Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
March 30, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Monsters vs. Aliens, the latest DreamWorks Animation release, opened to $58.2 million this weekend. What do you think of this result?
Pete Kilmer: It's a great opening. This thing will have some nice legs in the IMAX as the 3-D effects are getting great reviews.
David Mumpower: We will touch on the way this impacts the industry in a later topic. With regards to Monsters vs. Aliens in particular, this is a huge success all around. It's the largest opening of the year and it almost duplicates Kung Fu Panda's $60.2 million debut last year. Given that we're talking about the largest original DreamWorks Animation opening yet and that it wound up with $215 million domestically and $632 million worldwide, mirroring that performance is phenomenal. I'm surprised that a Monsters, Inc. clone did this well and I'm even more surprised that it opened better than Watchmen, a film that was always designed to max out its first three days of box office. I give a lot of credit to the marketing team for crafting a clever campaign with a particular tip of the cap going to the people who came up with the Super Bowl 3-D spot. It may not have been the greatest trailer ever, but it was memorable. Establishing the brand in front of the largest possible television audience was a masterstroke. DreamWorks Animation and Paramount spent $175 million to make a film that is going to bring in at least half a billion before it exits theaters. This is a monumental box office accomplishment and the branding elegantly allows for sequels.
Max Braden: I'm not going to go ga-ga over "the biggest opening of the year so far" - someone has to hold that title, and we've come to expect that a big, animated, kid-friendly movie is going to be in the year's top ten. With an easy-to-sell concept and a funny trailer featuring Bob, I actually expected Monsters vs. Aliens to open at $70 million. I'm interested now to see how it does over the long run, because I was really let down by the characters after seeing the movie. The effects were great but the characters barely showed off any of what supposedly made them monsters. I left the theater not feeling a need to see it again. I suspect the multiplier is going to be lower than the Madagascar and Ice Age films.
Brandon Scott: I'm with Max on the opening aspect of it. Yeah, beating Watchmen says something, but these animated kid pics always seem to destroy at the box office. I think the confusion aspect of Monsters, Inc., though they are not related, played a role too. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a nice opening, but of course, I wouldn't see this if I was begged to go by my nephew and niece. Every time I watch animated movies, I wish I had two hours of my life back, WALL-E included. They just have nothing to offer someone like me even though others love them. These are nice numbers, though, so they will continue to get made til the end of time, and yeah, I suspect sequels will be on the way.
Kim Hollis: Paramount and DreamWorks Animation should be quite pleased with this start. I think that DreamWorks always faces a bit of an uphill battle with regard to their movies in comparison to Pixar. Pixar has an automatic, built-in fan base that is always going to show up on opening weekend and it runs the gamut of all ages. It doesn't matter if the product is original or a sequel. For DreamWorks Animation, however, they seem to face more challenges is selling "new" product. There isn't the same loyalty to them that there is to Pixar, and things can always go south quickly. The studio did a terrific job in marketing this with the Super Bowl ad and also getting across the idea the the 3-D aspect of the movie will make it worth a family outing to theaters. It did about as well as Madagascar 2, an established brand for the studio, so that has to be very encouraging.
David Mumpower: I'm rather surprised by what Max said. The most recent trio of DreamWorks Animation releases opened to $38.0 million, $60.2 million and $63.1 million, respectively. That's an average of $58.3 million, which drills Monsters vs. Aliens almost exactly. The largest one of those three openings was a sequel to a $193.6 million movie, so it was theoretically the best case scenario result. The $70 million tally Max suggests as possible would represent an 11% improvement on that. I think he's fallen victim to unreasonable expectations here. As for the film's multiplier, a worst case scenario result based on the company's prior large scale releases would still get the film to $160 million. The first calculation I ran yesterday rather squarely slotted it in the Madagascar range mentioned above. I think I had it at $193.8 million. Unless the 3-D aspect creates a novelty rush, it's almost certain to fall in that range. And given what we've seen from Coraline being propped up by 3-D ticket sales in later weeks, I'll be quite surprised if this is not the case. As an aside, I thought the movie was a solid A; both of our opinions on the film's quality may be seeping into our long term evaluations of its domestic box office.
Oh no you didn't!
Kim Hollis: DreamWorks Animation's last two films earned roughly $400 million domestically combined, and they have now attained the highest opening weekend in 2009. Is it fair to say that they are winning the box office battle with Pixar at the moment?
Josh Spiegel: I'd say yes...and no, at the same time. Pixar's last two films, Ratatouille and WALL-E, made about $430 million domestic combined, whereas Kung Fu Panda and Madagascar 2, DreamWorks' last two, made $395 million domestic. The reason why DreamWorks is still winning the box office battle is because of output. Pixar, some would say (me being one of them), focuses more on quality than quantity, making only the one movie a year. DreamWorks has three animated features over a nine-month period come out, so the money comes in a lot quicker. Either way, for profit, DreamWorks' strategy works out well, and Monsters vs. Aliens certainly isn't stopping that trend.
David Mumpower: Josh's answer underscores the crux of the debate. It is quality versus quantity to some degree. While die hard Pixar fans (and I'm pretty sure that's all of us) may not like it, the undeniable truth is that DreamWorks Animation is upwardly ascending at the box office while Pixar is on the downward path. Josh showed you the domestic box office results of the last two films, which shows Pixar doing better by $35 million.
Now consider that Pixar's last two films earned $624.4 million and $532.9 million worldwide. Meanwhile, DreamWorks Animation's most recent two titles brought in $631.9 million and $584.3 million. Yes, you're reading that correctly. The last two DreamWorks titles have outperformed the last two Pixar titles in terms of worldwide box office by a solid $59 million. It's important to note that domestic receipts are easier to retain than international ones due to currency fluctuations, local tariffs, more expensive marketing issues per capita and the like. If we bottom line it, though, DreamWorks is releasing more films that are also making more money than Pixar's annual titles.
There is also a carryover effect to this as the prior film's quality determines the next film's success to a degree. Audiences are beginning to trust DreamWorks to do more than a bunch of silly pop culture gags now. They've started to accept that story matters and this has led to dramatic increases in the quality of their works. They have raised the bar and it's up to Pixar to answer with their next project, Up. From the meta point of view, I would also add that I think we're in a golden age for animation. 2008 saw some of the best titles ever, particularly Kung Fu Panda, WALL-E and Bolt, and Monsters vs. Aliens knocks it out of the park as well.
Joel Corcoran: I don't have much to add here - Josh and David have provided a brilliant analysis - and I won't mind seeing Madagascar 3. But so help me God, if I ever see "Shrek Takes the Fifth" get green lit, someone is going to get hurt.
Josh Spiegel: I'm actually surprised at those worldwide numbers for Pixar vs. DreamWorks, but the more I think about it, DreamWorks manages to rope in big-name actors who are equally successful outside of the United States, which can work more than a talking rat who wants to cook and a silent robot. Also, I'm curious to see if the stronger attempt to take story seriously with Kung Fu Panda (in my opinion, not the most original story, but it's a start) ends up panning out in the near future. Finally, Joel should only be angry if he's not paid royalties for the new title of Shrek 5, because I would not put it past Jeffrey Katzenberg to steal that one.
Max Braden: I agree that it's something of a quality vs. quantity issue. Pixar's projects are... maybe not "more cerebral" but they are somehow more filet mignon while DreamWorks goes for the fast food approach. Think about which movies made audiences laugh more - the rat chef and the silent robot, or the bumbling panda and zoo animals? Getting kids excited to see the movie is key for success, and DreamWorks has been doing a better job of targeting that demographic.
Brandon Scott: It seems as though we discussed this last year, when KFP and WALL-E were kind of going head to head. Winning the box office battle? I guess, ever so slightly. I think the quantity vs. quality argument has some merit, but that is clearly more towards adults than kids. Kids don't give a shit whether a movie is cerebral or not, whether a film is smart or not, and really whether they look good or not in these cases, because as far as I can tell, the animation looks about the same to me. Adults love Pixar, which means that kids' parents love Pixar too, but kids could couldn't care less as long as they are entertained, usually through laughter. Both of these entities are set up for success well into the future with franchises galore in place. I think they will develop a nice rivalry, but really with animators defecting to one side or another since it is an incestuous business, in time they will run together with DWA getting some Oscar buzz years from now and Pixar raking it in at the box office like they always have. Both are winners here.
Kim Hollis: I think this remains a "to be determined". I'm not sure that two movies equals a trend, especially when DreamWorks is cranking them out so quickly. I very much like the filet mignon vs. fast food comparison from Max. If we strictly look at the "battle" in terms of box office, then DreamWorks Animation is clearly establishing itself as a money cranking machine at the box office. On the other hand, Pixar is creating films that bring in box office cash, then sell huge on DVD, then move into the mainstream consciousness as product tie-ins rake in even more cash. We all know box office doesn't tell the whole story here.
Reagen Sulewski: There's a difference though, in that Pixar films are automatic hits, where DreamWorks' are...maybes. No one's sweating about the box office of a Pixar film - it's just assumed they'll do well.
David Mumpower: I actually believe that for mainstream consumers, the perception of Pixar is that they're slipping a bit. A certain segment of would-be viewers were alienated by the idea of a rat cooking gourmet meals and a lot of people didn't like the humans in WALL-E. While I think our opinion is almost unanimous that both films are masterpieces, I strongly suspect that in our "what have you done for me lately" society, DreamWorks is in the lead at the moment. It's fun to track this as it goes along since the competition is causing both brands to up their game. I strongly suspect a lot more is riding on Up than is being discussed at the moment.