Monday Morning Quarterback
By BOP Staff
June 3, 2007
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: After anchoring a record-setting Memorial Day weekend, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End fell 62% to $43.2 million this weekend, giving it a running total of $216.5 million after ten (and a half) days. What do we think of this result?
Reagen Sulewski: If I'm Disney, this is a "Yay" with a "But". I'm still not jaded about $100 million weekends, but that drop shows that a hypothetical fourth entry in the franchise isn't bulletproof, and that lack of staying power has to be troubling. The fall off from entry number two probably means that $100 million is taken off the table domestically for this outing.
Kim Hollis: I hate to say that any movie that made this much money is a disappointment, because it feels ludicrous to do so. But relative to expectations and the performance of the previous movies, it isn't up to the same lofty standards. The ray of hope is that At World's End did have a Saturday/Sunday bump after a pretty rough Friday this weekend.
Tim Briody: BOP regularly receives hate mail when we call $200 million movies disappointments, but after the breakout of Dead Man's Chest, the fact that $300 million for At World's End is still somewhat of a question mark, it kind of is. The fall-off very well could've been worse.
David Mumpower: It's good...and bad. At World's End had the fifth largest opening of all-time, but it was only the third largest of the month. Plus, that was with holiday inflation on its first Sunday. So, the second weekend decline is not surprising. I think that everyone would agree that we expected the title to have more than $216.5 million in the bank at this point. As such, it feels like money has been left on the table, so to speak.
Kim Hollis: Right, it was automatically going to have a drastic drop because of the holiday.
David Mumpower: And it was also going to have a stiff drop because its weekdays had been right in line with the terrible performances of Spider-Man 3 and Shrek the Third. Frankly, $43.2 million is better than I was braced for here.
Reagen Sulewski: I think it's a bit of spin to say "oh, we knew it would fall that much because of the holiday." Sure, films drop two-thirds after Memorial Day Weekend, but that's typically from the four-day totals, not the three-day.
David Mumpower: Well, Spider-Man 3 dropped 62% and Shrek the Third fell 56% in their second weekends, so it's not just the holiday meriting some of the blame. For whatever reason, the tentpole third titles of May all failed to demonstrate legs.
Kim Hollis: And all of the top 12 had pretty similar drops over from the three-day portion of last weekend as well, with Waitress and Disturbia being the only exceptions. Even Bug, which opened small, had an over 60% drop.
Reagen Sulewski: I just feel there's been this climate of lowered expectations where all drops are considered equal. Sure, legs aren't what they used to be, and sure these films are front loaded. I still can't consider it the "business as usual" for a tentpole release to earn a third of its business in the first three days.
David Mumpower: That's an interesting point. We'll go meta with the topic in just a moment, but I do agree that the unusual arc of $100+ million in three days following by less than $200 million afterward is hard to accept as status quo.
Peter, Shrek and Jack, we like you. We just think we should take a break for awhile. It's not you, it's us.
Kim Hollis: Let's address the elephant in the living room. Are Spider-Man 3, Shrek the Third and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End all examples of a strange new box office model where the first weekend is everything, or are this films' legs curbed by the fact that for whatever reason, they weren't perceived to be as good as previous releases in the various franchises?
Reagen Sulewski: I don't think studios are all that upset about earning money faster, since they take a bigger piece of the pie that way, but in terms of long term management of their franchises, it has to be troubling, especially since that seems to be all they've got lately. I mean, unless Space Mountain somehow spawns five hit films.
Kim Hollis: I think that it's a combination of both things. It's a shift in audience behavior, but the movies are also suffering because of poor word-of-mouth. I've talked to several people who have said, "Oh, Pirates isn't supposed to be good. We'll just wait for video."
David Mumpower: This is an answer I'm not sure we can solve with any finality at the moment. There are arguments both ways. It's entirely possible that the unique nature of May's heavyweight releases created some "blockbuster fatigue" for consumers. It's equally possible that consumers agree with critics that all three are not up to snuff.
Joel Corcoran: I think that's a good point, David. I'm not sure there is enough information available to really find a reason for the sharp drops. For lack of a better analogy, I think we're looking at some bad symptoms of some underlying disease.
Kim Hollis: It really isn't an easy task to get a family out to three movies in a month. And these movies all really rely on that type of business. People are having to pick and choose here where in the past each one of these franchise has had many weeks to dominate on its own.
Reagen Sulewski: It does seem like a tremendous test of audiences. That's a lot of time and/or money they're asking people to spend in one month. Seeing more than one is probably unusual behavior for the general population. Just imagine if there had been *anything* from April holding over.
Kim Hollis: Or *any* quality releases (beyond the big three) in May.
David Mumpower: In hindsight, I think that all three movies' distributors would agree that this was an experiment that probably should not be duplicated. The problem is that Shrek couldn't move due to the presence of a Pixar release and a Potter film while Pirates and Spider-Man had Transformers to contend with. The real winner in all of this is 300 for getting out in front of the hoopla.
Joel Corcoran: Absolutely. Perhaps the producers behind 300 were prescient.
Spiders and ogres and pirates. Oh my!
Kim Hollis: Do you think any of the three titles would have done better if moved to a different period on the summer schedule?
David Mumpower: As I said before, I think Shrek would have been lucky to stay even. Spider-Man's had better luck in May than July, so it probably is a similar situation. Pirates on the other hand, is one that Disney might like to have back. It's going to be a $300 million earner in North America, but I do suspect that slotting it in the same spot as the last title would have been helpful. I can't help but feel that Transformers would have blinked.
Tim Briody: Pirates just seemed out of its element over Memorial Day weekend. Shrek at least had the same weekend for all three films, and Spider-Man 3 went back to the release of the original Spider-Man, so those were natural release dates.
Kim Hollis: I do think Pirates would have been better off in its normal month of July. Of all the movies that suffered, I think it got hit the hardest by A) people getting burned by quality and B) spending entertainment budget for the month on other things. I believe Potter usurping that July spot really mucked with the plans.
Reagen Sulewski: I agree. I think Pirates is really the only one that could or should have moved.
Kim Hollis: Another thought (that I touched on before but will expand on now) is that if Spider-Man 3 and Shrek the Third had been "better" films, Pirates would have been better off in the same release date spot.
David Mumpower: That's the aspect that is impossible to quantify, Kim. I'm with you in that I'm curious about how much causality is involved there. Were consumers burned twice already in May and therefore less willing to risk being burned again by Pirates? I could buy that, but I have no hard evidence to back it up.
Joel Corcoran: I have the same instinct as David. I just get the sense that audiences are more willing to go to the movies compared to the past, but they have very little tolerance for movies that disappoint them.
We have something important to discuss with you. Are you sitting down? Okay. Deep breath.
Kim Hollis: Knocked Up earned $29.3 million this weekend from 2,871 venues. How much of a surprise is this three-day performance?
Reagen Sulewski: It's a mild surprise. I hadn't expected the jump from Steve Carell to Seth Rogen in Apatow's films to be so smooth.
Kim Hollis: It beat tracking and was a few million over my own personal expectations. I'm frankly thrilled to see audiences embrace Apatow once again. Also, I was just noticing that 57% of the audience was female, with 56% over 30, so it appealed to a much different set than your typical sex comedy.
David Mumpower: Knocked Up stars a television actress and a guy who isn't Hollywood pretty in even the most generous meaning of the word. Becoming the fifth largest R-Rated comedy opener of all time with this motley crew is an impressive feat. This is twice in a row that Apatow has spun straw into gold. He's well on his way to becoming a Hollywood legend.
Reagen Sulewski: He's hit on a pretty simple but genius idea, really - combine the frat boy comedy with chick flick themes.
David Mumpower: That's a great point, Reagen. It's the most unlikely demographic combination since Rush Hour.
Kim Hollis: You've really gotta credit the marketing on this one. It reached out to exactly the right people. It would have been so easy for both this and The 40 Year-Old Virgin to just be cult flicks for Apatow fans. It's a testament to his writing ability and sense of humor that he keeps knocking it out of the park.
Tim Briody: "Don't let him near the kid, he wants to *rear* your child" is the funniest line from a movie trailer so far this year. It's nice to see a comedy breakout based on being genuinely entertaining. Wild Hogs appealed to older audiences, and Blades of Glory was the still-hot Will Ferrell and Napoleon Dynamite, and neither looked as funny as this.
David Mumpower: Apatow also announced this weekend that Knocked Up co-star Harold Ramis is going to direct his next production, and it will star Jack Black. He seems to have a core group of featured players for his movies, and reusing this eclectic but talented bunch has put him on the fast track to being the next Jerry Bruckheimer.
Reagen Sulewski: So his explosions will be full of heart?
David Mumpower: Wouldn't you hate to be the guy from Fox now having to explain why he wasn't able to market Undeclared? It's exactly this group of people minus Heigl.
Kim Hollis: Yeah, Knocked Up was almost like watching a movie where the Freaks grew up and were dealing with the beginning of adult life (especially since Rogen, Jason Segel and Martin Starr were part of the core group of friends). It's a nice progression.
Reagen Sulewski: Obviously we need to convince Tim Minear to switch to films as well.
Maybe Mr. Brooks should have played a little soccer for wider ranging appeal
Kim Hollis: There were a couple of other new releases this weekend whose successes were less laudable. Mr. Brooks, the movie where Kevin Costner finally confessed to being a serial killer, earned $10 million, while Gracie managed $1.4 million with a miserable per venue average of $1,160. What are your thoughts on these two performances?
Reagen Sulewski: I think that this was potentially the only real interesting use for Costner these days other than another sports movie. If he has an opening weekend larger than that in the next five years that isn't either him as a villain or an athlete, I'll be surprised.
David Mumpower: Mr. Brooks did exactly as well as I expect, which is to say it did nothing much. As John Hamann pointed out, Costner's track record is much better than this historically but this project never seemed to be anything more than an opportunity for him to play against type. Gracie is a sweet, personal story for the Shue family and I wish it had done better, but it wasn't to be.
Reagen Sulewski: Gracie basically hit the floor for a wide released film that was actually marketed. That's about 15 people per screening.
Kim Hollis: Really, both movies did about exactly what I expected. Costner doesn't really have a following anymore, and Gracie was pretty tough to market. It probably should have started as a limited release.
David Mumpower: I disagree, Kim. It's Mr. Brooks I am surprised didn't start in limited release. This seems to be an Oscar candidacy attempt for Costner, at least in theory. Starting it wide while ignoring its likelihood to be gone in a month is a poor decision on the part of MGM.
Joel Corcoran: I hardly noticed either of these two movies, though Costner playing a serial killer is intriguing. And I think y'all are right - Gracie should've been a limited release.
Kim Hollis: If nothing else, the producers of Goal 2 ought to be re-thinking their release strategy right about now.