Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
November 1, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Puss in Boots, the spin-off feature from Shrek, DreamWorks Animation's most lucrative property, opened to $34.1 million. This is one of the worst debuts since the early days of the production house. What went wrong and do you believe the film can still recover?
Brett Beach: Halloween most likely cut into it, and there may be some Shrek fatigue and burnout. Although since I have only seen the first Shrek, that is not the case for me. The Puss in Boots trailers/advertisements were spot on through and through, making me laugh more than any of the Shrek ads did and making me actually want to see this. Still, it must be noted that, this is one of the highest openings for any film ever on Halloween weekend, which showcases that it really is a tough time to launch anything. In three weeks, four family films come out over five days (Arthur Christmas, Happy Feet 2, The Muppets, and Hugo) so Puss in Boots needs to grab all it can now. I think it will be fine internationally, but lost a big potential chunk of change with this debut.
Bruce Hall: Was it the snowstorms? Was it Halloween? America didn't want a Puss in Boots film as badly as DreamWorks thought we did? Maybe it's all of those things. One thing I do know; DreamWorks titles tend to have good legs. That, plus the all important international take will probably make it hard to dismiss. Unless of course, it doesn't.
Edwin Davies: I think that timing plays a large part in this result. Opening it over the Halloween weekend, even if Halloween actually happened on Monday, hurt the film somewhat because it is such a box office black hole. That it opened to the level that it did regardless of the weekend is pretty impressive in a way, but you can't help but wonder if DreamWorks left a lot of money on the table by not opening it a couple of weeks earlier, if only because it would give the film more of a run before the glut of family films that Brett mentioned.
It also says a lot about how much people respond to the Puss in Boots character that a lot of them showed up for the film even though it seemed like an obvious cash grab. The reviews suggest that it's a good deal better than the last two Shrek films (although I suppose it would have to be, since they were, shall we say, not good) so I imagine that it will hold up reasonably well in the coming weeks (not How to Train Your Dragon well, but better than most) but this opening suggests that people aren't tired of Antonio Banderas' luxurious tones emanating from the mouth of a cute kitty cat just yet.
Jim Van Nest: I have to admit, I'm surprised the total was that low. But maybe I shouldn't have. Shrek 3 was so bad I never saw 4. And I heard it wasn't good either. Maybe people just felt a little "fool me once...er, twice...er three times, shame on me" with this one. With the way the reviews are coming in and Thanksgiving and Christmas breaks on the horizon, I have a feeling this one will hang around for a while.
Kim Hollis: I tend to agree that timing played a part in the deflated opening here. Halloween weekend just isn't a great time for any movie, let alone a kid flick. I do think there's some element of Shrek fatigue as well, even though Puss in Boots is the best part of any Shrek movie I've ever seen (and that amounts to just the first two - it's not a series for me overall, though I did like the second film precisely because of Puss in Boots). Of course, none of this will matter too terribly much for the studio since the lion's (kitty's) share of the revenue will come from overseas.
David Mumpower: I think we all agree that Halloween has proven once again that it is an anti-holiday in terms of box office. This was one of the strangest (and worst) release date decisions of our lifetime. The Shrek franchise is targeted at people who spent the weekend doing participating in early Halloween festivities. The madness of it embodies everything DreamWorks Animation has done wrong in not only destroying Shrek but also scorching the Earth in its wake. This was a prized property that they have treated the same way a Lohan treats a bank account. And now the balance is almost empty. They have gone from a $121.6 million opening to $34.1 million in five years. And Puss in Boots is the most popular character remaining. That's how much opportunity cost revenue they have lost by using the franchise as a Bank of Bad Habits.
Panic! PANIC!
Kim Hollis: Both of the two major animated sequels this year (Cars 2 and Puss and Boots) have performed modestly to poorly. Is there reason for Pixar and DreamWorks to start worrying, or is it just something about these two properties that is the problem?
Brett Beach: Well, I would include Kung Fu Panda 2 in that mix as well. And I would say that there are different particulars in each case. For Cars 2, as was pointed out by BOP and others back in June, this was really the ignition of a new merchandising blitzkrieg for the Cars brand more than anything else. It was a sequel to perhaps one of the least beloved of Pixar's films (from where I stand, I am not speaking to its popularity among the young set) and it was a strictly for fun, no deeper meanings or exploration of complex emotions to be found here, venture. I am not sure what the expectations were with Puss in Boots. It seems like a bonehead move to have shifted this back from November 4th to a weekend where Halloween would potentially cut into its first weekend earnings. I don't know if this was ever going to be a $200 million earner, but this opening might be the difference between $110 million and $150 million.
Bruce Hall: I think Brett more or less hit the salient points on the head. And you could make logical and discrete cases for the lackluster performance of each of these films. So, I'll make a much less logical case. The blanket thinking side of me says that not enough people were sitting around thinking: "Wow, I sure would like to see a sequel to Cars. I really would like to see 90 minutes of just the cat with the sword. I can't wait to see more of the ADHD panda."
Actually, I'm serious. Despite the individual factors at play here, perhaps it's just a little like bringing something to a potluck that nobody was hungry for. And in the case of Cars 2, (I haven't seen the other two films) it was also a bad movie. Studios have PR staff who are paid good money to find complex causes for simple things. Sometimes in reality, the issue is that your product isn't as good as you think it is, or you overestimated the demand for it. So at the end of the potluck you take home a bruised ego and half a bowl of gaspacho soup.
Edwin Davies: I don't think that either studio should start worrying yet since both have been on the up, both financially and creatively, over the last couple of years and this could very well be a blip, rather than the indication of a irreversible downward trend. If they can deliver good product then there is enough trust and name recognition there (particularly in the case of Pixar) to ensure that people will turn out.
In terms of why the two films mentioned have not done so well, I think there are different factors at play for both, but they both suffered from poor timing which led to a lack of demand. If Pixar really wanted to capitalise on the success of the first Cars they should have got the sequel out two or three years after the first, rather than six. As we've said before, that film existed as a way of extending the brand of the series rather than as a film in its own right, but it could have had a stronger domestic run if it had come out when the kids who saw the first Cars were still young enough that they would want to see the second one. Kids grow up and move on from things very quickly, and you can't guarantee that an equal or greater number of kids will come up to replace them and replenish the audience.
As for Puss In Boots, that film has been released at a bad time of year (being released a few weeks later or earlier really could have made a huge difference to the opening weekend and the final gross) but in a macro sense it has been released too late in the history of the Shrek franchise. The third and fourth Shrek films ate up a lot of goodwill for the series, so releasing Puss In Boots now rather than, say, between Shreks 3 and 4 or even 2 and 3 (this project was first announced just after Shrek 2 was released) meant that there was less demand for the character or an expansion of that world.
Jim Van Nest: I think the only reason either studio should start worrying is if these latest entries represent all we have to look forward to from them. And I think we all know that's a resounding "no." I still think Pixar simply made one for the kids with Cars 2 and by all accounts, Puss in Boots isn't bad...it just wasn't a smash hit. If sometime soon Pixar announces Cars 3: Mater Steals Your Wallet...then we might have to start worrying. Until then, they'll both bounce back just fine.
Kim Hollis: I don't believe either studio has much cause for alarm. For Pixar, Cars 2 was always just an add-on to a story that appealed way more to youngsters than adults in the first place, and I don't think they were apologetic about the fact that it was a giant commercial for merchandise sales throughout the remainder of 2011. With Brave on the way (and looking absolutely wonderful so far), it looks like they've only fallen off the track for a moment.
As for DreamWorks, perhaps the diminishing returns should be troubling, but in the end all of their films are raking in plenty of dough. It does have to be a touch troubling that they're looking at yet another Madagascar next year - a franchise that has never been associated with high quality in the first place - and the little buzzed about Rise of the Guardians, a title that is disturbingly reminiscent of The Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole, even though the films have nothing to do with one another. Still, it's all about international dollars for DreamWorks, and I don't see that revenue falling off any time soon.
David Mumpower: I believe every statement made in this thread is reasonable yet I disagree with the overall group decision here that this isn't an alarming trend. Both studios have had 2011 trial runs for their sequels and the results have been sub-par. Yes, Shrek had a tremendous level of success with Shrek 2 and Shrek the Third but the wheels have come off since then. With so many animated franchises in various stages of sequel development, the turn of events in 2011 must be creating a high level of paranoia. I do think that Bruce has touched upon the crux of the matter in that while I loved Kung Fu Panda and Cars, I wasn't jonezing for a second title for either property. If I am not, I know that the majority of people are not because I like Cars a *lot* more than Finding Nemo. And Kung Fu Panda was in my top five for that year. Is the same true of a sequel to Monsters, Inc. or The Incredibles? I believe not.