Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
January 23, 2014
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Edwin Davies: I think it's a mixture of two distinct but related problems afflicting not just Shadow Recruit, but the Jack Ryan franchise as a whole. The first is that Jack Ryan as a character had his origins in the Cold War, and while the popularity of Tom Clancy's work peaked in the '80s and '90s, it started to slide the further and further we got from that era. The Sum of All Fears, the last Ryan adaptation, managed to do fairly well thanks to residual affection for Clancy's work, but it felt incredibly anachronistic in the age of the War on Terror, and the character's stock has only fallen in the nearly 12 years that the character has been away from the screen.
The second problem is that this new version didn't really do a compelling job of updating the character for the modern world, or of establishing him as a character that younger audiences should be interested in. International espionage films aren't as big of a draw these days - unless they feature Bourne, Bond or Hunt - and the ads for Shadow Recruit made it look incredibly generic (as did the title, which does the film no favors where Clancy fans are concerned because it shows that the film is not drawing from any of the - still fairly popular - books). I also think that, as good an actor as Pine is, he's not a hot commodity in the way that Alec Baldwin was in Hunt for Red October, and certainly not as much of a draw as Harrison Ford was when he played the character twice. Although Ford didn't originate the character, I think he's still viewed very much as the definitive Jack Ryan, and I don't think that the trailers suggested that Pine was bringing much new to the role.
So, to summarize: Young audiences don't really know who Jack Ryan is, and the marketing didn't do a good job of suggesting why they should take a chance and find out, and older audiences still think of Jack Ryan as Harrison Ford, and saw nothing to suggest that they needed to check in with the new guy.
Jason Barney: Part of the problem is that the franchise has been on the shelf for a while. I am a fan of all of the other Jack Ryan films, as well as a fan of the Clancy books. With Hunt for Red October, Patriot Games, Clear and Present Danger, and Sum of All Fears, we were in a limited way following some of the events that were depicted in some very popular Clancy novels. I am not sure how much of a book tie in there was with Shadow Recruit.
I think another part of the problem may have been reboot fatigue. Baldwin as Ryan was pretty good and Hunt for Red October is a beloved film for a lot of people. Harrison Ford is the only actor to play Ryan more than once, and while those films were good, they weren't smash hits. When Ben Affleck took over the role, the story was progressing (sorta) but fans were not getting the chance to watch Ryan portrayed by any one character. Now we have Chris Pine, who does have a bright film future, but not much residual interest in the franchise.
Shadow Recruit will have to hold well here and do strong business overseas. With a $60 million budget the film didn't cost too much, but it has a lot of work to do. This opening is nearly a third below some of the tracking estimates.
Felix Quinonez Jr.: I think the biggest problem here was the marketing. I felt like they almost went out of their way to make Jack Ryan look as generic as possible. I believe this is a genre that has a lot of commercial appeal and this should have been an easy sell. Also Chris Pine, while not really yet a box office draw, is a very likable actor. If the commercials had done a better job of making audiences care I strongly believe that this could have been a hit.
David Mumpower: In addition to the excellent answers already given, I would add a couple of other thoughts. The death of Tom Clancy created an awkward situation with regards to the marketing. We oftentimes blame that phase of the release process when things go awry, because that is their job. They are paid to entice consumers into watching a project. Sometimes, the project is so lousy that there is no winning option for the advertisers. In other situations such as this one, they are forced to walk that fine line between selling a film and appearing to be crassly attempting to capitalize on the death of a celebrity.
The other comment I will add shows my age a bit. I performed daily numbers analysis for The Sum of All Fears and The Bourne Identity that year (2002). After the first month in theaters of each movie, the industry perception was almost unanimous that Ben Affleck had outdone his buddy, Matt Damon. That is the problem with a society that wants instant analysis of everything. Sometimes, almost everyone gets the answers wrong.
What could not be quantified at the time was that The Bourne Identity had redefined the spy thriller to the point that even James Bond had to steal his shtick. The Sum of All Fears was a financially viable project with a similar domestic take (only $3 million worth of box office separated the two). What it lacked was lingering appeal. There would be no further Ben Affleck as Jack Ryan movies. Over a dozen years later, little has changed. The Bourne franchise has demonstrated staying power due to its novel style. Conversely, the Jack Ryan movies feel dated exactly for the reasons Edwin mentioned. The reboot somehow felt equally derivative, and while it will make money overall, this project is a failure with regards to opportunity cost for a simple reason. It was not daring enough. When producers run to the middle, they should expect this sort of middling box office.
Kim Hollis: Devil's Due, yet another found footage horror film, earned $8.3 million. What do you think of this result?
Edwin Davies: For Devil's Due itself, I think this is a perfectly decent result since it clears the low $7 million budget after three days and sets it up nicely for an unspectacular but most likely profitable run. It does suggest that people are getting tired of found footage horror, or that they have been burned by so many terrible examples of it that they are becoming circumspect about giving a new film that uses it a chance unless something about it really hooks them.
I only saw a handful of ads for Devil's Due, and they didn't really make much of an impression, apart from featuring the laziest tagline/title combo ever: "The Devil is Due.” That's just repeating the title but removing a contraction! I'm sure another found footage film will come along in a few months and be a huge hit, but it certainly feels like audiences are getting wary of it, and the lackluster - but profitable! - openings for The Devil's Due and Paranormal Activity: Wait, There Was a Paranormal Activity Film Released This Year Already? bear that out.
Felix Quinonez Jr.: I think this is an awesome result. It makes me happy to see that this found footage genre is finally losing its popularity. But on the other hand these movies are very cheap to make and even with a terrible $8 million, Devil's Due already cleared its production budget and will see a small profit. I'm sure the studio is disappointed but it is by no means a disaster.
David Mumpower: As Kim Hollis chronicled in a Top Film Industry Stories piece, the horror movie genre has been on a fairly epic run. We at BOP have preached for years now that this is the most financially viable genre because you don’t have to hire anybody famous. Also, blood packets and cleavers are readily available for cheap on eBay. Found footage is even better because even fewer actors are required. I am actually curious why this one cost $7 million, because there is nothing in the advertising that causes me to think they have splurged anywhere. As such, I view the opening weekend total as something of a worst case scenario result. Yes, it will make money but Devil’s Due has also left money on the table by lacking new ideas, engaging potential customers or being any good.