Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
October 3, 2012
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Won't Back Down earned a pathetic $2.6 million from 2,515 locations, good for a location average of just $1,074. What went wrong here?
Edwin Davies: I can only speak for myself, but this film struck me as painfully generic, with little to distinguish it from a thousand other vaguely inspirational films about inspirational teachers being all inspirational. It also didn't help that hardly any critics had anything good to say about it, and this is exactly the sort of film that needs solid reviews to get people interested. There was nothing special about Won't Back Down other than its ability to make me hear Tom Petty songs in my head, and that's not enough to sell a movie to the public.
Matthew Huntley: Edwin more or less said everything that had to be said. Besides its generic premise, though, it also had a generic title. Won't Back Down? Really? True story or not, the trailer made this one seem more obnoxious than anything and all too easy to predict how it would transpire from start to finish. Movies like this are what TV is for.
Reagen Sulewski: It's kind of like that old trope from sitcoms where it's "Hey kids, let's put on a show!" Except here it's "Hey, let's put on a school!" I don't quite know who that's entertaining to, and very few people are looking to be preached at for two hours at $12 a ticket. Maybe in 3D, who knows.
Max Braden: I have the biggest crush on Maggie Gyllenhaal ever and I didn't realize she had a movie open this weekend? What's wrong with this picture? Let's not blame it on the picture, let's blame it on the marketing.
Felix Quinonez: I think the marketing is definitely partially at fault here. If it weren't for this site, I don't think I would have even been aware of it. But you can't overlook how generic - and terrible - this looks. I feel like they were going out of their way to make this look bland. Even the title is completely generic. So I think it's kind of a snowball effect with marketing, the way it looks, and judging by the reviews, the actual quality of the movie all at blame.
David Mumpower: This title has unexpected similarities to last year's Altas Shrugged Part I. As Sean Collier chronicled the other day, a billionaire with a stated position on privatized education. He became a patron of this film, which created a good news/bad news situation for Hollywood. Studios try to pay as little as possible for their movies via tax credits, corporate shells and especially wealthy financiers. So Won't Back Down was a low risk investment. The film also features a point of view that most people in the industry dislike and it's a hot button political issue as well. This creates a multitude of marketing challenges. The lackluster quality due to the rigorously preachy nature of the subject matter is also problematic. In the end, there wasn't much of an advertising push with the end result being a failed project. People get plenty enough politics every time they read the internet. They are not going to spend their hard earned money to watch a polemic unless it is heavily hyped and preaching to the choir. Won't Back Down simply does not fit those parameters.
Hitting all the right notes
Kim Hollis: Universal chose to do a platform release for Pitch Perfect, debuting the film in only 335 locations in advance of its planned wide release next weekend. It earned $5.1 million and garnered a $15,371 venue average. Why was this strategy so successful? What are your expectations for the movie moving forward?
Jason Barney: It appears to have been very smart by the studio. The per venue count was the best in the top 10, and earning $5 million to only 335 theaters is pretty impressive. I have not seen it yet, but these numbers seem to indicate that the soft spell is over for the box office. With Hotel Transylvania doing so well this weekend and Looper in line for some impressive holds, you wonder just how far word-of-mouth will propel this one.
From a different perspective, the folks at Universal have to be happy they did something right, aside from Ted. Their recent track record has been pretty awful going back to the summer, and you have to wonder what sort of shape the studio was in. The Five Year Engagement didn't make back the $30 million budget domestically. It had to rely on foreign box office for earnings, but even they were not that strong. Then they had Battleship with a $209 million budget, which only earned $65 million stateside. The international revenue was much better, but you have to think they left a lot of money on the table with that one. Even Snow White and the Huntsman didn't match its $170 million budget domestically. Overseas results were better for that film, and Ted was a hit. Savages underperformed. The Bourne Legacy didn't bomb, but did not meet expectations, either.
So with only one real hit, Ted, in their recent track record, folks at Universal have to be breathing sigh of relief with this one.
Edwin Davies: They cut some solid, funny trailers that made it look like a fun film, then emphasised the idea that they were releasing it early almost as a kind of treat for audiences. It's a simple idea but an effective one with much the same thinking behind it as that behind "limited engagement" releases like The Lion King re-issue. You raise awareness whilst also limiting availability, so if people see that the film is playing near them they feel more inclined to check it out because it feels sort of special.
As far as the film's future goes, I don't know if it will do anything more impressive than this weekend's result. I would imagine that a healthy chunk of the potential audience will have tried to check it out over the last three days, and unless word-of-mouth is spectacular I don't think its nationwide expansion will be too spectacular. However, this result allows it to be part of the news cycle and will help drum up more interest than would have existed if it had been released normally, so it might help drive a little extra business down the road.
Tim Briody: This is pretty great for something I wasn't familiar with at all until Saturday. I would like to see this type of release more in the future. Wednesday releases, for the most part, are stupid. A smaller release a week in advance is kind of a brilliant idea. Let the free advertising that is social networking do the work for you by building buzz, and have it pay off in spades with a true wide release the following weekend.
Felix Quinonez: I think when it comes down to it, they put out some funny trailers and have done a great job with the marketing. As far as moving forward I think it has some great prospects and could turn into a pretty decent hit. I think it already had some buzz going and this great opening in limited release will only raise audience awareness and interest. Plus it has a $17 million budget, so this will definitely be a win.
David Mumpower: As was mentioned in the Weekend Wrap-Up, this is the next kind of movie marketing. Platform releases have been a popular strategy for smaller films. In the social media era, utilizing the same tactic with planned wide releases in order to heighten demand is a clever ploy. The aspect that amuses me is that with $5.1 million, this Glee wannabe earned almost as much in 335 locations as the Glee concert movie managed in 2,040. It debuted to only $5.9 million despite having over six times as many exhibitions.