Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
August 1, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Dinner for Schmucks, the comedy that reunites Steve Carell and Paul Rudd (who previously worked together in Anchorman and The 40 Year-Old Virgin), earned $23.5 million. How should Paramount feel about this result?
Josh Spiegel: I'd say pretty good. The movie could've opened wider, but the marketing for Dinner for Schmucks has been all over the place. It's either a buddy comedy with Carell and Rudd, or it's an all-out farce with Carell and Zach Galifianakis facing off with mind control, and so on. I feel like the movie probably couldn't have hit a lot harder with audiences, as it's a big comedy with edgy stars, but is from an anti-edgy director in Jay Roach. With The Other Guys coming out next week, though, Paramount is probably going to wish they'd rethought their release date change.
Matthew Huntley: I agree with Josh on his key points, and although advertising for Schmucks was prolific, it still seemed like a difficult movie to market. As Josh alluded to, what the movie was actually being pushed as - either a buddy comedy starring Carell/Rudd or a Carell/Galifianakis face off - wasn't quite clear. It was being sold as both and, going into the weekend, I wondered if some moviegoers would be turned off because they didn't know what to make of it. Clearly, a lot of people weren't and a $23 million opening is a decent start to recouping the reported $60 million production budget (this figure seems high). I don't think Schmucks will turn a huge profit for Paramount, but I think a mid-level hit is in the cards.
Reagen Sulewski: Even though this isn't an Apatow production, it looks like one, which probably contributed to its success. The actors from those films have a remarkable consistent track record going back to The 40-Year-Old Virgin, when they stick in these kinds of roles, and seem fairly immune to reviews (either good or bad at this point). I don't think the somewhat scattershot marketing really mattered much in light of that, as people came to see Carell be annoying, and Rudd be smug. Eventually quality or audience fatigue is going to matter, but for right now these are simple to produce and easy to turn a profit on.
Kim Hollis: I think Paramount might have been hoping for more from this. I would imagine that they at least thought that a #1 finish should have been in the cards, anyway. Paul Rudd is always consistent, and I believe that pairing him with Carell ought to have meant a little more for the box office. The reason this movie probably didn't wind up earning more is that it looked weird...and kind of unpleasant. I know I don't need to see Carell's Michael Scott character dialed up to 11 but this is exactly what Dinner for Schmucks seemed to offer. It's a missed opportunity, I think, but not a huge missed opportunity.
David Mumpower: In a certain sense, this is a case of deja vu all over again as this debut is almost identical to Date Night's $25.2 million debut four months ago. That film wound up finishing just short of $100 million, which seems like an ambitious finish for this one, given the middling reviews and somewhat hostile word-of-mouth. Still, as Mr. Huntley points out, it's a relatively low cost production and that puts this debut in the win column, albeit with about the worst possible amount to qualify. I strongly suspect that when Carell's 2010 is evaluated, Despicable Me will be the movie remembered the most despite his being just a voice actor in it. Then, there will be some mention of the vanilla-flavored Date Night and Dinner with Schmucks is the least of the three, the All about Steve of the bunch, if you will.
The real question is: does he still love lamp?
Kim Hollis: What does the $23.5 million opening of Dinner for Schmucks make you think about Steve Carell's drawing power? Is it more, less, or about what you thought it was?
Josh Spiegel: I don't think anything's really made things worse for Carell here. Again, the movie could have opened wider, but the result isn't going to be disappointing for him. He's been in three movies this year, and two of them were major hits. Dinner for Schmucks won't be that big of a hit, but Carell's a consistent performer at the box office. I just wish he made movies that seemed, you know, as funny as he can be. Still, he's come a long way from being Producer Pete Steve Carell on the Daily Show a decade ago. Good for him.
Matthew Huntley: Ever since Steve Carell became a household name with The 40-Year-Old Virgin, he has generally opened movies to the tune of $20 million or more, which is about where Dinner for Schmucks was expected to fall. The question is whether people are seeing these movies because of their concepts or because Carell is in them. It's probably both, but now that his last few movies, including Schmucks and Date Night, are audience pleasers and have opened with respectable numbers, there's no doubt people feel comfortable with him and know what to expect. He's become a "safe" celebrity-actor because he doesn't stray too far from his usual routine. For now, I think this sense of safety increases his drawing power at the box office (audiences like to feel safe), but in a few years, it could also be his downfall should his shtick ever wear thin. If he's serious about being an actor, Carell should try something new and attempt a role that goes against his usual type.
Reagen Sulewski: I don't think it's fair to say that Carell isn't stretching - he probably should have been nominated for an Oscar for Little Miss Sunshine, and Dan in Real Life was an interesting failure, at least. So if he comes back to these roles from time to time to keep his star power up, I say that's pretty smart. It's only a few million above Rudd's career average as a lead, for that matter, and he's the guy who I think could stand to broaden his horizons more.
Kim Hollis: I think it's fair to say that with someone else in the lead role, Dinner for Schmucks probably would have done a few million worse, or at least fallen "just" in Rudd's general opening range ($15-18 million). I have to believe that Carell did add a little something.
And I'd agree that Dan in Real Life and Little Miss Sunshine let him do something that was outside his comfort zone. I think both movies are pretty terrific, too. The fact that he's leaving the Michael Scott behind makes me believe that he's not going to be a guy who simply takes one note roles in the future. I'd kind of like to see him do a bit more writing, too.