Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
January 11, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Daybreakers, the latest in a long line of recent vampire movies, opened to $15.1 million. Should Lionsgate be pleased with this result?
Tom Macy: Holy crap! Avatar made - oh... Daybreakers? Yeah, I'm sure they're happy, but not surprised. Vampires in all form of media seem to be performing like clockwork these days. That being said, pulling in $15 million the second weekend in January and coming in fourth is a pretty good deal. Honestly, I think the biggest winer here is Ethan Hawke. His resume over the last decade is pretty rough, though he does have Before Sunset in there.
Shalimar Sahota: The totally dark-sided concept of vampires having won and humans being harvested for blood is a great idea. This was originally David S Goyer's idea for what he wanted to do with the third Blade instalment (and in my opinion, that film should have gone that road). Hopefully, the positive reviews should give it some legs and it'll be a small sized profit for Lionsgate. But with the unusually stronger than Big Daddy Christmas holdovers and the upcoming The Book of Eli, I feel that this won't be in the top ten for long.
Josh Spiegel: Absolutely. Though Lionsgate probably was able to bank on the current vampire craziness with Twilight, the stars of this movie aren't exactly bankable. I like Ethan Hawke and Willem Dafoe, but they don't equal big bucks. Moreover, with Avatar continuing to dominate the box office and the NFL playoffs beginning this weekend, Lionsgate should be thrilled.
Shane Jenkins: I think so too, especially with Avatar still pulling away a chunk of its potential audience. It can't have hurt that Daybreakers is that rarest of beasts - a well-reviewed January horror flick.
Jim Van Nest: My first reaction to this question was, "What the hell is Daybreakers?" If that's my first reaction, Lionsgate should be thrilled with $15 million.
Reagen Sulewski: This is a really solid result for a film breaking the cardinal rule of vampire-action films of not putting a female character in skin-tight leather. Here, they pushed early and often hoping that the (apparent) quality would shine through, which seemed to give this numbers. Because really, name something that's ever opened well on the name of Ethan Hawke (no Uma jokes, please).
Michael Lynderey: I think Lions Gate should be well satisfied with this one. The horror genre's gone through some bumps in the road lately - even the futuristic action-horror-sci-fi combo that Daybreakers falls under - and so getting a decent enough $15 million opening and a probable $30 million - $40 million total is certainly very acceptable, even if not quite on the franchise-creating level. This one had no real stars, so it had to survive on concept and reviews alone, and it's done that admirably enough.
Max Braden: That beats the pants off Jennifer's Body, and matches the opening for 30 Days of Night. Not bad, not great, but good for a January release in the shadow of Avatar.
Matthew Huntley: Yes, they should be quite pleased for two reasons. Not only did the film manage to find a healthy audience amid the still-dominating holiday releases (a $15 million opening in January should be considered healthy regardless, especially for a horror film), but it also garnered some favorable reviews, which can only help its staying power. The movie reportedly cost $21 million to produce, and by the start of its second weekend, it should start to cover some of its P&A costs, so this will likely be a profitable venture for the studio. That's all most studios can hope for so early in the year.
George Rose: Considering the unexpected and unstoppable force that is Avatar, I'd say they should be pleased. Since last year's biggest winter release was Marley & Me, which tapped out under $150 million, there was plenty of room in January for the likes of Gran Torino, Paul Blart and Taken. Each of those also had a well known actor in the lead. This year's biggest holiday movie (and movie of the year) was Avatar, which just flew past $400 million. Both Sherlock Holmes and that pesky Squeakuel have also earned over $150 million. All three films were huge and are still playing strong, which left little room for a no-name cast (sorry, but Ethan Hawke is no Clint Eastwood, Liam Neeson, or even Kevin James) of Twilight-less vampires to cause some paranormal activity. Not this soon after Halloween, New Moon, and Avatar's world domination anyway. A $15 million result is more than decent for this bland looking, poorly timed project. The real question here is: would Gran Torino, Paul Blart and/or Taken have performed as well as they did last year in this current environment? Timing is certainly key to a film's success, but the box office is too unpredictable to properly time anything. However, given the boring trailers I've seen for Daybreakers, I'm not sure even the most competition-free environment would have pushed this over $20 million. The producers should count their blessings, throw a party, and get underway on the direct-to-DVD sequel.
Why was this released in 2010, exactly?
Kim Hollis: Leap Year, the latest indistinguishable romantic comedy, earned $9.2 million. Do you think this is more, less, or about what Universal was expecting?
Josh Spiegel: I would say less, though not by much. Despite all the ads I saw, I'm not sure that Universal could have expected a lot more, even with Amy Adams as the star. This is just not a time for a movie that is, as Kim says, indistinguishable from anything else at the multiplex to open. Amy Adams will try again, and hopefully succeed next time, at getting a romantic hit.
Tom Macy: It may be a touch lighter than they were hoping when they first set the date. Amy Adams has become a fairly recognizable fixture at the box office and the similarly panned Bride Wars opened to $20 million this same weekend last year. But those expectations were before Avatar - Holy Crap! Avatar made, oh right sorry - became a box office behemoth along with just about every other film opening in December still going strong. Do you think Universal expected The Blind Side to be still in the picture? This result against a budget of $19 million should be more than satisfying.
Jim Van Nest: I know BOP loves some Amy Adams, but go talk to the average movie goer and they have no idea who she is. If you're going to have a generic Rom-Com, you'd better have a name (Bullock, Witherspoon, etc). Looking at the theater listings, I'm shocked anyone went to see this so I would say $9 million is pretty good.
Matthew Huntley: I think it was (slightly) less than what they were expecting. With Amy Adams' bankability rising over the past couple years, they probably wanted to break the double-digit mark with this one. Plus, given the genre, they probably figured it would work as counter-programming to the NFL playoffs and Avatar's inimitable hold on the market. In the end, though, the bad reviews for Leap Year seemed to catch up with it.
Reagen Sulewski: Well, it did better than New in Town did last year, so that's something at least. But this was a case where they didn't really bother pushing this film a lot and I can't really understand why. You could say that people don't know who Amy Adams is, but Julie & Julia made almost $100 million last summer (yes, Streep, but) and her doppelganger Isla Fisher got a $17 million opening out Confessions of a Shopaholic. I suspect this was just a case of them not wanting to throw any money after what they saw as a dog of a film.
Max Braden: It beats New In Town but this falls short of 2008's 27 Dresses at $23 million. I think Adams is pleasant enough to watch and talented enough to add value to a film, but she's got a way to go before establishing an audience that will support her when nothing else in the movie does. I'm a big fan of Matthew Goode but I doubt many Americans even recognize his face or name. You know what also doesn't help a movie? When it completely fails to address its basic premise. I came out of Leap Year thinking Laws of Attraction made more sense, and does anyone remember that movie?
George Rose: I love Amy Adams. Since Enchanted, I've watched and waited for every one of her movies. How does she knooooooooooow I love her? How does she knoooooooooow I care? (Insert Disney melody) She knows because only she can get me to sing like Prince Charming, giggle like a schoolboy, and feel bad for calling red-heads Gingers. When I saw a trailer for Leap Year, that all changed. I enjoy Amy for many of the same reasons I enjoy Emily Blunt. They both have found Hollywood stardom in the last few years, are both critically acclaimed, have appeared together in Charlie Wilson's War and Sunshine Cleaning, and are both beautiful talents that remind me of the early years of Kate Winslet (albeit without a $600 million movie credit called Titanic under their belt). Basically, there was reason to believe and hope that their careers would skyrocket, and in 30 years either one could become the next Meryl Streep. These women have made great choices and have received several award nominations for their work. Emily Blunt can currently be seen in the acclaimed Young Victoria, another good choice. Amy did not leverage her previous acclaim for another shot at an Oscar. No, she sold that fame to land a lead role in a romantic comedy. One that was scheduled for the time of year when airheaded rom-coms like Bride Wars and 27 Dresses are released. Needless to say, this is the first Amy Adams movie I didn't see. Given her career to this point, I'm sure Universal was expecting more. So was I. Everyone involved should be disappointed by this release.
Michael Lynderey: I would have to think Universal was expecting more. While we may balk at romantic comedies and accuse them of being forgettable, they've shown quite some box office muscle - especially in 2009. And January of last year in particular was so kind to this type of star-driven film, that I suspect Universal scheduled Leap Year for the 8th specifically hoping for more of the same - though it turned out that dinner had already been served and the guests all went home. I'm also surprised that the presence of Amy Adams didn't help lift this higher, if only to some degree - before the movie opened, I would've called her one of the biggest female box office draws. Now, that somehow seems less true.