Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
December 31, 2008
BoxOfficeProphets.com
David Mumpower: How many actors do you consider to be a bigger box office draw than Adam Sandler?
Scott Lumley: I think Will Smith is still the 900 pound gorilla in this category, and we need to show some respect to Morgan Freeman and the clean and sober Robert Downey Jr. Christian Bale also seems to have a lot of muscle lately with a chunk of the Terminator franchise coming down the pipe on the heels of the Dark Knight and the possibility of a third batman movie. A few weeks ago I would have heartily said Jim Carrey as well, but his track record recently is spottier than a leopard with freckles, and Yes Man isn't helping him at all in that regard.
Joel Corcoran: My snarky reply would be "most of them," but that would be untrue. And unfair. I think Scott lists most of the top favorites right now, though I would still put Jim Carrey slightly ahead of Adam Sandler. In addition to the five actors that Scott mentioned, I came up with at least 29 more actors who I think were better box office draws than Adam Sandler (based on box office performance over the past year or two and films coming out in the next year or two): Brad Pitt; George Clooney; John Malkovich; Keanu Reeves; Kevin Spacey; the Cloverfield Monster; Hayden Christiansen; Seth Rogen; James Franco; Zac Efron; Will Ferrell; John C. Reilley; Brendan Fraser; Jack Black; Ben Stiller; Steve Carrell; James McAvoy; Edward Norton; Daniel Craig; Robert Pattinson; Daniel Radcliffe; Tom Cruise; Brad Pitt; Eddie Murphy; Clint Eastwood; Shia LaBeouf; Harrison Ford; Terrence Howard; Tobey Maguire; Cillian Murphy, and Johnny Depp.
Scott Lumley: Well of course you came up with 29 more actors! I am incredibly lazy after all. Shockingly, I didn't realize that success at Adam Sandler's level was such an accessible club.
I'm unsure what exactly it says about some of these actors, however. Hayden Christiansen? The Cloverfield Monster??!?!?!? I'm not sure animated characters count for this question.
Joel Corcoran: It's all a matter of opinion, of course. And I didn't count the Cloverfield Monster as one of the 29 actors - I threw that in there to see if anyone was paying attention. However, on further reflection, the Cloverfield Monster did demonstrate a better range of emotion and more dynamic acting than Sandler, so maybe "he" belongs on the list after all.
Sean Collier: I commented last week on the slate of former comedy heavyweights who've failed to meet expectations, to varying degrees, this year. If I were Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, Jim Carrey, or Adam Sandler, I'd be looking with contempt upon the likes of Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill. While the old hands were enjoying their fame, the rules for comedy changed, and they tended away from over-the-top, '90s-style efforts. Sandler is among a long list of people who needs to fully reinvent himself, and not just with a serious role every two or three years.
Reagen Sulewski: As far as Joel's list goes, I'd be amused to see, say, Terrence Howard try and open You Don't Mess With the Zohan.
Pete Kilmer: I think Joel's list is pretty strong. But don't count out Sandler as too old to adapt. He's a smart guy and I could see him hooking up with the Apatow crew for something and I think he'd totally fit with them on the right project. In fact I think he'd be great to join the Apatow crew for that rumored Ghostbusters project.
Scott Lumley: Terrence Howard? Let's shoot the moon here and see if George Clooney or Tom Cruise could open that film. If we're gonna dream, we should dream big.
Jamie Ruccio: I want to take off on something Sean mentioned when he listed Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, Jim Carrey, or Adam Sandler. All of these comedic actors where bankable stars for several years. I think the shelf life of comedic actors in movies is five to seven years or two or three movies, which ever comes first. For whatever reason they don't seem to last beyond those guidelines.
I think the smart ones diversify their careers like Carrey has attempted to do with forays into more serious roles and Eddie Murphy did by embracing family fare (imagine if you'd told someone in the late '80s that Eddie Murphy would have a career in movies playing a wholesome father who talks to animals in a Dr. Dolittle remake? They'd have taken your Members Only jacket away).
I think Sandler with Bedtime Stories banked away the family demo for later use in case other ventures fail.
And if I'm Will Ferrell I'm nervous about the next few years (although if Land of the Lost is family friendly, he's perhaps ahead of me here).
Kim Hollis: Covering many, many responses to various answers that we've already received here, I think Joel's list is all wrong in a lot of ways. I'm not really understanding why so many of us here are ringing the death knell for Sandler's career. He's about as consistent an opener as is working in the business today. If we exclude his dramas (Reign Over Me, Spanglish, Punch-Drunk Love) and his animated anomaly (Eight Crazy Nights), his last seven movies prior to Bedtime Stories opened to $34 million or more and all finished in excess of $100 million. How is that not more consistent than anyone in the business? And Bedtime Stories looks to add to that success, in my opinion. It had $38 million over the four-day Christmas weekend, and I suspect he'll have another $100 million earner on his resume by the time it's all said and done.
As for his career trajectory, Pete mentions that Sandler might hook up with Judd Apatow. We already know that he has done just that as Apatow co-wrote Zohan. And Sandler's next project, Funny People, is both written and directed by Apatow. It features not just Sandler, but also current hot comedy actors like Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill. I think Sandler knows what his fans want, and I accept that Joel obviously isn't one of them. You still can't get past the fact that he always delivers on his promise and does so while being one of the most decent people in Hollywood, to boot. None of the people Joel lists can claim the same - at least not with some kind of franchise backing them up.
Ahhhh! It's creepy CGI Pitt!
David Mumpower: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, the high profile Paramount release featuring Brad Pitt, earned $27.2 million over the weekend and has already made $39.0 million in four days. How impressed are you by this result?
Scott Lumley: It's impressive, and from what I've heard it's going to have some long, long legs. I don't think Titanic or Dark Knight have a lot to worry about, but this one could have significant impact. I shudder to think how well this film could be doing if there had been some proper trailers made for it, because every one I saw did not move me to see this film at all.
Joel Corcoran: It's pretty impressive actually. Thoughtful, creative movies like Benjamin Button rarely do well around the holidays, so to see it at least in the same league as more traditional fare - Marley & Me and Bedtime Stories - is impressive enough. Yes, it stars Brad Pitt who is usually a box office draw, but this is not the traditional "Brad Pitt vehicle" like Ocean's Eleven or Mr. & Mrs. Smith. On a reported $150 million budget, it'll have a tough time making a profit strictly at the box office, but it should do well enough in DVD sales to be more than profitable.
Sean Collier: I agree - it's hard to figure out exactly how this film drew people in. The marketing was so slight, it bordered on subliminal, Brad Pitt is a draw but not a knockout, and the film certainly seemed tough, especially for casual moviegoers. If anything, I'd credit buzz and pre-release hype (I've been hearing about this one for about nine months now,) as well as the look of the film, which had a certain appeal.
Reagen Sulewski: Yeah, this was always a little bit of a wildcard - it had a feel of a film that could potential be the one that people felt like they were being told to care about but that just didn't register (in retrospect, that was Seven Pounds this year). Give Pitt a lot of the credit, but having a beautifully advertised film with a unique hook sure didn't hurt.
Jim Van Nest: While most movie goers pay little to no attention to reviews, there are two cases where Joe the Movie Goer will pay attention. When the reviews are monumentally bad and when the reviews are overwhelmingly good. I think the fact that I've yet to see a negative review for this film helps reach some people who may not otherwise have checked it out. It's a case where people think, "Everyone is raving about this movie. Maybe I should see it."
Daron Aldridge: I am pretty impressed because of the limitations of its running time that it was able to keep pace with Bedtime Stories. The TV commercials didn't do a lot to convince me to see it but given its regular comparison to Forrest Gump in scope and storytelling, a 30 second commercial probably isn't doing it justice. But that $150 million budget is a scary obstacle to overcome. It will need the support of Oscar to come close to breaking even. Maybe those Aniston interviews referencing Pitt, unintentionally helped as well.
Jamie Ruccio: I think this is fairly impressive. It most reminds me of "Big Fish" which opened, after a 4 week limited run, to $13.8 million. It then coased for another four to six weeks with holiday legs and weekly drops of 20% - 35% for a cumulative total of $66 million.
Adjusted for inflation, star power, and possible award consideration I could see this being very leggy as well. As mentioned by Daron, I do wonder if Aniston and Pitt had a lunch somewhere remote to cook up a promo blitz.
Scott Lumley: I really do wonder why this film cost $150 million. I realize it spans a number of historical genres, but should it cost that much?
Kim Hollis: Scott, I presume it's the various CGI needed to age and add youth to all of the various characters. As for the opening, I think this is an excellent start and adds a lot to Button's Oscar candidacy. The Academy really likes money makers. I'm not as sold on word-of-mouth yet as some others here, though. It's only 72% fresh at RottenTomatoes. I also wonder if there wasn't potentially an early rush to see it from certain David Fincher fanboys. Yes, I know that they all didn't go out and support Zodiac on opening weekend, but given that film's subject matter, $13.4 million was really quite solid. I'll be fascinated to see how it holds up as its Oscar chances rise or fall.
Nothing says Christmas like Nazis
David Mumpower: Valkyrie, the Tom Cruise drama about the plot to assassinate Hitler, earned $30 million over its first four days. Should MGM be pleased with this performance?
Scott Lumley: $30 million appears to be the baseline for the weekend. So I'm going to say that no, they shouldn't be. Why in the world are they releasing this film at Christmas? Does this really scream "holiday film" to anyone?
Eric Hughes: Well, any Jews who celebrate their Christmases at the movie theater would certainly find something to like in Valkyrie.
Joel Corcoran: I think MGM should be pleased that Valkyrie didn't completely tank. Soon after Tom Cruise and United Artists got involved, this was a project with immense risks. Problems shooting in Germany, especially with some very touchy cultural and historical considerations; Cruise's links to Scientology conflicting with the vast majority of people believing the Church of Scientology is little more than a cult; Tom Cruises own couch-jumping antics; a rogue head writer (Christopher McQuarrie) who wasn't exactly the most public advocate of the film; and some very vitriolic comments about Cruise from the real-life son of the hero of the film - Berthold Schenk von Stauffenberg, son of Claus von Stauffenberg, who Cruise portrays - all created a very volatile mix of PR problems that could've damned this film from the beginning. Yet, what emerged was a very solid thriller, a good story, and a film that may not be spectacular, but should be very successful at the end of its run. All of the MGM executives sweating over this movie all weekend probably deserve a nice week off heading into the New Year.
Reagen Sulewski: See, I think this is arguably the most impressive performance of the weekend, given the subject matter and just how far Tom Cruise's star had fallen. If you compare it to Mission: Impossible, it's going to look short, but it was never trying to be that. But for a film that forced people to root for Nazis, or at least German soldiers, this is a huge performance. MGM not only dodged a bullet, they caught it in their teeth.
Daron Aldridge: Yes. It seems the calculated move to tone down the Scientology proclamations and even apologize about the Matt Lauer interview were successful in the public's eye.
Pete Kilmer: I think it's a strong opening for this project, which is a hard sell in and of itself especially with Tom's baggage. But with his turn in Tropic Thunder and attempt at a "mea culpa" for his interview with Lauer a few years ago, he could be on his way back.
Jamie Ruccio: I think MGM can be pleased in that it didn't bomb, which was the real worry here but they have to be disappointed. I think there were several mistakes made with this film.
First off is the release date. Why this movie wasn't opened during the summer is yet another baffling example of poor decision making when it comes to release date which I seem to yammer about weekly all of the sudden. I know that there are movies that come out that break a paradigm, Jaws opening in summer thereby inventing the summer blockbuster season being the prime example, but I wonder what MGM thought they were doing when they released this movie in December? The only reason I can see them releasing this movie when they did was to garner some critical praise and/or award consideration. But given the reception they were likely to get from any performance from Cruise, that had to be a misguided hope. He is, by the way, not nearly as bad as the early reviews suggest. He does little to elevate the material but he does little in the way of harm to it. At worst, he's a little overwrought and perhaps doesn't fully convey what a member of the Prussian military tradition may have been like. It's almost as though people were waiting to eviscerate the performance, which is unfortunate. It's a little petty given the subject matter which deserves just a modicum of respect.
Next was casting. While I don't think Cruise was harmful to the box office I don't think he was anything but a neutral influence on it. Had this been five years ago, I suspect the gross would have been improved by his presence. Right now he needs to do Jerry Maquire II and that's it. No action flicks, no historical dramas. The audience has fallen out of charm with him.
The other PR problems didn't help either.
While I don't think this opening is a disappointment in and of itself I think it ultimately is given when it could have been. MGM didn't catch a bullet with their teeth. They managed to wrestle the gun from their mouth and only lightly graze their foot.
Scott Lumley: I think Jamie succinctly said it better than I could have. The only point he brings up that doesn't really make sense to me is releasing the film in late December so that it can get some awards consideration. I think Jamie is right in his assessment in that this might be the reason for the release date, but there has been little to no Oscar buzz at all for this film so I don't understand why they even went that route.
I'm reminded of the "Full Retard" Discussion from Tropic Thunder when considering this film. I don't think you can go "Full Nazi" and get awards consideration. I've been wrong before when offering opinions, but I just don't think putting a swastika on your shoulder is the best way to nab a little bald gold guy.
Kim Hollis: I've got to agree with Reagen on this one. All of you who are saying this is some sort of disappointment are crazy. This movie had potential disaster written all over it. Seriously, a Nazi history story at Christmas? With Tom Cruise? How the hell are you going to sell that? And yet, somehow, wherever I went, I heard friends and family talking about it, so they did just that.
As for release date, the initial plan might indeed have been for awards consideration. I think the bigger plan in the end was to clean up on the big business that Christmas week can bring with great buzz. The fact that it did so well early on was enough to get a lot of people who might have been on the fence out to see it. Had it been released during the summer or even any other season, it would have been dealing with the drops that instantly come after debut weekend. This way, it can trudge along to a very decent take within only a couple of weeks. Yes, it's up against a massive, massive budget at $95 million. But it's sure not insurmountable and it's sure to be profitable by the time it's all said and done.