Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
December 1, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Fantastic Mr. Fox, fittingly enough a Fox release, earned $9.5 million in five days. Why didn't this one strike more of a chord with North American audiences?
Josh Spiegel: It's a Wes Anderson movie in stop-motion animation. Honestly, that this movie has made this much money is impressive enough. I'm not sure how much money Fox was hoping from Mr. Fox, but Anderson is always going to be a niche director, someone who some people (such as myself) love and some people (such as my wife) hate. Fantastic Mr. Fox is a really enjoyable movie, but I'm not sure that kids are going to be lining up to see this, nor are many parents, especially with all of the other options available to them. Only The Royal Tenenbaums has made more than $25 million domestically, so this isn't too shocking. Also, with George Clooney as the star, I'm sure the international grosses won't be too disappointing.
Sean Collier: This is right about where I thought the film would land. One of 2009's many not-really-but-looks-like-a-children's-movie offerings, the audience for Fantastic Mr. Fox was mostly hip parents of young kids and particularly youthful Wes Anderson fans. I think this got all the audience it had any chance of grabbing.
Tim Briody: I'm not sure much of the target audience knows who Wes Anderson is, Josh. That said, even though it's been out for a few weeks, A Christmas Carol was still the number one family option and there was still Planet 51 out there too, meaning this didn't really have much of a prayer over the holiday weekend.
George Rose: I hate to say it, but stop motion animation isn't that attractive. I thought having a known story, cast and director would help but I guess the visuals are too awkward for most audiences. It would have done better, like Coraline, if they used the 3D gimmick to help make the style more appealing. Then again, the recession is also easy to blame. With so many films out over the holiday weekend, do I really want to spend my only movie time and $10 to see what I can create myself with dolls? No, I'm going to support Team Edward or Sandy B's Blind Side. Hopefully it develops legs, as I expect a quality product like this will do, and becomes a surprise hit for the medium. Awkward as it may be, it really is fascination when done right, and Fantastic Mr. Fox appears to have all the right pieces.
Tom Macy: It's always disappointing when a film that aims to show audiences something new gets the cold shoulder. But it doesn't surprise me that that Wes Anderson's style over substance approach (that's right I said it, bring it bitches!) coupled with this ambiguous children's film thing induced a collective "huh?" from moviegoers. I think audiences did the "I don't understand it so I'm going to ignore it" thing. Personally, I found it to be enjoyable but not particularly memorable. So I know I'm not spreading positive word-of-mouth.
Shalimar Sahota: The lack of 3D? The ancient art of stop-frame? The sight of a fox and a badger wearing a tie? I'm hoping this has some staying power, because it's a great film; however, while I'm sure children would like it, it felt like it was tailor made more for adults, and they would probably enjoy it a lot more.
Michael Lynderey: The bottom line is really that Wes Anderson makes quirky comedies for grown-ups - that's exactly what he did here, it showed, and Fox was left as a well-reviewed film with no audience. Mr. Fox looked way too weird for kids, and there was no way adults would turn out for a stop-motion animation like they did for Where the Wild Things Are - the nostalgia factor didn't come into play. In fact, as soon as I saw the trailer, I knew it didn't have a chance; Mr. Fox dabbling in existentialism? That's a big no-no for a children's movie trailer (although this is the rare case where the trailer is weirder than the movie itself), and the voice cast certainly isn't going to win over any kids. Think about it this way: if you're eight years-old and you could pick between seeing either Mr. Fox's vaguely creepy-looking stop-motion face or the silly-looking slapstick of Old Dogs, what would your choice be? Heck, I know which one I'd go see, and I'm 23!
Jim Van Nest: If I didn't have this sweet corner office here at BOP headquarters, I may never have heard of this film. And I KNOW my kids haven't. Kinda hard to get families to the theaters to see your movie when none of them know you have a movie. Also, there's a ton of family stuff out their right now and I just don't think the stop-motion animation can compete with computer generated aliens and Robin Williams getting hit in the peas.
Jason Lee: Let's see, you have Wes Anderson who's never a big box office draw, and you have stop-animation, which is never a big box office draw (Coraline aside). This movie will be a big hit on DVD after it gets its Best Animated Film nomination at the Oscars.
Reagen Sulewski: Hell, this is already more successful than half of Anderson's films. But taking a forgotten Roald Dahl story and filming it with outdated styles and turning it into Bottle Rocket (not a criticism, mind) is not the stuff that boffo box office is made of. I think all of us Anderson fans will agree to forget about it.
Kim Hollis: I think not, Reagen. It's a terrific film, though I readily admit it's not a kids' movie (nor am I sure it was truly marketed as such) and the audience becomes more limited by the fact that it's animated in the first place. The more alienating format of stop-motion makes it that much more difficult to sell. With that said, it is an absolutely gorgeously done film with bright colors and lively characters (anyone who complained about the dead eyes in A Christmas Carol should take a look at the tender love and care that went into the eyes of the animals in Mr. Fox's world). It's wonderful stuff and a shame that it's going to be seen by so few.
Max Braden: With those comments in mind, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a bigger DVD rental.
No turkeys on this plate.
Kim Hollis: The two biggest stories of Thanksgiving weekend intersected as The Blind Side came within $2.7 million of beating New Moon over the three-day portion of the weekend, after being a measly $108.7 million behind last weekend. Are you more impressed by The Blind Side being at $100.2 million after ten days or by New Moon being at $230.9 million after ten days?
Josh Spiegel: To me, there's no question here. The Blind Side is a bigger success story, if only because a lot of people figured that New Moon would be ridiculously successful. Frankly, the latter film is performing exactly as big, front-loaded blockbusters do. The Blind Side is performing at a very odd pace, so much so that I would not be at all surprised if it's the number-one film next weekend. This past Saturday night, I went to the local multiplex, and the only movie with any line was for The Blind Side. I'm not sure why this inspirational sports-related movie works where some haven't, but it helps having Sandra Bullock, who's just about the biggest female star this side of Kristen Stewart, as the lead.
Sean Collier: "Fanbase-fueled blockbuster drops big, still has highly impressive second weekend" is not a headline. "Inspirational sports movie jumps up in second-weekend box office, nearly toppling juggernaut" is most certainly shocking. If it weren't for Paranormal Activity, this might be the biggest box-office story of the year. Again, this seems to be succeeding by appealing to every family member - inspirational story for mom, football for dad, broad storyline and wacky brother and sister duo for the kids - and serving as the easy consensus choice when families retreated to the multiplex after their holiday shopping. Still, the overall tally is stunning, and Sandra Bullock has somehow catapulted back to the top of the A-List.
Tom Macy: Both really are nuts. If you had run down the list of what New Moon would accomplish prior to its release I would have balked. But The Blind Side? Holy God, talk about striking a chord. The oddest part is – having not seen it – the critical consensus seems to be that the film is nothing new in the uplifting triumph of the human spirit lexicon. So what is it that makes this one different? Is word-of-mouth really that strong? Did Thanksgiving family values bring it home? How has it managed to be one of the handful of wide releases in recent memory that increased in its second weekend after an already stellar opening? Don't you love my questions substituting as answers? There's another question! Okay, here's an answer: The reason for The Blind Side's success is the box office tractor beam that is Kathy Bates. Afterall, she was in Titanic.
Michael Lynderey: I wouldn't have batted an eyelash if someone told me three weeks ago that New Moon finishes at $300 million or so - it was really the massiveness of the opening weekend that shocked. But The Blind Side possibly reaching $200 million? That's a big wowser, and it's definitely more impressive, because it came out of nowhere. Yes, the trailer was good, and Bullock's maybe the biggest female draw, and so on. But $100 million in 10 days? Inconceivable. In fact, The Blind Side is playing out in that distinctly 2009-era tradition of the feel-good big-star film turned uber-blockbuster - I'm talking about the exploits of Paul Blart: Mall Cop, Gran Torino, Taken, and of course Bullock's own The Proposal. I think we're going to see more of this happening in the two months ahead - to the detriment of a starless and somewhat bleak film like Avatar.
Jim Van Nest: I'm not going to sit here and pretend like $230 million in 10 days for New Moon doesn't shock the hell out of me. It does. I really didn't think the fan-base was this big and this rabid. Even so...Blind Side actually increasing its take this weekend AND almost knocking New Moon out of the #1 slot is easily a larger story. Especially considering the type of movie Blind Side is. There are no effects, and no brooding vampires. There's only Sandra Bullock with a dye job and a VERY large unknown black kid. There's no way this should be at $100 million in 10 days. No way.
Jason Lee: I'm thrilled with The Blind Side (I'll say it again: Golden Globe nominee for Best Actress in a Drama) but I gotta say, the idea that a mopey vampire story could turn out $230 million in ten days is stunning to me. And scary. And depressing.
Reagen Sulewski: This is not to take anything away from The Blind Side, but New Moon is still the bigger story. It's a transformative leap in a franchise, while The Blind Side is more of a continuation of the renewed Sandra Bullock love-fest. But - ask me again if The Blind Side hits $200 million.
Max Braden: Right, you don't want to discount the New Moon story. It's like saying "XYZ stock moved only a penny per share on news that its $50 billion quarterly profit met expectations." But The Blind Side is a surprise. I would have been less surprised from this box office behavior had it been a Christmas release still going strong in January, but even then I did not expect this performance based on what the trailer offered. I still don't even know anyone who's seen either New Moon or The Blind Side. I almost feel marginaliz-- nope, the feeling passed.
David Mumpower: What The Blind Side has managed here is probably inimitable. I've been trying to come up with scenarios wherein we see a duplication of this feat over the next few years. It's hard to describe a reasonable one. I would have described closing a $105 million gap from one weekend to the next as a theoretical impossibility up until the past few days. I've seen several stories along the lines of "what's the big deal". Frankly, those demonstrate a lack of understanding of box office behavior these days. It's that simplistic point of view that quality should sell, and we can list any number of great films this year alone that disprove that theory. In the end, what makes The Blind Side special is that it's a guy film that appeals to women because of that strong adoptive mother aspect. We've seen extraordinary box office behavior as a result of the word-of-mouth it has built that is centered upon it being the rarest of rare high quality non-animated family film. Directly addressing the question, my answer is this. Both titles are in the discussion for biggest news story of the year and I think the evaluation of "most impressive" comes down to pre-release expectations for each. New Moon is the more impressive result to me as the significantly more profitable release. It's going to be the second most successful film of 2009 in terms of domestic revenue. The Blind Side is, however, the more surprising result. New Moon always looked like a $300 million movie to me. There was never a moment in time where I believed The Blind Side could make $150 million and I was one of its biggest champions prior to release.