Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
June 13, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Super 8 opened to $35.5 million. Is this a good enough result for an original property with the Abrams/Spielberg pedigree?
Max Braden: You might say that opening at half of Star Trek's number is problematic, but I'd say $37 million for any opening is solid, even with the pedigree. In addition to not being a sequel, I think this project was more difficult to market than your typical summer blockbuster. Unlike Transformers where all the money shots are in the trailer, Abrams obviously wanted to keep the key element of Super 8 hidden, which just leaves you with kids staring into the distance at night for your trailer. The title tells you nothing (unless you're trying not to jump to the conclusion that this is a Boogie Nights sequel), and it's difficult to tell if it's for kids or adults. I think ultimately Paramount can not be concerned about opening weekend because this feels like a movie that's going to have long legs despite any competition in future weeks.
Bruce Hall: I think that $35 million for what is essentially a vanity project is more than adequate. The Legend of J.J. Abrams lives on.
Matthew Huntley: I was surprised to learn Super 8 only carried a pricetag of $50 million (not including P&A costs), but such a figure makes it all the easier to answer Kim's question: yes, $35 million is easily a good enough result for its opening weekend. It will likely exceed its production budget by next Friday and without direct competition until Cars 2, which will steal away the family audience, it should become a solid, profitable venture for Paramount, who's in line to have a terrific summer season. "Solid." That's the word I think will be used to describe Super 8 going forward, both in terms of the quality of its content and its box-office performance. That's more than most movies can hope for.
Shalimar Sahota: Okay, it's not quite in the same league as last year's big original blockbuster Inception, but for a film with no big stars, relying largely on the names of its director and producer, this is pretty good. Yet, while I'm happy to see originality at the top of the box office, I can't help but compare it to Cloverfield, which had half the budget and opened higher. Even though Abrams was only a producer on that film, the marketing had his name scrawled all over it. I can only assume that those who walked away from that film disappointed didn't want to be subjected to Super 8. Despite this, I still expect the strong reviews and word-of-mouth to keep Super 8 afloat for the rest of the summer.
Edwin Davies: I wouldn't say that this opening was any sort of referendum on the quality of Cloverfield, but it is an indicator of how much of an easier sell Cloverfield was than Super 8. Cloverfield had the easy gimmick of being a Godzilla-type movie shot from a bug's eye view. It was something that people hadn't seen before, and the marketing created such a strong sense of mystery through its innovative viral style that it was imperative that people see the film opening weekend so that there wouldn't be time for the reveal of the monster to be ruined for them. It also had a teaser trailer that took everyone by surprise, creating an instant, almost deafening buzz and excitement about it. Super 8, on the other hand, doesn't look especially unique or new, which, given that it's an homage to the Spielberg directed and produced films of the '80s, is at least partly intentional. Without a clear hook in the ads to draw casual viewers in (as has already been mentioned, the trailers had to make do without any real money shots), it was never going break out. However, this is towards the higher end of my own expectations, and if word-of-mouth matches the reviews, this one could end up somewhere north of $120 million, which is very good for a film that cost $50 million, a paltry figure compared to most of the films released during this time of year.
Jason Lee: Personally, I always thought that this was going to be a tough-sell. It's part alien movie, part family movie, part nostalgia movie, all tied up with the enigmatic JJ Abrams brand name. It might be a four-quadrant movie, but it's not going to appeal intensely to any one quadrant (at least, not at first). I will be very interested to see what kind of legs this movie has. On a side note, part of me wonders if Paramount needs Super Eight to be a big summer hit, given that it has very little franchise/sequel potential. All five of the films below it (X-Men: First Class, Hangover Part II, Kung Fu Panda 2, Pirates 4, and Bridesmaids) all could potentially return in the next three years with a sequel or follow-up, enhancing the return on this summer's investment for each film. Given that Paramount could have invested its $50 million in a different film with some measure of franchise potential, I wonder if they really need this single film to be a pretty big success.
Joshua Pasch: I'd be lying if I said I didn't expect more of an opening after seeing the first trailer months ago. After the first teaser and then a buzzed about Super Bowl spot, I figured this one would cruise in to $50-$60 opening weekend. When reports started coming in recent weeks that tracking had it pegged with less than half of my prediction, I was floored. I really thought that the buzz of Abrams name with the coloring of an ET type of adventure would be more than enough to get people out in droves. Add in that Super 8 essentially had the weekend to itself, and I thought we had the makings of a serious break out opening weekend, not just a modest one.
As for the primary question of: is this result good enough? - the answer has to be yes. The astoundingly low investment for a summer movie ($50 million budget and $25 million P&A) assured Paramount that any opening over $25 million could have a positive spin. With $35 million and a weekend multiplier that would seem to imply strong longs on the horizon, I think we're looking at a movie that will move from the "medium" success column that it's in right now, to the "definite" win column by the time it ends its run.
One thing I've been wondering is if this film would have had an even stronger run if it had decided to open in mid to early December. It's not a traditional "family" film per say, but definitely has that appeal and I think it would have played brilliantly through the holiday season. Just food for thought.
David Mumpower: Joshua and Reagen touch upon the aspects of this that make me uncomfortable. Yes, a film with a $50 million budget is doing well if it opens to $35.5 million, even allowing for negative costs that almost double the financial outlay. This movie will make money, but a studio doesn't distribute capital based upon the simple goal of making more than they invest. They want a return on revenue that justifies the investment. Super 8 still clears that hurdle, but I think I speak for several of us when I say that I have this lingering feeling that there was a lot of money left on the table here. The unwillingness to sell the mystery, one that isn't even driving the plot much, bit Paramount in the end. This movie has done fine yet my initial impression after opening weekend is that it should have done much better. With a stronger ad campaign, this movie opens in the mid-$50s instead of the mid-$30s. The empirical data here says winner but my gut says it should have been a bigger winner.