Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
August 8, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Rise of the Planet of the Apes opened to $54.8 million despite having no Tim Burton and no true box office draw. How did this film pull it off?
Brett Beach: I may be alone in my degree of astonishment, but when I first heard this announced nine months ago, my singular thought was "why isn't this going direct to video? Why is Fox risking the embarassment of a big-screen release?" James Franco's involvement (though I do love him) also puzzled me. I am probably as surprised as anyone at the great reviews for this ("thoughtful" and "intelligent" tossed around more than once) and the fact that it may indeed kickstart the franchise. I was among the minions who saw Burton's take opening weekend and wished to God I had those two hours back.
As for why $50-million plus? Perhaps the origin story of the Apes, which had never before been attempted in the 45 year history of the franchise, actually held a lot of interest for people. Although the story and reviews and positive buzz still don't sway me, I am also gathering that there must have been some solid reaction to the shots in the trailer (ape flying at helicopter) and the acknowledged prowess of the visual effects. And maybe, just maybe, Andy Serkis has the Midas touch.
Tim Briody: It helped that it didn't look campy at all, which every Planet of the Apes film has. Plus, as Brett alludes to, it did have the hook of "how exactly did the Apes take over?" rather than placing the film well after that had happened and giving us the twist that it was Earth all along at the end.
Joshua Pasch: I am at least as astonished as Brett. I had this pegged as a $25-30 million opener - below industry tracking even. I tend to be a sucker for a lot of summer entertainment, and I found the trailer to have a few solid shots (I'd actually peg that ape overlooking the bed as the real winner). But even still, I wasn't rushing out to see it. This remake/prequel just felt unnecessary. The trailers didn't play too well in the theaters earlier in the summer, and I'm pretty sure I heard a good number of stifled laughs when the overtly redundant title "Rise of the Planet of the..." came up on the screen.
Alas, it appears this is a case of solid filmmaking applied to campy territory, and I'll have to catch it before it exits theaters.
Edwin Davies: Count me among the ranks of the astonished on this one. For a long time I assumed that it would open to below $30 million because it seemed so unnecessary. When I saw that it was opening against The Change-Up, I upped my expectations to the mid-30s because I didn't want to believe in a world in which a film that looked as lazy as The Change-Up was the number one film on its opening weekend. Even as the reviews started coming in, I still didn't imagine it would make more than $40 million, so this result is really quite amazing.
As to why it happened, I personally think it was down to the subtle change in the marketing over the last few months away from showcasing the action set pieces towards that of the character of Caesar. This had the dual effect of showcasing the really quite spectacular motion capture effects, which offered something that most moviegoers hadn't seen before, and suggesting that it was going to be more than just a film in which apes smash shit up. Not that there's anything wrong with apes smashing shit up, but this film needed a hook to draw an audience that should have been suffering some blockbuster fatigue at this point. That shift gave it that hook.
Slight tangent; anyone who has seen ROTPOTA (what a fun acronymn!) should check out director Rupert Wyatt's first film The Escapist, which is a really taut and muscular prison escape movie. Not only is it very good, but the skill and craft it shows for a debut pretty handily explains how someone whose first film made less than $400,000 worldwide got to direct a $93 million-budgeted blockbuster as his follow-up.
Shalimar Sahota: I expected this to open to around $40 million-ish, so am also astonished with the higher opening weekend take. When it was announced, I just thought, "Why?" Also, the ads and trailers just looked a bit silly to me. Am also surprised to see Brett mention the "ape-jumping-towards-helicopter" shot, because I can't help but laugh everytime I see that. The strong reviews were a surprise for me, and I imagine that's part of the reason for such a great opening weekend. The other being that despite "that" Tim Burton film, it's still part of a well known franchise. The Alzheimer's slant in a modern day setting also gives it a bit of relevancy too.
Reagen Sulewski: While it's not the entire story, the solid reviews carried this a long ways. I look at this a little in the same was as Terminator: Salvation, in that it was expanding on a familiar story and exploring an avenue that hadn't really been covered, as well as hinting at the possibility of an actual story. The difference here is that Apes actually delivered on that second front. The lesson is that there's value in these old franchises if you treat them intelligently.
Max Braden: I kept hearing strong word-of-mouth from everyone I knew who saw it, which shocked me but convinced me I should go to (though I haven't yet). I get the feeling that the buzz and the reviews Reagen mentioned are good reason for the success. I also think that Andy Serkis's name was put out there rather well, and given his history with motion capture, the Apes had an instant pedigree that moviegoers could put their faith in.
Kim Hollis: I've always thought that this movie looked pretty awful, so I count myself amongst those surprised by its breakout success. I was blown away to see that reviews were solid-to-excellent, and I agree with Reagen that this was a case where they had some impact. We talk a lot about how a bad film in a franchise can damage any successors, but Rise of the Planet of the Apes weathered the complete travesty of filmmaking that was Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes rather well. I'm stunned.
David Mumpower: While I am less surprised than the rest of you, I demonstrated the same thought process as Shalimar, at least initially. I mean, I understand the decision from a financial perspective. Nobody ever thinks about it now, but Planet of the Apes’ 2001 debut inflation adjusts to $91.9 million. That’s a mega-opening in any box office era. In terms of storyline, however, Tim Burton’s decision to do that WTF ending on top of his accidentally making a horrible movie buried any hope of a sequel in the short term. Still, studio numbers crunchers are paid a lot of money to understand the valuation of their various franchises. They knew from the numbers that people like the concept of a planet full of apes. What was done next is what impresses me the most, though.
When another Planet of the Apes movie was debated, the people involved didn’t ask “Why?” Instead, they asked, “How?” This is the point Reagen touched upon above that exemplifies the difference between making a prequel just because you can and making a prequel because you have a great idea. If we look at the most established moment from the original Planet of the Apes, in fact, we can see that lingering idea of how Earth That Was became Earth That Never Should Be, the one ruled by apes…and not the friendly ones who tell us they love us through sign language.
Planet of the Apes at its core is a story about a battle for dominion between two species and I felt the trailers demonstrated a fundamental understanding of this. This has been sold as a tale of well-intended science run amok, and it has that money shot in the trailer of a guy standing in the middle of a tiered structure, looking up at an entire clan of hyper-intelligent simians. I’ve believed for a while now that Rise of the Planet of the Apes looked better than it had any right to appear, and I can assure you I will be checking out Edwin’s recommendation, The Escapist, in the near future. Rupert Wyatt just did something Tim Burton could not: he made a commercial Planet of the Apes movie that is also really damned good. He just identified himself as a director to watch in the coming years.
Name brand matters. Just ask Calvin Klein.
Kim Hollis: Given the triumph of name recognition over the last two weeks, do you consider titles that sell on their own, such as Rise of the Planet of the Apes and The Smurfs, to be a smarter choice for studios than paying a famous star a lot of money to maybe open a movie and maybe not?
Edwin Davies: I think we need to clarify what we mean by "name recognition", if only because it doesn't necessarily have positive connotations. In the case of The Smurfs it does because that brand is wrapped up in cozy nostalgia and comes complete with a set of identifiable characters. In the case of Rise of the Planets of the Ape, name recognition can mean reminding audiences of the awful, awful, awful, awful, awful, awful Tim Burton version, which for many people would have been their freshest memory of the franchise prior to Rise. So I'm guessing name recognition is probably a safe horse to bet on if the name involved doesn't have any excess baggage to contend with, or if the film is good enough to overcome that, the key example of that phenomenon being Batman Begins. Though that latter instance is as tough to anticipate as the success of a film just because it has "Insert name of actor" above the title.
Reagen Sulewski: But look at that "horrible" name recognition, which got it to $50 million. Does a random James Franco movie get a fifth of that? These prebaked franchises are definitely the safer bets, but you do have to wonder how far you can go with it before they're eating the seed corn.
Max Braden: I think it's like gambling in Vegas. You may win a few hands on the unknowns, but name recognition is where the house wins in the long term, which is why Hollywood sticks to that formula.
David Mumpower: When we had the Despicable Me conversation last spring, there was some debate about the value of all of the marketing tie-ins with the Minions. The point I tried to make then was that this is how the process works. A major corporation is willing to expend a finite but significant amount of capital in order to build brand awareness for a property. In the case of Despicable Me, the short term benefit was to create a solid box office performance for an unknown license. The longer term benefits are myriad. Minions can be sold as toys, they can be licensed with other products, and other Universal projects may be linked to the Minions, creating an automatic association with a previous, positively received property. This money was not spent for opening weekend box office or even global final take. That is just a step on the journey.
What we have seen with The Smurfs mirrors this. The value of the intellectual property this week is exponentially larger than was the case just a year ago today. We saw the same thing with Alvin and the Chipmunks and its Shamequel. With Planet of the Apes, Fox has redeemed a historical name brand, thereby setting the table for sequels and new merchandising opportunities. Keep all of that in mind and think about the entire debate from the perspective of a studio (i.e. a corporation).
If Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson makes a movie and his popularity increases, how does this help the corporation? That one is a trick question in that every time Johnson is marketed as The Rock, the WWE benefits since they own the rights to the nickname. But you get the point. If you run Sony and Dwayne Johnson makes a Sony movie that tears up the box office yet offers little hope of a sequel, how is your company secured in the long run? They have the short term revenue source but that's it. The situation even hurts them some in that the next time they want to employ Johnson, he will demand more money since he deems himself more bankable.
If, however, the movie Johnson makes for Sony has franchise opportunity, the corporation will have the ability to mine said property for centuries to come in as many avenues as present themselves during the time frame. Why then would they be better served to cast a bankable lead in a project without franchise appeal in order to attain a better opening weekend? The answer is that they rarely would, which is why sequels represent the preferred feature production these days. Even as consumers repeatedly state a desire for new and original ideas, name recognition continues to be the driving force in consumer movie-going behavior.