Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
March 4, 2014
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Edwin Davies: This proves what I have long suspected: Liam Neeson is more popular than Jesus. It's nice to finally have the figures to back up the blasphemy.
This result for Non-Stop is a bit higher than I would have expected going in to the weekend, considering that Neeson's wheelhouse tends to be a bit lower outside of the Taken films, but it's still only a few million more than I expected. Still, the combination of his fan base, which has proven to be fairly consistent since his late-career reinvention as an action star, a clever premise, and constant ads combined to a very solid start. It's kind of hard to judge where it goes from here since Neeson's films can have tremendous legs (Taken) or hardly any (Unknown), but it's guaranteed to cover its budget at this point, and will probably do really well overseas. This is another solid result for Neeson.
Matthew Huntley: I'm more surprised by this result than not (and I seem to be in the same boat as most industry observers, including Mr. Edwin Davies). Going into the weekend, I would have predicted between $21-$24 million for Non-Stop, especially because of the Oscars, but this only reinforces modern-day action-thriller fans' likeness for Liam Neeson trumps their willingess to see more substantive films. We've entered an age where "Liam Neeson + high concept action plot" is more or less a guaranteed formula to make money.
But while this is good for the industry, it's not so good for those who want to see Neeson re-broaden his horizons. I saw Non-Stop this weekend and I must say I was unimpressed and walked away disappointed. I knew what I was getting into, of course, but I still wish Neeson would pick roles that add diversity to his repertoire, if even just a little bit. How many times are we going to watch him play the old, cynical law enforcer who finds himself caught up in an unbelievable situation? It's getting old, although, judging by Non-Stop's numbers, I'm in the minority on this. Anyone else feel the same way I do?
Jason Barney: I'd have to echo the surprise that is being raised with the opening weekend of Non-Stop. A few months ago when I saw the trailer I would have never thought this would open at #1. Now the competition is not super tough, but I'm in the camp that thought the trailer was awful and that this film was going to bomb. Even going into the weekend I believed people would not go out to see it, that we would be discussing Liam Neeson going to the well once too often.
Neeson's fan base came out and it is going to drive this film to profitability pretty quickly. Depending on which numbers you use, the $50 million reported budget was probably much higher. But even staying with the low number means that by the end of weekend two, Non-Stop will have grossed a lot more than its reported budget. If the film shows any kind of legs at all, this is going to be a big win for Universal. And then the international dollars can be added to the mix.
Kim Hollis: I am riverdancing with happiness at these results as I type. I actually expected this to do quite well, so it was pretty near what I was imagining. Neeson has a fan base now and he doesn't really do anything to alienate those fans. If anything, he consciously embraces them. I agree with Matt that I'd like to see him break out from this "genre" (the genre being "Liam Neeson kicks bad guy ass") and back to films that stretch him creatively, but I think he has some interesting stuff coming up soon that will fit that bill.
David Mumpower: Liam Neeson: Action Star, is one of the greatest box office developments of my lifetime. What I find particularly noteworthy is that the films have all been generally well received by critics in addition to being passionately supported by his new fans, especially on home video. He has continued a continuous loop of positive reinforcement for his fans, save for maybe Taken 2 (which I personally liked). He has created an effect similar to Kevin Hart in that he keeps feeding his fanbase exactly what they want from him; ergo, he has created a level of trust.
The solid opening for Non-Stop is the latest example. Generally speaking, the idea of a 61-year-old man texting on a plane would be 14 levels of funny. With Neeson, it's an opportunity to kick ass and possibly do a full cavity search or two. He's like the ultimate TSA agent.
With regards to the movie maybe exceeding expectations a tick, I ascribe that to the cleverness of the concept. An unidentified killer executing passengers is not quite William Shatner in The Twilight Zone but it is that kind of idea. Oddly, the last time I remember it being done well was in Dracula 2000, a movie that had a tremendous first act before falling apart.
Kim Hollis: Son of God, a repurposing of The Bible miniseries from Mark Burnett and Roma Downey, debuted with $25.6 million this weekend. What do you think of this result?
Edwin Davies: Pretty much any result would have been good considering that 10 million people already watched this film when it aired on television. That could have limited the audience for the film, but clearly word got out to the Christian audience and enough of them were happy to pay for something they had already seen for free, regardless of how terrible and undeserving of a cinematic release it is. At the same time, roughly three million tickets were sold over the week, which suggests that most of that History Channel audience felt that they had already seen everything they needed to, or that Son of God wasn't appealing enough to break out in a big way (though this is still really good for a non-Mel Gibson Christian film). For found money, this is not too shabby.
Matthew Huntley: From a financial perspective, Son of God is a bona fide winner. It was able to cover its relatively modest production budget of $22 million in a single weekend, and that's if it didn't already prove previously profitable based on its television ratings from when it originally aired on the small screen. Anyway you look at it, it's a success.
I'm not terribly surprised by this, though, given the subject matter, and that it's been a whole decade since The Passion of the Christ stormed into theaters. Clearly, those wanting another iteration of the Jesus Christ story thought enough time had passed.
But how many time must this same story be told? I know there will always be an audience for it, and I've yet to see the film, so I can't fully judge it for its quality, but why can't stories of Jesus seek to challenge peoples' faith rather than simply reiterate it (i.e. tell them what they already believe or what they want to hear)? Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ did this, and it was all the better for it. I say less movies about the traditional story of Jesus and more that put a creative spin on his life. I truly believe Jesus would appreciate that.
Jason Barney: At the very least this is an indication that faith-based movie goers will go to the theater at times. The Passion of the Christ is the mark by which any film covering a religious topic is measured, but that is a pretty high standard. I don't follow this conversation much, but there are many films that come out marketed to this movie-going demographic. I remember there being some discussion of whether The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe series of books was going to be something religious people would go out and see, but support for them has diminished. So Son of God, in a small way, has probably filled a bit of a need and it is going to be successful.
How successful still remains to be seen. Exceeding the production budget before the end of the first weekend is a great start, but we will have to see how well this one holds during the week. It will probably do fairly well, but I wonder if it sees a significant drop next weekend.
Max Braden: That is very impressive. To sell a re-edit of something that people had previously seen for free, at box office ticket prices and come up with a double-digit opening is very impressive. I think we have seen that faith-based dramas can hold their own at the box office, but they typically take place in contemporary settings. Son of God makes me wonder if retelling of Bible stories in their original settings might pick up. I could see this result being favorable to the opening of Noah at the end of this month.
Kim Hollis: I would certainly disagree with Jason that faith-based films have seen their audiences diminish. If we compare them to The Passion of the Christ, sure, but that film is the anomaly. The support of faith-based films was even one of our top film industry stories for 2011, a year that saw Soul Surfer, Jumping the Broom, Dolphin Tale and Courageous all succeed thanks to grass roots marketing campaigns from churches and other religious groups. To be fair, though, last year's films in the genre were not that well received overall. Nonetheless, I do think Son of God was well marketed to precisely the right audience and as such, it's a success. Since it debuted just ahead of the Lenten season, I expect it could have some staying power, too.
David Mumpower: What I believe is that Hollywood has done a terrible job catering to the faith crowd, which is a rift meticulously crafted by the conservative media. Hollywood liberals are supposed to be the enemy of people of God. Rather than attack that notion head on, Hollywood has generally decided that there is not enough money in play to countermand that philosophy. This surprising turn of events is simply the latest example that the Bible remains the ultimate literary adaptation. If Charlton Heston proved that in 1956, I am confused as to why it remains such a disputed fact. The other thing I wonder is why the same people who celebrated Son of God this weekend are up in arms about Noah. I would ordinarily guess that it is the presence of Mr. Inscrutable, Darren Aronofsky, but I doubt that the people protesting that release have seen The Fountain or Pi.