Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
June 1, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Since The Hangover Part II has already earned half of its predecessor's total in five days, it's clear that Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis and Ken Jeong are leveling up as celebrities. Which of their careers do you believe will be aided the most?
Edwin Davies: I'd go for Ed Helms, personally, because even though he plays the least outrageous character in the films, he's probably the most likable. Both Bradley Cooper and Zach Galifianakis have had hits in between Hangovers (though both were helped by co-starring with famous Roberts in those films), so I don't think this will bring them all that much more attention than they were getting anyway. As much as I like him on Community, I think that Ken Jeong's persona might be too abrasive for him to become a star in his own right. It might get him higher-profile supporting roles, but I don't think he'll get his own Due Date or Limitless off the back of The Hangover Part II.
Joshua Pasch: Edwin is right in that Ed Helms stands to gain the most and Ken Jeong the least. First of all, let's eliminate Jeong altogether - he's got his nook that he fills in these raunchy comedies and in any larger dose than that he'd become intolerable (I actually find him to be the weakest part of both Hangover films).
Ed Helms, on the other hand, hasn't broken out in other big screen roles - his Cedar Rapids never caught on - and with The Office's best days likely behind it, he stands to gain from the exposure and success of another Hangover film. He'll never be a traditional leading man or a wacky comedian like Galifanakis, but I sense some dramedy's in the vein of an Up In The Air might be on the way for him in the next year or two.
I also think its safe to say that Galifanakis and Cooper are both en route to A-list status already. Galifanakis has been one of the most sought after comedians in the business since the first Hangover, and there's no sign yet of that slowing down (though I'm sure he'll hit his Will Ferrell/Semi-Pro wall sooner or later).
Cooper has been a candidate for all leading man charmer/actioner type of roles since the first Hangover as well. He was extremely winning in the moderately successful Limitless and odds are his upwards trend will continue as he picks interesting roles (Paradise Lost? The Crow?). He's doesn't yet have the pull of a true A-lister yet, a theory supported by the flop of The A-Team, but he's certainly heading the right way. I'd say the epicness of Hangover Part II wont hurt that steady climb to A-list status.
Matthew Huntley: Aside from Ken Jeong, I hope that Cooper, Galifianakis and Helms all get a career boost from Hangover Part II's success, because as much as I didn't like at this movie, all three actors have proven their talents elsewhere - Cooper in the silly but entertaining Limitless; Galifianakis in the relatively likable and honest It's Kind of a Funny Story; and Helms in the under-seen but hilarious Cedar Rapids. I believe all three actors can break out of their Hangover roles and move onto bigger (and hopefully better) things. Jeong, on the other hand, hasn't shown he has talent outside his "small Asian with an attitude" role. If he ever chooses a part that goes against his usual type, we'd be able to better gauge his potential.
David Mumpower: The vibe I get from Zach Galifianakis is that he's a jerk, which means he'll only get harder to work with as he gets more and more famous. Call him the Jamie Foxx in the group. Bradley Cooper's high profile failure in The A-Team prevents me from saying he'll get a huge boost from this. What causes me to be unsteady on this point is that Steve Carell overcame a bomb in Evan Almighty...and I'm inclined to think Bradley Cooper is a more natural leading man than Carell.
When I originally saw this question posed, I thought I would be the only one to answer Ed Helms, so I am pleasantly surprised by the comments thus far. In looking over the landscape here, my thought is this. Steve Carell has been the clear star of The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Date Night, Dinner for Schmucks, Evan Almighty, Dan in Real Life, and Get Smart (not counting animated work). Those six titles have combined box office of $558.3 million. Ed Helms will have the same amount just from The Hangover and The Hangover II. Do I believe Helms is the primary draw in these films? Of course not. I do, however, see the similarity between his career and that of Carell and I recognize the fact that Helms has made the same connections within the industry. He is positioned to become a frequently working actor in the vein/range of Paul Rudd to Steve Carell. Helms works constantly for the next ten years because of this.
I also think Ken Jeong gets thrown money from time to time to play this role. He's leveraged it into a gig on Community and he will keep mining it indefinitely. He's the comic relief who has a cheap enough cost to merit a lot of work. He is the next David Spade/Rob Schneider type of performer. He can do it.
Oh, no, Po!
Kim Hollis: Kung Fu Panda 2 opened to $66.8 million over five days, with $47.7 million of it coming over the Friday-Sunday period. While a solid opening weekend, it falls short of the first Kung Fu Panda's $60.2 million during its opening weekend. What do you believe lessened demand for the sequel?
Matthew Huntley: It's hard to say, especially since the first movie was so beloved and still holds up well (I watched it last weekend and laughed just as hard the second time). If I had to theorize, though, it would be that too much time has passed since the original (I know, it's only been three years, but that's a long time to wait for a sequel) and because the Disney/Pixar powerhouse has made other computer-animated movies, even from high-profile studios like DreamWorks, seem less significant. Like many, I was expecting Kung Fu Panda 2 to put up more of a fight over the weekend, especially with its genre and 3D surcharges, but I expect it will have strong legs between now and Cars 2. Its strong reviews and family-friendly nature can only help it and I wouldn't rule out the possibility of it out-grossing its predecessor.
Edwin Davies: We've talked in previous MMQBs about the deluge of animated films that have been released this year, and even just a few weeks ago, when we discussed Rio's opening weekend, the idea that people might eventually be overwhelmed by the sheer number of animated talking animal/gnome movies came up as part of the conversation. Whilst I don't think the likes of Rio, Rango and Hop (which sounds like the name of a really wacky law firm) have caused people to decide to pass on Kung Fu Panda 2, the seemingly endless run of kids films must have been pretty tiring, so some families might have decided not to see it right away. I think that Matthew's right, and that the film will have decent legs over the coming weeks as people get around to seeing it.
David Mumpower: I'm going to start from a different angle here and work my way back so please stay with me. I have mentioned on occasion on BOP that I am convinced the scariest horror films are the ones where there is no explanation for the behavior. The line of dialogue in The Strangers gives me a chill for exactly this reason. We want to understand the underlying mechanics of things; that's the nature of human curiosity. Our understanding drives us to become better. And as much as I want to find a satisfactory explanation for the middling domestic opening of Kung Fu Panda 2, I have been unable to do so. In point of fact, I spent an hour at dinner on Saturday evening contemplating this with Kim Hollis. We were stymied. I cannot think of five times that has happened since the creation of BOP.
We had the discussion about the distance since the first film but with all due respect to Matthew and Edwin, I do not see it as a significant amount of time. Yes, The Hangover II was only two years removed from its predecessor, but we also argued just last week that not enough time had passed for a Pirates of the Caribbean sequel. I think we all agree that Cars 2, a sequel that comes over five years after the original, will tear up the box office. Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa was released three years after Madagascar and it behaved as we had expected, opening 34% higher. Sequels should do better than the original; after all, the demand created by the original is (presumably) the rationale for making another movie. Kung Fu Panda 2 failed to do so. Why?
As Edwin suggests, I also went down the line with the thought process that animation fatigue should be setting in. I absolutely believe that is an issue for a new property such as Rio or Rango. They are starting from scratch and that puts more of an onus on them with regards to opening weekend. Still, those titles debuted to $38.1 and $39.2 million, respectively. Kung Fu Panda 2, a known franchise with a very well regarded predecessor, managed less than $10 million more to start. That blows me away.
Yes, I agree that its legs and international box office will carry the day for DreamWorks Animation. Even so, if I worked for that company today, I would be feeling quite dejected. Kung Fu Panda 2 was intended to be their Pixar-ish film, the character-driven feature that dials down the laughs in order to ramp up the story telling. This movie is quite poignant and I very much enjoyed it. It just wasn't very funny. In the end, that's apparent all people want from Kung Fu Panda.
We joke all the time here at BOP about the Jack Black/Kevin James/person in a fat suit comedies. Our argument is that people want to see a fat guy fall down. Kung Fu Panda is apparently the animation equivalent of this with a big fat panda substituted in for big, fat Jack Black. When the trailer focused on the Po character arc instead of Po falling down a lot, DreamWorks apparently lost a significant portion of its core audience. If I am involved with the making of a feature this high in quality and I'm faced with that realization, I'd be ripping my hair out in frustration.
People gave Pixar a chance with WALL-E and Up, but DreamWorks Animation was not extended the same benefit of the doubt. I worry that this will cause them to step back a bit from all of the growth they've demonstrated with their recent animated titles, particularly my favorite of 2010, How to Train Your Dragon. Their latest turn toward story driven character plots has not succeeded while The Hangover II lazily swapped out a tiger for a monkey and made a fortune. This is the latest round of that constant battle between art and commerce and commerce just wiped the floor with art. Again. I'd like to see art put up a fight every once a while.