Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
September 27, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps awakened to the tune of $19 million. Should Fox be satisfied with this result?
Tim Briody: Sure. They made a sequel that nobody was exactly clamoring for and came away with almost $20 million. I'm sure they were hoping for more (make your own "greed, for lack of a better word, is good" joke here!) by using one of the most inexplicably bankable actors of this generation in Shia LaBeouf, but I think much of his target audience at this point was not alive when Wall Street was first released. That left nostalgia to sell it and the resulting box office was something a little bit lower than was forecasted.
Josh Spiegel: I'm with Tim here. Despite the fact that the topic matter is timely, the original wasn't in need of a sequel, and the marketing kind of died down when the release date got moved back. I think Fox could have maybe helped the movie get to $25 million, but the ceiling wasn't very high here, what with The Town taking away the mature audience business away from this one.
Bruce Hall: Agreed. Basically Oliver Stone made a film that nobody other than Oliver Stone thought was necessary, but Oliver Stone thinks that everything he does is necessary. You have to give him points for chutzpah. But to come out of this weekend with the number one film despite such a modest haul has got to be a win. I do think someone was a little gun shy on the marketing end and left five to seven million on the table but when you release a completely unnecessary sequel almost a quarter century out - with no giant fighting robots OR Glenn Close - and you still take the weekend, you have an accomplishment.
Brett Beach: I am all about noting personal records, even if they are "meaningless," and Stone and Douglas both came away with the best opening weekends of their respective decades-long careers (based on the early estimate.) Fox should be pleased with a #1 opening even if it did make less than it might have made at one of its earlier scheduled opening dates. I had heard mid-20s opening bandied about which seemed possible if not probable. The timeliness of the topic was possibly counteracted by it being "too" real world for/not escapist enough for audiences whereas Douglas' battle with cancer brings with its own kind of positive/negative advertising. I give Tim props for using the full "Greed. . ." quote which is considerably more nuanced than the shortened version. I think the sequel, while not necessary, is a brilliant idea to bring back an iconic character (like Norman Bates or Fast Eddie Felson) to attempt to survive in a world that has passed them by.
Tim Briody: Right, Brett, something that we've been saying for years on this site (and I alluded to again in the Friday Box Office column) is that movies are supposed to be a form of an escapism. We don't want to pay our $9-15 dollars for a ticket to be reminded of how things are in the real world. Sometimes we'd like to forget it exists for a few hours. Wall Street is a reminder of the current economic situation and thus that may have hindered its box office this weekend.
Matthew Huntley: My answer to Kim's question is yes and no.
Yes, because Fox was able to accomplish something that's sort of rare these days - produce and release a movie about a timely but sore issue and debut at number one. If the plethora of movies about the Iraq War have taught Hollywood anything, it's that sensitive subjects - in the case of Wall Street, the crashing stock market and controversial bailouts - hardly make for strong box - office returns. Given the reputation of topical movies, $19 million is solid start.
No, because the movie cost $70 million to produce and its internal multiplier is rather small (it jumped less than 11% on Saturday). I don't foresee long legs for Wall Street and I can't imagine it will have much of a draw outside of the United States. In the end, I think the movie will end up costing the studio, but they were probably wise to hold off releasing it until now (wasn't it supposed to be released last spring?) since they probably made more now than they would have earlier (due to the slow time of year).
Shalimar Sahota: Fox has described the result as, "a terrific number," but we all know that secretly they were looking for a little more. As Matthew has already mentioned, there's that $70 million production budget, which I don't see the film recuperating domestically. Admittedly, I've not seen the original, and the release of this has me curious in wanting to track it down, though I'm sure it's likely to pop up on TV now! I'm on both sides that we don't go to the cinema to be reminded about the real world. Sure, we'll pay for our two hours of escapism, and that probably applies to the most of us, but quite simply some of us are drawn to stories that do hit close to home. Not all films exist solely as entertainment. Looking at Oliver Stone's past films, most of them are about historical real events. As sensitive as it was, his last big hit was World Trade Center, which took over $160 million worldwide! Given the premise of the Wall Street sequel, it's something that still feels current, and I don't know if it actually offers a logical answer as to how the financial crisis happened. If it does, then maybe those who just so happened to be unaware will be enlightened by it, though it might not make audiences feel better if it makes them think about the credit card they used to pay for their tickets. Also, I'm suddenly reminded of the likes of Escape From L.A., Blues Brothers 2000, Rambo 4 and Indiana Jones & The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - long delayed, and probably unnecessary sequels. With this opening 23 years after the original, I guess that's a record till Tron Legacy comes out.
Edwin Davies: I think they should be happy with the result, if only because the whole thing feels like they've managed to fleece the public of their hard earned cash, which in turn feels appropriate given the subject matter of the film.
As everyone else has said, this is a sequel pretty much no one thought was necessary, centered around a character a huge swathe of the moviegoing public (i.e. the late teens/early 20s demographic that Hollywood shamelessly ogles like a horny teenager) is unaware of, and dealing with the world of high finance, a subject that either makes people very angry or very bored these days. That it came away with $19 million and a #1 finish is really quite surprising.
The lack of critical support for it (it's currently languishing at 55% on the Tomatometer) probably means that its legs have been cut out from under it, but it'll probably still end up with a reasonable final tally. If nothing else, we've all got a new ridiculous subtitle to help us make fun of unnecessary sequels, in the grand tradition of Electric Boogaloo and The Squeakquel.
Joshua Pasch: I can't help but think that this number is a real letdown for Fox. It may not end up being a huge loss, but in making a sequel to a classic, they were certainly aiming for both higher quality and higher grosses. Money Never Sleeps will not be remembered as the Color of Money to its Hustler, Wall Street. For Fox, greed is good, but not great.
Reagen Sulewski: I would tend to call this found money. For a sequel that looks exactly like what I might have done had I been tasked with the job of creating the parody of a Wall Street film, to grab a respectable double digits opening and first place on a weekend is an achievement. As bad as the idea seemed, it's incredibly The Monkeyl, and I think people just remembered "Oh yeah, I used to like Michael Douglas. Why don't I see him in stuff anymore?" I would also not underestimate the impact of "Sheelaboof", who has shown a surprising resilience in non-Terminator films despite the repeated punches to the face he must take on a daily basis.
Penguins > Owls? Yes, when they're dancing.
Kim Hollis: Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole opened to $16.1 million. The shiny Zack Snyder film had a budget of $100 million. After Friday, you wouldn't have thought it would make that much, but how do you think it will manage overall against that budget?
Josh Spiegel: In the end (meaning after it opens everywhere in the world and once DVD and Blu-ray sales are factored in), the movie will make more than the $100 million budget. That said, this is kind of disappointing especially because there aren't that many kids' movies in the multiplexes right now and Guardians could have taken advantage of that. I guess kids are as interested in fighting owls as I am.
Bruce Hall: I was curious as to what kind of performance we'd see out of this film, because it is actually well suited to 3D. My biggest problem with the technology is now that we've reached the point where it doesn't have to be an Eisenhower-era gimmick, it is still all too often used that way. But with this film, I have to admit that the tech was used effectively, and Animal Logic achieved a far more natural result than you see in the majority of 3D films. Instead of the effect appearing tacked on, you get the sense that you are experiencing something close to the realistic field of depth that we see in day to day life. I didn't just come away needing some Advil, I felt as though I'd seen something that I hadn't been expecting. It didn't make the story any better, but I suppose this movie wasn't exactly meant for my demographic. I was urged to see this movie for the sake of the effects, which is something that usually keeps me AWAY from a film.
I am still permanently scarred from sitting through Spielberg's War of the Worlds. "Go see it for the effects," I was told. It had an "effect," all right.
But I digress. In the end, it looks as though Legend of the Guardians was not helped much by any of this. I am not sure what it says for 3D overall; I get the feeling that the industry is more excited about it than we are, but they're going to push it down out throats until we all have 3D TV sets and we're all happy to stand in line and give up half a mortgage payment to take the family out to the movies.
As far as it making budget that's harder to say. I am not sure the story is strong enough to give it great word-of-mouth, and the 3D effects will mean less once the movie is released on DVD/Blu-Ray since it won't be an option. I've never heard of the books, but maybe it is because I don't have any kids, or maybe it is because the books aren't as popular as they think they are. Perhaps you consider this one a moral victory, like the DeLorean or Betamax - the kind that proves something is possible even if it doesn't exactly take the world by storm.
Brett Beach: I wonder how many fans of Zack Snyder showed up for this and how much it would have hurt or helped to emphasize "from the director of 300 and Watchmen" in the advertising. Would that have been silly for a PG-rated animated film? Perhaps. I share Bruce's feelings about 3D and effects up to a point (but not the War of the Worlds dis, tho) and think that an unknown would-be franchise in 3D would probably be met with some skepticism from parents already burned by paying more for the funny glasses. Per Kim's question, I don't think that this will make much past its budget worldwide. I am not sure what it might take for a film to be a money loser nowadays (is it possible when all is said and done?) but I am amazed that they spent that much on it.
Matthew Huntley: Given Bruce's testimony, I am now more curious to see it. I'll actually see anything, but when I first saw a preview for Guardians with How to Train Your Dragon, I was less than enthusiastic. There's just something about talking/fighting owls that seems kind of ridiculous (I know, I'm able to accept talking toys, talking ogres/donkeys and chipmunks, but for some reason, owls is strange to me). My point is that if I can be made more curious to see it, families probably can, too, and so I can imagine strong legs for this movie, especially if the word-of-mouth is positive. It doesn't face too much in the way of competition (Secretariat may be its first formidable foe), so during the month of October (before Megamind comes out in November), it could climb as high as $60-70 million. But given the budget, P&A costs and theater shares after so many weeks, this is clearly a case of too little too late. Internationally, I would say it needs to make at least $200 million to start breaking even. Only time will tell if it can get there.
Edwin Davies: I have to admit that I had heard absolutely nothing about this film up until about Thursday of last week. That's partly because I live in England and the film hasn't reach our shores yet, but I like to think that I'm fairly clued in about this sort of stuff, especially when the film is directed by a major director, like Hack, sorry, Zack Snyder. So I've had to do a bit of research.
The main thing that struck me was the way in which every article mentioned how popular the books are, yet how absolutely no one seems to have heard of them or read them. The opening seems to put it into that sub-genre of "children's literature that is popular enough to get adapted into a film, but not popular enough to get Harry Potter numbers." If we look at The Spiderwick Chronicles, a film which similarly was based on an apparently popular series, opened to $19 million in February 2008 and finished with a hair over $71 million, I think we'll get a rough sense of how Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole will fare. If it holds up well next week, giving an indication of its legs overall, it'll probably make $70 million, but I think the lukewarm response to the film suggests that it'll probably wind up closer to $60 million, falling well short of the pre-marketing budget, at least domestically. Once international receipts and DVD come into play, it'll make its money back, but I don't think there will be enough there to justify turning it into a franchise. Unless we're talking about a Land Before Time style franchise with dozens of straight-to-DVD sequels.
Reagen Sulewski: I mostly stand by my "Owls? Really? Owls? That's what we're going with?" comments. I also have to agree with those that are looking at the long tail for this one, although this is starting somewhat in the same hole that The Golden Compass did (though with far less scrutiny). I wouldn't rule out the possibility of an ill-advised sequel coming along if international box office does well, but I would hope that Zack Snyder has better things to do with his time.