Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
April 16, 2014
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Edwin Davies: Considering how incredibly cheap it was to make and how esoteric the premise is, this is a very solid result. However, I think within the broader context of the box office this year it could have done a little better. The schedule has been pretty bereft of horror films for the last month or so, and even more so in terms of decent, mainstream horror films. It seemed like a great environment in which to release a horror film that could break out, and this did to an extent, but I guess "ooh, scary mirror!" wasn't compelling enough to draw a big audience. Still, a $12 million opening and a likely $25-30 million finish isn't too shabby.
Jason Barney: This obviously is not the breakout success of the Paranormal Activity films or the Blair Witch Project, but it is a solid, respectable opening. It won't be last year's The Purge. Films from the horror genre generally have a predictable ceiling, and while this is not going to garner a lot of attention, it is not going to lose money. This will fall right into the category of cheap, successful scary movies. It won't be around long, and it is not going to be remembered by many, but it won't lose money.
Bruce Hall: "A low budget horror movie starring nobody in particular that (more than) doubled its production budget in its first week of release, despite less than stellar reviews. It faded out of theaters quickly, but enjoyed a lucrative run on home video."
This is what I predict future people will say of this movie, if they speak of it at all.
Max Braden: I don't watch Doctor Who (blasphemy, I know), so I wouldn't have been able to identify who Karen Gillan is. My impression of Oculus was that buzz was pretty strong for providing good scares, and its Rotten Tomatoes number exceeds all of the scores for Paranormal Activity's sequels at least. I expected a number above $15 million, but as mentioned, it's a relatively strong opening.
Kim Hollis: Given its fairly unknown cast and limited marketing, I think this result is just fine. I do think that the parity between the critical reviews and the Cinemascore (audience reviews) is interesting and probably means it’s one and done as most horror films are rather than an Insidious/Conjuring-type breakout. I do like that horror films are finally trending away from excessive gore and back to more thoughtful scares myself.
Felix Quinonez: Any time a movie makes more than double its production budget, it's gotta be considered a success. This won't have great legs but even after its marketing budget is included, it will see a profit and we'll continue seeing more low budget horror movies with no name actors and have this same discussion. It's a vicious cycle. Horror movies have a built in audience, don't require big name actors, and are cheaper to make so it's easier to see a profit on them.
David Mumpower: Put me in the hyper-critical category for Oculus. I simply fail to see the greatness of a modest opening weekend for a film with fairly solid leads. Doctor Who has never been hotter, so the Hollywood introduction of Karen Gillan should have led to a better debut for this project. After all, her target audience is exactly the same as the one who keeps the horror genre afloat. Oculus will make money; nobody here questions that. It still feels like a disappointing result to me. The absolutely atrocious Cinemascore also indicates that the franchise potential here is less than I would have expected a week ago.
Kim Hollis: Draft Day, the latest Kevin Costner comeback attempt, debuted with $9.8 million. What do you think of this result?
Edwin Davies: This is pretty middling compared to similar films, but then again it seems about as good as a Kevin Costner sports drama (that's not about sport) could do in 2014 - especially one that's more about the backstage antics, rather than the game itself. This seems firmly within Costner's wheelhouse, but I think the trailers failed to make it look particularly interesting (and, based on the reviews, the filmmakers failed to make it particularly good) in order to draw out anyone other than his fans or people who are super into inside baseball stuff about football.
Jason Barney: While this is not going to be around long, I think the general intent was to capitalize on the arrival of spring and the coming NFL draft. Last year, 42 did really well. In 2008 Leatherheads tried but really wasn't that popular. Sports related films are a difficult sell nowadays and they have to be done just right.
As for Costner and his recent activity on the big screen, hey, the guy is getting plenty of work. Sure the days of Robin Hood and Dances with Wolves are long behind him, but the amount time any actor spends "on top" is pretty limited. He is maintaining a run at the box office, and while limited, he is doing fine.
A $9 million opening might be a little weak against the $25 million budget. It will be interesting to see if Costner brings in any interest from overseas. I highly doubt the content is something many people from outside of the U.S. are going to want to see.
Matthew Huntley: I saw Draft Day this weekend and while it's far from perfect, it gets the job done and it honestly deserved a better opening than this. The problem, I think, lies not with the quality of the film but with the content. Like Jason said, sports-themed dramas, especially the behind-the-scenes ones, are a tough sell and not something a lot of moviegoers view as all that important. The movie should stick around long enough to cover is budget, but it will be a good long while before it shows a profit for the studio.
Max Braden: I've gotta say, every time I saw the Draft Day ad I felt like laughing at the ridiculousness of it. Costner already has a reputation of taking himself too seriously. Garner already has a reputation for not being taken seriously in anything she does. And I think there was a ceiling on this opening right from the start, no matter who was starring or when it was going to be released. As important as the draft is to sports fans, especially the millions of fantasy players who are consumed by the stress of the draft, it's boneheaded to try and Moneyball a drama out of it. It's just looking to be considered taking itself too seriously. (Unless of course you're Tom Cruise and have a romantic and underdog angle to the story, which helped Jerry Maguire earn $150 million way back in 1996). I think a topical movie like this could have nearly doubled this opening if they had taken a comedic approach along the lines of Major League.
Felix Quinonez: I think this is a fine opening. It's by no means great but at least it's not a total failure. Like it's already been said, sports movies are a tough sell. It's even tougher to sell when they deal more with what happens behind the scenes. For audiences to care about this movie, it needed a big name and while Kevin Costner is known, his days as a box office draw are long behind him.
Kim Hollis: I thought this was a joke movie. The first few times I saw the commercials on ESPN, I thought that their marketing department had just done a really, really clever ad to promote the NFL draft. While I still posit that the film is nothing more than an enhanced ad for the upcoming draft, now that it has actual box office results I am forced to accept that this is a real movie. It’s an okay result, probably even a little better than I was expecting given how strange the marketing was.
David Mumpower: Dear reader, you do not know anyone who loves the NFL Draft more than me. That is a simple statement of fact. I watch every round, and I have been doing so for 25 years now. I am obsessive about it. I also love Kevin Costner sports movies, even the less heralded ones like Tin Cup (which is wonderful) and For Love of the Game (which is corny but still effective). I did not go see Draft Day on opening weekend. That should be telling. If there is a good movie in here as Mr. Huntley suggests, the marketing team really dropped the ball. They provided nothing worthwhile during the constant stream of commercials.