Monday Morning Quarterback
By BOP Staff
January 15, 2014
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Matthew Huntley: Various box office analysts are crediting Lone Survivor's performance to its patriotic story, which specifically touched down in the mid-west and Texas. I can actually see this being the case, especially following last year's Act of Valor, which also opened unexpectedly high, displayed respectable legs and went on to gross $70 million on a $12 million budget. Both films suggest there's a new trend whereby courageous, against-all-odds war stories are back and audiences want something to cheer for. Compared to Valor, Lone Survivor is the more Hollywood-ized, mainstream version, and with a relatively big name - Mark Wahlberg - at its center, success was inevitable. Surely the film's reviews played a role as well, and given its audience reception thus far, I can see this going on to at least $120 million stateside. Internationally, it will likely be tougher sell, but it's already a certified win for Universal, which will probably use this win to help downplay the loss that was 47 Ronin.
Felix Quinonez Jr.: I think a major selling point was the way Lone Survivor was advertised. The studio wisely downplayed any politics or motivations behind the operation the movie depicts. The trailers instead highlighted the bravery and courage of the soldiers. And the studio was also very wise to court middle America audiences. It also doesn't hurt that at the center is a reliable actor who is a draw in the right project.
Edwin Davies: During those dark days when Twilight was the teen phenomenon du jour, I often found myself saying, "Sure, they're successful, but can you imagine how much money they would make if they were actually good?" I felt much the same about Act of Valor, which was a pretty terrible film that managed to ably tap into the wave of goodwill towards the SEALs that appeared in the wake of the death of Osama bin Laden. I feel that Lone Survivor is the good version of Act of Valor in that respect since it hits many of the key pressure points - a focus on bravery, heroism and a soupçon of patriotism - but has real actors (including Mark Wahlberg, who is a remarkably dependable action star at this point) and a director who can shoot action well. It's not a great film, but it's an immensely solid one, and I think its perceived quality, coupled with the aforementioned themes, allowed it to break out and perhaps reach audiences who generally aren't catered for during the curious mix of awards season dogfight and studio dumping ground that is January.
Jay Barney: This is an outstanding result for Universal, and it definitely eliminates the bad taste in their mouths from 47 Ronin. Frankly, I am not sure how they pulled this off. Perhaps it had to do with the lack of this type of film for some time in theaters, but the stars aligned and Lone Survivor is going to be a HUGE success. I wonder if the involvement of Mark Wahlberg had something to do with it, as he is on almost as much of a successful run as Universal. That studio's success has been pretty well detailed on BOP for some time, but Wahlberg has been a growing draw. The only certifiable flop on his resume in the last several years has been Broken City. Even films like Pain & Gain ended up being successful, partly because of his presence. Ted, 2 Guns, Contraband...the last couple of years have been pretty good to him.
David Mumpower: I think Edwin touched upon the key aspect in that American consumers have such goodwill toward Navy SEALs. If Act of Valor could excel while being a truly terrible movie, Lone Survivor should be popular as well. It is a similar concept with a much better story and, you know, professional actors. I would also note that this is the best opening weekend of Mark Wahlberg’s career that did not involve a storm, an ape or a teddy bear. What I find particularly fascinating is that Mark Wahlberg has been in January releases in three consecutive years. Two out of three were solid hits. The one that bombed had the most famous co-star, Russell Crowe. Stuff like this is why everybody in Hollywood is on antidepressants.
Max Braden: Lone Survivor offers a really good mix of realism, straight up action, drama, and a Hollywood treatment. Captain Phillips offers the Hollywood treatment of a real patriotic story, but the lead is a civilian being pushed around with more drama than gunfighting. 47 Ronin and The Legend of Hercules offer more action but it's silly fantasy stuff. This is the kind of role Wahlberg is really good in, and everyone can go and feel pumped up for the right reasons, but also feel something for the characters.
Kim Hollis: The Legend of Hercules debuted this weekend with $8.9 million. What do you think about this result?
Matthew Huntley: Wait, The Legend of Hercules opened this weekend? I guess you could have fooled me, because even though I knew this movie was coming out, I didn't realize it was this weekend. I'm surprised the studio didn't wait a week, in order to capitalize on the MLK Jr. holiday.
In any event, given the movie's lackluster trailer and story, and virtually zero star power, its performance is about in line with expectations. Before long, this movie won't even be a memory. Hopefully the other Hercules movie starring Dwayne Johnson will prove more formidable.
Felix Quinonez Jr.: I think the result sounds about right for Hercules. I honestly hadn't even heard of this movie before the weekend so obviously the marketing wasn't a priority for the studio. It had terrible reviews and just about zero star power. Obviously the result is terrible but it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
Edwin Davies: I'll echo Felix and Matthew by saying that I wasn't aware that this was even coming out this weekend until I saw it mentioned in the Weekend Forecast. I saw no ads for it, only vaguely know Kellan Lutz from Twilight (I all honesty I think of him more for being a reference in a couple of episodes of 30 Rock) and didn't even know he was in it. I'm not even entirely convinced that this movie actually exists, so if anything, 8.6 million dollars sounds like too much.
Jay Barney: I was aware the film was coming out, but based on the trailer I saw, I had little interest in spending my money on it. Most movie goers felt the same way, as this one had a very week opening. It is not going to last very long in theaters, and will be out of the top 10 within a couple of weeks.
Max Braden: Ditto all the comments so far; something slipped up in the marketing. I recently knew this was coming but didn't have a good sense that it was this weekend. I also didn't have a good sense of the story despite hearing the trailers on TV, which means they didn't hold my attention or sell it well enough. The bottom line is that the reviews have ranked this as a poor product, and it's hard to sell crap. I thought of this as something like another Immortals (opening at $32 million), which wasn't a selling point for me. Still, I think if they had given the marketing some more lead time they might have been able to squeeze more money out of it. This isn't good news for Kellan Lutz, who's obviously trying to step forward from Twilight side character to lead actor.
David Mumpower: It needed more Kevin Sorbo. I also found myself thinking something strange over the weekend. ABC Family aired the 1997 Disney version of Hercules on Sunday. If 275,000 people watched that airing, more people saw a 16-year-old animated version of the movie than the new one that cost $70 million to produce. That’s brutal.
Tim Briody: How does Renny Harlin continue to find work? He's Uwe Boll with a better agent, apparently.