Monday Morning Quarterback
By BOP Staff
March 11, 2014
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Edwin Davies: This feels like it's towards the upper-end of expectations, but that just shows that expectations weren't exactly sky high to begin with. I mean, if they had put together a 300 sequel and put it out in 2009 or 2010 - and considering that the sequel has been in the works for so long that could have realistically happened - we'd be expecting it to improve on the original's record-breaking opening weekend, with a $100 million opening not being completely crazy. Instead, we'd looking at a considerably lower one (not to mention hugely depleted attendance, since inflation and 3D prices hide the fact that Rise of an Empire sold only half as many tickets as 300 did) against a much higher budget. Clearly, there is still an audience for these films, but it's been so long that much of the original audience has drifted away, or been put off by how many derivative films emerged in 300's wake. What was once fresh and exciting now looks painfully standard, and very little in the ads suggested that the film was going to have the same clear, visceral story that the original had. This is good enough that the film will probably see a profit once all is said and done, but it's easy to imagine a dozen scenarios in which a sequel to one of the most influential action films of the past decade does better than this.
Jason Barney: I do believe this film will make money in the end, but it suffers from where we are in perceptions of sequels and our expectations of how well follow ups should do. I always thought the opening for 300 caught lightening in a bottle. That film blew expectations out of the water, caught the box office by storm, and did really, really well. The timing of this sequel, with our current world view, is a bit delayed; the math behind the two openings did not make much sense. What it all comes down to is how much money this film will make, and I personally don't think there was ever anticipation that this film would come anywhere close to the original. 300 was a smash hit and made money. This one will take its sweet time making it to profitability, but it will get there. It will have to rely heavily on international receipts a lot, but in this marketplace, that is part of the plan.
Felix Quinonez: I believe if you think of the traditional sequel behavior, (bigger opening weekend/less staying power) this might seem like a bit of a disappointment. But I believe this is a different situation. Seven years is a long time and audience interest was bound to fade. And although 300 was unquestionably a hit, I don't really think too many people consider it a classic by any means. We shouldn't underestimate how paramount the visuals were to the success of the first film. But now, seven years later, the look isn't a selling point anymore. And when you consider that the trailers for 300: Rise of an Empire didn't do a great job of making this seem like a must see, and the reviews can be very generously described as tepid, it could have easily done a lot worse.
Even though the budget is unsurprisingly bigger this time around, at $110 million, it is still relatively low for a special effects driven movie. With this opening weekend the movie has a very good shot, though it's not guaranteed, to make back its budget domestically alone. And judging by its even stronger overseas opening weekend, this will turn out to be a hit.
Brett Ballard-Beach: Perhaps I am more easily impressed these days - or was simply more skeptical about its prospects - but I think this result is spectacular. Having never had any kind of vested interest in the first film (I saw the last 15 minutes at a second run back in 2006 while arriving early for the Willis-Berry potboiler Perfect Stranger. That 15 was more than enough), I am of the mind that any sequel was going to underperform, not simply one coming nearly a decade after the fact, and with nothing new to offer story or visual-wise, save for a marauding vengeful Eva Green... which might actually be enough to get me to see this. Could a sequel back in '09 or '10 have come within spitting distance of the original? Perhaps, it's all speculation. To at least open stronger than all of the imitators in the last seven years, to have strong 3D and IMAX ticket sales, and to blow the pants off the openings and final grosses of most of the action genre in general of the last several years are all tremendous achievements. When worldwide final grosses are tallied up, I think it will be firmly in the success column.
Kim Hollis: I think that lowered expectations had to come into play here. Yes, 300 was a hit, but this sequel had a tough hill to climb. Having come out so long after the original, particularly with all the recent imitators that have more or less been terrible, was enough of a struggle on its own. And it's also true that the hyper-stylized action that the first film is known for is now an old trick (much like what happened with bullet time and The Matrix). Gerard Butler is neither a huge name nor a proven draw, but it's still tough to sell a sequel when the main character in the original film is dead. Given all these challenges, I think 300: Rise of an Empire had exemplary box office.
David Mumpower: I rarely disagree a great deal with John Hamann, but I felt his Weekend Wrap-Up was far too harsh an evaluation of a 300 sequel. As everyone here has mentioned, the seven year gap between the two films is a brutal void. The under-25 crowd that caused the movie to become a shocking blockbuster is now parenting the next generation of future film lovers. People who were 10 when the last movie came out are only able to see R-rated movies for the first time this year. That is an entire generation of film for the purposes of box office evaluation. Tethering any expectations for a 300 sequel to the performance of its predecessor is brutally unfair in my estimation. What we are discussing instead is a star-less action film that is no different on paper than, say, Immortals save for the brand value. I view this opening weekend and its strong international showing as a tremendous win for all involved. A lot of people in the industry were telling me they would not be surprised if 300-er bombed. Instead, we are talking about another blockbuster.
Max Braden: For a sequel to a movie that I think most agree did far better than its genre typically does, and now lacking its A-list star, I think anything over $30 million is an excellent result. I realize that the high testosterone trash talk was the real seller of the first movie, but without Gerard Butler, 300 2 isn't a lot different than Pompeii or the Legend of Hercules, both of which opened to a fraction of this weekend's result.
Kim Hollis: Mr. Peabody & Sherman debuted with $32.2 million. What do you think about this result?
Edwin Davies: Considering that it's based on cartoon characters that haven't been relevant for at least 30 years, and that pretty much no one has even thought about Mr. Peabody and Sherman since they told Homer Simpson that he was the second non-Brazlian person to travel through time, this isn't the worst possibility. Still, it's pretty uninspiring given that DreamWorks has had much better results opening animated films in March in the past (even The Croods, which no one seemed all that bothered about, opened to $43.6 million last year). The $145 million budget is going to be hard to match unless the film holds spectacularly well. The okay reviews and word-of-mouth suggest that won't be the case, but even a $120 million finish would be pretty good in combination with overseas grosses, which have already been surprisingly strong considering there's even less awareness of the characters outside of America.
Jason Barney: Of the two openings this weekend, I actually see Mr. Peabody and Sherman as the one that is in a more dangerous situation. This kids' film did okay, but it cost $145 million to make, ($45 million more than 300:Rise of an Empire) and opened to $12 million less than the #1 film. Sure, the international numbers are going to be fine and this one probably is on a path to being okay, but I'm in the camp that would say this opening is lower than what the studio would have been hoping for. This is below what The Croods started out with last year. I think The Croods is a stretch as a comparison, as that kids film had the benefit of being the only animated release between late March and Memorial Day weekend. Croods just didn't have any competition. It preformed well, but since it was the only real kids movie at the box office for nine weeks, it had the benefit of an anomaly in the schedule.
Mr. Peabody & Sherman, which my family saw today and my son liked, doesn't have that sort of built in additional help. It has already opened lower than Croods, still has to contend with The LEGO movie, will go up against the Muppets in two weeks, and Rio 2 after that. Don't get me wrong, I'm pulling for it, it was worthy entertainment for my son, but I don't think it is going to perform exceptionally well.
Felix Quinonez: I think considering that the source material isn't really that well known the opening weekend is very good. I honestly have never seen this cartoon or know anyone who is a fan. The fact that it is an animated movie and that it got a strong "A" Cinemascore makes me confident about its staying power. On the other hand, its budget is pretty big and it's going to be tough for this movie to match it domestically. But I believe it will be even bigger overseas and it might even be able to eke out a profit.
Brett Ballard-Beach: To make some kind of point, I was going to toss out the $26 million final gross of 2000's The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle (a pleasant little film as I recall, prime Piper Perabo to boot), but I don't think that's a fair comparison. In a case like this, I honestly don't think the source material (i.e. the fact that these characters have been in existence for half a century, but haven't been "culturally relevant" since before I was born) was going to help or hurt this project, This might as well have been a new brand for all it matters. A $32 million opening and an A Cinemascore are good, but not great. And getting beaten out handily by an R-rated gore phantasmagoria doesn't make for great copy either. This might or might not break $100 million domestically. I would be surprised if this did a lot past $300 million worldwide. With a $145 million budget, that's not the best way to start off.
Max Braden: At first I was puzzled at to whom this movie was being marketed, as the kids who would be the major audience for this movie have no reference for the material (are the old cartoons being played on TV anywhere?) and the adults familiar with the old show probably weren't saying "Hey, why isn't there a Mr. Peabody movie?" But then of course the relentless marketing made me think that kids would love a talking, time traveling dog. He's sort of a canine Dora the Explorer. I did expect a larger opening just prior to release, but this result isn't too surprising either way. The Smurfs was a similar blast from the past project, and it opened to a similar $35.6 million during the height of Summer 2011. Peabody's production budget is pretty daunting, though, since I don't expect this movie will be able to match The Smurfs's final gross.
Kim Hollis: It has already made $100 million worldwide, so I think it's going to be fine budget-wise in the long run. I think the studio was in a situation where it had a "known" brand, but the fact that it was part of the Rocky & Bullwinkle Show long ago meant that being a "known" quantity was useless. Even the parents of most of the children who would be interested are too young to really remember the show. (Here is the sad trombone spot where I admit that I am not too young to remember it. Rocky & Bullwinkle reruns were very popular in my household.) I'm not sure how this was ever going to make much more than it did, and I do think the almost Bill & Ted quality of the marketing did as good a job of selling it as was humanly possible.
David Mumpower: I believe that the most important conversation point is the $145 million budget. Realistically, nobody should have signed off on that large a financial outlay for such a shaky project. As Brett noted, overseas revenue will be crucial. While I expect a stronger international performance than he does, the reality is that this project appears likely to be at best a box office draw by the time it leaves theaters. That's a shame because its advertising has demonstrated the sort of whimsy that most of these ruthlessly calculated family films do not. And the A Cinemascore indicates that the movie is every bit as good as the commercials. I hate that it is not doing any better. This is the sort of imaginative project that our industry so desperately needs, even if it is a remake of sorts.