Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
November 27, 2013
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Matthew Huntley: As far as overall domestic gross is concerned, I don't think there's much room for The Hunger Games to grow - the original's $408 million box office take may turn out to be the franchise best, at least on the domestic front. However, I do think the last two films can see growth in opening weekend numbers by $10-$12 million, but it would all depend on when they get released. I'd say if they come out in the summer, we could see an opening as high as $180 million. But, as is par for the course, a greater opening usually means a faster fall.
Internationally, I think it's a different story, where, yes, I do think the franchise will just keep getting bigger, perhaps by $200 million. This would follow the recent trends illustrated by so many Hollywood franchises and further iterate how much the studios will continue to rely on foreign markets.
Bruce Hall: When I look at the domestic finals for the Twilight, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings (next best example I could think of), I see slightly different behavior from each franchise. Where Twilight topped out with the second film, Harry Potter dipped 17% after the first one, and then averaged about $279 million until peaking with the finale at $301 million. And then there's LOTR, which peaked on the third film. Each franchise has its own "personality". There are seven films and a variety of directors and different narrative tone in the Potter series. There are multiple directors in the Twilight series, and I’d argue the audience appeal is a little narrower than Harry Potter. LOTR would seem to have the most limited appeal of all these franchises, and yet it has the highest domestic average per film out of them all.
And I think that’s what I think the key is here, if we’re talking about performance over time and not all cumulative totals. LOTR was the most narrative and tonally consistent of all these successful franchises. Each one tells a story that we know people are going to stick with to the end, but I think how the box office averages out will tell the story of how consistently pleased audiences were with the quality of these films.
The Hunger Games topped out at $408 million, which is higher than any of the 17 films I’ve talked about so far. Catching Fire will top that. I believe we're already looking at the new king.
Edwin Davies: I think that the series started from such an astronomical high that it would have been tough for it to really increase much more - at least domestically - without some other factor like the addition of 3D or the finale bump we saw with the last Harry Potter film. We might have to wait until Mockingjay Part 2 for that sort of huge increase, assuming that the consensus opinion that the last book is the worst one doesn't hurt its prospects at the box office. Then again, we're only talking about the opening weekend so far, and I think the different release pattern between The Hunger Games and Catching Fire will have a marked effect on their overall performance; Catching Fire is perfectly poised to take advantage of the holidays, and so will not only have opened to slightly more than its predecessor, it will hold better as well, and almost certainly end the year as the number one film of 2013. That's where we'll see if the audience for the series has grown significantly since March of last year.
The big room for growth, as Matthew pointed out, is overseas. The first film was a rare example of a huge blockbuster that was more popular in America ($408 million) than in the rest of the world ($283.2 million), so there was a lot more room for improvement there. After a week, Catching Fire has already earned $146.6 million internationally, which suggests that growth has occurred, and that Catching Fire will be a much, much bigger global hit than The Hunger Games.
Jason Barney: Yes...the growth on the international front will be the story here. Any growth in the American market would be nice, but again we are already talking about films that achieve remarkable numbers here in domestic theaters. It is silly to think that movies need to earn $400 million or more domestically for them to be successful. Sure, expectations are high, but come on.
I think the true growth will be the amount of money this film (and others, as BOP has discussed in the past) earns in the foreign markets. The Hunger Games' $283 million overseas take is going to be blown out of the water. I can't stress this enough, though. If Catching Fire approaches $400 million domestic and another $400 million overseas, I'd call that a good amount of growth.
Tim Briody: I think we've firmly established the wheelhouse for Mockingjay Part 1 next year, but I'd bump Part 2 a notch or so because that seems to be the way the finales work.
Max Braden: I think if Lionsgate wants to see the box office for Hunger Games sequels to grow, they're going to have to build more theaters and send out the truancy paddy wagons. They're saturated at this point. If they want to make more profit, they'll have to be more efficient with production costs. At least domestically, expanding the box office is going to be like squeezing something out of a stone.
David Mumpower: I have real concerns that the franchise at least somewhat follows the trajectory of Pirates of the Caribbean. If we look at that series as a model, it peaked with the second movie then fell 27% domestically with At World's End. By the time On Stranger Tides was released, its North American earnings were only 57% of Dead Man's Chest. As everyone else here has mentioned, international box office expansion allowed for a continued justification of sequels. Nobody will ever remember it that way but On Stranger Tides is the most popular Pirates of the Caribbean movie overseas, grossing a whopping $803 million. Contrast that to The Curse of the Black Pearl, which managed "only" $349 million internationally.
The Hunger Games is poised to behave similarly. The first movie earned $284 million overseas while Catching Fire will torch that (no pun intended) during its first month. Conversely, everyone here is correct that the $408 million The Hunger Games grossed in North America could be the high water mark for the quadrilogy. I expect Catching Fire to fall short of that mark, and I have serious concerns about the third movie. Like everyone else, I was surprised by the announcement that there would be two movies. I understand the financial motivation for such a ploy.
My worry stems from the fact that the third book was already a disappointment. In splitting it into a pair of movies, Catching Fire Part One becomes an oddity in the franchise. It will not contain any variation of the one thing that identifies the series, a Hunger Games-style competition. As such, I can see it being a divisive, potentially alienating movie that could leave casual viewers cold. Such a situation would negatively impact the box office of the conclusive offering, which ordinarily would be expected to be an overachiever as Tim noted. I believe that the glowing reception for Catching Fire (A Cinemascore, 89% fresh at Rotten Tomatoes) will extend the goodwill of the franchise into Mockingjay. That movie itself is where I worry everything could come undone. Prove me wrong, Lionsgate.
Kim Hollis: Do you think Jennifer Lawrence is the most popular actress working right now? Why or why not?
Matthew Huntley: I think it's still too early to tell. True, Jennifer Lawrence does have The Hunger Games and Silver Linings Playbook under her belt, but both of these came out at a time when her popularity was still being formed. In order for us to really gauge her influence with ticket buyers, I think she would have to headline an original film on her own and see how it performs. It'd be interesting, for example, if The House at the End of the Street was released now. I'm definitely not condoning that, but it could tell us something.
If I had to pick which Hollywood actress is most popular, I'd go with the safe choice of Sandra Bullock, who definitely has proven herself across a wide range of films.
Bruce Hall: Today, yesterday and for the next few weeks? Absolutely. But fame is a fickle beast, and in the entertainment business it's especially fickle toward female artists. Kristen Stewart never quite took off the way she was apparently supposed to, but I think most would agree she's not quite the same caliber actress as Jennifer Lawrence. And I think that's what it'll boil down to, what kind of actress Lawrence is. People like Meryl Streep, Jodie Foster, Sandra Bullock and Natalie Portman have enjoyed extended staying power because they have the ability to consistently connect with audiences in leading roles, and in in a variety of material. If Lawrence can do that, she might join those women. Otherwise, I can easily see her having a long and successful career largely associated with supporting roles, in the same vein as Julianne Moore or Scarlett Johansson.
Either way, Jennifer Lawrence is talented, attractive, and she acquits herself well offscreen. Wherever her career takes her, she's definitely not going away.
Edwin Davies: She's undeniably huge, but I think we have too little data to determine just how huge she is outside of The Hunger Games franchise. As Katniss, she's undoubtedly one of the most well-known figures in popular culture, and she was a key factor in the success of Silver Linings Playbook, but her name alone wasn't enough to make The House at the End of the Street anything other than a middling horror film. Basically, she's made too few non-Hunger Games related films for us to accurately say if she is a huge star outside of her franchise (though, if I had to bet money on it, I say that she probably is).
To my mind, she's the female equivalent of Robert Downey, Jr. or Johnny Depp, who are the two biggest stars in the world as long as they are playing Tony Stark and Jack Sparrow. She's ridiculously talented and charming, has already got an Oscar, and has reached a place where she can cherry pick her projects, so I have no doubt that she will remain one of the most popular, if not the most popular, actresses for several more years, and it won't be long until she's headlining huge hits that don't require her to run around a forest with a bow.
Jason Barney: There is no question she has a remarkable run of box office success. She probably is the most popular actress. Critical success and profitable movies are probably the best way to measure this. At present, the only actress who would come close would be Sandra Bullock. She had a pretty impressive run, and her success this year has been remarkable. The Heat and Gravity were two big films. Natalie Portman earns some consideration as well.
All in all....Lawrence is probably on top.
Max Braden: ~This girl is on f-- okay, enough of that. But who else is there? I can't even think of what Reese Witherspoon has been up to lately (she's not still in jail for interfering with an arrest, is she?) . Ever popular Julia Roberts is more in the Emeritus zone than "most popular." Even with the runaway popularity of Gravity and The Heat in one year, I think Sandra Bullock would come in second to Lawrence in this poll. Kristen Stewart has been in some high-earning movies, but "most popular actress"? I think even her fans would pause at that title. The next name that comes to mind is Hayden Panettiere, who is doing well on TV but hasn't been strong in movies. Rachel McAdams, Emma Stone, Anna Kendrick, even Kaley Cuoco - all popular, but Lawrence is really the one who can claim the top spot as the "It" girl.
David Mumpower: I agree with Max although I will take a different approach to reach the same conclusion. I believe that Sandra Bullock is the only other actress in the conversation right now. Nobody else has the track record of blockbuster movies over the past five years. Within the category of two, let's evaluate Bullock first. Her career resurgence includes four huge hits. Those titles are The Proposal, The Blind Side, The Heat and Gravity. I am going to give her full credit for all of those roles even though there is an argument to be the contrary for each of them. The quartet of hits has grossed $825.4 million domestically, $1.43 billion globally. Any thespian in the world would love to claim that strong a series of movies.
Jennifer Lawrence scoffs at such paltry numbers. I am not being hyperbolic. X-Men: First Class, The Hunger Games, Silver Linings Playbook and Catching Fire currently claim a total of $873 million domestically (including Tuesday box office for Catching Fire) and $1.6 billion globally. Keep in mind that Catching Fire, certain to be the biggest movie of the quartet in terms of global revenue, has only been in theaters for a week and a half. The gap will only grow over the next month. For that matter, The Blind Side is the biggest domestic hit in the storied career of Bullock. It earned $256 million in North America; Catching Fire will have passed that amount by Sunday. At the age of 23, Lawrence will already have two movies bigger than anything Bullock has ever done in her entire career.
We can debate how much Lawrence means to the bottom line of a project all we want. What matters is what is on her resume. She has been cast in films that have become commercial standouts, and she even has another blockbuster waiting in the wings with X-Men: Days of Future Past. Next year alone, Lawrence will star in two more $200 million domestic earners than Julia Roberts has had in her entire career. And when Mockingjay Part One is released, she will exceed the sum total of $200 million domestic earners Tom Cruise can claim on his resume. The conversation with her is not so much about whether she is the biggest actress in the world right now. Instead, it is where she stands in terms of Hollywood overall. She has earned her place in that conversation with Johnny Depp and Robert Downey Jr.
Kim Hollis: Delivery Man, a Vince Vaughn comedy where he portrays a sperm donor with a looooooooot of kids, earned $7.9 million. What do you think about this result?
Matthew Huntley: This brings me back to the first weekend of May 2007, when Lucky You opened against (and got eclipsed by) Spider-Man 3. Obviously, Disney was trying to counter-program the film for people who had no interest in Katniss and friends, but a lack of marketing and a somewhat goofy premise weren't enough to attract people to it. Granted, the original Canadian film was a big hit in its native Quebec, but it was probably too quirky for American audiences. Also, Vaughn seems to have lost steam as far as his box-office pull. The only thing saving it is its relatively small $26 million budget.
Bruce Hall: On a one-to one level this movie reminds me a little of The Switch, starring Jason Bateman and Jennifer Aniston (I like the two of them, but they roughly equal one Vince Vaughn - and that's not a fat joke). But we're also looking at two movies with likable leads taking on material with a potentially high "ick" factor, and opening against overwhelming competition. Of course, August is not November and The Expendables is no Hunger Games, but my point is that The Switch had a comparable theme and zero chance of separating itself from the competition.
The good news is that The Switch was also a small film with mid range stars that (very) quietly turned a nice little profit anyway. I believe Delivery Man will do the same.
Edwin Davies: I think the marketing failed to hide the fact that Delivery Man is a pretty bad film that squanders an interesting premise. There was potential for a film not aimed at The Hunger Games audience to do well this weekend - not be huge, but do decent business - and the trailers for this lacked any decent jokes, and tried to sell Vince Vaughn, who people have liked in the past for his acerbic, motormouth quality, not as someone going on a heartfelt journey. I'm not saying he couldn't play that guy, but it's not a character that people who know his work would want to see him play unless the marketing was really compelling, and it absolutely wasn't. It also wasn't strong enough to make people forget The Dilemma, The Watch and The Internship. Vaughn's on a run of very bad luck or bad choices with his projects, and that has probably soured people who were fans of his up until a few years ago.
Jason Barney: This has to be labeled as a bit of a disappointment, as the potential for counter-programming was there, but this one will be lucky to approach its budget. When I first saw the commercials I thought the story might be funny and intriguing to go and see. I'm glad I had some patience. This film is not getting much attention, and I can wait and see it in a few months. This is a missed opportunity.
Max Braden: Vaughn is frequently half of a comedy duo, paired with guys like Owen Wilson and Kevin James. Without the partner I think there's a sense that something's missing here, like a phantom limb. The material is also odd in that it's like a romantic comedy but without one single romantic interest, and a little too on the adult side to lure in family audiences where they might flock to a human version of 101 Dalmatians. So with Vaughn on his own (despite his ensemble of children represented by Christ Pratt), I don't think it's too surprising that the box office was half or a smaller fraction of the opening weekends for The Internship, The Dilemma, Couples Retreat, and The Break-Up. A decade ago, Will Ferrell might have brought in more money with this project due to his stardom, but I don't think there was a lot of hidden potential for anyone to star here. It's an easily described hook, but audiences need something more focused than "tons of kids" in order to deliver a strong opening weekend number.
David Mumpower: I have a different perspective on this than the rest of you. I believe that this movie was doomed to failure due to the shaky decision of release dates. Counter-programming is a concept that is driven by the idea that people will want to see a movie that is not the most heralded one. There used to be a secondary aspect involving potential overflow audiences from sold out venues but that concept has become archaic in the 4,000 venues release era. The key premise of a tentpole title is that it is presumed to appeal to all four movie quadrants. A movie like that by definition appeals to everyone, so an attempt to counter-program is doomed to failure. I am not saying that a film has no hope of succeeding in such a scenario as the quality/appeal of the title still comes into play. What I do believe, however, is that a mediocre flick like Delivery Man simply will not have a chance when pitted against a behemoth like Catching Fire. All it seems like is a punchline, and not in the way a comedy wants to be associated with jokes.
Even if all of the above were not true, Delivery Man would still have issues. It is a Vince Vaughn vehicle, and consumers have grown weary of his shtick. The Internship demonstrated his flagging box office pull. An inferior version of high concept comedy without Owen Wilson as a co-star was something that frankly should not have gotten a greenlight. This project was a mistake, pure and simple.
Kim Hollis: Dallas Buyers Club, an Oscar contender featuring Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto, earned $2.7 million this weekend from 666 venues. What do you think of this result? What do you think are its best chances at Academy Awards?
Edwin Davies: This is a solid, but not spectacular expansion that suggests that the film is going to do fairly well going forward, but will probably not be quite the sensation that fellow contender 12 Years A Slave (which made $2 million more when it expanded into 200 fewer screens a few weeks ago than Dallas Buyers Club did this weekend) has been so far. The ads have rightly played up the fact that the film is more of a caper than a grim awards contender, but that might have made it seem less essential than other, weightier offerings.
In terms of its awards potential, I think its greatest chances for nominations and wins are in the acting categories. McConaughey's physical transformation for the role is really quite startling, and the Academy always like to see an actor endanger their health for a film (he's also really, really good in it, which helps), so a Best Actor nomination seems pretty much certain. The film's best chance for a win, as far as I'm concerned, is for Jared Leto in the Best Supporting Actor category, because it's the kind of exuberant, bold performance that is easy to pinpoint as a highlight of the film, but because it also touches on a lot of important, relevant themes about sexuality and gender identity, all of which makes for a very Oscar friendly combination.
Max Braden: In my stomping grounds around Washington, DC, this movie comes across as huge Oscar material. I think for a movie like this and its film-circuit audience, the goal is more about awareness and buzz than necessarily getting people in the theater, so even though the box office isn't lighting up over it, I think the press is. There's plenty of advertising for the movie here. And when you add to it the already strong buzz McConaughey has received after starring in Mud (which recently came available for rental), I think he's a very strong contender for Best Actor. Leto too is getting buzz for this movie, and although he might not be as widely talked about as McConaughey, it's the kind of role that should carry weight with the voters who have seen the movie. I suspect that the screenplay may also be a candidate for a nomination.
David Mumpower: For a sober-seeming film such as Dallas Buyers Club, any box office whatsoever is an achievement. Made for a frugal $5.5 million, the title has already reached $7 million domestically. It will earn enough money in theaters to justify its existence, no small feat in and of itself. The knowledge that it should continue to chug along at this sort of pace for a while means it is a solid hit relative to financial outlay.
In terms of awards candidacy, I am not as enthusiastic about its prospects as the rest of you. I am well aware of its glowing critical reception thus far. Not only is Dallas Buyers Club 94% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, it is a perfect 42 for 42 among top critics. The people who champion unheralded cinema are its most ardent supporters. The problem is that the academy is notoriously fickle about these sorts of performances. I applaud Matthew McConaughey for trying to change his reputation, and I believe that Jared Leto deserves to be a bigger player in the industry. I struggle to believe that the average voter will choose such people to laud, though. Leto is a strong possibility, but the combination of McConaughey's track record and his desperate attempt to become respected as an actor strikes me as a Jim Carrey scenario. I firmly expect the movie to be a popular title during December awards season, but I do not expect that momentum to carry into February.
Kim Hollis: I think if people read the description of the film, the fact that it made this much money in expansion is pretty remarkable. With regards to its awards chances, I would also posit that McConaughey and Leto are its best shot, but the two male acting categories are going to be so competitive this year that it might be a challenge to break into the mix. Leto is probably the top contender in Supporting Actor at the moment, though.