Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
June 30, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Tom Cruise has never had a $300 million hit. Will Smith has had one - Independence Day. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen will be Shia LaBeouf's third $300 million film, as well as his fourth consecutive $100 million plus blockbuster. Is this a fluke or is he as big a star as his box office would reflect?
Daron Aldridge: I wouldn't label it a fluke as much as being Steven Spielberg's benefactor. Spielberg may officially be the godfather of Drew Barrymore but as of lately he is clearly the Magwitch to LaBeouf's Pip (too literary??). All of those four $100 million films had Spielberg's fingerprints on them. So, to me, it is misleading to label him "that" big of a star but the performances of Eagle Eye and Disturbia do point to the more realistic gauge of his appeal at the box office in certain movies. There should be no mistaking the fact that the real stars of his big hits were the robots and the old man (i.e. Harrison Ford).
Josh Spiegel: It's absolutely a fluke. Look at Eagle Eye, a movie that barely crossed the $100 million mark. Technically, a blockbuster, but the movie was definitely not well-regarded, it had big special effects, a high concept, similar style to other LaBeouf movies, but it's not a huge hit. His three (well, soon to be three) $300 million movies are franchises; one of them, last year's fourth Indiana Jones movie, would've been successful with or without him, and more people are intrigued by Megan Fox in Transformers than by LaBeouf. I still like the guy, but he's kind of a movie star by default.
David Mumpower: Josh, isn't that a great definition of drawing power right there? Isn't it when a big enough can make people go see a movie they would otherwise ignore? I'm of the opinion that it was the trailer that sold Eagle Eye, but I absolutely believe Shia's presence sold tickets, particularly coming on the heels of all of his negative (but helpful for branding purposes) press.
Scott Lumley: He's absolutely nothing special. He's got a likable everyman quality, decent looks coupled with a self deprecating sense of humor and he looks like he's perpetually 20. There are at least a hundred other actors out there that fill that same slot. Why he's become the chosen one for these sort of films is beyond me, and I really don't have any suggestions as to why he's had these successes other than someone has to reap those rewards.
Then again, being in the right place at the right time tends to be more of a skill than most people assume. So it's entirely possible that LaBeouf's acting skills are extremely subordinate to his networking skills. And I've seen Disturbia, so if that statement is true either he or his agent is a social god.
Tim Briody: He's a box office star in the same way Orlando Bloom is. Right place, right time.
Jason Lee: Agree with Tim. Ewan McGregor's had three films that grossed north of $300+ mil but we don't attribute any of that to McGregor. Same way with Shia for me. I think he's personally benefited from a number of directors that have overlooked his somewhat cardboard-ish acting qualities to cast him in some high profile pictures.
Reagen Sulewski: I definitely want his agent.
Sean Collier: The Orlando Bloom comparison is apt. He's not contributing to the draw of his blockbusters; he's merely pretty famous because he happens to be in them, and a great many people have seen them. That being said, I think he's a lock for a certain degree of success on any project, if not always blockbuster success.
David Mumpower: I'm going to disagree with the Orlando Bloom comparisons. Here is why. All of Bloom's attempts at carrying a movie that doesn't have Pirates or a Ring in the title have been disappointments save for the huge cast film, Black Hawk Down (whose big draw at the time was Josh Hartnett). Not only does Bloom not have an Eagle Eye on his resume, he doesn't even have a Disturbia. The analogy works in that Bloom has been in six $300 million movies - and how shocking is that stat? - but it fails in that he has never been the true lead in any of them. Even Curse of the Black Pearl would have been a much less successful film if the story had focused primarily on Elizabeth and him without introducing the character of Jack Sparrow. People have shown absolutely no inclination to watch Orlando Bloom's films because Orlando Bloom is in them. The same cannot be said of Shia LaBeouf. For better or for worse, he's already established himself as at least a decent box office draw. He has also demonstrated a fantastic ability to pick the right roles, as Reagen and Scott referenced with their agent jokes. LaBeouf is in that same situation now that Harrison Ford was back in the early 1980s. People were trying to decide whether he was that good or just that lucky. We're seeing the same thing right now, but no matter what the future determines, the reality is that Shia LaBeouf is here to stay...as long as he doesn't self-destruct.
Again, it depends on how long the mass hypnosis holds.
Kim Hollis: Transformers 2 is a hard title to figure in that it has vicious reviews and lackluster word-of-mouth, yet its first five days of box office have shown no early warning signals of decline. How much box office do you expect it to wind up with? Is $400 million out of the question?
Daron Aldridge: I shudder at the thought $400 million but I wouldn't just dismiss the possibility. Take Spider-Man 2, which is the go-to comparison for the Transformers sequel and it had a 3.19 multiplier for its five-day opening and its final tally. The big difference is that Spider-Man 2 was beloved and Transformers 2 is derided. That being said I wouldn't be surprised to see Transformers 2 end with nearly $400 million because it would only take a 1.99 multiplier (which is almost what Wolverine will achieve for its first five days to final gross). It's admittedly not 100% apples to apples but it still seems to make this kind of bank feasible.
Josh Spiegel: As I mentioned earlier, I'd say $400 million is almost definite (though I would LOVE to be wrong). Even with major declines, it's hard to see this one not crossing that plateau, with the coming holiday. The only real competition this movie has is the sixth Harry Potter movie, but those films haven't ever been as huge as something like Transformers. Of course, if the weekday box office gross for this goes down, down, down, then I may have to revise my prediction, but I was pretty sure a few months back that Transformers would be the number-one movie of the year; looks like things will pan out that way.
Scott Lumley: I'm pegging this at $350 million, give or take ten million. The Dark Knight barely got over $530 million and there are no Oscar caliber performances in this film except via ILM, so I just don't see it happening.
It will absolutely have a monster run, and deservedly so. But I will be very surprised if this cracks the magical $400 million number.
Jason Lee: I'm stunned by the fact that this film hasn't shown any negative word-of-mouth so far - its legs have been impressive given its quality (or lack thereof). I really thought we'd see a larger weekend dip after its Thursday/Friday grosses. Personally, I think that Ice Age 3 and Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince will really challenge the movie's staying power in theatres (which was a strength of the first film), leaving the film to settle in around $350 - $370 mil.
Reagen Sulewski: My worst case scenario has it topping out at about $350 million. Best case: I could see $450 million. Obviously there's a lot of wiggle room in there depending on if people see it disposable, or as the first true summer blockbuster of this year.
Sean Collier: I'm with Scott's projection. The word-of-mouth isn't the only thing that's going to kneecap Transformers - remember the length, here. An 150 minute film low on quality isn't going to have as many repeat viewings as this sort of blockbuster usually has - people returned to Dark Knight and Spiderman for the quality, Pirates for the fun, Star Wars for the nerd cred. There's no reason to pay for two tickets for Transformers, so I don't think it'll make it to $400 million.
David Mumpower: Before I answer the question, I'd like to pose one of my own. If Revenge of the Fallen does earn over $400 million, does it instantly become the worst movie to make that much money or does Star Wars: Episode One - The Phantom Menace or maybe even Shrek 2 hold that claim? Episode One will always be considered one of the most disappointing movies ever made. No one is arguing that. But in terms of simple film quality, which of those three titles is the worst? I can't decide if I'm more bugged by Jar-Jar or 30 minutes of mindless, pointless explosions at the end of Transformers 2.
In terms of the question itself, I'm torn between my gut and my mind. My gut says it's not going to slow down any time soon. People view this as THE summer movie and a generally satisfactory one at that. I've been monitoring some of the Twitter posts from the peanut gallery about the film. They are not as heinous as would be expected for a film with a Tomatometer score of 21%. People generally got what they wanted from the film, which is...unsettling/depressing/aggravating. Take your pick. My brain says it's not going to get there. Spider-Man 2, which was mentioned earlier as having the glowing word of mouth one would expect from such a brilliant film, earned "only" $221 million after its first five days. While Transformers 2 beat it by 25% in that same time frame, I struggle to believe that it's going to have the similar later days hold of such an impeccable movie. In fact, I would point out that Transformers "only" made $163.7 million after its first six days. I just don't see this one maintaining its current (tremendous) escape velocity. Of course, I would have said the same thing of Shrek 2...and probably did. Sometimes, a box office hit's success is self-propagating. We've recently seen that with The Hangover and we saw it last year with The Dark Knight.
Kim Hollis: Well, with regards to worst movie to make that much money, I'd certainly pull Shrek 2 out of the argument. Even if some of us here don't like it, it was a pretty universally loved movie and sits at 89% fresh at RottenTomatoes (including 90% from "Top Critics"). I'd think that lots of people will be perfectly happy with Transformers 2 except for the fact that it actually gets monumentally boring for a long period of time. We're talking about a movie with explosions and giant robots, but you're just wondering when things will move along. If other people feel this way, it could be in trouble, but if they're just in it for the action and the CGI, they'll be content enough and it could trudge right along to $400 million.
Daron Aldridge: I don't feel qualified to answer just yet as I will likely wait until DVD for my Transformers 2 whipping. But that isn't stopping me from throwing in my two cents. Disappointment is the best word for Star Wars Episode One. I don't think it is horrible but rather just average thanks to a few kick arse sequences that Josh highlighted in the recent A-List column. Shrek 2 is painful for me to watch and I am usually inclined to cut animated films some slack. Puss-in-Boots was the only redeeming element. For that matter, repeated viewings of the first Shrek are hard to sit through. That entire franchise is dated as soon as it comes out. (I might be a little bitter because it stole Monsters, Inc.'s Oscar.)
So sight unseen, my ranking from worst to just bad is Shrek 2, Transformers 2 and Star Wars Episode One.
David Mumpower: As always, the correct answer about which over-hyped movie sucks the most is Star Wars.
At a time like this, we can't help but be reminded of Anna Faris's Diaz impression in Lost in Translation.
Kim Hollis: Believe it or not, there was another release this weekend. My Sister's Keeper earned an estimated $12.4 million in three days. Is this more, less or about what you expected for the Cameron Diaz/Nick Cassavetes project?
Daron Aldridge: I'll have to take your word for it, Kim, that this film opened. Since I didn't know it existed, then I had no expectations for it, so $12 million is quite impressive. Looking at the parties involved, it seems as if Nick Cassavetes is carving himself a nice tear-jerking niche.
Josh Spiegel: The only reason I knew this was coming out was thanks to the surprisingly aggressive marketing push, at least by having Cameron Diaz show up on Conan O'Brien and Jon Stewart this week. Considering the competition from all sides, this movie made a pretty fair amount of money. I'm not sure that, like Cassavetes' previous film, The Notebook, this movie will gain a kind of cult status, but its first-weekend take is pretty impressive.
Scott Lumley: The trailer for this showed what appeared to be a pair of girls arguing a lot and a scene with one girl shaving her head followed by other shots of girls doing girlish stuff. I could feel my estrogen levels climbing just watching it. I might watch this. At gunpoint. Maybe.
So yeah, $12 million seems high for this. Then again, I sense I am not the target audience here.
Jason Lee: Clearly, fans of the book came out to see this . . . along with a surprising number of other people. I wonder if they could even hear the dialogue in this film over the sounds of explosions from the adjacent theaters playing Transformers 2.
Reagen Sulewski: Reviews rarely do a lot of good or bad for a film, but this is one of those cases where it clearly did. This sort of emerged from nowhere to grab a critical consensus, and if you didn't want to see giant CGI creations (although I'm still convinced about Cameron Diaz's face), this was what you went to.
David Mumpower: Remember back in May of 1999 when there was another film called The Love Letter that opened the same weekend as The Phantom Menace? No? Same deal here. Having said that, this is 25% more than I had expected the movie to make on opening weekend. Also, I saw director Nick Cassavetes on an episode of World Poker Tour a couple of years ago and he seemed like a very cool guy.