Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
July 29, 2015
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Ben Gruchow: This one is on my list to see, so I'm kind of avoiding any advance reviews of it or trailers or delving too deeply into the mechanics of the film's story or audience or how well it connects. On the basis of sheer numbers, it's not awful, especially considering that it was predicted to open lower than the other two films this weekend. In terms of boxing films, it's quite a bit better of a result than Grudge Match in 2013, which was the last time this genre was explored (if you don't count last September's Mary Kom, and that only made it to 140 theaters for two weeks).
Edwin Davies: This is pretty good seeing that the reviews weren't great and the ads made it look like a movie whose script was cobbled together from pieces of older boxing movies. I think this can primarily be chalked up to a stronger response from audiences than from critics and from Jake Gyllenhaal's current reputation as an actor who always does good work. His films don't bring in blockbuster numbers, but he's built up a solid following through the likes of Prisoners and Nightcrawler, and interest around a potentially Oscar-worthy performance (and his crazy physical transformation from being a living skeleton in Nightcrawler) probably helped raise this up a few notches.
Jason Barney: This was never meant to be a huge opening, it is starting with 2,700 screens. The $16 million dollar firs frame is fairly good considering the budget of $30 million. Domestically it will surpass its budget and then the international numbers (as much as they can be for a film like this) will probably push it to profitability.
The biggest part of this is the presence of Gyllenhaal, who is pushing to give audiences a wide range of characters and stories. You have to respect that and he is quietly providing a nice resume. Is he the biggest actor in town? No. Is he starting to become more and more noticed with the expectation of quality work? Absolutely.
Nightcrawler was very much liked by a lot of people. It was a nice project that made a lot of money compared to the cost. Prisoners was a larger effort that also made a little bit of money. End of Watch was made for $7 million but brought in $48 million worldwide. So you can see that he isn't the biggest star in Hollywood, but he is a smart investment for a studio.
Michael Lynderey: They don't have Jake Gyllenhaal to kick around anymore! Because his movies are doing well. Really well. A few years ago, he was oft criticized for not having stronger opening weekends (though who cares, really) for very good films like Source Code, but all that's gone out the window now. These days, he delivers very well-reviewed work in movies that also get more than respectable box office. He's almost becoming like Denzel Washington in his consistency and quality (not to overuse the comparison today, but it fits).
Kim Hollis: Considering that this movie looked absolutely terrible (and that you basically see the entire story in its entirety in the trailer), I think this is a pretty incredible opening. Although Gyllenhaal can generally be relied upon to pick solid scripts, he’s not a huge draw. I think we can credit this debut to his recent quality projects and a gritty trailer that I suppose appeals to people who like that sort of thing (assuming they don’t care that they know exactly what’s going to happen through every beat of the movie).
David Mumpower: I agree that the movie looked terrible. I mean, I would go get snacks when it came on, because I hated everything about the concept and it feels like an especially long ad. So, I'm squarely in the camp that it's done more than it had any right to do. Given the budget, Southpaw is solidly in the hit category, which makes me hate about two million ticket purchases last weekend. Don't be part of the problem, people!
Ryan Kyle: This is a very good result and in line with the opening of Cinderella Man, another boxing movie that opened during the summer starring a well-regarded lead meant to spark Oscar conversation. Steady holds should be in store and an equal $60 million-range finish is totally possible given the high A-Cinemascore (showing that audiences are lapping up the film much more so than critics). Made for an economical $30 million, the A-list cast should help sell the movie overseas as well.
Kim Hollis: Paper Towns, the latest adaptation of a John Green novel, earned $12.7 million this weekend. What do you think about this performance?
Ben Gruchow: This is a tough one to call, because it's easily the least-lively of this weekend's openers. The difference in multiplier between Paper Towns (1.98) and either Pixels (2.63) or Southpaw (2.66) is startling, although relatively par for the course for a teen romance, and you could really say that either this was the movie affected least by the Thursday shooting (because it absolutely cratered after what was an okay Friday) or most (because the combination of the shooting and a mild rush factor wiped it off the face of the earth as a factor).
Either way, this is not a terrible opening; the movie only cost $12 million, and marketing wasn't very obtrusive, so it shouldn't have the biggest uphill battle to profitability. Still, on the strength of the multiplier alone, I think this may struggle to get to $25 million; the $50.4 million of If I Stay is almost certainly out of the question, barring a miracle. Heck, the relatively disappointing $31 million of last year's Endless Love is a long shot. Paper Towns went from "mildly promising" to "destined for obscurity after two more weekends.” It's not a good movie, so I can't say I'm exactly heartbroken. But still.
Edwin Davies: I don't think this is terrible given that the film has covered its production budget and should have a relatively healthy life on home media, but it's a real knock against the idea that John Green is the next Nicholas Sparks. While his audience certainly is interested in seeing adaptations of the books they love, it looks like The Fault in Our Stars was a phenomenon unto itself, rather than indicative of a new power player in YA movies.
Jason Barney: I'm not much into the source material, but at least within the realm of the budgets and numbers, this isn't a bad opening. How many movies wish they could be cutting into marketing costs before the end of the first weekend? Paper Towns was put together for $12 million. By the end of Sunday it collected more than that, so from that perspective it is going to be a success.
That said, this is the summer movie season and it is not going to hang around very long. It opened in sixth place and barely earned more money than two films that have been out for over a month and a half. There are two new wide openers next weekend. Opening so low in the top 10, and considering the competition, Paper Towns could be out of the top 10 by August 1st, which would be a pretty awful box office run.
Michael Lynderey: They're finalizing casting for another Green book, Looking for Alaska, right now, and I imagine that will be out next summer. I was really uncertain what to expect from Paper Towns. In my mind, it could have even opened well above $30 million, just on the Green name alone (and that's a number it's not likely to get to at all at this point). Now it's pretty clear that not just anything from this writer's pen is going to light up the box office charts the way The Fault in Our Stars did. But that's okay. If you look at Paper Towns' numbers with the Stars film right out of your mind, they're not bad at all: Paper Towns ends up as a relatively low-budget teen film with decent reviews and an okay opening. If the studio is happy with that - and they certainly could be - I don't see why they wouldn't proceed with the next book, Looking for Alaska. Depending on reviews and the choice of weekend, it could do even better.
Ryan Kyle: I'm sure Fox is pretty sad that they didn't stumble onto the next Nicholas Sparks-brand since it looks like The Fault In Our Stars was the bigger name draw and not John Green. The fact that Paper Towns opening weekend is less than half of the opening day of TFIOS has got to sting given that the marketing campaign heavily referenced that film and even recast one of the main actors (Nat Wolff). However, in terms of budget, this film is a win, matching the $12 million production costs. Like the Blumhouse model, if they can keep the films cheap enough, then why not keep churning them out? However, expectations will be tempered next time. Also, Shailene Woodley is a much bigger draw than I thought now in hindsight.
Kim Hollis: I think this is fine. The Fault in Our Stars was always a much more significant book to its audience, whereas Paper Towns really only gained steam with that group after TFIOS became a theatrical hit. I think it’s also fair to say that the kid who was a decidedly supporting character in TFIOS isn’t enough of a draw on his own to pull that audience in. Cara Delevingne isn’t really a thing yet, either. I do think that TFIOS was given some boosted credibility by having Shailene Woodley as its lead, and Paper Towns simply didn’t have that. John Green did an admirable job promoting it, but let’s be honest. If you’re not a writer named JK Rowling or Stephen King, your marketing clout only goes so far.
Also, I do think of all the openers, this one might have been affected by Thursday night’s tragedy. As was mentioned during our discussion of whether it impacted box office, parents might be reticent to send their teenager to the theater after what happened – particularly with today’s overprotective helicopter parent society. I would say it probably wasn’t a huge impact, but even a small percentage of people staying away adds up when the debut is smaller in scale.