Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
July 24, 2013
Kim Hollis: RED 2, the sequel to the action flick for seniors from a few years back, opened with $18 million, a few million less than the original. Why didn't this one have as big of an impact?
Matthew Huntley: The original RED was a sleeper hit that showed long legs, and although it performed well at the box-office and well enough on the home market, I don't think audiences were exactly craving a sequel. Red was liked but not loved, although I do think if RED 2 had been released at the same time as its predecessor (in the fall), it would have performed better. It simply got overshadowed by the bigger players in an already crowded marketplace.
Jay Barney: The opening for RED 2 is significant for a couple of reasons. Lionsgate/Summit was pretty much banking on this film performing very much like the original, and with this opening they are off to an okay start. Made for $84 million, it will be difficult for it to domestically achieve success without some very strong holds. However, the original made $200 million in worldwide box office, and with the addition of Anthony Hopkins and Catherine Zeta-Jones, this will have some foreign traction to it. It was a crowded field this weekend and perhaps this hurt RED 2’s opening a bit.
Felix Quinonez: I think like The Expendables, RED had a gimmick that really only worked once. And the fact is, RED was a hit but by no means a blockbuster. Also, I think people liked it but very few people actually loved it to the point that they were eagerly anticipating a sequel. They should have quit while they were ahead.
Max Braden: It's not for lack of promotion, certainly. Ads and Bruce Willis everywhere. There was so much advertising saying "You loved the first RED!" that it may have come across as trying to force an emotional connection rather than let it develop organically.
Pet peeve: Red is a color. RED is an acronym. I don't think two movies is sufficient enough common usage to turn it into a non-capitalized noun or adjective on the level of "laser" just yet. So, yeah, that's why I didn't go see the movie. I was boycotting the media's depiction of the title.
Kim Hollis: R.I.P.D. was appropriately named, as the Jeff Bridges/Ryan Reynolds action flick debuted with just $12.7 million against a whopping $150 million budget (before marketing even came into play). Do you think this is the biggest bomb of the year so far? Why do you think it failed?
Matthew Huntley: Well, I did read where Universal cut its marketing budget for R.I.P.D. in the weeks leading up to its release, and that's probably a good thing, because it's better for them to have saved money this way than to lose more money on promoting it and then have critics/audiences hate it. Perhaps they can take a little solace in their fore-thinking.
As to why it failed, it's kind of a no-brainer: the movie appears to be a blatant rip-off of Men in Black, in one form or another, and the trailer simply made it look stupid, derivative and unappealing. I cannot judge it for sure since I haven't seen it, but it came across as filler. Filler hardly translates into profit.