Monday Morning Quarterback
By BOP Staff
May 18, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Angels & Demons, a follow-up to The Da Vinci Code, opened to $46.2 million domestically and has earned $152.3 million worldwide in three days. How should Sony feel about this result?
Josh Spiegel: Sony shouldn't feel too bad, but also not too great. On the one hand, this is a follow-up to a film that wasn't that well-received, the reviews weren't as bad as they were for Da Vinci Code, and $46 million isn't just a little bit of spare change. On the other hand, dropping so much from the first-weekend take of Da Vinci Code is nothing to brag about, and the domestic take for the film will probably be sharply lower than it was for its predecessor. Still, taking in over $150 million in one weekend throughout the world is pretty good. I'd say Sony should be mildly pleased, but not jumping over the moon.
Reagen Sulewski: They're lucky they get to proclaim themselves as having a number one movie. Obviously the thought was that people were going to be as fanatic about the rest of Dan Brown's work as they were about The Da Vinci Code. It's clear, though, that this was a one-film series, and this is just the echo of that. It definitely didn't help that the material was exposed as substandard by the transition to the screen.
Shane Jenkins: Ron Howard's Da Vinci Code adaptation is so legendarily awful, Sony should be thrilled that anyone showed up at all. Overseas revenue will save the project, and it should do nicely on DVD, where doubters are more apt to give it a shot.
Scott Lumley: I've actually seen it, and I had not read the book, so I went in without any preconceptions about what it should or should not be. It's an entertaining film, with a decent twist at the end that I honestly did not really see coming. Word-of-mouth on this should be decent, so I don't think it's going to drop right through the floor next weekend.
On the other hand, I don't think it's going to set the world on fire, either. The film is good, but it does seem to be lacking a spark that would make it great. On the other hand, that $150 million worldwide number is fairly impressive on its own. Not a lot of American films really do that kind of worldwide gross on opening weekend. I have to wonder if this might very well be the next *shudder* Mamma Mia!
Brandon Scott: Domestically, it's a slight disappointment versus expectations, sure, but that is a damn nice overall figure at $150 million+. If this does $500 million worldwide, how can anyone complain? I'm not quite sure it will scale those heights, but it ought to be in the ball park. I admittedly didnt have an interest in the film (never read either of the books) and didn't think too much of DVC so, from my standpoint, it's a little sad, only because Hanks is such a pleasant on screen presence. Its too bad that he's wasted two years doing this.
Kim Hollis: I think this is right in line with what should have been expected, really. No one should have believed that Angels & Demons would perform in the same ballpark with The Da Vinci Code for a number of reasons. The book was nowhere near as popular, and the studio had to walk the fine line of marketing this as being a follow-up to the first film while also distancing it from that movie. Angels & Demons was always going to make the bulk of its revenue from overseas locations, so that number is looking pretty solid.
David Mumpower: While foreign revenues are a trickier matter for the accounting department in that the actual percentage take isn't as good, Angels & Demons is a decided winner. $100 million here and $50 million everywhere else would lead to some serious chest bumps about the performance if it had broken that way. The reverse should be somewhat similar albeit a bit more reserved. Sony is trumpeting the fact that the film is already in the black, and it has a decent chance to wind up with an international total in the $400-$500 million range. Given the quality of the first film, I see this as a triumph, even if it only made a little over half of its predecessor.
The Lost Symbol? Seriously? If this involves Dharmas or smoke monsters, we're out of here.
Kim Hollis: Do you expect the next Dan Brown book, The Lost Symbol, a sequel to The Da Vinci Code, to be made into a film? If so, should Tom Hanks and Ron Howard come back for another go-round and how much would you expect that film to make with/without them?
Josh Spiegel: The watchword here is caution. If The Lost Symbol becomes a massive literary phenomenon in the same way that Da Vinci Code was, Sony should absolutely, without a doubt, make it into a movie (a movie I won't see, but that's besides the point). If, however, the results aren't massive, Sony shouldn't bring the series back. The lack of interest in Robert Langdon as the headlining character of a franchise is apparent with Angels & Demons, which did well, but not nearly as well as Da Vinci Code, at the box office. A lot of the interest in Da Vinci Code came from people who hadn't read the book, and not as many people showed up for this new film. Again...Sony should be cautious, but who knows if they will be?
Reagen Sulewski: I can totally see it ending up as an A&E movie starring Timothy Hutton. He's already got the hair.
Brandon Scott: My knowledge on this front is pretty off-base. I had no idea this book even existed (guess I need to stay out of the Sports section). I don't think Hanks or Howard comes back a third time, whether the book gets turned into a film or not. I would say how well the book does will dictate whether or not it becomes adaptable. A&D's box office haul still shows there is an interest, but how different might it be without Hanks/Howard? Drastically so, I would suspect.
Kim Hollis: The book isn't released yet, and I'm pretty sure we can be confident that it will be pretty huge stuff when it is. It will ride a wave of publicity and I do think it will get picked up by Sony. I don't think that either Hanks or Howard will return, though. This will be a situation where the franchise will either continue or reboot, but with someone else at its center.
David Mumpower: I'm going to go against the grain here and say that a film adaptation will be made with Tom Hanks as the star. The Da Vinci Code was his biggest movie in terms of worldwide revenue and Angels & Demons is going to be one of his better performers as well. The former book has sold almost 100 million copies while the latter has sold almost 50 million. The Lost Symbol should be reasonably expected to perform somewhere in that range, and a movie adaptation should fall somewhere between the two movie performances. Who turns down a surefire $500 million worldwide performer? No one I know.
We can't wait to see Hanks as a grumpy old racist guy.
Kim Hollis: Where does Tom Hanks stand as a box office draw? Is he at the end of the line, or is there still more potential for a long-lasting career ala Clint Eastwood?
Josh Spiegel: If Tom Hanks wants it, he could absolutely be doing movies until he's hitting 80 years old. He's done far too much that's successful over the years (Apollo 13, the Toy Story series, Saving Private Ryan, Forrest Gump) that he wouldn't completely fade away. However, he would have to move past doing two franchises (right now, it's just Toy Story and the Da Vinci Code) and work in different genres again. Hanks, though, may not want to work much more, and I wouldn't begrudge him an early retirement. His future stardom is all up to whether or not he wants to keep working.
Reagen Sulewski: I think this result really proves how much mojo Hanks really has. This is something that really could have been a bomb, but people about half as many people as last time were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. You can't ask for a better test than this and Hanks passed.
Shane Jenkins: I feel like Hanks is one of those actors who chooses their projects carefully. With only occasional missteps, he has been something of a mark of quality on films. I think it helps that he doesn't work as much as he could and isn't totally overexposed. He's one of the few stars with real inter-generational appeal, and probably the best example of a Jimmy Stewart-type populist actor working today. As long as the missteps remain only occasional and don't water down his brand name, he's golden.
Brandon Scott: Hanks is on about as solid ground as an actor as one can imagine. There is no way of looking at $150 million worldwide opening weekend and saying he's not a draw - that would be preposterous. The guy has some hardware and is easily among the most affable of actors this side of Will Pinkett-Smith. I think he has expressed a desire to direct more and his career will naturally end up veering in that direction, ala Mel and Clint. Hanks is good to go with whatever he wants to do.
Kim Hollis: I think Hanks has a ton of credibility and will continue to have a long and distinguished career. And I absolutely agree that it's a credit to Hanks that this movie did so well. Without him, I'm pretty sure we might have been looking at as much as half the weekend that Angels & Demons attained with him above the title.
David Mumpower: He is one of the most cerebral people in the industry. I absolutely believe he can follow the career path of Paul Newman if he wants it. To go the Clint Eastwood path, he would have to start making more movies himself. I'm certain he would be excellent at this as his first attempt, That Thing You Do!, is wonderful. It's all up to him. With regards to being a box office draw, he's long in the tooth to be a male romantic lead but these sorts of roles available to him now are exactly the type that extended Sean Connery's career so dramatically. Think The Rock, Entrapment and Finding Forrester.
We say Monkeys Slapping Ben Stiller=$$$$$$
Kim Hollis: Three of the six major May releases are in the books. Are there any other comments you'd like to add about any of them? What are your thoughts on the impending Terminator Salvation/Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian match-up?
Josh Spiegel: With regards to the three films that have already been released, I guess I'm only surprised that Wolverine hasn't completely vanished. I had expected Star Trek to be the top film of these three, and I don't think that much will change. With regard to next week's box office battle, it'll be curious to see how much interest there still is in the Terminator series. Night at the Museum is, presumably, a guaranteed moneymaker. Adults, though, and teenagers may or may not be completely pumped to see Christian Bale as John Connor. It'd be pretty impressive to see these two really duke it out, but I wonder if one film (one that stars Ben Stiller, maybe) tops the other by a wide margin.
Shane Jenkins: I think that next week has the potential to be one of the all-time great box office weekends. And as exciting as that is from a box office analyzing viewpoint, I don't understand why Night at the Museum 2 didn't open this past weekend. It could have had an extra week away from Up, gotten a head start on Terminator, and only had damaged goods (Angels and Demons) to open against. Am I wrong?
Scott Lumley: I kind of wondered why NOM2 didn't open this weekend as well. While I don't share the antipathy that some people are showing against Angels and Demons, it is a very grim movie with some very disturbing imagery. NOM2 opening next week might not necessarily be a botched release date, but it might be a failure to capture on opportunity.
As for Wolverine... did I mention that I actually kind of liked Angels and Demons?
Brandon Scott: NOM2 is a joke and I can't legitimately discuss it. It's a ridiculous movie and concept. I have no love for that "franchise". As for Terminator, I am curious to see how that plays out. I thought Terminator was dead after the feeble third act, but bringing Bale (will there be any outlash against him for his curse out?) and McGizm (can he make a decent movie?) on board raises the intrigue level for me quite a bit. I might actually catch myself seeing this if it has decent reviews - how's that for a ringing endorsement?
Kim Hollis: I think that the blockbusters have pretty much done exactly what I would have expected them to do so far. Things really get interesting the next few weekends, with Memorial Day Weekend being an epic battle between two movies with the potential to make A LOT of money. Terminator Salvation has a kickass trailer and television commercials, and I think that the third film is remembered a lot more fondly than most people realize. I think it stands to make $100 million over four days. Over the three-day portion of the weekend, I do believe that Night at the Museum 2 is going to be the winner. The first movie was a great family film and there's no reason to believe that the new touches added for the sequel (Hank Azaria, Albert Einstein, Amy Adams) won't result in big, big returns. I see this movie making as much as three times as its predecessor did on opening weekend. Maybe more.
David Mumpower: The biggest surprise thus far does not involve an opening weekend, which is surprising in and of itself. I don't think any of us were caught off-guard by Star Trek's debut; it's the seven days since then that have been shocking. Its trajectory for days 4-10 surpasses Iron Man in every conceivable measurable. The percentage of weekday to weekend box office was better, the second weekend hold was better and its zealous fan support is off the charts. Star Trek is the early favorite for winner of the summer in terms of performance relative to expectations. In terms of what happens next, both films appear certain to be blockbusters. The only question to be settled is degree. I'm of the opinion that Terminator Salvation is going to win, but neither of these titles will be disappointing simply because of finishing second.