Monday Morning Quarterback
By BOP Staff
September 9, 2008
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Bangkok Dangerous opened to $7.8 million and had a per venue average of $2,937. Lionsgate is claiming victory since they cheaply acquired distribution rights. Can you really claim a victory with this kind of total?
Reagen Sulewski: This is sort of like the equivalent of surviving a car wreck and saying it was a positive since you didn't pay very much for the car. Also, it's not a very effective way of getting on Nicolas Cage's good side, if indeed that is something you want to do.
Max Braden: Based on Cage's de facto satisfaction with the on set hair stylist for this movie, I wonder if he has a bad side anyone could get on.
Jamie Ruccio: Has Nicolas Cage decided to just take it and do whatever script comes across his agency's desk that's in English? Lionsgate may be able to claim victory in a financial sense but they should question their souls.
Pete Kilmer: This will clear big money in the international markets and on DVD. For a movie like this I truly suspect that anything it makes at the box office is 'gravy' on top of international/dvd business. And Jamie...Nic Cage is in his Gene "I'll Do every film that comes my way in the late 1980s" Hackman phase of his career.
Tim Briody: I kind of thought sub-$10 million box office champions had gone the way of the dodo, but this exceeded all expectations.
Reagen Sulewski: Joining such luminary underachieving overachievers (I hope that makes sense) as Dickie Roberts: Child Star and Fire Down Below!
Scott Lumley: Profit is profit. If they made money off this film after putting up next to no cash for it, then it's a success.
Brandon Scott: It's claiming victory from the jaws of defeat, I guess. They won, obviously, but the total is more wilted than three week old lettuce.
Daron Aldridge: The only people who can claim victory with this movie are the late night talk show hosts who can say the name of the movie repeatedly without fear of being censored.
Sean Collier: Lionsgate won this weekend like the Patriots won this weekend - technically, there was a victory, but all anyone can remember is something ugly and painful that we'd like to put behind us
Jason Lee: The only "victory" is that they managed to grab that #1 spot at the box-office. There's no real money for anyone here - they just managed to be the least worse performer among the new openers. It's like getting an F+ . . . it sounds promising until you spend more than two seconds thinking about it.
David Mumpower: The premise here is that the studio will have made a tiny, tiny amount of money off of this release by the time it exits theaters. The hope would be that viewers will not associate the actual quality of the movie with Lionsgate and even if they do, that's not a studio that screams "I'd like to thank the Academy" anyway.
Who loves Nic Cage? We're not sure.
Kim Hollis: We seem to have this discussion on a biannual basis, but why is Nic Cage so inconsistent at being a box office draw?
Reagen Sulewski: He's clearly picking projects that he thinks are the most fun for him personally. Which, hey, I'd probably do as well if I was making the kind of scratch he is. They just don't match up at all with what people want to see, or are sorely lacking in the quality department. "Gritty" and "Arty" Nic Cage are just not things people care about. Broadly comic or adventuring Nic Cage... well, sign people up for that, apparently.
Max Braden: I have trouble seeing him having fun in stuff other than National Treasure, though he seems to do more of the dark action like 8MM, Ghost Rider, and Bangkok Dangerous. Keanu Reeves is kind of the same way. Maybe they should team up for a buddy comedy.
Jamie Ruccio: I'd love to know how his project-picking sessions go with his agency. Is he being pushed in a direction or is he picking these films on his own? If he is, what is his thought process? Is it a desire to do films with a particular feel that appeals to him or is a strictly practical decision to do work that he thinks may have a chance to be successful? As Max mentions, he seems to pick material that's darker in tone. Sometimes I think actors believe that darker films offer them more opportunity to delve into their craft.
Pete Kilmer: As I said in earlier, I really think Nic Cage is following the Gene Hackman model for his career. Gene at one point in the late 1980s was in EVERYTHING. Nic's doing that while he has box office clout. We also have to remember the international market for some of these guys. Movies that bomb here wind up doing really well overseas so that when it hits DVD/on demand...they're making big money at that point.
Jason Lee: I think there's an obvious answer here: we are seeing Charlie and Donald Kaufman at work here (Cage's characters from Adaptation). Charlie likes the risky, artsy, somewhat out-there films while Donald likes the commercially-viable, cookie-cutter films. I bet you guys didn't know that Adaptation was really a documentary.
Sean Collier: There are plenty of stars who can't seem to consistently pick the right project, but Cage ticks back and forth like clockwork. Perhaps his personal tastes just tend towards B-films, or perhaps he doesn't know that you're allowed to fire your agent, but this trend doesn't show signs of breaking. I'd blame the films, not the performer; Cage has never been an automatic draw, and isn't really seen as a true action star, so his films have to sink or swim on their own. Plus, his track record is starting to catch up with him; the vast majority of the coverage of Bangkok Dangerous I've seen has basically been "Hehehehehe Wicker Man." That's not going to bog down National Treasure 2, but it'll hurt a film with a title as stupid as this one.
Daron Aldridge: There is the obvious Bruckheimer excuse that people like to see him in really stylistically shot action/adventure movies but this one and Next work hard to disprove that theory. The strange thing for me is that even when actually acting with notable and acclaimed directors, like Martin Scorsese in Bringing Out the Dead, Ridley Scott in Matchstick Men or Spike Jonze in Adaptation, the films underperform at the box office. He might be crossing into the Harrison Ford territory of audiences liking him just playing a variation of himself and not stretching.
Brandon Scott: Too many movies is the easiest answer, and the correct one at that. Overexposure is the curse of the myopian. His formula should be no more than one "big" pic per 12-18 months or so and one smaller pic peppered in between. Even with that he is probably overexposed to some extent, but he is a proven capable actor and proven box office draw, so please Nicky, limit the number of pics you make, choose quality over quantity and its a win-win for everyone.
Scott Lumley: Nic subscribes to the quantity over quality theory of moviemaking. To put it more succinctly, if they offer him the part, he takes it and gets paid. If it's a hit, that's great, so long as the check clears. I find it fairly hard to slag a guy for doing what he wants to do and getting paid for it. Wouldn't a better question be "How does Nic Cage keep getting work?"
David Mumpower: The only logical inference here is that Cage's scriptwriter doesn't speak English. They pick whichever script has the best font and highest quality paper.
I got the No One Wants to See My Movie and It's Making Me Cry blues
Kim Hollis: This is the worst box office weekend since the pair of weekends after 9/11. Do we think this is just a fluke or are we blaming football as the boogeyman? If not those reasons, why is box office suffering so badly?
Reagen Sulewski: Can we blame the writer's strike? The summer really petered out fast in terms of quality, leaving some pretty meager scraps for this period.
Max Braden: There's not much to choose from when there's only one new wide release. Meanwhile, September 19th is stuffed with new releases. It might have helped if the planners had coordinated calendars. I mean come on, this could have been My Best Friend's Girl's only chance at being number one, instead of number two.
Pete Kilmer: Due to the writers strike, look for a lot of weekends like this until April of next year. We'll still have some big hits, but the studios are moving them around (Star Trek, Harry Potter) to take advantage of the opening weekends.
Jamie Ruccio: As we've seen it doesn't matter when a film opens, If people want to see it, they will go see it. The reverse is true. I really think it's just a lack of interesting films.
Scott Lumley: I think this is the end result of what has simply been a monstrous summer at the theatres. I myself went to nine different films this year and there were two that I saw more than once. (Kung Fu Panda and the Dark Knight.) The audience is still there, but they're sated and a little fatigued. I think the better question might be when are we going to see a summer this amazing again?
Brandon Scott: I was ready to gladly claim football as the reason being that it grabbed me and everyone I know, but hearing of those horrific numbers makes me think something else is at play. The box office has been lagging for the last month or so in terms of big pics. When Tropic Thunder didn't strike an initial bolt of lightning, I think that was kind of the beginning of the decline to where we are. It's held well in part as a result of no other decent competition. But with the Summer season doing as well as it did as a whole, I don't see any big picture concerns based simply on this weekend. Other issues come into play over the long haul, of course.
Daron Aldridge: It struck me as odd that there was only one new release this week. Aside from studios steering clear of the competition during the summer (a la The Dark Knight), that doesn't really happen outside of January, September or the weekend of the Oscars. It seems that studios simply have no faith in September (or January) to be nothing more than a dumping ground. So each September, we are stuck with what they are just trying to unload from their shelves until the award hopefuls get released.
Sean Collier: People turned up at the multiplex quite a bit this summer despite high gas prices, ticket inflation, and so-so reviews for everything not named The Dark Knight and WALL-E. That kind of boom is just naturally going to be followed by a dip, especially with few releases of any note.
Jason Lee: Without The Dark Knight's phenomenal success, this summer would be WAY behind last summer. Considering this, it's little wonder that we had a (very) bad September weekend, especially when the only studio that wanted to put a new product in the market was little ole Lionsgate.
David Mumpower: This is the first ripple from the writers' strike. There is much less product being stretched out over the next six months. Fewer releases means lower overall revenue for the top 10/12 and it also means there will be the occasional weekends such as this where there is truly nothing worth seeing. Be forewarned: we are only getting started with this problem.
Cowboys to win it all. You heard it here first. Or last. -- Kim Hollis
Kim Hollis: And finally, with the only topic you really care about this week, what are your NFL picks this year?
Reagen Sulewski: San Diego beats New Orleans.
Pete Kilmer: With Brady down for the year...I think it *could* be the Colts year again...though not based on that game against Chicago. Peyton and the team will work out their 'timing' issues quickly and then run roughshod over the division.
Jamie Ruccio: Brady is down. I don't care about football anymore. In fact, I don't care about much anymore. I'm just going to wander out in traffic and let whatever happens, happen.
Sean Collier: Anyone sleeping on the Steelers is invited to get sacked from behind by James Harrison; they're going to the AFC Championship Game, if not farther. The Eagles are pretty interesting as well; with Brady's injury and the Chargers and Colts getting spanked, it could be a much different AFC this year. In the NFC, could we finally have the long-awaited year of Saints dominance, please? Oh, and I handily won my fantasy matchup this week despite my quarterback being one Thomas Brady. Willie Parker and Reggie Bush FTW.
Daron Aldridge: Wow. After that opening day, there is no telling what may happen, with the unexpected wins, losses and injuries. I will predict, though, that Brett Favre will retire in the middle of the season and unretire to be traded to New England and lead the Brady-less Patriots to a Super Bowl victory after barely winning a wild card spot. Okay, maybe not.
Brandon Scott: Since I am a Charger die-hard, I died harder than Bruce Willis this weekend, so it's hard to separate head from heart. Given this, I will go Colts vs. Cowboys and say that the 'Boys get it done, even if that is not what I hope for by any means. I can tell you that the Raiders will be Chokeland again, that we can always count on. Ohhh, that was fun...the Chargers loss doesn't feel as bad now. How cathartic.
Scott Lumley: Sadly, I must pick Dallas. Although if you had asked me this question four hours ago, just before Tom Brady injured himself I would have had an entirely different New England based pick.
David Mumpower: Since my beloved Falcons are still a year (or twenty) away, I see the division champions as: Denver, Tennessee Pittsburgh, New England (despite the devastating loss of Brady), Seattle, New Orleans, Green Bay and the Giants. Just to be different, I'll predict a Tennessee/Green Bay Super Bowl. I'm not crazy about either team's QB, so that's a concern for each. Plus, I'll certainly be rooting for the epic potential of a Jets/Packers match-up for the title, but those are the teams I believe have the best defenses in each league.
Jason Lee: I pick whatever team Michael Phelps is on to win the Super Bowl.