Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
July 11, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Horrible Bosses, quite possibly the most relatable title ever, opened to $28.3 million. Should Warner Bros. be pleased with this result?
Matthew Huntley: Yes and no. Yes because the movie reportedly only cost $35 million to make, and for a movie to make up the bulk of its production budget on opening weekend means it will likely show a profit by the time its domestic run is over.
No because the ad campaign and premise, not to mention the reviews, suggested it should have opened higher, perhaps in the mid-30s range. I remember first seeing the trailer for Horrible Bosses and Bad Teacher on Bridesmaids' opening weekend, and the reaction to Horrible Bosses was much more promising, yet Bad Teacher opened higher. In any event, Bosses will probably show better legs and, if it's lucky, go on to bank $90-$100 million when all is said and done. For a brisk summer comedy with a relatively low negative cost, that should please any studio.
Edwin Davies: I'd say this is a really good result given that none of the three leads have ever opened a film to these sort of numbers when their names have been above the title (even in the case of Jason Sudeikis, Hall Pass only opened as well as it did - i.e. not very - because of Owen Wilson and the Farrelly Brothers' involvement). Given the easy to grasp, relatable premise and the strong reviews, I wouldn't have been surprised if it had opened to more than $30 million, but I think that any money left on the table over opening weekend will get picked up over subsequent ones as word-of-mouth - something that has so often proven essential to the success of this spate of R-rate comedies - brings more people to it. It's not a spectacular start, but it is a more than solid one that could bode well for coming weeks.
Bruce Hall: I'll go on record as agreeing with the idea that making up this much of your production budget opening weekend qualifies as a win. It's a sensible theory, and I'm going to go out on a limb and further suggest that a sizable portion of this film's target demographic was otherwise occupied this weekend. Horrible Bosses is certainly not going after the same audience as Transformers 3 or Zookeeper. But if my circle of friends is any indicator, much of the top half of that 18-35 space was too busy suffering for the sake of their children. Transformers 3: Dumberer and Dumberer will continue to suck the air out of the room until Super Boy Wizard VIII opens next week. And if you have little ones, there's a fair chance Paul Blart: Zookeeper was on the docket for this weekend. I know a lot of people who wanted to see Horrible Bosses (myself included) this weekend, but aren't going to get around to it until next month. This phenomenon plus positive word-of-mouth should give Horrible Bosses good legs, and a good bottom line when all is said and done.
Reagen Sulewski: I don't know how you can look at this as anything but an unqualified success. It's going to swamp its negative costs in the first two weeks of releases, and it's punching in the same class as Bridesmaids and Bad Teacher, when its biggest lead is Jason Frigging Bateman (forget the bosses - they're not the focus of the movie and it wasn't sold as a "Kevin Spacey movie" or a "Jennifer Aniston movie"). I do think a lot of this is timing - all these films are drafting a bit off The Hangover's wake and the fact that it made the marketplace friendly for R-rated comedy again. I think this shows just how much of Hollywood is luck-based - the luck of getting your movie out at the right time to capitalize on a trend that you're not even sure is going to be there.
Kim Hollis: I agree that the studio has to be pleased with this result. It's going to be a solid moneymaker, and as everyone here has mentioned, it's going to be fine in the legs department as well. Why didn't it hit as big as Bad Teacher? Who knows? Timing, maybe? Anyway, I think the studio did a fine job selling this given that the above-the-title stars weren't huge, but the great casting of the supporting actors had to play a part in its success.
Jason Lee: I agree with everything that's been said. Big (but not giant) win for WB. Opening after Bad Teacher, The Hangover 2, Bridesmaids, etc., this movie easily could have felt like overkill in the R-rated comedy department - the fifth main course presented in a buffet line. Would WB have liked to get this movie into the $35+ range given this cast? Absolutely. Was that always going to be hard given the calendar and the rating? Definitely. Color this a win for WB.
Well, your first problem is that you're taking dating advice from a gorilla...
Kim Hollis: Zookeeper, aka Paul Blart: Zoo Cop, opened to $20.1 million. Is this more, less, or about what you expected? Should Sony be pleased?
Matthew Huntley: I was definitely expecting more. The highest estimate I would have given for this pic is $43 million, and the lowest $33 million, so I was definitely caught me off guard when it only made $20 million. Why did I expect so much? Because it's made up of ingredients that proved to be so successful in the past: 1) fat guy who screams, falls down and goes boom; 2) talking animals; 3) enchanted family place. Right there you have characteristics from Paul Blart: Mall Cop, Madagascar 1 and 2, and Night at the Museum, and those movies were huge.
Sony should not be too disappointed, though, because I could see this movie showing decent enough legs to get to $60-$80 million, which would make it a modest success. Even when it faces the behemoth that is Harry Potter next weekend, its blow shouldn't be too bad since it will serve as an alternative to the PG-13 boy wizard. Plus mid-week numbers should keep it steady through the end of July. Aside from Potter, it has the little kids/family market mostly to itself for a little while.
Edwin Davies: I expected at least $10 million more because I tend to expect films like this to do far better than they perhaps deserve to, but like Matthew I don't think that Sony will be too unhappy with this in the long run. For kids that are too young for Transformers or Harry Potter, but who have already seen Cars 2, this will be the film of choice for the next month. It's not going to be a Night at the Museum or a Madagascar, but if even Mr. Popper's Penguins can wind up in the $65-70 million range (as it looks like it will), then Zookeeper probably has a good chance of winding up with $70-80 million when all is said and done.
Bruce Hall: I wouldn't go so far as to dismiss Paul Blart: Mall Cop as an anomaly, but I wasn't as ready to put money on a $40 million opening for the unofficial sequel as many people. Then again, when your movie is about an obnoxious fat guy who teaches a computer generated gorilla to drop mad beatz AND shameless product placements, you should kiss the ground and praise God that you got away with $20 million.
Reagen Sulewski: Occasionally, box office results give me hope for the future. Not often, but sometimes, and this is one of them. I'm somewhat cynical about these stupid comedies and the public's reception of them, so I was fully prepared for Zookeeper to be a $30 million plus opener, but I couldn't for the life of me figure out who would find this funny. Now, $20 million is still kind of high for my liking, and that the movie exists at all is really kind of an affront. But I'll take this as a start.
Jason Lee: I'm in Reagen's camp. Zookeeper's total is closer to what I was hoping to see than what I thought I'd see. Like Horrible Bosses, yes, this movie could have opened higher. But given the horrible, awful trailer and the horrible, awful commercials, it could have done a lot worse as well. My one solace is that this total, solid as it is, won't be enough to subject us to Zookeeper 2: Zoomania in the Big Apple.
David Mumpower: My primary thought here is that I would like for someone who was fired up about Paul Blart: Mall Cop to explain why Zookeeper looks less engaging. I like Kevin James well enough and I'm not disparaging his appeal. I'm simply expressing that same philosophy a couple of other people did with their replies. This seems like a de facto sequel of sorts where James is a miscast professional trying to navigate the awkward circumstances of his job. It's the same basic premise AND it has goofy animals. I'm mystified that it didn't do better just as I was mystified that Paul Blart did so well.