Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
May 1, 2012
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Pirates! Band of Misfits opened to $11.1 million in North America, good enough for second place at the box office this weekend. The Sony release had a per location average of $3,317. What do you think of this result?
Reagen Sulewski: For whatever reason, audiences don't seem to react positively to Aardman Animation, despite them being the second greatest creative force in the medium today behind Pixar. Even Chicken Run was well below the standard of the day for animation box office. Meanwhile, Ice Age is about to get its fourth movie. The phrase "I hate people" doesn't quite cover it. I'd say it's the claymation thing, but Flushed Away didn't blow out the doors. I'd say it's the lack of big name voice actors, but Ray Romano isn't really a huge name and Ice Age does fine (again, I hate people). I think it comes down to the thought that Aardman's films aren't "big" enough, epic enough, or filled with enough pop culture jokes. I worry that they're going to break down and make a Shrek.
Edwin Davies: On the one hand, this isn't too bad a result, since the film has done really well, and continues to do really well, overseas, so the budget will be covered fairly easily. On the other hand, it's a shame that the film didn't do well because it's probably the Aardman film that had the best chance of finally breaking them in America, since it manages to balance the typical Aardman Britishness with a slightly broader, equally funny sensibility. They seem to have become the film equivalent of Oasis, a band that was a phenomenon in Britain but never managed to get a foothold in the States. I'd be less worried about them making a crassly commercial film to finally have a hit than just throwing their hands up and not bothering with America anymore, which would be great for Brits, but a loss to American fans of quality animation.
Kim Hollis: I think it's an okay result. I don't really feel like any true support was given to the film in North America by the studio, and it's somewhat understandable because they didn't necessarily have to. Pirates! has made plenty of money overseas, which is where the real profit was always going to come anyway. What I do think Aardman can be proud of is the fact that they have once again made a delightful movie that will have some passionate supporters. Those people will almost assuredly recommend it to friends on DVD/Blu-ray/streaming services. In fact, I've noticed a lot of people saying they would watch it on DVD - it's just that kind of movie, I suppose. There's not any real rush to get out and see it. (With that said, it's a very charming film - great for families!)
David Mumpower: I agree with Kim that the problem the film faced domestically was apathy. Even the name change from Pirates! In an Adventure With Scientists to The Pirates! Band of Misfits demonstrates how little attention was given to the project. Rather than marketing it as a hilarious movie that has a rare level of positivity for a mainstream release, Sony ran away screaming from the concept of marketing a celebration of science as family friendly. I still haven't seen Chimpanzee, the G-rated movie we discussed last time, yet I have a difficult time imagining it as a gentler movie. Consumers constantly complain about the lack of quality family entertainment released into the market, which is why the franchise Reagen mentions, Ice Age, does so well almost by default. With Pirates, Sony has marketable subject matter that fills a niche, yet the movie is at best a modest success. A lot of money has been lost here in opportunity cost. To a larger point, I warmly recommend this movie to our readers who want to enjoy movies with their children. It's a throwback title in this regard.
A five-year engagement sounds like an elaborate ruse.
Kim Hollis: Universal's The Five-Year Engagement, a Jason Segel/Emily Blunt romantic comedy, opened to $10.6 million. Is this a good enough result for a $30 million production?
Max Braden: For me, on paper, if a romantic comedy opens under $15 million, something's gone wrong. In this case, Segel at least should be a well-enough known entity to pull in the crowds. (Blunt, on the other hand, seems to have an inverse relationship with audiences - the harder she wants to be in movies, the less interested they are.) But the bigger problem is the lack of a hook. The title alone is enough to make audiences question whether they'll be falling asleep before the climax. $10 million is about right for the finished project, but overall I think it's a letdown.
Edwin Davies: It'd be a good enough result if it weren't for the people involved. If this starred relative unknowns, was from an unproven director and producer, $11 million against that budget wouldn't be too bad. But considering that the Segel/Stoller team has produced two fairly successful films (Forgetting Sarah Marshall and The Muppets) and that Judd Apatow, a few misses aside, is a consistent hitmaker, this is not enough. For me, this failed due to opening in the wake of Think Like A Man, which no one could have expected to be the hit that it has become, but which did seem to take a lot of the potential date-night audience away. It also can't be said enough that the ads for this did not sell the concept or the humor very well. Without a killer moment for the trailer, I think people felt like they could wait to see what the word-of-mouth was, which probably won't be strong enough to give it the legs to become adequate counterprogramming against The Avengers.
Reagen Sulewski: This is definitely a troubling result more for Segel's future than for the movie itself (which should be fine with that budget). I think I agree with the idea that there just wasn't enough funny in the ads, and when your big laugh line is about "peonies,” there's probably a problem.
Kim Hollis: While I think that the movie’s performance relative to budget isn’t all that bad, I have to feel like this opening weekend is a disappointment. Segel has been a guy who can actually draw audiences, much to my continued surprise (even though I’ve always really liked him). I don’t know that I think this result should be any real cause for alarm for him, necessarily, but he definitely needs to be discerning with future projects. Of course, we know he’s funny and that he’s responsible for the screenplays for many of the films he does, so he ought to bounce back fine.
David Mumpower: I want to echo something Edwin said and explore the idea. The trailers did not sell the concept, and this is important because I consider the underlying premise of the film a winner. All of us know a few couples who seem like they have been engaged since the dawn of time. A film that explores how this could happen is a solid concept for a romantic comedy. And as we have noted, albeit in a backhanded manner, the leads are engaging people who should sell the movie if it looked good. To a lesser extent, I'm reminded of Amy Adams' bomb, Leap Year, which opened to $9.2 million in 2008. To a greater extent, I'm reminded of Jason Segel's interchangeable replacement, John Krasinksi, and Mandy Moore in License to Wed. That title opened to a modest $10.4 million but wound up with $43.8 million worth of date night compromises. Since The Five-Year-Engagement opened slightly higher than those movies, I don't see this as a nightmare result but instead a modest one with some upward potential if it shows similar legs to License to Wed. If it dies quickly like Leap Year, this is an unsuccessful project.