Monday Morning Quarterback
By BOP Staff
March 9, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Alice in Wonderland became arguably the most shocking $100+ million opener of all-time with $116.1 million. Obviously we're all surprised by this result. How much does it exceed your expectations and how do you explain what happened here?
Michael Lynderey: You know, I'm looking at that list of 13 movies that opened to over $100 million, and while there is indeed one (1) film on there that wasn't a sequel - that film happened to have the good fortune of being entitled "Spider-Man". To say that Alice in Wonderland is going to look out of place on that list is an understatement. I think there's a point beyond which the box office becomes impossible to understand, much less predict. I believe we have reached that point. I or anyone else could come up with some good reasons for a $60 million opening for Alice, but not for one twice that size. And if I ever had any doubts that the 2010s would be the decade of 3D - well, those doubts are now gone, gone, gone.
Shalimar Sahota: Well, not as shocking as New Moon. Still, I was expecting somewhere in the region of $60 - $70 million. This is clearly a huge win.
Why did this happen? Well damn near everyone knows Alice in Wonderland and marketing began ages ago with a teaser released as far back as July of last year. Also the Tim Burton fanbase just keeps on growing. But the biggest factor is the power of inflated 3D ticket prices (enough to buy me 30 packs of instant noodles). However, having seen it, I was disappointed with both the film and the lacklustre 3D effects, and word-of-mouth suggests that I wasn't the only one. Being converted to 3D in post production is likely part of the reason for that (Clash of the Titans is receiving the same treatment, which means I'll be saving my money and watching that in 2D). Also with Disney wanting to release it on DVD within 12 weeks (which caused some furore in Europe), I think it might also be a case of, "see in it 3D while you can." However, the mixed reviews mean that this won't have Avatar legs.
Lastly, fair play on Burton for attempting something different instead of a straight adaptation. But as a continuation of a story that doesn't need to be continued (the credits should say inspired by rather than "based on the novels"), it actually reminded me of Disney's Return to Oz, a far darker and far better film.
Jason Lee: I'm totally, crazy shocked. To me, this is the most unexpected $100+ mil opening in that select group of 13 movies that Michael mentioned. For every other one of those movies, I could at least point to SOMETHING pre-opening that would have led to me to believe that a $100+ mil opening was possible; I wasn't expecting an $80+ million opening for Alice in Wonderland, much less $110+ million. For me, I attribute this success to the fact that this film appealed strongly to multiple generations (people fond of the Disney classic, people looking for a blockbuster type film, families, kids, etc.) with a proven blockbuster director and a huge draw star. It's basically Where The Wild Things Are, but on super Barry Bonds steroids.
Kim Hollis: Obviously, I missed this pretty severely in my weekend forecast, which means I am just blown away by this debut weekend. I expected a 3D bump, but I also expected the extreme weirdness of Alice to turn a lot of people off and counterbalance that somewhat. Kudos to Disney for a long, sustained marketing campaign that embraced a variety of mediums, from trailers to television to terrific internet ads.
Josh Spiegel: I don't know what my expectations really were, but this blows whatever they would have been out of the water. I, like Jason, attribute this to being a movie for everyone in the family to see, along with it being in 3D, starring Johnny Depp, and being from Tim Burton. Also, it helps that Alice in Wonderland is so well-known as a story, even if most people haven't read it. Still, I wouldn't be shocked if this dropped like a stone next weekend.
Reagen Sulewski: I wonder if we can call this the first film helped by the Avatar Effect. Sure, there have been 3D films out in theaters for the last four or five years with this new technology, but something close to 80 million people in North America just got their socks blown off by Avatar's use of the technology, a lot of whom might have just thought of it as a gimmick until now (which, let's face it, it largely is in this case). That's got to leave an impression and leave people searching for more.
David Mumpower: I think Reagen's point is very well taken. We've discussed the box office behavioral pattern wherein the quality of a film directly correlates to the expected box office opening of its sequel. I'm not sure whether this is accurately defined as a corollary, but Avatar's satisfactory 3D experience has given viewers a taste for the technology. Since it's clogged up theaters for the past three months, that anticipation has been building for new products. The fact that Tim Burton is so focused on aesthetics and visuals also factors in as does the fact that Alice in Wonderland has been receiving much of that key pre-Avatar advertising with the 3D trailers. Having said all of that, I think it's somewhat difficult to evaluate what has just happened this weekend without the benefit of context. BOP started tracking 3D discussions in MMQB at the start of last year and now, only 15 months later, it's become a driving box office phenomenon. In terms of pure opening weekend scale, Alice in Wonderland is THE most surprising box office result I've covered since The Passion of the Christ. How this total stands in terms of 3D impact is probably not something we can determine until films like Clash of the Titans, Iron Man 2 and particularly Toy Story 3 have debuted.
"The Immortal Captain Jack Sparrow." It has such a lovely ring to it...
Kim Hollis: We've talked quite a bit recently about where people rank in terms of "movie stardom." Does this latest triumph put Johnny Depp at the top of your list?
Michael Lynderey: I wouldn't put Depp at the top of my list, just because he hasn't been able to consistently headline mega-star vehicle after mega-star vehicle in the way that, say, Will Smith or even Adam Sandler have (although their streak of respective triumphs has sort of come to an end, now). The odd thing about Depp is that he almost never is the clear leading man of any of the blockbusters he appears in, yet he's definitely a major box office factor in all of them - in Pirates, Jack Sparrow was a supporting character who broke out and overshadowed the lead, and that's true also of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and especially Alice in Wonderland, where the Mad Hatter - definitely not the protagonist of the picture - received an expanded role precisely because of the Depp casting. And so it's ironic that the last $100 million film in which Depp actually played the protagonist, Sleepy Hollow, is the one for which he's less remembered.
Jason Lee: I think a big part of Depp's big draw films (Pirates, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Alice in Wonderland, etc.) is the fact that people are interested in seeing how Depp PLAYS his role. You don't just go to see a movie star in a big movie, you go because you're insanely curious to see what wacky character he comes up. In this way, he's the perfect match for Burton - you go to see what wildly imaginative visuals Burton has come up with this time and you're eager to see what type of character Depp has brought to life.
Josh Spiegel: Right now, Depp is the biggest star in the world, I'd say. The Pirates movies may not have won over many critics - more the latter films than the first - but his starpower is obvious, at least to the marketers at Disney, who made it clear from the get-go that this movie should be called Alice and The Mad Hatter in Wonderland. I'd be curious to see how his next non-Disney movie does, but right now, he can't go wrong.
Reagen Sulewski: I'm not even sure I'd put a lot of this on Depp's presence, although he's by far the biggest draw of the actors involved. I wouldn't begrudge him playing it up like he is, though, and if you want the best shot at launching a new franchise, he's your go-to guy right now.
David Mumpower: I agree with Josh as well as Reagen, which isn't that easy to do given their comments. I fully acknowledge Michael's point that Johnny Depp is that rare bird who doesn't need to headline a title by himself. He has the confidence in himself to steal a scene while allowing someone else to claim the title of protagonist. This is why Reagen is correct in saying that we may giving too much credit for Depp here as opposed to something like Public Enemies, a less successful title that probably earned 50% more because of his name in the credits. Depp functions almost like a security blanket with the advertising for Alice in Wonderland in that the trailers seem to be saying, "And look, you can feel safe buying a ticket because that guy you trust is in it!" In hindsight, the aspect of Alice in Wonderland that I didn't appreciate enough is that it plays as a de facto sequel to Charlie in the Chocolate Factory with Alice's wonderland being less fattening. That probably doesn't work without Depp's presence. Keeping this in mind, I am again forced to conclude exactly what Josh said. Johnny Depp is the biggest star in the world today, and it's primarily for the reason Jason stated. His willingness to eschew the conventional and embrace the eclectic has allowed him to evolve from character actor to full blown Hollywood legend without giving up one iota of his indie credibility. I'm in awe of him. I also just managed to agree with everyone in this discussion despite the fact that everyone had a different take on Depp's career, because his career is so complex that every quirk of his revealed in this conversation is relevant to his current status.
Tim Burton, new King of the World
Kim Hollis: We've also discussed whether or not certain directors impact box office. Based on this weekend's results, are you ready to say that Tim Burton does? Why or why not?
Shalimar Sahota: Tim Burton already did impact the box office and still does. Lest we forget that this is the guy whose Batman films are the ones that set opening weekend records when released. He's now joined the club of $100 million openers. Disney must also think he's a big deal, hence putting "A film by Tim Burton" above the title in the trailer and on some of the posters for Alice in Wonderland.
Jason Lee: Burton will always, always, ALWAYS come up with a visually stunning film. He'll put together a lot of eye candy that'll look great in posters, 30-second commercials and three minute trailers. I think many of his films fall into the "you got what you thought you were buying" in terms of the look and story of his films, which leads to little disappointment and disenchantment (I think most people have caught on that storytelling will never be Burton's forte). Put this all together, and I think you have one of the more reliable BO draws among directors nowadays.
Josh Spiegel: Burton's definitely a sign to box-office success, depending on the movie. Big Fish and Sweeney Todd didn't do nearly as well as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory or even Planet of the Apes. Burton's presence guarantees a unique visual atmosphere, but unless he's directing something that is solidly well-known to audiences, as opposed to a horror musical or tall tales in the South, he's not a guarantee like Depp.
Kim Hollis: Though again, without Burton's name attached to them, how big would Big Fish or Sweeney Todd have been? Chances are they would have both been art house releases at best. He's the rare director who can take an iffy film concept and turn it into dollars.
Reagen Sulewski: I think Burton's biggest impact is that he has a particular and recognizable style. You know more or less what you're going to get out of his films, and it might be the rare case of Art Direction being a box office draw.
David Mumpower: I agree with Reagen and I would note that the film that is most comparable to this is Planet of the Apes, a dodgy remake in theory whose dynamic visuals lured consumers into theaters. That one inflation adjusts to about $91 million according to current average NATO ticket pricing, a number I do not feel accurately reflects the 3D phenomenon. As such, I strongly suspect that Planet of the Apes sold about as many tickets in 2001 as Alice in Wonderland did this past weekend. This is the type of films consumers WANT Tim Burton to make.
Missed it by -that- much
Kim Hollis: Brooklyn's Finest narrowly missed first place by $100 million, give or take. Should Overture be pleased with its $13.4 million silver medal?
Jason Lee: I can't imagine Overture was expecting anything more - if nothing else, they should be happy to see that ANYONE was interested in / talking about / willing to pay for tickets to see this also-ran in the face of the Wonderland giant. That said, I'm willing to bet money that Brooklyn's Finest doesn't come -THIS- CLOSE to beating Alice in Wonderland next week, a la New Moon/The Blind Side.
Josh Spiegel: Overture should be thrilled. They've had back-to-back solid openers, with this and The Crazies. I don't know that they were or should have been expecting anything more than this. Obviously, the audiences for this and Alice in Wonderland weren't going to converge very much, but the result is impressive, if modestly so.
Reagen Sulewski: For something that could essentially have been titled Generic New York Police Corruption Movie and had Richard Gere as its biggest name, its producers should be doing cartwheels.
David Mumpower: There was a second movie opening last weekend?
*Breaks out into spontaneous interpretive dance*
Kim Hollis: What were your favorite and least favorite Oscar moments?
Calvin Trager: I'm afraid the general lack of upsets and the rather bland hosting performance made this year's show instantly forgettable. To pick a favorite, it seemed to me that everyone involved with The Hurt Locker was moved by the experience and just really invested in having it appreciated in this way and hopefully finding its way to a wider audience. You could tell they all recognized they were part of a special experience and that they made an Important film. I could list a number of least favorites, but instead I will just go to my happy place by reminding you all that this year's telecast was 100% Crystal-free.
Jason Lee: Between the plethora of Disney Channel-age Hollywood stars and the heavy-handed incorporation of breakdancing in the tribute to the nominated Musical Scores, I got really tired, really fast of the Oscars trying to "age-down" their awards show. In terms of the best moment, I laughed loud and hard during the "interviews" with the stars of the five Best Animated Film nominees, when they explained what an Oscar win would mean to them. I almost knocked over my bowl of popcorn when Dug the Dog started licking the camera - that short clip made me love Up even more, if that was even possible.
Jim Van Nest: I think Sandy Bullock's speech had to be one of the highlights of the night. I also really liked Christoph Waltz's speech. I'm thrilled that he won and I hope that puts him in many more films. Lowlights...pretty much the obvious. The crazy red-haired lady bum-rushing the documentary speech. We don't care about the producers fighting...don't be an idiot on the biggest stage in the world. Also, Ben Stiller. Dude always seems to be a lowlight for me, but this year was the worst. Also, leaving Farrah out of the "In Memoriam" montage was pretty glaring.
Calvin Trager: Heh heh - crazy red-haired lady bum.
Josh Spiegel: The Hurt Locker and Up winning their awards were the best moments of the night. Aside from that....well, I'd like to forget that the rest of the show even happened. Almost no surprises in terms of the winners, and the hosts were painful. Let's just focus on The Hurt Locker winning.
David Mumpower: I've seen some harsh evaluations of the John Hughes tribute, ones that question whether his work was impacting enough to merit such an extended segment. As someone who grew up during this era, I thought it was transcendent television as his "kids" paid tribute to the man who made them famous. I also felt that the personal tributes prior to the lead acting categories were phenomenal. I loved the way that the women were all so gracious in describing their male counterparts only to have Tim Robbins turn around and bust Morgan Freeman repeatedly. In particular, the shining moment for me was having Oprah Winfrey, one of the most powerful people in the world, spend several moments singing the praises of someone who was a complete unknown at this time last year. Gabourey Sidibe was anointed queen of the moment and she relished every minute of it. That's the type of Oscars moment I cherish. In terms of the low points, I always wince when people get cut off before they even get to speak. Acceptance speech rules need to be modified to allow for the fact that more than one voice is needed for many victories. They're being named the best in the world at what they did in a given year. Give them 30 seconds to tell their loved ones that they care. I also didn't care for the Steve Martin/Alec Baldwin dynamic and it appeared that the producers realized it wasn't working well as Baldwin was gradually phased out. He barely spoke in the second half of the show. The other thing I'll take from this is that there were an odd number of angry winners this year with several of the speeches devoid of grace and dignity. We seemed to turned a corner in this regard the past couple of years before having a setback in 2010.
Kim Hollis: I also loved the Hughes tribute. I think a lot of people complaining about it are simply unaware of what an impact his films have had on the new generation of filmmakers and movie stars. Other things I really liked were Waltz's speech, Giacchino's speech for Best Score, the animated segment and Jeff Bridges' speech. I disliked the dancing (which was incongruous, lame and indulgent), the stretching out of things like the opening monologue and the horror montage (why?) but cutting off speakers from the smaller categories. Also, I thought Mo'Nique's angry, angry acceptance speech was odd and felt unnecessary to me (now if she had lost, that would be another story). I'm also kind of blah on The Hurt Locker's wins since even though I really like the film and consider it one of the best of 2009, I'm not sure that I feel like it's a Best Picture.
Jason Lee: I questioned the John Hughes tribute, too . . . but I thought that Roger Ebert really eloquently put the moment in perspective. "Director John Hughes was too great a legend to be simply included in the traditional 'In Memoriam' tribute. The special clip package of his work stirred desires to see his films again. They seemed good at the time, and in these dreary days, they seem miraculous. As the stars he made - his 'children' - strode forward, it became one of the greatest moments in Academy Award history."