Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
January 25, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Extraordinary Measures, a CBS Films release starring Harrison Ford and Brendan Fraser, earned only $6 million. What went wrong here?
Tony Kollath: Apparently, not enough people ALREADY WORKED AROUND THE CLOCK!
Josh Spiegel: I would argue that too many people ALREADY worked around the clock...otherwise, they'd have seen this would-be TV-movie.
Tom Macy: I don't think my analysis is going to say anything that isn't completely obvious. Clearly, this thing was a trainwreck from the first screech of the engine. Instead, I'll reminisce about the cab ride i took this past Saturday. The little TV screen in the back had Jeffrey Lyons reviewing this film. In response to Brendan Fraser's performance, he said, "Fraser's best acting days may be ahead of him." I wonder if he mixed the screeners up and watched The Mummy 3: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor instead. For his sake, I hope so.
Shalimar Sahota: Have you seen the posters for this film? They're abysmal. Just whacking shots of your two lead starts, standing there, explains little about the film. Also the story is pretty much "made-for-tv" territory.
Calvin Trager: I contend this movie fell victim to a similar fate as Snakes On a Plane. It created a lot of buzz, but for reasons unrelated to anything that would cause people to actually see the movie. Separately, I think the trailer strongly implies that there's nothing original or interesting going on and gave many the vague impression that they'd already seen it before.
Reagen Sulewski: There's got to be a lot of people confused as to why they never said what time this movie was premiering on CBS. But remaking Lorenzo's Oil, but without the compelling parts, really shouldn't surprise people if it doesn't grab people's attention.
Max Braden: Patch Adams without the fun... There's "with Harrison Ford" and then far too many withouts. I may have paid more attention had I been introduced to whoever was dying, and from what.
Michael Lynderey: The story is heart-wrenching and the actors are well-chosen, but the reality is that reviews just weren't kind to this one, the audience wasn't there, and Ford and Fraser haven't carried a film on their star power alone in a while. It's a shame also to see Keri Russell in another box office disappointment, but barring a surprisingly strong critical and audience reception, this was always going to be one of the month's also-rans, rather than another Blind Side.
George Rose: Wow, that question has a long asnwer. Asking, "What went right?" would be much easier. Then I could simply say, "NOTHING." This type of story rarely does well with the mainstream because nobody wants to sit around watching sick kids, unless Denzel Washington is trying to save them by holding up a hospital. Really, it's just too depressing and my mind is still recovering from the trauma that came from seeing Precious. The cast is absolute crap, too. I understand that actors don't want to be typecast and try out different genres, but someone needs to put a cap on it. Like, if I were to have a sit down chat with Julia Roberts, I might say, "You're really great in romance, and I'll even let you do drama, but I'm not sure starring in a sci-fi movie like Star Wars: Episode VII would be a smart career movie." Just because she's famous enough to get any part she wants doesn't mean she should take it. Isn't that what an agent or manager is for? Where are Harrison Ford and Brendan Fraser's agents? Someone should have said, "Look, we know you think you need to explore different types of films after Indiana Jones 4 and Mummy 3, but this isn't it. Try a thriller first, then maybe we can talk about sappy dying children." And CBS Films thought this was the film that would help break them out as a distributor? As far as I'm concerned, $6 million is more than this deserved and CBS should be thrilled with the result.
David Mumpower: How old does Harrison Ford look in this movie? If they shot Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade today, Sean Connery would play Ford's son instead of vice versa. At this point, the only role in which he'd be believable is as the shuffling undead.
Jason Lee: This film looked to be about as much fun as listening to Susan Boyle's debut album.
Abadah!
Kim Hollis: Avatar passed The Dark Knight on its way to becoming the second film to earn $550 million domestically. It will soon become the most successful film of all time in terms of both domestic and worldwide box office. We had a similar conversation when The Dark Knight came out about films that could beat it with regards to opening weekend. Are there any films on the horizon that you believe could have an Avatar-like performance?
Tom Macy: Negative. Not on the horizon, anyway. But as to whether a film could surpass Avatar's eventual total I say yes. Before Avatar, I thought that Titanic was insurmountable due to the frontloading shift in movie going patterns we've seen over the past decade. Now I see that if a film truly provides audiences with an experience they don't feel they can have anywhere but in the theater they'll come out, at any price, often more than once. With 3D and IMAX business booming and still in their relative infancy and directors like Chris Nolan and Michael Bay experimenting with shooting on the 65mm IMAX cameras there's still lots of room for growth. I believe that the potential for a movie going event in the next five-to-seven years that surpasses Avatar in terms of being a transporting new experience for audiences is not out of the question.
Josh Spiegel: Presuming, of course, that you mean a performance of $600 million or more, a couple of the sequels coming out in 2010 could hit big, such as Iron Man 2 or Toy Story 3. I find it hard to believe that a non-sequel that doesn't have the advantage, as Avatar did, of 3-D and major hype could ever hit these heights. And, when it comes to the legs Avatar has, it's a once-in-a-decade situation. Avatar is a far more unique movie than Titanic was, as it's not going to be in theaters as long as the epic ship romance, it's got 3-D, and it's managed to act like a blockbuster, and not like a blockbuster. Frankly, we may have to wait another 12 years, or until ticket prices go past 10 dollars everywhere.
Reagen Sulewski: Don't overlook Percy Jackson!
In all seriousness, I think it will take some adaptation of a popular series to surpass it. Think "Twlight, but good." Nothing in 2010 looks particularly plausible, but Captain America or The Avengers movie might be something to keep an eye on. Failing that, we just have to wait for someone to reinvent cinema again.
Shalimar Sahota: Probably not an Avatar-like performance (which looks like it might be the first film to cross $2 billion worldwide), but with films that are likely to have a worldwide gross of a billion, I think something like The Hobbit could do it. Also, taking into account 3D movies with their inflated ticket prices, Pixar's Toy Story 3 is also a possibility.
Jim Van Nest: I think it will be a long time before anything approaches Avatar and Titanic again. But someone has to mention that Harry Potter will be finishing up the next couple years. I think Deathly Hallows Part 2 might give it a go...though ultimately fall short.
Jason Lee: If history is any indication, the next Avatar-like performance will come from James Cameron's next film.
George Rose: Exactly. There is no film on the horizon that looks to have an Avatar-like performance, because James Cameron hasn't announced his next project yet. Really, there is no way to logically predict this type of success from any film, and the films that have this type of success don't show signs early enough to help us in predicting it. I know Dark Knight was an amazing movie, and more deserving of this Avatar-success than Avatar itself, but I still think it did as well as it did because of Heath Ledger's death. Sure, it was the sequel to the also-awesome Batman Begins and likely would have crossed $400 million without Ledger's death, but that unexpected tragedy was worth enough to push it past $500 million. Like Dark Knight, there was nothing about Avatar a year prior to its release that suggested it would perform like this, other than Cameron's previous work with Titanic. Nobody famous that worked on the film died, it wasn't the sequel to a big hit, and it didn't have previous source material, all things that usually help a film cross the $300 million barrier (see the Spider-Man, Pirates, and Shrek movies for examples). It's usually pretty easy to predict which movies will be among the top 10 of the year blockbusters, and even then there are always unexpected surprises. The Hangover and The Blindside making around $250 million each in 2009 are examples of surprise hits, while examples of blockbuster disappintments can be found with Land of the Lost and even A Christmas Carol. With the release of Avatar, it has become clear the only way to predict a movie will make more than $500 million (or $600 or $700 million) is if it has the James Cameron name brand on it. It doesn't need to be good, have previous source material, or even be a sequel; it just needs Cameron's name. However, I can say with confidence that the Twilight sequels and Harry Potter 7: Part 1 will be huge, but probably won't make more than $400 million. I even think that the Diary of a Wimpy Kid movie has a chance to surprise the world, but even that prediction comes with previous source material and an expected gross less than $200 million. It saddens me that the Cameron name has so much power behind it, but this is the reality we live in. James Cameron is King of the World and only he can out-do himself. God help us all.
Michael Lynderey: I agree that the only movie I could see beating Avatar is whatever it is James Cameron directs next, regardless of what that will be - even the long-anticipated Bratz remake would probably do it. But really, it has finally dawned on me that we have now reached the end of an era. Those of us who've followed the box office for a while now have spent the entire 2000s with Titanic as a benchmark, a code word jammed stuck in the back of our minds. It's the title we'd always use to fill in the blank in sentences like "The movie will be pretty big, but it won't beat ____", or "I think Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone just might outgross ____". Soon, that will no longer be the case, and we now have a new code word, just in time for the 2010s. And the question we've asked the past ten years is the same one we'll be asking for probably the next ten, but with a new fill-in-the-blank - how long will it be until something makes more money than ____?
David Mumpower: Shalimar is on the right track here. The key will be the next film that takes advantage of IMAX and 3-D technology enough to create a must-see-in-theaters vibe. The other phenomenon to track is whether such event ticket pricing spikes dramatically. No one has made this association yet, but what we're seeing with movie theaters mirrors 1990s concert ticket pricing. That means there is still a LOT of room for growth, which makes all event films artificially stronger box office performers.