Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
March 17, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: The Last House on the Left, the latest classic horror remake, earned an estimated $14.7 million. Should Rogue Pictures be pleased with this result?
David Mumpower: Variety is saying that this is on the low end of box office opening expectations for the film, but I'd been thinking $15 million or so all along. So, it's right where I figured it would be. It's going to be profitable given its minuscule budget, but this one was never going to break out. It doesn't have the awareness of most of the high profile horror remakes. I like the original quite a bit, but unless I'm on a horror film web site or talking with a true cinema buff, I wouldn't expect to be able to discuss it without explaining what it is first. I think that the disastrous Friday the 13th hurt a bit as well. Consumers were so recently burned by a horror reboot that was beyond dreadful. That had to linger in their minds a bit, which is unfair to and unfortunate for The Last House on the Left, but it is the way of things.
Kim Hollis: I agree that this total seems just about right. There was nothing about it that made it look different from any other torture porn movie that we've seen over the last several years. I think those sorts of hyper-violent movies have a very specific, fairly limited audience to start with. Horror as a genre is suffering from an extreme lack of originality except in the case of some very indie flicks.
Jason Lee: There was just nothing to sink your teeth into with this film - what makes it different than any other horror film that we've seen in 2009? Without some sort of hook, I think Rogue should be just tickled with this opening. That said, anyone else surprised that they didn't play up the Friday the 13th angle at all?
Pete Kilmer: I think it's a solid opening for a film that has no real 'horror' guy in it. I know the original is a classic, but no Michael or Jason or Leatherface or anyone like that is featured. They should be pleased.
Max Braden: I was expecting more, assuming a boost from Friday the 13th. But it pretty much reinforces the fluke that the 13th was.
They're really missing the boat by not remaking H.R. Pufnstuf
Kim Hollis: Do you see saturation as an issue in all of these 1970s reboots/re-imaginings or do you think people are always going to like the nostalgia factor?
David Mumpower: I maintain that while it largely depends on the project, we have reached a point of diminishing returns on these things. Upcoming releases such Land of the Lost and G. I. Joe make me cringe when I think about them. The reality is that most of the good ideas for reboots of these properties have already been utilized. Now we're left with ones that almost certainly can't work (see: Dallas) or titles that were never that popular in the first place, even if they were good ideas (see: The Greatest American Hero). And the horror genre has completely devoured its young. Is it too soon to do a re-make of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre re-make? Hey, it's been five and a half years now. How about Saw? Scream? Jason X?
Kim Hollis: I think there's always an inherent danger in remaking previous movies and TV shows. The most successful ones really do seem to be the movies that have been marketed within an inch of their lives. Everything has to be just so. I think nostalgia can work very much in favor of these projects, but it can also be a detriment. If they looks too cheesy or seems to be poking too much fun, people seem to turn against remakes. I think that studios might misjudge the real interest in the original movie or TV show. Just because something has a few passionate supporters doesn't mean that it merits a big budget movie remake.
Jason Lee: Let's be honest here. Friday the 13th had a FANTASTIC opening. Race to Witch Mountain did just fine. Last House on the Left had a very respectable weekend. Until these things stop making money, I doubt that any studio has reason to fear treading into the remake area.
Pete Kilmer: They'll keep getting remade and soon we'll be into the late '80s and 1990s shows and movies. I wonder if we can get an Airwolf movie?
Joel Corcoran: "Everything old is new again," is more than a simple motto to live by. Hollywood seems to be making it a standard of doing business these days, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think a lot of great, creative concepts arose during the 1960s and 70s, as the Cold War mentality was truly settling in, that can be remade using modern technology. A good, serious remake of A Clockwork Orange could be a big hit, or The French Connection. Or Jaws for that matter.
Fanboys ahoy!
Kim Hollis: Watchmen fell 68% to $17.8 million. It has a running total of $86 million after ten days and is probably looking at $120 million domestic finish. What went wrong with Watchmen?
David Mumpower: I have a world of respect for the job Zack Snyder did here and I think he did as good a job on the film as anyone could have done if they wanted to be faithful to the adaptation. What went wrong here is that in being so respectful of the source material, he dragged the film out to an unwelcome length for mainstream movie-goers who just wanted comic book action. Think pieces on the nature of mankind and why we are prone to be bellicose by nature do not have widespread appeal. If they did, Battlestar Galactica would be the number one show on television instead of a Sci-Fi Channel program that has barely gotten renewed a couple of times. What does Heroes have that it doesn't? Brain dead (and I mean lobotomized zombie type of brain dead) comic book action. Watchmen in name only probably would have done more business than Watchmen as intended did, which is a rather depressing thought.
Kim Hollis: I think there are a lot of things at play here. First off, people outside of comic book fans and graphic novel readers simply don't know the Watchmen. Yes, it's one of the most highly regarded books of the 20th century, but the reality is that people don't really read these things outside of the comic book culture for the most part. If you have unknown characters, you'd better do the best job you can of making them accessible to a wider audience. Iron Man is a key example. Most people really don't know Iron Man. So why were they so engaged by the character? The trailers and commercials made Tony Stark a guy people could relate to - funny, smarmy, and smart. Pile some awesome-looking effects on top of that and you've got a winner.
With Watchmen, though, the marketing appealed to the fans of the book and not much else. Fans were carefully watching to see if Zack Snyder had deviated from the source material and were ready to fire off multiple missives if that proved not to be the case. For non-fans, though, all they had was some hot-looking action, but there were an awful lot of characters to wrap one's brain around. Who the hell is this blue guy and why is he building some weird-looking structure? Why does this one guy look like Batman dressed in brown? And seriously, a superhero called the Comedian? How does this make any sense to people?
In the end, Warner Bros. - and Zack Snyder - were likely faced with a losing proposition. If the film was made more friendly to a general audience, it would have been severely knocked as a failure by most. Since Snyder instead tried to keep the faith and make a movie that was as loyal as possible to the source material, they're paying the price. There's no hope of keeping it going now that the primary audience has already gone out to see it.
Jason Lee: Frankly, I'm at a loss to explain how 300 was able to perform so much better than Watchmen. In my mind, Watchmen is a superior film in almost every area (visuals, story, acting, etc.) and every time I try to come up with a justification for Watchmen's low gross, I find myself tripped by the fact that 300 was able to overcome those challenges.
Tim Briody: This was an adaptation of an over 20 year old comic series that was pretty darn far from the mainstream. We should be considering $120 million a roaring success.
Pete Kilmer: It's a tough movie sell that's not X-Men or Superman or some hero property that is iconic enough for the mainstream. I doubt we'll see another R-rated graphic novel property like this anytime soon. Props to Zack Snyder, who did a fantastic job with this. It's gonna sell a ton of DVDs when the collector edition hits.
Joel Corcoran: I think Watchmen will end up being to comic book superhero films what Full Metal Jacket is to war movies or Unforgiven is to westerns. It's a film that turns the genre sideways and delves into some deeper, unanticipated storylines that explore much broader philosophical themes than expected. Sure, the producers and director could've turned the story into something like the Fantastic Five and made a bigger splash at the box office, but I think staying true to the story - and the darker themes - will end up making the studio more in the long run.
Centerfolds just don't have the same zip they once did
Kim Hollis: Miss March earned $2.3 million with a per venue average of only $1,349. Say something funny about Miss March.
David Mumpower: Centerfold by the J. Geils Band was the number one single for six consecutive weeks. Any less of a performance by Miss March would have been a failure in my eyes. There were more 45s sold of Centerfold than there were tickets sold for Miss March.
Kim Hollis: Perhaps Miss March would have been better off as Miss February, as planned earlier.
Jason Lee: Miss March and wait for April . . . there are much better films coming out in a few weeks.
Tim Briody: This movie wishes it was Fired Up, as hard as that is to believe.