Monday Morning Quarterback
By BOP Staff
November 12, 2007
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Fred Claus opened to $18.5 million despite ultra-wide release in 3,603 theaters. How big a disappointment is its third place finish?
Pete Kilmer: I actually don't think it's too bad. Bee Movie had a crazy amount of promotion behind it, Jerry was everywhere pushing it, and American Gangster is THE drama of the season so far....Fred Claus will do fine, I suspect, in the long run.
Tim Briody: Fred Claus was being set up to be another Wedding Crashers. Someone forgot that this was a harmless holiday family comedy, however. Vince Vaughn's presence may very well have hurt its performance with families, as he's very much associated with Wedding Crashers, a film that is very deserving of its R rating. It's going to fade pretty quick from here.
Joel Corcoran: I'm a rider on Pete's bandwagon. I think Fred Claus will end up having a resurgence around the holidays when families are looking for a movie palatable to everyone in the group. And, of course, after the marketing juggernaut (a.k.a. Bee Movie) fades from the public mind. So, in the end, I don't think it's a big disappointment at all. Any opener this week would've had to tangle with American Gangster and Bee Movie, so I think a near $20 million opening is pretty good. Not great, not fantastic, and maybe just above "satisfactory," but still not a disappointment.
Reagen Sulewski: While I think Fred Claus will be OK in the long run - it's a family film near Thanksgiving - the comparisons to Elf are pretty hard to avoid. Vaughn is better known now than Ferrell was pre-Elf and this is almost like a spiritual sequel. I think you're on to something Tim, that there probably were families that were put off by Vaughn's reputation, though.
Max Braden: The opening is surprisingly small to me because it seems like a silly-fun holiday movie that kids would flock to. Maybe it suffers from being The Santa Clause 4. (Santa Clause 3 opened the first November weekend last year to $19.5 million). If audiences are like me, they're refusing to accept anything Christmas until at least Thanksgiving feels closer.
Kim Hollis: I was hearing *so* many people talking about wanting to see this movie. Usually, if I hear a bunch of co-workers discussing how much they want to see a film, it's a sign that it will be big. I'm just not sure what happened here, other than that more people realized it looked terrible than I would have given credit for.
David Mumpower: This is a wildly disappointing result. Consider the following performances for comparison films: The Santa Clause made $144.8 million; The Santa Clause 2 earned $139.2 million; Elf was the big winner of the bunch with $173.4 million. Those are the ambitious goals for any new holiday title. Fred Claus fell a million short of the wildly disappointing The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause, and it even had some ticket price inflation going for it. Warner Bros. was hoping to get another Elf. They couldn't even manage a Christmas with the Kranks ($21.6 million opening on the way to domestic receipts of $73.7 million). Pathetic.
Don't get your hopes up. Star Wars: The Hobbit of Hogwarts is not a real movie.
Kim Hollis: Lions for Lambs was supposed to mark the triumphant return of Tom Cruise and United Artists this weekend. Instead, it earned only $6.7 million in 2,215 venues, just barely more than Magnolia made when it went to wide release several years ago. What accounts for this movie's epic failure to connect with audiences?
Pete Kilmer: It's the topic. No one wants a war movie that's a downer right now. I think the public thinks they get more than enough of that on the news. I personally can't wait to see it...on DVD.
Tim Briody: I'm falling asleep even attempting to discuss its box office, so take that for what you will.
Joel Corcoran: Public inertia was acting against this movie from the beginning. This movie should've been released either three or four weeks ago (well before the holiday season was encroaching on us) or another three or four months from now (to offer more distance between "new Tom Cruise" and "couch-jumping Tom Cruise" in the public's mind). Another big factor was the phoned-in marketing campaign behind this movie. The reach and frequency of the advertising seems suitable for a release in December or January, not this current week.
Reagen Sulewski: While the subject matter is certainly a big part of the story here, another factor is that it really was never clear what this movie was about. Mostly it looked like a film where people gave speeches to each other about... something. The non-action action movie, if you will, and who wants to see that? It was a movie without a market, and the abysmal reviews certainly didn't help.
Max Braden: The weak response to Rendition probably had some effect on this opening. I'd expect this to have no legs based on the response from within the theater I attended. The movie goes nowhere, and I think critics led with that. Also, this movie preaches more than movies like The Kingdom or Three Kings, and I think audiences would like to think they're smart enough to debate their own thoughts than to have the debate delivered right at their feet.
Kim Hollis: I said it when Rendition crashed and burned and I'll say it again. Movies like these absolutely live and die by their quality. While they might not have huge audiences in early weekends, they can oftentimes pick up momentum with stellar reviews. Neither one of these films had good or even mediocre reviews, and with serious subject matter, people will pay attention to what critics are saying. If the word is out that the film is preachy, forget about it. People aren't even going to give it a look.
David Mumpower: Lions for Lambs is Cruise's worst opening since Magnolia, and it doesn't even have the benefit of raining frogs to sell it on home video. Note to Hollywood: the raining frogs genre is an untapped financial windfall waiting to happen. But I digress. The point is that Lions for Lambs had two huge factors lined up against it. The first is that the so-called flyover states have spoken with their wallets and pocket books this year. They won't be paying to be preached at by the so-called Hollywood liberal elite. The second is Tom Cruise. This one isn't tricky. If people are so turned off by his presence that they will disavow themselves of a brilliant action flick like Mission: Impossible III, they certainly aren't going to see something like this. Cruise could star in Star Wars: The Hobbit of Hogwarts and still bomb out at this point.
You sunk my battleship!
Kim Hollis: P2, the best-reviewed film of the weekend (a dubious honor at best), finished in eighth place with $2.1 million. Do you consider this a success story for Summit Entertainment or another blah horror thriller performance?
Tony Kollath: For what the studio must have spent on advertising, the result isn't that bad. The only TV spot I saw for this was on the night before the film hit theatres.
Pete Kilmer: Holy cow...a horror movie that I completely missed out on! Honestly, I saw ZERO marketing for it.
Joel Corcoran: Wait ... what? P2?
Reagen Sulewski: They might as well have titled it "Generic Woman In Distress Movie".
Max Braden: I saw a number of ads for it during the TV programs I watch, but they didn't tell you anything more than "this is a thriller and we want you to show up." No deal, banker.
Kim Hollis: I saw a trailer for this in front of 30 Days of Night and basically thought, "Wha? Wes Bentley?" It almost looked like a joke movie to me. I guess the studio should be happy with this result, but I'm not completely certain why they bothered with theatrical release in the first place.
David Mumpower: I am surprised a movie about the making of an Intel chip has done so well.
Coming soon from DreamWorks and Michael Richards: Microbe Movie
Kim Hollis: Not all of the news was grim this weekend. Bee Movie declined only 33% to $25.6 million, giving it a grand total so far of $71.8 million. We were hard on the film last weekend. Do you feel the need to modify that opinion any now that it is the number one film?
Pete Kilmer: No I don't feel the need to modify an opinion on it. Parents want a movie to take their kids to and Bee Movie is it. In the comic shops I run I hear a lot of parents talking about it and how good it is. Of course I have a shop in Stepford County so that might account for some of that.
Joel Corcoran: I don't think we were hard enough on this movie last weekend. The fact that people are even discussing this barely-knitted-together collection of lame jokes as an Oscar contender along with Ratatouille makes me want to smack New York Post film critic Kyle Smith in the face. If Pixar had made this movie, rather than Jerry Seinfeld supported by a horde of minions, I think critics would be much harder on the film.
Max Braden: I think the only thing the box office retention says is "this is the only thing out right now that my kids were interested in seeing."
Kim Hollis: I think we have to face facts. There are certain people out there who really, really love Jerry Seinfeld and the idea that they could take their kids to a movie he had a major hand in creating is a comforting thing. I was surprised that it wasn't nearly as bad as I expected it to be. I'm not saying it was good, but it was at least not Shark Tale level painful. I suspect it can maintain some momentum as the family choices that are coming in the next few weeks look dubious at best.
They could have made more money if they'd marketed it as Gladiator vs. King Kong
Kim Hollis: American Gangster fell 45% to $24.0 million, giving it a grand total of $80.3 million. Even though it's a foregone conclusion that Bee Movie beats it in terms of total box office, we're still pleased with this result, correct?
Pete Kilmer: Yes we are pleased with the result. I think this movie is going to push $150 million after the Thanksgiving weekend.
Joel Corcoran: Of course we're pleased with this result. However, I'd be more pleased if Bee Movie fell of a cliff.
Max Braden: I would not have been surprised had it topped out at $80 million, so I think this is a good solid run for Denzel, and helps keep it in mind for Oscar candidacy.
Kim Hollis: I think with its opening, American Gangster is always going to be remembered as a success. It's probably a front-runner for awards consideration at the moment, too.
David Mumpower: I would have liked to see a better retention rate than 44%. I still feel like it's a hit but given the talent involved as well as the word-of-mouth, I was expecting a result closer to $30 million. That might seem like a trifle now, but it's about $25 million of difference in terms of final box office.
The only war on terror that has been worth seeing is Imaginationland.
Kim Hollis: Circling back to the subject of Lions for Lambs for a moment, do you think that it's possible for Hollywood to make a movie dealing with the War on Terror that audiences will want to watch? Or will anything dealing with Afghanistan, Iraq and the like fail miserably?
Pete Kilmer: I think the lack of any positive movement on the capture of Bin Laden, the quagmire and mis-management of the situation of Iraq is going to hurt any movie that deals with these subjects. There is nothing to cheer or feel good about with this war.
Now when Rambo hits, I will be very curious as to how well it's received.
Tim Briody: As we've mentioned whenever a film like this is released, movies are escapism for the vast majority of the public. We want to be entertained for a couple of hours when we pay our $9.50, not reminded of what's on tonight's news. A movie would need to be of exceptional quality in order for the public to not entirely dismiss it. The two most recent examples of films depicting current events in the Middle East, Lions for Lambs and The Kingdom, have not been well received, and thus have been largely ignored by viewers.
Joel Corcoran: Any film directly dealing with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has about as much of a chance of being cheered at the box office as Dick Cheney has at being cheered on The Daily Show. Every poll shows that the majority of Americans are just tired of the wars and want them to end as soon as possible, so they're not going to be "entertained" by any movie touching on those subjects. And the extremists on either end of the spectrum -- those who are virulently anti-war or blindly unquestioning supporters of the wars -- simply aren't going to be satisfied with any good drama based on a nuanced, multi-faceted exploration of the important themes of how and why the U.S. entered the war.
I think the only way any war movie is going to succeed is to follow the same tactic taken by M*A*S*H, which was an anti-Vietnam War movie set in the Korean War. Some enterprising screenwriter out there is going to come up with a great movie about the Vietnam War and the Nixon Presidency that echoes current events in much the same way.
Marty Doskins: The only way I see a movie about this topic do well is if we finally get a good news or heroic event out of the war. I'm thinking along the lines of something like Black Hawk Down. While the whole topic of war is depressing and we know that more and more people are having trouble supporting what is going on in Iraq, if some powerful story comes out of this, that movie may have a chance.
Max Braden: I think intricate attempts to dramatize the complicated issues of the Middle East, as Syriana tried to do, won't penetrate the minds of audiences who would struggle to find Iran on a map. On the other hand, streamlining a story and making it more of White hat vs Black hat won't sit comfortably in their stomachs either - for most people there's very little to feel good about in re: Iraq/Afghanistan, even when celebrating heroism. I do think that Three Kings succeeded well in what it was trying to do, but it too was not a box office winner. The last war movie blockbuster I can think of though was Saving Private Ryan, and that had Spielberg and Hanks and WWII behind it, released a decade ago. Black Hawk Down, three years later, finished just over $100 million.
Kim Hollis: These topics are just too tough and grounded in reality to deal with. It's one thing to go to a WWII movie or even a Vietnam War film, but War on Terror movies just hit too close to home, especially for those who have either served or have family members who have served (or are still overseas). Our country is in a situation where the economy is shaky, our leaders are untrustworthy, and there's not much good news to be had. People want uplifting at a time like this, or at least escapism that doesn't feel so deeply real.
David Mumpower: If Hollywood somehow released a quality title that were even-handed, showed the troops in a positive light, and somehow resisted the urge to have a message, there would be a slight chance it would do well...and even that is not a guarantee. The subject matter is simply too exploitive at the moment to engage mainstream consumers. The other negative stigma comes from the pre-judging of titles. Some of the comments I have seen about Lions for Lambs completely misconstrue a good portion of the movie's message. It rails against the notion of troop withdrawal in the middle east, but it's difficult for movie-goers to give Hollywood the benefit of the doubt on such subject matter these days.