Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
May 24, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Shrek Forever After almost came within $50 million of matching the opening weekend of its predecessor, Shrek the Third. Do you believe a $70.8 million opener can ever be a failure, and is this it? Why or why not?
Daron Aldridge: Kim, yes and I think your intro statement explains why. This one opens with only 58% of Shrek the Third's debut. I don't think there is anyway to describe this other than as a complete and utter disappointment. I look forward to mocking DreamWorks for trying to spin this any other way. "No comment" would be their best course of action.
Tom Houseman: No, it's not the number that DreamWorks wanted, but it can't be considered a failure. It's already made almost half its production budget. It has two more weeks of having the kids to itself before Karate Kid hits theaters, and then a week later the juggernaut that is Toy Story 3 takes over. By then Shrek 4 will have certainly made back its production costs, especially as next weekend is a holiday. And I haven't even started talking about foreign receipts, DVD sales and rentals, and countless marketing tie-ins. Is Shrek 4 going to be a hit? No, but it's definitely going to make money. There's no way DreamWorks is crying about this number, even if they are grumbling a little.
Josh Spiegel: As long as we all agree that $70 million is a huge number by itself, then, yeah, this is a failure. When How to Train Your Dragon made just under $45 million in its opening weekend with 3-D prices, people were a little taken aback. When Shrek, a movie character who is just about iconic at this stage, makes $25 million more, it's a failure, because it should make a lot more. The fact that 3-D didn't help this movie (and Shrek The Third, unless I'm wrong, didn't have 3-D in its favor) makes the result a bust. It's worth pointing out that one of the reasons the movie could have done so middlingly is that the marketing was very weak. What's the story? Why is Shrek meeting Donkey again? And why am I not seeing tons of ads for this movie everywhere? I've seen more ads for Inception (which opens in eight weeks) than I have for this movie, and that's within the last week.
Matthew Huntley: Josh, I actually noticed a ton of marketing for this movie, but I would still label it "weak," only for a different reason. All over town I saw billboards and posters gracing poorly written taglines, including "What the Shrek happened?" and "It ain't ogre...till it's ogre." Really? How could DreamWorks' marketing machine not expect people to roll their eyes at this, and at the movie itself, which is lackluster and banal compared to the original?
Regarding Kim's post: Yes, this seems like an unequivocal failure, both in terms of summer blockbuster standards and Shrek standards. The bright side is that it will (probably) still top $200 million domestically, and with international numbers still to come, prove to be another profitable venture for the studio. At least DreamWorks now knows this series has indeed run out of gas and it's time for Shrek and pals to retire.
Brett Beach: Let me back into answering Kim's questions. I posit myself as a novel potential consumer for this film having only seen the first film (on DVD) and never having interest in Shrek 2 or Shrek the Third. Early ads I saw for this made me chuckle and left me mildly intrigued until...they started this whole "Shrek: The Final Chapter" nonsense in their final month posters and ads. This irks me as much as How to Train Your Dragon being reduced to "DreamWorks' Dragons" in the later TV ads. That title sounds like a terrible documentary about Spielberg, Geffen and Katzenberg. Hearing Shrek: The Final Chapter makes me think that they brought in Tom Savini to help kill Shrek off with a machete to the face. If your title is Shrek Forever After then stick with it!
An opening weekend of even such a large sum as $70 million is relative to other installments in the franchise. Throwing in at $50 million under the last and biggest opening, even with higher ticket prices, and IMAX and 3D engagements pushing sums around 17-18 bucks in Manhattan (I guess those $20 tickets were 'mistakes') says a lot about the lack of willingness to pay a high price if perceived quality is not there. I now can't wait to see what the next installments of Spider-Man and Pirates of the Caribbean bring gross-wise.
Reagen Sulewski: If you're looking at it in the sense of "does it make money?", then yes, Paramount is going to be glad they spent the time and money making this film. It's not as if they had another animated franchise to throw into this slot, so if your choice as a studio is this or nothing, you at least take this. But if you're looking at what they've left on the table, it's the area of several hundred million dollars, and no one can ever be happy about that. It's pretty much a case study in how to drive a franchise into the ground through overusing jokes and overstaying your welcome.
Shalimar Sahota: Strangely, I'm reminded of another franchise that has outstayed its welcome. Saw VI disappointed by taking half of what the previous sequels were taking. Like Shrek Forever After, coupled with negative reviews and a story that's totally unnecessary, audiences are bizarrely starting to latch on, so the drop was bound to happen. However, as already noted, as a cash-grab job, it'll still be profitable. I'm more curious to see just how big it'll drop next week!
Jason Lee: While surprising, this outcome was written in the stars. Shrek the Third was a half-baked, half-hearted attempt to further capitalize on audience's enthusiasm for Shrek and his pals. Given the mediocre marketing efforts (as mentioned by Matthew), it's no wonder that moviegoers regarded the green ogre's "final chapter" with grand skepticism. Thus, while DreamWorks might have been hoping for a bigger opening, for me, the film's gross was not disappointing - it was heartening. It meant that in this day and age, you can't just copy the plot of a classic film, stuff a beloved animated character in it, make it 3-D, and expect people to plunk down $15 a head to see it. It means that quality still matters.
David Mumpower: My thought here is that Shrek Forever After is one of the best demonstrations of box office relativity we have ever had. Yes, the film opened to $70 million and yes, it is still a bomb. I know that some people are saying otherwise, but I disagree with the rationale that a big opening weekend number in and of itself demonstrates success. The Shrek franchise just lost over $50 million in opening weekend revenue despite having the advantage of 3-D ticket price inflation. When Batman & Robin debuted with $42.9 million, it was "only" down about $10 million from Batman Forever's $52.8 million. I think we all agree that Batman & Robin is one of the biggest franchise bombs in the history of our industry. Shrek Forever After's opening weekend puts it in line to follow this sort of behavior unless it does recover over Memorial Day weekend. The Saw analogy is also a good one and in fact a comment I had made to someone yesterday. I had never expected to see a link between the Saw and Shrek franchises yet here we are. Saw VI wound up with final box office of less than Saw V made during its opening weekend. Shrek Forever After will not match that feat, but it's going to be easily the worst performer of the Shrek titles.
Or maybe Shrek: Just Give Us Your Money, You Jerks
Kim Hollis: We have had a couple of recent films, such as Avatar and How to Train Your Dragon, that have performed spectacularly after opening weekend. Do you believe that the Memorial Day holiday will allow Shrek Forever After to recover, or will it fall short of Shrek's $267.7 million to become the worst performer in the franchise?
Daron Aldridge: Memorial Day may slow the bleeding but not stop it. David mentioned the Matrix conclusion in his Friday Analysis and I think it is the most apt comparison - not genre but in terms of quality, public demand and box office performance. Matrix Revolutions was at the mercy of a public that was turned off by its predecessor and that resulted in a $48.5 opening (off 53% from Reloaded...look a bit familiar, DreamWorks?) and a final gross of $139.3 million (or less than half of Reloaded's $281 total gross). With that math, I predict (or rather, I hope) Shrek Forever After will only finish with about $175 million...and is padding it with an extra $15 million from Memorial Day more that the true half prediction of $160 million finish (compared to $320 million for The Third). To play devil's advocate to my own prediction, the 3D pricing may not have been a huge payoff this weekend but since it will be have those theaters monopolized until Buzz and Woody show up.
Josh Spiegel: I'll be shocked if this movie has the same kind of legs that Avatar or Dragon did, really. Though Karate Kid and Toy Story 3 coming out within three weeks gives Shrek the family crowd for a little bit longer, and Memorial Day right around the corner, the demand doesn't seem to be there. Kids have either outgrown Shrek or don't care. Also, it's worth pointing out that the original Shrek may be the series' lowest performer, but it is also the film with the best legs. Shrek came out with a $42 million opening weekend and then made more than six times that opening gross. I don't see Shrek Forever After making over 250 million dollars, let alone 400 million to get those kind of legs.
Matthew Huntley: Based on the opening weekend numbers and apathetic audience response, I predict Shrek Forever After will fall by 45% over the Memorial Day weekend's three days, and by a more moderate 38-40% over the extended four days. These are hefty declines for a family movie, but also realistic given the movie's reception so far. So I agree the sophomore weekend drop-off will be softened by the holiday but it won't be good enough to be considered a "recovery." With all this in mind, there's no way the fourth installment will top the original's gross, not with Toy Story 3 only three weeks away. The movie's only viable target now is Dragon's approximate $215 million final gross, but even that may be a stretch.
Brett Beach: Looking at the three earlier films, the original Shrek basically lost no ground from opening weekend to second weekend, the second fell 33%, and the third fell 56% (these are comparing three-day to three-day, not to the full Memorial Day weekend). I agree with Matt's prediction. The audience rating of those who saw it is A, but I don't think good word-of-mouth will help sell it to those burned by the last who don't want to shell out the big bucks. With only three more weekends until it loses most of its 3D to Toy Story 3, I think the $200 million mark will be a close call. A DreamWorks rep did put a good spin on it ("fourth best animated opening of all time", behind the second and third Shrek and The Simpsons Movie). but then, that's what they're paid to do. The remaining question is: was there any kind of rush?
Reagen Sulewski: I mean, c'mon. Those films were *good*. Memorial Day is a bit of a port in a storm but we've seen in the past that it's no defense for films that suck. I lean towards Daron's estimate of sub-$200 million - ultimately this film failed on the opening weekend because people were familiar with the franchise and were tired of it. Who out there was waiting on judgment to see it?
Jason Lee: Most everyone who still believed in this franchise probably saw it this weekend. I cast my vote with Reagen and Daron for a sub-$200 mil total. Paper-thin plots stretched to accommodate pop culture references can only get you so far.
David Mumpower: I agree with the under $200 million voting bloc. In addition, I want to throw out the possibility that with this project riddled with stink of failure, it could die even faster. The comparisons we are throwing out in terms of franchise killers universally sank after opening weekend. If not for the holiday, which is a life jacket but not the end all be all box office salvation as Reagen points out, I would be thinking a massive drop. Even with that holiday inflation, I’m only expecting around $40 million next weekend and less wouldn’t surprise me in the least.