Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
June 9, 2008
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Kung Fu Panda karate chopped its way to $60.2 million this weekend, making it the fifth best opening for a non-sequel animated property ever. This is the best such opening ever for DreamWorks, so do you agree that they should be thrilled with this opening? How do you explain such a positive opening?
Max Braden: When you animate animals acting silly, you pretty much guarantee box office from kid audiences. And who doesn't love pandas? Their cuddle factor completely lures the viewer into believing they aren't killer whales on land. The trailer got a favorable response from adults in front of other theatrical releases, mostly due to Jack Black's name. I think the only surprise is that it pulled in over 25% more money than Madagascar's $47 million on the same number of screens three years ago.
Joel Corcoran: How can DreamWorks be anything but thrilled with this result? Shrek opened to $42.5 million in 2001, and in inflation-adjusted dollars, that would be equivalent to $51 million today. So, Kung Fu Panda had an 18% higher opening at a time when gas prices are going through the roof and we're in a recession. I think it's a spectacular opening, bordering on utterly remarkable. I think the impressive opening resulted from Jack Black's name on the project and DreamWorks' growing public appeal in animated films. Assuming a Kung Fu Panda sequel is in development (and I don't know why it wouldn't be), DreamWorks now has a pretty impressive stable of animation franchises and an available replacement for when Shrek ends its run of movies. These films don't have the critical acclaim and reputation as Disney or Pixar films, but it's clear that Dreamworks has the pulse of the nation when it comes to animated films that tap into pop culture - kind of in the same way as the Bob Hope/Bing Crosby "Road" movies of the 1940s and '50s.
Tim Briody: It's all in the title, really. Kung fu + pandas = box office. Move over penguins, it's all about pandas now.
Reagen Sulewski: That's just the thing, Joel, this doesn't tap into pop culture. It's a surprisingly stand-alone film from a studio that's foisted the likes of Shark Tale on us. What I think made the difference was the sheer joy that came through the screen. You just can't fake that.
Kim Hollis: That's right, Reagen. Kung Fu Panda has absolutely zero to do with pop culture, which is a pleasant surprise. It's timeless and is probably going to be the only DreamWorks film that holds up long-term (Over the Hedge is a little bit "of its time" even if I think it's a wonderful little movie).
Calvin Trager: Would this be a good time to mention that Madagascar did this exact opening three years ago? I think there are three questions worth considering and one of them has yet to be answered. So, is Kung Fu Panda any good and will first responders take the chance to find out? Those two questions received an emphatic "yes!" this weekend. The remaining question is whether in terms of total potential box office we're looking at another Madagascar (3.2 times opening weekend) or are we looking instead at Monsters, Inc. (4 times opening weekend)? The answer is worth about $50 million.
David Mumpower: Madagascar's opening wasn't the same since it was a four-day, holiday-inflated total of $61.0 million. In three days, that title earned $47.2 million and even if we update that to 2008 ticket prices of $7.11 from 2005's $6.41, it "only" gets to $52.3 million. Explaining the success of Kung Fu Panda is pretty easy for me. Ever since I first heard about the title's nature, I realized that they could re-do Shrek but hide it with a different skin. The title still offers the same fat jokes, the same ugly duck themes and the same hero within character arc. It also offers the happy bonus of having a kung fu tie-in, which is something kids love that has never been explored for them and it does so in a fashion that makes the product tolerable for adults. This entire project has been a win right from the start. I'm guessing DreamWorks knew they had a huuuuge winner two minutes into the pitch meeting.
Calvin Trager: Crud. Back to the shallow end of the pool for me - Prince Caspian sucks!
Mmmm, comfort food
Kim Hollis: Does the Kung Fu Panda result show that audiences are looking for something new as opposed to the same old, same old in animation?
Max Braden: I haven't seen Kung Fu Panda yet but it doesn't strike me as anything new or different. It reminds me of Robin Williams' genie in Aladdin and Disney's animated Robin Hood from 35 years ago. I think it just shows there's a market for basic fun in animation as much as there is for eye popping visuals like in Ratatouille and Wall-E.
Joel Corcoran: I agree with Max - I don't see anything new or different in Kung Fu Panda. It follows the same basic formula as Shrek, which (as I alluded to earlier) is essentially the same formula as the "Road to ... " movies sixty years ago. Take a leading comedian of the day (Bob Hope, Jack Black, or Mike Myers) and surround him with comedians and entertainers who are somewhat popular, but who still won't steal the star's limelight (Bing Crosby, Anthony Quinn, Jackie Chan, Seth Rogen, Eddie Murphy, John Lithgow). Then throw in a female foil (Dorothy Lamour, Cameron Diaz, Angelina Jolie) and toss the whole mix into a basic, simple, easy-to-follow traveling plot and you've got a hit. Lather, rinse, and repeat for sequels. DreamWorks has simple copied the formula that Paramount Pictures made popular during World War II.
Tim Briody: It was certainly different and inventive enough than your typical talking animals animated feature, which is otherwise pretty played out. Sorry, Space Chimps.
Kim Hollis: The thing about Kung Fu Panda that is surprising is that the commercials and trailers don't really give away the best bits. It is gorgeously animated, which has not been typical for DreamWorks productions. It's closer to feeling like a Pixar film than a DreamWorks film, honestly, because it's got a wonderful, patient story that isn't dumbed down in the least. I would still say that Pixar's technological expertise when it comes to animation is better, but DreamWorks took a big, big step forward here. That qualifies as "different" to me.
David Mumpower: I'm not sure originality is a good thing for a family film anyway, at least not from a financial perspective. Kim is absolutely correct that the visual landscape in Kung Fu Panda is easily the best DreamWorks has done, though. More than anything else, what I think the movie accomplishes is that it encourages their production staff to, well, try. The people who worked on Shrek the Third should be summarily demoted and forced to work under the KFP crew.
Sunday, Sunday, Sunday! Panda vs. Robot in no-holds-barred match!
Kim Hollis: Given that Pixar's opening weekends seem to be on the decline, do you see WALL-E matching/exceeding Kung Fu Panda's result or do you think bragging rights will go to DreamWorks this summer?
Max Braden: The strength of WALL-E's visuals is obvious, but the "okay, but what's it about?" factor isn't. I actually have to keep reassuring myself that it won't turn into a trippy epic like 2001 or A.I. But I think WALL-E will pick up as much additional adult audience as it cedes in the kid demographic to Kung Fu Panda. So I can see Panda winning the opening weekend title but WALL-E finishing with a greater total gross.
Joel Corcoran: Pixar's movies have always been better than DreamWorks' animation releases, and I think they'll continue to be better. But as we know in this business, critically "better" doesn't always mean "more popular" or "more profitable." Personally, I think it'll be a draw between WALL-E and Kung Fu Panda in terms of opening weekend and total box office take (domestic and international), but WALL-E will get and win more award nominations this year.
Tim Briody: Kung Fu Panda's opening handily beats Ratatouille, and barely beats Cars' $60.1, but I don't see WALL-E beating this opening. It wouldn't shock anyone for WALL-E to eventually come out on top, but for the time being, DreamWorks is the one to beat this summer.
Kim Hollis: I'm going out on a limb and saying WALL-E opens to $70 million or more. It looks adorable, and it's much, much easier to sell a cute robot than it is a charming rat or even a talking car.
Reagen Sulewski: I think they've getting better at letting people know what it's about, but they almost don't need to. My take on this is that it's kind of like a reverse E.T., and the personality of the main character is endearing and immediately obvious to kids.
David Mumpower: I agree with Kim. Feel free to bookmark this post and mock me later if I'm wrong, but I believe Wall-E will be the biggest three-day opening ever for Pixar. The character is immediately lovable, a problem Ratatouille had trouble overcoming. And the promise of Pixar animating outer space sequences is enough to pull in adults who might have waited until DVD for other releases of theirs. I will be very, very surprised if Wall-E cannot manage a total in excess of $60 million on opening weekend.
James D. Ruccio: I agree with David and Kim here and immediately identified with the character. It is absolutely a classic, animated archetype. I think this does $70 million very easily. The story is obvious. The visuals are lush and upfront. It appears very amusing and perhaps even funny.