Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
January 5, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Up in the Air expanded into 1,895 locations, earning $11.4 million. Its total so far is $45 million. Are you ready to describe this as a huge win for Paramount?
Josh Spiegel: I don't know that I would call this a huge win, but it's definitely a win for the company. Of course, Paramount can expect Up in the Air to make money for the next two months, as it's likely going to get a fair amount of Oscar nominations on February 2nd; the month building up to the ceremony should help out its total. And, considering that George Clooney, despite being considered a bona fide movie star, has only been in two non-Ocean's $100 million grossers, Paramount should be very happy.
Tom Macy: The victory is certainly a big one, but I might hold off a few weeks before I use the word huge. I think ceiling for this film is very high. Once Oscar nominations are announced - which is clearly the goal here - we'll get an idea of how high. Up in the Air appears to be this years Little Juno Sideways Millionaire, the annual little film that could. The fact that Paramount managed to sell it to the public as a smaller film despite the presence of George Clooney-verse is the real marvel.
Michael Lynderey: I agree that it's not a "huge" win, maybe, but this is definitely shaping up to be one of the more solid Oscar titles of the year. And if you don't count Avatar, this is already the highest-grossing of the fall batch of films that have real shots at awards wins - a fact that puts Up in the Air in a very comfortable position. And unlike Precious, this one is on the upswing. With just enough momentum and some luck, Up in the Air can be a $100 million title, something that similar movies like About Schmidt or Sideways weren't able to become.
Matthew Huntley: I'm in the "wouldn't say "huge" win right now, but a win nonetheless" category as well. However, I have no doubt it will eventually turn into a "huge" win when all its nominations and awards propel it beyond $100 million. By then, I will be ready to describe it as such.
Reagen Sulewski: If you compare this to Reitman's last film, Juno, it's basically following the script to a T. Considering that it's an even stronger Oscar contender than that film, it's likely to approach the $140 million final box office of it, especially if it wins. In short, it's a home run.
Kim Hollis: It's really just getting started, so yes, it's a big win for the studio. At this point, Up in the Air is a top Oscar contender (particularly considering that it's going to be up for most major awards - Picture, Director, Actor, Supporting Actress, Adapted Screenplay). so it's only going to gain momentum as those awards are announced (and won).
David Mumpower: I agree with Kim and Reagen. I strongly suspect that Up in the Air is the title that benefits the most from a lackluster bunch of awards contenders. It speaks volumes that titles such as Star Trek and District 9 are being bandied about as potential Best Picture nominees. Even though both are long shots, no one has this discussion if all of the "pedigreed" features are legitimate candidates. Most of them are of the Nine variety, pyrite. For this reason, the closer we get to the Oscars and the more Up in the Air is elevated as a co-contender for Best Picture against Avatar, the more its box office total is inflated due to the failings of other productions.
Nine is shaping up to be the worst nine/9 movie of the year
Kim Hollis: Nine expanded into 1,412 locations over the holidays, but earned only $4.3 million this weekend. With a running total of $14 million, do you see this as a bomb? Also, do you think it's been taken out of the Academy Awards race?
Josh Spiegel: There's no question that Nine has not made nearly as much as Harvey Weinstein hopes it would have, and that it's going to pale in comparison to Chicago. I always hesitate to say a movie is a bomb, but again...the result is what it is, and it's not what Weinstein would want. Does that mean it's got no Oscar chances? Last year, there was a movie called The Reader, also from Weinstein. It made $34 million, but only had about $10 million when the Oscar nominations were announced. Never count out a Harvey Weinstein movie at the Oscar nominations. Nine certainly isn't a frontrunner, its nominations may end up being all technical, but don't be surprised if it still gets a Best Picture nomination.
Reagen Sulewski: The important difference with The Reader is that it wasn't hyped a year in advance. Nine was one of those films that people had on their radar all though 2009, and the perception was that this was a big film to watch. It's okay to be the small film and not make a lot of of money, but when you're the big spectacle and are greeted with yawn? That's a death knell right there. It's true that you can't count out Harvey's lobbying ability, but he's better served to put his weight behind Inglourious Basterds.
Kim Hollis: Reagen, I think you're right on target here. The Weinsteins will focus their attention on Inglourious Basterds because it's well-positioned to be nominated in a number of top categories. It's also made plenty of money, which is more reason for Oscar to smile upon it. They've got A Single Man attracting some buzz as well, and I can't imagine them putting a lot of energy toward a movie that isn't making the money expected and that also has been critically ripped.
Matthew Huntley: Yes and yes. I just saw the film tonight and it's a hollow achievement at best. It just doesn't have the emotional weight or meaning that the filmmakers think it does. Did we really need a remake of Fellinin's 8 1/2? The film may still earn some technical award nominations (costume design, cinematography, etc.), but I wouldn't be surprised if its lackluster box office will prevent it from winning them.
Michael Lynderey: Nine has about zero to no chance of actually winning any major awards (i.e. acting or directing), but it may sneak in a few nominations yet. Box office wise, I don't think Nine is a bomb, simply because my expectations were severely lowered in the weeks right before release - when the reviews started coming in on the wrong side of the Tomato Meter. I know they spent a lot of money on this one, but when you think about it, none of the stars are really solid box office draws - with the possible exception of Kate Hudson, who's been in a hit or two lately. The rest of the cast - Day-Lewis, Cruz, Cotillard, Kidman, and certainly Dench - are prototypically Oscary actors but not box office stars, and so when they're in an Oscar movie that's not getting very gushy reviews, it performs as Nine has.
Tom Macy: A budget of $80 million, starring six (6!) Oscar winners - including both Best Actor and Best Actress of 2007, directed by Rob Marshall whose own Chicago - of which Nine is extremely similar - brought home six (6!) Oscars and over $300 million worldwide... yeah, I'll call that a pretty solid bomb. Only the new format of ten Best Picture nominees gives the fading Weinsteins the slimmest of hopes. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
David Mumpower: I fully agree with Tom. I know it's a bit of a stretch since the film I'm about to reference only earned $7.2 million domestically, a total Nine beats handily. Even so, the movie of which Nine reminds me forcibly is All the King's Men. On paper, that production was an awards season force to behold. In reality, it was a failed production across the board, and at a price tag of $55 million. Percentage wise, Nine isn't as weak a performer, but it may lose more in terms of overall dollars. Both are regrettable mistakes, but I understand why each got made. In theory, they were both huge winners. In reality, they were...this.
Blue is the new black
Kim Hollis: Avatar earned another $68.3 million, giving it a running total of $352.1 million domestically, while also becoming the fifth film to earn a billion dollars worldwide. What is your opinion of the film now as opposed to the last time we talked in Monday Morning Quarterback after its opening weekend?
Tom Macy: GOOD GOD!!! I can't wait to see how the rest of you attempt to put this into words. In a few days James Cameron will have directed the two biggest films of all-time. My mouth is still agape at the sight of its third weekend. Now that he is behind the two films to perform the most abnormally in the face of current box office trends in the last 20 years, Cameron has to be included with the likes of Steven Spielberg and George Lucas when discussing the most commercially successful filmmakers in history. I haven't been this riveted by a film's success in a decade. Huzzah!
Michael Lynderey: Avatar has officially become a worthy follow-up to Titanic, in just about any way you look at it. Those numbers are awe-inspiring, and they're a perfect demonstration of why you can't judge a December opening weekend by its cover (or a James Cameron opening, for that matter). Avatar's a case of old-fashioned legs operating on the massive modern scale of casual $70 million weekends, something that we almost never see. Looking to the future, I could go ahead and say that I don't think Avatar will get to $600 million, or even $500 million - but if I do that, or even if I don't, the movie will probably just go ahead and prove me wrong anyway.
Josh Spiegel: Avatar is a monster, plain and simple. The movie making a billion dollars worldwide is an amazing fact by itself. The movie making a billion dollars in under three weeks is ridiculous. How is that even possible? As impressive as the number is, I do expect the amazing numbers to drop somewhat, now that schools are going back in session and the holidays are officially over. Still, it's hard to do anything but drop our collective jaws at how much money this movie continues to make. James Cameron is going to have the top two films, in terms of worldwide gross, and he's going to have done so with Avatar in under a month. Crazy.
Shalimar Sahota: Well I figured it would finish somewhere around the $600 million mark worldwide, but now it's pushing a billion, after just THREE WEEKS! I'm sure inflated 3D ticket prices are to blame here. Plus, I guess Cameron does have the ability to attract everyone with this film. Although my parents would never watch it, the screening I was in had every kind of demographic in there on opening day. There were children as young as ten with their mummies, and even those old enough to be grandparents. A part of me still sees Titanic's $1.8 billion as safe (there's some stellar films for January, with Daybreakers, The Book of Eli and Edge of Darkness likely to take Avatar's audience), but a part of me would like to be wrong. And with no big 3D film till March, I think I will be!
Matthew Huntley: My opinion of the film remains the same - that it's a visually stimulating, beautiful movie that's only partially burdened by its derivative story. Nevertheless, it's that visual stimulation that's giving the film its electric word-of-mouth and urging people to see it again for the visceral experience. As far as its box office performance, I, like most people, am caught off guard by how well it's doing, especially given all the reports of its enormous budget. I bet you the ads for James Cameron's next movie will read, "From the Director of Avatar," instead of the "From the director of Titanic."
Reagen Sulewski: I had thought I was being optimistic by predicting $400 million or more domestically. That's now a wild underestimation and should be passed by this time next week. At lot is going to hinge on this upcoming weekend and how long the 3D novelty holds, but it's definitely going to be at least number three all time domestic, number two can't be ruled out, and Titanic numbers are no longer flights of fancy even if I think it ultimately falls short.
The burning question: If Avatar does pass Titanic, does Cameron create a congratulatory ad to himself? I think he's just the kind of guy to do that.
Kim Hollis: I think the lesson we can all learn here is Trust in Cameron. Sure, he might be an egomaniac, but he backs it up every single time.
David Mumpower: Cameron's jubilance in realizing what the worldwide box office totals are must be what having 35 simultaneous orgasms feels like.