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

David Mumpower: Contraband is clearly a hit since it earned back its budget by Monday. Still, I think Matthew is absolutely correct that this is exactly the sort of forgettable vanilla project that Wahlberg is becoming known for. It forms a trilogy of the unmemorable along with Shooter and We Own the Night. In fact, when I was recently looking over his resume, I was shocked by how many movies of his I have seen that had such bland titles that I had to read the descriptions to remember what they are. Yes, I watch an ungodly amount of movies so titles sometimes run together but his resume is as forgettable as a TGI Friday's meal. By next fall, I fully expect to have to look up Contraband's description to remember what it is, which makes this weekend's performance all the more remarkable. Score this round to the marketers.

Tale as old as time

Kim Hollis: Beauty and the Beast 3D debuted to $17.8 million over the three-day portion of the weekend. What do you think of this result? Did you expect it to make as much as The Lion King 3D? Why or why not?

Jim Van Nest: I think that's a respectable total for a re-release...even in 3D. I didn't expect it to touch the Lion King for a few reasons. The first is that other than the ballroom shot, nothing jumps out at me from Beauty that would make it a must-see in 3D. Lion King had several "from the sky" shots of animals running, the whole "Can't Wait to be King" scene and probably the most suited for 3D scene, the presentation of Simba. To me, those are must-see in 3D. The second reason, and I'm sure some will poo-poo this...The Lion King is the better film. Regardless of Oscar nominations, The Lion King is simply better and kids like it better and it stands to reason that more people would line up for it. I think this is a solid result for Disney, and given that there isn't much family competition right now, it should have some decent legs.

Shalimar Sahota: I don't really expect much from re-releases, so it was a big surprise when The Lion King opened as high as it did. Beauty and the Beast's total may look merely okay in comparison, but nevertheless, for a film that is probably even cheaper to buy on DVD (should anyone prefer to watch it in 2D) than it is to purchase a pair of tickets to see on the big screen, it's still a great result. The Lion King may be the better film, which might explain the lower turn out, though I'd like to believe that some people are starting to wake up and smell the cash grab. Plus, I imagine some potential audiences realised that they don't need to rush out and see this within the first two weeks. The whole "limited engagement" aspect seems to have been downplayed this time, with the words now glimpsed at the end of the trailers and TV spots.

Brett Beach: It's a decent start. I agree (where it has been argued elsewhere) that it's not simply a matter of expecting a proportional return on the grosses of 10 to 20 years ago. I think that using the Toy Story/Toy Story 2 success as a modest baseline can be helpful (i.e. if a re-release threw under that, even with all of these additional grosses to be interpreted as "gravy," I would not qualify it as a success). B&B3D does have the kiddie market quite to themselves for a few weeks, and if there wasn't an inherent opening weekend rush-out (there wasn't any kind of big up/down spike among the first four days) then this could bridge the gap separating it from Lion King in weeks to come.

Bruce Hall: I'm going to throw this out there - Beauty and the Beast probably plays more to little girls than The Lion King, which has somewhat more universal appeal. I'm also not sure Beauty and the Beast benefits much from 3D and it's worth noting that if you wanted to find out, you have had the opportunity to do so on Blu-Ray since October. But I'm not sure that's the reason for the $12 million difference in box office. I DO think that most people are savvy enough to sense avarice behind this, but I also think those same people simply like The Lion King better (I am not one of them), so a similar result was probably never in the cards. Disney has several more re-releases in the pipeline and in my view, all of them have more mainstream appeal and lend themselves somewhat better to 3D than Beauty and the Beast. It'll be interesting to see whether or not audiences agree.

Matthew Huntley: I actually consider Beauty and the Beast to the be the better film as well, especially in regards to its writing and characterizations, but I agree The Lion King probably has more to offer visually, and Bruce makes a good point its universal appeal is greater - it has more action, broader comedy, etc. This is now the third time B&B has been released in theaters over the course of 20 years and maybe audiences, however new to the film they are, just don't see it as a priority any more. I'm not sure why Disney released the 3D version after the film's Blu-ray debut, but in any event, this can probably be considered a financial success.

David Mumpower: Regarding Bruce's point, there is a fine line between avarice and enterprising business. The process of adding 3D to an existing title is not that expensive. Still, why should Disney pay for it if they can convince consumers into spotting them the cash? That's effectively what they are doing with these. A brief theatrical return shifts the cost expense from Disney to Disney fans then when the title hits the home video market, everything is pure profit. Is it greedy? God yes. Is it smart? Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. And it would have worked on my wife and I if not for the fact that Vudu already had Beauty and the Beast 3D available for purchase for 20 bucks. Since that's cheaper than a pair of 3D tickets these days, we switched middlemen on the movie delivery system.

Continued:       1       2