Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
July 6, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Transformers seems likely to become the latest franchise with at least three $300 million domestic performers. Here are the other franchises that have accomplished this feat: Spider Man, The Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Pirates of the Caribbean. Here are the franchises that have not: Harry Potter (so far), Pixar (if we consider all their films as a franchise). How impressed are you by the rare air Transformers keeps in terms of box office?
Max Braden: I was surprised that the Shrek series isn't in the list. I think Transformers benefits from putting everything right into the trailer, and there's none of the angst, moral dilemmas, or epic lulls found in the other trios. Transformers is just large scale, high gloss, action action action. I am pleased to see that if Potter doesn't make it, the next franchise likely to join the 3/$300 million club will be Iron Man, which would go three-for-three and has very little to complain about in terms of quality.
Edwin Davies: I'm genuinely surprised that the Potter films haven't managed it yet (though I think it probably will manage it with Death Hallows Part Deux) but the main thing that strikes me about them is that, Lord of the Rings aside, all of the members of 3/$300 million club are examples of franchises that saw diminishing returns, but in which the third installment had just enough momentum from the previous ones to fall over the $300 million line. If Transformers manages it, I think that will probably be the way in which it does.
Kim Hollis: I'm mostly sad that Transformers makes that much money. I mean, come on, people! I do think Transformers 3 will get there, but my disappointment in people may be mitigated by the fact that I hope hope hope that the final Harry Potter also does.
David Mumpower: I vacillate on this topic. On the one hand, the list of franchises that qualify combined with the ones that (shockingly) do not reinforces what a box office triumph Transformers has been. In fact, I was thinking yesterday during a Beverly Hills Cop marathon that this is the modern version of those films from the 1980s. They exemplified all of the cinematic excess that was a staple of the Don Simpson/Jerry Bruckheimer era and they were also the beginning of the end of Eddie Murphy as a regular human being rather than an egomaniac celebrity. Critics soundly drubbed almost every movie that came from the Simpson/Bruckheimer tandem yet they were ordinarily box office blockbusters. It's fitting that a protege of theirs, Michael Bay, carries the torch for them in 2011.
The flip side of this coin is that the massive box office earned by the Transformers franchise is representative of a huge fanbase. Keeping this in mind, I am confident that there is money left on the table here. I recognize that this is a minority opinion but what frequently goes through my head when I discuss the box office for Transformers is, "Imagine if they were good." Seriously, look at the box office for Avatar and consider for a moment what James Cameron could have done with this concept. Max also mentioned Iron Man, so let's sub in Jon Favreau instead. He's someone who was able to deconstruct the strengths and weaknesses of Iron Man/Tony Stark and build two solid movies around those qualities. Give him Optimus Prime and the Decepticons and watch him go. It would be epic. More importantly, good sells better than not good and in that regard, Transformers is a money sieve. Somehow, this franchise makes a ton of money yet doesn't make as much as I believe it should.
Tom and Julia don't bring 'em in like they used to
Kim Hollis: Larry Crowne, the second film to unite the mega-wattage star power of Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts, opened to $13.1 million over the three-day portion of the weekend and is an unqualified bust. What went wrong here?
Brett Beach: I think the wags that had this as the dream lead pairing...of 10 years ago...aren't entirely off the mark. If this had come out just post-Cast Away and Erin Brockovich, this would have been a slam dunk $25-30 million opening easy. I emphasize the "just" because less than two years later Nia Vardalos floated into Hanks' orbit and an early mega-hit for her as writer and star and him as producer (one guess), is now 10 years later her co-writing Larry Crowne and, based on the reviews, contributing at least by half to a bland, unremarkable, safe as houses/milk/vanilla ice cream comedy. If this was back in 2001, I daresay Hanks would have had a sharper, maybe edgier writing partner, or someone to take a second pass at the results. The promotional tour for this (on Jon Stewart, in EW, etc) has been exceptional and I gather, more funny and entertaining than the actual film. My mom saw it and called it "sweet" which, bless her, captures the vibe of this in a nutshell. Hanks has too much lifetime goodwill built up for me to not see this, but in the cheap theaters or on DVD for sure.
Max Braden: I think the problems are visible in the trailer and are more character-based than an issue of the actor pairing. It's just so whitebread. It's one thing to have a middle aged guy go back to school, but he's suddenly acting like he's a 17-year-old. Rodney Dangerfield didn't have that problem because his character was all about bucking the system, and The 40-Year-Old Virgin was more a caricature than character. Larry Crowne just doesn't offer anything really funny, or racy, or even a clear conundrum. "Sweet" is about the only thing this offers, and who needs that on the 4th of July? Save the release for the fall.
Reagen Sulewski: There's just a fundamental overestimation of how relateable these characters are supposed to be, and what's worse, Hanks and Vardalos seem to think they're being slightly daring. Ooh, he rides a scooter! How eccentric! Also, I think it's difficult at this point to buy Hanks as an uneducated Navy man, working in a dead-end job, after he's spent 30 years being more or less exactly the opposite of that. This is a role that makes a lot more sense for an actor without so much baggage (I wouldn't call it typecasting exactly, but it's close to that), and with a few less years on him.
Kim Hollis: This movie felt like the product of egos gone awry. Everyone involved seemed to feel like it was better/more important than it ever deserved to be. If you're going to make one of these overly earnest pictures, at least have it be good.
David Mumpower: I agree with the other comments here. Something I do think bears noting about this project is that it's cheap; the production budget is reported to be $30 million. This means it's going to be a better return on investment than the more storied (and exponentially better) Charlie Wilson's War, which earned only $66.7 million against a production expenditure of $75 million. Larry Crowne had basically no risk as a financial outlay and frankly that's the way the project has always been treated. Nobody seemed willing to go out on a limb to support it, which probably reflects the fact that everyone involved knew that the dailies weren't very good. This is the type of saccharine storyline that studios cynically distribute yet actively run away from when they do not believe in the product. That's exactly what has happened here.
Well, it did better than Prom.
Kim Hollis: Monte Carlo, a romantic comedy for the teen girl crowd featuring Selena Gomez and Leighton Meester, opened to $7.5 million over the three-day portion of the weekend. Is this a good enough result for a small-scale film with a $20 million budget?
Brett Beach: Absolutely. I have been aware of this film's existence for months, but never felt any inkling to look up a plot synopsis, so I don't know if it's the potential audience's loss or not that it didn't make more, but the stakes were low anyway. Larry Crowne was angling for the older crowd and this film the younger crowd, both hoping to strike outside of the Transformers all-encompassing audience. Neither one really succeeded. At $20 million, this isn't that much less expensive than Larry Crowne, but then again, this doesn't star two of the biggest movie stars of my lifetime, which means it's a win. It'll make back its budget in the theaters here (barely) and then become a staple of girl sleepovers (assuming those are still happening in 2011).
Max Braden: I could see the studio being a little disappointed because maybe they think they have the next superstar in Selena Gomez. And from a per-theater standpoint, it performed on the low end. But I would be satisfied that this a stepping stone movie for Gomez, moving her from kid into teen roles without being too aggressive.
Reagen Sulewski: You definitely have to set your sights lower for films of this ilk, and with good reason - how many teenaged boys do you see wading into this film, compared to teenaged girls? Perhaps this isn't fair, but it's the way of the world, and boys would rather cut off a finger than see a female wish-fulfillment film.
David Mumpower: Max's point is well taken. Perhaps the best recent comparison for this is the brief attempt at transitioning Hilary Duff into mainstream movies. A Cinderella Story was quite successful, earning $51.4 million against a similar $19 million budget. Other than that, all of Duff's non-Cheaper by the Dozen solo outings fell in the $10-$17 million range. Gomez's first mainstream release, Ramona and Beezus, earned $26.2 million, but it did have the advantage of name recognition due to the popularity of the books. Monte Carlo's performance to date reflects the fact that there is some interest in Gomez. What we are doing right now is determining exactly how much.