Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
May 4, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Inexplicably, the movie-going world chose to pass on the opportunity to obtain Furry Vengeance as the Summit Entertainment release opened to only $6.6 million. Why did this one fail, and why is Summit whiffing at everything that doesn't have Twilight in the title?
Josh Spiegel: This movie failed because, every so often, the American public and the American critical community agree wholeheartedly. Thankfully, sometimes we all agree on what's good, but we also sometimes agree on what looks terrible. I believe that this movie had a grand total of one positive review on Rotten Tomatoes, and the ads made the film look just as appetizing. Summit continues its losing streak because the movies it's releasing are either bad or, in the case of The Hurt Locker, poorly marketed (I still believe that a different studio backing that movie gets it $100 million, or something close to it). Letters from Juliet is next, and if it makes a substantial amount of money, I'll be shocked. Summit would be dead, if not for Twilight; they have no concept of proper advertising or quality.
Brett Beach: After reading David's Friday box office preview (in which he mentioned under what circumstances he utters the title), there is less chance of me ever saying Furry Vengeance aloud than there is for me uttering Squeakuel. One review of the film I read was simply a catalogue of all the indignities Brendan Fraser suffers (and he's not even a BAD bad guy, just a corporate shill): skunk spray in the mouth? Really? Multiple hits to the groin? Really? I think $6 million is still too much but since it's what qualifies a film with that many screens as a dud opening, I guess it will have to do.
Kim Hollis: The American movie-going public is discerning enough to recognize poo in film form. It's just that simple. As for Summit Entertainment, Twilight seems to be an unhappy accident more than anything done really well. The movies aren't good. You don't have to market them, really. And they make oodles. The only quality projects for Summit that I can think of - The Hurt Locker and The Ghost Writer - will buy them some credibility, though. They're building their catalog and for an upstart studio, it's okay to see them going in fits and starts. With time, they'll get better at distributing - I even think Letter to Juliet has a decent shot at breaking out.
Michael Lynderey: I don't know if distributing or marketing has anything to do with it. Pretty much every single Summit film has performed more or less like it was supposed to, considering the respective pedigrees they came from. Furry Vengeance was never going to be anything other than what it has ended up being. April 2010 was a month filled mostly with underperformers, and Furry Vengeance certainly shouldn't have believed itself to be an exception.
Reagen Sulewski: Have parents finally grown spines? In the words of Picard, has the line been drawn he-ah? Results like this give one cause for optimism, nay, out and out hope, that the standards for children's entertainment hasn't been irrevocably driven into the dirt. What's that you say? Shrek 4 is coming out? Well, poo.
Matthew Huntley: I think the performance of Furry Vengeance reiterates that studios can't undermine or patronize kids'/families' intelligence. Sure, movies like Alvin and the Chipmunks and Shrek 3 (and probably Shrek 4) gross millions, but those are long-standing franchises built on a foundation of fan loyalty. Furry Vengeance had nothing new or interesting to offer, so what did it really bring to the table? I have yet to see it, but didn't the plot seem all too similar to Open Season?
If Summit wants to establish itself as a leading studio for all types of genres, it must first gain the trust of the audience by actually concentrating on quality. Believe it or not, that's what audiences look for in a movie. Only then can it hope to release a movie like Furry Vengeance and open with decent numbers based on the Summit name alone. I would be interested to know how well the movie would have done had the word "Disney" graced the posters. After all, G-Force was a multi-million dollar hit, and although I haven't seen it, I find it hard to believe it's any more intelligent than the Brendan Fraser flop.
David Mumpower: The one aspect of this that I feel bears mention we haven't covered yet is that there is no difference in perceived quality between Furry Vengeance and a largely forgotten previous release from Brendan Fraser, George of the Jungle. That one also had groin shots in the ads yet it became a $100 million earner due to the power of the Disney marketing machine. I thought about it a lot each time I saw an ad for Furry Vengeance and came to grips with the fact that it was going to bomb huge despite having a winner of a title (sorry to have ruined it for you, Brett). Fraser's career is all over the place with some of his risks paying off while others (well, most) wind up in Monkeybone territory. It's cold and dark there and all of the accountants are angry.
Well, there's always Showgirls…
Kim Hollis: Now that we've run through all of the usual suspects for horror re-imaginings, what do you anticipate the next big trend in the horror industry to be?
Josh Spiegel: Well, there's only a few trends to choose from. I'm sure that the folks at Platinum Dunes will dig up more less-popular horror movies to remake (a recent example, though not from Platinum Dunes, was Prom Night); if Scream 4 opens next year to big enough box office, more excessive sequels could be on the way. The only other trend that will work, I think, is the one that studios think will work for everything: 3-D. I just read this week that Cary Elwes would return for Saw VII, in 3-D. Now, to me, that's a sentence filled with enough elements to never make me want to see that movie, but 3-D could be a boon, as it was for the grosses of movies such as My Bloody Valentine and The Final Destination.
Brett Beach: I think it will be an odd mix of sequels and franchise continuations (Scream 4 and the next Final Destination which I think needs to be called Beyond the Final Destination) and experiments such as Paramount's allotting $1 million dollars for ten micro-budgeted horror films. Blair Witch and Paranormal Activity may always be the exception to the rule but talented directors experimenting with fright over gore and untested ideas may help to get a new generation of filmgoers excited.
Kim Hollis: I have a really difficult time with this question because at some point, horror films became a thing I just stopped liking. I hate the gore and I hate the use of loud noises to scare the audience. It's so cheap. I'd like to think that at some point, we might see more psychological horror like Shutter Island (even though I'm not fond of the movie, I did like some things it was trying to do).
Tim Briody: While it was probably a once a decade phenomenon (see Blair Witch Project, The), how quickly we've forgotten that Paranormal Activity cost 50 bucks to make and made over $100 million. That, and the Saw franchise, while kneecapped last year by PA, will still rebound nicely this year. These remakes of everything under the sun are just here to pass the time and make a quick buck.
Michael Lynderey: Ah, new decade, new horror trends. Or here's hoping, at least. Torture porn died in 2007 (no complaints), Asian remakes in 2008 (still no tears), but the reboots have stayed sturdy and unimpeachable still (complaints and tears). As long as they're able to deliver these $32 million weekends, they're going to keep (re)making them, especially since the neat thing about horror is that you never quite run out of material. Remember, the '90s are moving further back into the past year by year, so you're de facto getting into Candyman and Chucky remake territory.
That said, I do think horror remakes will move aside in the coming few years (not so for non-horror remakes), but the next big trend is almost impossible to predict. I don't think it'll quite be those shaky-cam movies - if that was going to happen, it would've happened by now, and the really successful ones are always made outside of the studio system. Most horror series are sort of dead as far as sequels go, and if they've still got a pulse, it's one that's just about to peter out (see Saw VII, which I fully believe will be the last one). Nothing I've seen this year or last looks to me like it's going to inspire a lasting horror trend, so we're just going to have to wait and see on this one. It won't be long.
Reagen Sulewski: We know that actual ideas are out, but horror movie have done well when they've really captured a base, elemental fear and magnified it - Jaws, The Exorcist, Blair Witch ... I'd like to see some films in the environmental horror area, which could carry as much metaphor as the zombie movie seems to have been able to.
Matthew Huntley: I agree with Josh that 3-D seems to be the next big thing for horror movies. I also wouldn't put it past the studios to combine villains from various franchises and stick them together in one movie. Although, this too has been done before (Freddy vs. Jason). Unfortunately, because remakes and sequels are more bankable than ever, I don't anticipate an original trend to arrive any time soon. Like Kim, I can only hope that horror becomes more psychological and emotional (The Orphanage) instead gory and sensational, but until these prove to be less costly and more profitable, it might be a while before we see an original take and new direction for the genre.
David Mumpower: I am fascinated by the clear cut phases we've had over the past dozen years or so. There were all the Sixth Sense impersonators that are long forgotten now like What Lies Beneath and The Others (a brilliant movie that deserves more recognition). Then, we moved on to The Ring, The Grudge, The Eye et al that were mediocre remakes of very good Asian genre titles. Next, we suffered through that horrible Gorno period of Hostel, Saw sequels and other lowest common denominator titles. All the while, we've been working through a host of re-imaginings (God, how I hate that word).
Now that we're largely at the end of those (although we will still get a slew of sequels), I do think that Paranormal Activity's style has a chance to become the next big thing. The way that viral video has become ubiquitous in our lives means that an organic implementation of that as a movie and it's a meritocracy of sorts in that viewers decide what rises. That's the way people humorously indicate the movie industry as a whole works, but we all know what a joke that premise is. For that matter, we could do one of those videos ourselves using BOP webmaster Tony Kollath's creepy house stories as a basis. His home is more cursed than the Chicago Cubs.
Jason Lee: I would love to see the "savvy-character" horror movie come into bloom. Since the re-imagined horror films were so eager to re-use some of the most obvious and tired horror film cliches (from "It was just a cat" to "oh she's safe, there's no one in the bathroom with her but OH MY GOD, SHE CLOSED THE MEDICINE CABINET DOOR AND HE'S RIGHT BEHIND HER!"), it'd be nice to see some new characters act the way moderately-intelligent people would actually act in situations. No more going off to explore strange noises downstairs by yourself . . .
Shalimar Sahota: As Josh already mentioned, screwing around with 3D till we're so sick we'll be choking on our on vomit will be the next big "supposed" money maker. I imagine eyes will be on Piranha 3D this summer. And we'll still get remakes as well as sequels to franchises that should already be left alone (Scream 4 and another Final Destination have already been highlighted). I imagine studios are too scared to mix it up, but that's what I'd like to see. Why not a western horror? Or even a musical horror? I for one would be first in line for Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.