New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

It's all Ashton Kutcher's fault, really.

Kim Hollis: We've been talking about the "Twitter Effect," the immediacy of word-of-mouth in the social media era. Isn't G.I. Joe a blow against that notion?

Tim Briody: G.I. Joe had a 2.5 multiplier for the weekend, which is still kinda lousy. While it could have been worse, I think the "Twitter effect" was essentially canceled out here by the fact that it wasn't screened for critics. The crotch-kicking it would have gotten in the papers would have contributed highly to people staying home this weekend and perhaps lowering the weekend multiplier a notch or two.

Josh Spiegel: Tim's right about that multiplier; when you consider the fact that Paramount hoped the movie would appeal to kids as much as it does to the fanboy, that number becomes a lot worse. A movie that could be an action movie for the whole family (if such a thing truly exists outside of the studio execs' minds) would hopefully have a better multiplier, and better Saturday and Sunday grosses in general. Also, I wonder how much of an effect Twitter has, if any substantial one at all. We can guess, but it's the least scientific thing out there in terms of box office predictions, so far.

Scott Lumley: I can't even gauge a Twitter effect, but I'm not going to be surprised at all if this drops more than 50% next weekend. I say the $55 million opening is fanboy rush and it won't be sustainable.





Tim Briody: 60% drop easy. I wouldn't exactly call it a "fanboy" rush, Scott, since I'm not exactly sure there are G.I. Joe fanboys. Sadly, there's just a group of people who like their movies loud and with lots of 'splosions.

Sean Collier: I would wonder if people who get their movie reviews in 140 characters or less would really be affected, positively or negatively, by word-of-mouth. I can't imagine anyone was tweeted out of buying a ticket. About all you can fit in the format is "GI Joe was terrible," and we all already knew that.

David Mumpower: Any time there is a newly developing behavior such as the immediacy of word-of-mouth, a couple of notable exceptions quickly occur. G.I. Joe is absolutely one of them. I don't think many of the people who bought tickets were deluded into thinking they were going to see an Academy Awards contender. What was done here was a variation on the Mel Gibson playbook. By showing the film in America's heartland and emphasizing the populist military aspect of it, Paramount redeemed the biggest mistake on the film, globalizing it in order to give it a chance at bigger worldwide box office. It was a way of saying, "We changed it, but we didn't really mean it." That message struck a chord and it led to a re-establishing of trust that was sorely needed. Effectively, the Twitter Effect isn't much of a factor for hard working folks who don't spend much time on the Internet.

Kim Hollis: I would also contend that because G.I. Joe skews pretty young, the Twitter Effect was negated to some degree. What we're seeing about the demographics of Twitter is that it's not even close to being as youthful a group as you would believe. It really wasn't even a strong trending topic over the weekend - Julie & Julia was right there with it, anyway. I do think District 9 might be a good one to watch for the social media impact.

Continued:       1       2