Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
September 14, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Machete, the unlikely spinoff from the Spy Kids series, slashed another $4.3 million from audiences this weekend, giving it $20.9 million against a $20 million budget. Why do you think this genre pic succeeded when so many fail?
Josh Spiegel: I'm not sure the movie succeeded that much. The fake Machete trailer at the beginning of Grindhouse is arguably one of the best and most memorable aspects of the two-part film, but it's been over three years since Grindhouse came out. So, yeah, this movie made more than I thought it would, but it's not tearing up the box office; moreover, its weekend-to-weekend decline was worse than The American's, and the Cinemascore here isn't nearly as low. Obviously, Robert Rodriguez is the kind of filmmaker who makes cheap stuff, so Machete's not going to lose a lot of money, but I'm not sure it's worth a lot of praise.
Brett Beach: I also wouldn't classify this as a win, except from the standpoint of making back its budget. It will end up grossing slightly more than Grindhouse did, but I think it will inspire a lot less fervor and affection (and perhaps heated debate) going forward than did its precedent. I saw it Saturday and was pleased and shocked with how much relevant political and social text there was, but would have preferred a film that built to a gonzo conclusion rather than stick the most extreme parts in the first five minutes and the middle. It was more wearying than giddy-ing. Danny Trejo is, along with Clint Eastwood, the most imposing senior citizen I know (Trejo is 66) and he does infinitely more for the film than the film does for him. Rodriguez knows the genres where his bread is buttered (exploitation homage and kids films) but I yearn for him to use a different knife (or machete) in the future.
Matthew Huntley: I agree with Josh and Brett on this one (the first question that popped in my head after reading Kim's post was, "Machete succeeded?"). Nevertheless, the movie's relative success can be attributed to its modest budget and low expectations. Comparatively, Grindhouse was expected to be more successful since it also had Quentin Tarantino's name attached, but the awareness and hype for Machete were not as high.
On a side note, I think Machete is the kind of movie that exists for the home market. An unrated DVD/Blu-ray is practically guaranteed, along with an in-depth commentary by Robert Rodriguez. It's here, I think, where we'll see it truly succeed.
Reagen Sulewski: Guys, guys, guys! Different comparative standards! Machete doesn't have to make $100 million, or $75 million, or even $50 million domestically to be a success, given its listed budget (and the fact that two sequels are planned is another testament to the idea that it's a success). Give Robert Rodriguez $100 and a camera, and he'll make you a feature film.
David Mumpower: I agree with Reagen. This title is infinitely playable, because it's timeless, mindless violence. And I say this with certainty after noticing that Desperado was showing on one of the pay channels the other night. This is the type of movie that made Robert Rodriguez famous, and I'm thrilled that he occasionally goes back to it. With regards to how much money it actually makes as well as how successful it is over time, the other thing to keep in mind is that this low budget title will do great on video prior to its indefinite existence filling late night programming. And there are not one but two sequels under consideration. This doubles as a franchise launch and while it clearly isn't for everyone, it has deftly filled a niche.
*Cake earworm*
Kim Hollis: Going the Distance, the romantic comedy starring real-life couple Drew Barrymore and Justin Long, earned $3.8 million and has a running total of $14 million after ten days. What went wrong with this Warner Bros. release?
Josh Spiegel: I can't blame the marketing here; the movie got enough ad time over the last month or so, and unlike the ads for The American, these weren't that deceptive: you're seeing a romantic comedy with Drew Barrymore and Justin Long in the ads, and that's what it was. I'm not the biggest fan of either Barrymore or Long, and maybe that's part of the issue: while both are well-known, neither are popular enough to set the box office afire. Also, from some of the reviews, it seems like the movie's raunchier than the ads let on, so maybe making the ads focused on the R-rated nature of the comedy could have helped.
Tim Briody: I disagree about Drew Barrymore's box office presence. She's certainly opened some films decently over the last few years. What didn't help Going the Distance was a crappy release date, the fact that it looked like Generic Romantic Comedy #921 and Warren Cheswick.
Matthew Huntley: Going the Distance is a victim three bad things (there's probably more, but let's say three for now) - a lame title; a poor release date; a very unfunny trailer. The first two are self-explanatory, but for those who saw the trailer, did it make you laugh at all? It made the movie look stupid and conventional (the scene that sticks out to me is when Justin Long goes and gets a tan). Granted, I haven't seen the movie, but I doubt the real product is funny. The purpose of a romantic comedy is to be comedic, but this one didn't convince me it was anything but a time-filler. Apparently I wasn't alone.
Reagen Sulewski: "Generic Romantic Comedy Plot #457". The problem here was that there was no real conflict. Ooh, they live apart. I bet we'll see some real crazy hijinks as a result of that... wait, no we won't because they can't interact. Without a high-concept premise (and I guess this technically counts, but not really), your romantic comedy is pretty much doomed (although with it, it's likely a much more terrible film. It's the Witherspoonian Paradox). Throw in a magic ring, or something.
David Mumpower: I have to admit that when I saw the trailer for this, I thought it was going to be a hit. That bit where they start having sex on the kitchen table before Jim Gaffigan can get out of the way cracks me up huge. Still, I think Reagen makes a great point that if the worst conflict in your script is that the relationship has to become long distance for a while, there isn't enough conflict. In the social media era, the target audience shakes their head in disgust, thinks "That's what FaceTime phone sex is for" and discards the overall premise as archaic.
Chiefs vs...no, I can't say it.
Kim Hollis: It's football time in America! Who are your picks for the Super Bowl this year?
Bruce Hall: I'm going out on a limb. I half believe this and half just want to make a pick almost nobody else will because...well...I am an iconoclast.
Dallas and New England.
Skeletor finally gets the Boys over the hump, and Tom Terrific and a revitalized Pats get back to the Big Dance. America's Team versus...America's Team, isn't that?
Pete Kilmer: Colts!
Matthew Huntley: I'm hoping it's "Da Bears"! But if I had to guess based on the opening weekend, I'd say the Packers (grrr) and New England, in which case I'd root for New England.
Reagen Sulewski: I don't think the Saints have lost anything of consequence from last year's team, and look poised to repeat. That said, I've put $1 on the Titans at 40:1.
Brett Beach: Brett who? (Or, as they said in Wisconsin, "We'll never forget you, Brent!") The Packers will bring the glory back to Green Bay and face the dark horse Ravens in the Super Bowl. It'll be close, but an interception by Charles Woodson will put the Pack over the top. And Brett can stew about it all summer...
(Thanks to my good friend Robin Tovey for the above insight. She is the only person I know who can hold forth as equally well on Jane Austen as on the weekly pigskin wrapup.)
David Mumpower: Speaking as the genius who predicted the Super Bowl participants during week one last year (I'm going to keep milking this until the cow dies and maybe even after that), I...have no chance at getting side right this year, next year or the year after. I've had my fluke of luck for a while. Having said that, I've come to agree with Brett (or Robin Tovey?) that the Packers strike me as the best of the best. Aaron Rodgers is on that short list for best QB in the world and Clay Matthews looks like a ruiner of worlds on defense. In the AFC, I hate to be boring about it, but I think that the Patriots are way up this year. They bit the bullet for a while in order to get younger on defense and I think that pays off in the playoffs.
Kim Hollis: Realistically, I think Baltimore and Green Bay could be the matchup. The fangirl in me would prefer Tennessee or Indy in the AFC spot, though.