Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
November 13, 2013
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Jason Barney: It is hands down the biggest movie product right now, and that doesn't take into account the toys. Keeping the discussion just related to the films, though, we have never seen this level of support for a group of characters or a long term storyline. Domestically, there have only been 14 films to make over $405 million dollars, 2 of them are Marvel products and were released within the last 18 months (Avengers and Iron Man 3).
Globally, the support is even more pronounced. Iron Man 3 and Avengers are two of the top five grossing films internationally....ever. You don't have to go that far down the list to get to Iron Man 2's $623 million worldwide take. We are two films removed from Avengers, and we are looking at another huge take. Sure Thor may not produce the numbers of Iron Man...but that is academic. Marvel and Disney are looking at a huge profit and movie fans get teased along the path to Avengers 2.
It is scary to think about the potential for future films. Just scary.
Edwin Davies: I think that The Avengers as a brand is astonishingly healthy, and whole none of the individual plays are as big of a draw as all of them together (though Iron Man gets pretty close) they have all become mightier through their association. This suggests that The Avengers 2 will have a shot at being the biggest film of all time, especially since Marvel is being very careful when it comes to ensuring that the lead up films are pretty good and don't piss too many people off (though there are elements of both Iron Man 3 and Thor: The Dark World that have been pretty divisive). I'm not entirely convinced that this magic will extend to Guardians of the Galaxy, which seems too crazy to me for it to become a breakout success, but I'm not ruling anything out where Disney and Marvel are concerned at this point.
Felix Quinonez Jr.: I think that the Marvel Cinematic Universe is simply killing it from a commercial stance. They seem to be what Pixar was at its peak but on steroids. They are making so many smart moves. They definitely know how to market each movie as not only an event but also a continuing chapter in the Marvel saga so it seems like you have to see them all (I would have anyway). And the connection between these movies makes each one also a commercial for the next one. It almost seems like none of them really end, you just get a "to be continued" and then get ready to come back a few months later.
But from a creative point of view I have to say I'm a little concerned. And I am definitely someone who loves these movies and wants to see them succeed. I haven't seen Thor 2 yet so I can't speak about its quality but I hate to say that I was very disappointed with the way Iron Man 3 began Phase 2. When anyone has this kind of success it's obvious that they aren't going to want to rock the boat, which usually puts a damper on chances being taken, and it stifles creativity. It seemed to me that Iron Man 3 was a definite slide towards playing it safe. Where the original Iron Man was bold and fresh the third chapter just seemed too scared to deviate from the formula. Sure they added some buddy cop movie elements to the mix but otherwise it seemed like a total rehash. Even Robert Downey Jr.'s performance was starting to feel stale. It seemed like the nuance was removed and only the superficial elements were left. Even his trauma from the events of The Avengers was mostly played for cheap laughs. I thought that could have been a very interesting plot point but it wasn't the case. There's no doubt that they are doing a wonderful job at connecting these movies to create a "cinematic universe" but hopefully they also put energy into making each movie stand on its own.
That being said, I will definitely continue seeing these movies. I just hope that counting all of their money doesn't distract them from making sure these movies are actually really great. (I feel like a traitor for complaining about these movies since, as a kid, I used to dream of the day that I'd see these characters on the big screen. But aside from being a comic book fan, I'm also a movie fan.)
Brett Ballard-Beach: A grandmotherly aged co-worker in my office went with her family to see this Thursday night. That's expanding outside your target demographic and then some.
Bruce Hall: In topic #1 I likened the Disney/Marvel cinematic universe to the world's most diabolically successful pay-per-view network. From a business standpoint they've totally redefined what the word "franchise" can potentially mean, and the financial possibilities are staggering.
But from a creative standpoint, I have to say that I feel the same twinge of skepticism as Felix. I don’t expect each (or any) of these films to be without their flaws, but looking back, I don’t feel the original Iron Man holds up all that well. To me, Captain America was half a great movie spliced to something I would have hated even when I was six. Thor was an unremarkable film that only feels thematically relevant within the larger context of The Avengers universe. Iron Man 3 might one day mark the point where the mega-franchise officially became self-aware.
I guess the cynic in me is convinced that the business part of this will eventually ruin the artistic side of it, the way it all too often seems to in Hollywood. History sends me very mixed messages on this. But like anything, all you can do is try and enjoy it while you can. By and large the Great Marvel Experiment has been both a financial and creative success, and on a larger scale than either the suits or the dorks would ever have believed just five short years ago.
Max Braden: I'm the opposite of Bruce, having rewatched all the Iron Man movies this summer, I still think that the first Iron Man is the best movie of the Avengers franchise. And I think I'd put Iron Man 3 in second place among the group. I'd say that the difference of opinion just means that the franchise is decent enough in all corners to support a variety of viewpoints. Up against their brethren the X-Men, I think it's also evenly weighted - you can point to the best of the Avengers movies being better than the weakest of the X-Men, and the best X-Men being better than the weakest Avengers. Likewise against DC, although I think you'd probably find the highest critical acclaim for Batman while Marvel is enjoying the box office benefits of producing more movies.
David Mumpower: I line up with Max in that Iron Man remains my favorite comic book movie to date, narrowly edging Batman Begins. Debating quality is an artistic endeavor that will always be determined by individual taste. Evaluating the strength of the Marvel as a brand is a much easier proposition. Thus far, the only chink in the armor is Agents of Shield, a television series that has failed to match the impossibly high expectations of the fanbase of The Avengers. Beyond that one issue I believe can be rectified by better writing, every other aspect of The Avengers has been a pleasant surprise.
Iron Man was always perceived as the best property, which is why the project lingered in turnaround for over a decade. There was a prevailing belief that when the movie finally was made, it would be a tentpole title. Captain America and Thor each had significant question marks while the stated strategy to build toward an Avengers movie was widely derided as a doomed gambit. Fast forward to now and the Thor sequel has outperformed X2: X-Men United, approached Iron Man 2 and blown away both titles on the global market after 10 days. Marvel has not crafted a single franchise with The Avengers but rather a set of them similar to how Electronic Arts once gradually assumed control of the sports videogame marketplace.
My primary concern moving forward is whether superhero fatigue becomes an issue. Every Marvel superhero has to distinguish itself in a way that differentiates from the rest. In addition, the recently announced Netflix quartet of Marvel adaptations will add to the ubiquity of the product, thereby reducing the specialness of the current release strategy of 1-2 movies a year. Marvel becomes its own enemy in this regard as each of its licenses needs room to breathe. I am reminded of where Pixar stood on the heels of Up, Wall-E and Toy Story 3. Nobody believed they could ever fail but then the reviews for Cars 2, Brave and Monsters University all indicated that the expectations for Pixar titles had been raised so high that ordinary felt wildly insufficient. Marvel is about to start fighting that war and I am concerned because Agents of Shield could be the first victim of it.
Kim Hollis: At this very moment, the Marvel universe is the one of the healthiest franchises/pop culture items available for consumption. It has a fan base that stretches across multiple generations and is incredibly easy to market both for films and for toys. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. would appear to be the first indication of weakness, but I also question whether people understand how it fits in. Not everyone is familiar with the comics and all those characters, after all. I think if they can sustain momentum as kids start to age out and find other shiny things, it could last for a good long time. Then again, even Star Wars has only been in theaters six times up to now.
Kim Hollis: About Time, the latest rom-com from Love Actually director Richard Curtis, expanded to 1,200 venues this weekend and took in $4.8 million. What do you think of this result?
Edwin Davies: This is perfectly fine. The reviews haven't been especially rapturous, but it's an appealing looking film with an intriguing premise, which should be good for a final tally in the $20 million plus range. Curtis' films have never been reliant on the US for their big money, with even things like Notting Hill being far bigger hits internationally, and I can see the same pattern repeating here, albeit on a smaller scale.
Brett Ballard-Beach: I have to confess, the decision to open on 175 screens last weekend always struck me as odd. (Love Actually employed a similar strategy, although that opened at nearly 600 screens and had about 20 recognizable faces among its cast). But then again, this project has struck me as odd since I read the two sentence synopsis months ago. The warmer fuzzier version of The Time Traveler's Wife meets Groundhog Day… with a British accent. I give Richard Curtis an incredible amount of goodwill (although nothing he has written has ever topped The Tall Guy, with Notting Hill second) but a $5 million opening weekend on a muted 1,200 screens here seems best case scenario. I have no ideas on legs, but see this topping out at $20-$25 million here. With a low budget and $40 million overseas, it's not a loss, but it is a curious and quiet note for Curtis to (supposedly) end his directing career with. But it could have been worse. It could have ended with Pirate Radio.
Felix Quinonez Jr.: I think it's perfectly fine. There didn't seem to be a lot of buzz going for this movie and the reviews aren't great. I think its low budget will keep it from being a money loser and it won't hurt anyone's career.
Max Braden: I see this movie as potentially appealing to two audiences, (who probably overlap each other fairly well): younger Rachel McAdams fans, and the older Richard Curtis fans. The younger fans (although The Notebook is coming up on ten years old now) might see this movie's performance to date as a flop compared to the $33 million opening of The Wedding Crashers. Sure, that was mostly a Wilson/Vaughn comedy, but even Morning Glory opened to $9 million on 2500 screens. But for fans of Richard Curtis movies, this rollout is probably familiar speed, and Bill Nighy is as much the draw as anything. I'm more in the McAdams camp, and this box office performance worries me a bit. A dozen movies ago I think you could have looked at McAdams and imagined a career arc for her similar to Reese Witherspoon's or even Julia Roberts, where she'd at least have been nominated for an Oscar ten years down the line. McAdams is good at these lovely, enjoyable romances, but the bottom line is that another of those types of movies on a platform release isn't going to generate a lot of box office or award heat for her. If someone like Richard Curtis isn't available to make good quality romantic comedies, I think there's a danger of stepping into more direct-to-video quality comedies.
David Mumpower: About Time’s release pattern is old school in that the plan has been to build buzz organically for a project that feels like familiar territory in a lot of ways. The decision to cast Rachel McAdams, who had already starred in The Time Traveler’s Wife, was particularly quirky. I guess previous Richard Curtis movie actress Andie McDowell wasn’t interested in making the de facto sequel to Groundhog Day. Despite the familiar territory, audiences are giving the project the benefit of the doubt because it is a Richard Curtis movie, and he has yet to fail movie lovers. His films are always impossibly clever, uplifting and warmly remembered after the fact. About Time is not being released in a manner that is intended to build ardor over the holiday season. In order to accomplish that, the movie has to demonstrate enough holdover appeal in order to justify a decision to keep it instead of other, more heralded holiday films. I suspect it will wind up being a modest hit but I don’t expect About Time to leave theaters as the type of blockbuster that other Curtis romcoms have proven to be.
Kim Hollis: I think comparing it to other films from McAdams doesn’t really make sense, because this was never intended to be a “big” hit in the first place. It’s just a nice, slow rollout for a film that won’t make the majority of its profit in the United States anyway. There are people who are specific fans of Richard Curtis, and it’s probably more important to appeal to them than anything else here. That doesn’t translate to huge numbers, since most people probably couldn’t name the director of Notting Hill or Love Actually, but it does mean that it probably has a certain set amount that it will earn.