Monday Morning Quarterback
By BOP Staff
March 12, 2013
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Matthew Huntley: This is a very respectable opening indeed, even if it is more less in line with expectations. I don't think anyone was anticipating Alice in Wonderland or Hunger Games-type March numbers, but almost $80 million is still nothing to be ashamed of. If I was a Disney executive, I'd be satisfied right now and breathing a sigh of relief, although whether or not that feeling lasts will be dependent on the movie's legs, because even though the worldwide opening is $150 million, it still has a long way to go before it shows its any inkling of profit given its enormous production and advertising budgets. But the genre and family friendly nature all but guarantee at least $200 million stateside alone, so I think Oz is an unqualified success (even if, in my opinion, it wasn't that good).
Reagen Sulewski: It's weird to be just whelmed by an $80 million opening, but such is the case when you've got a $300 million budget to justify. I think everyone had this penciled in to be about 75% of Alice in Wonderland, and it hit that mark right about on the dot, so everyone's goinig to be happy if not neccesarily ecstatic. The international numbers on this are the real prize as everyone's aware, and while I don't think it's a billion dollar film, that's not an unreasonable target to shoot for.
Jay Barney: This one cost a lot of money to make, but this opening should be more than enough to have everyone involved pretty happy. All they have to do is look back just a week ago to where Jack the Giant Slayer bombed versus expectations and the budget, so Disney has to be sighing in relief. This is not going to be a mega hit, but in a few weeks the investment will have paid off. International markets will easily push Oz over the top.
$80 million is the biggest opening of the year, and by the time it hits weekend #2 it will be the highest grossing film of 2013. Sure, they spent a lot of coin, but Oz will be the biggest kid on the block for a little while at least.
I'm glad that this one is doing fine, especially since the original Wizard of Oz is one of the most beloved movies of all time. I had concerns, even though I was excited about the project, as this is a straightforward movie, no musical aspect to it. Part of the charm was the black and white, the songs, the energy, and the color. This is a movie, which is a different product. I plan on seeing it.
Edwin Davies: This is about what I expected the film to do since it had a lot going for it but also a few key things holding it back. It was a clear family choice with a pretty broad appeal; it is related to one of the most beloved films ever made; and it promised lots of eye-candy. However, it also suffered from a lack of a compelling lead actor (I like James Franco well enough, but I don't think he's a draw. Most people probably know him as Peter Parker's dickish friend or one half of an Oscar ceremony train wreck) or any real "wow" moments in the trailer, one or both of which helped propel Alice in Wonderland and The Hunger Games into the stratosphere. As solid as this opening is, it feels like something that cost this much and has such a strong heritage could have done more.
In terms of 2013 box office, though, this is dynamite. Biggest opening weekend of the year, almost guaranteed to take north of $200 million, and it made more in three days than Jack the Giant Slayer will make in its entire run. It's not got a chance of turning a profit stateside, but worldwide grosses should balance that out, and ancillary revenue could be off the chain. This could be a decent foundation for another lucrative Disney money train.
Kim Hollis: It's about what I thought it would do, I guess. Actually, I'm lying a little bit when I say that. I really thought it had a chance to crash and burn. We've been seeing movie after movie fail to captivate audiences each week, and I didn't really think there was anything too compelling (other than the "Oz" name) to capture the attention of most moviegoers. I'm interested purely because of Sam Raimi, but if his name wasn't attached to the project as director I'd probably be shrugging my shoulders. Anyway, I think it's about the best result they could have hoped for and it sure could have been substantially worse.
David Mumpower: I would like to touch upon Reagen's comment before I reply to the original question. He makes an understanding point. The $80 million/$325 million aspect of Oz the Great and Powerful blurs the conversation a bit since the numbers are so large. Let's take a different approach and do basic math to reduce the terms by four. We would be discussing a $19.8 million opening against an $81 million financial outlay. At best, we would describe this situation as a wash. This situation exemplifies how much the lucrative overseas marketplace has changed the equation in recent years.
Oz the Great and Powerful is going to earn enough money to exit theaters in the black. If it mimics Alice in Wonderland's behavior, we would be projecting almost $700 million. Even if the Disney title falls $100 million short of that projection, Oz has earned enough to justify the investment. It has not provided the best return on investment, but that is a harsher criteria to evaluate movies. Also, there are enough Oz toys in play that maybe it becomes a bread winner via Disney's conventional methodology. All in all, I deem this a hit even if the number is a bit softer than some tracking data suggested.
Kim Hollis: What do you think happens next for Oz as far as the long-term prospects of this film as well as plans to turn it into a franchise?
Jay Barney: I think it is a solid move, one that fits right in line with several long term visions for different characters and story lines. James Franco is a very smart casting move, as his star is only on the rise. His career already has projects in line for the coming years so he won't have to worry about work. Planet of the Apes....now this.
The Oz universe was almost made to be explored in multiple films, anyway, especially since there is the backdrop of the books. Disney could probably be a little more careful with the amount it spends on getting the product out to theaters, as the price tag on this one was pretty steep. Regardless, this film will be successful, and it will be interesting to see which direction they move to take the franchise.
I don't think they need to go in the direction of Lord of the Rings dark, but when I think of the Wicked Witch of the West, I remember how scary she was when I was younger. The best heroes are made when you stack them up against awesome villains, and she is one of the best of all time. This could be a very profitable, long term investment for Disney.
Max Braden: I've never read any of the novels, so I don't know the plot directions they would pick from. But I do get a Land of the Lost (Lozt?) vibe from it, in that the land of Oz has plenty to offer for episodic treatment. I'm not sure I would predict an Oz series making more than the Pirates of the Caribbean series, but it could be a close call. I'd expect critic reviews of Oz sequels to be stronger than the ones for Pirates.
Kim Hollis: I've read four of the books (I've been visiting the Land of Oz lately) and while I will always think Ozma of Oz is a special story, overall the books really just have the characters wandering around from place to place, seeing weird and wonderful things. Sort of like Lord of the Rings without the intrigue, I suppose. It makes for fine family fare, but I'm not sure that the stories really lend themselves to easy - or worthwhile - adaptation. They're not as timeless as you might think. Anyway, I'm curious to see where Disney takes the franchise, but since the first film is already of dubious quality, they're going to need to step it up.
Edwin Davies: I think things are a little bit shaky, to be honest. Disney will probably be happy that they haven't got another John Carter on their hands and they're probably going to be flush with Avengers cash for a while yet, but $315 million is a hell of a gamble on a property that, historically, hasn't done terribly well at the box office. Famously, the original Wizard of Oz was a middling success at best on release, only really becoming a classic once it became a TV favorite, and Return to Oz was basically a non-starter. In short, I think it's a property that everyone knows but which not that many people are wildly passionate about. That's not the worst basis for a franchise, but they're going to have to scale the budget back considerably for future films, especially if word of mouth proves to be only so-so. I think, ultimately, the main reasoning for making it a franchise will be very similar to that which created Cars 2; not because audiences will turn out for it, but because there are so many branding opportunities that it might be worth taking a hit to get some new toys or rides out of it.
David Mumpower: I see both sides of the argument. People hold such a soft place in their hearts for the land of Oz that return trips are warmly welcomed. As has been noted, L. Frank Baum crafted 14 stories set in this realm. There is ample opportunity for additional visits. The problem is that the same was true of Edgar Rice Burroughs' John Carter series yet consumers passed on the opportunity to watch any such films. Oz the Great and Powerful has debuted at a large enough level that the possibility of a sequel is viable.
Yes, I recognize that Disney has already stated their intention to create one but plans such as this can change quickly. I still believe that international revenue and the toy sales mentioned by Edwin will go a long way toward determining the fate of Oz sequels. The one aspect that Disney could control was the quality of the first (well, first of the 2000s) Oz movie. Instead, they delivered another mediocre, expensive title that could prove to be grand folly.
Effectively, this may yet prove to be another mistake like John Carter in that the first film is not the primary goal to measure success. Viable franchises are the primary goal of every movie studio right now. If Oz does not prove to be such a situation, a second opportunity has been missed by Disney. Even if there is another Oz film, I worry that the franchise will follow the path of Narnia, earning less revenue with each new release.
Kim Hollis: Dead Man Down, the new film featuring Colin Farrell and Noomi Rapace, opened with $5.3 million this weekend. What do you think about this result?
Matthew Huntley: If ever there was a movie that even the most distant box-office follower could pin as a failure before it opened, Dead Man Down could be a candidate. With its generic title and premise, it sparked no interest from movie-going audiences, and that much was clear going into the weekend. How this even got into cinemas is somewhat of a mystery because it has "Direct to DVD" written all over it, and I'm betting the studio wishes they'd now gone that route to save on prints/advertising costs. Perhaps they thought it would serve as counter-programming to Oz, but I don't think they were betting on the latter's cross-over appeal. This is strike four for the action genre after the failed The Last Stand, Bullet to the Head and A Good Day to Die Hard. Collectively, they've barely made more than Oz's first weekend numbers. Ouch.
Jay Barney: This will be a totally forgettable product. One mark of how bad your product is would be measuring the amount of weeks that it spends in the top ten. Films without following tend to fall quickly. They don't maintain the screens they had already, and it is a negative spiral. Dead Man Down opened with a theater count of just over 2,000....and it is going to shed venues quickly. Look at A Good Day To Die Hard. It opened just a month ago and it is already out of the top 10. It is possible that Dead Man Down is out of the top 10 in five more days. That is not good.
Max Braden: I'd criticize this for lack of any sort of advertising, especially since I have no idea what it's about, but it still opened bigger than Stallone's Bullet to the Head.
David Mumpower: Anyone looking for a prime example of box office poison should look no further than Colin Farrell. He keeps getting cast to headline movies for the simple reason that he's a great actor. Every time he does, North America collectively shrugs its shoulders. Miami Vice and Total Recall, the "hits" on his resume" were both $25 million openers that failed to match expectations. Everything else he's done save for Horrible Bosses where he played an antagonist failed to attract any potential consumers. The whole situation is baffling because he is such an engaging guy. People seemed to like bad boy Farrell better back before he became a better, more mature person.
Kim Hollis: I actually wanted to see this, but it's because I'm a mark for Farrell and also because I was intrigued by the fact that the director of the Swedish version of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo was making his English-language debut with this. I'm disappointed that it's gotten such poor reviews, but I'm sure I'll catch it on home video when I have the chance. I pretty much think most people are in the same position as Max, where they didn't even see any marketing for it. The only reason I did is because I happened to catch a promo during WWE Monday Night Raw (in addition to being a mark for Colin Farrell, I'm also a mark for C.M. Punk).