Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
October 24, 2012
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: We know that there will inevitably be a Paranormal Activity 5. What can we reasonably expect from the next film in the franchise, given that there is a measurable drop in interest? Also, based on the information you have today, do you think there will be a Paranormal Activity 6 in 2014?
Matthew Huntley: I would expect Paranormal Activity 5 to go back to the routes of the franchise and start over with brand new characters not related to the current ones. After all, the franchise has begun exhausting itself with the characters/storyline it already has, so a re-invigoration is in order. I also wouldn't be surprised if the new characters are played by more household-name actors and actresses, which would be a first for the series and a way to try something different. In any event, the keywords here are "new" and "different," because "the same" is clearly not working as well any more.
Right now, yes, I would say there will be a Paranormal 6, but my answer is pending the success of the franchise reboot I mention above.
Bruce Hall: The average production budget for these films is hovering around $6 or 7 million, and with people now grudgingly expecting a new installment every other year or so, marketing can be kept to a minimum. As long as they can keep realizing the profits they are, there's no reason to believe they won't continue making them. Part 5 is already coming out next year, so I agree that an infusion of new blood is critical to maintain interest.
I might also suggest that it's never too early to go with the colon:subtitle for Part 5. That way it won't seem as gimmicky when you release Paranormal Activity 6: The Final Chapter. But it won't really be the Final Chapter. That's the twist. People will think that it's the last one, but it won't be, so they'll be totally shocked, and then you'll get a spike in attendance for the REAL Final Chapter, which will be Part 7.
But not really. That's when you switch to Roman numerals, you set one in Japan for no reason, and then you do one with robots, or dinosaurs. Yes, there will be a Part 6. I can see Paranormal Activity being a profitable nuisance for the better part of another decade.
Felix Quinonez Jr.: I really haven't been following this series at all. I only saw the first one. I know they went the prequel route for at least one of these movies and I don't even know how this entry fits in with the previous ones, continuity wise. As far as box office I expect its drop to level off a bit and perform more like a standard horror movie. (Opens in the $18 million-$23 million range and ends with $46-$55 million.)
I definitely think there will be a sixth entry. These are being made for so cheap (relatively speaking) that they don't even have to be popular to be profitable. And there will always be people who show up just because they're there. I think we'll keep seeing them until the next franchise comes along and kills interest in PA. (Like PA did to Saw)
Edwin Davies: I agree that a new cast or creative direction for the series will probably be key to maintaining interest in the series, but I don't think a change of that magnitude will take place with number 5 since the wheels are already in motion on that one. How well that one does relative to number 4 (I would guess that we'll see another drop to around the $20 million mark on opening weekend) will probably play a big part in determining how the sixth film turns out. If the drop is bigger than that, then they might try to right the ship by overhauling it, if not, they'll probably be happy churning out broadly the same story with the same tricks until the return on investment reaches an unacceptable low level. Considering how cheap the films are to make, that level will probably prove to be very low indeed.
Jason Barney: This is an interesting question, and my guess would be there is going to be line of these films for the next several years. 2013, 2014, 2015 and beyond. Just taking a look at the history gives enough evidence as to what the future will hold. If each of these films has a production budget in the $5 to $7 million range and they are giving back spectacular returns, I think we would be naive to assume viewers will just totally go away.
2009: Almost $200 million worldwide
2010: $84 million domestic
2011: $104 million domestic
2012: $56 million worldwide only after a week or so
Just taking a look at these numbers, especially in consideration of the production budget, doesn't lead me to believe we are going to see any sort of huge drop. I am not saying creatively this franchise is stellar, or that any one of these films should be up for awards, I am just acknowledging the cash cow that Paramount has stumbled upon. Why wouldn't they make another next year? And the year after that? I actually wouldn't be surprised if they tried to branch off somehow and create another series along these lines. Follow the money.
Tim Briody: I'd give it 90% odds. They'll continue to be stupidly cheap to make (as much as this lost of Paranormal Activity 3, it still made its production budget back after Friday) and unless they try to reboot Saw or something else comes along the way Paranormal Activity did to kill off the Saw franchise, it'll keep going until the wheels fall completely off.
Max Braden: To be honest, I've seen the first three and couldn't keep track of who was related to whom and who disappeared when. There's some mythology to it but I don't think that's the primary selling point. The filmmakers might reassess after the box office of the next sequel, but this franchise is low enough budget and amorphous with the characters and actors that I think they could easily continue with straight to video titles. Wild Things did that with three direct to video sequels. I'm not admitting to seeing them... I'm just sayin'.
David Mumpower: Paranormal Activity 5 should experience diminished returns domestically but as Jason astutely notes, the fourth film is already a global triumph relative to financial outlay. I fully expect there to be annual sequels since the profitability of this franchise is divine (or unholy?). Were I involved with this content, however, I would strongly suggest skipping a year or two after the already planned Paranormal Activity 5 in order to procure more time to produce the best product possible rather than making another cash grab in 2014. The bank will not have had enough time to re-fill the safe by then. There was a time in 2008 when Saw seemed like our constant October companion. Then the wheels came off quickly and dramatically. This example should be a cautionary tale for the Paranormal Activity team, especially after this weekend's decline relative to last year's outing.
Madea thinks less of all of you.
Kim Hollis: Alex Cross, Tyler Perry's first attempt to anchor a film as a dramatic lead, earned $11.4 million this weekend. Why do you think it struggled? How much of the problem was in the marketing, how much was with Perry and how much can be blamed on procedural fatigue?
Matthew Huntley: When I first saw the title for this movie, the name sounded familiar. Oh yes, Alex Cross was the character made famous by Morgan Freeman in Kiss the Girls and Along Came a Spider. Now it was going to be filled by...Tyler Perry? Honestly, the idea made me laugh, which isn't to say Perry isn't capable, but I, like so many moviegoers, am only used to him dressing up in a wig and dress and playing Madea. But if Perry truly is an actor, he should be able to pull Alex Cross off and I'd be willing to see it. The problem is that most people probably are not, and I think it's because Perry made the leap from cross-dressing matriarch to action police detective too abruptly. There was no "segue" role, if you will, that allowed us to see what he could really do outside of his usual character.
Plus, Alex Cross just looks dull and conventional. It feels more like an episode of CSI than a fully realized story worth seeing in the theater. Granted, I haven't seen it, but that's my impression. I'm sure many people feel the same, hence its lackluster numbers.
Bruce Hall: Transitioning from Morgan Freeman to Tyler Perry is a bit like switching from Newcastle to Michelob Ultra. I just think that Perry is not an experienced enough actor to fill this role in the way it requires. He's used to inhabiting his own characters in his own creations, which are far more guilty of sticking to formula than even most police procedurals. It's no secret that I'm not a fan, but I do think that the true measure of his talent will eventually lie in whether he has the ability to convert material outside his comfort zone.
What may be more important here is that (director) Rob Cohen's vision for this material was probably not the most appropriate one, and the screenplay he's working with is uneven and gimmicky. The film simply doesn't present itself competently, and regardless of what you think of Perry as an actor, this suggests that the creative team behind the film was not the right choice. This was meant to be something of a franchise reboot, so it'll be interesting to see what happens next. Not going forward would be admission of a costly mistake, and Perry's brand will bear some of the stain. Trying again and knocking it out of the park would be a better idea, but it's going to have to be with another creative team, and Perry still has some growing to do as an actor.
Felix Quinonez Jr.: It's a combination of several things. The most important factor is that it just looked terrible. But Tyler Perry's casting sure didn't help either. Yes, he has an audience but this is not the kind of thing they want to see him in. And as has been mentioned before this looks like something that you can see on TV several times a week.
Edwin Davies: Felix is right to point out that part of the problem lies in the potential audience for the film. Tyler has spent the last ten years building a brand based on comedies and dramas with very strong moral messages. Alex Cross is pretty far removed from that, and whilst some of his audience probably followed him because they like what he does in general, clearly it did not appeal to enough of them to make the film a success. That a broader audience also didn't check out the film probably speaks to the lack of awareness of the character outside of people who read the books - I personally would not have known that this was the same character from those largely forgotten Morgan Freeman films had I not been following the film reasonably closely - and the fact that Perry is known as someone who straps on a fat suit, which makes his transition to hardboiled detective feel rather awkward. It doesn't help that the film looks terrible and generic, and by all accounts is exactly that.
It's probably worth pointing out that although this is a bad result in terms of opening weekends for Perry, it's not too far from what Good Deeds opened to back in February, which suggests to me that whilst the material and the shoddy way it was depicted probably didn't help the film, this is probably indicative that Perry as an actor is not a huge draw when he is not playing Madea. The key difference here, though, is that Alex Cross cost $35 million, which is more than the combined cost of Perry's last two directorial efforts. This probably means that this will be the first film Perry has been involved in that won't make back its budget, which is both indicative of how poorly the film has done so far and how shrewd a businessman Perry is most of the time.
Max Braden: I could see audiences being split into two camps: if it's action, you want Denzel. If it's Tyler Perry, you want light comedy-drama. And the two might not be able to flip. I'm not questioning Tyler Perry's acting chops, but Fusco is more believable as a cop in Person of Interest than Perry is. Perry doesn't just doesn't carry the weight of someone who knows what a killer instinct is. He may continue to try to act in other people's projects, but I think this was a big damper on the pace of that transition. On the other hand, Jim Carrey didn't do so well breaking out of slapstick into drama at first, but I think he's found a healthy medium. Where Jim Carrey stepped beyond the bounds of his audience's limitations: Joel Schumacher's thriller The Number 23.
David Mumpower: I believe the answers above are dancing around the question of whether casting Tyler Perry as Alex Cross passes the laugh test. Judging by the replies I saw when the trailer debuted, I do not believe he did. I also believe Mr. Huntley is correct regarding the lack of a bridge role for Perry. While he has demonstrated uncanny ability as a content creator and comedian, the juxtaposition of Madea solving crimes is problematic.
I am reminded of the Oscar buzz for Eddie Murphy when he was nominated for Dreamgirls. After playing variations of the same character for 25 years, Murphy shocked everyone by demonstrating his acting chops. I believe he was nominated because the lowered expectations of his career up until that point led to heightened opinions of what was frankly a mediocre performance. Perry faces exactly the same challenge here save for the fact that despite the character’s reputation, Alex Cross is not as meaty a role. As the titular lead, he cannot show up in short bursts and chew up scenery as Madea so often does. Being in almost every scene is an onus for Perry in this regard. Yes, I do believe he was miscast just as I believe that he had earned the right to anchor a potential franchise character as much as any actor in recent memory has.
Still, Kim and I mentioned in the wrap that procedural fatigue is the overriding factor in the disappointment of Alex Cross. In researching the argument, I counted 12 (!) network television programs that qualify as procedurals. Asking any consumer to pay for something that is readily available for free is a challenging task. In combination with questionable casting, Alex Cross never had a chance.
Kim Hollis: All I know is that the trailer for this movie felt almost like a spoof. The only reason I knew it was meant to be a real thriller is because Tyler Perry was trying so hard to be a Serious Actor. This movie had a lot going against it. James Patterson is sort of out of vogue these days, particularly given the knowledge that he has a group of writers that push out novels. Perry has a niche, and Lionsgate should be forever grateful to him for reaching those consumers, but he’s just all wrong for this sort of role. And like Patterson, serial killer movies are extremely passé. People have moved on to other things and if they haven’t, they can find any number of well-done shows on TV dealing with the same sort of subject matter.