Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
August 2, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Cowboys & Aliens, the $163 million-budgeted spectacle from Universal, opened to $36.4 million. What do you think of this result?
Bruce Hall: If you recall the smashing commercial success of Serenity (sarcasm alert), I think this all but ensures we will not be seeing any more sci-fi/wild west mashups for a very long time, no matter who is involved. I believe studio projections were somewhere in the mid 40s for this, but as David pointed out the other day, international box office may yet salvage this result. Nonetheless, there's no question it qualifies as a disappointment. Despite this, I have a hard time seeing any recognizable names being hurt by this. Daniel Craig is still James Bond. Jon Favreau will continue making quirky, offbeat films and getting paid lots of money for it. And Harrison Ford will continue being Harrison Ford, who as far as I can tell is absolutely bulletproof.
Edwin Davies: On face value, looking at the budget (which seems really, really high to me for a project like this) this is one of those results that is a little hard to definitively judge off the bat, since it's not low enough to be an outright failure, but not high enough to be a breakout success. Still, it probably won't earn its budget back domestically, but will do so pretty easily once international grosses are factored in. However, it has to be considered a real disappointment when you factor in how much hype there was in the lead up to the movie. Jon Favreau famously went straight from the set to Comic-Con last year to show some of the earliest available footage to generate buzz as early as possible, but that early buzz ultimately never went beyond a low background hum. The trailers weren't strong and they failed to really sell a premise that, given the title, should have been easier than selling chocolate to children, and then the reviews were pretty middling, which probably gave those people who were on the fence about seeing it that little extra push towards not seeing it. Ultimately, I think this result is not terrible, but indicative of a lot of wasted effort and potential.
Brett Beach: This opening is in the range of what I was expecting. As shocked as I am that The Smurfs came up strong as it did, I would have been shocked if this had thrown under $33 million or over $45 million. As straightforward as the title is in setting up exactly what the film will deliver, a sci-fi/western mashup won't be to all tastes. Having seen the film (reaction: disappointed but not disgusted, somewhere between whelmed and under), I think the biggest catch is that the film plays everything straight. This is not unexpected considering Jon Favreau's past films, nor is it unwelcome, but if some on the fence people were hoping for something bombastically silly or ironic or more action-comedy oriented, this is none of those. They could have shelved a lot of the explosions and kept the budget down to The Smurfs level so that this wouldn't be so dependent on the foreign to make its costs back.
Final thought: With actual weekend numbers announced, I am a little surprised to see this hang on to the top. I thought for sure we had another Fight Club/Story of Us switcharoo on our hands .
Matthew Huntley: I second Brett's assessment - the movie is very loyal to the Western genre, which is more an observation than a compliment, but it's not terribly exciting or fresh. Essentially, it's a solid, albeit standard, example of its type. Unfortunately for the movie, I think this will only hurt its legs, because people will go into it expecting something "bombastically silly and ironic" (as Brett said), and when they're given something else, they'll be disoriented and start bad mouthing it, whether or not it's justified.
The movie does have a lot of special effects and some big names, but how did its budget burgeon to such a high figure? Universal must see this as a disappointment, because Cowboys & Aliens won't come close to recouping its costs by the time theaters start taking their share. If it can't gross more than $100 million domestically, it will be labeled a bomb for sure. And this likely won't have a lot of international appeal since the Western is classically a North American genre.
Shalimar Sahota: After all the hype, this is very disappointing. Maybe audiences learnt their lesson after the release of Wild Wild West and just don't go for strange western hybrids anymore, like Jonah Hex. Or they'd just like to go with something more familiar this year, given that so far, the top five highest grossing films at the US box office are all sequels. I'm guessing that some mummies and daddies felt that had to do their duty as a parent, and take their kids to see The Smurfs, when what they really wanted to do was see this. Cowboys and Aliens could still crack $100 million, provided it has a decent hold next week, but the mixed reviews aren't going to help.
David Mumpower: Matthew touches upon the most engaging aspect of this story from my perspective, which is the murky nature of international revenue. Bruce is right that I mentioned the other day that overseas revenue is crucial to the overall performance of this title, even more than is ordinarily the case for mega-budget movies. The problem is exactly what Matthew says: Westerns historically do not translate. Will international consumers make an exception for a project that stars Indiana Jones and James Bond? That's the entire reason those two are cast in this project yet I have serious concerns. And if the movie doesn't have the requisite overseas revenue to stave off disaster, we have just witnessed one of the worst bombs of the year. Despite this, I was STILL braced for worse. Nobody involved with the marketing seemed to have any idea how to sell this movie and I cannot really blame them. Frankly, I admire the fact that somebody had the courage to create Cowboys and Aliens. I'm sure there were a number of contentious discussions beforehand about the overall revenue potential for such an esoteric story. The fact that it was even given a chance is impressive to me.
Danger, danger, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.
Kim Hollis: Do you consider Daniel Craig to be a star and/or a box office opener?
Bruce Hall: I consider him a star, yes. It's easy to point to the box office and suggest otherwise, but I think what you asked is really two questions, and dollars and cents relate more to the second one. No, I am not sure he's the sort of guy who can open a film big based entirely on his presence. I happen to think that he's a tremendous actor, but his appeal as a leading man may be limited to niche, genre or independent projects. If you're responsible for making financially driven decisions on big budget motion pictures, I am not sure he fits the traditional leading man template. That's one of the things that I like about him, but I'm the kind of guy who owns Layer Cake on Blu-Ray specifically because of Daniel Craig. 99% of moviegoers are not like me, and major studios are by and large not interested in my type. That's just the harsh reality Craig and his career face. But I can see that career panning out a little like Sean Connery's - a filmography peppered with a little bit of everything from forgettable trash, mind blowing independent projects, the occasional blockbuster and of course the gold star for James Bond. Were it not for 007, neither man would be as famous as he is and if you ask me, they both should be.
Edwin Davies: I absolutely agree with Bruce that Craig is a star, just as Connery was, just as Roger Moore was, and just as Pierce Brosnan was. Putting on that suit and becoming Bond imbues anyone with a certain star quality (with the exception of George Lazenby, but then again we wouldn't even know who he was if he hadn't been Bond once), but it's a quality that is very much tied up with that role. As great an actor as Craig is, he's probably never going to escape the shadow of being James Bond enough to become a draw in his own right. And that's fine, because being Bond means that he gets to do more varied projects than he ever could have hoped to otherwise.
Brett Beach: I would have to say star but not box office opener, except in limited instances (even outside of James Bond. Cowboys and Aliens might be one, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo might be another). I have looked at his filmography which goes back to 1992, and see that the first film I would have seen from that list is Lara Croft: Tomb Raider in 2001. I think he made his first solid impression upon me with his role in Road to Perdition. The deal was sealed with his role as Ted Hughes opposite Gwyneth Paltrow as Sylvia Plath and then his "star-making performance" in Layer Cake, in particular the moment at the end when he breaks the fourth wall and turns and addresses the camera over his shoulder. The simultaneous heat and cool on his face could stun a buck at 100 yards.
Also, to Bruce: If I did ringtones, I would have Michael Gambon saying "Welcome to the layer cake, son." I could listen to that over and over.
David Mumpower: Speaking on behalf of the "Layer Cake sucks" crowd, here is what I see when I look at Daniel Craig's body of work. He has several total failures such as The Golden Compass, The Invasion and (presumably) Cowboys and Aliens. His Oscar bait projects such as Infamous and Defiance earned no Oscar nods. And every time someone has taken a chance on casting him in a project where he wasn't James Bond, there isn't a lot of hindsight data to support the decision. I have no debate that simply by being the mega-abs iteration of 007, he's famous. And I guess he is technically a movie star since we all know who he is. In terms of box office, however, he has as little natural drawing power as any name actor I can ever recall. In point of fact, his presence in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo troubles me as I wonder his overall unpopularity will prevent the trilogy from breaking out in terms of box office the way that I would have expected had they cast pretty much anyone else.
Is there any other kind?
Kim Hollis: Crazy, Stupid Love earned $19.1 million over the weekend. What do you think of this result?
Edwin Davies: I think this is a really strong result, personally. These sort of mid-budget comedy-dramas that don't have immediate hooks beyond the cast are the type of films that can get lost in the summer shuffle, especially one which has been so over-stuffed with comedies anyway, and I can easily imagine a scenario in which this film opens to less than $10 million. If word-of-mouth is strong, this could comfortably end up in the $60-$65 million range, and even if it isn't, this start more or less guarantees that it will make its modest budget back.
Also, Emma Stone is very pretty. This has little to nothing to do with how I feel about the performance of the film, but I feel it needs to be said, lest we forget.
Matthew Huntley: It's solid and commendable, and I think the word-of-mouth will be strong given the reviews, but I'm surprised the movie cost nearly $50 million to produce. If the movie has any hopes of earning a profit sooner rather than later, it needs to drop by 40% or less next weekend. I think it can do it.
Jim Van Nest: It certainly falls right in line with what we're seeing from rom-coms here lately. There seems to be a $20 million ceiling that these films will no longer exceed on opening weekend. Aside from Tyler Perry films, these types of movies may start to become the easiest to predict. It actually has me wondering what it would take to have a romantic comedy really break out at the box office...or have we seen the end of that possibility as more and more people are willing to wait for DVD to see these types of movies?
David Mumpower: Steve Carell has clearly discovered his niche as a box office draw. These well intended character studies that double as romantic comedies are his wheelhouse, with the performance of Crazy, Stupid Love providing the latest demonstration . A quadruple bill of Date Night, Dan in Real Life, Get Smart and this would provide a tremendous amount of entertainment, most of it highbrow to boot. I am a bit surprised that the combination of Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling isn't as appealing to consumers as the idea of Tina Fey with Steve Carell and yet I also understand the logic of it. Carell with Fey indicates an uncomplicated romantic comedy while Crazy, Stupid Love's marital stress may not feel like the appropriate level of escapism in a country where 60% of marriages fail. Still, $19.1 million is a steady result and another indication that North American audiences have developed trust in Steve Carell as a performer.