Monday Morning Quarterback
By BOP Staff
September 25, 2008
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Lakeview Terrace, a relatively unheralded title that stars Samuel L. Jackson, Kerry Washington and Patrick Wilson, opened to $15.6 million. Do you consider this a good result for a racially charged drama with B-list actors?
Daron Aldridge: Considering Jackson's track record as an above the title star, this seems to be pretty expected. Jackson was really all it had going for it thanks to a generic title and an unimpressive string of ads. Personally, it had an odd vibe to it that was reminiscent to 1995's White Man's Burden with the race issue featured unconventionally. Strangely, this total is almost identical to the take of Snakes on a Plane without the Internet support.
Jason Lee: Racial drama with B-list actors grosses $5 million more than Mr. Hit-or-Miss Cage and $4 million less than the Coen bros. with a cast of A-list actors. Considering the state of the box-office this September, I call this a success.
Sean Collier: It's not just the actors. This has B-movie, in the classic sense, all over it; sensational drama, generic title and setting, looks-like-an-R-but-it's-a-PG-13. This should've done a fairly low number, schlepped around the bottom of the charts for a week or two, and then settled in for a nice stay at second-run theaters; somehow, it pulled in a number one spot. Blame it on the up-and-down star power of Jackson, which remains utterly unpredictable; his career fortune follows the backwards zodiac of some distant galaxy, or something.
Scott Lumley: I don't think we can really consider Samuel Jackson B-List anymore. He's pretty much penetrated the American subconscious and is recognized as being an entertaining actor. While this doesn't look like a blockbuster by any stretch of the imagination, I think a lot of the success here can be attributed to Mr. Jackson.
David Mumpower: I think this reflects the fact that audiences are inclined to give Samuel L. Jackson the benefit of the doubt on titles such as this that explore race relations. A largely forgotten 2002 release called Changing Lanes opened to $17.1 million, utilizing a similar advertising strategy. What I find most impressive about the $15.6 million performance is that it surpasses the over-hyped, tardy Snakes on a Plane's $15.2 million debut. Sure, Lakeview Terrace isn't going to become a pop culture meme, but it's made the same money, which is what matters.
Les Winan: Unlike David, I'm not quite prepared to assume that audiences look to Samuel L. Jackson for exploration of race relations...Cornel West he is not. Generally, I think they look to Samuel L. Jackson for MOTHERFU$%@# SHOUTING AND MOTHERF!@#*&G BOMBAST! And he reliably delivers.
Max Braden: I really didn't get an impression of a racial hook to the movie from the trailers. To me, it dealt with an extreme version of a problem many people deal with: annoying neighbors. The what-if of a neighbor who is untouchable seemed like a strong hook and the primary reason it did well. It made me think of Kurt Russell's similarly themed thriller Unlawful Entry back in 1992.
David Mumpower: The annoying neighbors thing has never meant big business on opening weekend. You reference Unlawful Entry, which debuted to only $10.1 million. I would also cite the example of Pacific Heights, a "Batman is a bad tenant" film that opened to only $6.9 million.
Max Braden: I'll point out that Unlawful Entry opened on Batman Returns' second weekend and had a per theater average larger than Lakeview's, and that's before 15 years of inflation. I'm not saying the genre is a big moneymaker, but I think the story hook was the primary reason people went to see Lakeview Terrace.
Tim Briody: Could there be any more lousy film titles mentioned in this topic?
Shane Jenkins: Um, Deck the Halls?
Reagen Sulewski: You all have convinced me - my screenplay entitled "Crisis in Generictown" is now up for bidding. I'm thinking of Billy Crudup and Jeff Bridges for the lead roles. I'm not greedy, so the bidding starts at $1 million.
The Cars are now Dane Cook's mortal enemies
Kim Hollis: My Best Friend's Girl, the latest attempt to shove Dane Cook down our throats as a romantic lead, opened to $8.3 million. Shouldn't a film co-starring Kate Hudson do better with this? Do you place the blame with Cook?
Daron Aldridge: My point of reference is how it was advertised. All the commercials I saw featured Dane Cook prominently acting like a tool and Kate Hudson had about five seconds of screen time in a 30 second spot. Therefore, I happily credit this failure to Cook. But let's not overstate Hudson's box office appeal. She has really only had three romantic comedies that earned more than $70 million or even close to that (two of which co-starred Matthew McConaughey and the other with Owen Wilson) and that isn't exactly a proven draw. A few hits does not make a star. So, I would argue that Hudson is also being shoved down our throats as a romantic lead.
Jason Lee: Cook and Hudson really are not big box-office draws, in my opinion. On top of that, films about men with one eyebrow rarely perform well.
Sean Collier: You can't blame Cook; frat boys and sorority girls who have never watched any actual stand-up comedy have always been his core audience, and those people still exist. Like his other films, it just seemed too damn unremarkable. I mean, how would you explain this movie to a friend? "Oh, it's a romantic comedy about...you know, it's a romantic comedy. About romance. And...humor." He should probably just pick a movie with a plot.
Scott Lumley: With regard to Cook, do we have to stop with blame? Can we move right into mob hit territory?
Tim Briody: I'm very glad there are diminishing returns from Good Luck Chuck. Dane Cook can go away any time now, thanks. And have we really established Kate Hudson as a draw? Not yet, sorry to say.
Les Winan: I think this result underscores the way the bulk of the American people feel about Dane Cook..."who"?
David Mumpower: John Hamann made a good point in the Weekend Wrap-Up with his comment that Matthew McConaughey makes Kate Hudson a bigger star than she is on her own. If we look at films where she was the draw instead of him or Owen Wilson, the results are disastrous, save for Skeleton Key, whose concept was the selling point. This title promptly joins Raising Helen, Alex & Emma, and The Four Feathers as would-be romantic films of hers that North American audiences soundly rejected. And Cook is like her save for a $15 million opening in his career. He's just riding the wave until his inevitable role as an acerbic maverick mystery solver in some 2012 television series. Until then, he'll just keep proving that people do not want to see him in movies.
Calvin Trager: His detective will need a quirky characteristic or disorder of some kind. I'd like to go on record with the suggestion of Asperger's Syndrome. Because Dane Cook is an ass burger, this will not require him to stretch his already thin acting ability.
Max Braden: Blame the advertising on this, unless they really had nothing to work with. You'd barely know Kate Hudson was in the movie based on the trailers which featured Cook behaving like an ass with no story. I actually thought Cook performed well as a romantic pair in Employee of the Month. This was an awful ad campaign.
Shane Jenkins: It's become something of a national pastime to dump on Dane Cook lately. And who am I to be anti-American? He's the worst. Maybe he should keep his rants about the lameness of the movie's poster to himself. And who exhumed Jason Biggs? Are Freddie Prinze Jr. and Mena Suvari in this too? I've got Rachel Leigh Cook on speed-dial. Let's party like it's 1999!
Les Winan: Shane, Chris Klein is on line one for you.
Reagen Sulewski: I'm worried that the lesson Cook's learned here is that his next movie will have to be *more* misogynistic.
Pete Kilmer: Who's Kate Hudson again?
The real problem is that John Cusack is voicing an ugly dude. What are they, crazy?,
Kim Hollis: Igor, the first true kids' release since Space Chimps, opened with $8 million. Is this win, lose or draw for MGM and the Weinsteins?
David Mumpower: A lot depends on whether or not Igor has Space Chimps-like legs. With this start and a $30 million budget, there isn't any upside to its theatrical release. And with some brutal reviews and word-of-mouth, I don't it's the talk of the daycare center and soccer practice, either.
Max Braden: Neither studio name invokes images of dollar signs or children's movies. It's at least a bigger opening than Doogal two years ago.
Shane Jenkins: I've never seen so much as a commercial or trailer for this. Obviously, I'm not its target audience, but I'm honestly surprised it pulled together this much. I was expecting more Grace is Gone-type numbers.
Reagen Sulewski: If you're not Pixar or making a Shrek sequel, why even bother?
Daron Aldridge: I had no clue this one even existed until Reagen's weekend forecast. So, I guess this is a decent enough take for the studios that didn't seem to support it with a bigger marketing push.
Jason Lee: Based on the perceived quality of the film alone, I think this is a "lose" situation. I know that MGM is merely a distribution company right now, but they certainly have some questionable taste when it comes to their films (other than Rocky Balboa and 1408).
Scott Lumley: The animation on this looks very sharp, if extremely stylized, and some of the commercials show off some humorous stuff. Unfortunately, this is a movie about re-animating the dead and mad science. Two topics that don't always go over well with the family crowd. I'm pegging this at about a little over $30 million for its entire run and hopefully that makes back the investment that the Weinsteins put into it.
The movie's title also doubled as a description of theaters this weekend
Kim Hollis: And finally, Ghost Town, the impeccably reviewed Ricky Gervais comedy, managed $5.2 million in 1,505 venues. Why do you think Paramount's marketing failed on this one?
Daron Aldridge: I know that I am not alone with the praise for Gervais' previous work, but this one came across as fairly bland. Obviously, the reviews are showing that isn't the case with the end product but it didn't translate enough to get people in theaters opening weekend. Maybe with the support of critics, Paramount will give it some expansion and start touting its critical praise. That would require that they haven't already abandoned hope for the movie.
Jason Lee: Personally, I think British humor is hard to sell to American audiences. Sure Benny Hill cracked our market but that's only because he moved really, really fast.
Sean Collier: Don't tell Judd Apatow, but it hasn't been a good year for comedy. Of the ten highest grossing films to date this year, the only true adult comedy is Sex and the City. Expand that to a top 20, and you can bring in Get Smart, Tropic Thunder, Step Brothers, and (sigh) You Don't Mess With the Zohan - four star-driven films. Well-reviewed or not, most comedies without a big name are finding more meager audiences in 2008 - the best Ghost Town can hope for is to stick around for a while as a sleeper hit. All this, by the way, is likely bad news for How to Lose Friends and Alienate People.
Scott Lumley: Despite how talented he is, Gervais is far from a household name. Also, the commercials looked mildly funny, but not hysterically so. The trailers that were attached to feature releases were a lot funnier and did a lot better job of establishing what was going on in this film. The 30 second spots on TV have not done as good a job, and are actually pretty badly disjointed. This may yet do some business due to its excellent reviews and word-of-mouth, but it looks like the ball got dropped somewhere.
Pete Kilmer: I'm a fan of Ricky, but I could have cared less about this. If this is something that is trying to Americanize him, then it failed. If he wants to crack the American movie market, he needs to continue in supporting roles in Ben Stiller films and get hooked up with the Apatow crew. Since most of American does not have BBC America or HBO at home, no one knows who he is. Which is a shame.
Les Winan: You know, I'm a huge Gervais fan (I've watched and re-watched The Office and Extras, I read his blog, I've listened to all the podcasts), but the ads for this movie made me not want to see it. Every ad and trailer that I saw for Ghost Town failed to show Gervais being funny, which I would have assumed was the point of the film in the first place.
David Mumpower: I completely agree with Les. I am not the biggest fan of Gervais, but I had been inclined to give this movie a chance. Then, I saw the trailer. There was a much better chance of me seeing the movie before I watched an ad for it. There is no bigger indictment of marketing than that. When the reviews came in and were glowing, I was absolutely mystified. How can a paid professional not better encapsulate a quality movie? And why didn't the studio show more support than a 1,500 venue release plan? This release has been betrayed every step of the way.
Max Braden: It just looked pedestrian. That said, I saw it tonight and enjoyed it. I'm sure it will be more successful in its DVD release.
Shane Jenkins: I'm still planning to see this, but I agree that marketing dropped the ball. The trailers they produced seemed designed to appeal to non-fans of Gervais. I think that approach failed, and they also managed to turn off his core crowd. The movie itself has to be better than the commercials, right?
Reagen Sulewski: Has there ever been a successful ghost comedy that didn't have the word "busters" in the title? Why do people keep returning to this idea?
Kevin Chen: Well, there was "Ghost".
Reagen Sulewski: You know as well as I do that all of Whoopi Goldberg's films were reclassified as "not funny" in the It Never Happened Act of 2002.
Shane Jenkins: I hear she's in negotiations for something called "Crisis in Generictown."