Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
August 14, 2013
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Jason Barney: I have been a little put off by the reaction to the arrival of Planes. When Disney produces something like The Lone Ranger, it is almost like everyone celebrates and says “I told you so”. People are glad that they spent a lot of coin, got burned, and they have this attitude that Disney deserved it. That’s fine. Now, when they produce something like Planes, a film which is, god forbid, going to make them money, Disney still gets slapped around in the press.
It is a smart move by Disney and they deserve credit for putting this out there and seeing it do well in a crowded animated market. Despicable Me is still doing well, Turbo is out there, The Smurfs 2 was just released last week, and Planes is going to make money.
Felix Quinonez: I'm pretty indifferent to this release. I didn't even like Cars, didn't see Cars 2 and have no interest in seeing this. But I am also a bit surprised by the negativity surrounding it. Yes, it's a cash grab but that's absolutely nothing new in the end its a business and Disney is in it to make money. And Planes will make them money. Let's face it all studios need to worry about the bottom line and if a movie doesn't look interesting, I just won't watch it.
Bruce Hall: It was easy to snicker at The Lone Ranger because absolutely everyone - including Disney - could see what a disaster it was going to be before it was even finished. It was a terrible movie, and a cynical act of hubris that deserved every ounce of the failure it earned. The fact that America saw it coming and ran the other way actually restored some of my my faith in humanity.
But I see Planes differently. If there was an instant backlash against this movie I'd wager it was simply because almost everyone who saw Cars 2 is still pissed off about it, especially if they had to sit through it with a theater full of bored, angry kids. So it's natural to think that the only thing more stupid than a movie about anthropomorphic cars would be a movie about anthropomorphic planes.
However, Planes cost a brisk (if you're Disney) $50 million to make, and was produced by Disney's direct-to-video unit. It won't be a hit, but there's virtually no way it isn't going to be hugely profitable, and it wasn't supposed to be anything special anyway. And I'm saying this without even knowing whether it's actually any good or not. I wouldn't go so far as to call Planes a stroke of genius, but even with the family film space a little crowded at the moment there's still room to squeeze another few bucks out of parents looking for ways to entertain bored kids in the last weeks before school starts again.
Although I should point out that MY kids were aware of Planes, but instead elected to see Despicable Me 2 this weekend - and do you know why? Because they hated Cars 2, and even they could tell Planes was a spinoff. So congratulations to Disney on the success of Planes, but I don't pity them the backlash they're getting. The fact that my kids are smart enough to still be butthurt about Cars 2 actually restores the REST of my faith in humanity.
Kim Hollis: I guess it performed about as I expected it to - maybe on the low side of the opening number I thought we'd see. And yes, it's easy to knock Disney for this movie (and Lone Ranger for that matter), but I still find it disappointing that they're so transparent in their cash grabbiness. Of course they're in it to make money; still, Pixar has established over the years that people are perfectly willing to pay for original ideas with wonderful stories. I'm annoyed that they've taken advantage of the Pixar relationship for a sub-par project.
David Mumpower: We are uniform in our opinion that the movie's opening weekend and eventual worldwide revenue squarely place it in the Winners category. Our frustration stems from the fact that Pixar was as pure as anything we have ever seen in our lifetimes with regards to movies. When Disney acquired the animation house, the stated philosophy was that with John Lassiter still in charge, nothing would change. That has not happened. Pixar's quality has been diminished; in the process, their brand has been tarnished. With Planes, Disney is trying to distinguish that Pixar has nothing to do with the project and yet the association is inevitable. The existence of Planes validates many of the concerns that the presence of Disney would ruin what was pure about Pixar. People are hard on Planes because it embodies the worst case scenario for the Disney acquisition of Pixar. Planes is a financially driven, creatively bankrupt concept. Disney is getting their money at the expense of the Pixar brand.
Kim Hollis: Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters earned $14.4 million over the Friday-to-Sunday portion of the weekend, and totaled $23.3 million from Wednesday through Sunday. Why wasn't this one bigger?
Felix Quinonez: I think when it comes down to it there just wasn't any demand for the sequel. I mean the first one did OK but from what I've heard about it, it was a by the numbers, forgettable movie. I know it did better overseas but I also know the studios only get a percentage of that money so I really doubt that even after all was said and done, that the first movie was a big hit. Sometimes I think studios are just too stubborn to admit that maybe they were wrong about having found the next golden goose.
Bruce Hall: I guess Fox is just just going to keep releasing Percy Jackson movies until they run out of books to adapt, or they run out of money from nobody going to see them. Whichever comes first.
To be fair though, the original film was ultimately profitable, if not an outright success. I'm not sure anyone was clamoring for a sequel; they could have just quietly walked away from the franchise and the earth would have kept right on spinning. On the other hand, this isn't a studio-killing boondoggle like The Golden Compass. The reason Sea of Monsters exists is because it's embarrassing to bail on a franchise after one film both movies were (relatively) cheap to make, and that $137 million international gross the original earned more than made up for a tepid domestic haul. Despite cratering stateside, there's a strong possibility Sea of Monsters will do well enough internationally to make it worth...someone's time.
Kim Hollis: The first movie is barely remembered. It wasn't a bad movie, just kind of...there, and certainly not something that really justified a sequel. It'll probably do okay on home video, but people are a lot more selective about the kind of movies they spend their money on these days. If a movie just looks like a middling sequel in a franchise that doesn't have a lot of interest in the first place, why bother?
David Mumpower: The core concept for a sequel is to capitalize upon the credibility established by the prior film. I am fervently convinced that if we did a list of fake films and included Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief among the selections, few North Americans would recognize it as the real production. It was utterly forgettable in every sense of the world, another of the batch of Harry Potter wannabes that received an unjustified greenlight a few years ago. Almost all of those projects failed to some degree and yes, Percy Jackson was one of them. It earned less domestically than its budget and we all know by now how overstated the value of worldwide box office is. The primary difference between Percy Jackson and stuff like Eragon is that the people involved with the latter production were realistic about the film's performance. Eragon actually earned more worldwide with $250 million compared to $226.5 million; their budgets were only $5 million different. Why was there no Eragon sequel? Studio bosses were good enough at math and logic to accept that the attempt at a franchise launch had failed. For whatever reason, the folks supporting Percy Jackson were less rational, which directly led us to the current conversation. We are now forced to debate the obvious. Nobody wanted this sequel.