Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
August 18, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Moving forward, who will have the better career - Rachel McAdams or Eric Bana?
Josh Spiegel: Just as it was a few years back, Rachel McAdams could become the next big female film star, just like Julia Roberts. The question is whether she wants to be the next Julia Roberts. McAdams isn't as concerned with being a marquee name, I think, based on her absence for a year or two in movies. But, if she wanted it, I think she's the next big star, alongside Amy Adams. Bana has proved this summer that he has plenty of versatility; first, he was a sneering alien villain; next, he was a loutish Aussie; now, he's a moony-eyed time traveler. None of those roles are the same. I think Bana has a slightly better career ahead of him, if only because he'll work more steadily.
Scott Lumley: I don't know about either of these two. Rachel seems disinclined to go the whole Hollywood route, and those career gaps are hard to overcome especially in "What have you done for us in what have you done for us lately land?", which is otherwise know as Hollywood. On the other hand, Bana's been in quite a few movies that while not exactly flops, haven't exactly set the world on fire, either (The Hulk and Troy spring to mind almost immediately). I like him as an actor, but he never seems to spring to mind for nearly any other project. I don't know if he should ever really be considered a top tier star, but he's certainly capable as supporting cast.
Jason Lee: Since 2005 (with a combined summer of Wedding Crashers and Red Eye) I've been waiting for McAdams to burst into superstardom. For whatever reason, it hasn't quite happened yet, but I still think that she's got the looks, the charisma and the sheer TALENT for a long and successful career.
Reagen Sulewski: Can I pick neither? One of the things that was interesting about this film is that both its leads are people that Hollywood has been attempting to force us into accepting as stars through sheer force of will. This is probably a case of the material lifting them up, but neither of them have been able to get a lot of people to see a movie just because they're in it. For instance, yes, Bana's been in a lot of big movies this summer, yes, but can you honestly say he made any of them what they are? And I say as someone who's seen Chopper and has seen what he's capable of as an actor.
David Mumpower: I agree with Scott that McAdams doesn't seem to want it enough. She would be the most successful female actress in the industry in terms of box office if she were willing to work non-stop. Instead, she is someone who seems to carefully choose her projects and therefore works infrequently. Of course, that makes the choice of The Time Traveler's Wife regrettable in hindsight but this looked like a perfect project on paper. Bana's career is fascinating to me. As Kim Hollis said the other day, his only memorable role was Chopper. Ever since then, he's been repeatedly cast by Hollywood in roles that better actors would have made into readily identifiable characters. There is this weird love of his work in Munich that was noticed by the right people and it seems to guarantee his continual casting in spite of his failings as a talent *and* a box office draw. North America keeps rejecting him yet Hollywood keeps putting him in films. I strongly suspect that he must be the most wonderful guy in the world to know and that's why people are making poor business decisions about him as a professional. There are worse things to be in life than a mediocre talent with unjustified success and a glowing personality. In fact, I can't think of anything much better.
Sean Collier: I'm with Reagan. They're strong actors and nice compliments to a well-rounded cast, but neither has their own drawing power. If I had to pick one to have the better career, in traditional terms, I'd have to go with Bana; I wouldn't only say that McAdams doesn't want it, I'd go so far as to say I'm waiting for her to just call it quits outright.
Should have been called The Bads
Kim Hollis: The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard opened to $5.4 million in 1,838 venues. How should Paramount Vantage feel about this result?
Josh Spiegel: Not so good, I'd wager. Granted, opening on under 2,000 venues isn't the biggest release, but with the amount of advertising (or at least, advertising on networks and TV shows I watch often) and online and other marketing, I think Paramount Vantage is wishing the movie opened to something closer to $10 million. This is a case where, it seems, people just weren't interested in Jeremy Piven as a sleazeball; I guess that's more a TV role for him.
Scott Lumley: This honestly has to be considered a disappointing result by everyone involved. Piven did just about everything he could personally do to sell this as well, including appearances on Raw and on Big Brother, which I heartily applaud. There was a reasonable amount of advertising for this film, but the trailers that I saw were generally frenetic crap and did a terrible job of presenting this film. It's definitely disappointing as this did look genuinely funny once I took a closer look.
Eric Hughes: Paramount should feel like they got what they paid for. Aggressive marketing campaigns - that Big Brother appearance for instance - are only half the battle. You have to actually be promoting something that either A) is good or B) sells itself. The Goods didn't do either.
Reagen Sulewski: They were stuck in a difficult situation here, since the movie was largely being sold on its raunch, but weren't able to show that stuff on TV to get people into it. I actually thought the theatrical trailer (and more so, the red band) was completely hilarious, but the TV spots were beyond dire. This is a film that should have been able to build off The Hangover's success, but they completely and utterly botched the campaign.
David Mumpower: I enjoyed the symbolic, symbiotic link between the premise of the film, desperate salesmen, and the incautious marketing attempts to make it a success. Street corner whores have more pride than was displayed by The Goods' would-be marketers. This is the proverbial lipstick-on-a-pig scenario.
*Swoon*
Kim Hollis: Ponyo, the latest movie from Hayao Miyazaki, opened to $3.6 million. Should Disney be happy with this result?
Josh Spiegel: I'm sure there is one person at Disney (John Lasseter) who wishes this movie did ten times that amount, if only because more people would get to see a Hiyao Miyazaki film for once. However, considering how different Miyazaki's films look compared to Disney, DreamWorks, or even Pixar movies, I feel like this number is pretty good, especially considering the film opened on fewer than 1,000 venues.
Jason Lee: A Miyazaki film is never going to be a "must-see-opening-weekend" film . . . especially one such as Ponyo, which will skew younger than his last three films. I really was hoping for a gross higher than $5 million but that was probably out of the question. I just hope that more people see this film in the weeks to come - it certainly deserves an audience.
Reagen Sulewski: It's about twice as much as any Miyazaki film has ever earned in a single weekend, so that's something.
David Mumpower: The real story is its inevitable battle with Up for the Best Animated Feature prize at the Oscars, but Reagen is right about this result. Miyazaki is far from a household name in North America, but his reputation has clearly grown in the gap since Spirited Away. This is particularly impressive since the only release Studio Ghibli has had in that time frame is the least of their releases, Howl's Moving Castle. On a sidenote, Ponyo is highly recommended viewing as it is tender, G-rated family fun. We don't get enough of that these days.
At least they have the Twilight franchise
Kim Hollis: Bandslam, the new film starring Vanessa Hudgens from Summit Entertainment, opened outside the top 12 with a weekend total of $2.2 million. Why did it fail?
Josh Spiegel: Obviously, Vanessa Hudgens just doesn't have the same appeal as Zac Efron does. She's really the only selling point for this movie; what's more, if having a new trailer for New Moon doesn't get people in the seats (or at least buying tickets and walking out after the trailer), I'm not sure anything does.
Scott Lumley: Was this just a direct-to-video film that just opened above its station?
Eric Hughes: Where's Miley Cyrus when you need her?
Jason Lee: I guess people just aren't inclined to spend $12 on a film that looks like it should have gone straight to DVD.
Reagen Sulewski: This is already becoming a cautionary tale in Hollywood circles about its marketing campaign, which for my part, had one of the worst posters I can recall, and a horrible title (probably recycled from some long lost Frankie Avalon and Annette Funnicello movie). But hey, we might get a new Vanessa Hudgens "scandal" out of this.
David Mumpower: We already did, Reagen. New photos showed up last week. As for the production budget, it's around $20 million. There isn't any good news here for the kind folks at Summit Entertainment. What they have accidentally done here is create an instant cult classic, because reviews and word-of-mouth on Bandslam are exceptional. It just got drowned out by the zealous support of District 9. People are going to find Bandslam on the home video market and they're going to wonder why they never heard anything about its theatrical release. This was poorly handled. There is just no sugar coating it.