Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
March 5, 2012
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Dr. Seuss' The Lorax, the fourth adaptation of a children's classic from the legendary writer, opened to $70.2 million. How did Universal pull off such an impressive result? How surprised are you that this happened?
Tom Houseman: I'm maybe three percent surprised? Horton opened to $45 million four Marches ago, but that film didn't have as much love for it as Lorax, didn't have the insane marketing saturation of The Lorax, and didn't have 3-D screens to boost ticket sales. Yes, this opening is higher than expected, but this is the first new big family film in months. Nobody should have been surprised by its 4+ weekend multiplier. And unless John Carter is unexpectedly big, The Lorax will dominate until Hunger Games takes over. Let's just pray this doesn't mean that in two years we'll be seeing Lorax 2: Lorax in the City.
Reagen Sulewski: On the contrary, this is highly aberrant behaviour. Films don't get these kind of internal weekend multipliers anymore, even children's films. Horton was barely over 3, and the addition of 3-D doesn't explain this difference. Lorax beat Horton's Friday by 20%, and beat its Saturday by almost 100%. That's not an easy thing to dismiss, and is well outside of usual filmgoing patterns. I'm not sure there's an easy explanation for that. There were the tornadoes I guess, but there wasn't the same kind of effect with other films.
In general, The Lorax was well sold, and there hasn't been a more attractive looking animated film in some time, but that Saturday jump remains unexplained to me, at least to a satisfactory degree.
Edwin Davies: I'm not surprised that it opened to big numbers, but I am surprised by how big those numbers are (particularly the Saturday, which is insane). I expected this film to do well because it's based on a Dr Seuss book, and considering that even the rightly reviled Mike Myers' version of The Cat In The Hat made it to $100 million, it was fair to assume that another film based on Seuss' work would do fairly well. We've reached the point where there three or four generations have grown up either reading Dr Seuss or having Dr Seuss read to them, so his works have the kind of cross-generational appeal that is almost impossible to create without decades of goodwill. As such, a film based on The Lorax, even if it's not that great, was always going to do pretty well.
So why did it do this well? I honestly don't know. The best I can guess is that it's the first big animated film of the year - sorry, Arrietty - so there is a hint of novelty around it. Kids were probably just excited to see a cartoon, and the appeal of The Lorax probably made parents think that it wouldn't be the worst way to spend a Saturday afternoon.
Brett Beach: I think pent up demand for a high-quality pedigreed animated/family/kids film was there. Coming from the Dr. Seuss name and the director of Despicable Me, the studio helped create this. I feel like a great job was done promoting this, from the product tie-ins to the voice talent (esp Swift and Efron) selling this on the talk shows. Still, this is an astounding figure, and Saturday uptick, even with 3D figured into it.
Max Braden: That's big, bigger than I expected. I think they succeeded at least in advertising; that orange mustache was *everywhere*. Those little creatures make me think of the minions in Despicable Me, which also appeared everywhere before it opened to only $56 million in height of summer in 2010. I don't think I can say "if you release it, they will come," but combined with the huge Valentine's Day weekend, it seems like there's a lot of pent up box office money out there waiting to be spent.
Kim Hollis: I mentioned to David Mumpower a few weeks ago that as soon as we had a legitimate family film (something that is truly appropriate for all ages, that is), that it had the potential to explode. We've gone months without a real kiddie option, even with Journey 2 in theaters (I don't know that it's appropriate for all kids, really). Lorax was that film to strike a chord, allowing parents to finally take their little ones to a theater thanks to a trusted brand. Yes, I'm calling Dr. Seuss a brand, but I think it's appropriate here. I agree that the scope of the film's success is surprising, but that kids wanted to see it is not.
The answer to this question might make you sad.
Kim Hollis: Your best guess: does Pixar's upcoming Brave open better than The Lorax? Why or why not?
Tom Houseman: I would be surprised if Brave broke $70 million. For one, it has a female protagonist, which means it might not be able to hook the young boys the way that previous Pixar films did. Also, it will be coming on the heels of Snow White and the Hunstman and Madagascar 3 (when did Madagascar 2 exist?). The Lorax took advantage of a dearth of quality family entertainment, and Brave will not have that luxury. Pixar's non-sequels opens between $60 and $70 mil, although a few fall below that mark. I expect Brave to open between $50 and $60 mil, because, as we all know, girls are gross.
Tim Briody: Remove Toy Story 3 and the top Pixar opening is $70 million, which both Finding Nemo and The Incredibles reached. Pixar releases have a pretty established wheelhouse at this point and it's an obvious statement to say that while Brave will do very well, I don't think it tops The Lorax's opening weekend.
Reagen Sulewski: I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. Right now it kind of plays a bit like The Hunger Games meets The Lord of the Rings, and if you think those comparisons hurt it when combined with Pixar's track record (Cars aside), you don't know moviegoers. It's true that Pixar doesn't usually make the kind of film that's aiming for the biggest opening weekends, but if you look back at their earlier films, they often weren't sold all that well. Some of the Toy Story trailers were horrible, for instance. But Brave is already out of the gate with a great little featurette. I think they're back on their game and feeling their oats. The summer release date does not hurt that at all, either.
Edwin Davies: I think there's a pretty good chance that it could open higher than The Lorax. As Tim points out, once you take Toy Story 3 out of the equation, there is a well-established level that Pixar films consistently reach. However, films that have premises that are far harder sells than Brave's - namely WALL-E and Up, which opened to $63 million and $68 million, respectively - have managed to fall within that wheelhouse despite their seemingly uncommercial natures. Plus, both of those films were released at a time when 3D was far less prevalent than it is now, so that could help Brave break through into the $70 - 80 million range.
Brett Beach: What's the cliche: people going to movies gets people to go to movies? Coming off the biggest February ever (more people to see trailers) and with the potential heavy hitters spread out fairly evenly over this year, could create a climate where a lot of potentially strong opening weekends get elevated to even more phantasmic heights. I have already confessed that I can't read The Hunger Games well enough to be certain in an estimate for it, but I will says I don't see Brave's opening weekend beating The Lorax (though I think its final gross will).
Max Braden: To me, Brave looks like a cross between Tangled and How to Train Your Dragon. Dragon opened to just under $44 million in March 2010 and Tangled needed the Thanksgiving weekend to open at $69 million. Brave doesn't have the cute little animal things that will appeal to the kids who went to see The Lorax. It might be a tight race for the overall gross, but I don't see Brave beating the opening weekend take.
Kim Hollis: I don't think that we can really compare this to Tangled and How to Train Your Dragon, even with slight similarities. This is Pixar, a trusted brand (like Dr. Seuss) and that automatically elevates the box office. With that said, I agree that Brave may open lower than The Lorax, for reasons that were mentioned. The female protagonist may skew the demographic some, and I also wonder if the performance and quality of Cars 2 didn't leave some folks who were previously proponents of the studio to take a more "wait and see" approach. I don't think it's going to be significantly less, but it's really going to depend upon the marketing moving forward.