Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
January 11, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Youth in Revolt, a film that plays on the squeaky clean image of Michael Cera, opened to $6.9 million. Do you think this is an instance of poor marketing or do you believe Michael Cera isn't enough of a draw?
George Rose: All the above, and more. There was poor marketing, but who can blame them? This felt more like the kind of movie that launches the career of a newcomer, not one that does big opening weekend business. The story seems quirky but not one that can be marketed heavily. Cera is the only selling point here and he's hardly bankable. Superbad was a fluke for him, since Judd Apatow and Seth Rogen were the main draws. Juno wasn't sold on Cera either, Nick and Nora's Infinite Playlist didn't set the world on fire, and I'm pretty sure I can still smell the stink on Year One. As much as I enjoy his characters and worship all that is Arrested Development, Michael Cera cannot get me to pay $10 and he's not traditionally hot enough to stalk in the tabloids. I feel bad for saying that because he seems like a really cool guy, but he doesn't want A-list status anyway. He almost didn't sign onto the Arrested Development movie and he's said in interviews that he doesn't want to do this forever, or even for long. He doesn't want an audience and audiences don't seem to want him. This might finally give him the chance he wants to break free from Hollywood, or maybe it'll be what he needs to realize he wants to stay. If there's any chance for that his next project will need to earn at least a $15 million on opening weekend. The only one that should be happy about this $7 million debut is Amy Adams.
Michael Lynderey: Hey, Cera's no Amy Adams. Really, though, Youth in Revolt was a good film that came at a bad time. Michael Cera's prowess as leading man was probably harmed by Year One, and to a lesser extent, worn out some by Nick and Norah. Youth in Revolt came in as the third leg of the tour, and so I think there was a lot more suspicion and distrust of Cera, especially in a role that looked so familiar (even if the movie was much better than expected). If there's good word-of-mouth, and I think there will be, this one could work its way up to somewhere in the $20 millions. And if that's the case, Youth in Revolt will set Cera up nicely for his upcoming Scott Pilgrim.
Josh Spiegel: I think that Michael Cera's time to be a star is drastically waning. He will always be George Michael Bluth to me, and, truth be told, he looked freakishly young in the ads for this movie. I know it was delayed by a year, but still, I feel like Cera is getting younger, not older. He's a regular Benjamin Button. Anyway, I think some people might have been baffled by this movie, or not at all sold on Cera trying to play a bad boy. This one's also too quirky for mass audiences to respond to, perhaps.
Jim Van Nest: Very often lately, I've been getting the feeling that Hollywood is trying to force feed me certain actors and telling me they're stars. Gerard Butler is one of those people. And so is Michael Cera. Sure, he's quirky and mildly amusing, but that doesn't make a movie star. So please, Hollywood execs, please stop shoving this kid down my throat.
James Wood: But he's kind of perfectly cast as Nick Twisp. So it's less about Hollywood force-feeding him in this instance, I think. Whereas I'm not totally sure he's perfect to play Scott Pilgrim and I hope that doesn't tank as a result. I think it's more a matter of the movie not quite channeling the best parts of the book and the trailer not channeling the best parts of the movie. It was probably really hard movie to cut a trailer for, I'd guess.
Reagen Sulewski: This is far less a reflection of the star than of the genre. Since the breakout of Twilight, the only genre that's more narrowly focused than those aimed solely at teen girls are those quirky comedies aimed solely at teen boys. At the risk of invoking the Wrath of Kim, look at some of John Cusack's early films, now revered as classics. Better Off Dead made just $11 million and One Crazy Summer made $14 million. Say Anything only managed $20 million. There's ticket inflation to add onto all of those numbers of course, but that doesn't make any of them into hits. Youth in Revolt was just never going to be a big film and it's a mistake to compare it against them. Time will tell if it actually has something to it.
Max Braden: That's not great, considering he's one of the more prominent faces of his generation even if he's not its biggest box office draw. I think audiences could tell this movie floated between Juno and Superbad, somehow quirkier or more subversive than either. This $7 million is much less than the $11 million Cera opened Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist with Kat Dennings. I disagree that Cera's career is suffering at all; he's just not going to be Will Ferrell. I fully expect him to establish himself as an actor who delivers more quality than box office in the future.
Matthew Huntley: I think it's combination of Michael Cera overload, the R rating and the fact the movie opened in less than 2,000 theaters. Also, the ads don't make it clear it's meant to lampoon Michael Cera's typical on-screen personality (instead, they make it seem like it's Cera doing his same old shtick). Plus, the trailer and TV spots leave out some of the more inspired aspects of the movie, like the animation and unpredictable plot (it's fairly inventive and clever for a teenage sex comedy). Cera can be a draw, yes, but not as a leading man.
Tom Macy: Ugh, Youth in Revolt? Can we please talk about Avatar now??? Okay, if I have to, I don't think there was really much to support Michael Cera being much of a draw to begin with. His biggest films were overachievers Superbad -which was his breakout - and Juno - where he serendipitously rode the coattails of Ellen Page's breakout four months later. This summer's Year One was a pretty solid bomb and Paper Heart barely got a release. The best comparison is Nick and Nora's Infinite playlist, which took in a decent but tidy $31 million. It'll make its money back - only a budget of $18 million - and judging by the trailer and reviews it seems like it's a decent film. I don't think this opening hurts Cera's future too much.
The elephant in the living room
Kim Hollis: *takes deep breath* This weekend, Avatar became the most successful domestic release of 2009, the second-biggest film of all-time globally, the best fourth weekend performer ever, and the biggest January weekend ever while becoming the first release to record four (!) consecutive $50+ million box office weekends. Do you have anything new to say about Avatar given these latest in what seems like a series of box office achievements?
Josh Spiegel: What else is there to say? James Cameron has directed the two highest-grossing movies of all time. Avatar is probably going to surpass The Dark Knight as the fastest-grossing movie ever in the next week or two. It's got a good shot at being the highest-grossing movie ever. Seriously. Should anyone doubt Cameron ever again? I just hope he doesn't spend the next decade making more documentaries.
Shane Jenkins: I liked Avatar, but didn't love it... until now! Because any movie that knocks Michael Bay and his godawful film to second place for the year is aces with me! Thank you, James.
Matthew Huntley: Avatar's success is all but solidified at this point, and there's really not much else to say about it. Although I don't think the film is perfect, I'm glad it's invigorating the box-office as much as it is.
Jim Van Nest: What this film is doing is amazing. I finally saw it this weekend and it was fantastic. Lived up to the hype, in my opinion. However, I took my family of four to see the rush hour show and tickets were still $43. Normally the rush hour show is like $25. Where are the BOP numbers guys to break down exactly what the 3D price increase means to Avatar? I know for most 3D films, it's negligible. But word-of-mouth on this film is very much, "You have to see it on the big screen and you HAVE to see it in 3D." I'm wondering if anyone can come up with a breakdown on how the 3D sales have affected Avatar.
Reagen Sulewski: I just hope Cameron's rule is benevolent.
I think it might be appropriate at this point to address some of the concerns of its detractors as far as box office goes. The most common thing I'm hearing is that you have to knock off some of the achievement because Avatar's average ticket price is higher. Let me flip that around a little - how much less do you think Transformers would gross if you made people pay 50% more to see it in theatres?
Michael Lynderey: I know Avatar is all everyone seems to be talking about, but to me, it's one of the less interesting entries on this weekend's box office chart. It's already been thoroughly established that this is a massive super-blockbuster that will redefine moviegoing as we know it, and that, as such, it is making a whole lot of money (in what could be seen as one last bout of 2009-style box office grandstanding). There is still an element of mystery as to whether Avatar will give Titanic a good whooping, but that's a plotline not likely to be resolved for a month or so more. So for now, it's just a waiting game.
Max Braden: What's also telling to me is that Avatar is earning at a slightly slower pace than The Dark Knight (twice as many days to reach $200 million, five more days than Dark Knight took to reach $300 million, and five more to reach $400 million) but we're talking seriously about Avatar overtaking The Dark Knight's total domestic box office gross. If the 3-D were just a cheap gimmick I would have expected the box office to start dropping off significantly by now - which is what happened to Transformers 2. Transformers 2 was faster than Avatar to every box office milestone up to $300 million, but shortly after that Avatar reached box office milestones earlier. (According to EW, 3D screenings account for approximately 75% of Avatar's total grosses).
George Rose: Yes, there is something new to say. Something I could only say after its first few weeks, where Avatar's success could have been just the result of great holiday timing. Everyone listen, because I will only say this once and will deny having said it forever afterwards. James Cameron, I'm sorry for doubting you. While I still think the plot is too simple for an almost three hour runtime, is too predictable, and doesn't have a good enough story to buy and rewatch on 2D-DVD, it was still enjoyable as a 3D IMAX experience. And I suppose the world seems to think so as well. I'm not sure why the masses chose Cameron as their savior, but I don't get the hype behind Jesus either. Regardless, he is the chosen one. Though it pains me to say, I suppose a movie doesn't need to be the best movie ever to be one of the biggest movies ever. If only good movies made good money, then Up In The Air would earn over $200 million and Transformers 2 would have made... well... nothing, and last time I checked it made over $400 million. I also think it's silly people are claiming James Cameron has the two biggest movies of all time, since the box office numbers being used don't count inflation and 3D price increases, but I guess the media can't kiss his ass enough. Saying he has the two biggest movies ever is just another marketing tool to get the few who haven't seen Avatar into the theaters. As for me, the day might never come when I kiss Cameron's butt way up there on that pedestal, but I sure won't be kicking it anymore. From this day forward, I will not assume the worst of his work as a box office analyst. He's a good director who has made some amazing movies. I don't necessarily need to understand the success of his last two movies in order to appreciate them, and it's not his fault the world is so devoted. They weren't all there for Terminator 2 or True Lies, but they are there now and this sort of unpredictable success is what makes analyzing movies so much fun in the first place. It's a new year and there are new releases to make fun of anyway. This week alone produced three new ones worth poking fun at.
Tom Macy: Finally! First of all, again, wow. Okay, I think my head has stopped spinning somewhat and I'm beginning to believe what I'm seeing a bit more. I can now rationally identify two tangible factors that have led to this runaway success that don't involve James Cameron using voodoo. The inflated 3D and IMAX ticket prices and Cameron's ability to once again induce repeat viewings by giving audiences something they truly feel they can never experience unless in a movie theatre. I know I plan on going a -gulp- fourth time, if the IMAX isn't sold out AGAIN. I fully believe this will eclipse Titanic, in today's dollars anyway, an important distinction. However, Avatar does have that all important sequel/franchise potential. First $200 million opening weekend?
Shalimar Sahota: Battle Angel Alita next, please, Mr Cameron? Just don't make us wait over a decade for it!