Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
August 17, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: District 9, the science fiction film from Sony, earned $37.4 million. How surprised are you by this result?
Josh Spiegel: I am not at all surprised by this result, if only because Sony has been extremely effective in marketing this movie over the last few months. First, the mysterious teaser trailers, which only give a slight glimpse at a spaceship hanging over Johannesburg; then, all the viral marketing and the random "Humans Only" signs littering movie theaters. Add that to the fact that District 9 can stand alongside such summer hits as Star Trek and Up as being incredibly well-reviewed by most critics, big and small, and I feel like District 9 making this much money was just going to happen. Credit Peter Jackson for standing behind a new but obviously talented director and credit Sony for shoving this movie down people's throats without it seeming obnoxious.
Scott Lumley: I'm not surprised by this result at all either. District 9 looked like an absolutely perfect pure sci-fi film and Star Trek reboot notwithstanding, we haven't really had one in a while. The nerd and geek crowd had been buzzing about this one for some time, and when Sony cut those brilliant commercials that guaranteed lots and lots of violence in addition to a pure sci fi tale, I knew this one was a lock.
Eric Hughes: I, too, am not surprised. I don't do sci-fi, yet there I was on opening night to see what this thing would be. I blame the unique marketing. Living in a big city helps, but the "this bus/bench/billboard/restroom is for humans only" gimmick was just plain catchy.
Jason Lee: Clearly I'm in the minority here but I frankly found most everything about this film pretty forced. The whole "keeping the plot a secret" and "pseudo-documentary" feel of the film was hollowly reminiscent of Cloverfield and the historical parable felt heavy-handed. Do this type of thing right and yes, I agree, the kids will come out in droves. I just didn't think it felt like this was going to be done right. Obviously, I was wrong.
Reagen Sulewski: Films like these are huge wildcards. I wouldn't have been "surprised" by anything from the teens to $50 million, but all the same, this is a bit more than I was actually expecting. This was a textbook case of how to get people interested in something they have no familiarity with - give out as little information as possible, go viral early and often... and have a top notch premise and outstanding FX sequences. I understand it's that last one that trips people up more often than not.
David Mumpower: I'm surprised by how unsurprised many of you are. If you had asked me three months ago if $37 million would be a solid result for District 9, I would have unequivocally answered yes. And I would have been discussing its final domestic take, not its opening weekend. This was as unheralded a mid-$30s opener as there has been in ages. Even ten days ago, most people were saying mid-$20s. I'm caught off-guard by how blasé many of you are about what I consider a marvelous result for Sony. This is as big a win as they've had in recent memory. District 9 is an instant masterpiece whose box office matches its quality.
Sean Collier: Yeah, I'm with David. If you had asked ten people on the street what District 9 was actually about last Thursday, they probably would've replied, "Umm...something? Aliens? Or the government?" While the viral marketing was (clearly) effective and innovative, any movie with no stars, no advertising hook, and very little plot awareness is not exactly a sure-fire hit, no matter how viral you go. Sony should be thrilled, and as one of the few yet to see District 9, I am pumped.
Kim Hollis: I thought this movie was a complete wild card. Up until a week or two ago, I would never have expected it to open this high. But the buzz and viral marketing were extremely effective, so kudos to everyone at Sony for their handling of the release. Consider that the only real A-List name on the project was Peter Jackson. If you think about that, a $37 million result is all the more impressive. It's not like viral marketing has always been successful (Snakes on a Plane, anyone?).
A lot of people thought he was a few prawns short of a galaxy
Kim Hollis: Do you feel that District 9's debut and reviews justify Peter Jackson's faith in Neill Blomkamp as a director? Also, despite his protestations, do you think this puts Blomkamp back in the equation for a Halo movie?
Josh Spiegel: I doubt that Peter Jackson needed to see millions line behind Blomkamp for his faith to be rewarded; if anything, this is a reward for Sony, for standing behind Blomkamp and Jackson. District 9, to some people, might seem like it could never make back its budget (small as it is), what with no known actors, a strange and unique concept, a foreign setting, and so forth. For Sony to back the movie is very impressive. My guess, with regards to Halo, is that Blomkamp may be courted for many other projects, so his interest might never hone back into that franchise.
Scott Lumley: I imagine Peter Jackson's faith was rewarded a long time ago in the editing room when the dailies started showing up for this. The only real question about this film was whether or not it could break out and it has. As for Halo, I hope not. Why would he constrain himself to someone else's world and canon when he's obviously quite adept at building his own?
Jason Lee: Opening a $30 million sci-fi film in August that immediately starts in the black is impressive, yes, but it's completely different than opening a big-budget tentpole release with a ginormous fanbase to appease. I think that while Blomkamp may definitely be an up-and-coming director to watch, if I were the folks at Fox I still would wait before I give him Halo.
Reagen Sulewski: While I think this definitely proves he could handle a Halo movie - parts of District 9 were the Halo movie in all but name - to me it's almost a question of whether Blomkamp would want to do it. I imagine they'll throw gobs of cash at him to do it, but I'd have to wonder if he would feel like he was repeating himself too much.
David Mumpower: There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the folks at Fox who have watched District 9 are wincing over the thought of what might have been. Blomkamp has been asked point blank about the film several times in recent weeks. In each instance, he has stated that he doubts he would go back to it since he suffered so much turmoil and embarrassment last time. I don't completely believe him, though. He's only 29-years-old and he is clearly highly self-motivated. If that's the worst thing that has happened to him professionally, what he wants to do is prove that they made the wrong call. District 9 is a step toward that, but making the Halo movie he had always envisioned is an imperative. I know that Spielberg has recently been rumored as back on the project, but he's tight with Peter Jackson. I almost view him as holding it in case Blomkamp changes his mind. Given the quality of District 9 and the mega-popularity of the Master Chief character in Halo, this is a project that needs to happen. As was the case with Jackson and The Hobbit, cooler heads must prevail here and a deal should be brokered. If it does, we're talking about one of the next few $100 million openings on the schedule. It's a slam dunk all the way around.
Sean Collier: I agree that Jackson's faith would've been unwavering despite box office results (especially domestic box office results.) As for Halo - I imagine he'll continue to protest until Fox drives a dumptruck of money up to his house.
Oh, well. At least fans of Audrey Niffenegger's book have her new novel to look forward to next month.
Kim Hollis: The Time Traveler's Wife opened to $18.6 million. Should Warner Bros. be satisfied with this result?
Josh Spiegel: I'd say so. I imagine that Warner Bros. is hoping for a repeat of The Notebook's performance at the box office, what with Rachel McAdams once again playing the romantic lead in a swooning, melodramatic-seeming story; of course, had Ryan Gosling been the time traveler, who knows if the result would have been better? Even in this day and age, a movie that makes about $20 million in its first weekend is nothing to sniff at, especially considering competition like Julie & Julia.
Scott Lumley: On one hand, they just got whupped by a bunch of bug-eyed aliens and actors that nobody ever head of. On the other, movies like this are by definition niche films, and since Warner Bros. set a reasonable budget for this one at $39 million, $18.6 million should be a pretty confidence boosting result. It ought to be into the black by about the end of the month, with lots of profit to be made if this develops any legs at all.
Eric Hughes: WB satisfaction is all but guaranteed. The studio managed to turn an acclaimed bestseller into a critically ridiculed piece of movie AND STILL earned back nearly $20 million in three days.
Jason Lee: Consider how long it took for the producers to come up with an acceptable screenplay and the year-long delay in release, behavior that typically comes with the stench of box-office failure not far behind, I think Warners should be just tickled to see this one end up as a profitable release. Considering that they've been working on this since 2003, there's certainly been a lot of hours invested in this project.
Reagen Sulewski: Agreed with most of you - this is an outright steal, out of what should have been a disastrous failure.
David Mumpower: It has been a long while since a major studio release had its footage shrouded in mystery the way that The Time Traveler's Wife did. Even as recently as three months ago, there was no trailer to be found. It was filmed almost exactly two years ago. How disappointed were they with the screening room cut that they wouldn't even make a trailer out of it? We're in an era where video and movie stills are a constant part of the production process yet this was The Invisible Film. I'm frankly surprised that reviews weren't much worse given how little studio confidence there was. I consider a result in this range to be solid, particularly when we allow for the fact that time travel and romance are not entwined film devices that often. It generally creates a bit more work than the target audience wants to do during their escapist fantasies. I think it speaks to the popularity of the book that the film did this well anyway. It's a smaller scale version of The Da Vinci Code in that passion for the writing caused viewers to give the movie a chance in spite of its lackluster quality.
Sean Collier: I'm someone of the opinion that the Romance - not the Romantic Comedy, mind you, but the romance - has got one foot in a grave that lies right between Western and Film Noir. As such, this is a smashing result, especially with the production hell that David details, and against not only Julie & Julia, but a couple of romcoms still kicking around theaters.
Kim Hollis: Count me as someone who loved the book, and given that it looks to me like they do not have it right at all, I think that $18.6 million is best-case scenario. If the movie has typical Rachel McAdams legs, they're going to be in excellent shape. And I kind of resent them for it.