Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
January 4, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Sherlock Holmes earned $38.4 million this weekend and has a running total of $140.7 million after ten days in release. Is that more, less, or about what you expected from the film at this point?
Josh Spiegel: At least, this is about what I expected from Sherlock Holmes, as the film is meant to only kickstart another franchise with Robert Downey Jr. Considering the fact that Sherlock has had to head off Avatar from its first day, making just about $150 million in two weeks' time is something Warner Bros. should be happy about. I'm sure they're marking off Christmas Day 2011 as the release date for Sherlock Holmes: Moriarty's Electric Boogaloo.
Reagen Sulewski: I think everyone has to be pretty happy with the results of this. There was probably some potential for a Pirates of the Caribbean situation, but there was more chance of a Wild Wild West thing happening. Probably the toughest thing to do these days is launch a new franchise, and barring something really bizarre (like the rights holders pulling the plug over a statement made by its star on a late night talk show...) we'll get our sequel. It's particularly noteworthy that they held back the series' equivalent of the Joker for the second round.
Kim Hollis: I agree with Reagen that Warner Bros. has to feel this result is exemplary. Christmas is a bit of an odd and risky time to launch a movie that looks so action-y, but the fact that they're got a $150 million+ winner on their hands has to be thrilling. It's a franchise launcher for sure, and even if word-of-mouth isn't glowing to the degree of Avatar, Holmes has generally good buzz. This is something they can build on.
Matthew Huntley: Yes, and I think the studio should be happy with it because the $200 million mark is now within striking distance, which should be more than enough to greenlight a sequel. It did fall faster than other holiday films now in play, but that's normal for an action-adventure movie.
Shalimar Sahota: Robert Downey Jr. has become a more recognizable name since Iron Man and Tropic Thunder and the trailers looked exciting, feeling like a more edgy Indiana Jones. Given the competition it's playing against, this result means that a sequel is certainly in the works.
Michael Lynderey: It is absolutely, overwhelmingly, incalculably hordes more than I ever expected from this film. Somehow, Warner Bros. convinced moviegoers that Sherlock Holmes should be treated like a summer blockbuster in Christmas wrapping, and that idea overcame every hurdle I thought the film would face (including running time, setting, and general weirdness). Most of the movies that open to $60 million or more are CGI, sequels, or heavy special-effects extravaganzas, so to think that Sherlock Holmes has managed to join that club - and in late December, no less - is a credit to its makers.
Tom Macy: This is way more than I expected. I was shocked when it opened to $25 million on Christmas Day, especially in the face of Avatar. Maybe my lack of faith was due to my assumption that the public's reaction to the trailer was as tepid as mine. Or that they were more wary of Guy Ritchie's one trick pony schtick. Guess I was alone on this one. This really confirms the box office superpower of Robert Downey Jr. He is now starring in two wildly successful franchises, both of which, while having a built audience of sorts, are way more obscure than the likes of Batman, Twilight and Hasbro toy lines. Quite impressive.
David Mumpower: Based on box office behavior of films with a similar scale that opened in the lucrative December holiday period, Sherlock Holmes is a coin flip to earn $200 million domestically. My suspicion is that it falls short of that by $15 million or so, but I expect that if you had asked anyone involved with the production if $185 million doemstically would be enough, the answer would have been "HELL YES!" As I mentioned on Twitter a couple of weeks ago, the sum total of all previous Guy Ritchie movies' box office was $40.4 million. It was bold to let him helm a major studio release like this, and the decision paid tremendous dividends for Warner Bros.
Where are the chipmunk-hunting hounds when you need them?
Kim Hollis: Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel earned $36.6 million and has a total of $157.3 million after 12 days in release. Why, God, why?
Shalimar Sahota: Um... Genesis Chapter 6, Verse 19??? On a rather disturbing note, in the UK this has manged to beat Sherlock Holmes and topple Avatar to reach #1. I guess some parents love the feeling of nostalga here, while other parents find that sitting thier young ones infront R-rated shlock isn't working and so try to find new ways to scar them for life. In two years, we'll be talking about the third film being in 3D and why it's managed to make near a billion worldwide.
Josh Spiegel: Now, to be fair, we can't say for sure that...oh, who am I kidding? This is just sad. The fact that there is a truly charming family entertainment at every movie theater in the country being ignored in favor of these chipmunks is sad. Kids need to see Princess and the Frog, not 3D chipmunks. So...why is this movie doing well? Why did the first one do well? Kids are inexplicably attracted to this stuff, as kids have been for the past 50 years. One day, those same kids will shake their heads at why they ever wasted their time on Alvin, Theodore, Simon, and I can't believe I know all three chipmunks' names. Excuse me while I cry myself to sleep.
Reagen Sulewski: I think you're asking the wrong deity, Kim. The important thing to realize here is that kids don't care about what we as adults call "quality". They like a concept and bright shiny things and funny voices (and of course, poop jokes). Especially in a situation like Christmas week where you can drop the kids off at this and then go see Avatar or Sherlock... well, that's how we get where we are.
Kim Hollis: I know, Reagen. Kids love the poop jokes, which means Alvin and his friends will have a place in theaters for as long as they desire it. I was still sort of hoping the second film might have the same sort of drop-off as something like Scooby-Doo, but alas, it wasn't meant to be. I guess Jason Lee is making some money, so that's nice.
David Mumpower: The magic word is Squeakquel. It's the new Electric Boogaloo.
Matthew Huntley: It's also because all the kids and parents who paid to see the original are only two years older, which still makes it relevant for them. The chipmunks are cute, cool and speak with high-pitched voices, and kids eat that stuff up. We all liked the cartoon growing up (or at least I did), so it's only natural kids today like the live action movies.
Michael Lynderey: Cute furry critters rake in the numbers, and that's really all there's ever been to it. And if we rule out the wobbly Princess/Frog, the Chipmunks being the only straightforward children's-aimed movie helped immensely, too, I'm sure - Alvin and co. were probably the first choice of almost all of the under-13 demographic, for whom Avatar and Sherlock Holmes may have looked somewhat dull (and hey, they had a point there). I still think there's a glimmer of a chance that Chipmunks II finishes under the first one's $217 million, but so what if it does? Moving the Squeakquel from March '10 to December was still a box office masterstroke.
Tom Macy: To borrow the tagline of a film directed by James Cameron's predecessor in the Alien franchise, No Good Without Evil. No Love Without Hate. No Innocence Without Lust. I am Darkness. As Avatar represents the evolution of cinema, this film is a picture of its continuing decay. Apparently there are audiences for both.