Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
May 20, 2008
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Last week's biggest opener in theory but only second biggest opener in execution, Speed Racer, fell 59% to $7.6 million this weekend. The movie with the $150 million budget has earned just under $30 million in ten days of release. What has caused this disastrous result?
David Mumpower: In retrospect, I think that Speed Racer was a bit too cultish for mainstream success. The fact that this movie is a shockingly faithful adaptation in terms of the spirit of an anime cartoon only further places it into the counter-culture realm. I know that several of us here are a bit frustrated by this result, as at least five members of our staff give the movie an A. It's just too weird for most people, though. Speed Racer also has no A-List stars, and the trailers for the movie do not say anything about the story. They simply advertise a shiny, dizzying ride. Consumers have been burned far too many times by those types of titles to give this one a shot, which is a shame. It's an amazing IMAX release...as well as a solid candidate for worst financial result of any 2008 release.
Shane Jenkins: It's suffering from the whiff-of-failure syndrome. It certainly didn't break out last weekend, and there has been a great deal of media attention this week about its poor performance. So, unfortunately, it's been labeled as "damaged goods" to moviegoers who instead either opted for Narnia, or, more likely, to save their stimulus check dough for Indy next week. I assume it will find its kid/stoner audience on DVD, but that won't be enough to stop it from being a colossal B.O. bomb.
Reagen Sulewski: I compare this a little to Starship Troopers - it's a film that alienated large sections of the audience, while throwing right into the wheel house of a select few. I admire the Wachowskis for getting someone to give them money to do this. I suppose this is their "freebie" from the Matrix trilogy (which made Warners approximately 17 jillion kabillion dollars) but they're really going to have to deliver something more mainstream next time - if they haven't already used up their currency with the public.
Kim Hollis: I think it's a combination of things. I do believe that the Wachowskis are damaged goods after the Matrix sequels, but I also think that once again, the marketing could have been improved immensely. Get the Speed Racer song out there to get people singing and feeling nostalgic. Give us some better idea of what is happening. People unfamiliar with the cartoon had no reason to see the film. And it's too bad because it's a totally unique project.
Just don't call them 'brothers'
Kim Hollis: At this point, do you think that advertising that a film is from the Wachowskis helps or hinders a movie?
David Mumpower: After the crushing disappointment most people felt regarding the Matrix sequels and now this, I think it's safe to say that they are in M. Night Shyamalan territory. Consumers have turned on them in a way that few people outside of Kevin Costner may understand.
Les Winan: Having eagerly paid to see Matrix 2 and somewhat less eagerly paid to see Matrix 3, the Wachowski's are in M. Night Shyamalan territory for me now...avoid at all costs until reivews and word-of-mouth tell me otherwise.
Shane Jenkins: I think the Wachowski name was meant to draw in adults who might otherwise have been turned off by a live action cartoon. Mission: fail.
Marty Doskins: I think this also works in the case of horror "master" Wes Craven. For a while it was a big draw if a movie's title started with "Wes Craven's..." or "Wes Craven presents..." Lately...not so much. I would also say that John Carpenter might fall into this category.
Kim Hollis: I'm not sure that their name hurt the movie all that much but I wouldn't be anxious to scream from the rooftops that they're involved with an project of mine. They've got the stink of failure on them now in addition to producing two less-than-acceptable sequels to a masterpiece.
Calvin Trager: Here's a related question to ponder: If you're the Wachowskis, what is your next project? I think they need to go small, find something story-driven along the lines of Bound. Another effects driven blockbuster-type attempt would be masochistic of them at this point.
David Mumpower: I think it's a fascinating topic. M. Night Shyamalan, the person we are putting in the same category with them, is doing something smart. He's adapting Avatar: The Last Airbender, which borders on a can't miss project, at least in theory. For the Wachowski Brothers, I think they need to be saved from theirselves a bit. Their next film needs to not rely on eye-popping visual effects. It needs to be something meaty that reminds people just how smart these guys are. And please, no one correct me on calling them both guys.
You people make us sad. Seriously.
Kim Hollis: What Happens in Vegas, the Cameron Diaz/Ashton Kutcher romantic comedy, fell only 31% in its second weekend. This $13.8 million outcome gives it a running total of $40.3 million. Why do you think it's doing so well?
David Mumpower: People are stupid.
Tim Briody: When men were given the choice by their wives/girlfriends to see either Made of Honor or What Happens In Vegas, they chose the less esmasculating option.
Reagen Sulewski: Vegas is as "hip" and "cool" with the general public as it's been since Rat Pack days, whether that's really deserved or not. It's something I noticed with 21, and I think that carried over here. You put that boozy, partying, gambling connection in your film, and people are going to come whether or not it actually has much to do with the film. Just a thought: "Prince Caspian in Vegas".
Kim Hollis: Say what you will about him, but Ashton Kutcher is a decent draw when it comes to opening films. And even if the commercials made me want to shoot my television, they sure weren't shy about marketing it. Those ads were everywhere.
Have you gotten your stimulus check yet?
Kim Hollis: After Iron Man had spectacular success the first week of May, we've had two films whose production budgets are roughly equivalent to the gross national product of Austria fail at the box office. Do you believe this is caused by the economy's recession or will things be back to normal with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull next week?
David Mumpower: I believe both, at least to an extent. I absolutely believe we will be back on track after Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull. That will give us two $100+ million budgeted productions that are hits and two that are disappointments/bombs in May. The concern I have is that we have already chronicled on many occasions the changing dynamic of movie revenue. In the past, the argument has always been that films are recession-proof. There is historical data to support this. My current supposition, however, is that the new marketplace climate has altered this fundamental premise about box office. Given the choice between a $20 Netflix/Blockbuster account or seeing a substandard title in theaters, the balance has tipped to the home video side. The equation we had for 70 years has been altered, meaning that movie marketers need to work that much harder to get consumers out of their homes. The recession will impact summer box office. I know that's a minority opinion, but I feel pretty comfortable in making that statement.
Shane Jenkins: I agree with David. I think that those consumers, who in years past might have seen nearly all of the summer's offerings, will be forced to be more choosy how they spend their gas and admission money this year, and will pick just the few movies they most want to see. I suspect this is good news for Indy and Batman, and probably less so for, say, X-Files 2.
Reagen Sulewski: Being in Canada, I don't feel as qualified to talk about your country's economic situation, but I will note that it's starting to bother me more to spend $12.50 on a film that's just "meh".
Kim Hollis: I think families in particular are going to be very choosy about where they spend their dollars. With gas prices causing a real trickle down effect to food and other necessities, movies and other frivolities have to be carefully considered. If you're a family of four and you assume the kids are going to want concessions, a day at the movies will cost upwards of $50 or more. People aren't going to be willing to spend that money on something that risks being sub-par (i.e. Speed Racer and to a lesser degree Prince Caspian). Instead, they're going carefully select what movies are worth that kind of expenditure. Iron Man had a masterful marketing campaign and was well-reviewed before release, and Indiana Jones is a true event picture. Other than that, I'm not sure what else will qualify as a major family release this summer until WALL-E. The Dark Knight is a movie that is awfully dark looking for kids.