Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
May 24, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: We apparently live in a world comprised of other countries, something our Canadian and British contributors can confirm. While On Stranger Tides was opening well domestically, it returned a historic international take of $256.3 million - more than any other film previously. It bested the prior record holder Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince's $236 million by 8.6%. If you're Disney, do you focus more on the diminishing domestic performance or the record-shattering $346 million global debut?
Edwin Davies: It depends on how well the film continues to perform - if word-of-mouth is tepid, then the film could drop off considerably in the coming weeks, which would take the shine off the huge debut - but they'd be fools not to focus on the international market. As I mentioned in the previous topic, there was a pretty shocking drop between the domestic totals of the second and third Pirates movies, and it looks like there could be a smaller but no less significant drop between the third and fourth, but At World's End actually made slightly more internationally than Dead Man's Chest. I don't think that the international performance of On Stranger Tides will be strong enough to take it into the $900 million+ range that its predecessors occupy, but I think that it will be enough to indicate that, much as in the case of the Narnia series, Captain Jack's future may lie overseas.
Matthew Huntley: Good points, Edwin, and Pirates is just the latest in a long line of Hollywood franchises that shows just how important international markets have become to U.S.-based studios. Back in 2007, Spider-Man 3 was the lowest-grossing of that series Stateside, but also the biggest one internationally. The same goes for the last Mummy, Ice Age and Shrek movies. It's funny, but as the quality of a franchise goes down, its international numbers tend to go up.
Regardless, Disney would be wise to concentrate most of its marketing budget on the international circuit and spend less domestically, at least for a franchise like Pirates, whose momentum doesn't seem to be slowing down outside the United States. They might realize, after tallying On Stranger Tides' domestic numbers, that too much money was spent appealing to a people who doesn't really care any more. To give you an example, here in Los Angeles, Pirates banner and posters have been EVERYWHERE and I honestly don't know who's responding to them. The walls outside the AMC at Century City mall are covered in them. Sure, they raise awareness, but do they raise interest or excitement? Disney would be better off shifting such ads to a countries whose citizens are still looking forward to the franchise continuing.
Max Braden: That's great news for the company, but I think it's likely that the international success is largely due to the addition of more venues worldwide. More venues are just going to translate into more money until they've reached a saturation point like they have here domestically. And apples to apples, the domestic opening for Pirates barely surpassed Fast Five's and is going to get crushed by a number of other movies coming out in the next few months. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that The Deathly Hallows Part 2 recaptures the international record. I would also be wary of a strategy pushing major movies overseas while ignoring the US market, because especially in the US where the tie-in market is strong, ticket sales help translate to other sales that would suffer without the awareness of the big opening movie.
Shalimar Sahota: It's been a long time since I opened an atlas, but you mean to tell me that On Stranger Tides opened in places other than the US and UK? Actually, from the looks of it, the film opened in over 45 countries. I guess if I were in Disney's position, I'd probably announce, "Yes there are other countries in the world, and they helped us break a record," and then focus to build more on that. To make that much money in less than a week is staggering, and instantly places the film in the Top 200 of all time. I thought the franchise itself was generally intended to have universal appeal, particularly with this latest installment that includes American, British, Australian and Spanish actors. Also, we're seeing more and more films that manage to do crazy numbers overseas, managing to eclipse their US box office totals. Matthew has already highlighted the franchise films, though even I'm surprised by what films like Mamma Mia!, 2012 and Disney's own Alice in Wonderland managed to pull in.
Jason Lee: I definitely think that you can emphasize both numbers. Realistically, On Stranger Tides will still end up as one of the biggest domestic films of the year, and in terms of global take, it'll be near the top. That aside, it never fails to surprise me the staggered way the international film market experiences "franchise fatigue." Though our ardor for a franchise might be slowing in the US (At Worlds End, On Stranger Tides, etc.), it's still churning along overseas.
David Mumpower: Max’s point about the growing number of upper tier theaters abroad is a key component in the industry wide growth of international box office. Historically, overseas revenue mattered less due to the fact that there are so many hidden expenses in distributing movies in foreign markets. As we have become a more global financial economics system, this has become less of an issue. That is to say that when we see international revenues these days, we would be unwise to dismiss them as we had done as recently as a few years ago. The revenue return on those is growing just as the quality of the theaters is increasing. Not coincidentally, many of the major releases over the past 18 months have been greenlighted due to a primary focus on their overseas appeal. Pirates of the Caribbean is a blueprint example of this.
Disney sees that the prior two titles in the franchise averaged over a billion dollars of worldwide gross. They made the determination that even if there is some saturation with the product, this title should still wind up within 20% of its predecessor. This is exactly why the film got made. Unless it was an absolute train wreck, Disney could mark it down for a worldwide performance in excess of $800 million. The current trajectory appears likely to surpass that. As such, this project is a huge win…unless On Stranger Tides permanently damages the brand with its perceived weaker quality.
Reagen Sulewski: We're probably getting a 2012 sequel at some point, and why? Because international audiences ate that crap up to the tune of $600 million. Resident Evil Afterlife made as much internationally as the two previous films did in total put together. If there are better examples of how dramatically international box office can change a franchise's prospects, I haven't seen them.
Captain Jack, it's not you, it's us.
Kim Hollis: If you're Disney, how hard is it to resist doing yet another Pirates movie? If you do in fact want to do another, do you rush to get one in theaters or do you pause and take your time to create a better story?
Edwin Davies: I think it would be a surprisingly tough call, since if they do it too quickly, and if word-of-mouth for On Stranger Tides is as weak as the critical response, then any future film, even if it is a considerable improvement that recaptures the fun and spirit of the original, will struggle to overcome the bad smell of its predecessor, something which I would argue has already impacted the series on two occasions. And how long is long enough to wait to work on the story? There's been a gap of four years between On Stranger Tides and At World's End, and absence didn't seem to make people that much fonder of the series. If they did wait, the only action that would make all that much sense would be to start from scratch and reboot the series, at which point the question would be whether or not the series could even exist without Johnny Depp.
They'd probably be best off accepting that a fifth installment will yield diminishing returns and either leave it for a few years, or leap right in but cut costs significantly, because $250 million (plus marketing costs) would be too much to risk if they weren't guaranteed the sort of returns the first three films saw.
Samuel Hoelker: What Disney should have done was wait another five years or so before making On Stranger Tides. I'm reminded of the Men in Black franchise: the second one was so atrocious that it just about took away any good will the first one had (and I think the first one is nearly perfect). If Men in Black III came out in 2005, chances are I wouldn't have seen it. Yet since it's being released in 2012, I will see it and have a bit of faith in it: they've had ten years to fix everything wrong. They'll need at least that much time to fix everything I didn't like about the Pirates sequels (and even the original, of which I'm not a big fan). I'd give the franchise another chance in 2017 or so, but it's way too soon to recapture lost audiences.
If only it were 10-15 years ago, Disney could make a lot of money turning Pirates into an animated kids' show.
Max Braden: My first thought is how you could pull off a fifth one. Blackbeard was the last of the big name pirates when the golden age of piracy was ending, so to get to Captain Kidd or others and maintain an element of swashbuckling you'd have to send the Black Pearl around the sun to go back in time. And I don't see why Knightley and Bloom would return for a fifth if they couldn't be convinced for this fourth movie. But then, if Indiana Jones 4 could be made and rake in money you'd imagine anything is possible. You could just embrace the obstacles, go with the reboot trend, and cast a completely new actor to play First Mate Jack Sparrow when he was 20 years younger. I have to imagine with the international success, another installment must be flashing dollar signs in Disney's eyes right now. If a mediocre story pulled in this much money this time there's no reason to expect quality will be foremost on their minds for another sequel.
Shalimar Sahota: They could rush in and release one every year, or every other year, but that all depends on if they can lower the budgets and still end up hitting huge numbers. However, it's tricky to judge how long to wait, especially when thinking about Scream 4 and Indiana Jones 4, though I think they got the timing just right with On Stranger Tides. By the time a fifth one comes around, Depp would probably be in his 50s (and Rush approaching 70). Unless they've got a fantastic idea that betters the first film's cursed pirates idea, (The Death of Jack Sparrow? Oh, wait they already did that), then they should just leave it.
David Mumpower: I completely agree with Samuel’s thought that by rushing to gain revenue right now, Disney has jeopardized the franchise. The fallout from that is not something we can track until we have the answer to the question posed, meaning that we will know how much damage has been done when we see the opening weekend numbers for Sail Five, my suggested title for the next Pirates release. The problem Disney has here is the same one I referenced in the second topic. Even a worst case scenario for this franchise is still $600 million.
Whenever Disney determines how they want to outlay their capital for a given year, their choices are these. They can spend $200 million producing another Prince of Persia: Sands of Time or $160 million for The Sorcerer’s Apprentice and hope that their attempt will create a new franchise. Or they can play it safe by giving that money to Johnny Depp, guaranteeing a reward for their investment. The two summer action pictures they produced last year came with a price tag of $360 million to create, not including negative cost expenses. Those two titles attained global revenue of $550 million, only 28% of which came from domestic box office. The worst performing Pirates film to date had a global take of $653 million. If you are sitting in a room watching a Power Point presentation and you see these numbers, the Pirates side of the argument looks like the clear victor. What they have to do in the short term is avoid the temptation to release another Pirates movie prior to 2015. One blatant cash grab is tolerable, even understandable. More than one is Shrek-y.
Jason Lee: I think that if you're Disney, you HAVE to do another Pirates movie. Other than the annual Pixar movie, here are only so many family-friendly, Disney-brand-appropriate candidates for summer blockbuster-status. Given the franchise's continuing appeal to kids, families, adult moviegoers (somewhat) and its direct tie to the Disney park business, I think Disney has to be inclined to follow the American Idol route: keep it going, revamping as necessary, so long as it's profitable.
Reagen Sulewski: It depends on Johnny Depp, doanit? Pirates of the Caribbean is really Pirates of the Captain Jack Sparrow, and he's (smartly) said he wants to let the franchise breathe a bit. Wait until you have an idea worthy of doing, drive a dump truck of money up to Depp's house, and get it out for around 2014 or so.