Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
March 6, 2013
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Jay Barney: I'll go back to something I argued a few weeks ago. The horror genre just has so many options for people to latch onto. Even for people who enjoy these types of films, there have been so many of them lately, they can miss one or two and still catch the next one relatively soon. If the title is strong, or the concept is creepy enough, young people will flock to these. Occasionally there are bombs, but enough of these do make money. This one will. CBS Films spent $5 million and they have already made their money back. It was a good investment for them, even if this one is at the bottom of the top 10 by next weekend.
Felix Quinonez: I think it has to do with the fact that the first one had some really bad word-of-mouth. People seemed to really hate the ending and it reflected in the box office performance of the sequel.
Bruce Hall: Sure it only made $7.7 million, and it only cost five. Like I said back in Topic #2, that excuse is for low budget horror movies. There's no doubt this is going to be a profitable sequel but based on the fact that the original posted a $20 million opening on a $2 million budget - you can't tell me the suits at CBS are going to look at each other across the table Monday morning and say "Yes, this was our goal for the sequel."
Matthew Huntley: To piggyback on Felix's response, I think the movie's lackluster performance can be attributed to the fact it's a sequel nobody was really asking for to a film nobody really remembers or liked very much. And why did CBS choose to release it in March of all months? Why not release it in late August or early October when these types of films tend to thrive? Maybe then enough time would have passed between the last horror movie and this one to where people would have actually been up for more exorcising.
Shalimar Sahota: It does feel like there's been a glut of these kind of films the last few years. Just where else can the exorcising sub-genre go? It's interesting that the sequel dropped the whole found footage formula, which I'm sure was one of the reasons for the success of the first one. Though given how many films have taken that approach since Paranormal Activity, I'm sure that Part II here would be criticised even more if it went down that route a second time. I thought the first film was good enough, but I'm in no rush to go and see a sequel that's clearly a quick cash-grab. It'll still finish up with a nice small profit, but hopefully not enough to make The Really Last Final (We're Not Kidding Around This Time) Exorcism.
Brett Ballard-Beach: It's a crappy opening compared to the first, it's decent relative to its small budget, but I really just came here to hash out semantics. Without defending the plot of the film (which I don't know), the title The Last Exorcism Part II is acceptable. It's suggesting that there was more to The Last Exorcism than the audience thought. The Last Exorcism 2 would be a groaner. (And of course the all-time champ in this regards is The Neverending Story II. Now it did have the phrase The Next Chapter as an out, but defending The Last Exorcism is all I have in me on a Monday night.)
Edwin Davies: The best way to gauge the success of The Last Exorcism Part II is to frame it not as an attempt to build a franchise on the foundation of the first film, but as the cinematic equivalent of a smash and grab. CBS made it cheap, found a weekend without any direct competition and said, "Eh, that'll do." They knew that the enthusiasm for the film probably wasn't that high - the first film crashed and burned after a strong opening weekend and was widely derided - so their expectations weren't high; they wanted to squeeze a bit of money out of a familiarish name, and they achieved their aims. The question now, is how many direct-to-DVD sequels they'll crank out.
Kim Hollis: Snitch, an action flick featuring the Rock, has earned $24.5 million since debuting last weekend. What do you think of this result?
Jay Barney: It is okay. Unfortunately, the production budget numbers are not available. This is a standalone movie for The Rock, and it probably isn't going to make much money in the long run. However, the speculation is that it won't cost Summit any money either, so in that sense, it is another small note for his expanding career. I don't mean to go out on a limb here, but the guy is building an impressive resume, and remember....his background is wrestling, not movie making. He has been in the business long enough to judge his career...and he keeps making movies that sell.
He got in the game over a decade ago with that small role in The Mummy Returns and that blossomed into The Scorpion King, which easily beat the production budget. The Rundown was a bit of a miss, but Walking Tall made its money back. Doom basically broke even. Gridiron Gang made money. The Game Plan brought in nearly $150 million worldwide. His role in Get Smart was a good career move, and that film exceeded the amount it took to make it. Race to Witch Mountain, Tooth Fairy, The Other Guys, Faster....each and every one of those films made money. The biggest career move was signing on to the Fast and the Furious franchise, and we all were surprised at how well Fast Five did. Even Mysterious Island made money. I'm not saying he is Harrison Ford or Tom Hanks, but I am giving credit where it is due.
The Rock's films make money. We can wait and see how GI Joe II does, but something tells me it won't be a loss for the studio.
Felix Quinonez: It's hard for me to really make up my mind about the movie's box office performance when I don't know its production budget. By no means is this a hit but its budget will decide whether it turns a profit or loses money. As far as The Rock goes, it's just another disappointment in his career. It's too bad because I think he's actually really good but the movies where he's the main draw never seem to break out. At least he's got GI Joe and 6 Fast 6 Furious coming up.
Bruce Hall: Jay brought it home - the Rock makes money. The box office for Snitch hasn't been stellar but I doubt this was designed to be a career defining film, or any kind of a tentpole for the studio. It was a meat and potatoes film meant to produce a solid return on a modest investment, using an actor who can be depended on to deliver just that. Plus, it's a positive role that keeps the Rock's name on people's lips without overexposing him - which is what keeps them coming to the theater. Just one man's opinion.
Edwin Davies: This isn't too bad compared to, say Faster or Doom, which are probably the best points of comparison since they are both straight action films in which The Rock is the main draw (I know Karl Urban was the star of Doom, but most people remember that film, if they do at all, for The Rock). With the exception of The Scorpion King, which obviously benefited from being a Mummy spin-off, he's not headlined a massive action hit, instead having his greatest success in family films, comedies and Fast Five. I think this is reflective of his strengths as an actor and the weaknesses of the films he appears in; he's a funny, charismatic guy who too often gets cast in action films as bland, straight-faced heroes, something which describes his role in Snitch down to a tee. I think this approach is probably what has limited his ability to be a draw in the sort of films which would seem natural vehicles for him, even though he's one of those people that pretty much everyone, in my experience, likes. If someone comes up with a film that allows him to be funny and kick some serious ass, he could be a huge draw.
David Mumpower: I look forward to having this same discussion about The Rock four more times between now and July.