Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
December 19, 2012
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: What impact, if any, do you think Friday's tragic events in Newtown, CT had on the box office for The Hobbit?
Jason Barney: I am not sure. This tragedy feels different than the events that hit the Batman premier several months ago. That event was directly tied to the opening of that film and happened at the movie theater. That tempered people's enthusiasm for going out to the movies. As awful as this event was, it is not directly associated with the movie industry. It probably had some impact, pushing the numbers down a bit, but how much I just don't know.
Edwin Davies: It seems incredibly hard to quantify, but I think it probably had some impact. Despite not having the same undeniable connection to either The Hobbit or cinema in general that the Aurora shooting had to The Dark Knight Rises, it's such an awful, unavoidable story that I can easily imagine people deciding that they don't feel like going to see a fantasy movie right now. Maybe not in significant enough numbers to derail The Hobbit, but perhaps it might have earned closer to $100 million this weekend if there was not such a tragic cloud hanging over everything.
Matthew Huntley: As a movie-going country, when any type of adverse condition--be it a thunderstorm, heatwave or economic recession--hits us, we usually flock to the movies to escape. I think that was different this time around (as Edwin alluded to) because the event in question was so horrible. Perhaps people thought it would be disrespectful to go see a fantasy adventure when, for the victims and their families, life is so far from that right now. By how much, it's too hard to say without issuing a survey of some sort, but I think the numbers would be great enough to surprise us.
Reagen Sulewski: I'm reluctant to ascribe much connection between the two things. For every person who was put off of going to the movies, there was probably another person who just wanted an escape.
Felix Quinonez: I'm going to have to echo Reagan on this one. Unlike the Aurora shootings this had no direct connections to the movies and if someone was put off going to the movies then it's just as likely someone else decided to go to the movies as a way to escape.
Kim Hollis: While I agree that ascribing a direct connection to the Aurora shootings/Dark Knight Rises is more certain, I have a pretty strong feeling that there was some impact on The Hobbit’s weekend performance. This is an incident that has made a lot of people (including me) feel pretty morose. I don’t even have children, so I can’t begin to imagine the emotional impact for parents. I do think that this is a weekend where people wanted to be close to their families, and I wonder if there isn’t some residual feeling that even our movie theaters aren’t safe because of Aurora. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that a lot of people decided to stay home. I might have, too, but I was at the theater getting ready to watch The Hobbit before the story broke on the news. I had no idea what had happened until after 3 p.m.
David Mumpower: My thought process is that the events of Aurora are at least marginally connected to this in terms of impact. While we can say that this situation is different, the reality is that six months ago, going to a movie theater had tragic results. When the news broke on Friday, I have to believe that a lot of consumers were at least subconsciously reminded of what transpired at a screening of The Dark Knight Rises. This would discourage them from going to see The Hobbit. There is no way to quantify this but the question is not one that can be argued numerically. As of this moment, I believe it is the most logical explanation for the disappointment of The Hobbit's opening weekend.
What do you think of nasty Hobbitses?
Kim Hollis: Did you see The Hobbit this weekend? What are your thoughts on the movie?
Jason Barney: We did not go this weekend due to other family commitments. I will probably see it sometime this week or during the holidays.
Edwin Davies: I wasn't able to see it due to work and/or holiday preparations, but I fully intend to see it next weekend as a way of marking the start of my Christmas break.
Matthew Huntley: I did, and it's a worthy fantasy adventure that retains the light-hearted spirit of Tolkien's book (not that it has to, but in this case it's an asset). The film looks magnificent in parts, while in others it looks a little too video gamey and digital. I wasn't a huge fan of the 48 frames per second presentation, either, but I'm willing to accept it's just my eyes and brain aren't used to it. It's too long for its own good, but all around it was a fun and exciting.
Max Braden: I did not. I thought about seeing it twice. And each time I thought, "that is going to be one long, dreary, long lot of nothing for lot of IMAX ticket money." I did feel almost compelled to see it because it might get nominated for something. In hindsight, some of the complaints I've heard about the highest quality picture image makes me feel even better about not going. I can watch this movie in less than three hours when I watch it on DVD at 1.5x speed.
Kim Hollis: I did see it on Friday morning, and while I didn’t enjoy it as much as the Lord of the Rings films, I did mostly think it was a lot of fun. Some of the magic that the first three films had for me seems to be missing. The high points are that it is absolutely wonderfully acted. Martin Freeman is a terrific Bilbo Baggins, and Ian McKellen is fantastic as always. The scene between Bilbo and Gollum is everything I would have hoped for, and I believe that the Gollum animation is better than ever – his face is extremely expressive. I also enjoyed the diversity of the dwarves, even if a few of them seemed overly cartoonish compared to the others.
Criticisms that the film is too long are absolutely justified, because it’s true. I do think that it moved along briskly enough, but it still felt like “a long movie.” There were certainly scenes that could have lifted right out without damaging the story in the least. I remain disappointed that Peter Jackson didn’t do just a single film, because I maintain that the book would have been better served in that format. It’s not a long book, and I don’t really see the need to add the extraneous stuff even if Tolkien did write it down at some point in an appendix or wherever. I will say that the movie did make me interested in reading that extra stuff, though. I’ve been trying to sprinkle a lot of fantasy books in my reading list (I’m working through the Oz series now) and while I’ve read both LOTR and The Hobbit a number of times, I think I’m enticed to read Tolkien’s additional work, even including The Simarillion.
David Mumpower: Speaking as the staff member who couldn't care less about Tolkien or the first trilogy, the latest film was about what I expected. The Hobbit is nowhere near as serious in tone as its successors. Even with Jackson taking artistic liberties with the source material, it will still be a hodgepodge of silly dwarves cast in dire circumstances. I found some of the stunt sequences in the movie hysterically amateurish and lacking in logic. Apparently, you can drop a dwarf from any distance and it will be fine. Also, there is a scene that occurs on a pair of mountain tops that just...wow, is that a stupid scene. As is the case with most three hour movies, it also needed tighter editing, which seems to be Peter Jackson's Kryptonite as a director.
Otherwise, I liked the movie well enough and believe it is a nice family film, save for a couple of intense moments. Now, the greasy fanboys who created the phenomenon that was Lord of the Rings may not be pleased to hear that this title skews younger. There could be a Jar Jar Binks factor in terms of how The Hobbit is remembered. I couldn't care less but I want to mention this for people on the fence about the film. The one takeaway I have about 48 frames per second viewing is that it elucidates intended visual stimulation. There is a positive and a negative to this. The glowing blue sword in The Hobbit is breathtaking. Conversely, some of the CGI characters such as trolls look transparently fake to the point that I was taken out of the movie. Right now, I'm dubious that this style of cinema will be readily adopted.
We’ll always love Attila the Romantic Hun.
Kim Hollis: Playing for Keeps, the Gerard Butler romantic comedy featuring soccer (and presumably soccer moms), has made $10.7 million after 10 days. What do you think about this result?
Edwin Davies: That combining one of the least popular romantic leads in Hollywood with a sport that most people in America don't care about was a Very Bad Idea. Setting aside that the film is by all accounts awful, I can't imagine anyone looking at the pitch "Gerard Butler + soccer" and seeing dollar signs.
Matthew Huntley: This movie's figures don't surprise me in the least. For one thing, it has a generic title that tells you nothing about the plot/story (nor does it get your interested to learn about them); and second, it came at a time when not many people go to the movies (the first week of December is typically one of the slowest of the year). As a side note, did anyone happen to notice how the poster for this movie looked uncannily like the one for How Do You Know? from 2010? Coincidentally, that move also had a generic title and was also a box-office bomb.
Felix Quinonez: I think this is a great result. As long as these movies keep making money, there will be more of them. So I am very happy that this is a total flop.
Max Braden: Why that's almost the audience size of a half filled soccer stadium.
David Mumpower: Dear Hollywood, stop casting Gerard Butler in things. He is killing your bottom line.
Kim Hollis: It’s a totally expected result. I think studios are struggling with the fact that the rom-com audience is evolving. We’re going to see more and more crappy-looking movies like this one fail. People want a hook, something unique, I think. I’m not really a fan of the genre for the most part, but I’ll watch when there’s something distinct about the film to draw me in (assuming it doesn’t look too treacly).