Monday Morning Quaterback
By BOP Staff
February 11, 2014
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Jason Barney: I think this is a huge success because of a number of different factors. First and foremost, I think the advertising has been great, in particular the trailer. My son and I saw the Lego Movie trailer at the end of last summer, and he has been asking about it ever since. As far as timing goes, Frozen has been cooling off for a while now, and The Nut Job has not really broken through with audiences. Lego Movie was pretty much primed for the spotlight all on its own, and it delivered.
I think another factor in this success has to do with the popularity of the toys. Somehow over the last generation of kids and youngsters growing up, those toys went from being somewhat bland to really, REALLY cool. Somehow, someway, Lego started delivering snapshots of some of the most popular film franchises. Lego Star Wars has been huge, Lego Lord of the Rings is big right now. It is a product that any child under the age of ten loves, finds challenging, and parents are totally fine with. Combine that with popular movie characters that kids are drawn to and you have some great buzz. This is going to be big for awhile.
Felix Quinonez: Legos have been around for so long that they are ingrained in our culture. So many people have fond memories of the toys or are at the very least aware of them. Not only that but Legos have for a while now been expanding their brand from just a simple block building toy. They have been making tie ins with everything from DC superheroes to Star Wars. And those DVD movies were very well received and were a nice way to test the waters for a Lego movie.
As for the movie itself, the marketing was very strong. The commercials were great and judging by the reviews and strong Cinemascore (A), it seems that they made a genuinely entertaining movie that people of all ages can enjoy.
Bruce Hall: I'm in total agreement on the marketing aspect of this. The campaign was as coordinated and precise as a Lego manual. This movie simply looked like fun, and the trailers were a pleasant surprise for anyone who was wondering "How the hell do you make a movie about Legos?" And the fact that it delivers what it promises guarantees that positive word-of-mouth will do the rest. This is an unqualified success, and it was no accident. Well done.
Edwin Davies: A combination of an iconic, ubiquitous brand and a movie that actually looked - and, judging by reviews and word-of-mouth, is - pretty damn good. The idea behind making a movie from Legos, one of the most universally known and loved toys ever, is a no-brainer, especially since the brand has become even more insanely popular thanks to the ridiculously fun and inventive Lego [insert beloved franchise] games. However, just having a product that everyone knows isn't enough to make a film a breakout success; you have to make a film that people actually might want to see. By hiring Chris Miller and Phil Lord, the kings of turning potentially dubious ideas into great, profitable fun, Lego and Warner Bros ensured that they'd have a product that would have the sense of fun and invention that the bricks themselves inspire in children, while also having something for grownups. The ads put across that idea, and the stellar reviews confirmed that this wasn't just an exercise in cross-platform marketing, but a real movie that people would have fun watching.
Combine that with a nice and neat hole in the schedule with no real competition for families and you've got a great start to what will probably be a pretty strong run, considering that similarly schedule - but not as good - films like Ice Age 2 and The Lorax opened to similar amounts and ended up in the $190-210 million range.
Kim Hollis: I'll echo Edwin's comment that Lord and Miller have a true talent for finding the exact perfect approach for strange or unlikely concepts and making them work. Clearly, based on the reviews and word-of-mouth for this movie so far, they've succeeded. Also, Lego's not just for kids anymore. With the architecture sets, Simpsons house, Harry Potter tie-ins, and the other stuff people have already mentioned, they're attractive to a much wider demographic than what they were when I was growing up. This was exquisitely timed.
David Mumpower: What strikes me as crucial to the popularity of The Lego Movie is its jovial nature. Let's forget for a moment how popular Legos are as a toy. We know from recent fiasco releases such as Battleship that toy popularity means little. What The Lego Movie possesses as a selling point is its silly brand of well-natured humor. It is almost the edgier version of The Smurfs in this regard. The central difference is that adults were enticed into going as well, because the jokes in the hysterical trailers appealed directly to them. The marketing correctly deduced that children were in the bag. The way that the popularity of Legos mattered is that most first-time animated titles in potential franchises debut in the $40s or $50s. By adding an established name brand to a wonderful looking project, The Lego Movie broke out to a larger degree than would have been possible for a non-branded (i.e. ordinary) animated release.
Kim Hollis: The Monuments Men, a star-studded film set in World War II from director George Clooney, earned $22 million this weekend. What do you think of this result?
Jason Barney: I think everyone involved has to be sighing with relief that this has not turned into a disaster. The opening weekend has prevented that. A $22 million start against a $70 million budget is not great, but at least it will remove this from potentially being a huge bomb. The move from late 2013 probably didn't hurt that much, but I don't think it helped, and the reviews are not going to bring audiences out to see it. The cast will bring out some, as the talent on display here is a really nice mix, but The Monuments Men has a lot of work to do.
People want to go out and spend their hard earned money on a good film, this does not appear to be near the mark. Rotten Tomatoes ratings do not define how good or bad a film is, but they mean something, and a 33% fresh is just awful.
Felix Quinonez: I think this result will allow everyone to at least save face. It's definitely not a breakout success but it will at least stop the "Monuments Men is a FLOP" headlines that a lot of people were hoping to write. The release date move from Oscar season to now was pretty much a confirmation that the movie wasn't great. I don't think too many people were really fooled when it was announced that the reason for the move was that the special effects weren't ready.
I think the performance also speaks very highly of the star power involved. But its long term performance is still up in the air. I think, because of the star power involved, there is still a chance for enough people to embrace the film that it at least breaks even.
The Monuments Men has A LOT of work to do if it wants to even approach profitability. I'd be surprised if it holds half of its audience going into weekend two, which means it will still be well below its budget when it starts to lose screens. International money and support will have to be exceptional for this to be a success.
Edwin Davies: As the others have said, this is a perfectly decent result insofar as it staves off the stink of failure that could easily have enveloped the film after it was delayed and taken out of the Oscar race. In short, it could have been another Labor Day, but it narrowly avoided that fate. Why that happened can probably be put down to the effect of star power, which the film has in spades, and the fact that there isn't a huge amount out there for adult audiences at the moment apart from a lot of Oscar nominees that are looking a little long in the tooth, box office-wise. It also looked appealingly lighthearted, which is one of the problems most commonly cited by the reviews, but does make it seem like something that wouldn't be too heavy or demanding. Things could have been a lot worse for The Monuments Men, and it could crater horribly in the coming weeks for all I know, but for now, this is perhaps better than the worst-reviewed film of George Clooney's directorial career deserves.
Bruce Hall: It keeps the blood from hitting the water, but it doesn't stop the bleeding. Apparently I wasn't alone in finding the trailers amusing, but oddly offbeat to the point of mild discomfort. Profitability will be an uphill climb, but this result is akin to wrapping your car around a tree but still being able to drive it home. A disaster of sorts, but with a silver lining.
David Mumpower: What Bruce references has been the stumbling block in marketing The Monuments Men. There were trailers in 2013 that sold a certain tone. They were tinged with importance, a regular strategy for awards season releases featuring big names in the cast. Once the film was delayed into 2014, the advertising changed as well. The focus became the jocular nature of the cast yet the "funny" jokes were not individually amusing. Then again, judging by the hostile critical reviews and the B+ Cinemascore, there simply may not have been a lot to market effectively here. This appears to be a rare miss from the production duo of Grant Heslov and George Clooney. As such, an opening weekend of this level is acceptable bordering on good. As an aside, I learned more about the nature of making movies during Heslov and Clooney's interview with Charlie Rose last week than I would have if I'd spent a month on a set. If you can catch a rerun of it, I strongly encourage you to do so.
Kim Hollis: Vampire Academy opened to just $4.1 million this weekend. Why did no one matriculate?
Jason Barney: This one wasn't on my radar screen at all. I heard about it from one or two young women who had seen the ads and said they might go see it, but even they weren't that enthusiastic. I started doing a little bit of research, just to make sure I wasn't missing something, but stopped when I saw the poster. Wow. If something like this can be made into film, I need to start writing down some of my story ideas.
Felix Quinonez: I think audiences can sometimes tell when a movie is an obvious attempt to ride the coattails of a trend. There have been so many blatant attempts of recreating the success of Twilight that it's hard to tell them apart. When it comes down to it, Vampire Academy is just another failure to add to that list and in a couple of months, or weeks, no one will even remember it.
Brett Ballard-Beach: Jumping off from the word "matriculate", despite the fact that this was the first ever collaboration between brothers Daniel (Heathers) and Mark (Mean Girls) Waters, this was a would-be cult item that got Hudson Hawk and Ghost of Girlfriends Past-level reviews. The one or two positive reviews I glanced at suggest it may be of interest to some people, but it seems as if no effort was made to actually target those individuals via its marketing. Another stillborn YA movie franchise.
Edwin Davies: This was a film that I was vaguely aware of because there's been one poster up for it outside a cinema near me for months, but up until the last week or so, when the ad campaign started, I couldn't have told you when it was out, and I still can't tell you what it is actually about. I assume it's a campus comedy in which the students of Vampire Academy have to win a series of contests against their dreaded rivals at Vampire Tech.
Despite a solid pedigree in the smart teen film subgenre and a series that assumedly is reasonably popular (otherwise why would they make the film?) the studio didn't seem to have any confidence in this one, putting hardly any effort into pushing it. Either they knew they had a dud on their hands, or they looked at the broken pile of Beautiful Creatures and I Am Number Fours and realized that even if they had a film that could find an audience, it wasn't going to be the next Hunger Games, so why even bother?
Kim Hollis: I just couldn't even believe this movie was a thing. They actually showed previews along with Modern Family last week since Sarah Hyland is in the movie (synergy!), but it was so clearly lackluster and derivative. I was reminded of the Simpsons episode "The Book Job" where a team collaborates on a book about a Troll Academy. When they turn the book in to the publisher, it becomes a vampire school. I assume that this movie (was it based on a book? I can't be bothered to look) pretty much came about in exactly the same way.
David Mumpower: Stating the obvious, this is the latest disastrous attempt to recreate Twilight. They even stopped trying to be subtle and used actual vampires again. It still didn't work. Sometimes, I feel as if Hollywood could offer girls aged 12-17 $20 gift cards if they watch a tween literature adaptation, and they still wouldn't attend. They are that difficult to anticipate with regards to box office behavior, not including horror movies. I knew this movie was beyond redemption last week when they did a desperation ad during a new episode of Modern Family. Sarah Hyland, who appears in Vampire Academy, basically begged Modern Family fans to watch the movie. She looked like a hostage forced to film a video for her terrorist captors. Nobody would run that ad unless they were desperate.