Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
April 27, 2010
Kim Hollis: The Losers opened to $9.4 million. Do you consider this win, lose or draw?
Josh Spiegel: My initial answer here is that The Losers is...well, I think you know where I'm going. However, this movie only cost $25 million, sans whatever marketing costs there were. So, maybe the result is a draw, but still, with all the ads I kept seeing for this movie over the past two months, the actors appearing on various shows, and one of those actors recently being chosen to be Captain America, I figured there'd be more interest for this movie. That said, I was never that psyched, because I looked at the ads and thought, "When did they make a comic-book series of The A-Team?"
Michael Lynderey: I've felt the buzz going down for The Losers in the last few weeks, but I still wouldn't have pegged this as coming in under two digits. So, yes, it's a disappointment, even if the movie's pedigree isn't that prestigious - it's a not a well-known comic and it didn't star any solid draws (as I've said elsewhere: Chris Evans and Zoe Saldana are the future of Hollywood, and they always will be). It's really a shame The Losers didn't do better, because it was a very entertaining film, especially compared to that cynical mish-mash, Kick-Ass.
Matthew Huntley: I agree with Michael - it's surprising the movie only managed single-digit numbers. That's quite low for an action movie, even one without big names attached to it. But Warner Bros. didn't seem to promote it all that much, so I can only infer the studio's expectations weren't that high to begin with, and it's likely the movie will earn twice as much as its reputed $25 million budget internationally. So yeah, in the end, I'd say a draw (leaning toward a lose) is a good call.
Shalimar Sahota: It's kind of in line with From Paris With Love some weeks back. The trailer shows some good all out action, but there's no real money shot, nothing that doesn't look like it's already been done before. As already mentioned here, not many would even be aware that it's based on a comic book, and it does look like a forerunner for The A-Team... though at least that film has a tank in mid-air!
Jason Lee: I wasn't that familiar with the picture in the weeks before it came out, but I wonder whether or not the majority of people who would have been interested in seeing a violent-but-funny action film adaptation of a comic series had already spent their last $15 bucks on a ticket for Kick-Ass.
Tom Macy: It's a loss. Under $10 million? I'm sure after airplanes and iTunes downloads they'll make some money but for a wide release and not much comeptition, this is pretty weak. This is the second action film in two weeks to fall under expectations. I think people are abstaining from the genre so the pleasures of Iron Man 2 will be that much more intense - yikes I didn't mean that to be so graphic.
Reagen Sulewski: Big loss. This should have been able to break through as a fun action movie, even without stars or a recognizable premise. Ultimately the lack of either made it a tough sell for audiences, which leads me to believe there was some calendar prejudice at work here. Maybe they should have stuck with their ballsy plan to go one week ahead of The A-Team after all.
David Mumpower: This movie was like a little gift from the industry to me in terms of who wrote it (Peter Berg) and who was cast in it (I adore 80% of The Losers and the one I didn’t know is great in it). Like Michael, I very much enjoyed the movie (as I had expected to do) and I wish it had been delivered a better box office fate. Having said that, it is no surprise that the movie has opened to single digits given its quirky nature. This is in fact a loss as Warner Bros. most assuredly wanted this to be the start of a franchise, one whose cast should look even better in three years than it does now. The fact that they never reached escape velocity on the first film is an unfortunate turn of events that presumably ends this parade before the floats have started moving.