Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
October 19, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Red, a film perhaps described as geriatric Avengers, opened to $21.8 million. In your estimation is this Summit's most successful non-Twilight project, or are we giving Red too much credit to describe it as success?
Josh Spiegel: No, the stats say that, even with just the opening weekend, Knowing remains Summit's most successful non-Twilight project, though only by a few million. I don't know how solid the legs for Red are going to be, but considering how heavily the marketing focused on it being people over the age of 40 or 50 as the stars, this is an impressive number. Clearly, lots of people of varying demographics were at the theaters this weekend (as most older releases had pretty solid drops), and Red capitalized on the older audiences who wanted something a little more visceral.
Matthew Huntley: I think we're giving Red just the right amount of credit. I see it neither as a success story nor a failure, even though I did expect it to open with more than $21 million (reason being is because every time I've sat through the trailer, audiences have been very enthusiastic about it). I guess I expected something more in line with $28-30 million.
With competition from two high-profile horror franchises coming out in the next couple weeks, I can't see Red grossing as much as Knowing to officially become Summit's second-most successful project, but I think a $75 million finish is possible, which should keep the studio satisfied and possibly be enough to warrant a sequel. It'd be interesting if Summit had another franchise on their hands.
Bruce Hall: To answer the meat of the question directly, what Josh said. Knowing still fits your criteria but despite that, the general consensus among moviegoers was that Knowing was crap. Red is tracking quite well and is receiving very positive word-of-mouth. 42% of viewers this weekend were under 30, so I am not sure it quite works to casually chalk this up to the Metamucil crowd and assume that the audience will dry up next frame based primarily on that. I don't mean to say that the observation is without merit, but were it not for Jackass I think that Red might have come a lot closer to the 30 million mark that Matthew expected. And although all the marquee names on this one are over 35, Bruce Willis is still a significant draw across most audiences.
Come on. He's Bruce Freaking Willis. And the same "dork" demographic who might be familiar with the graphic novel this movie is based on also has much love for Karl Urban. No, it isn't much, but it's something. Give the 20-something crowd a little credit. Most people old enough to vote are at least aware of most of these actors and may be more fond of them than you think. And whenever you combine an appealing cast, a slick premise, lots of physics-free action and gratuitous explosions inside a series of super-slick trailers you're going to generate significant interest from the under 30 set. And this movie really was marketed well, considering the broad audience they needed to reach for a successful weekend. It generated a lot of talk that really made you wantto see this thing, whether this week or the next.
That said, I don't know what kind of legs this flick is going to have either but there aren't any notable action flicks on the slate for 10-22. So between the Paranormal Activity sequel, Hereafter, and holdovers like Jackass, I can see it finding a niche and pulling in a respectable $10 to 12 million. With a total negative cost of just under $60 million, I imagine this one will make money back and the very least, not cost anyone their job.
Brett Beach: Bruce frakkin' Willis or no, I would like to think that Helen Mirren with machine guns was at least equally responsible for a respectable opening. As much as I love Willis, it was really the teaming up of lecherous Morgan Freeman, crazy John Malkovich, wide-eyed Mary-Louise Parker, and my favorite Dame as his team that got me excited about this. Making back its budget (only $58 million? All involved deserve kudos for making that happen) seems highly likely although I would be surprised, even with critic kudos and good word-of-mouth if this makes it to a 3.0 final multiplier. To finally come around to the question(s): This will not be Summit's biggest non-Twilight hit (though a sequel could be...) and no we aren't dousing this with too much praise. I was expecting mid teens opening myself.
Joshua Pasch: I'm not saying they're the same film or anything, but Bruce Willis and Morgan Freeman played opposite each other (along with Ben Kingsley, Lucy Liu, and Josh Hartnett) only a few years back in Lucky Number Slevin. Both are hyper violent films and have a starry if somewhat older cast. Slevin, however, opened to a measly $7 million. I think the difference here is Red features Helen Mirren (greater than the sum of Liu, Kingsley, and Hartnett?), had a solid marketing campaign, and, from what I'm hearing at least, it is the better movie (though I'm a fan of Slevin).
I think this has to be considered a success (though not a breakout film). If it has legs I'd be impressed - I haven't seen the demo split on this one but I'm not sure my grandmother is going to see it, even if she likes Morgan Freeman. In the end it'll be profitable for Summit, which is more than they can say for most of their outings outside of Twilight.
Also: I think its worth noting how invaluable those clutch "wow" moments are in a movie trailer touting action. Knowing opened to $24 million on the strength of that shot of the plane going down in the trailer. Likewise, I think Red owes fair amount to the image of Bruce Willis casually getting out of that spinning car; that and Helen Mirren.
Reagen Sulewski: Except Bruce Willis has not been Bruce Freaking Willis for some time now. The only thing that he's gotten people to be excited about him in the last, let's say five years, is a tepid Die Hard sequel. Time will tell if this can get over $60 million, but it's the best positive sign for his career that he's had in a long time.
Max Braden: It's The AARP Expendables. Oh wait, Willis is a decade younger than Stallone. In any case, this opening is bigger than some of the year's other notable action flicks like The Losers, Killers, and Knight and Day (A Tom Cruise movie! A Tom Cruise *action* movie!) and isn't far off what The A-Team opened with. Last October's action movie was the Foxx/Butler thriller Law Abiding Citizen, which opened to $21 million. I think Summit can be satisfied with this result.
The commercials beat all these people down. That has to be the case.
Kim Hollis: Hereafter, the second Clint Eastwood/Matt Damon project opened to $220,322 in six locations, giving it a per location average $36,720. Do you expect this to be a box office hit? How strong an Academy Awards contender do you expect it to be?
Josh Spiegel: I'll take the second question first. Since it's a film directed by Clint Eastwood, starring Matt Damon, and was written by the Oscar-nominated screenwriter of The Queen, there's no question that Hereafter has a shot to be a contender. The critical reactions have been a bit mixed, though; those who like the film pretty much love it, and those who don't like it...well, don't love it. This number is impressive, but I'm curious to see if it falls on its face when it goes wider. The previews and poster make the movie look a) unlike anything Clint Eastwood has ever directed and b) this close to a crappy movie-of-the-week. Maybe it's just me, but that poster seems like a parody. Obviously, the star power could help, but the numbers we see this weekend may only be reflective of film buffs wanting to check out a new Eastwood film as soon as they can.
Matthew Huntley: I saw the film (review coming soon) and while it is a bit on the slow side (typical for Eastwood), it does add up to something that's uncommonly...interesting (I'd rather not say "profound" or "emotional" because I think "interesting" is more suitable). With this in mind, plus the star power that Josh mentioned, along with the inherently intriguing subject matter, I think word-of-mouth will be strong and will propel the film to mid-level hit status. Plus Eastwood's films tend to show legs because of his adult demographic. It won't be a blockbuster like Gran Torino, but it also won't struggle like Invictus. If I had to predict its final gross, I'd go with $70 million.
As good as the film was, though, I don't see it becoming an Oscar contender. It's just not as, for lack of a better word, special as it needs to be. But the Academy's admiration and respect for Eastwood may give it a few default nods, perhaps for screenplay. I'm sure Warner Bros. will do all they can to make sure it gets something to prolong its life in theaters even longer.
Bruce Hall: I think the fact that Mystic River was considered Best Picture material is all the proof you need that anything with "Directed by Clint Eastwood" on the marquee is going to be in the conversation. Whether or not this will apply in the literal sense to Hereafter depends on how much this movie will "touch" people. According to the official synopsis, we've got a blue collar tough guy, a beautiful woman and an adorable child who all are touched by death, and are compelled by fate to come together in what will no doubt be a very moving and emotional way. It sounds like a "chick flick" but the names Clint Eastwood and Matt Damon are associated with it, so as a guy you sort of HAVE to take notice - especially if you're over 30 and have a girlfriend/wife.
As far as long term prospects, I'm not sure you can tell much from this weekend. I think Josh makes a good point in suggesting that when a film of this pedigree opens in such exclusive fashion, you kind of have to skew the numbers toward the enthusiast demographic. Then again, let's do some math. Hereafter opens in 2,200 locations next week. Gran Torino opened in wide release to 2,808 venues, for an average of $10,500. I think you'll agree that this number is a highly unlikely target for Hereafter. Meanwhile Invictus opened to 2,125 screens for an average of $4,052. I am sure you can see where I am going with this - to kind of echo Matthew's reasoning, I think we can expect Hereafter to fall somewhere on the lower end of that.
Gran Torino was a box office tour-de-force whereas Invictus filled a smaller niche. It is the sort of project that my parents and critics gush over but that I am less enthusiastic about - an important and necessary film but more uplifting and cerebral than viscerally entertaining. I am not sure Hereafter will be either of these, and to be sure we're talking about apples and oranges here. But financially speaking, if I had to guess, I would say that it will fall somewhere just North of the $37 million Invictus tallied domestically. But unless it is an outright box office disaster, I think that almost by reflex we're going to see this movie discussed when Oscar time rolls around.
Brett Beach: I echo most of what has been said thus far. In terms of subject matter, star and director, this is nothing at all like a sure shot. I never read too much into the exclusive NY/LA openings only one week before going wide because if the studio were truly unsure as to whether the grosses would be respectable/per screen average fairly high, they wouldn't take the chance of banking on bad buzz and then going straight to a national rollout. The film's ad campaign walks a fairly tight line between mystical etherality and overwrought solemnity. The film may be best taken as a whole and not able to be put forth in 30 second TV spots or two and a half minute long theater trailers. I see this playing out much like Changeling, with a possibility of veering towards Invictus' grosses, so I'll split the difference and call it $45 million. I don't think it will get any acting/writing/directing/Picture nods, but could get some in the technical categories. Having said that, I may see the film and hail it as the best of the year and be eating my words in 2011.
Reagen Sulewski: What helps this immensely in terms of Oscar potential is that Eastwood is taking on an atypical subject for him, and that it's an "important" one. Of course, let's all remember Beloved.
Ultimately it's going to come down to the box office - funny things happen when films are big hits, as voters figure that moviegoers must be on to something. I just find it difficult to get over the idea of "Matt Damon, medium to the afterlife".
Max Braden: The names will get people through the door, but I think there's a stigma to the sci-fi aspect the movie, whether Damon is the miscast medium or not. Remember when The Lovely Bones was going to be the biggest thing at the Oscars? That movie failed to get nominated for writing/directing/picture, and while it opened at three sites with the same per location average, it settled to a total of $44 million after wide release. That would be more than Invictus brought in, but I wouldn't call that a box office hit. And if it gets nominated for something, I'd put it at the bottom of the odds pile to win.
Reagen Sulewski: The Lovely Bones had no small amount of open mocking prior to its release from critics, though. I've seen a little of the same with Hereafter, but not nearly to the same degree.