Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
January 8, 2013
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Bruce Hall: I'm not so sure this result has as much to do with the Texas Chainsaw franchise as it does the fact that this is a good time of year to release a low budget horror film. January is slow, and most of the country is cold and miserable and bored anyway, so why not take in a movie? A horror flick, good or bad, is not a bad way to kill a couple of hours on a sleepy January night. Around this time last year, Paramount's The Devil Inside pulled in $33 million on a $1 million budget - without the "benefit" of a franchise name.
Matthew Huntley: I agree with Bruce on this. Many industry analysts will likely build this up into something it's (probably) not by saying horror fans have been under-served lately, or that this franchise still has some gas left in its chainsaw, etc., all of which may be valid, but I think it's more accurate to say TC3D was #1 mostly by default, and not because of anything the movie had to offer. It was the only new release of the weekend and the 3D experience increased the ticket price - these are the reasons it opened to $23 million. Not a big shocker. I foresee a Devil Inside-type fall next weekend when Gangster Squad opens and Zero Dark Thirty expands.
Felix Quinonez Jr.: I think the brand name did help at least a little bit. I know people who love the original so much that they seemed to kid themselves into thinking that this was going to be a good movie. I know that's anecdotal but I doubt they are the ONLY people who feel this way. But in the end I have to agree with what has already been said in that this is just a good time for horror movies and Chainsaw just happened to be the movie that met the criteria.
Jay Barney: These numbers are very impressive. I don't think this represents a new wave of interest in horror films, but this is going to be a huge success story for Lionsgate. Their timing was great, the competition coming out of the holidays was pretty slim, and they had a brand with a name to it. The low budget of $18 million is going to be money very well spent. From this point forward, any coin it brings in represents a profit for the studio. With horror films, the money isn't in legs. It is in the first weekend or two, and Texas Chainsaw 3D will be a great earner for Lionsgate.
Brett Ballard-Beach: This is a solid to above average result. Lionsgate showed again they know how to reach their core audience in marketing a low-budget horror film. That coupled with the unleashing of singer turned actor Trey Songz (studio surveys revealed one in three of the - primarily female - under 25-year-olds who attended went because of him) means that this pretty much keeps the series where it was at with the previous installment in terms of attendance. After a terrible run in the ‘80s and ‘90s, the Chainsaw’s been resurrected in the last decade. It may be hard to surpass the $80 million gross of the 2003 re-launch any time soon, but openings like this will keep the prequels, sequels, and reboots a-comin’. I am confused, though. This is meant to be a direct sequel to the 1974 original? Of which there already was one. In 1986. (I know. I’m thinking too hard about this.)
David Mumpower: Brett has touched upon the most intriguing aspect of the conversation for me. I am understandably dubious about the validity of poll sampling that indicates a rapper’s presence added such a staggering amount to ticket sales. If this is even a little bit validated by studio numbers, however, Trey Songz will be attached to 27 films by this time next month. We are talking about one man (potentially) boosting an established franchise’s opening weekend by over $7 million.
Shalimar Sahota: Typical result. The last decade has already seen a remake and a prequel, so I didn't really think audiences would want more of the same. For a horror film starring no one I've really heard of I'd say it's a decent enough opening based mainly on brand recognition and the 3D ticket price. Given the low production cost, if they can make them that cheap then we're sure to see more.
Max Braden: Wait, wasn't the 2003 Jessica Biel Massacre the reboot of this series? Or was it the 2006 Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning? How many reboots is a non-comic book franchise allowed to have? I find this opening shockingly high considering that although I knew it was on the calendar, I never saw a single advertisement for the movie. I'm further shocked that it won the weekend and beat out Django Unchained. Maybe the target demo for Chainsaw is too young to know who Quentin Tarantino is. TC3D's opening is decent, I guess, though I don't expect it to go on to outgross (ha) Biel's $80 million. It should have a shot at beating The Beginning's paltry $40 million.
David Mumpower: Adding some data to Max’s point, Jessica Biel’s version debuted to $28.1 million in 2003, the equivalent of a $37 million opening today. The 2006 version grossed $18.5 million on opening weekend, which is $22.4 million at 2013 ticket pricing. So Texas Chainsaw 3D sold fewer tickets than either of the previous two attempts to reboot the franchise. It also cost more than the previous two to produce. Diminishing returns relative to financial outlay are an issue.
Kim Hollis: Promised Land, a film co-written by and co-starring Matt Damon and John Krasinski, expanded into 1,676 locations this weekend, earning $4.3 million. How surprised are you by its modest $2,573 per location average?
Bruce Hall: Not very. Imagine you're John (or Jane) Q. Public and you want to take your family, your significant other, or yourself to a movie this weekend. A horror flick is a great way to kill a few hours, and with all the press Django Unchained and Les Miserables have been getting, the second week of release is a good time to pull the trigger on something you've been unsure about. Or maybe you're one of the handfuls of people who haven't seen the Hobbit yet?
What would you do? Nine movies enjoyed a higher per screen average this weekend, and I could give you a reason to see each of them before I got to the Matt Damon drama about the controversial mining technique named after the naughtiest word you can say aboard the Battlestar Galactica.
I don't mean to sound cynical, or even to comment on the quality of the film. I just can't imagine many people making this their choice, even on a historically slow weekend like this one.
Matthew Huntley: Not surprised at all, really, given the following factors: 1) generic title, which it happens to share with a corny CBS drama from the late '90s; 2) speaking of TV, a made-for-TV-movie'ish premise; 3) mixed reviews from critics; 4) R rating. Regarding the last point, why make this movie rated R, and for language of all things? Perhaps by reducing the number of f-bombs (I'm speculating since I haven't seen the film yet) this could have been a family drama instead of an adult one, which would have opened up the audience base more. In any case, the marketing campaign just didn't make this one sound engaging or cinematic enough to shell out $10+. With likely little help from Oscar nods this week, I don't think we'll hear much more about Promised Land going forward.
David Mumpower: This is my type of film, at least in general. I love these message stories that lead to nonsensical media stories such as “There has been fire in the water for hundreds of years now so why freak out about it now?” Yes, that one is real. Still, these heavy-handed stories that politicize the world are exactly what leads 47% of the country to decry Hollywood as the capital city of the Liberal Elite. That’s nearly half of the potential movie-going audience that is ruled out before a single frame of footage is filmed. Many of the rest of us are discriminating enough to care about reviews. Critics say that not only is the reunion of Gus Van Sant and Matt Damon vastly inferior to Good Will Hunting, it’s not even as good as Gerry. Have you watched Gerry? It is a story of two guys walking for an hour and a half. If Promised Land falls under that, people are not going to spend money on it.
Felix Quinonez Jr.: I'm not very surprised by this result. Fracking isn't really a topic that drags the masses to theaters and so it really needed good reviews to stand out. Unfortunately this wasn't the case and it clearly suffered for it.
Jay Barney: I'm disappointed because this is a film that I wanted to do well. There are a number of different factors that drag us all to the movies, and for me the politics of this story mean a lot. I hate to put myself in the anti- Atlas Shrugged or 2016: Obama's America crowd, but catching a film that explores where the United States is with its overall energy use is what I what I would like to spend my money on. There is an education/reality aspect to this film that I wish more people were exposed to. Perhaps this is the wrong vehicle, but I think the exploration undertaken here is worth noting. I'm a pretty big Matt Damon fan, as well.
Brett Ballard-Beach. Without making any direct praise or bash on the film (which I haven’t seen, but would like to, as I have seen all of Gus Van Sant’s films. Yes, even Reckless), there is nothing sadder than the would-be Oscar nominee as pegged from two months out that winds up being a critical dud and awards-show shutout when the end of the year rolls around. The reviews are mediocre and if you are going to have (non-Battlestar Galatica) fracking going on, you have to have a wave of praise to pull in the coastal crowds. And not just a smart script written by Will Hunting and Mr. Emily Blunt, and directed by an Oscar nominee from 15 years ago. This was probably slotted to expand based on Matt Damon’s name alone and it was probably with heavy hearts that it was rolled out to this wide release when the chips were in that there wouldn’t be a, um, Promised Land of box office waiting on the other side.
Max Braden: It's a softball throw. It's a softball message throw, and that's the lamest. If you're going to pitch a softball against December or January movies and you want a home run, you're going to have to include at least one animal as the star, like a chipmunk or a dog. And if you want to compete with the actual potential Oscar nominees everyone's actually talking about, with a message, you're going to have to include at least one Julia Roberts in a push-up bra. And to top it off, as anyone in the lobbying industry knows, you don't lead with a message unless you have the votes. So thanks a lot, Matt Damon, not only did you let John Krasinski dominate you, now, every dirty fracker in the country is going to waltz into Pennsylvania and turn household faucets into blow torches. Where's Al Gore when you need a win?