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

Jason Lee: Personally, I always thought that this was going to be a tough-sell. It's part alien movie, part family movie, part nostalgia movie, all tied up with the enigmatic JJ Abrams brand name. It might be a four-quadrant movie, but it's not going to appeal intensely to any one quadrant (at least, not at first). I will be very interested to see what kind of legs this movie has. On a side note, part of me wonders if Paramount needs Super Eight to be a big summer hit, given that it has very little franchise/sequel potential. All five of the films below it (X-Men: First Class, Hangover Part II, Kung Fu Panda 2, Pirates 4, and Bridesmaids) all could potentially return in the next three years with a sequel or follow-up, enhancing the return on this summer's investment for each film. Given that Paramount could have invested its $50 million in a different film with some measure of franchise potential, I wonder if they really need this single film to be a pretty big success.

Joshua Pasch: I'd be lying if I said I didn't expect more of an opening after seeing the first trailer months ago. After the first teaser and then a buzzed about Super Bowl spot, I figured this one would cruise in to $50-$60 opening weekend. When reports started coming in recent weeks that tracking had it pegged with less than half of my prediction, I was floored. I really thought that the buzz of Abrams name with the coloring of an ET type of adventure would be more than enough to get people out in droves. Add in that Super 8 essentially had the weekend to itself, and I thought we had the makings of a serious break out opening weekend, not just a modest one.

As for the primary question of: is this result good enough? - the answer has to be yes. The astoundingly low investment for a summer movie ($50 million budget and $25 million P&A) assured Paramount that any opening over $25 million could have a positive spin. With $35 million and a weekend multiplier that would seem to imply strong longs on the horizon, I think we're looking at a movie that will move from the "medium" success column that it's in right now, to the "definite" win column by the time it ends its run.

One thing I've been wondering is if this film would have had an even stronger run if it had decided to open in mid to early December. It's not a traditional "family" film per say, but definitely has that appeal and I think it would have played brilliantly through the holiday season. Just food for thought.

David Mumpower: Joshua and Reagen touch upon the aspects of this that make me uncomfortable. Yes, a film with a $50 million budget is doing well if it opens to $35.5 million, even allowing for negative costs that almost double the financial outlay. This movie will make money, but a studio doesn't distribute capital based upon the simple goal of making more than they invest. They want a return on revenue that justifies the investment. Super 8 still clears that hurdle, but I think I speak for several of us when I say that I have this lingering feeling that there was a lot of money left on the table here. The unwillingness to sell the mystery, one that isn't even driving the plot much, bit Paramount in the end. This movie has done fine yet my initial impression after opening weekend is that it should have done much better. With a stronger ad campaign, this movie opens in the mid-$50s instead of the mid-$30s. The empirical data here says winner but my gut says it should have been a bigger winner.

Continued:       1       2