Monday Morning Quarterback
By BOP Staff
June 1, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Sex and the City 2 finished in second place over the extended Memorial Day Weekend, earning $51.0 million, not quite as much as the first film made in its first three days. What do you think of this result?
Reagen Sulewski: I'm not singing hosannas to the taste of the movie going public just yet, since that's still a great gob of money, but it does appear to show some hope in that the public is finally turning on this beast of a franchise. Word-of-mouth matters still, and while they're still likely to make money off this, they're either going to kill off the series or spend more time working on the script than the wardrobe. Either way, that's a win for us.
Kim Hollis: I think it's all a matter of perspective. This performance really only looks awful because we're comparing it to the first film. Even with that said, Sex and the City 2 had horrible drop-off after Friday. For the most part, everyone who wanted to see it, went to the theaters in the first two days. This gives me a little faith that word-of-mouth had some impact and also that maybe, just maybe, not all women are into this vapid crap.
Josh Spiegel: The amount of money isn't that bad, but all things considered, I was fearing (and expecting) a higher result. I had to suffer through the first movie and couldn't stand it (and the few episodes of the series I've seen didn't seem much different from the big-screen treatment), so I was happy to see the negative reviews for the sequel, and it's obvious that this film is performing like a horror movie (insert mean joke about the appearance of the Sex and the City ladies here), as Kim points out. Let's hope it falls fast.
Tim Briody: Lost in all this is the joke Reagen made in the forecast, calling it The Skankquel. That's comedy gold, folks.
Daron Aldridge: Sadly, Kim, I have heard more than one woman say that it was great. Thankfully, though, these ladies are clearly in the minority. Just like Shrek last weekend, there is no way this wasn't going to be compared to the preceding film in both box office performance and film quality. If we labeled a $70 million open for Shrek 4 a disappointment (which most of us did and rightfully so), then this one is in the same category.
Hehehehe...Skankquel. That's the best thing to come out of this movie being made. Thanks, Reagan.
Jim Van Nest: I don't know. The movie looked horrible (and I say this as a fan of the show) and word-of-mouth was not good. I was honestly expecting a huge tank job. So from my perspective, I'd say this is a fantastic result and the studio should feel lucky that they got away with one this weekend.
Jason Lee: With the gross of SATC 2's strategic five-day holiday opening roughly in line with the weekend opening of the first film, I gotta say, the film may not have expanded the audience for SATC, but it did a pretty nice job of holding onto its audience. I mean, c'mon, the SATC films were never going to draw new fans. If you were even minimally inclined to see a SATC movie at all, you probably saw the first one. And you probably liked it. That the second SATC film didn't surpass the first in terms of opening is not surprising to me. Its opening weekend was probably the best it was ever going to do.
David Mumpower: I echo a lot of the thoughts being offered here, particularly Jason’s. A month prior to the release of Sex and the City, even $30 million seemed like an optimistic result for a relatively unheralded television adaptation. They caught lightning in a bottle by marketing the first film as an excuse for women to throw parties, get sloshed and go watch a celebration of the shallow lifestyle. We’re talking about a $57 million production that *stole* $415 million worth of worldwide box office.
With absolutely nowhere to go with the sequel, the only reason there even was one is that it would function as box office arbitrage, which is what has happened for the most part. It’s a terrible film that is bringing out the bile in film critics across the globe, but we’re still talking about a three-day opening weekend in excess of $30 million, more than was expected for the first title. Yes, this one cost more to make and yes, word-of-mouth on it is BRUtal, but we’re still talking about a successful cash grab for Warner Bros. Sickening though the thought may be, a Deadwood or Rome film would not open this well, no matter how great its quality.
We miss you, Jack Sparrow
Kim Hollis: Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time opened to $37.8 million over the holiday period. Should Disney be satisfied with this result?
Reagen Sulewski: This is a situation a lot like Robin Hood, where international box office is probably going to be huge and save the day, but we're talking about a $150 million budgeted film that's going to struggle to make $100 million domestic. There's very little to be happy about here, especially compared to other action-adventure movies. This is less than even the pure cash-in film of The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor was able to make two years ago, and that was a sequel with cast changes and without a point.
Kim Hollis: I think the studio has known for a long time that this project was in trouble. It never seemed like they were trying that hard with it, from the entirely inappropriate casting of Jake Gyllenhaal to the lackluster marketing campaign. There was not one thing in the trailer or the commercials that made Prince of Persia look appealing. I only think it made this much because people somehow still connect Bruckheimer to summer movie fun.
Josh Spiegel: This result adds up to a big "Meh" from everyone involved. This movie just didn't seem like something I should pay 10 bucks for. Why waste the money on something that seems so phoned in?
Brett Beach: Maybe kind of satisfied? This seems like a film that never quite proved up to and including opening day that it needed to exist (or that it did IN fact, exist). Without Jerry Bruckheimer's backing, would Disney have wanted to make it? The thing that put me off from the start is that Jake Gyllenhaal never sold me on the fact that he was an action hero. I saw him all buffed up, I know he learned parkour, and yet in every trailer, ad, poster or movie still, he just looked kind of…silly. Muscular and yet not heroic. Tobey Maguire I could buy in bulk (bad, bad pun) but not Gyllenhaal. The fact that Mike Newell is behind the camera is almost a draw, but not quite enough. Bruckheimer gets to try again in two months with The Sorcerer's Apprentice (more family friendly with a PG rating). I wonder if he and the Mouse House are already looking ahead and worrying.
Daron Aldridge: Domestically, there is no way they could be satisfied and Reagan's reason is exactly why - here you have a $150 million movie that will not cross the now commonplace $100 million threshold domestically. This is clearly another case of the foreign receipts pulling a film from the edge of epic Pluto Nash-esque failure. It has already logged nearly $90 million internationally. Personally, my part of the country is already flirting with 100 degree temperatures, so I am not hankering for a movie with desert scapes, sweaty characters and bright sunny cinematography. Not the escapism I am looking for.
Jason Lee: The disappointment here comes not from the mediocre opening, but rather, from the hundreds of millions of dollars from lost sequels. Here we have the death of a franchise, but before the first film is even out of the gate. The lack of anything even close to consumer demand for a follow-up film is what will worry execs at the Mouse House today.
David Mumpower: What jumps off the page about this project is that we are not talking about a disaster like Bad Company, a previous Jerry Bruckheimer summer release that bombed completely. It also isn't even as good as Gone in 60 Seconds, a largely forgotten 2000 movie that earned about $102 million. As Reagen mentioned, even before we adjust for inflation, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time isn't likely to reach that same $100 million mark.
This is indicative of the fact that if they have to do the whole thing all over again, Disney passes on this project. There is too much opportunity cost ceded in failing to launch a franchise from this production. Now, one of their biggest summer titles is a non-starter and they're left hoping to recoup their losses with international revenue. It's a complete waste of time for them and for Jake Gyllenhaal, this is a bodyblow. I'm not saying he'll never get offered the lead in a major action film ever again, but the odds are greatly reduced now that North American audiences have soundly rejected him in this. It's unfortunate in that he seems to be a very funny guy and they totally sucked the life out of him to make this project rote. That's the unmistakable miscalculation here. They cast him but then they didn't demonstrate any faith in him.
Push the shiny red panic button!
Kim Hollis: This was the least successful Memorial Day box office campaign in roughly a decade, coming on the heels of back-to-back weekends of box office disappointment. Are you starting to worry that we're going to see a similarly disappointing summer along the lines of what we had in 2005?
Reagen Sulewski: This summer is a weird case where it appears to be backloaded. June looks almost as dire as May, with just Toy Story 3 and Knight and Day offering promise (and maaaybe A-Team), but July is looking a lot better in terms of quality and/or box office. The third Twilight film is going to be another inexplicable hit, and there's Inception, Salt and The Sorcerer's Apprentice (probably just crazy enough for Nic Cage to turn it into a hit). Only Toy Story 3 and Twilight look to have a shot at $300 million though, and if that's what you're looking for in terms of a summer season, then yeah, you're probably going to consider this one a disappointment. I don't see a The Hangover on the horizon.
Kim Hollis: Other than Toy Story 3 and the next Twilight film, I'm just not seeing much that looks like guaranteed box office money. Even Inception is odd-looking enough to be iffy (though I can't wait). I'm sure there will be something to come up and surprise us, but I do think that May has pretty much set the tone we can expect for the entire season.
Josh Spiegel: Inception may be an odd one, Kim, but the one thing I can say for it is that I've starting seeing ads for it, and the movie's just under two months away. Warner Bros. is being smart by inundating every NBA playoff game with ads, as well as shows like Lost and Glee. I still have hopes for that film and Toy Story 3 to not only be amazing, but to dominate the box office. They should help the business of the second half of the summer pick up a lot.
Tim Briody: This is a disappointing May for sure, but it's been a weird year. We had a $300 million film in March and How to Train Your Dragon is still solidly in third place on the year. It's hindsight for sure, but all this stuff was mostly iffy in the quality department and people are clearly being a little more savvy with their entertainment dollars in this economy. Two of the surest things ever are just around the corner though, in Toy Story 3 and (sigh) Eclipse.
Daron Aldridge: I think that we could very well end up with Alice in Wonderland securely in the top three 2010 releases come Labor Day. Aside from the aforementioned Toy Story 3 (which is well-positioned to surpass Finding Nemo's $339 million gross) and Iron Man 2 (which is at $280 million now), I will be surprised to see anything else crest the $300 million mark, including Eclipse. I believe the latest upcoming Twilight sequel would need to win over many new fans to the series or benefit from even more repeat viewings to surpass New Moon's amazing $296 million haul from last year. That audience is there and will be there for every film, similar to it looking like Tony Stark has his fanbase locked in for grosses between $300 and $330 million and not much beyond that. So in that regard, yes, Kim, this might be eerily similar to summer of '05 with many strong performers but nary a $400 million behemoth in the bunch.
Jason Lee: I agree with Daron. If New Moon couldn't get past $300 million, there's no way Eclipse will. Look for Iron Man 2 and Toy Story 3 to jump the $300 million hurdle, but that's all. But I'm not really concerned with a lack of $300 million+ grossing films. What concerns me more is a lack of films that could top $200 million, which is a total that, for me, signifies that audiences generally had a great time, even if they weren't all-out blockbusters. Since 2005, we've had at least five $200+ million grossing summer films. I think 2010 will struggle to reach that number.
David Mumpower: I agree with Jason across the board. Eclipse is being launched now to capitalize on the heat of the project before it fades. I see it earning less money than New Moon rather than more...and I say that as the only one here who seems to have a handle on those films. Talk to some teen girls, people!
As for the rest of the titles under discussion, June is a month of maybes in my estimation. Other than Toy Story 3, every other major release is not a slam dunk hit. I *think* A-Team and Knight & Day do very well, but there seems to be a lot of general resentment over the mere existence of the former and the latter has that dreaded Cruise missile potentially sabotaging it. Once we get to July, I do expect the situation to improve. Even so, we are seeing exactly the same mistakes as 2005: too many question marks are getting thrown into theaters at once. This creates a perception of negative reinforcement toward movie goers.
In addition, no one is talking about this but I am convinced that Avatar has had a lasting negative impact on the films left in its wake. It raised the bar too high and there has been a pervading sense of disappointment with most of the films since then that have failed to even approach it in terms of visceral experience. This seems to be a hit the industry is going to have to take until everyone else catches up to Cameron on the visual effects curve.