Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
April 27, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: The Losers opened to $9.4 million. Do you consider this win, lose or draw?
Josh Spiegel: My initial answer here is that The Losers is...well, I think you know where I'm going. However, this movie only cost $25 million, sans whatever marketing costs there were. So, maybe the result is a draw, but still, with all the ads I kept seeing for this movie over the past two months, the actors appearing on various shows, and one of those actors recently being chosen to be Captain America, I figured there'd be more interest for this movie. That said, I was never that psyched, because I looked at the ads and thought, "When did they make a comic-book series of The A-Team?"
Michael Lynderey: I've felt the buzz going down for The Losers in the last few weeks, but I still wouldn't have pegged this as coming in under two digits. So, yes, it's a disappointment, even if the movie's pedigree isn't that prestigious - it's a not a well-known comic and it didn't star any solid draws (as I've said elsewhere: Chris Evans and Zoe Saldana are the future of Hollywood, and they always will be). It's really a shame The Losers didn't do better, because it was a very entertaining film, especially compared to that cynical mish-mash, Kick-Ass.
Matthew Huntley: I agree with Michael - it's surprising the movie only managed single-digit numbers. That's quite low for an action movie, even one without big names attached to it. But Warner Bros. didn't seem to promote it all that much, so I can only infer the studio's expectations weren't that high to begin with, and it's likely the movie will earn twice as much as its reputed $25 million budget internationally. So yeah, in the end, I'd say a draw (leaning toward a lose) is a good call.
Shalimar Sahota: It's kind of in line with From Paris With Love some weeks back. The trailer shows some good all out action, but there's no real money shot, nothing that doesn't look like it's already been done before. As already mentioned here, not many would even be aware that it's based on a comic book, and it does look like a forerunner for The A-Team... though at least that film has a tank in mid-air!
Jason Lee: I wasn't that familiar with the picture in the weeks before it came out, but I wonder whether or not the majority of people who would have been interested in seeing a violent-but-funny action film adaptation of a comic series had already spent their last $15 bucks on a ticket for Kick-Ass.
Tom Macy: It's a loss. Under $10 million? I'm sure after airplanes and iTunes downloads they'll make some money but for a wide release and not much comeptition, this is pretty weak. This is the second action film in two weeks to fall under expectations. I think people are abstaining from the genre so the pleasures of Iron Man 2 will be that much more intense - yikes I didn't mean that to be so graphic.
Reagen Sulewski: Big loss. This should have been able to break through as a fun action movie, even without stars or a recognizable premise. Ultimately the lack of either made it a tough sell for audiences, which leads me to believe there was some calendar prejudice at work here. Maybe they should have stuck with their ballsy plan to go one week ahead of The A-Team after all.
David Mumpower: This movie was like a little gift from the industry to me in terms of who wrote it (Peter Berg) and who was cast in it (I adore 80% of The Losers and the one I didn’t know is great in it). Like Michael, I very much enjoyed the movie (as I had expected to do) and I wish it had been delivered a better box office fate. Having said that, it is no surprise that the movie has opened to single digits given its quirky nature. This is in fact a loss as Warner Bros. most assuredly wanted this to be the start of a franchise, one whose cast should look even better in three years than it does now. The fact that they never reached escape velocity on the first film is an unfortunate turn of events that presumably ends this parade before the floats have started moving.
Avatar Bump sounds like a computer virus
Kim Hollis: This is two straight weekends in a row that Zoe Saldana has been in middle-of-the-line films. Why is she not getting the Avatar bump that Sam Worthington seems to be receiving?
Josh Spiegel: Is Sam Worthington getting an Avatar bump? I would be skeptical of that claim. If, say, Terminator Salvation had opened to far better business post-Avatar, then I might consider it. As it stands, he's been in one movie since Avatar, said movie was in 3-D, the movie was hyped ever since Avatar, and that movie had the benefit of Worthington being the lead. Saldana has had the weird phenomenon of being in two movies, week after week; one is an ensemble comedy, and she's not featured that heavily. The other is more in line with her previous action movies, but she's not the star of the film (or, rather, that is my presumption from the ads). Let's put Saldana as the lead in an action movie (one, unlike Avatar, where we see her face) and see how she does. Until then, she shouldn't be too worried.
Michael Lynderey: The Avatar bump may inspire casting directors, but I don't think it translates to audience interest in any discernible way. Worthington and Saldana (and Stephen Lang, by the way) will get some good roles in the next few years, but how those films are treated at the box office won't have much to do with Avatar. That's one way in which Avatar is different than Titanic - there's no equivalent to Leo-mania this time around. Just 3-D mania.
Matthew Huntley: I don't think most audiences are even aware Zoe Saldana was in Avatar. Like Michael suggested, that wasn't the type of movie where the actors played a huge role in its box-office success. If Saldana is to become a commodity and household name, she has to have a breakthrough role in which she actually plays a human and acts beyond generic archetypes. Death at a Funeral and The Losers don't give her that chance (not that they're bad movies, per se, but I don't think they really require her to stretch her acting muscles). It may sound sexist or perverted to say so, but I think Saldana would become a much bigger box-office draw (and obtain a popularity bump) if she starred in a movie where she played the sex symbol. That would easily draw her comparisons to Halle Berry and Angelina Jolie. I could easily see Saldana as the next Bond girl. After that, I think it would be just a matter of time before she starts receiving top billing.
Tom Macy: This is a pretty unique situation. She starred in the biggest movie of all time and a lot of people still wouldn't recognize her. Even though we saw Sam Worthington's face I'm much more intrigued by Zoe's future given her performance in Avatar. I thought she was totally solid in Star Trek too. Truly talented pretty faces don't grow on trees (that would be weird).
I think a film has to be crafted to showcase her more for audiences to start to gravitate towards her. And I'm positive she will get more than one chance. Now that they're choosing projects post Avatar it will be interesting to track the careers of both Saldana and Worthington.
Jason Lee: I agree with Tom and Michael. There were no star actors in Avatar - that's not what you noticed. If anything, other directors might have taken note of Saldana's fine work in Avatar, but I doubt many moviegoers knew who she was. As a result, I could see her taking the Amy Adams route: lots of directors eager to work with this young actress due to one breakout performance, which results in better roles and better box office performance (though not necessarily due to her).