Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
February 8, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Dear John, the movie featuring big stars Whosit and What's-Her-Face, toppled Avatar from its reign at the top of the box office after seven weeks. How in God's name did Dear John earn $30.5 million?
Josh Spiegel: The right audience at the right time. With this being Super Bowl weekend, the male-oriented movies are going to suffer. Avatar, despite getting Oscar nominations, has been out for a long time. Dear John, despite not having huge stars, has been marketed to death everywhere I look, so kudos to Sony for getting the word out as much as possible. We'll forget the movie in a day, but it gets its time in the sun for now.
Michael Lynderey: Bizarre. Incomprehensible. Absurd. Blartish. All words that can be used to accurately describe what occurred at the box office this weekend, just when we weren't looking. Really, though, I have no explanation for how and why these events transpired. I could go on about the recent trend of front-loaded female moviegoing ('cos Dear John is going to be frontloaded... right?), or talk about the Nicholas Sparks brand of hit romantic dramas, or say that the cast made this out to look like an attractive film just in time for Valentine's Day. But that would explain a $16 million opening, not one twice that size. The whole thing reminds me of the excesses of January 2009, but not in a good way. I just really have to wonder how big that next Sparks movie with Miley Cyrus is going to be. Are we getting two $100 million titles on April 2nd now, with Clash of the Titans and Sparks' The Last Song?
George Rose: Oh, man, this is a joyous day. I couldn't have picked a better title to dismantle Avatar than Dear John. Only because it is so absurd is it so perfect! Every man who ever loved Cameron in the 1990s went out to support Avatar, and they probably brought their girlfriends. But all those girls who walked out of Avatar were left hungry for the Cameron they knew in Titanic, not T2 or True Lies. In the 12 years since Titanic, one reliable source for false-romantic-hope has become Nicholas Sparks. Since men were so blindly satisfied (sorry, I mean "fully" satisfied) by Avatar, it comes as no surprise that a bunch of bland action movies starring old A-listers couldn't take the throne, especially in January. It's 2010, people, and Hollywood has officially shifted. It's all about young, shiny, 3D, IMAX, new trends, and old remakes. It's sad, but it's true. Seyfried and Tatum are hot young stars who were due for a breakout outside of their previous blockbusters, which were both based on pre-made properties. Regardless of what the reviews are, someone knew combining these two hot young stars and the new King-of-the-World of Romantic Drama would create a must-see movie for young women. The only ones that should really be shocked and disappointed by this news is the makers of the Valentine's Day releases. Though neither Wolfman or Valentine's Day will get to battle it out for the title of Film That Took Down Avatar, you know Valentine's Day was hoping to be the top choice for women in February. That is no longer a guarantee. Once again, the box office has proven to be an unpredictable bastard. And once again, it has done so with a sense of humor.
Reagen Sulewski: This is definitely shooting a hole in my long-held theory that recessions hit teen entertainment first, because that's the demographic that's least likely to have money in this kind of time. The only concrete explanation I can imagine is that teens viewed this as an unofficial sequel to The Notebook, because little else makes sense.
Max Braden: "From the author of The Notebook" probably helped, but it wasn't a guarantee for Spark's follow-up Nights in Rodanthe, which opened the same as The Notebook ($13.5 million) but earned a little over half the total gross ($42 million vs $81 million). The key appears to be the younger market, and I think if you compare it to the crazy success of New Moon, you start to see that Romeo & Juliet factor at work.
Kim Hollis: I think that we're consistently underestimating the female demographic. There just aren't a lot of movies that give women and teen girls what they're yearning for, but stuff like Dear John, The Twilight Saga, Mamma Mia! and Sex and the City have all broken out big. I think that smart marketers will realize that there is a big opportunity here ripe for the grabbing.
Can we pick Scott Porter? Please?
Kim Hollis: Channing Tatum's last three films are Public Enemies, G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra and Dear John. Amanda Seyfried has Mamma Mia! and this film on her resume. Which actor do you expect to be more successful moving forward?
Josh Spiegel: Amanda Seyfried, but both actors have the potential for success. Tatum and Seyfried are both well-regarded in Hollywood, it seems; Seyfriend, at least, is a good actress - see Veronica Mars and Big Love for proof. Tatum has a specific type of role to play (and, being fair, he's in about one minute of Public Enemies), and does so well. But Seyfriend has more range, and could be around for a while.
Tim Briody: Amanda Seyfried also has Mean Girls, which I now realize is almost six years ago. Channing Tatum is going to get Paul Walker's hand me downs, but Seyfried has a much longer career ahead of her, I'm sure.
Michael Lynderey: Thinking back to their first films (Mean Girls for Seyfried and Coach Carter for Tatum), I would not have necessarily thought either was going to end up being a lead actor, but here we are. Looking at the near future, it seems like Seyfried is going to alternate big romantic dramas (i.e. her upcoming Letters to Juliet) with somewhat more Oscary fare (Chloe), while Tatum is wed to movies that take advantage of his physicality (Knockout and G.I. Joe 2). In the long run, though, I'd say Tatum may have more staying power, simply because male actors have longer careers than actresses, usually through no fault of their own. In 2019, I could see Tatum still headlining that fourth G.I. Joe movie, but who knows on Seyfried?
George Rose: Both are just beautiful and young enough to keep playing the Hollywood game successfully for another couple of years, but beyond that is tough to decide. Amanda is definitely better at acting, which obviously helps, but Channing is a man and they typically get better looking with age. Each has a benefit over the other which puts us right back at "draw." My personal vote is Amanda, because she has range and has proven herself in the comedy genre (Mean Girls), which is tough to pull off. Channing has all the acting ability of a lead pipe but he's got that stupid G.I. Joe franchise working for him. As of now, it seems Channing is better set up for his future. Amanda has Letters to Juliet coming out later this year, but how many times do people want to see her writing sappy love letters? She may have the range but she isn't using it at the moment. If she can get her agent to stop milking the romantic tit and get her into some upcoming superhero franchise, she could potentially take over the world. Really, though, they'll both be out of the game in three years, having lost out to the next wave of trendy young stars who got thrust into fame too quickly.
Reagen Sulewski: Tatum feels like one of those interchangable guys that we'll look back on for VH1s "I love the Tens" and say "remember that guy?" I think the biggest asset for a young actor is the ability to play comedy, and Seyfried has well proven that she can do that. Hollywood's not kind to female starlets, though, so the answer could well end up being "neither" despite this film.
Max Braden: I have trouble imagining Seyfried as much of a lead. I don't doubt she'll have plenty of visible roles in the future, but I don't see her name touted as a big star. I think the opposite for Tatum, though. Despite the apparently lackluster filmography to date, he's building face recognition. And you can count his competition among the under 30 crowd on one hand. I think his screen presence over the last 12 months is going to land him more opportunities. They may be Stallone-type opportunities, but Stallone was still one of the biggest stars in his prime years.
Kim Hollis: I want to say that I think it's Seyfriend, but I honestly think that for both of them, they've mostly had the benefit of being at the right place at the right time - at least so far.
Pete Kilmer: Seyfried just needs that one big hit romance movie to become the next Anne Hathaway. She's being tested right now, I suspect. Tatum is just the next big stud on the block and if he can act just a little bit he'll be the next young 30-something that we'll see all over the place. Tatum will be taking the spots Brendan Fraser was in a few years ago.