Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
January 11, 2012
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Let's finally discuss the late-December openers, starting with the most recognizable one. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo fell just 23% to $11.4 million this weekend. Its running total is $79.1 million. What do you think of its run so far?
Tim Briody: I'm stunned that it wasn't a top contender over the holidays but cannot figure out why. A month ago I was thinking that The Millennium Trilogy and The Hunger Games series would be neck and neck as the next big literary adaptation, but now I expect The Hunger Games to absolutely crush TGWTDT.
Matthew Huntley: Given the dark subject matter of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, I think it's performing admirably so far, especially given that it was released around the holidays. It looks like Sony's counter-programming to all the brighter, more action-oriented fare is paying off; it's just taking a little longer than expected. Girl is very adult-themed and these films tend to show good legs, so in the end, I think $110 million is a reachable figure, with much more to come from overseas, perhaps for a grand total of $250 million. On a positive note, I don't think anyone has had anything bad to say about it.
Brett Beach: I think the subject matter may have something to do with its slow but steady performance, which goes to show that what a gazillion people read doesn't always translate over into what they are willing to pay to watch. I think the decision to counter the Spielberg/Crowe/Chipmunk offerings of December with darker entertainment was bold and ultimately justified. Would this have done better in the summer months? Perhaps, but considering this was strictly for adults, launching it during the "12 Days of Christmas" when a large enough contingent could find the time to get out to it over a two week period, and thus keep spreading positive word-of-mouth, this may have been the best case scenario. It should be kept afloat until Oscar noms, which if it gets Picture/Director/Actress could propel it even further.
Edwin Davies: I think this is about as good a result as we could have expected, really. The book may be massively popular, but the subject matter is so bleak and tough that a lot of people probably felt that it wasn't something that they wanted to see realized on a cinema screen. The quality of the film (I thought it was just okay, but far from bad) has really won out over the last couple of weeks, allowing for word-of-mouth to build and carry it beyond the magic 12 days of box office. More importantly, as the only really adult offering out there, it hasn't been as sharply affected by kids going back to school as some of the other holdovers. It should continue to hold pretty well, particularly if nominations are forthcoming. $100 million seems very likely at this point, though I doubt it will go much beyond $120 million.
If nothing else, this must be very encouraging for Quentin Tarantino since his next film, Django Unchained, is due to be released at the same time next year. It could be a fun, weird tradition for a hard R-rated film to be released every Christmas.
Reagen Sulewski: I wonder if this wasn't just a case of overexposure. I really doubt that that many people saw the Swedish films on video (since a vanishing small number did in the theatrical run here), but it sure seems like these films have been coming out forever. This might be some fatigue setting in. I see that Sony is going to go ahead with the next films in the series, but this seems like a really dodgy idea, since my expectation is that a lot fewer people went on to read the rest of the series than the first one.
Bruce Hall: The simplest thing I can say is that more doesn't always equal better. I realize how un-American that sounds, but there IS a perfectly good Swedish version that was produced on a budget that might not cover the catering costs on its Yankee cousin. The American version seems to have been critically well received but it's still a bleak, adult themed film with a long running time, released at a time of year when most people are not exactly lining up for that sort of thing. Tactically, it may have been better to release this movie during the first quarter of 2012. But strategically speaking, this is the sort of prestige picture that was no doubt released with the Oscar Season in mind.
The doom and gloom we're hearing from some quarters strikes me as premature, because it does appear that this film will have legs and when you factor in the eventual international take, continuing with the series should not be unjustified. Daniel Craig fans need not worry - this is not The Golden Compass 2: Electric Boogaloo.
Max Braden: Despite having a rocking trailer, I'm a little surprised that it's managed to pull in that much. For people who'd seen the original, this nearly shot-for-shot remake offers nothing nothing new but the ease of watching a movie without having to read of subtitles. For people who have no idea what the books are about, did the trailer really sell the Girl? There's more downside than up, but I think a lot of people went to see it because they thought it would be the talk around the water cooler and didn't want to be left out of the conversation.
David Mumpower: I want to begin my reply by stating that I am one of the biggest fans of the Millennium Trilogy in the world. I was so passionate about reading the series as soon as possible that I couldn't wait for the North American release of The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest. I imported a copy from England since it was released much sooner across the Atlantic. I have seen and been satisfied with the first two adaptations and been infuriated by the disappointment of the "conclusive" movie. Keeping all of this in mind, I agree with what some of what has been said here while disagreeing with much of it.
First of all, I think Reagen is wrong when he says that few people saw the original films. The timing of the video release of the Swedish version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was unintentionally perfect. Netflix Watch Instantly was just surging in popularity and the availability of that title on the service is something Netflix themselves said was a boon to their product. Similarly, Amazon Video used this as a launch title when they began to offer free streaming to owners of Amazon Prime. And let's be honest about the fact that $12.7 million worth of box office revenue for a subtitled film is never anything to sneeze at. A lot more people saw the Swedish version than expected, which is why Michael Nyqvist and Noomi Rapace went from virtual unknowns to key players in Mission: Impossible and Sherlock Holmes sequels.
I also believe that Max is waaaaaaaaaay off-base in saying that the Fincher remake is a shot-for-shot remake. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am as shocked as anybody to be saying this, but the Hollywood studio version of Men Who Hate Women, the real title of this story, is night and day better than the Swedish version. How this came to pass is a mystery to me but Sony got this one right. They brought in all of the key elements lacking in the first adaptation, which was frankly paint by numbers and woefully lacking in mystery or surprise. Yes, Fincher cheated a bit with the ending but it still works.
Keeping all of this in mind, Mr. Huntley is absolutely correct that the timing of this film is what hurt it. Anyone reading the above can see how passionate I am about the subject matter. In fact, it is my belief that Lisbeth Salander, not Harry Potter, is the best literary character created in my lifetime. No, she will not have the staying power or overall impact of Potter but the character is better. Despite my love of Lisbeth, there were four different times before the start of the New Year that my wife and I discussed watching the film. I never could talk myself into it. There is simply nothing Christmas-y about The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. As such, I did what a lot of consumers clearly have. I waited until 2012 to watch the film. And if I did that, people who knew little about the project had almost no incentive to watch this flick over the holidays.
The movie I have been using as a comparison for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a recent Tom Cruise film, Valkyrie. That was a strangely timed holiday drama that seemed to run counter to the spirit of the season yet had enough of a reputation to sell tickets anyway. Nobody remembers this since Cruise was still anathema at the time, but Valkyrie earned $83.1 million domestically. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is already close to that amount and will probably edge past $100 million domestically. I consider that a successful franchise launch and am a bit mystified why the current box office perception of it is as a disappointment. Tim even compared it to The Hunger Games, clearly a much more commercial project. Men Who Hate Women is a film about murder, incest and rape. The fact that a holiday release of this type has earned $80 million and counting is impressive, not disappointing.
Tom Cruise knows haters gonna hate, but he's still a mesmerizing screen presence
Kim Hollis: A film for which we had only partial information at the time, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, wound up becoming the top film of the holiday season. The fourth Mission: Impossible film has earned $172.6 million so far. Is this more, less, or about what you were expecting? How much credit do you give to the IMAX exclusive release?
Matthew Huntley: M:I 4's domestic box-office take - $172.6 million and counting - is a lot more than I was expecting it would make overall, especially given that the third film was so soft and Tom Cruise's popularity has dwindled the last few years. I think a great deal of the film's success is owed to the innovation of director Brad Bird, as well as Cruise himself, neither of whom seemed willing to settle for traditional action scenes this time around. They made it their mission (no pun intended) to show us something new and different, and because they did (and because it's good), audiences are pleased and word-of-mouth has been very strong and positive.
I do think the M:I 4 IMAX experience has a lot to do with it. Many would agree the movie contains some of the best IMAX shots ever filmed for a mainstream production and I know I've been telling people this is the way to see it, as I'm sure other people have, which has certainly contributed to its overall box-office take. But here's the thing: M:I 4 would be a good movie regardless of its IMAX footage, and that's what counts. The format definitely enhances it, but it doesn't make it.
I wonder, now that the series has rebounded, will it end on a high note or will there be fifth one? As good as Ghost Protocol is, I think Cruise and company should quit while they're ahead.
Brett Beach: First the praise: I haven't screamed out loud with delight at so many original and ridiculous and entertaining action sequences since (possibly) The Long Kiss Goodnight and many of my screams for that were because of the profane dialogue and the level of ridiculous violence. This was like a live-action Looney Tunes cartoon, and even if characterizations were minimal, the sweep of the action, its flavor and the feeling that the actors or their stunt doubles were really in the thick of it, made it feel almost retro.
Its success to date is a lot more than I was expecting and I would credit the IMAX early release for creating buzz, but the near unanimous critical approval may have helped sway some older moviegoers as well (not sure how this is playing with the teen market that was largely underserved this year).
Edwin Davies: I had good feelings about the film before release, based solely on the faith I have in Brad Bird, so this is in line with what I thought, or hoped, the film would do. The IMAX exclusive release was a masterstroke since it turned the film from yet another sequel to a real event. The critical acclaim no doubt helped, but that sense of exclusivity created demand where seemingly there hadn't been any before. The idea of having to see the film in IMAX really sold the spectacle aspect of the film, which in turn generated superb word-of-mouth for both the film and IMAX itself, prompting people to see it in the format wherever possible.
Bruce Hall: I almost hate to say this, but it's possible this franchise has just continued to improve. I personally loathed the first installment, and the John Woo version was...well...never mind. But I reluctantly enjoyed part 3, and I enjoyed it a lot. There's no denying that MI:4 has raised the bar, at least action wise. As far as the story is concerned, we're all going to forget it by the time we get home, so all I ask of a film like this is that it's fun, I can follow it, and that there is at least a minimum level of logic present.
Mission Accomplished.
As far as the IMAX aspect of this goes, I tend to fall in line with the argument that while portions of the film were specifically designed to "pop" in this format, the primary effect was positive word-of-mouth. There's nothing like good buzz for a big budget action film, and I think that we're going to see more attempts made to follow this template. Who can say whether or not it will work, but I think we all can agree that to a large extent, it did here.
Max Braden: This result doesn't surprise me at all; I think the only reason I might not have picked M:I4 to be number one was some reluctant acceptance that Chipwrecked was going to rake in undeserved heaps of money. I suppose in a year of lackluster superhero movies that audiences could have suspected that this fourth Mission:Impossible was just cashing in on the brand. I think putting the movie out on IMAX first helped back up the point that this was going to be a major must-see action film. For my money, it was totally worth it.
David Mumpower: My opinion is that the IMAX-exclusive tactic only works if there are two key elements to a film's release. The first is that it has to have tremendous quality. This is the aspect of Ghost Protocol that I felt was being dismissed as relevant the week of its release. I guess I understand why people were doing so since Mission: Impossible III is phenomenal yet it still wound up being roundly ignored by consumers. Still, I felt this was a project that was being underestimated. This leads to the second element, which is that building word-of-mouth through IMAX is a waste of time if a film is going to go wide almost immediately anyway. Yes, the exhibitor and distributor thereby maximize profit margin during the week of exclusivity but it doesn't help in any other discernible manner. What Ghost Protocol has demonstrated is that if demand is intensified prior to wide release, during a period such as the 12 days of box office or maybe the week of July 4th when consumers have massive amounts of free time, a movie can ride that box office tide to dominant results. This is the second element. There has to be a calendar configuration wherein the heightened awareness leads to larger dividends. Such a release tactic wouldn't make sense in say February or October, I wouldn't think (prove me wrong, Hollywood) but it's a sublime tactic for mid-December. I firmly believe MI4 would have done very well no matter what, but I don't believe it beats the Sherlock Holmes sequel without this particular strategy employed. Paramount Pictures brilliantly maximized Ghost Protocol's box office potential in this regard.
Who names a horse Joey, anyway?
Kim Hollis: War Horse, a Steven Spielberg film advertised as "perfect for the holidays," fell 40% to $8.7 million. Its running total is $58.6 million. What do you think of this result?
Edwin Davies: I think that War Horse is the sort of film that was always going to struggle outside of the holidays since it aims at a fairly broad audience, even if parts of it are probably too intense for very young children, and had its best days when people had enough free times to see it in addition to all the other films that they wanted to see. It never struck me as a first choice film for people, but one that people got around to once the reviews and word-of-mouth got out. Now that the adults are going back to work and the kids are back in school, they'll have to be more selective about their film choices, and a two and a half hour film about the experiences of a horse during World War One, no matter how good it is (I liked it a great deal, despite the fact it is based around a really dumb idea), is not the immediate first choice for many people.
Bruce Hall: Am I going to hell if I say this story struck me as sort of a four legged Forrest Gump? That said, Spielberg's name probably earned the film considerable cachet with those who have chosen to see it, and it really is the kind of film Hollywood's favorite son was born to make. I just think that the phrase "perfect for the holidays" does not, in most minds, include a period piece set against the backdrop of what that was once called "The War to End All Wars." However, War Horse will make its money back, and will no doubt retire to greener pastures in the highly lucrative world of Disney Home Video.
All's well that ends well. Just like a Spielberg movie.
Max Braden: Bruce sees this as Forrest Gump, I see it as a followup to Bambi or Old Yeller; I'm just thinking you can't run across a WWI battlefield so many times without stepping on a land mine, so I wouldn't necessarily want to bring some young guests, and it looks too sentimental for me to want to go see it on my own. On face value I'd expect a Spielberg holiday film to make a lot more than War Horse has, but Spielberg's last December entry - Munich - didn't make this much over its entire run.
Brett Beach: Although I am intrigued by the idea (not mine) that War Horse is actually similar to A.I. in that it's another Spielberg tale about the messiness and self-destructiveness of the human race as viewed through a non-human protagonist, I still have little to no interest in seeing it, especially with dead horsies everywhere. It looked early on as if War Horse might pull an Ali and implode after a strong first two days, but it continues to have hefty weekends. Continued Oscar talk and reasonably positive buzz could keep this alive through February and maybe eke its way to $100 million.
Reagen Sulewski: I think this is a pretty good establishment for the baseline of what Stephen Spielberg's name is worth just on its own, as I can't see a world in which this film gets the time of day if it isn't from a world-beating director like Spielberg (Michael Bay's War Horse would also have been interesting if markedly different in tone. Possibly involving aliens and robots). I mean, it's a film concept that people were mocking from day one. And yet here we are, with a moderately respectable take.
David Mumpower: Reagen is exactly right about this. I know that when War Horse's first daily tally was released, I did a doubletake and re-read to make sure I was seeing the number correctly. That $7.5 million first day total proved to be about 13% of its box office to date but that doesn't make it any less impressive. War Horse is a pricey production at $70 million, but it seems likely to make a lot of money once global revenue is included.