Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
July 16, 2012
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Ice Age: Continental Drift, the fourth film in the franchise, opened to $46.6 million. Is this a good enough result in your estimation?
Edwin Davies: I'd say so, since it's within the wheelhouse of the series to date, which only really broke out once before when the second film, The Meltdown, opened to $68 million in 2006. The first film opened to an almost identical number to Continental Drift in 2002, though with 3D prices and inflation it sold more tickets, whilst the third one opened to $66 million over five days in 2009, which suggests that demand for the films had already fallen off somewhat by its second sequel. For the fourth film in a franchise to retain a decent amount of the opening from its predecessor has to be considered a positive, especially since most series run out of steam by that point.
Now, whether or not the film will earn a similar amount to the last two, which earned $195 million (The Meltdown) and $196 million (Dawn of the Dinosaurs) remains to be seen, and I think that it'll struggle since it's coming into an already pretty packed market place for animated films and will, along with pretty much everything else, get flattened by the Bat-Tank next weekend. However, that probably won't matter too much, since the budgets for the Ice Age films are pretty frugal by Hollywood animation standards, so even if it makes 20 of 30 million less than its predecessors, it will still cover its budget domestically. And, of course, the real money for Continental Drift lies overseas, where the Ice Age series has always been more of a phenomenon than it ever has been domestically. It's already earned more than enough to justify at least one or two more films in a series that no one seems to care all that much about, which has got to be considered a win.
Bruce Hall: Could this be the inevitable onset of sequel fatigue? Maybe, but although this result is significantly less than what we saw from the third installment, to even still be in the same range as the first two makes this good, but not great news. Still, it's enough to ensure that this is probably not the last we'll see of Ice Age.
Felix Quinonez: The last movie made almost $700 million overseas and this one has already collected about $340 million overseas. I'd say anything made domestically is just icing on the very profitable cake. So I'd say the fact that it opened in line with the last entry is very good news for them.
Jason Barney: I'd like to branch off from something that Edwin mentioned, and that has to do with the cost of a film. The creative forces behind this one will be smiling, regardless of the result from here, as it is not going to be a "miss." If it cost $100 million to make, they have come in on the first weekend and already made half their budget back. If people don't like the overseas receipts, fine, limit the discussion to just domestic total. Almost half the investment has already been made back. They are four or five days into the release.
I will be really interested to see how this film does during the week, if the day-to-day holds will be strong. I am also of the mind that this film may not get whacked by Batman in a few days. I could be wrong, but this might actually be great counter programming in the sense that families with young kids are not going to take their three, four, and five year old little ones to see Batman. (or well, I hope not) We will see how it all plays out, but if Ice Age holds well through the week, I don't think weekend two will feature that big of a drop.
Kim Hollis: I agree that this is an acceptable result. Ice Age makes all the money Fox needs it to, and it can boast all those overseas dollars as a bonus. The Ice Age series is considerably less expensive than anything Pixar or DreamWorks is making, and it rises to make a profit much more quickly. I do believe that we're seeing a downward trend, though, and I'm not sure that Fox and Blue Sky ought to make another one.
Reagen Sulewski: I mentioned the good fortune this franchise has had with a couple of its entries in my forecast, but failed to account for the fact that there really isn't anything special about this outing versus the first and third. And really, it does seem like the plot for this one goes a little far into the ridiculous zone, bearing in mind that we're talking about prehistoric talking animals.
However, there's an alternate point of view, that any animated franchise that makes it to a fourth film and can still be considered pretty profitable has won just by getting there. The gaudy international numbers don't mean as much as it looks like they do, but they're still mind-bogglingly impressive, and I'm sure have Fox doing a shrugging motion towards the domestic box office.
David Mumpower: Edwin is right about the consistent openings, which means Bruce is unfortunately wrong. This is in fact an improvement of 12% from the last movie, which managed $41.7 million. The second film is the one that blows the curve at $68.0 million. $46.6 million as an opening weekend is best described as predictable. There is no reason to fake enthusiasm about it, but it's right in line with the franchise expectations. We oftentimes discuss how important the domestic revenue is for a project, and that is true 95% of the time. Ice Age has proven itself to be the exception for the reason Felix mentions. Its North American/international revenue split is so dramatic that this is the rare project that renders Hollywood's backyard irrelevant. There really isn't another franchise like this right now.
How about another Pirates of the Caribbean movie?
Kim Hollis: As a movie lover, how do you feel about titles such as Journey 2: The Mysterious Island, Wrath of the Titans and Ice Age: Continental Drift? Do you mind when poorly received films are given sequels or do you deem them as necessary to fund projects featuring original ideas?
Edwin Davies: I generally don't go to watch sequels to films I didn't like that much in the first place, so on one level, I don't care all that much either way that these films are being made. On the other hand, I do mind that it seems as if the profits from unnecessary sequels are going towards funding more unnecessary sequels, the proof of which is the sheer number of sequels that don't need to happen being made versus the number of genuinely original films that get major studio backing. It just seems to me that the success of these films perpetuates more of them. If Wrath of the Titans had been a bigger hit, I don't think the money from it would have gone to an original idea, but towards prepping a third Titans film.
Bruce Hall: I guess it would be disingenuous to try and say that it doesn't bother me when films we all know were roundly panned receive sequels. But I also know that the entertainment industry is a business, and one where where pure artists and pure businessmen coexist side by side, each with a responsibility to deliver a profitable product. Otherwise, nobody has a job. Each of the three movies Kim mentioned was a follow-up to a film that a lot of people just plain hated, but they all made a lot of money anyway. And if a film lends itself well to a franchise, and makes a sizable enough profit they will keep making it again and again until the well runs dry. And then, at least once more after that just to be sure. It isn't always art, but the world needs entertainment and most of us just can't afford to look away.
Felix Quinonez: It doesn't bother me. If a movie doesn't look interesting to me I just don't watch it. To each their own and at the end of the day, it is a business.
Jason Barney: I don't mind. It is part of the business. Sometimes you accept a film just may not be great, but you go ahead and see it anyway. I did that recently with Wrath of the Titans, and was actually presently surprised. Same with MIB3. I know that not every movie experience can be "awesome," and just want to be distracted.
I agree with your point on the Transformers franchise, though. I wish that would just go away.
Shalimar Sahota: Difficult. I guess it would be nice to know that the profits from such films are going towards original ideas, but who is to say for sure? Studios don't really make such films thinking, "Hey, lets fast track Wrath of the Titans, and if it makes enough money then we can finally afford to make Strippers in a Mosque." In most cases the studios are going to greenlight anything so long as they felt it was going to make money. Even if the original was a poor film, so long as it made enough money then a sequel just happens to be an easy idea with a built in audience. If the first film made $400 million, and they know that they can make at least $300 million on a sequel, then why not?
Reagen Sulewski: First off, I think that Journey sequel title is a crime against the English language. I agree that it's a complicated issue, in that a lot of these successes help smaller films - although that appears to be more in theory than in practice, since all we seem to be getting are sequels. I do wish studios would try harder to be original, not just as a movie watcher, but also as someone who write about movies. It's getting more and more difficult to find interesting things to say about these soulless productions.
David Mumpower: My prevailing thought on the subject is that I will never understand why sequels are treated with such disrespect by the studios who covet those dollars. I'll go off the board here and mention Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, a Marvel property that didn't need a sequel per se. Had some effort been placed into the project, however, it could have fed off of the building buzz for The Avengers, catapulting it higher on the box office food chain. Instead, audiences were given a garbage movie, and this sort of laziness offends me. If these movies are intended to be cash cows capable of sustaining a distributor during weaker periods when original fare may struggle, why not maximize profit by placing a sustained focus on quality? Better movies hold better in theaters, sell more on home video and play longer on television since they are beloved. There is tremendous opportunity cost revenue loss each and every time a movie such as Ice Age: Continental Drift or Men in Black 3 fails to satisfy audiences.