Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
December 17, 2013
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Edwin Davies: It's probably worth mentioning that there have been a few factors which people have used to explain why Desolation of Smaug didn't do as well as An Unexpected Journey (aside from the fact that it has a far worse title), and these tend to be things that the former had to contend with which the latter didn't. Firstly, adverse weather, which can depress box office somewhat by making people think that it's not essential that they go and see The Hobbit this weekend. Secondly, An Unexpected Journey basically had the weekend to itself last year, with no other film earning more than $8 million. Desolation of Smaug faced off against three films that earned twice that much this weekend, and some people might have opted to see Frozen or The Hunger Games instead. Personally, I don't think either factor would be strong enough to have this much of an impact, but they could have chipped away at some of the demand.
What, then, is responsible for this dip? Well, we've said in the past that the quality of a film will be reflected in how people respond to its sequel, and I think we're seeing that in effect here. The first Hobbit was not a very good movie, and was generally seen as something of a disappointment in comparison to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which were not only hugely popular movies but were critical smashes as well, with all three garnering superlative reviews and nominations for Best Picture in their respective years. Enthusiasm for the first Hobbit was already a little bit muted considering its pedigree, and I think that its quality put off many casual fans who might now be waiting to hear what the word-of-mouth is on Desolation of Smaug before checking it out. (It's also worth noting that even though The Hobbit made $300 million, it sold roughly 15 million fewer tickets than Fellowship of the Ring, which was far and away the least popular of the Lord of the Ring films, so inflation and premium ticket prices have obscured the fact that there had already been significant audience erosion.) That it still opened to such a high number is a testament to the loyalty of the fans, but the bloom is off the rose somewhat at this point.
Matthew Huntley: No one could have put it better than Edwin I think, although in addition to the first installment's lackluster reviews/audience reception, I'd say the quality of The Desolation of Smaug also played a role in its eroded box-office return. To me, it's an inferior film compared to its predecessor, which itself merely ranged from "OK" to "decent" to "pretty good." Incidentally, I feel the same way about the LOTR trilogy.
In any case, perhaps word-of-mouth spread quickly that Smaug is just not that enjoyable, exiting or consequential, and I'm wondering, too, if audiences are more privy to the idea the studio is simply trying to milk this franchise for more than its worth. In spite of the "disappointing" opening weekend, though, The Hobbit saga is already a massive hit, based on the box-office return of the first one alone, and it would seem any money that Smaug and There and Back Again make will be pure gravy, but I have a feeling fans are starting to feel betrayed, or at least uninterested, by the listless storytelling.
Felix Quinonez: I agree with what has already been said. I really think that audiences were ready to embrace these hobbit films because The Lord of the Rings was such a beloved franchise but The Hobbit killed a lot of the goodwill that audiences felt. I saw The Hobbit ready to love it and even I was disappointed by it, so I can only imagine how let down less forgiving audiences might have felt. I think it's very hard to hide the fact or deny that these movies are desperately trying to milk the cow for as much money as possible and people have realized this. And while the reviews were a little better this time around, they are still far below any of the LOTR films so people on the fence wouldn't have been swayed to give this one a chance after the disappointing first chapter.
Kim Hollis: As others have mentioned, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't believe that the lessened quality of the first Hobbit film is largely to blame for the decline of the second movie in the series. I also think it's really important to reiterate that we're talking about a 300-page, briskly-paced book that has been stretched out to three almost three-hour movies. I'm pretty sure I could read the book itself in about the time it takes to watch one single movie. For the second movie, a lot of material was added and not only was it unnecessary, it wasn't particularly interesting. I'm one of the biggest Tolkien fans out there and I was still sort of like, "Eh, I'll go see it, I guess."
Bruce Hall: You sure can't discount the impact of inclement weather in some of America's most populated regions. Piles of snow, high winds, cats and dogs living together - equals countless thousands of geeks staying home to fight dragons on the Xbox rather than watch them in the theater. Clearly, The Hobbit's target audience also had more alternatives to choose from this time than they did before - Frozen is still doing big business and lot of people decided to go that way instead of back to Middle Earth. Thor and Catching Fire round out this week's top five, playing less of a factor but no doubt cannibalizing at least some portion of The Hobbit's coveted Nerd Demographic.
But let's not ignore the 800 (thousand) pound Smaug in the room. A lot of people saw An Unexpected Journey, and a lot of them hated it. And when genre dictates an already front loaded box office, poor word-of-mouth from legions of angry fanboys can have a lasting effect. This is purely anecdotal of course, but to many people Peter Jackson's new trilogy feels more cynical and less inspired than the first. I do think it's had a financial effect on the box office, but I couldn't give you a dollar amount.
Still, we're talking about a film that has earned $73 million domestically, plus an additional $130 million internationally, all in one weekend. This is still going to be a hugely profitable film, and those who dismiss it as a "cash grab" will be technically correct. But those hoping for the same experience they got from the original trilogy seem to be coming away disappointed, or just staying away altogether.
Kim Hollis: What do you think is the long-term outlook for The Desolation of Smaug and the final film in the Hobbit series, There and Back Again?
Edwin Davies: If Desolation of Smaug follows the same pattern that An Unexpected Journey did, with a multiplier of roughly 3.6, then I'd expect to see it finish with a final total of about $260 million, which is a sizable fall from An Unexpected Journey's $300 million. Since things rarely work out that perfectly, and since the more positive reviews might help the Desolation of Smaug hold a little better, I'd expect it to split the difference and end up somewhere in the $270-280 range. It's already performing better than An Unexpected Journey overseas, so it'll probably make a billion dollars worldwide when all is said and done, so any decline in the U.S. will be offset pretty handily.
As for There and Back Again, I'd expect to see a slight uptick on account of the finale factor - or, more cynically, because it'll be the film in the trilogy where something finally happens - but I get the feeling that the damage has already been done with An Unexpected Journey. Die-hard Tolkien fans will defend splitting a very thin book into three long ass movies, but I think most people see it as naked greed that's producing sub-standard movies, so probably would take a pass on the last installment. I'd expect it to finish in the $290-300 million range domestically, and add another billion dollars worldwide again. Since the trilogy will have cost somewhere north of $600 million to produce by the time all is said and done, it'll have turned into a pretty profitable enterprise.
Felix Quinonez: I agree that the damage has already been done. I think this one will do in the $250-$275 million range domestically and get close to a billion worldwide. As far as the third installment, I believe that being the final chapter will raise interest a bit and it might do a bit better than the second chapter. But when all is said and done I believe that only the first film will have made over $300 million domestically.
Of course no one should feel sorry for Peter Jackson and company because these movies are making boatloads of money but I really do think that the drop in quality from LOTR has kept The Hobbit from having the same crossover appeal. Unlike LOTR, I think The Hobbit reached its commercial peak with the first chapter.
Bruce Hall: I'm reluctant to try and take a 13% drop in opening weekend revenue and project final numbers, because a lot can happen between now and then. But I feel comfortable guessing that Smaug will fail to break $300 million domestically. I would expect to see a typical second frame drop in the 50+ percent range (perhaps I'm being generous, we'll see), so it's going to be all downhill from here. International numbers are slightly more promising, with An Unexpected Journey opening internationally at $138 million and Smaug falling just short of that at $131 million. It's too early to be sure, but I think the sequel's chances of at least sniffing a billion worldwide are quite good.
As for the third installment, I don't see why it can't be similarly successful. While the drop off in performance between Parts 1 and 2 is not insignificant, it's also not exactly cause for alarm. We're talking about enormous sums of money. These are all going to be hugely profitable films. And creatively, if Part 3 can end on a high note, it's not impossible for it to make up some ground both financially and critically. That's not to say I'm hopeful for it, but remember that Peter Jackson has done us proud before. Perhaps he still will again.
Kim Hollis: Desolation of Smaug will almost certainly trend down from the performance of the first Hobbit film. Both had the advantage of opening around the same time of year, but calendar configuration might be able to make a difference for Smaug. The final film should see a small uptick in theory, but I'm actually mildly concerned about it right now. Even though critical reviews for Smaug are better than the first film, the word-of-mouth I'm hearing is not particularly kind to the second movie in the series. I'm hearing a lot of people say they were bored (and I was too, for what it's worth), and there could be some real residual negative impact moving forward as a result.