Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
August 17, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: BOP fave Scott Pilgrim went up against the world this weekend and the world won, as the film managed only $10.6 million. Why do you think this $60 million Universal production failed to break out? What do you think of its long-term prospects?
Bruce Hall: Mmmm. Look at that crispy brown color. Smell that buttery aroma. Yes, you can put a fork in Scott Pilgrim because it’s pretty much done. This is an odd case of a film that everyone was talking about but nobody seemed to want to see. Not only that, but this is the sort of film most of the BOP gang would pay good money to see (and may well have). This is the sort of film that just about every male under the age of 18 would pay their parents’ good money to see. This is the sort of film that every male between 18 and 35 who still lives with his mother should want to see. At the very least, it was filled to the brim with attractive young people, snarky dialogue, and comic book inspired CGI stunts – seemingly the perfect last getaway for your kids before they head back out to school. So where were they? That’s what I don’t understand. Remember when Paramount used to release inferior Star Trek films off an assembly line, slapped together with $30 million in duct tape with a rapidly aging cast and one uninspiring plot after another? But they still made money thanks to front loaded theatrical runs where everyone who cared managed to see it the first weekend. The holdouts went second frame, and then it was straight to the video store with it.
This is what I’d expected from Scott Pilgrim, but I guess I was dead wrong. In fact, Kick Ass made almost twice as much its first weekend of release, and that was an R rated film – about half its target audience was going to have trouble getting in to see it! Maybe Scott Pilgrim was just a really quirky title that a lot of people outside the “geek” demographic just couldn’t relate to. I get the idea from talking to people today that that a lot of moviegoers felt that they’d seen all they needed to from the trailers. They weren’t familiar with the mythology, so they got the idea that they were looking at a one trick pony that they’d become bored with before the end of the first act. That isn’t fair of course, but this is a business after all, and business is never fair. I just don’t know that this type of material has as wide an appeal as it thinks it does. Perhaps they should have expanded the marketing campaign a bit to help sell it to a larger demographic?
Brett Beach: Being part of the BOP universe, I am tainted with "bias" as to how much people outside of this website wanted to see it. I don't mean that to sound harsh, just an observation that I am not actively swimming in the pools of buzz for Scott Pilgrim (where ever those waters might rest.) I am, however, just about to head off to see it today with my girlfriend, her brother and his wife (following my son's baptism this morning; congrats Finn!) and they were all aware of the graphic novel prior to this. My interest rests solely on liking the trailer and on the presence of one Mary Elizabeth Winstead. Like Kristen Bell, I am willing to check out any film that she stars in, on the faith that it will be worth my while. I had pegged this as "Kick Ass meets Nick and Norah ..." after seeing the early trailers and would have expected it to fall somewhere in between the opening weekend grosses for those two. I don't think its long-term prospects are good as it probably falls into the anti-critic proof category (meaning no matter how rave the reviews or positive the buzz, the people who have made up their minds that it's something they won't like, are not going to see it.) It will probably pick up a healthy fan base on DVD but to circle back to something Bruce mentioned, I find it funny that it didn't do at least a little better with something like The Expendables opening this weekend. Apparently, there were not a lot of teens attempting to sneak into that by buying Scott Pilgrim tickets.
Tim Briody: As much as the folks here skewed my perception of it, this was a niche within a niche from the very beginning. I'm glad that everyone I know that was psyched for it loved it without exception, and I expect it to be an absolute monster of a cult hit on DVD, but it's one of the pricier flops at the box office, sorry to say.
Josh Spiegel: I'm with Tim, except I don't know that my perception was very skewed. I would have been pleasantly surprised if Scott Pilgrim made more than $15 million this weekend. As he points out, this is not a very popular property. The only reasons I'd heard of Scott Pilgrim before this weekend were twofold: I write for this site (and people here encouraged me to read the series, which I'm glad to have done) and I'd heard there would be a movie. I'm not a big graphic-novel guy, and since this story is so far outside the supposed realm of graphic novels, I can't imagine it was picking up that much heat. Also, the marketing was all over the place. The domestic poster for this movie is as terrible as you can get, considering how great the movie is. It shows a guy playing bass, his head bent down. No explanation of the concept, the lead actor's face is hidden, the lead actor's name is not mentioned, no reference to the source material, and the director's involvement in Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz is at the bottom.
Having said all of that, my experience this weekend may be anecdotal, but it is proof that, as much as some critics elsewhere have pigeonholed it, Scott Pilgrim can survive with other demographics: I saw the movie with my wife (who was seeing it because...well, mostly because I wanted to), my parents (both in their mid-fifties), and my in-laws (both over age 60). Except for my mother-in-law, we all loved it. My parents don't play video games or read comic books, nor do my in-laws. Small proof that stereotyping doesn't always make sense.
Matthew Huntley: Josh, good call on the poor poster design for this movie. I guess this never dawned on me because I did know what the movie was about and I did know who the star was, so I personally didn't need a whole lot of explanation from the hard copy ads. But you're right - for anyone who's never seen the trailer/TV spots, this poster is obscure and sort of uninteresting. For all they know, it could be about a kid in a school talent show playing the bass, even though there's a lot more to it.
I have to admit I wasn't initially excited for Scott Pilgrim. Its first trailer made it seem like it was just another "Michael Cera movie," in which he plays yet another socially awkward geek trying to get a girl while muttering self-deprecating dialogue. I remember thinking (as most people probably did), "here we go again." But then the second trailer was released and I had a lot more faith in it, not least because Kieran Culkin and Anna Kendrick were shown to have supporting roles. So, along with all the "too niche of an audience" reasoning suggested by other BOP members in this thread, my theory for why the movie failed stems from the ineffective first trailer. Had the second trailer come out first, the movie might have raised more eyebrows and jump started better word-of-mouth before its opening. Also, the poster might have meant more.
Long-term prospects, I'm sorry, to say, don't seem promising. The end of the summer tends to get crowded, and because Scott Pilgrim is already stuck in fifth place, it'll probably be lost until the home market. Let's hope the DVD/Blu-ray covers are more enticing and informative to people unaware of the movie's plot.
Reagen Sulewski: This is a film based on a graphic novel with an idiosyncratic mix of obsessions, and which is deliberately self-limiting in its audience. Of course this wasn't going to be a big hit off the bat. And to Universal's credit, they didn't try and sell it as such (or at least, not much. Let us not speak up the Matthew Patel ad). This is not a film that a lot of people are going to "get" right away, but should pick up followers as it goes along (even if I think it's imperfect in a couple of ways). Such is the price of being a trailblazer.
Shalimar Sahota: As Bruce already said, "this is the sort of film that just about every male under the age of 18 would pay their parents’ good money to see," and since it's coming to the end of summer, I think they can only afford to see so many films and the wallet is running dry. Josh's comment on the poster is correct, since it doesn't give a great impression of what the film is. The new one with both Cera and Winstead standing before the exes is a little better. And Matthew's mention of the second trailer is spot on. In my opinion it's one of the best trailers ever edited. As Reagen has said, some people simply weren't going to "get it." Kirk Honeycutt's negative review at the Hollywood Reporter was one of the first I read and this proved it, rightly questioning why Scott has to battle seven evil exes (the comments this review has make for an amusing read).
It unfortunately doesn't open near me for another two weeks yet. However, given the overwhelming positive reviews, to me this seems to have the unique distinction of being the best video game movie that isn't based on a video game. I imagine that alone would alienate most people. At least Edgar Wright has just scored his biggest opening weekend. One can only hope that the film survives on great word-of-mouth.
Jim Van Nest: For me it comes down to two things. 1) I'm over Michael Cera's shtick. It went from endearing to annoying and until he does something different, I'm going to have a hard time watching him. (For what it's worth, Will Ferrell is another one who's fallen into this category with me.) 2) There's nothing that makes me feel like I have to rush out to the theater to see Scott Pilgrim. It'll hit DVD by Halloween and I can check it out then. There was just nothing about it that made me feel like a theater viewing was a must.
Max Braden: The trailer made me think of Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist, which opened at $11.3 million in October 2008, crossed with the style of Kick Ass. The number of people over age 30 who were likely to to see this was bound to be few. Pilgrim may eke out a total of $30-35 million, but it will be a bigger DVD (stream? are we still saying "DVD" these days?) rental.
David Mumpower: The comparison I've been making is that it's the new Serenity. That's another film that BOP championed (we even named it the best film of 2005) whose box office failed to match its tremendous quality. The comparison is quite sound in that Serenity is 81% fresh at Rotten Tomatoes, has an 8.0 out of 10 rating at IMDb and earned an A Cinemascore. Scott Pilgrim is 81% fresh at Rotten Tomatoes, has an 8.3 out of 10 rating at IMDb (it would be tied for #72 all time if it had enough votes to qualify...that number will come down some, though), and earned an A- Cinemascore. In terms of box office, Scott Pilgrim has things going for it that Serenity did not in that its director guarantees box office in England and the manga aspect of the title gives it at least a chance to play in Asia. Even so, I think we all realized going in that this was a long shot to break out and its disappointing debut means it will not make back its budget domestically. What conclusion can we draw from this? People suck.
All kidding aside, thanks to all of the BOP readers who gave the film a chance because you knew we loved it. We sincerely appreciate that several of you gave it a shot just because you like us. My wife, whom I jokingly call Kimona Flowers (seriously, I even bought her a star purse off Etsy.com), is particularly grateful. For those of you who haven't watched it yet, please do so in the coming weeks or take a chance on home video. Odds are quite strong that you'll like it, just as was the case with Serenity.
Kim Hollis: I think it's well-known around these parts that I'm a Scottaholic. I fell in love with the graphic novels like nothing I've experienced in pop culture in a long time. Every time I reread the books, I find something new to like. It's funny, fresh, unique and completely lacking in self-consciousness.
When the movie was announced and we learned Michael Cera was the lead, I was a little skeptical. Although I like him, he just wasn't what I'd pictured for Scott Pilgrim. Still, I put my faith in Edgar Wright - he had yet to steer me wrong as I adore Spaced, Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz - and hoped for the best. When trailers were released, it sure looked like he had gotten it right.
Even so, I never held out much hope that this would be a film with any sort of widespread appeal. I figured $12 million was about the best it could hope for, and I do admit to being a little surprised Universal budgeted that highly for the film. Regardless, Wright and the cast have delivered on every level. This is a movie they should be proud of, and it's going to be one that people will recommend to their friends and watch over and over again. It's comfort food, and it's something entirely different than what people are used to. That it was made at all is a victory of sorts.
Ahem…but where is The Rock?
Kim Hollis: Do you expect to see more films with all-star action casts like The Expendables in the future, or do you think this was a one-off?
Bruce Hall: I want so very much to say that this is a one off. But at as I mentioned earlier this is a business, and in business when something works you can bet your biceps we’ll see more of it. Just like the '80s action fluff that inspired it, The Expendables was by no means a good film. But it was breezy, mindless fun with lots of explosions and brutal R-rated violence, and it sports a cast that should have any self respecting action junkie frothing at the mouth.
Just a moment, I need to wipe my mouth.
That’s better. I think this movie was successful because perfectly accomplished what it set out to do; it easily cleared the low bar it set for itself. But I think that the inevitable imitators – or sequels – might find it harder going. The "One Man Army" flick with the sneering, indestructible Type A hero, ripped lats and rocket launchers fizzled out for a reason. They quickly became laughable parodies of themselves, and audiences grew tired of the joke. I think there may be a brief resurgence of this type of film but I predict that it will be short lived.
Just please don’t tell Stone Cold Steve Austin that I said that.
Josh Spiegel: I hope it was a one-off. I have no idea if it will be. Bruce uses the phrase "laughable parodies of themselves" to describe '80s action stars who did these kinds of movies. I see this movie as a laughable parody. So I'm clearly the worst person to ask about this movie. From a business standpoint, it's hard to not see Lionsgate working to make a sequel; money is money.
Reagen Sulewski: The two big problems with these ensembles is salaries and scheduling, and tends to nip a lot of them in the bud. Clooney managed it with the Ocean movies and Stallone is probably his testosterone-fueled action equivalent, but I don't know who else is going to be able to convince all these actors to do that for him. That aside, there's clearly a taste for throwing a bunch of stars into an ensemble and seeing whether or not it works, so someone's clearly going to try again.
Matthew Huntley: Definitely more. And it won't just be from the action genre. For instance, I could see high-profile actresses getting together to make an all-star romantic comedy (perhaps Meg Ryan and Sandra Bullock will team up); or a reunion between all the '80s brat pack members to make a modern-day John Hughes coming-of-age comedy. The trend of trying to rejuvenate old franchises (and careers) is far from over.
Jim Van Nest: Before this weekend, I would have said a one-off. After it opened bigger than expected, I'm afraid we'll have more of these down the pipe. And they'll suck and it will be one of the shorter trends in a while. I could easily see Stallone trying a sequel. I could also see the Brat Pack try to have one more day in the sun as a result of this - '80s nostalgia and all that. Either way, Expendables copycats will do nothing but weaken cinema in general and they really should just let this one stand alone.
Max Braden: Who's left for action? Van Damme, Steven Seagal, and Chuck Norris? I'll look for that movie to be quietly distributed through Redbox. I don't know about all-star genre casts, but Valentine's Day was another big ensemble movie that did well this year, so I don't think that approach is going to be dismissed in the future. What I'd pay to see though would be the actors doing a crossover movie with their characters. Thanks for ruining my hopes of Dirty Harry vs. Martin Riggs, Gibson. Jerk.
David Mumpower: This is the same situation as was the case with Grown Ups, Couples Retreat and the Ocean's X franchise. You could even throw Tropic Thunder into the conversation as well. Movie goers have sent a strong signal that they are much more willing to give a title the benefit of the doubt when it features innumerable name actors. While Reagen is correct that scheduling can be an issue, the reality is that most actors can find a couple of weeks out of any year to film a part in a film. With titles such as The Expendables, that's all that a lot of them need to make it work. In other instances such as with the afore-mentioned comedies, the job doubles as a family vacation with friends, which is equally appealing. I fully expect this trend to continue indefinitely, because it makes good business sense for all involved.