Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
September 1, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Does The Final Destination's triumph over Halloween II show that audiences are looking for something different in horror these days?
Josh Spiegel: If anything, I think it may show that Rob Zombie's style of horror may never fully become a mainstream hit. Obviously, his film didn't do poorly, but more people flocked to the typical horror movie, where pretty teenagers spout get killed; from the previews, Halloween II seemed like it would not only offer that, but seem a bit more garish, more gritty, outlandish. Also, the Final Destination series, while a newer franchise, may be more familiar to younger folks, as opposed to the 30-year old Halloween franchise.
Max Braden: I'd accuse Halloween II of being the same old gore, but that didn't stop audiences from flocking to see Friday the 13th earlier this year. I do think though that put side by side, audiences are going to choose the horror film with the more unique hook (so to speak). You know people are going to get slaughtered in Halloween, but you're far more curious about how they're going to die in Final Destination. I think that's what also helped the Saw series. Plus there's more of a personal connection with Final Destination if you're troubled by a sense of karma or fate - you come out of the theater paranoid and thinking how am I going to die?
Sean Collier: I just don't think there's much trust in Zombie, and his involvement has really been the defining characteristic of this reboot. The Friday the 13th restart opened fine, as did the Texas Chainsaw remake. Zombie has very few fans, and to those who haven't seen his previous "films," he doesn't exactly seem like Alfred Hitchcock. There's no reason for audiences to trust him. (Caveat to this rampant Zombie bashing: Rob Zombie's first two solo albums are awesome.)
Reagen Sulewski: I think novelty is always going to win out in a disposable genre like horror. As for Zombie himself, I'd say he's proven himself to be quite a commercially successful director, and with a better distribution company at his back (ad time was way down for this in my perception, and you're telling me no one saw this clash coming?), we'd be talking about him as the new Eli Roth.
David Mumpower: I completely agree with Reagen that Zombie is the rare director who positively impacts box office through his name alone. His fanbase is probably not that large in numbers, but they are zealous and devout in their support. He also creates interest from those who would otherwise ignore a generic horror project. This is why Halloween with Robb Zombie opened to almost as much as Halloween: H20 (1998) and Halloween: Resurrection (2002) combined. Even as we criticize the result for Halloween II, we should keep in mind that it is the second best in the storied history of the franchise. Sure, the series has never been about huge opening weekends, but this is still a win. As long as its final box office tally is north of $35 million against its $15 million budget, I'm certain The Weinstein Co. is pleased with the result.
Like, say, Halloween, perhaps?
Kim Hollis: BOP has always pointed out that competition is largely overstated in the marketplace except in instances of cannibalized demographics. Do you think Halloween II would have made significantly more money opening on a different weekend?
Josh Spiegel: As I mentioned in the other topic, absolutely. I know that some people were sour on the first new Halloween film from Rob Zombie, but the figures it made this weekend show that not enough people were sour on it. If there had only been the one horror movie, despite being released two months before the holiday, it probably would have paid off with something closer to the $26 million the 2007 version made. Of course, had The Final Destination not been in 3-D, we would have seen closer numbers; as it is, Halloween II could have benefited from less competition.
Tim Briody: Significantly? No. Around what the 2007 reboot made? Absolutely.
Sean Collier: I agree - a jump, but not much of one. Perhaps not too far north of $20 Million. I think the weakish result indicates that there are some series diehards and Zombie fans on board, but that's about it; a lack of competition would've directed a few more to the theaters, but I just don't think it's a mainstream project at all.
David Mumpower: I'm in disagreement with you all on this subject. Independent of release date, competition or the like, factors I generally find overstated, this was the result I would have predicted for a too-quick horror sequel like this. There was nothing novel about Halloween II, and that's why it was modestly budgeted at $15 million. This is a low key, low risk project, genre arbitrage as it were.
The most likely answer is severe lack of Snoopy
Kim Hollis: Taking Woodstock, a Focus Features release in 1,893 locations, opened to $3.7 million. Why did this particular Ang Lee project not take off?
Josh Spiegel: The reviews for Taking Woodstock were tepid, the lead is a comedian who's not extremely well-known, and the previews seemed to be showing a couple different movies; one a broad comedy, one a true-life light drama. Moreover, if anyone was expecting to see any of the performers from Woodstock in the film, they were probably turned off by reports that the famous concert is a background to the overall story. At the end of the day, we can chalk this one up to a simple lack of interest from the public.
Max Braden: It looked dead boring, and that's what most of the reviews seemed to say. Plus, nobody's liked hippies since, like, the '90s.
Sean Collier: I thought this one would open a bit bigger - the reaction was very positive at an early screening I attended, and just weeks off of the 40th anniversary of the concert, I saw this as a very well-timed move. I suppose the unfocused marketing sunk Taking Woodstock - if nothing else, they could've highlighted the fact that this is Ang Lee's first English-language film since Brokeback Mountain.
Reagen Sulewski: Dear Boomers: No one cares. Please go away now. Sincerely, us.
David Mumpower: It needed more Nine Inch Nails rolling around in the mud. Too old a reference?