Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
August 24, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Piranha 3D opened to $10.1 million this weekend. Were we deluding ourselves into thinking that a project this obscure would do better?
Josh Spiegel: I don't know that I'd say the series is obscure; on the one hand, sure, I haven't seen this movie, but on the other, the previous films were directed by Joe Dante and James Cameron. I think the problem with the movie not doing well lies with Dimension. The movie has, whether it deserves it or not, gotten really great reviews...like Inception or Scott Pilgrim ratings on Rotten Tomatoes. The cast is self-aware and self-mocking, as seen by the recent For Your Consideration ad on Funny Or Die. You have 3D. You have a late-summer horror movie. Why did the studio not market this movie to anyone? Very odd choice, and I'd wager it's the biggest reason why the movie tanked.
Bruce Hall: Again, I have to agree with my esteemed colleague. You go through all the trouble of putting this thing together, you earn widely positive pre-release buzz, and you have Richard Freaking Dreyfuss in the cast. Yet you’re afraid to promote it? Were they afraid none of the kids would recognize the guy from Mister Holland’s Opus? I am sure that were the studio brass to read this, they’d point to the weak opening as proof that they were right in not exerting more effort in pushing the film, but that’s really a chicken or egg argument if you ask me. If there was any weekend this summer where it was worth going for broke with a film featuring Ving Rhames and Matt Hooper versus killer fish feasting on the tender young flesh of half naked college co-eds, this was it.
Dimension = Fail.
Matthew Huntley: This is the second weekend in a row where a poorly marketed critic-pleaser has tanked at the box-office, and if Scott Pilgrim's 50%+ second weekend drop-off is any indication, the positive word-of-mouth isn't doing anything to help or giving them better legs. What a shame.
To answer Kim's question, though: no, I don't think we were deluding ourselves. After all, last summer at this time, The Final Destination (another 3D horror flick) opened to $27 million and showed reasonably strong legs for the genre. How could another horror movie about partying teenagers in the water who get eaten by tiny fish not do the same, or even better? After all, I don't recall The Final Destination having amazing marketing (like that film, Piranha 3D was apparently a huge draw at Comic-Con this year). It just doesn't make sense. Lack of buzz (and lack of faith from the studio) certainly have something to do with it, but I think it's something else. When I first saw the trailer for the movie back in January (the movie was originally supposed to come out in April), the audience was totally into it, so the desire for it was certainly there. If I had to guess, I would cite the overcrowded marketplace as the main culprit. It's a shame this movie didn't have at least one weekend more to itself. Perhaps the studio should have waited until Labor Day, a weekend that traditionally sees horror movies open to kick off the new school year (Jeepers Creepers 2, Halloween, etc.).
Brett Beach: SPOILER: Jerry O'Connell's severed penis comes flying off the screen? WTF? I am having nightmares just thinking about that...END SPOILER
Truly random thoughts - I also wouldn't classify this as obscure and I think the Weinsteins are kicking themselves for not screening this earlier for critics and building up some positive buzz. They really don't have the touch anymore. With Alexandre Aja attached and the 3D cost, I figured this to get to $15-18 million opening. If I was going to see something in 3D, this would be it (after Step Up). But of course, therein lies the conundrum: It's the sort of trashy trash upon which most of 3D's hallowed history is built but it is what is going to get set aside as the masses clamor for an Avatar-esque experience that they now expect. In just a few months we are going to see 3D films open on the same day. After Double Entendre 3D and Dance Dance Revolution 3D have tanked in the past month, this has to make the studios of all those "non-essential" 3D flicks more than a little nervous going forward. Personally, I would love to see Piranha/Machete/Scott Pilgrim on a second-run triple-feature bill come late September or early October. Make it happen Portland!
Shalimar Sahota: I like my B-movies, and the positive reviews for this one are a shock. Maybe I really ought to go see this! However, I can't comment on the lack of marketing. Over in the UK, the film is being distributed by Entertainment Film Distributors, and I've seen TV ads, bus shelter posters, and the trailer has played before almost every film I've seen this summer. I agree with Matthew that maybe releasing it during Labor Day weekend would have been a better move. I do wonder though if the special edition of Avatar will make more than the second weekend of Piranha 3D. There isn't a new 3D release till Resident Evil Afterlife, so I only hope this'll stick around for another two or three weeks! Also, the For Your Consideration ad is brilliant!
Jim Van Nest: Bottom line, there was only so many showings Dan could get to this weekend. In seriousness, part of the problem with this is that the original was SO long ago. I mean this is a third film in a franchise, some 30 years after the second. The bulk of movie goers are too young to remember the series. Hell, I had to prove to a younger friend of mine that this really WAS a sequel.
And while it may have been true in the '70s and '80s...it appears that in the 21st century, fish eating people does NOT = $$$$.
Edwin Davies: The only conclusion I can take away from this result is that Adam Scott, funny and talented though he is, is cursed. First my beloved Party Down gets cancelled, and now this.
Outside of the Adam Scott Curse (coming to theaters this Halloween), I think that at least part of this result can be attributed to the backlash against 3D, which seems to be effecting good films as well as bad. I think that people are becoming less willing to part with their cash unless they're guaranteed an Avatar-like spectacular, and killer fish didn't seem to be enough to entice people in. Hopefully the reviews will be enough to make people check it out on DVD.
Joshua Pasch: When I went to the theaters Saturday night with my girlfriend, we were planning to see Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. And with an odd mixture of disappointment and pleasure, I learned that SPVTW had sold out already (disappointed I couldn't see it; hopeful it wouldn't have a steep second weekend drop). I then turned to the next unlikely candidate for movies I could convince her to see - Piranha 3D. Alas, I had no such luck. For starters, she wasn't keen on the entire schools-of-fish-regurgitating-human-genitalia concept, but sealing the "no way I will see that in a million years" deal was the 3D a the end of the title. For her (and for me to an extent) 3D has become a warning sign. It says loudly and clearly that you will certainly be paying more for your feature and you may even be receiving less. This being the giant theater in the middle of NYC, one might think that there was a Piranha gobbling man-parts in mere 2D on another screen, but alas, no such luck. Clearly this non-starter, date night situation played out in similar fashion in multiplexes around the country, leading to Piranha's disappointing weekend tally.
Reagen Sulewski: I don't know about you guys, but I learned my lesson from Snakes on a Plane. People don't really get tongue-in-cheek cinema, and the difference between a "bad" movie and a movie pretending to be bad doesn't exist to them. You have to explicitly hammer on the parody idea for them to get that (see: Vampires Suck). The real prize for this movie is in its future cult status.
No Colin Firth means no $$$
Kim Hollis: Nanny McPhee Returns earned $8.4 million. a little more than half of the first film's $14.5 million. How should Universal feel about this result?
Josh Spiegel: At the domestic box office, Universal just can't win this year. Part of the problem, in my opinion, is the very crowded marketplace the multiplexes have right now. Five new releases, even if none of them are monster hits, clog things up and people just didn't feel the need to see this over everything else. The first movie was cute, but it also opened in January, when things are always very quiet. Now, the movie's done great overseas, but why wouldn't it? Here, Nanny McPhee just isn't as big, nor was a sequel in such high demand.
Matthew Huntley: Even though Nanny McPhee Returns is a mid-level hit internationally, it has still grossed less than its predecessor in every major market so far. This is a fact many industry people believed would plague it domestically, and sure enough, they were right. So even though Universal should be disappointed by this result, they had to have seen it coming, which should soften the blow, but it still doesn't make it easy.
Why the less-than-stellar box-office? It's probably not the quality of the movie (I actually think it looks enchanting and wouldn't be averse to seeing it). I think the problem rests with the poor release schedule. Domestically, why would the studio choose to open it so late in the summer? They should know that kids are now preparing to go back to school and don't have as much time to go to the movies. Like the original, the sequel seemed better suited to open over a three-day school weekend instead. I feel Universal's domestic release department should have known this. I sort of pin the failure on them.
Brett Beach: Even with the pedigree of an Oscar winner and a nominee headlining the film (and other nominees in smaller roles) and as grateful as I am that Emma Thompson can write herself parts and not wait for Hollywood to come calling, I feel like this is another Cats and Dogs scenario where the original was successful but not revered and enough time has passed that the family that might have seen an immediate followup is not the family who wound up attending this weekend. We are the last stop on the international rollout and as Josh and Matthew mentioned, Universal probably had the actuaries successfully crunch the numbers for this a while ago. Their feelings? Resignation tinged with melancholy, but a desire to work with Emma once again, nonetheless.
Reagen Sulewski: I'll admit I'm not a regular watcher of the channels this film would be most advertised on, but I saw significantly fewer ads for this versus the original film in the series. They made very little attempt at creating a cross-over market for the film (perhaps resigning themselves to the fate dictated by international grosses). While I'm a little surprised that it fell off this much, this is proving to follow the recent trend where sequels that wait too long to come out pay extreme prices.
Artificial fertilization is not in this year
Kim Hollis: The Switch was this weekend's bitch, earning a woeful $8.4 million. Why didn't audiences take to this romantic comedy?
Josh Spiegel: There are, I'm sure, a lot of elements at play here (Jennifer Aniston being the female George Clooney - very, very famous but not for being a box office hero; the movie being pushed back and back from its original release date; weak marketing), but I want to talk about the poster, which manages to be one of the most obnoxious things I've ever seen associated with a major movie. I love Arrested Development, and by its connection, the work Jason Bateman does. I want to see him get bigger. Frankly, the actual content in the trailer for The Switch doesn't sound that bad (though not enough to make me want to see it in theaters), but his face in the poster is one of the stupidest things that could show up on such a thing. "Oh, honey, should we see that Jennifer Aniston comedy?" "What, the one with the guy looking like he's about to puke? I don't think so." What were they thinking?
Bruce Hall: I’m not surprised. Call me cynical but in my opinion you have several things working against this film that killed it right out of the gate. I love Jennifer Aniston, but like most people who do, I really can’t tell you why. Although I have enjoyed her in the odd film here and there, my affection certainly isn’t thanks to her aggregate body of work, and I am probably the only person in America who didn’t like Friends. Maybe she’d be better off with an afternoon talk show because while people certainly seem to find her likable, lately they don’t appear willing to give up much to see her. I would give a pinky toe for Jason Bateman to be a bigger star than he is, but that’s probably because I reside firmly within the slim demographic that can truly appreciate his brilliant comic timing. For better or worse, he’s a niche actor and it’s hard to see him ever being a big draw as a lead. And am I the only one who saw the trailers for this movie and was instantly reminded of The Back-Up Plan, last April’s horrific rom-com featuring the other Jennifer nobody wants to see? To those of us who follow film, the difference in premise between the two films might be clear but to the average moviegoer it probably seems academic.
I can see people at dinner tables all around the country dropping their forks in disgust and saying “Another middle aged actress in a romantic comedy about sperm? Eww, I’ll pass.” The Switch just had "box office poison" written all over it.
Matthew Huntley: Allow me to play Devil's Advocate just for a moment. True, The Switch did earn a meager $8.4 million, but to its defense, it only opened in about 2,000 theaters (low by today's standards) and it did have a respectable per screen average, so I wouldn't call it an all-out failure, especially when Miramax pretty much knew it was doomed in the first place. It'd be one thing if expectations for it were high, but given the release date and low buzz, it's clear that wasn't the case.
With that said, I ultimately agree with the BOP staff on this one. The movie just looked bad. Not awful and offensive like the aforementioned J-Lo rom com; but regular bad and completely unnecessary. It didn't look funny, romantic, heartfelt, clever - nothing. Whereas Josh was annoyed by the poster, I was annoyed by the trailer, not least because it revealed the Patrick Wilson character as the obligatory jerk. I thought, "Oh great, it's another one of those romantic comedies where the girl falls for the jerk even though the nice guy is right in front of her." And if Jason Bateman really is the father of Jennifer Aniston's son (I haven't seen the movie, so I'm not giving anything away), are we supposed to believe the evidence is because Bateman and the kid stand the same way (as the trailer suggested)? C'mon. Why didn't audiences take to it, you ask? Because they saw right through it just like the rest of us. The trailer (and I suppose the poster) made it all too easy.
Brett Beach: Do films having to do with artificial insemination and/or featuring any sort of scene where a man is handed porno mags and a "cup to fill" ever go over well (Funny About Love, Frozen Assets, A Smile Like Yours?). Of course, it didn't help to have a studio that is circling the drain (Miramax) throwing very unappealing and scattershot posters and trailers together (Aniston and Bateman both concurred on The Daily Show last week.) From the moment this made the August schedule (about four months ago, I think) it always sounded to me like a direct-to-video that got a big screen reprieve. And it's sad because both Bateman and Aniston deserve a better adult romantic comedy - like Clooney and Pfeiffer had with One Fine Day, back in '96 - and it's nice to see a Hollywood film where the male and female lead are both of the same age.
Shalimar Sahota: I too was reminded of The Back Up Plan and I guess once was enough. To be fair, The Switch opened in fewer locations, and was overcrowded with competition, but even if that was rectified, I still think this would open to less than $10 million. As Matthew said, the whole film seems to be in the trailer, and there's nothing there to make me want to go see it. I feel artificial insemination works best as a humorous sub-plot, and certainly not the basis for a whole film.
Joshua Pasch: The Switch never felt like a big winner to me either. But that it opened below The Back-Up Plan (was that the CBS Films one?) is astounding. The movie might feel like more of a rental than a real box office bread winner, but when I saw the first trailer I thought the combo of Aniston, Bateman, Goldblum, and an adorable kid saying "Oh my god, I have that" in potentially one of the cutest moments since Jonathan Lipnicki's human head weighing eight pounds comment, would at least add up to almost a $20 million weekend. Clearly, I misread the pulse on this one. I'm not sure why this would open to less than half of something like Bounty Hunter, though.
Reagen Sulewski: Matt, I would say the low screen-count was just a sign of Disney/Miramax cutting bait on the film. No sense spending the extra $10 million on P&A when you know it's not going to pay off. But a big part of the reason this film failed to connect is the incompetent advertising, which only showed half the premise. For most people, the movie is about Bateman getting Aniston pregnant. So where's the Switch? It's in the half of the film the ads didn't show.