relevant. After that is the Taylor Hicks level. (Who? Exactly.) I'm not going to say that it was a huge boost (you can thank Whitney Houston for most of its weekend) but she's not to be counted out.
David Mumpower: Bruce has made the point that matters here. Whenever movie distributors face situations such as this one, there is a delicate balance between capitalizing on the death of a celebrity versus celebrating and eulogizing a lost talent. I was relatively confident that if I was wrong about Sparkle, I would be low rather than high. The opposite proved to be true. I think it's commendable that Sony was respectful to the point of the decision proving detrimental to box office. That's a rare decision in this industry. Felix is correct that with a budget this modest, Sparkle is going to be a winner no matter what.
Kim Hollis: If I didn't work for a movie website, I'd have no idea this film even existed. Obviously, it had enough awareness to generate a decent audience, but I am quite confident that I did not see a single ad for Sparkle. Not on TV, not in print, not online. And I'm a rare person who pays attention to advertising. I agree that it's admirable that Sony didn't heavily push this hard as Houston's last film. The people who wanted to find it had the built-in awareness already.