Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
February 3, 2015
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Jason Barney: I actually find the numbers this weekend fairly interesting, if only to analyze how the box office performs when expectations are really low. Obviously Sunday night’s game is going to cut into the numbers for the weekend, but even though it may be a dumping ground of sorts, three new releases do give us something to talk about.
Project Almanac is the type of film I might consider viewing, as I don’t mind spending money on a well put together science fiction flick. However, the film appears to be for teen audiences and the Rotten Tomatoes rating is definitely something that will keep me away. Despite my negative reaction, and the reactions of a lot of other people, Paramount will probably make money when all is said and done. The point is that its budget is only $12 million and the marketing costs are not going to be huge. Even if the opening is abysmal, Project Almanac only has to do a small amount of work in the coming days to earn a profit. I’m going to give Paramount credit for having enough faith to put this one out there and letting the chips fall where they may. I don’t expect Project Almanac II, though.
Bruce Hall: I keep seeing word that Project Almanac "flopped" - but that's true only if you're judging it dollar for dollar against American Sniper, which a lot of people seem to insist on doing.
I see a low budget drama about time traveling teenagers that made nearly 70 percent of its production budget back opening weekend. Not only is the marketing expense on this movie likely to be minimal, but as far as I knew, the "found footage" craze was already over.
Before the books are closed on Project Almanac, it almost can't not make money. And that's really all a movie like this needs to do to be a success.
Edwin Davies: Bruce is right that the film didn't flop in relation to its budget, and the comparison to American Sniper is ridiculous because we're talking about two films that occupy entirely different ends of the spectrum as far as the cultural conversation is concerned.
A more apt comparison might be to Chronicle, which opened on Super Bowl weekend a few years ago and earned more than $20 million, but even then it's a little unfair because Chronicle was better marketed, had a stronger hook, and came at a point when people were beginning to tire of found footage but were enticed by someone taking the form and applying it to a genre other than horror (see also: Project X, which came out a month after Chronicle and did the same thing to similar business). Project Almanac is coming at a time when even stalwarts like the Paranormal Activity series are faltering, so it's unsurprising that fewer people are willing to take a chance on a found footage film.
What we have here is a film that was delayed and renamed multiple times, that seems to contain a lot of warmed over ideas which are presented using an increasingly unpopular format, that was released on a weekend which is historically unkind to new releases, but which cost relatively little to make. In that context, I think this is a win for very modest ambitions, even if it's a disappointment relative to other efforts from Platinum Dunes.
Michael Lynderey: I personally expected an American Sniper-like performance, dollar for dollar, yes. Why not aim for the best?
I would say it's a disappointment. This type of B movie for teens is typically expected to do well on cold January or February weekends. Even releasing two of them on the same day - Chronicle and The Woman in Black - didn't seem to really hamper the box office of either (in fact, both did better than expected). Really, these teen thrillers don't even open under $10 million unless some extraordinary circumstances are involved. Project Almanac had a pretty good trailer, the reviews didn't absolutely savage it, and it's from Michael Bay's production company, so it's definitely puzzling that it's made so little money. Compare it to, say, The Woman in Black 2 or The Boy Next Door, movies it in theory should have outgrossed, and it isn't even up to those standards.
Kim Hollis: I'd agree that it's a little disappointing even if it's going to make money in the end. Generally, projects from Platinum Dunes are better marketed and gain more interest from that crucial teen crowd. I guess this one didn't have a hook that was strong enough to elevate it past its lame found footage genre.
Kim Hollis: Black or White, a drama featuring Kevin Costner, earned $6.2 million. What do you think about this result?
Jason Barney: I’m going to take a fairly positive view of Black or White’s situation. It was made on the cheap, and the likelihood it actually makes Relativity money when all is said and done is possible. We are not talking about huge numbers to begin with. A film with a budget of $9 million just doesn’t have to be relevant for very long for the math to work out. I doubt the advertising dollars involved will add up to very much. So the path to profitability is possible. It is going to drop quickly and shed screens even faster. It won’t be in the top ten for very long, but Black or White won’t lose money.
And while some are taking digs at Costner for making movies past his prime, I’m okay with what he is doing. His most recent body of work shows more success than a lot of other actors. He’s selecting the right projects, and he keeps getting work. Just going back to 2013, the guy has been REALLY busy. He wasn’t the star, but his presence in Man of Steel didn’t hurt his career by any stretch of the imagination. Even though Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit was a bit of a push, it did okay. His three most recent works have all been projects with low expectations that didn’t lose money. Three Days to Kill made its budget back. Same thing with Draft Day. Now Black or White. Yes he is well past his prime, and expectations are low, but he is doing okay.
Bruce Hall: Well, if you're going to release a cloying race-relations movie with an uninspiring title, this is the time of year to do it. So, kudos to Relativity for following the playbook.
Still, as with Project Almanac, it's a risk-reward situation that looks poised to offer mostly the latter. It'll probably end up making a modest profit, which is no doubt what was expected of it from the beginning.
And as for Costner, he has a string of quietly profitable movies to his credit over the last few years, and also got to be Superman's dad. He's had a long and distinguished career, and it looks like he's going to get the soft landing into basic cable that he's so rightfully earned.
Edwin Davies: While this is probably not the ideal scenario Costner was hoping for since the film seemed to be geared towards some sort of awards contender type significance, and because he funded it with his own money so he'd probably like to see a decent return on it, this is fine for what it is. Black and White was pretty much dumped on a weekend where the bar for success is already pretty low and it just about cleared it. No one will remember it past this weekend, but like Project Almanac, it isn't the disaster (financially, at least; it still sounds like a terrible, misguided movie) that it has been painted as elsewhere.
Michael Lynderey: The film originally had a platform release date in December, for awards consideration, and so I'm surprised they went with an outright wide release in late January, without the benefit of a slow expansion. In that regard, it's an almost identical strategy to last year's fellow Oscars leftover, Labor Day, which also had a brief December bow and then went straight into wide release the month after. Compared to Labor Day - a comparison I must make - and keeping in mind that both films weren't very well reviewed, I think the Black or White numbers are actually strong. The movie could and probably will even have legs enough to make, say, $20 million, which given the budget and the above credentials, is stupendous. Kevin Costner has filled the screen with these modestly-budgeted films during the past year or so, and they've mostly done pretty well, under their circumstances. Perhaps he's developed a Statham-like niche?
Kim Hollis: I mean, this is a film that is just there. I'm sure Kevin Costner had much higher ambitions for this project when he financed it. Although it's not hurting anyone financially, it doesn't really have a reason to exist.