Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
September 23, 2014
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Matthew Huntley: I think Maze Runner's opening is impressive for a few reasons. First, it's mid-September, and despite ticket price inflation, it's still relatively uncommon for movies to open this big during the year's ninth month. As we all know, everyone simply has other things on their mind: school, work, football, the upcoming fall season, holidays, etc., so for any film to sell $30 million+ worth of tickets is quite an accomplishments amongst all the other hustle and bustle.
Second, it's become increasingly difficult for Hollywood to reach teenage boys, to whom this movie is geared, outside of the superhero genre, and while the movie/book have a "superhero"-like air to them, the overall premise/concept doesn't exactly scream "breakout hit" like the Marvel movies do, but Fox found a way.
Lastly, the budget for Maze Runner was relatively low (mid-$30 million), which probably means its advertising budget wasn't extremely high, either. With this in mind, the movie capitalized on its source, its positive reviews and, well, itself to entice moviegoers, whom it was able to win over amidst some fairly stiff competition in the form of Liam Neeson. I expect at least a $75-80 million finish.
Edwin Davies: I also think this is a really impressive opening, particularly in relation to the budget. The Maze Runner cost a third of what it cost to make Ender's Game, another sci-fi YA adaptation geared more towards teenage boys, and it opened noticeably higher. Obviously The Maze Runner wasn't held back by the sort of controversy that may have marred Ender's Game, but even if they had opened to exactly the same number, The Maze Runner would be the more impressive result because it nearly covered its production budget after only a few days. Add in its overseas numbers, which point to a global finish in excess of $250 million, and this is a very strong start.
This film was handled much more shrewdly than a lot of similar would-be franchise starters, not only in terms of keeping costs under control, but also in trying to appeal to people outside of the books' fan base. Unless a book is a phenomenon on the scale of Harry Potter, Twilight, and The Fault in Our Stars, you have to make trailers that appeal to people who haven't checked out the books. I think the ads for The Maze Runner did a great job of explaining the premise and selling the mystery in a way that most of the failed YA adaptations (I dare anyone to watch the trailers for Beautiful Creatures or The Mortal Instruments and then explain what the premises of those films are) didn't manage to do.
Jason Barney: This is an excellent opening on several different fronts. The most notable is that it achieved a large opening for September, earning the sixth spot for the first of the post summer months. The entire month is not a graveyard, but there rarely is a lot of action following the summer blockbusters. The Maze Runner's opening of $32 million is quite respectable considering that it is a relatively unknown product and it has already notched a small place in box office history.
The opening is also notable because of the competition. Despite the fact that the box office is only now just waking up, the number of films out there for people to select from is rather numerous. There were three decently wide releases last week and the same amount this week. Yes, some of the leftovers from summer are on there way out, but The Maze Runner beat out the competition by a wide margin.
Finally, the budgetary information matters a lot here. To have an opening weekend where the film effectively matches its budget is great. Marketing costs will be in the rearview mirror fairly quickly. Fox will see a profit fast and the sequel plans are already underway. Anyone involved in this is smiling.
Kim Hollis: It's solid if not spectacular. I think it's terrific that we have a YA movie that targets teenage boys instead of teenage girls, and it's doing so fairly effectively. Even so, I wonder how much was left on the table by alienating that half of the audience rather than having a movie that crosses demographics. Regardless, the studio should be pleased with this result. Its overseas performance is a positive story, too.
Felix Quinonez: A $32 million opening weekend hardly seems strong enough to build a franchise off. But relative to its budget, Maze Runner is definitely in great shape and this opening has to be considered a win. On the other hand, as a launchpad for the series it doesn't seem all that impressive.
David Mumpower: Since we seem like a house divided on the subject of the opening weekend, I want to point out the strength of the debut, which is its cost-effectiveness. People have a tendency to compare a film to the outlier in terms of box office performance. This isn't The Hunger Games, and it was never going to be. It is a Hunger Games rip-off, and we should judge it as such. For an obviously derivative title with a frugal financial outlay, The Maze Runner did quite well. The key is to keep the expectations modest for such a project.
Kim Hollis: The latest Liam Neeson actioner A Walk Among the Tombstones debuted with $12.8 million this weekend. What do you think about this result?
Matthew Huntley: Obviously the talk of the town is how low this opening is given Liam Neeson's dependability as an action star, evidenced by his string of hits over the past five years. But as I mentioned back in February with Non-Stop, I'm personally beginning to tire of him playing the same old badass, and though Non-Stop was a commercial success, I don't think it left a good taste in viewers' mouths, or at least it didn't leave them wanting more. With Tombstones, I don't think people saw it as an aberration from the usual and therefore decided to opt out of it. I haven't seen the film yet, but it comes across as "more of the same" in the advertising. Perhaps the "Liam Neeson as a badass" movie, as we know it, has finally run its course, and I don't know about anyone else, but I'm okay with this.
Edwin Davies: I don't think this is a terrible result, but it does reflect that the ads for the film failed to make it stand out as something that people needed to see. With Non-Stop, there was a clear high-concept premise that was intriguing, so it did noticeably better than a lot of Neeson's non-Taken action outings. The ads for A Walk Among The Tombstones made it look like a Taken knockoff that happened to star Liam Neeson, even though the books have been around for much longer. (Fun fact: Jeff Bridges played the same character in the 1986 Hal Ashby film 8 Million Ways to Die.) That lack of a hook in the marketing made it seem inessential, so people stayed away.
Jason Barney: This is on the way low end of where it should have opened, but it is not a disaster. Liam Neeson's ascent to action star status was always a little strange to me, but there is no question he was able to pull it off. This sorta feels like where a Liam Neeson action effort should have opened if he had not achieved the pretty amazing string of punching throwing, ass kicking successes. So on some levels this is disappointing. It will have to work to get to the $28 million dollar budget, but I think in the next couple of weeks it will surpass that number.
Felix Quinonez: I'm a little torn on the opening of A Walk Among the Tombstones. On one hand, the fact that it opened to less than half of what Non-Stop did a few months ago makes me want to label this a definite disappointment. But on the other hand it feels a bit unfair to lump this with Liam Neeson's other "badass" movies. I think we should judge A Walk Among the Tombstones by different standards. The fact that it's rated R vs the PG-13 of the Taken films, Non-Stop and Unknown shouldn't be ignored. I also believe the marketing positioned this as a more somber movie than his other "badass" movies. And I know The Grey was rated R but that movie had a very distinct hook in matching up Neeson against wolves. So even though I think it's definitely a misfire I don't believe it's by any means a flop.
David Mumpower: I am disappointed but unsurprised by the result. I feel like it aptly reflects the general apathy shown toward the marketing. A Walk Among the Tombstones tried to sell a brand by emphasizing Neeson as much as possible, but the sheer volume of commercial representation was lacking. I feel like Universal Pictures had little faith in this project, which is strange since it's generally well regarded. Given the $28 million budget, it's going to be successful, but there was a lot of money left on the table here.
Kim Hollis: I think it's an okay result, probably slightly disappointing considering Neeson's recent history. But I think we all knew that eventually people would tire of him in the aging action star role. Since he's got so much more to offer as a performer, I'm pretty okay with him moving on to other, better things (although he does elevate every single one of these films).