Monday Morning Quarterback
By BOP Staff
June 10, 2014
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Edwin Davies: I'm very impressed with pretty much every aspect of this result. Even the potential negatives, like the fact that it earned more than half of its opening weekend on Friday (with some Thursday sneaks thrown in), are kind of amazing to consider. I don't think I've seen an opening weekend quite that frontloaded since Cloverfield, which was a very different situation since everyone rushed to see what the mystery was all about. I'd guess that the majority of the audience for The Fault in our Stars knew how it turned out, which is a testament to how passionate its fans are.
Probably the most notable thing about this result is the role that those Thursday previews played. We've seen an increasing number of films opting to have "midnight" screenings that actually happen at 7 or 8 p.m. on Thursday, which is a development that I think is already significant since it allows more people to see anticipated films without having to stay out until two or three in the morning. The Fault in our Stars really did something special with them by charging a premium price that allowed fans a degree of interaction with the people who made the movie. This strikes me as a more novel and effective way of getting people to see films in the theater and to pay extra for the privilege than 3D, and I fully expect every adaptation of a beloved property to do the same thing from here on out. Can you imagine how much The Avengers 2 could make in three days if they applied this approach?
I'm not sure how well the film will do from here on out. It could easily burn out completely after satisfying the demands of its core audience and fail to really reach beyond the people who already love the book, or this success could convince other people to check it out and make it even more of a phenomenon. I think it might be closer to the first outcome than the second, but only because theaters aren't likely to let a small drama hold screens when so many blockbusters are still to come. A finish north of $125 million (possibly far north of it) seems possible, though.
Matthew Huntley: I'm also very impressed by this result, especially when the trailer makes it seem like such a heavy-handed, patronizing tearjerker (I haven't seen it yet, so I can't judge). I'm obviously out of touch with this movie's fan base, though, as I never saw a near-$50 million opening being even remotely possible for The Fault in Our Stars (I would have been surprised if it ended up with this much in total). I think Edwin's prediction for the film's final finish is a little bullish, as I don't think the movie will live much beyond this weekend and will probably tap out at about $80-85 million, which is still a huge win for the studio, not to mention Shailene Woodley, whose asking price will most definitely gone up.
Felix Quinonez: I'm pretty shocked by this result. I was beginning to think that people were getting carried away with their expectations. I knew it was going to make back its budget over the weekend but didn't dream that it would be this big. This is a huge win for everyone involved. I do believe that it will be frontloaded because of how passionate the fanbase is. I don't think it's a sure thing to cross $100 million domestically but it doesn't even matter.
Jay Barney: Just looking at the numbers, this is a pretty amazing opening frame. Even if this ends up being front-loaded, even if the next couple of holds are not as spectacular as the debut, The Fault in our Stars has accomplished what every film wants to do, be profitable. And it did it while people were still in line during the first full day of release. Even if the advertising and marketing costs double the $12 spent on making this film, by Saturday morning it was making money. In today's world that happens less and less. The $48 weekend take is just gravy, and from here on out it is just going to make a lot more money. The buzz is strong. The ratings are fresh. You don't see this kind of box office performance very often.
Kim Hollis: A year ago at this time, I would have expected The Fault in Our Stars to be an indie release on limited screens. It felt much closer to something like The Spectacular Now or Perks of Being a Wallflower than any sort of major release. I didn’t really even change my opinion when I read the book itself, but in the run up to the film’s release, I began to realize that it had a massive, dedicated audience. Most of them are young females, yes, but it didn’t end with them. There were signs across all social media outlets that The Fault in Our Stars would be a phenomenon. This release was handled masterfully, from the casting to the marketing to the unique strategy of the $25 tickets on Thursday night for the interactive experience. I really am intrigued to see what the next iteration might be.
David Mumpower: What I have loved about The Fault in Our Stars thus far is that it has been such a wild card. Literally nobody had a firm grasp on how the film would perform. When Divergent was released, I noted in this forum that I expected the John Green adaptation to be every bit as popular if not more so. On Saturday, I stated that I would be surprised if the movie earned less than $150 million. Only 24 hours later, I realized that I was going to be surprised. Even over the weekend, the box office of The Fault in Our Stars was a bumpy ride.
While I am not surprised by the opening weekend and am one of the few people on this planet who can say that it earned LESS than I expected, I am still dazzled by it. We are discussing a film that was unequivocally in the black after its first day in theaters. The number of times that happens is small enough; the number of times it happens with a film with an eight figure production budget is miniscule. Fox deserves a ton of credit for picking the perfect novel to adapt, the right actress to frontline the cast and the perfect usage of Divergent as cover fire/reputation building to enhance the profile of this tearjerker. I consider The Fault in Our Stars to be a seminal project for Millennial teenage girls as well as the closest thing we have had to The Notebook since that film’s release a decade ago. This release is as pure a win for Hollywood as there has been in 2014. And 2014 has been a really strong year for movies on the whole.
Max Braden: A couple days before release I had settled on predicting $47 million, but a month prior to that I would have guessed one-third that number. It simply wasn't on my radar at all until I happened to ask a friend's daughter (fourth grade) which movies she wanted to see this summer, and she said only one: The Fault in Our Stars. When a pre-teen is that focused on a single title, impressive things can result. I have to assume the reader base was pretty large prior to the movie.
Kim Hollis: This is Shailene Woodley's second $45 million+ opening weekend of 2014. Is it fair to compare her to Jennifer Lawrence or are we only doing that because Lawrence has been so dazzlingly impressive? Can we consider Woodley's star to be rising in a similar trajectory?
Edwin Davies: I think it's a fair comparison because both are talented young actresses who achieved tremendous success in franchises after breaking through in acclaimed, Oscar-nominated independent films, and both are definitely on upward trajectories. However, I don't think Woodley's will be as precipitous as Lawrence's has been, primarily because her franchise has nowhere near the cultural cache or critical support that The Hunger Games has, and unless Insurgent is drastically better than Divergent I can't see her becoming as big of a draw, and it might be a few years before she nabs an Oscar nomination of her own. Having said that, she'll probably still be a massive star, but it may be a case she becomes The Rolling Stones to Lawrence's The Beatles.
Matthew Huntley: Short answer: yes, definitely. In fact, I think she's already there. The good news about Woodley is she, like Lawrence, is actually talented, as we first saw with The Descendants. Honestly, I'm happy for her and I'd like to see more from her.
Felix Quinonez: I think she is on a similar but lower level trajectory as Jennifer Lawrence. The similarities in their movies are undeniable but I think there is a big difference in the level of success the actresses have had.
Jay Barney: The comparison is fine, although I tend not to buy into the discussions about comparing careers. Based on any given conversation, someone's career is floundering, another actor or actress is skyrocketing....these are fine observations but the movie industry is in such a state of flux from one year to the next.
Yes...her career path and popularity seem to be comparable to what Jennifer Lawrence experienced.
David Mumpower: I agree with Felix that the comparison boils down to Jennifer Lawrence and a lesser derivative of her. That is in no way an insult to Woodley, either. I am on record as saying that she has already demonstrated as much after a handful of films as anybody I can ever recall. It is more that what Lawrence has done puts her on a par with Elizabeth Taylor and Katherine Hepburn. If we compare Woodley to say, Kristen Stewart, Woodley has already demonstrated more range as an actress. Her films are not as financially successful yet, but she still seems like a more viable entity as a long term Hollywood lead. Circling back to the original question, if Jennifer Lawrence is the Marilyn Monroe, Shailene Woodley is the Jayne Mansfield. And that is still pretty good.
Kim Hollis: I don’t think she’s quite on Lawrence’s level yet, though their career paths do have their similarities. The key differences I see are that Lawrence is associated with two significant franchises (Hunger Games and X-Men) and that Lawrence very quickly was given roles that are more mature versus young adult material. Silver Linings Playbook and American Hustle feel much weightier than anything Woodley has done, even The Descendants, because she was still playing a teenager there. Woodley says she’s done with YA after Divergent, and it will be interesting to see if can continue to break out in a way that Lawrence did.
Max Braden: I'd say despite the numbers she's still in the laying the groundwork stage. Audiences over 25 probably have weak face-to-name recognition for her vs. how well known Jennifer Lawrence is. But of course, money talks, and when you've had a couple smaller films with strong acting plus some big dollar films on your resume, producers are going to want to include you in future packages. More offers mean better opportunities which mean she's sure to have her name be increasingly recognized among broader demographics.