Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
September 25, 2012
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: The Trouble With the Curve, a baseball movie featuring Clint Eastwood, Amy Adams and Justin Timberlake, debuted with $12.2 million this weekend. How should Warner Bros. feel about this result?
Edwin Davies: They should probably feel sort of okay about it, though they should reserve judgment for further down the road. Whilst a step down from Moneyball (a film it has been compared to and contrasted against numerous times over the last few days) and Eastwood's last starring role, Gran Torino, this strikes me as the sort of film that will play well with older audiences over the coming weeks. When all is said and done, it might be able to turn a decidedly decent opening into a solid final total if the word-of-mouth is good. That would require audience reaction to be stronger than the critical reaction, but even if it doesn't turn into a Hope Springs-style success, it should still do fairly well.
Bruce Hall: If not for a certain chair, I wonder if we might have had a straight up three-way tie for first place this week? We'll never know, but this is the movie most people expected to win the weekend and since it didn't, I suppose that's the first thing you really have to consider. The second is the roughly $30 million budget. But Clint Eastwood commands an older audience, and out of the top three finishers this weekend this one might end up having the best legs. Not a strong opening, but hardly a debacle. That distinction goes to the next film we'll discuss.
Matthew Huntley: I would think the WB execs are feeling disappointed, and rightly so. Trouble with the Curve has ample star power, topical subject matter (especially for this time of year), and it had the most buzz going into the weekend. I guess it just goes to show, as with any sports game, that box office results can't always be called. Still, I think Edwin is right to compare it to Hope Springs, which went on to gross nearly four times its opening weekend, and it was vying for the same audience. If Trouble follows the same path, we could see it get as high as $50 million, give or take, which is not bad, but probably well below expectations.
Felix Quinonez: Although I don't think this was ever going to be a huge opener, it still seems like a bit of a letdown. Most people, myself included, thought this would win the weekend so coming in third has to be a bit disappointing. I was really expecting it to open at the same level or at least close to Moneyball. It certainly had the star power to do it. It's true its target audience leads us to think it might have stronger legs than the other openers but I wonder if its weak reviews will negate that a bit.
Jason Barney: I'd agree this has to be seen as a bit of a miss, at least in the first few days. This was a totally winnable weekend, and when marketing the weekends two and three of a film are taken into account, I doubt we will see too many ads saying "The #3 film in America!!!" That said, Eastwood does have a certain amount of draw, and this film could play well over the next couple of weeks. Another factor may be the type of folks who see this. Perhaps the daily numbers will be fairly strong, giving it solid holds, due to the older crowd going during the day. One final thing that might come into play is the younger sports crowd, who know about all of Eastwood's westerns and status, deciding to go and see a baseball film in the middle of the playoff races. The expansion of the wildcard has helped a number of cities remain in the hunt for a post season spot, and it wouldn't surprise me if this became a date movie, of sorts, for some young couples. Not saying it will break records, but I wouldn't be surprised if this helps it earn a few more dollars.
Tim Briody: This feels like a slight disappointment considering all involved. I love Amy Adams and as much as I want to hate Justin Timberlake I can't because he's actually a very good actor and legitimately funny as well. I don't know if it's because Trouble With the Curve doesn't feel like a movie that should come out during the run up to post-season baseball (a la Moneyball last year) and instead would be a better fit during spring training. Of course, we can all speculate whether Clint Eastwood's speech at the Republican National Convention worked against it to a degree, but I honestly don't think that was a factor. I think the biggest reason this wasn't much bigger is they put a baseball movie out during football season.
Max Braden: If Eastwood's performance at the RNC convention flipped a switch in people's minds from respect to pity, it's quite possible that it tipped the balance from people going to the theater to staying home. Of course, if your movie's on the fence in audience minds, you've got bigger problems. The movie appeared to me as trying to hard to be a heartwarmer, with narrowly drawn characters. I don't think the movie pulled in any more than it earned.
David Mumpower: At the end of the day, what we need to keep in mind is that this is a baseball movie. This genre has never been known for breakout opening weekend performances. This is what is impressive about Moneyball. It is the second best debut ever for a baseball film behind (I swear to God) The Benchwarmers. Not adjusting for inflation, this opening is the seventh best of all time for a baseball movie. I don't mean to be glib but this opening is what it is.
I don't want to debate the political angle of this since that's an arguable unknown. What I will point out is that this performance is also in line with Eastwood's last five movies save for the glaring exception. Flags of Our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima, Changeling and Invictus all earned between $33 million and $38 million. Gran Torino, the outlier, grossed $148.1 million. So Trouble with the Curve is in line with the majority his recent releases.
On an entirely different note, I am an Atlanta Braves fan and whether intentional or not, this movie mirrors the real life of Paul Snyder. He joined the Braves in 1981 and finally retired for good after the most recent draft at the age of 77 (five years younger than Eastwood, by the way). He is the scout who discovered players such as Tom Glavine, David Justice, Chipper Jones and Javy Lopez. I am permanently indebted to Snyder for what he has meant to the Atlanta Braves and while this movie feels like a gift from Clint Eastwood directly to me, I'm going to be livid if the story isn't very good.
Hang your head in shame.
Kim Hollis: Dredd, the adaptation of the comic book (which was previously done in 1995 with Sylvester Stallone), opened to $6.3 million even with the benefit of 3D showings. What went wrong here?
Brett Beach: If ever there was a case of "Great reviews can't convince people to give certain genres a chance", then this is it. The reviews were stellar. It seemed as if it was marketed heavily and appropriately to create the right kind of awareness. I doubt many people in the potential audience held the 1995 Stallone/Rob Schneider version against this one. Is it possible this is a grim character, a la Jonah Hex or The Punisher, that just doesn't lend itself easily to the higher box office levels? I had no interest until a few days ago but with folks I respect weighing in positively, I might try to catch the 2D on the cheap - in about three weeks.
Edwin Davies: I think it's a combination of factors, first and foremost of which is that it's a hard-R rated science fiction film, and there are precious few of those that turn into huge successes. It's a shame that this is the case, but it is, and it would take a really special film to overcome that hurdle. By most accounts, Dredd might have been that film, but that brings us to the second important, possibly fatal, factor: Sylvester Stallone. Whilst Judge Dredd is rightly regarded as an iconic character in Britain, where he originated in 2000 AD, American audiences know him primarily, possibly solely, from that POS 1995 Stallone vehicle, and no matter how much distance Dredd puts between it and its forebear, that is a stink that it was always going to shake off. This is especially true since it's indicative of the general lack of awareness of the character himself. Dredd's not a known quantity, and in the few cases where he is known it's for all the wrong reasons.
Bruce Hall: This is what happens when you let the fanboy demographic drive the creative process. Stallone's version did not fail because Dredd took off his helmet, it failed because it was a horrible film. I think the problem with the 2012 version was that despite being a pretty decent movie, I am having trouble seeing a target demographic outside the ComiCon set. I have to agree that despite being solid, gritty and action packed, this one just didn't have much of an audience. The R rating made it a better movie, but severely curtailed the potential audience. Even with the eventual foreign take, Dredd is still going to be a dud.
Matthew Huntley: Unfortunately for Dredd, I think its good buzz/reviews arrived too late to the table. It wasn't until earlier in the week that I started hearing how good this movie was, and then Saturday, when friends of mine actually substantiated it. This all came as a surprise given how lousy the trailer made it seem. It's a shame that's what most moviegoers go off to decide whether or not to see something.
Jason Barney: I was shocked that this one opened so low. A $6.3 million opening weekend is nothing but a disaster, even if the reviews are good. The only thing Lionsgate can hope for from American theaters is exceptional holds, but even that isn't going to matter much. This film could (it won't) get a 10% drop next week and it would still be a long way from the goal line. International receipts are going to have to be huge for this one, just for it to draw even. Again, I am really amazed at how low this opening is.
Tim Briody: Judge Dredd is still a bit of a punchline nearly 20 years later. It seemed to carry over to the reboot this weekend. It'll probably do boffo overseas and maybe even on Blu-Ray but, well, not at the box office domestically.
Max Braden: The trailers for this made it look like another unnecessary, unrequested remake like Conan The Barbarian and Total Recall. Hiding your lead behind a mask isn't advisable, though in this case most audiences probably wouldn't place Karl Urban until you specify Star Trek. Plus, I can't be the only one who negatively associated his gruff delivery with Christian Bale's overly aggressive Batman growl. Still, sub $10 million is a bit of a surprise.
David Mumpower: In addition to the other correct thoughts stated here, I believe that there are some concepts that simply cannot appeal to mainstream audiences. Judge Dredd has the same issue as The Punisher in that the character is not relatable to most people. These are ruthless killers, at least in matters wherein they believe they are right. Even acknowledging that, however, this is the type of performance that prevents the employees involved from ever working on an expensive project again. An element of trust is lost when a film fails this dramatically. This is another title that failed the laugh test and those bombs are more difficult to justify down the road. There was never a moment where any of us believed, "That Dredd reboot is going to be popular!" Any time we say that in the wake of a disastrous result, it indicates that mistakes were made at the inception of a project.
The worst part here is that the one issue where everyone excelled is that Dredd is a good movie. Contrast that to say Catwoman or Punisher: War Zone. Dredd deserved a better fate and yet it was never going to get one.
There are so many things this movie could be mistaken for.
Kim Hollis: The Master expanded from five to 877 locations, and earned $4.4 million over the weekend. How do you see this movie playing out over the long term with regards to box office as well as awards contention?
Brett Beach: Although it may seem that TWC jumped the gun in going from one of the top limited debuts ever to nearly 800 screens without a little more platforming, I think it was the best choice for what definitely (based on what I know) is not a crowdpleaser like the last two year's Best Picture Oscar winners released by the studio: The King's Speech and The Artist, and wouldn't benefit from three to four more weeks of careful handling. There are going to be a lot of quality films vying for notice this fall. My early impression as of now is that the races won't become clear for quite sometime. I think the audience for this will be limited, great as it may be, and the final tally probably will not approach the $40 million heights of There Will be Blood, even with late year plaudits and re-releases to capture the curious who had been on the fence. Unless of course, there is an "I drink your milkshake" parallel about to go viral (and hopefully not before I get a chance to see this later this week).
Edwin Davies: I think that the film will probably do very well as far as nominations are concerned since P.T. Anderson is one of the most acclaimed and respected directors of his generation, to the extent that whenever he puts out a film (this is only the third he's made since 2002, and his sixth overall) it's an event amongst the arthouse set. However, his films tend to be pretty challenging, which is great artistically, but maybe not so much commercially. Case in point: I think that Punch-Drunk Love is probably one of the ten best American films of the last decade, yet even with one of the most consistent box office draws in history in the lead it still failed to make much of an impact. By most accounts The Master is probably his most dense and difficult films to date, so that might limit its initial chances of breaking out. If, however, the film garners the sort of nominations that I expect it will (Picture, Director and the major acting categories seem likely, whilst Screenplay seems a shoe-in) then that could give it a huge boost further down the line. If it can keep chugging along nicely over the coming weeks, then gets a lot of attention nearer the awards season, then I could easily see The Master eclipsing There Will Be Blood, though probably not by a huge amount.
Matthew Huntley: It comes as a surprise the TWC would choose September of all months to release what they obviously felt was their primary awards contender. It's just too early. As good as The Master is on many levels, its roll-out strategy will likely hurt its box office and awards nominations/wins. Additionally, audience response hasn't been as kind as many anticipated (the movie ultimately lacks a "wow" factor), so I really can't see it inching past $30 million when all is said and done, if that.
Reagen Sulewski: Something that Moonlight Kingdom showed us earlier this year is that a more limited, quirky release can dominate if it's the primary one out there at a given time. Weinstein was smart to get The Master out ahead of the curve on this and establish it in the marketplace. It should have a good few weeks to run by itself before the other prestige releases start tumbling out, and could make a good run at $50 million like Wes Anderson's film.
David Mumpower: What I admire about Paul-Thomas Anderson is that he creates movies for himself and if others appreciate them, that's great. If they don't, he doesn't seem distraught over his eclectic work failing to penetrate the mainstream. I love Boogie Nights as a '90s movie the way that Edwin loves Punch-Drunk Love. I also feel deep admiration for Punch-Drunk Love, which claims one of the most novel payoffs in the history of cinema. And I am squarely in the LOVED IT! category for the admittedly impenetrable Magnolia. Having said all of this, even I find Anderson's films too odd at times. At the risk of shocking some of my cohorts, I still haven't watched There Will Be Blood yet because I could tell from the trailers that it wasn't my type of film.
With regards to The Master, a lot of my friends who are regular people rather than the indie lovers who seem to comprise the body of BOP's readers really disliked this film. I noted two different "We walked out" comments on Facebook, three if we count a stranger's reply in the thread. We're seeing metrics to support this at sites such as Rotten Tomatoes. The Master is 86/84% fresh among critics/top critics yet only 66% of movie goers liked it. It's closer to House at the End of the Street and Resident Evil: Retribution than to End of Watch and Dredd. I have legitimate concerns that The Master will not prove mainstream enough to be a serious competitor during awards season. How often do inscrutable films win?