Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
June 7, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Get Him to the Greek, the spin-off from Forgetting Sarah Marshall, opened to $17.6 million. Are you surprised the Russell Brand/Jonah Hill comedy performed so closely in line to its predecessor's $17.7 million debut?
David Mumpower: In yet another weekend of overall box office disappointment, this is the "success story" of the bunch. Given the lackluster trailers that oddly highlighted the presence of Puffy Combs over everyone else, I hadn't expected much from this title. A virtual draw with its predecessor (prior to ticket price inflation) feels like a win to me. Something I find fascinating about comedies is how star-independent they are. Yes, the presence of a big name gives a title a better chance to break out, but for the middle tier stuff like this, word-of-mouth is everything. I think Get Him to the Greek is going to wind up north of $60 million. Given the modest investment of $40 million for the project, everyone should be happy here. Except Russell Brand haters, of whom there are a surprising amount.
Matthew Huntley: To comment on the end of David's reply, I think the number of Russell Brand fans supersedes the number of Russell Brand haters, which is good news for Get Him to the Greek's future. And, like David, I believe this film will have good legs ahead of it, similar, probably, to Sarah Marshall's. For a film with no A-listers, that's pretty good and the struggling Universal should count their blessings.
I'm not surprised its opening was so close to its predecessor, since it was obviously attracting the same audience, which clearly hasn't that grown much since the last film. I actually expected a higher number given the better release date (Sarah opened in April, Greek opened in June), but perhaps the Russell Brand haters who liked Sarah avoided this movie and that accounts for the softer opening.
Kim Hollis: I think we actually have a case here where the movie that looked best actually *did* the best this weekend (out of new openers, anyway). And while I think that the previews and commercials for Get Him to the Greek have been extremely scattershot, there was enough funny there to make a decent number of people want to take a look. Since Sarah Marshall has a nice fan base, I think that Get Him to the Greek was able to pull in enough people for a solid opening weekend. It's not that easy to tell that the two films are related, so I'd certainly say that this first weekend is a win.
Reagen Sulewski: What I'm wondering is when the last time a film with two leads as unlikeable/offputting as this did this well? I'm pretty sure Russell Brand is British for "Dane Cook" and Jonah Hill probably peaked when he wanted people to ask him about his wiener. Wrenching this kind of opening weekend out of two actors most people wouldn't cross the street to punch in the face is something of an achievement. The lessons of Old School were well learned by Hollywood, I suppose.
Josh Spiegel: Though I don't have the apparent loathing (or dislike, your mileage may vary) for Hill or Brand as Reagen does, this is certainly a movie that's sold on such an odd premise: spinning off a character from a relatively profitable but not wildly popular two-year-old comedy, just so it can be done. Aside from his two movies, I'm a Brand know-nothing-er, and I think he's hilarious as Aldous Snow in both movies. What baffles me is why Get Him To The Greek had the June opening date, not because it had a lot of competition, but because it seems ready to be dwarfed by every other summer movie. All things considered, a good, not great, result for the movie.
Shalimar Sahota: Josh pretty much got there before me. This is a good result, but Universal might have been hoping for Superbad/Knocked Up levels of box office from their R-rated comedy. I don't see it topping Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and it'll probably finish with around $50 million, but it's going to be a struggle getting there, because it might not even be in the top ten by the end of the month.
Jim Van Nest: Aren't all these movies pretty much the same? They certainly all look the same. So why spend $10/per to see them? I'll catch them on DVD for $3 total.
Jason Lee: I agree with Shalimar. There's no way this movie comes close to topping Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but everyone at Universal should be extremely pleased with this result. Frankly, I think it's success is due to the "Ain't there anything else?" phenomenon. Nothing else looked all that great and moviegoers had a good time at Forgetting Sarah Marshall, so they were more than willing to give Russell Brand and his crew a chance.
David Mumpower: I believe a couple of you are underselling the behavior of a well received raucous June comedy. In order to approach Forgetting Sarah Marshall numbers, Get Him to the Greek would only need a final box office multiplier (final domestic take divided by opening weekend take) of 4. I don't consider that unreasonable at all. A $50 million finish is about the worst case scenario at this point.
This movie's title is so bad, it's impossible to come up with a joke for it.
Kim Hollis: Killers, the Katherine Heigl/Ashton Kutcher action-comedy, opened to $15.8 million. What do you take from this result?
David Mumpower: If we ignore Valentine's Day, a composite cast romantic comedy, Ashton Kutcher films generally open in the upper teens to $20 million range. The Butterfly Effect, Guess Who, The Guardian and What Happens in Vegas all fall in this area. Katherine Heigl's three major film openings have been large enough to almost justify her massive ego. 27 Dresses, Knocked Up and The Ugly Truth all fall in the $23-$30 million range. Even if you (correctly) believe that Knocked Up's success is independent of her, she has proven to be a draw with the other two projects that averaged a $25.3 million debut. The combination of these two well liked stars should lead to an even better result with them as headlining romantic leads. The fact that this didn't happen speaks volumes about how atrocious looking this film is and the critical reviews thus far reinforce the philosophy. In fact, as I type this, all 12 top critics who have reviewed it give Killers a negative review. It is 0% fresh among top critics. This is a lowest common denominator project during a year where consumers are showing more common sense than in past years. Its disappointing opening weekend is unsurprising, but it is refreshing.
Kim Hollis: I'm actually pretty surprised that it didn't pull in closer to $25 million. With the combination of Heigl and Kutcher, I really believed their drawing power was better. Granted, the movie looked terrible, but so did all of Heigl's other films. I'm actually wondering if a different studio might have been able to market Killers better. Lionsgate isn't really all about the romance or action comedies, after all. I guess a dog's a dog, though.
Matthew Huntley: This figure was pretty much in line with all industry expectations and the fact the movie lived up to it means people were willing to give it a try but not probably not willing to go out out of their way too much. That it made $16 million can attributed to lack of better films in the marketplace.
Kutcher and Heigl can obviously pull in a decent audience, but I don't think Killers will go too far north of $40 million. The movie is generic and derivative of so many other movies that before long it will only be a memory that performed okay at the box-office. Given the opening, I don't think it will be put at the top of either actors' resumes and won't justify LionsGate spending more than usual on the production budget and marketing.
Michael Lynderey: When I first heard about this project - and keeping David's stats in mind - I thought it was intended to be a $100 million earner, especially because of the release date and more action-oriented plot. But since then, it's been getting gradual downgrades in my mind: first, I saw the trailer and realized that a three digit total was pretty much out of the question; then, the release date approached, critics were shooed off, and this went from a $20 million opener to what it has now become - a modest disappointment for both stars. But listen, I saw the movie, and the low numbers make perfect sense, especially since the film's plot does not. The blame here lies with the quality of the picture, all the way. Heigl and Kutcher will recover.
Reagen Sulewski: Judging the quality of a Katherine Heigl project post-Knocked Up probably does feel a bit academic, but this did seem noticeably worse, and I think the general public is starting to take notice when studios pull stunts like holding their films back from reviewers. For G.I. Joe, it's probably not going to bring questions - because who's expecting G.I. Joe to be good - but for a star-driven action-comedy, people start to smell a rat. Also, can I hope that Heigl's "strident bitch" routine is going out of style? Why are we supposed to like her?
Josh Spiegel: That this movie made as much money as it did this weekend baffles me. Then again, Katherine Heigl and Ashton Kutcher in a movie is akin to nails scratching a chalkboard. People seeing this movie is just...there are no words for my confusion. Compounding my confusion is that this movie cost $75 million. Yikes.
Brett Beach: I'm in line with the general consensus here: $75 million budget?! That's especially shocking when the reviews for this keep mentioning how ineptly it is shot, edited and directed. Heigl inherently rubs me the wrong way too. Not many actors or actresses have such an effect upon me, but there are a few. I keep hoping Anne Hathaway will steal her roles and her mojo (not to compare lemons to lemon Pine Sol, but give me Bride Wars over The Ugly Truth any day). I think Ashton is following in Demi's path and becoming less interested in making movies. I wish him well with the photography sideline.
Jim Van Nest: I agree with Reagen for the most part here. But I don't know that people care about films being withheld from reviewers that much. I think it's that movies are expensive and times are tough. People are not going to pay that kind of jack for a crappy looking movie anymore, just for the fun of going to the theater. Seems to me folks are being way more choosy with their entertainment dollars these days.
Reagen Sulewski: Jim, to clarify, it's not that I think they care about getting a review, but that audiences are savvy enough now to know that that means bad news.
Jason Lee: If you are a male moviegoer, you probably had very little interest in seeing this film. If you are a female moviegoer, you probably already spent $35+ bucks last week on a ticket to Sex and the City 2 and martinis. I'm not surprised that this film opened where it did, despite the star-wattage of Kutcher and Heigl.
David Mumpower: Michael touches on an issue that cracked me up. Not only was the film not screened for critics, but a wildly disingenuous quote was given as to why:
"We want to capitalize on the revolution in social media by letting audiences and critics define this film concurrently... In today's socially connected marketplace, we all have the ability to share feedback instantly around the world. In keeping with this spirit, Lionsgate and the filmmakers want to give the opportunity to moviegoing audiences and critics alike to see Killers simultaneously, and share their thoughts in the medium of their choosing. We felt that this sense of immediacy could be a real asset in the marketing of Killers."
So, I want to thank our friends at Lionsgate (no, really, I have a couple of friends at Lionsgate) for giving us this rare opportunity for consumers and critics to simultaneously reject a movie. *raises fist in the air as an act of brotherhood*