Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
June 16, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: The Hangover, last weekend's surprise blockbuster, fell only 27% to $32.8 million this weekend. Where do you rank this on the list of 2009 box office surprises, good and bad?
Josh Spiegel: I wonder if this is the year that Hollywood realizes that movie stars are, or can be, completely pointless. I'm not sure if I'd place The Hangover's success as the biggest surprise of the year, especially when considering the stellar performances from Taken and Paul Blart: Mall Cop, but all three of these movies prove that you don't need the most famous people in show business in your movies. True, Liam Neeson and Kevin James may be more well-known to more people than Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, and Zach Galifianakis, but the point remains. The fact that this movie may end up making as much or more than Wedding Crashers is really impressive; one can only hope the good vibes lead to a good sequel.
Scott Lumley: This isn't quite Fireproof, but it's up there. A tiny little film with no effects, an R rating and a good story has romped through the box office like a 500 pound gorilla. It's fair to say that nobody saw this coming. I sure didn't. This was barely on my radar until a couple of months ago but I thought this might open fairly large due to the intriguing trailers and the mass of marketing I was seeing for it.
Sean Collier: I do reviews on a Pittsburgh morning show, and The Hangover was being discussed for weeks in advance of its release. The lesson here might be that making a film "buzzworthy" and generating stellar word-of-mouth is more important than any of the traditional models of making money, at least right now. The trouble is that there's no surefire way to generate those qualities, especially at the time of greenlighting a project. Anyway, the point: it's a huge surprise, but part of a larger web of surprises this year.
Max Braden: Personally I'd put Taken at the top of the most surprising hits, but The Hangover is close. On the other hand, it mirrors the stream of Judd Apatow hits, so it shouldn't be seen as a complete surprise.
Jason Lee: I'm still reeling from the bulldozer performance of Paul Blart. That said, The Hangover is CLEARLY entrenched in my top three for the year. Hopefully, 2009 comes to be known as the year when "audiences let Hollywood know that storytelling and not billing will determine a film's profitability." That's my takeaway in the first six months (though storytelling for Blart is more of stretch than it is for Taken and Hangover).
Reagen Sulewski: Sean, there's making a film buzzworthy, and then there's delivering on that. It's possible to get a big opening weekend by throwing money at the promotion department, but if the product isn't there, you're going to get a ferocious backlash on the second weekend. If I may make a strange golfing metaphor, the opening weekend is the drive, and the second weekend is the putt. So drive (opening weekend) for show, putt (everything after) for dough. At this point, we're getting close to There's Something About Mary level of business, although coming from a much higher starting point. By my watch we should see the "It's not *that* funny" backlash in about three weeks.
Kim Hollis: I actually had been thinking it would do Wedding Crashers-type money on opening, so I wasn't completely blown out of the water by its debut. I am pretty stunned that it's holding up every bit as well as that earlier film, though. It's one of those comedies that is pleasing to a wide variety of people, and it also is a movie that feels like it has grown-up humor. I'm convinced that this is an under-served genre.
David Mumpower: Keep in mind that part of this is season-related, but Taken needed 29 days to reach $100 million. Paul Blart: Mall Cop also needed 29 days to reach $100 million. Wedding Crashers, the film most often compared to this one, needed 15 days to reach $100 million. The Hangover has made it in ten days, the same amount of time needed by Night at the Museum: Battle for the Smithsonian and Monsters vs. Aliens, the current (but soon to be passed by Up) #2 film of the year. Even those of us who aren't surprised that it has done well have to be shocked by how quickly it has reached these levels of success.
We are down with Up.
Kim Hollis: Up finished in second place this weekend, with a third consecutive performance in excess of $30 million. Its 17 day total of $187.2 million is Pixar's second-best, and eerily similar to Finding Nemo's $191.5 million in the same number of days. Why do you think Up is striking a chord at the box office to a larger degree than any of their last four films?
Josh Spiegel: I'm not so sure we should be pushing The Incredibles and Cars aside; they certainly didn't make as much as Finding Nemo, but the former film is currently the number-two Pixar movie (though Up will likely be taking that mantle when all is said and done) and the latter is one of the most successful films in terms of merchandising and kiddie appeal. Still, what Up brings to the table, and what Finding Nemo did as well, is a relatability. No, none of us may have thought of lifting our houses up with balloons and flying to South America, but the themes of regret, lost love, unfinished lives are all very familiar to us. Up just did a great job of making the story relate to everyone in the audience. Like all Pixar movies, it's not just for kids; still, I wonder if kids are more interested in this film than in Ratatouille or WALL-E. Either way, Up's performance is just as amazing as The Hangover's, if not as surprising.
Scott Lumley: It doesn't hurt that the film is unbelievably good. Cream rises to the top and all that.
Sean Collier: I'd say that combining hilarious, lovable animals with a heart-wrenching grownup story is a brilliant way to legitimately cross demographics.
Max Braden: New Hollywood rule: always work with animals and children.
Eric Hughes: ...and lots and lots of helium.
Also, let's not forget about Up being in 3D. Did any other Pixar titles do the same? One of the major reasons I saw this one in theaters (and not just waiting for DVD) was the 3D factor.
Jason Lee: I think you can point to a number of different factors with regard to Up's continuing box office strength. First off, to me, it's the most emotional Pixar film since Monsters, Inc. (which had an ending that just tore at my heart). Secondly, I think it's the most easily quotable Pixar movie since Finding Nemo. Thirdly, I think it's got the most colorful and likable cast of supporting characters since Nemo. As much as I loved Ratatouille and WALL-E (and I loved them a LOT), I think this film is more widely accessible than their previous three releases.
Reagen Sulewski: There's one factor that's less about the movie and more about pure mechanics of box office - summer movies make more. There's always the risk of a crowded marketplace, but just from the point of weekday showings being better attended than in the other three seasons, you're going to get a pretty significant boost in your box office. Clearly, the product has to be there, but it's something that can't be ignored when comparing it to other Pixar films.
Kim Hollis: This is true, Reagen, but it's competing with Nemo (a summer film) and destroying other Pixar summer flicks like Cars, Ratatouille, and WALL-E. I agree that there are a number of factors that come into play. It's a movie that works really well for adults while having a lot of fun, color and adventure for kids. The 3-D showings are adding some bang for the buck. I think we can probably all anticipate that Toy Story 3 is going to have a massive opening and probably out-gross Nemo if it's as good as the previous films.
David Mumpower: What bears noting about Up is that at this time last week, it was roughly $7 million behind Finding Nemo's pace. Today, it's at $4 million. That's right. Its days 11-18 have outperformed the biggest Pixar film of all time. That alone is cause for celebration at Pixar.
An Eddie Murphy movie failed at the box office. Imagine That.
Kim Hollis: Imagine That, Eddie Murphy's latest attempt to be relevant, opened to a dismal $5.7 million. Can you explain why some terrible-looking Eddie Murphy family films become successful, while other ones like Imagine That (which has a not-completely horrible RottenTomatoes rating of 46%) fail completely?
Josh Spiegel: Here's the thing: if you ignore the Shrek films (which would likely be successful these days with or without Murphy), the man's history of family movies isn't so cheery. The last movie, in general, of his that made over $100 million was 2003's Daddy Day Care, which barely crossed the century mark (to be fair, so did Dreamgirls, but that's also a movie that a) would have been successful with or without him and b) barely made over $100 million). Since then, the only movie that came close was Norbit, which is not a movie for...well, anyone, really. In general, this is a case of someone choosing the wrong projects all the time. Though Imagine That certainly didn't seem as terrible as Meet Dave, I remember wondering "Is that all it is?" when I first saw the preview. That bored feeling plus the niche audience being distracted by Up and Night at the Museum 2 all contributed to this movie's lousy performance.
Scott Lumley: I'm trying to answer the question and coming up empty. When was the last time Eddie had an actual "hit"? The last certified hit that didn't have the words Shrek in the title that he was a major part of has to be Daddy Day Care, and that opened in second place with $27 million. (And no, I'm not counting Dreamgirls. And even if we did, that one never placed higher than third on any weekend either.)
Without being too flippant here, the only reason I can come up with in Eddie's case is that if you throw enough stuff at the wall, sooner or later something will stick. Unfortunately for Eddie, that wall seems to be made of Teflon since about 2003.
I remain hopeful that the fourth installment of Beverly Hills Cop might snap some life into him and give us back the Eddie Murphy we all used to know and love.
Sean Collier: Let me simplify: he's done. He's done. He's done, forever. There's no hope. Beverly Hills Cop 4 might make some money, but six months later, the next thing will bomb. Maybe one of these entries will succeed here and there in spite of him, but mark my words: his career is over, barring a complete, Bill Murray-esque reinvention.
Max Braden: For this film, it had the same basic story as Bedtime Stories but lacked the big set pieces. It also lacks the romp of Daddy Day Care and The Rock's successful family films. The leaves a movie that's too adult drama to appeal to kids and too soft to appeal to adults. That doesn't mean you've got a bad product, but the "know your audience" rule still applies.
Eric Hughes: I wouldn't say he's done. People tended to like him in Dreamgirls. But he sure does need to go through some kind of reinvention. Clearly he's not winning over the kiddies anymore.
Jason Lee: Can anyone in all seriousness say that they read this film's synopsis, watched the trailer and or sat through one of the commercials of this film and thought to themselves, "Wow, this film will make money"? This was a total trainwreck from the beginning from me - a total waste of the paper that the initial storyline was sketched out on.
Reagen Sulewski: I thought this looked like it could have been decently tolerable, with a distinct lack of bodily function jokes. But then again, maybe that's where they went wrong.
Marty Doskins: The one thing that I noticed was that the commercials didn't really do a great job of telling the premise of the movie. As a better example, I remember the commercials for Bedtime Stories. The kid in the movie would say something like "rain jelly beans" and it would show jelly beans falling from the sky. You got the idea that the kids were controlling Adam Sandler's life. I just didn't get that sense from the Imagine That commercials.