Monday Morning Quarterback
By BOP Staff
October 22, 2007
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: [tm:1946_]30 Days of Night[/tm] finished in first place as expected this weekend, albeit with a lower than expected take of $16.0 million. What do you think of this result?
Tim Briody: I think everyone is saving themselves for [tm:3849_]Saw IV[/tm] next weekend. Until one of them proves otherwise, it's kinda silly to throw any other horror film out there this time of year.
Reagen Sulewski: This is a pretty respectable result - it's a brand new horror property and its stars haven't blown off the doors lately. Basically it establishes it as a non-dud for people to check out on video.
David Mumpower: I'm of the opinion that this is a worst case scenario result. Given how hot the trailer was, a stronger marketing campaign down the stretch would have brought in more money. I'm just not sure Sony ever completely believed in this project, which is unfortunate because it's a strong horror outing. At 54% positive at Rotten Tomatoes, reviews border on glowing for a goth genre title in 2007. I guess it lacked the hook that [tm:3188_]Resident Evil: Extinction[/tm]'s destruction of Las Vegas offered. As [tm:3923_]Halloween[/tm] approaches, I have to believe that word is going to get out that 30 Days of Night is a lot of fun, though.
Kim Hollis: I tend to agree that it borders on being a disappointment. I was really thinking mid-20s for this movie given the trailer and the subject matter. With all the gorno lately, this was a unique horror outing with vampires at the center. I guess goth just isn't as cool as it used to be.
I'm also thinking that word-of-mouth might be good for the movie, like David said. It's mostly very good (I have a few complaints, but overall I thought it was a scary, intense film) and our small audience was pretty actively reacting to it.
Joel Corcoran: I wouldn't call it a "worst case scenario," but I think the box office fell short of its potential due to some sub-par marketing. The trailer was excellent, the movie has a good storyline with a couple interesting twists, and all the elements were in place for this movie to hit a box office opening around at least $23-$25 million. However, the marketing -- and especially the TV advertising - completely skipped over the interesting elements of the film.
Heck, most of the time, I couldn't tell if the bad guys were zombies or monsters or both, and only in the theatrical trailer did I see any explanation for the "30 days of night" aspect, which is the most interesting part of the story in my opinion. The idea of vampires cavorting around above the Arctic Circle where they can enjoy weeks of perpetual night is imaginative and inventive, perhaps even as inventive as the "fast zombies" of 28 Days Later. Unfortunately, the marketing behind the movie did a poor job of bringing this point to the forefront.
Max Braden: I swear I saw this trailer on TV (yes, I watch live TV while another program is recording) more than any other this year. For all that marketing, and the horror theme this time of year, $16m is decent but not great. But the fact that it landed the number one box office spot says more about its competition this weekend. Everything out right now seems to be mostly dark and dramatic. If a studio ad delivered a decent comedy this weekend, I think the comedy would have won.
And this may be an odd statement, but I don't think movies based in winter perform that well at the box office. The Empire Strikes Back excepted.
Pete Kilmer: I believe that Sony failed to really push the film in the final stretch and so it fell a little short of the mark. While $16 million is respectable for an unknown horror franchise with no real stars, I was hoping for at least $22 million out of it.
I'm hoping word-of-mouth is strong on it, as the second and third books are much stronger in terms of story than the first one.
Now it's Casey's turn to shine (in Ben's movie)!
Kim Hollis: [tm:2353_]Gone Baby Gone[/tm], the directorial debut of [bp:105_]Ben Affleck[/bp], opened to $6 million in 1,713 exhibitions. Reviews have been nothing short of rapturous for the production, but this translated to a per-venue average of $3,503. Are you focusing on the positive of it being a good movie or the negative of it not earning much this weekend?
Tim Briody: I would just like to mention that while I was quite aware of this movie, I had no idea it was directed by Ben Affleck until the local paper's review headline was "Bravo Ben!" and my first thought was that someone should be fired for referring to the wrong Affleck.
David Mumpower: This is a project with a budget of $19 million. It was never expected to be some sort of box office juggernaut. $6 million would feel like a win even if the reviews didn't sound like they came from Ben and Casey Affleck's parents. Ben Affleck has always struck me as an intelligent man, and I am not surprised that he figured out a way to reinvent himself while breathing new life into his career. At this point, I believe Gone Baby Gone to be the frontrunner in the race for Best Picture. If it sustains that momentum throughout awards season, it will be a huge financial winner for Miramax while Affleck's career will be resuscitated. The fact that he found a way to also make his brother, Casey, a much bigger force in the industry is just icing on the cake.
Reagen Sulewski: Without a doubt they were afraid of putting his name on it. I'm betting there were thousands of cries of "whaaaaa?" around the country when that credit popped up. That, or the reason this didn't do that well is that people did figure it out.
Kim Hollis: Miramax would likely have been better off platforming it rather than having it on so "many" screens. I think it will be a film that gets continued attention through the awards season with a potential re-release in the offing if it gets major nominations. I think the weekend total is fine for a start - what is more important is the positive critical attention at this point.
Joel Corcoran: It's a great start, and I completely agree with Reagen - there's no way Miramax wanted Ben Affleck's name feature prominently in connection with this movie. So, I guess I'm focusing on the positive aspect. It didn't earn a whole lot overall, but that per-venue average is very solid and bodes well for the future.
Max Braden: I think it's positive for everyone involved. I wouldn't expect Affleck to direct as frequently as [bp:443_]George Clooney[/bp], who doesn't direct much, but the solid delivery boosts Affleck's credibility which has traditionally suffered from a popcorn reputation. And five years ago I wouldn't have believed Casey Affleck would amount to much. But this film and his performance in Jesse James both boost his credibility tremendously. I really wouldn't be surprised if he nabs at least an Oscar nomination sometime in the next ten years.
When there are real-life comebacks on TV, why watch crappy ones in the movies?
Kim Hollis: [tm:3930_]The Comebacks[/tm], not to be confused with The Replacements, the movie it is so transparently copying, earned $5.9 million from 2,812 play-dates. This total represents a per-venue average of $2,080. Are you disappointed by the result or surprised that something this atrocious looking could earn even this much?
David Mumpower: Both. The Replacements was a huge hit on home video, particularly during the early days of DVD. Its success in DVD rentals made it one of the earliest success stories for the format. I speculated it would eventually receive a straight-to-DVD sequel as a way to capitalize on the unexpected financial windfall it proved to be. The Comebacks postured itself to be exactly that sort of film straight down to aping the slutty cheerleader shtick. For whatever reason, mainstream audiences recognized an inferior clone when they saw it. Earlier this year, a couple of studio execs were speculating that The Comebacks would be just as big a surprise hit as The Benchwarmers ($57.7 million domestic gross). I think it's safe to say those aspirations were...overly ambitious.
Reagen Sulewski: This film looked like garbage, plain and simple. Even Date Movie had the decency to have more than two kinds of jokes in the trailer, instead of just the one (COLLISION! NOW LAUGH!) that this one did. Asking "That guy" from Anchorman to carry your movie is probably a mistake too.
Kim Hollis: Yeah, I'm really stunned it made even as much as it did. It looked just awful and had no real stars to hang its hat on. I like the Anchorman dude just fine, but he seems better off as a supporting guy for [bp:121_]Will Ferrell[/bp] (or in quirky roles like he had in Thank You for Smoking).
Joel Corcoran: The real tragic aspect of this movie is that it demonstrates there is still a large segment of the American populace who will pay good money to go see crap like this.
Max Braden: I think even fans of the spoof genre were so put off by Epic Movie (which is the comparison I kept making) that they were gun-shy about paying to see this in theaters. Expect higher dvd rental figures from those late night stoned dorm kids just looking for something stupid to watch.
Oh boy! It's a gloomy movie about the war in Iraq!
Kim Hollis: [tm:3456_]Rendition[/tm], the opener with easily the most star power this weekend, failed to pique the curiosity of mainstream audiences, earning only $4.2 million from 2,280 locations. This is a per-venue average of only $1,856. Why do you believe North American audiences continue to reject any and all premises that involve Iraq [tm:3335_]War[/tm]-related themes?
Dan Krovich: I'd be very nervous if I had an Iraq themed movie coming out that had any kind of substantial budget to make back. I think audiences are already sick of seeing news coverage about it much less paying to see a movie about it.
David Mumpower: The very nature of cinematic entertainment is to provide escapism from the real world. Titles such as Home of the Brave, [tm:3774_]In the Valley of Elah[/tm] and this bravely examine subject matter that is uncomfortable for most would-be movie goers. It's no surprise, then, that such endeavors are dismissed by consumers. They are by definition art-house releases intended for a smaller segment of movie buffs who don't mind such depressing subject matter. In the case of Rendition, it's obvious that the lackluster reviews combined with the off-putting storyline combined to work as an antidote for the star power involved.
Reagen Sulewski: I don't think it's a blanket problem with all movies that could be connected to Iraq, but it definitely needs to be the right kind of film about the topic. Jarhead, for instance, came out right as public opinion started to turn against the war. If it appears to be a moralizing film, as this one was, then that's not going to get but a scant few people out.
David Mumpower: Jarhead was slightly different in that it hid its true nature in the marketing campaign. The movie was shaded as much more of a "Our soldiers kick ass!" release when it was in reality a subversive exploration of what's went wrong with the military-industrial complex. Also, Jarhead had something going for it that would be borderline impossible to duplicate, and that's the ingenious Jesus Walks trailer. No other Iraqi/Guantanamo movie is going to catch lightning in a bottle like that.
Kim Hollis: There were a couple of problems for Rendition. First, it looked grim, which is never a positive. The only way that can generally be overcome is through positive reviews. This one didn't have those, either. If audiences could trust that a film dealing with Guantanamo would at least be interesting or filled with great performances, it might be different. It's a tough sell in any case.
Joel Corcoran: I think David pretty much nailed it - movies should be about escapism. Rendition would be much more palatable to the public if it was released in another 15 years, but the concept of "rendition" is either too vague or too angering right now. I doubt even half the people in the U.S. even understand what "rendition" is, and those that do know are either angry with the Bush Administration for carrying out these renditions, or angry and vitriolic at those who protest the rendition programs. The social and political climate is just too raw and chaotic right now for a movie like Rendition to take hold. People are simply too close to these current events to appreciate a film on its own - independent from those ongoing events.
I think you can draw an analogy to The Lives of Others, a German film about Soviet-era monitoring programs carried out by the East German secret police. It's been over 15 years since the Berlin Wall fell, and that distance from those very ugly events has allowed a better (and more informed) perspective that a public audience can appreciate in this film. But there is no way The Lives of Others could've been a successful film while those monitoring programs were still ongoing (even if the Soviets had allowed it to be made).
Max Braden: This was the biggest surprise for me this weekend. I really expected Rendition to win out, given the presence of Witherspoon, Streep, Gyllenhaal, and Sarsgaard - who got a lot of praise for Jarhead. Reviews, however, were not strong, and may have affected audiences who would have been more interested in the story than the actors.
I've seen a lot of ads for Lions For Lambs, which I think is nearly the same story in viewers' minds. The poor performance of Rendition won't help Cruise's pic. Maybe audiences will still go to see if he snaps and flips out on Streep.
There were movies in theaters this weekend?
Kim Hollis: Including [tm:3954_]Sarah Landon and the Paranormal Hour[/tm] and [tm:2802_]Things We Lost in the Fire[/tm] in addition to the titles previously discussed, there were four titles this weekend that opened in over 1,000 locations that had per-venue averages of $2,080 or lower. Anything under $2,500 used to be the line of demarcation for a disastrous performance, one where any box office receipts earned barely pay the cost of the movie prints. Last year, we didn't see 10 such performances the entire year. How do you explain the volume of ignored titles we saw this weekend?
David Mumpower: The explanation is the same point we have been driving home the past couple of years. Box office is much more of a sink or swim phenomenon than it once was. Even 10 years ago, going to the theater was still the primary way for the average consumer to spend a weekend evening. With the advent of new technologies such as networked videogames, TiVo, and the video iPod, movies are no longer the only ballgame in town. Competition for the free time of consumers has reached unprecedented levels, and the impact of that on the movie industry is simple. People won't go see any old piece of garbage at the cost of $7.70 a ticket on average. There has to be a justification for them to leave the house, and we saw several titles this weekend that failed to offer this incentive. Hollywood knows it as well. Several titles under discussion this week were effectively unadvertised. There was no point for studios to the money on products they knew to be inferior. This behavior has been in place all year, but the once-a-decade quality of the summer schedule hid this problem in plain sight. Lots of movies were stillborn upon theatrical release. They simply didn't get much attention since there were such big stories to discuss each of those weekends as they failed. This problem is systemic in the industry, and steps need to be taken to address it head on.
Reagen Sulewski: A couple of these were from startup studios, who simply didn't have the bucks to promote their films to justify a release of this level. Sarah Landon and The Ten Commandments, for instance, were films that never should have been considered for theatrical releases - they just looked that awful. I suppose these becomes expensive advertisement for the DVDs. But really, there were just too many films on this weekend. There's enough attention to go around for two or three films at the most on a single weekend. Anything more than that just means that the other films are going to get completely lost in the mix.
Kim Hollis: Audiences are getting better and better at smelling out garbage movies. There are still times when we wonder what people were thinking, but a lot of times, if the product isn't good, it just underperforms. Gone are the days when any stupid idea could get a greenlight.