Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
May 17, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Robin Hood became the seventh biggest opening of 2010 with $36.1 million domestically, and a global total of $111.1 million. Given all the factors at play, including the $200 million production expense, do you believe this film will prove ultimately justifiable for Universal?
Josh Spiegel: Yes, but only because of how well it is doing and will do overseas. I am shocked, to say the least, that this movie cost (without the money taken out for tax credits) $237 million. The number one movie at the box office over the past two weekends is about a guy who makes a metal suit that flies, has weapons, and beats up other men and/or robots in similar suits. And that movie cost less (apparently) than a movie about a man who fires bows and arrows. Where is the money going in Robin Hood? Anyway, the overseas grosses will likely help Universal out, but the domestic opening is only a little higher than I'd have figured (I'd have pegged the opening at $30 million).
Tim Briody: This is Kingdom of Heaven on a much larger scale. An epic flop domestically ($47.3 million), worldwide grosses ($164 million) saved it from being a complete disaster. With its laughable production budget, it's going to need those foreign dollars to try to break even. I'd figure it to top out at about $100 million domestically, pending what it does next weekend.
Matthew Huntley: To speculate on Josh's question - why was the budget for this movie so high? - I would say it's because a lot of the production seemed practical. Unlike Iron Man, the sets and effects for Robin Hood appeared built from the ground up and/or shot on actual locations, which, from what I understand, inflates the costs. Iron Man has the luxury of CGI and a green screen. Plus, when you add in the salaries of Crowe and Scott, $200 million seems more justified. That would be my guess.
Ultimately, no, I don't think this will be a profitable investment for Universal. Most of the reactions coming from the theater were mixed at best, so I don't think word-of-mouth will take it very far, either domestically or internationally. The studio will have to wait until the home market and ancillary sales to make their money back. If this was an effect-filled extravaganza like, say 2012, which blew up overseas, it'd be one thing, since these tend to do very well abroad, but just as the practical effects burgeoned its costs, the lack of CGI may cost it even more.
Michael Lynderey: The executive who greenlighted this project is braver than I will ever be. But really, if Universal had always intended for this to play well mostly just overseas, then they'll probably win out in the end. If, on the other hand, Robin Hood was made to compete with the big guns on the summer arena, then that was never really in the cards. Either way, the budget on this one isn't easily justifiable, or explicable. It's not like they added fire-breathing dragons and big CGI trolls, something I would have certainly insisted upon if anyone suggested we remake Robin Hood again.
Jason Lee: I think the difference here comes in the terms "profitable" and "justifiable." Will the film make money? After mediocre domestic returns and strong international success, I think everyone believes that this film will end up in the black. But given the manpower, the resources, the time, energy, PR, and the fact that Universal was probably hoping that this summer "blockbuster" would turn the tide on a disappointing box office year so far, I hardly think that this film was justifiable. If you divide the amount that Universal profits from this film by the number of hours invested in this film, I don't think you get a pretty number.
Reagen Sulewski: There really wasn't a realistic number that Robin Hood could have put up that would have headed off disaster with that budget number. It may eventually prove slightly profitable, but it's never going to be perceived that way in North America. Kevin Costner has to be feeling doubly bitter at this moment, both that his film has been remade, and that he's still a standard bearer for budgets run amok with Waterworld, when this film seems ready to do worse.
David Mumpower: I second Reagen's suggestion that Robin Hood didn't have a reasonable "it's a hit" number after that budget report was published. To my mind, this is about the best that could be hoped for, as I was braced for an even lower number. This is the most generic looking of Robin Hood movies, even throwing under that awful BBC series from a couple of years ago. This is one of those projects we will use in future months/years as a comparison point for later big budget failures. I thought Jason's point was particularly astute that even if they wind up in the black on this project, they will have effectively worked for minimum wage to get there. We knew for years that the Nottingham project got systematically torn down by the flaws within the studio system. This weekend was the moment when we finally got to do the autopsy on it.
Max Braden: Were the guys at AIG in charge of producing this? I'm annoyed by the numbers, because I like Robin Hood and non-cgi historical pieces, and I like origin stories, and I think these guys are going to squeak out okay while ruining the field for future filmmakers. It's not unforgivable to greenlight a period piece, even a costly one, if you expect to deliver something that will be award bait. And the producers are going to be able to point at the opening weekend number and claim it was justified. But I imagine other studios are going to contrast the gross with the budget and say "these movies cost too much and in order to make money we'll need James Cameron's CGI instead of real extras and locations." And the reviews might lead people to associate the numbers with the view that this muddled project was one origin story too many.
Looks like this is the end...
Kim Hollis: Russell Crowe's last three projects are State of Play, American Gangster and Body of Lies. Do you consider Robin Hood, the Gladiator clone, to be his last stab at major box office, or do you believe that there are more American Gangster-type blockbusters in his future as an aging lead actor?
Josh Spiegel: I would assume this is his last stab at Gladiator-style money, but then again, I would have not figured a 47-year-old man would want to play Robin Hood before he goes to Nottingham. I think that movies like American Gangster (which made more money than I'd realized) could work, but only if the studios are going in with somewhat lowered expectations. The question is whether Crowe can do well without Ridley Scott as his director. Four of his last six films have been with Scott, and only Gangster made over $100 million; can he survive without Scott at the helm? I doubt it.
Matthew Huntley: I think there could definitely be more in his future because, let's face it, Crowe is a good actor, despite his off-screen troubles. People still appreciate his skills as an actor and I don't think anybody wouldn't see a movie because Crowe is in it. He's only ever been viewed as an asset, not a liability. From here on out, it all depends on the kind of role he plays. Could Crowe strike gold in a comedy just like Robert De Niro did at the end of the '90s/early 2000s? We're so used to seeing him play tough, macho parts that it could be worth his while to play against type and try something a little more silly. Maybe that's his return ticket to big box-office numbers.
Michael Lynderey: I think Crowe'll be around for a long, long time - long enough for him to end up in another major hit or two, even if it's just by default. He's certainly earned enough respect and clout, and any film that's not primarily based on the box office prowess of its star - which is most of them - will be glad to have him on board.
Jason Lee: I agree with Michael and Matthew that the respect that Crowe commands as an actor will lead him to be in some well-received, strong-earning pictures in the future, but will he be the draw for those films? I doubt it. I don't think he has nearly the box office pull stateside that he does internationally.
Reagen Sulewski: I'd say the more pertinent question is whether he cares. He's always been attracted to the darker, more dramatic roles, or just plain having fun on set with a character. You don't make State of Play or A Good Year thinking it's going to be a box office smash. I would say that there is always the potential for him to have another Gladiator, but it seems far more likely that we've elevated him as an "actor" or a "star" to a place he never intended to get to. Anything's possible, though - who would have predicted the resurgence of Liam Neeson?
David Mumpower: I am of the opinion that Crowe does not have the upside as an aging actor that some of the others mentioned do. The reason is that his personality makes him an unwieldy selection as second banana on a project. The projects he gets over the next 15 years will be ones where everyone bites the bullet and attempts to put up with his overhead in exchange for his talent. If one or two of those don't pan out, he's just a jackass who used to be a lead actor. And Crowe will have no one to blame but himself. I'd hate to see that happen as I believe he's one of the hundred finest performers in the history of the industry, but I don't know how he avoids it. He's too old to get a personality transplant.
Max Braden: I was going to point to Gran Torino as evidence there's always time left to hit a homerun, but that was lightning in a bottle. Liam Neeson is a good example of what's possible. I agree too that Crowe isn't very aggressive at trying to maintain his box office clout, but even though he did star in Tenderness last year and it didn't get a theatrical release, at least he hasn't taken any junk DVD projects (why, Val Kilmer, why??). If he is in big box office movies in the future I could see him as part of a strong ensemble cast.