Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
April 1, 2014
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Edwin Davies: I thought that Noah might open a little higher than this, based on the amount of chatter that's been building up around the film in the last few weeks as a result of the very minor controversy around it, but this is still in the ballpark of my expectations. This always seemed like a tough sell, considering that Christian audiences (who were clearly a major part of the intended audience) tend to be wary of Hollywood filmmakers and non-religious, or at least non-fundamentalist, audiences tend to be wary of films that are overtly religious. Aronofsky's non-literal interpretation might have pissed off Glenn Beck (in which case: hurray!) but it seemed to strike the right tone by promising spectacle wedded to an iconic, well-known story, albeit one that could still be played with in an interesting way.
Having said that, this is merely good, not great. Unless it holds up brilliantly in the next few weeks - and we're talking Gravity-style legs - it'll probably tap out at around $120 million, which would not cover the production budget, let alone the marketing. If it craters next week against Captain America, I could even see it shooting under the final total of Aronofsky's last film, Black Swan. The difference might be made up overseas, where disaster movies tend to do bumper business, but even in the best case scenario, I see this one as being a draw once everything is said and done. Then again, considering what a risky venture this was, a draw should probably be counted as a win.
Matthew Huntley: Controversy aside, Noah's opening weekend is indeed very good, but I agree with Edwin, it's not great. When all is said and done, this is a near (if not more) $200 million venture (production budget plus prints and advertising), and with Captain America right around the corner, I have a feeling Noah may struggle to make back half of that stateside. But I also have a feeling Paramount knew this all along and they're banking on the movie's domestic receipts to be merely supplemental to its international box-office. Next weekend will certainly reveal how far it will go, and with Easter coming up in three weeks, it could stick around longer than I'm leading on.
On another note, I was glad to see this earned mostly positive reviews. I haven't seen it yet, but from the get-go, I thought it would be a disaster both critically and commercially. It's nice to see Darren Aronofsky's track record for quality filmmaking is still intact.
Jason Barney: I think this is generally a solid start. Against the reported budget the opening could have been a little better, but I doubt too much consternation is going on at Paramount right now. Noah has already started to perform well overseas, and the domestic box office is not going to disappoint. I think in our analysis of certain projects we often forget how much of a draw certain actors can be outside the United States. To this point, I think a comparable film may be 2010's Robin Hood. That project had a much larger $200 million budget and didn't do so well domestically, but overseas it did fairly well. When all was said and done Russell Crowe as Robin Hood brought in over $320 million. Against the overall budget, maybe that wasn't spectacular, but it maintained Crowe's status as an international draw.
Now we have Crowe as Noah, the international numbers are already starting to come in, and the opening in the US was larger than Robin Hood's. Noah's budget is considerably lower, so I would expect that Noah is going to do just fine. It isn't going to go on any historic film list, but this is a solid opening that will maintain Crowe's status as an overseas draw. With the somewhat positive reviews it won't disappear like films without moviegoers' support.
Brett Ballard-Beach: I would have been (very pleasantly) surprised if this had gone much higher. Historical action epics are about the only genre that Crowe opens any more (even if it wouldn't quite be fair to give him the lion's share of credit for this) and although it is often said that no controversy is bad controversy, it was hard to gauge in advance if the devoutly inclined would be kept away or would choose to show up, and/or in what numbers other quadrants might attend to make up for any loss. I am inclined to think that legs will not be great for this. It does, however, give me pleasure to note that the top five (well, six) this week contains films of personal idiosyncratic vision by both Aranofsky and Wes Anderson that in their own ways are connecting on a mass level.
Kim Hollis: This weekend's total was almost exactly what I expected for Noah. Crowe isn't really any special kind of draw on his own (if you look at his recent track record, he hasn't been in any way consistent), and this particular Noah didn't appeal as much to faith-based viewers as many of them might hope. Non-religious film fans would be wary of a biblical epic as well. It's not like Darren Aronofsky is know for any mainstream creations, either.
Bruce Hall: I want to say I was expecting more than this, but when I think about the level to which they improvised with this well known story, I can see $43 million. This would constitute a solid start for any movie that did not cost its stakeholders anywhere between $125 and $200 million to bring to fruition and was NOT based on a Biblical epic. But with what is obviously meant to be a marquee title, I could call it a mild letdown.
Still, Noah is doing solid international business and is poised to break even, if not necessarily make a significant profit. Considering the attempt by some quarters to manufacture controversy, I'd say that Noah is performing like the lukewarm action adventure it really is.
David Mumpower: We as box office analysts hungrily want films to earn more. Sometimes, a relatively solid number is genuinely good rather than "just" good enough. I believe that this is such an example.
The Noah conversation is a strange one for me in that I have literally been awaiting this production for a decade now. If you google my name, CNN and The Passion of the Christ, you will find an interview from February of 2004 (!) wherein I stated an expectation for a Noah's Ark production in the wake of Mel Gibson's success. This causes me to think of two things. 1) I've been doing this job for waaaaay too long. 2) Mel Gibson used to be successful and popular. My, how times have changed.
Over the past decade, I obviously have put a great deal of thought into my expectations for Noah. Since I reside in the Bible Belt, I have borne witness to the backlash against the project from the ultra-religious consumers currently supporting God's Not Dead so ardently. In short, my thought process has been that Hollywood waited a decade to create a movie that should have been greenlit in 2004. In the process, a schism has occurred in America that turns any religious subject matter into a polarized political debate. Noah did not receive the sort of controversy that would aid it in attaining more box office the way that The Passion of the Christ did. All it did was ward off potential customers who are skeptical of any religious enterprise crafted by the cynical Hollywood elite.
Given the above, I say with complete sincerity that I consider Noah's opening weekend as a best case scenario result. It has pretty lousy trailers, divisive subject matter and a mistrustful target audience. The largest potential here was for Noah to bomb. Not only did it evade that fate but it also managed an opening weekend that is spectacular for any new property. Yes, I recognize that there is a built-in awareness for such a popular Biblical story yet that hasn't translated to box office for either of the major Nativity stories released in December over the past few years. Noah was getting hit from both sides as non-believers had cause to fear proselytizing while the faithful were dubious about the intentions of the filmmakers. For Noah to open this well is a pleasant surprise in my estimation.
Kim Hollis: Bad Words, Jason Bateman's comedy about a foul-mouthed adult competing with grade school kids in a spelling bee, expanded to 842 locations and earned $2.6 million. What do you think of this result?
Edwin Davies: This seems pretty bad to me, considering that the film is, by most accounts, a very broad comedy that is pretty funny, if a little dark. I'm really surprised that Focus decided to go with a platform release since it seems entirely unsuited to the kind of film that it is. It seems like it would have benefited more from the kind of broad release they gave to Burn After Reading, rather than trying to aim for the smaller, limited release audiences who might not be as open to such a filthy, raunchy comedy.
Brett Ballard-Beach: I must quibble with our Curt David and declare that this had the best tagline of the new wide releases this weekend: "The end justifies the mean." Beyond that, no, it wasn't a good result. Glad to see Jason Bateman and Diego Luna both branching out behind the camera this weekend, but seeing the normally put upon nice guy from Arrested Development and Identity Thief embrace his inner asshole apparently was neither thrilling or enthralling. "Bad Santa... at a spelling bee" has its possibilities but Billy Bob is still the modern standard by which these types of characters must be measured.
Bruce Hall: My initial reaction is "meh". A modest expansion for a title that's technically been in existence for 17 weeks now. It's an unremarkable result and it's hard to see us discussing this movie again - but I do foresee another feather in Jason Bateman's cult classic cap.
David Mumpower: I honestly don't even care about the box office for Bad Words. All I know is that I laughed harder at that trailer than I have for any in at least a calendar year. If it bombs in theaters, it seems destined to become a cult classic on video. If the tone mirrors the advertising - and I've been assured that it does - Bad Words is exactly the kind of daring comedy that we lack in an industry chock full of Owen Wilson/Vince Vaughn retreads.