Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
September 13, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Shark Night 3D, the latest killer fish eating humans movie, has earned $14.7 million in ten days. What do you think of this result?
Bruce Hall: I think that I don't get the fascination with God's most hungry beasts. Then again, I read a lot about serial killers and violent crime, so I guess that makes me a hypocrite. Never mind.
Brett Beach: I think this result jumped under the shark. Director David R. Ellis makes very good tight trash (Cellular, another plug for Final Destination 2) and then he makes... far too knowing wink wink nudge nudge trash (The Final Destination, Snakes on a Plane, this). Seriously, you can't have a title like Shark Night 3D and then grind it down to a PG-13 rating with very little blood. Pirhana 3D was rated R, featured a penis suffering indignities no penis should suffer, and still only made $25 million in the states. If this had wound up grossing more than that, I would have been bewildered. Plus, it cost more than Piranha, the film to which it probably owes its existence. Color me very confused on the studio's plans at any and every point in the process.
Tim Briody: I know this joke's already been made, but why would anyone pay to see Shark Night, when every year there's an entire Shark Week on television for free?
David Mumpower: Between Piranha 3D and this, I find myself wondering what the inevitable James Bond 3D film will have to do to make itself memorable among all of the fish-eating-humans sequences. With regards to the box office here, Piranha 3D only managed $25 million domestically; most of its global take came abroad where it earned almost $60 million. Keeping this in mind, it's a theoretically profitable title. Shark Night 3D cost a little more to make and appears destined to earn a little less domestically but like so many studio productions these days, overseas revenue will determine whether or not it's a winner. Right now, it's clearly in the "bad idea" column. I do like the title, though.
Apollo who in the what now?
Kim Hollis: Apollo 18, the found footage sci-fi horror film from the Weinstein Company, has earned $14.9 million in ten days. What do you think of this result?
Bruce Hall: I think the producers of this film should consider themselves as lucky as I would be to survive Navy SEAL training. They should all quit now while they're ahead and go into another line of work before their good fortune runs out. This movie is an abominable, irredeemable piece of crap, and if you haven't seen it already, you should save yourself the trouble and instead spend 90 minutes Googling pictures of roadkill. At least it'll be free.
Brett Beach: It's way more than the film apparently deserves (SPOILER SPOILER: Moon rocks with legs, WTF?! END SPOILER) although Bruce appears to have found the lesson out firsthand. Since it cost about 1/5 of the budget for Shark Night and will end up grossing about the same, it is at least the winner of that two man race. My worst fear is that in 100 years, it will be used in homeschooling lessons about space exploration as actual found footage. When NASA has to issue an official statement that it is not real, I weep for for the next generation of students.
Edwin Davies: I'm impressed by this result, but only in the same way that I'm impressed when I read about a Ponzi scheme. It's not something I condone, but anyone who can fleece people out of so much money has done something impressive.
David Mumpower: I have said in this forum that I believe found footage horror titles are a good idea in theater. Projects such as Apollo 18 make me reconsider that philosophy. A movie maker has the entirety of science fiction and horror at their disposal with this idea yet the trailers for it readily identify there are no good ideas in the film. That's indescribably frustrating to me. How can 100 people work on such a fertile concept and come up with absolutely nothing engaging? It's demoralizing. As was the case with Skyline, this project cost little more than magic beans ($5 million) to make and its (lack of) quality reflects this yet a $15 million running take means it's a decent performer relative to cost. That too is demoralizing.
Why? No, really. WHY?
Kim Hollis: Bucky Larson: Born to Be a Star offered one of the worst performances in box office history, garnering $1.415 million from 1,500 locations, a sub-$1,000 per venue average. It had roughly the same per-location average as The Smurfs, which is in its seventh weekend in theaters. Say something funny about Bucky Larson, thereby proving yourself to be funnier than the people who made Bucky Larson.
Bruce Hall: I hear that Adam Sandler and Nick Swardson are old friends. I can only assume that Nick owes Adam money. Years ago, Sandler said "Hey, don't worry about it. We're friends. You don't have to pay me back. I missed my rent because of you, and my phone got cut off so I missed an audition, but that's okay. We're friends. One day, if I can, I'll still cast you in a movie. As the lead."
But of course all these years, Sandler lay awake at night tossing and turning, desperately thinking about how to rain down a heaping helping of hot molten revenge on his hated enemy. It all came together in Bucky Larson, an horrific combination of Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star and an SNL parody of Boogie Nights. Nick thought his old pal was doing him a favor, when in reality Adam was using his power and fame to utterly destroy his old rival. Also caught up in the carnage were Christina Ricci, who once turned Sandler down for a date. And Don Johnson, who once insulted Opera Man.
This goes to show you that revenge doesn't pay. Everyone got hurt in this one. Nick, Christina, Sonny Crockett, and Sandler himself, who is one of three (?) credited writers on this unforgivable pile of dog vomit. Most of all, the whole planet was hurt by this. Every time a movie this unspeakable bad is released, a thousand kittens die.
And somewhere out there Philip Michael Thomas is, for the first time in his life, grateful to be Philip Michael Thomas.
Brett Beach: A comedy concert movie starring Kevin Hart (Laugh at My Pain) opened in only 97 theaters this weekend and outgrossed this by at least $500,000, coming fairly close to cracking the top 10. I think Hart's title is an apt summation for Bucky Larson's performance anxiety (again with the penis references, sorry!).
But... I did want to note that Bucky was not the biggest wipeout this past weekend. Some low-budget schlock entitled Creature - the type of thing that normally goes straight to DVD/on-demand - managed to open in as many locations (1,500) as Bucky Larson... and garnered a million dollars less. $331,000 total for a $220 per screen average. That's 22 people per location for the weekend, or 1-2 people per show. I've heard of Bucky Larson screenings that were better attended.
Max Braden: Bruce beat me to it. The whole thing reeks of blackmail + poison pill. You know which movie came to mind as an immediate comparison for outright awfulness? Dana Carvey's "The Master of Disguise". Production company? Happy Madison.
Tim Briody: I'm glad we finally got a "say something funny" topic for Bucky Larson, but that would be admitting that there is something funny about Bucky Larson.
Samuel Hoelker: Is anybody else terrified that this may not be the worst Adam Sandler-related movie this year? The Jack and Jill trailer is literally the worst thing I have ever seen, and I never misuse the word "literally."
David Mumpower: This is the worst looking comedy since at least Grandma's Boy if not Freddy Got Fingered. In fact, I wonder if someone will retroactively argue that it's an anti-comedy as was the case with that Tom Green abomination. If you are thinking about doing so, I would like to note that this does not make it better. Anti-comedy is like anti-matter. Its existence in this universe is unwelcome. If I want anti-comedy, I'll watch Kathy Griffin.
Now then, let's address the elephant in the living room. Dear Happy Madison: did we the people do something to you that led you to inflict Bucky Larson upon us? If so, is it too late to apologize? I ask because it feels like somebody cut you off in traffic so you unleashed the Rage Virus on western civilization as a retaliation. The punishment does not fit the crime. Didn't Just Go With It suck enough?
Celebrate good times, come on!
Kim Hollis: The NFL season is finally here! Who do you predict for the next Super Bowl?
Bruce Hall. First of all, two things. I only picked Dallas last year because I was sure Skeletor would have his boys motivated to play the big game in their home stadium. I was bamboozled. I was seduced. Never look directly into Jerry Jones' cold, dead eyes. Also, I know it's just one game but the Falcons sure looked like they could have used a few more draft picks this year. I wonder what happened?
Okay, that was just wrong. I apologize.
This year I go with Green Bay and Baltimore. The Pack's defensive backfield was a little spotty in the opener but it didn't matter, because they utterly dominated the Saints in the trenches on both sides of the ball - by FAR. This team is stacked, and I shudder to think of what they'll look like when they hit mid season stride. And we know they can weather injury because even MORE than last year, their roster is deeper than Maya Angelou.
I choose the Ravens because I think this is their year. They had a good off season and they came out of the gate hard. Yes, it's just one game. But nobody - I mean NOBODY dominates the Steelers like that. These guys are for real, my friends.
Max Braden: White Sox.
Reagen Sulewski: I tend to dump all but the most basic football knowledge in the off season (Favre's still playing, right?) so I'm not sure I should be judged as to knowing what the hell I'm talking about, but Green Bay and New England both look pretty scary so far. Let's go with them.
Tim Briody: I am, for reasons lost to my early childhood, a Tampa Bay Buccaneers fan, and while I'm excited about the Josh Freeman era, I don't think he's quite there just yet (and the loss to Detroit in Week 1 didn't help matters), so in the NFC we'll go with the trendy pick of Green Bay, who actually ends up even scarier since there's a 100% chance the team is healthier than last year. For the AFC, I actively dislike the Patriots, and the Jets making a third straight championship game seems unlikely, the Colts are done without Peyton and I'm not really sold on the Steelers either. Which means it'll probably be the Patriots.
David Mumpower: In reviewing the thread (Max, stop making that joke...three straight years is plenty), I see that my thunder has been stolen here but I too believe that Green Bay is going to make the Super Bowl once again. The strike gave them time away from the game that most defending champions do not receive and I believe it will benefit them moving forward. I also think New England is going to go about 18-2 (including the playoffs) to win the AFC and that would be an absolutely spectacular Super Bowl match-up as well as a record setter in terms of ratings.