Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
December 20, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows opened to $39.6 million, a bit less than its predecessor, which had the calendar advantage of opening on a Christmas weekend. What do you take from this result?
Edwin Davies: The calendar configuration is a key factor here since it skews the results in favor of the first film, which took full advantage of Christmas Day falling on a Friday, which led to higher Saturday and Sunday figures. Basically, had the first Sherlock Holmes opened on the weekend before Christmas, as its sequel did, it would have opened to less on its way to the same total, it just happened to have a pretty much perfect calendar configuration for a big opening weekend. That film wound up with a total of $209 million, giving it a multiplier of 3.4. I think that Game of Shadows, which has got decent reviews and great word-of-mouth, will ultimately have a better hold, and whilst it might not match its predecessor, the Christmas box office bonanza means that it won't get shunted out of the way by Ghost Protocol, which has suddenly become its big competition.
Bruce Hall: Clearly, it wasn't realistic to expect Game of Shadows to open to quite the same numbers as the original. As we all know, the original opened on Christmas day, giving it a leg up on revenue. But what the Warner Bros spin machine is reluctant to admit is that they expected something closer to the $50 million mark for Game of Shadows. What we had here was a fairly standard sequel that in large part, played it safe and stuck with much of what worked the first time. Unlike the first film there was a strong villain, but if the addition of Noomi Rapace was supposed to be an improvement over Rachel McAdams, color me unimpressed. The two of them together still can't get me out of my chair. I guess first place is first place, and I agree that long term, things will likely turn out well for Holmes and Watson. But I believe Tron Legacy opened this time last year to similar numbers, playing it safe with a ho-hum story that took too many cues from the original. And just as last year, I can't help but feel that a decent but fundamentally underwhelming film got more or less what it deserved.
Brett Beach: By way of a preface, it certainly feels to me like there are an overwhelming number of major studio films being wide released around Christmas this year, compared to recent years, although this could be due to the calendar configuration of Christmas Sunday, with releases being staggered on the 16th, 21st, 23rd and 25th. This could lead to some folks ranking their blockbusters in order of preference (and of course all the smaller and expanding Oscar nominee types as well).
I place myself in the category of those who weren't all that impressed (if not unimpressed) with Sherlock Holmes and have no vested interest or strong desire for the sequel. I do think the advertising went out of its way to highlight all the ways this was going to be like the first, instead of focusing on the unique things that would make this installment. I also agree with Edwin's reference to potential competition from MI:GP, now that that has hype and really excellent reviews. (Is it rare to see big action spectacles opening so close in December?) I don't think this opening result is distressing, but I would be surprised if even the "12 Days of Christmas" carries this over $200 million and/or past its predecessor domestically.
Matthew Huntley: It signifies that most people are okay with seeing more of the same (Bruce is correct the original and sequel are not drastically different in terms of style, tone, action, etc., aside from Jared Harris' great villain character and the arguably enveloping plot); there just weren't enough to propel Game of Shadows beyond its predecessor. Simply, this isn't being viewed as a must-see as much as it is something to see. Still, I think it could find its way to $180 million domestically and about double that internationally. That would certainly be enough to cover its budget and advertising campaign, but it might also light a fire under the execs at Warner Bros. to push the series beyond just "more of the same."
David Mumpower: I think Matthew's point is well taken that sameness is something of a safety net in such instances. I presume that the determination was made that the inclusion of Moriarty would be enough of a new element. The other story elements from the original are largely maintained. As such, there is a sameness that provides a comfortable blanket of convention yet limits its ability to improve upon its predecessor. I see this as an acceptable follow-up to a noted sequel, but a lot depends on how well it holds over the next two weeks. A lot of what I've just described above would have been valid for The Squeakquel (save for Moriarty...there wasn't a diabolical mastermind chipmunk in that, was there?) and we see how much its sameness impacted the demand for the third film. As an aside, Rapace wasn't intended to be an upgrade over McAdams, who is also in the film. She's there to add atmosphere more than anything else and given what a supremely talented actress she is, I welcome her presence.
Tim Briody: The first Sherlock Holmes had the advantage of opening on probably the strongest day of box office of the year. And with this year's calendar anomaly with Christmas on a Sunday, and a new wide release coming over four of the next seven days, Game of Shadows attempted to jump the gun on here and for the most part succeeded. It didn't completely crater from the opening weekend of the original and will definitely be a top option over the next two weeks, especially if something else stumbles.
Reagen Sulewski: Aside from the calendar issues mentioned, I really haven't seen a ton of enthusiasm for a second Sherlock Holmes film. The idea of "modernizing" Holmes within its own time period is a solid one, but I don't know that it earned a sequel with that film. And there's nothing that special about the ads for this film that made this a must-see. All in all we've got a sequel for a film that no one really demanded, so approaching the first film's opening weekend is not a bad showing.
Max Braden: I'm going to extrapolate from single-point analysis and speculate that everyone reacted as I did: The first one was sufficient but somehow a letdown from what I expected, so there was little expectation that the sequel was going to be any different. Explosions, slow-mo... sure, I'll see it, but I have time over the holidays to catch it. Seeing Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol on IMAX was a more urgent matter.
We're onto you, chipmunks.
Kim Hollis: Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked opened to $23.2 million, less than half of the Squeakquel. Why do you think the audience is so much smaller for this one than it was two years ago?
Edwin Davies: This is a point that we make every time a film in a kid's franchise underperforms, but it's worth repeating: children have short attention spans. Young kids, in particular, will outgrow series that skew very young very quickly, so a kid who was seven when the first film came out and loved it will probably think that they are too old for Chipwrecked now that they are eleven. Kid's franchises have a very short shelf-life unless than can offer something for the whole family, and these films have always skewed very, very young, so once the original core audience has moved on to The Hunger Games or whatever, there won't be an impetus to go and see the newer instalments. In the long run this won't prevent more of these atrocities being made because they're cheap and they can rely on the foreign box office to shore up the numbers, but the series has peaked.
Brett Beach: I will see the maturing kids theory and raise a "if my big brother or sister was into it, I don't want to be" backlash. Four years and three films is almost a generation in the hyperspeed world of now. Plus, the PGs of the first two have been "downgraded" to a G this time (not even enough mild rude humor to kick it up a notch, apparently), which may mean something to some kids who find the G uncool. Finally, I would hope and pray that maybe some parents saw the trailers and ads and cried "Uncle!" and are opting to take their kids - and themselves--once (or again) to the not one, not two but three family-friendly and well-received options currently available (The Muppets, Hugo, Arthur Christmas).
Bruce Hall: We're talking a total four year span here and only two since the last installment, so while I don't doubt it's a factor, I'm reluctant to place the blame for this entirely on the dramatic aging of a static audience. There are always more six year old kids in the world; I think there's more at play here. The original Chipmunks flick opened on almost the same date as Chipwrecked (12/14/07), and was something of a novelty at the time, so maybe it really deserved its success. But the second installment opened on Christmas, a good move that probably inflated the numbers somewhat. Chipwrecked went back to the weekend before Christmas (12/16), perhaps in an effort to avoid getting rubbed out by Mr. Spielberg next week. This no doubt worked against the film, as well as unintentionally exposing its biggest flaw, the one everyone always seems reluctant to mention.
It. Sucks.
It sucks even in comparison to other movies about animated singing chipmunks, and "exit polling" on this movie would seem to support that. Children are a little more discriminating than they're given credit for. They DO have short attention spans - after a 15 minute car ride to the theater, and an eternity of previews, commercials and turn-your-cell-phone-off spots, they will get bored with a bad film like this or Cars 2 less than 20 minutes in. And they will force you from the theater against your will in a kicking fit of whining and crying. After an afternoon like that, before you're even back to the car you've gone online and angrily warned all 400 of your Facebook friends to save their $80 and stay the hell away.
Don't think this does not happen. As Brett just mentioned, there are better family films still showing right now, and more and more it is taking a big deal to get parents to spend big bucks at the theater. I'd rather spend $20 on a DVD of something that came out last Spring, and if the tots make it half way through because they want to play the Wii or eat crayons instead then that's fine, because they can just finish it later. But for the money you'd waste taking a family of four to Chipwrecked, you could pay your cable bill or fill your gas tank twice. Audiences are getting harder to fool. Nice try, Fox.
Matthew Huntley: Well put, Bruce, and very funny reply. I would just like to add that Chipwrecked shouldn't be viewed as an outright bomb just yet. Sure, its opening is soft compared to its predecessors, but remember Yogi Bear opened to $16 million last year and wound up with over six times that amount in the end. So the third (and hopefully final) Chipmunks movie could still make its way to $140 million or so. I'm not saying it will, but it'sa possibility. From the looks of things, Tintin may be too sophisticated for really little kids, making Chipwrecked the only other choice for parents. Well, not the only choice (they could just as well stay home), but you know what I mean.
David Mumpower: I believe the debate here involves profitable in terms of revenue gained as opposed to opportunity cost losses. I absolutely agree that Chipwrecked will prove to be profitable thanks to a combination of holiday box office inflation and overseas revenue. The damage here is that the franchise appears broken with stink of failure being associated with the product. The rush to put out a third film only two years after the last one and only four years after the original has led to a lack of new ideas for a project that -- let's be honest here -- wasn't bursting with good ideas in the first place.
To a larger point, this has not been a good year for family films. The disappointments vastly outnumber the triumphs.
Tim Briody: To David's last point, I wonder if movies are finally losing their grip as the number one entertainment option for families. You could argue that it's long overdue with the advent of DVDs, cable, on demand viewing, DVR's, video gaming systems, etc., but the number of flops this year is pretty astounding and I'm having trouble coming up with something that overperformed.
On the other hand, if Jason Lee needed money, he really should have just asked us.
Reagen Sulewski: I think coming so quickly on the heels of another sequel with screechingly high covers of pop songs that are several years out of date (Happy Feet 2) didn't help. I don't think 8-year-olds are really relating to Destiny's Child songs from when they were in pre-school. This just proves that even a one-idea series can run out of ideas.
Max Braden: Not having children, I'll speculate that it's an expensive endeavor to take them to more than one movie a month. The Squeakquel didn't have much competition to deal with besides The Princess and the Frog, but this year with so many good kid-friendly films already mentioned beating it to the punch and draining wallets, there isn't much reason to go out for this.