Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
July 26, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Salt, the spy film starring Angelina Jolie, opened to $36 million. How should Sony feel about this result?
Matthew Huntley: Considering Salt's figures were (more or less) exactly in line with tracking expectations, I'd say Sony should be very pleased with this result. It's what they were banking on and it's what they got, so why complain? Some other things to note are this is a late summer entry (even though the third week of July is only considered late summer by movie industry standards); the film's star (Angelina Jolie) is its primary selling point; and compared to other summer fare, its marketing campaign was relatively low-key. All these factors make the $36 million opening a bit more impressive. I saw the movie and must say I was surprised by how un-black and white its plot ended up being, so I think word-of-mouth should be decent enough to propel this one past the $100 million mark.
Brett Beach: I think Sony should feel particularly pleased that in a time when an A-list star's name no longer guarantees a spectacular opening, even for an action film, Salt did as well as it did. This figure falls in almost halfway between the opening weekends of the first two Bourne films, a series that Salt was clearly hoping to emulate in its subject matter/box office results. Without being based on existing material, and with a horrendously bland/ridiculous title, this is a solid opening. The caveat is that the budget ($110 million) appears to be equal to the cost of the third Bourne which was the most expensive by far. I don't think this will suffer from any sort of front-loaded rush and as adult moviegoers move on from Inception (for the first, second, or third time), it should hold up for three-four weeks with 40-45% drops and make its way to $125 million. If it can make back its budget here, particularly considering what we have seen this summer, it should be called a win.
Josh Spiegel: Agreed, this is a solid result. Jolie lives in the rarefied air of the movie star who's famous, but not for her movies. Frankly, though I know she's in movies, she's more recognizable to me (and, I'd wager, most people) as a tabloid fixture. It's smart to capitalize on her playing a female Bourne, or something like a grown-up Lara Croft. Moreover, with Inception tearing it up at multiplexes everywhere, for Salt to do this well is great news for Sony.
Tom Houseman: Salt is one of only a handful of films that was banking almost entirely on star drawing power, and Grown Ups is the only one that found more success (Killers, Knight and Day, The Sorcerer's Apprentice, and to a lesser extent Robin Hood are the others). Clearly, Angelina Jolie is one of the only non-comedian actors who can open a movie just with her name. Sony would have been happier had they been on the other side of $40 million, but they can't really complain about this number.
Some people might point to Mr. & Mrs. Smith as another original property Jolie starred in that opened much bigger ($50 million), but Salt never had a chance. Mr. & Mrs. Smith had a much clearer concept, another big star on the marquee, and a fantastic promotional campaign. It also had the free publicity of being "the movie that broke up Brad and Jen." Word-of-mouth will pave the way for where Salt goes from here, but this is a solid opening.
Shalimar Sahota: It's been a somewhat damaging summer for action films, with Knight and Day, The A-Team, The Losers and Jonah Hex under performing. For an original film, this is a sold opening and looks like it might actually make its budget back domestically. But compared to previous Jolie outings, it's less than the $50 million Wanted opened to, and that was R-rated, though she was co-starring with James McAvoy. It's also less than the $47 million Tomb Raider opened with nine years ago (!), though that was based on a "successful" video game franchise. I guess it could be down to not being based on anything, or maybe some people out there just don't really care if Salt is a Russian spy or not. The strong competition from Inception also suggests that people are being dragged to see something they've heard good word-of-mouth for, rather than Salt. However, it's nice to see Salt making up a trio of originality occupying the top of the box office this weekend.
Reagen Sulewski: I have to agree that the rose-colored glasses aren't warranted here. While we can often worry too much about star power, Salt was a film sold almost entirely upon that basis, and not out of character for that star's body of work. In comparison to what we've seen from Jolie in the past, this is a significant undershoot. This isn't to call it a bomb or anything, but there's definitely something here that didn't appeal to people like it should have. Granted that this hasn't been a great year in general for star power, but you don't make your name in Hollywood by turning $150 million films into $100 million films.
David Mumpower: I agree with the opinions that Salt has performed about as well as could have been reasonably hoped/expected of it. As Tom correctly pointed out, this didn't have the zing of homewrecking gossip to sell it. Instead, it was marketed as what it is, a combination of The Interpreter and The Bourne franchise, meaning that this is a new property riffing off a couple of popular/semi-popular ideas. $36 million feels like a win to me, lavish budget notwithstanding.
The New Salt Identity!
Kim Hollis: Originally, Tom Cruise was slated to star in Salt before the studio replaced him with Angelina Jolie (no, really). Do you think the film would have done better, worse or about the same with him in the lead role?
Brett Beach: It pains me to say it, but it probably would have done worse with Mr. Smiles, even with other things staying the same (Inception breaking out as it has and the real-life Russian spy ring story providing some fortuitously-timed free publicity). As we discussed when Knight and Day opened, Tom Cruise may only be one hit away from a comeback, but he has been dragged down by ridiculous baggage that just won't go away. Angelina Jolie may be a good selling point for the masses since action is her milieu but she is one of the few actors/actresses who just seem to rub me the wrong way. I can admire her craft in a film like A Mighty Heart and still not quite ever warm up to her. If/when I see Salt, it will be in spite of, not due to her.
Matthew Huntley: I agree it would do worse, and here's why - Angelina Jolie has a cross-gender appeal and fans easily buy her in this type of role (and many other roles). In fact, I can't think of any other mainstream Hollywood actress who could pull this off like she can, at least not in 2010. With Jolie, it just fits and feels appropriate.
We all know the Tom Cruise of 2010 (perhaps ever since 2005) doesn't have as much clout or appeal, both with men and women. If Cruise was in the Salt trailer instead of Jolie, I'd imagine most moviegoers would either chuckle or mutter "meh" under their breath. That's been the general response for Cruise's Knight and Day, and after that film's box-office performance, I think Sony is breathing a sigh of relief they went with their formidable female lead.
Josh Spiegel: I feel like it's negligible. The script had to be completely revised, because Cruise bailed after the movie was written, a story about Edwin Salt, not Evelyn. I'm guessing it didn't take too long for the writers to switch Edwin to Evelyn throughout the entire Final Draft document, and for there to be a husband, not a wife. Cruise might have worked here just as much, but I don't think the result would've been markedly different, one way or the other.
Tom Houseman: The proof is in the pudding on this one. Knight and Day had better marketing than Salt, and had Cameron Diaz helping Cruise, but it didn't come close to Salt's number, and isn't going to break triple digits, which Salt has a legitimate shot at. Cruise isn't a liability to the movies he stars in, but he isn't close to the draw that Angelina Jolie is. Plus, ya know... boobs.
Tim Briody: Cruise would do worse and I would say that even if Knight and Day never existed. He got his code red from audiences years ago and he'll never be taken seriously in an, um, serious film again.
Shalimar Sahota: I guess some would make fun of Tom Cruise for turning this down, but he knew it would just look too similar to his role as Ethan Hunt, and I feel he did the right thing by backing out. If he was still attached we'd be looking at a lower opening weekend.
Reagen Sulewski: I think there's two things here: If Cruise had taken this film, Brad Bird would now be directing Mission: Impossible V. Which is to say that I think it would have done slightly better better. But it would have been an odd career move in that it would still seem to be aping Bourne, and would have seemed like a step down for him in trying to follow Damon, whereas there isn't a similar problem for Jolie to do so.
David Mumpower: In addition to the other comments here, I would add that Salt would lose a competitive advantage with Cruise in the lead. As has been indicated, Cruise in this role is not only unoriginal but in fact as derivative as possible. He's not even Jack Ryan, much less Jason Bourne. Cast the lead as a woman, however, and the movie has an entirely new marketing strength. There simply are not enough Women Kicking Ass movies, something we harp upon a lot here that never seems to change. Salt without that selling point is not even Knight & Day.