Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
August 13, 2012
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: The Bourne Legacy, Universal's attempt to reboot the franchise with a cheaper actor, opened to $38.1 million. What is your evaluation of this performance?
Jason Barney: I think it is good opening, although I wish it would have been higher. I have heard reviews are mixed, which is unfortunate, as the Bourne series is one of those under the radar franchises that gets a ton of respect. For example, BOP compared it to the Bond franchise a few times this week. There is a certain status that goes along with that sort of comparison. I know this one was never pegged to reach the level of Matt Damon's movies, but still, they were the definitive spy thrillers of the last decade. Thus, a fourth film with a new actor is significant. I have not seen it yet, but I have to admit I am pulling for it. The Bourne films were very action oriented, but they went so far beyond explosions and senseless violence. In my mind they are near classics, so I appreciate the studio rolling the dice on another movie.
$38 million isn't great, but it is solid. Taking the weekend's top spot is noteworthy, but it will be very interesting to see how this one does going forward. I'll probably see it this week.
Matthew Huntley: Just like The Amazing Spider-Man from a month ago, Bourne's opening proves about two-thirds of audiences are still willing to pay for their beloved franchises, despite new filmmakers and actors filling old roles. Like Jason, I haven't seen the movie yet, so I can't say whether I think it's a career-making role for Jeremy Renner or if it's going to have strong legs based on my own opinion (the critical and audience thus far suggests they'll be so-so), but I would like it to do well, too, because it's been a solid, enduring franchise these past 10 years and it could likely continue to deliver the same kind of entertainment.
I think a comparison to James Bond is appropriate and I wonder why a different actor can't play the title character just like Mr. Bond. Do each of Bourne's adventures have to connect to an overall story line? I'm thinking each film going forward could be independent of the others.
A $38 million opening is nothing to write home about, to be sure, but it's a good start for a movie that cost roughly $120 million to make, and if it can double its budget with international numbers, I think we'll see another Bourne movie sooner rather than later.
Reagen Sulewski: While I understand the Spider-Man comparison, this is a little different situation. We're not taking a series that floundered in its last outing and trying to rejuvenate it - we're instead taking a franchise whose star got bored with it and fleshing it out. It's like they said "Oh, so you liked that story... we have some... other stories in this world, would you like to hear them?" And a significant portion of the people who heard that question said "yes," which indicates a large trust in the brand and some hope that it might survive. While the Bourne series does have some life outside the movie world, it's minuscule compared to Spider-Man's, and getting a respectable summer opening weekend is a start.
Edwin Davies: Reagan's absolutely right that there is a pretty big difference between the Bourne and Spidey reboots. Whilst Spider-Man 3 burned up a lot of public goodwill towards that series and wound up the least successful of Raimi's trilogy, The Bourne Ultimatum was the exact opposite: it was the most financially successful, it was as critically acclaimed as the first two, and it was popular with audiences, working as a suitable capper to a great trilogy. This drop-off, to me, represents a general nervousness on the part of fans of the series to commit to the new version until they know it will be worth it. As such, I get the feeling that word-of-mouth is going to be crucial to the ultimate success of The Bourne Legacy, much as it was for the first film back in 2002, especially since, even though they went for a new, probably cheaper actor, the film cost more than any of the original films did. That two-thirds showed up anyway is a testament to the strength of the Bourne name, but a name only goes so far: the film itself will have to determine whether this was a worthwhile reboot or not.
Felix Quinonez: The opening actually exceeded my expectations but it's going to have to have great legs just to match its budget and that's even before we factor in advertising costs. Also the "B" cinemascore is not very encouraging. I'm sure that Universal was expecting a drop off box office wise so I'm surprised that they didn't scale back on the budget. Of course there's the overseas market to consider but if Renner isn't exactly a big draw here, that's even more so overseas. I think the opening sounds nice but I'd say the verdict is still out on whether or not this was a successful franchise reboot.
Shalimar Sahota: Kinda falls in line with expectations to me. No way was this going to reach the heights of The Bourne Ultimatum (the tagline reeks of desperation), but for a sideshow with a new character, I'd say it's a decent result. Though I'm a little surprised at how much Universal spent on this risk. I feel that the issue with this new iteration is that it lacks the whole "Who is Jason Bourne?" angle. Renner's new character Aaron Cross is not suffering from amnesia, he doesn't need to remember anything, nor is he uncovering some deep hidden secret. Stripped to the core, the film is essentially just a long chase film, though admittedly a well done one. Also as awful as it sounds, keeping Bourne in the title for The Bourne Legacy (even though he's not really in it) was a good and somewhat necessary move.
David Mumpower: In terms of revenue analysis, this is right in line with my opening weekend expectations, falling a bit short with actuals of $38.1 million rather than the original $40 million studio estimate. I have always maintained that the overall box office of the movie, particularly the overseas gross, will provide the final determination for its viability. With most titles, I believe the first three days provides the cursory amount of data needed to create long term projections. With a reboot such as this, I believe that Felix has touched upon the key with his mention of the mediocre B Cinemascore. That score reflects apathy toward the title rather than satisfaction. I realize that we have been trained to believe that a B is above average. For Cinemascores, this is not the case. Anything below a B+ is worrisome.
Reagen mentions that this situation is different from Spider-Man due to the size gap between the target audiences. He is absolutely correct in this regard. The Amazing Spider-Man is a massive disappointment by earning more than any Bourne movie ever has in North America. The flip side of this, however, is more important. Spider-Man remains a beloved character in pop culture independent of any one movie's performance just as Batman survived the abominations of Mr. Freeze in Batman & Robin and the Catwoman movie. The Bourne franchise has been predicated upon impeccable quality. The Bourne Identity became the top DVD of 2003 due to the movie's excellence. This created the buzz for The Bourne Supremacy and the quality of that title enhanced the opening weekend of The Bourne Ultimatum. This $38.1 million result is in part a sign of respect consumers have for Bourne as a brand. A mediocre movie damages that brand in a way that The Amazing Spider-Man could not harm Spider-Man as a character. I want to see further results before I finalize my opinion here. From what I have seen thus far, The Bourne Legacy will earn plenty enough money worldwide to justify its existence but Bourne (Fast) Five is in some trouble.
Maybe they should have done a Spidey vs. Bourne project.
Kim Hollis: With the opening of The Bourne Legacy and The Amazing Spider-Man at the end of its domestic run, do you think these were worthwhile endeavors for their studios?
Jason Barney: I saw The Amazing Spider-Man a few weeks back, and enjoyed it for the most part. When I first heard Spider-Man was going in a different direction than the first three films, I didn't think it was a good idea. Not that I am a comic book crazed freaky fan, but it is sad to have to move on from what worked so well. The first Spider-Man was good. Spider-Man 2 was one of the best comic book films ever. Spider-Man 3 was a disaster, but it still made money for the studio. That saddest thing about moving in a new direction is the end of something that was very good, for the most part. Was The Amazing Spider-Man a bomb? No. Did it disappoint? Not really. Was it a worthwhile? Sure. It wasn't a "great" movie like Spider-Man 2, but most films aren't.
Same goes for the new Bourne film. It would be really nice if Matt Damon were still on board, but he is not. Do I love the franchise? Absolutely. Can it survive with Damon not in there? I hope so. Is it a worthwhile endeavor? Yes, absolutely. I know there is a little bit of negative karma around changing something that has worked, but if something is viable enough to be a franchise, changes are bound to happen.
Matthew Huntley: Yes and no. Yes on the level that both are proving to be successful payoffs for the studios and audiences are generally responding positively to them. No on the level that the studios aren't willing to try anything new. I'm personally growing tired of franchise movies constantly saving Hollywood's behind, and while I understand it's a business and something has to keep it afloat, studios should take more risks with fresher ideas. They all don't have to have monstrous budgets, either. All I ask is for something different, but given the success of movies like The Avengers, Ted and Spider-Man (all good movies), I'm afraid we're going to get more of the same.
Edwin Davies: Both films would probably have been much more worthwhile ventures if they cost less to produce. I mean, The Amazing Spider-Man cost more to produce than The Avengers and that film was the culmination of four years of build-up coupled with salaries for some fairly established names and Mark Ruffalo. I know that how much an actor gets paid doesn't necessary inflate the total budget of a film by that much (except in the case of Adam Sandler: I refuse to believe the $70 million reported budget for Jack & Jill went on anything other than lining his pockets and those of his friends) but if you're starting afresh with new talent, then keeping costs down is only good sense, since you can't expect the audience to turn up for the new guys in the same numbers they did for the old ones. Thee are too few historical precedents of that happening. As a result, Spider-Man winds up seeming like a damp squib despite taking in north of $250 million because it cost so damn much. The same is also likely to be true of The Bourne Legacy, albeit with lower numbers.
All of this is rendered somewhat moot by the fact that these films aren't really meant to make all the money on their own, but to set things up for future installments. In that respect, both look like they will just about do, but you can't help but feel that money was left on the table since in both instances the studios rushed into rebooting their franchises and delivered films that were inferior to those that went before. That suggests to me that neither franchise has a hope of reaching the heights their predecessors achieved going forward, so even if they do make money, they won't make the sort of money they could have had the films been handled better.
Felix Quinonez: I think that The Amazing Spider-Man was definitely a success. Most importantly (in my opinion) it did a great job of erasing the memory of Spider-Man 3 and it's starting to rebuild the reputation of the franchise. Box office wise it's already approaching $700 million worldwide. Also I think people forget that when it comes to comic book movies, from a business point of view, the films themselves can be seen as commercials for the merchandise. A character like Spider-Man has so much earning potential that the movie is almost a secondary earner. When you factor in all of the merchandise, tie-ins, and eventually the home video market, The Amazing Spider-Man will be a big winner.
As for The Bourne Legacy, as I said before, I thin the jury's still out on this one. Obviously this franchise doesn't have as much ancillary earning potential so we'll have to see how well it holds in the coming weeks and how well it performs overseas.
David Mumpower: This is a debate of art versus commerce. To a distributor, the discussion boils down to the finite terms of how much the movie earns as opposed to the financial outlay. Public corporations are driven by short term decisions about stock pricing. Whether a brand gets damaged long term is a problem to be addressed down the line and probably by an entirely different set of employees. The ungodly turnover at movie studios forces the money now focus. Nobody here will argue that The Amazing Spider-Man or The Bourne Legacy is a financial loser, definitely not in the same way that Battleship and John Carter were. Before people start emailing to point out the global totals for these films, I remind you that Disney has already taken a write-off for John Carter that cannot be returned while Battleship is still not in the black since overseas box office revenue brings a significantly lower revenue return per purchase. With regards to New Spider-Man and Fake Bourne, the good news for me/bad news for content owners is that many fewer consumers are watching these reboots than the originals. At least there is some discretion being demonstrated by consumers. Still, 70-80% of a whole lot is still a lot. Financially, these gambits have succeeded to varying degrees.
Spider-Man and Fake Bourne as art, on the other hand, are examples of milking a name brand in order to take money from the pockets of consumers. There were no new ideas presented in either movie to justify their existences. The Bourne Legacy re-examines events from The Bourne Ultimatum while attempting to introduce a new character. The Amazing Spider-Man is a variation on the same story told only ten years ago. Let's put this last statement into perspective. If the content rights owners of Casablanca had behaved similarly, telling a variation of the same story every ten years, Rick and Ilsa would be on their eighth version this winter. And this is the direction Hollywood is stubbornly heading right now. Twilight isn't finished yet but somehow everybody already knows that plans are underway to tell the story again. This is not Sparta but this IS madness.
Content owners are testing the limits of the short attention span generation in a provocative but sickening way. Is the endeavor worthwhile? I never blame the con artist running the game of Three-card Monte. I do think less of the marks who are persuaded into playing.
Max Braden: I don't think it was worth it for Spider-Man, because nobody was asking for it and the story doesn't go anywhere new. I do think it was worth it for Bourne, because it fleshes out the story and the fanbase welcomed it. Plus there is the story opportunity for a Bourne 5 with both Damon and Renner.