Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
May 29, 2014
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Jay Barney: I think the credit for X-Men's success is balanced. Sure Wolverine is by far the most marketable character, and he has had a key role in six of the seven films, but it goes beyond that. One could almost argue that Stewart and McKellan have so much success over the decades, that their group is the primary draw, but I think it cuts the content of the current film short. It just wasn't about the "older" group. Jennifer Lawrence is huge right now, and Michael Fassbender has a resume that is impressive. McAvoy is perhaps the least known of any of the leads. I think it is clear the film is about much more than just the old cast.
Bruce Hall: I'm not sure it was necessarily the cast, although it's hard to deny that even people who aren't particularly interested in super heroes are unable to resist Hugh Jackman. And, I do think that Wolverine works best as part of an ensemble. For some, no doubt that was the hook.
I think a solid marketing strategy - including some very appealing trailers - was a big part of this success story, and a stream of early and overwhelmingly positive reviews made this an easy choice for many.
But on a very basic level I would say that it was made clear early on that by bringing Bryan Singer back into the fold, Fox was dead serious about making a good movie. Early word got out that they'd done just that, and the Internet Hyperbole Vortex did the rest. It's certainly the most ambitious super hero film ever attempted, and the fact they actually pulled it off suggest that once again, Mr. Singer has set a new bar.
Edwin Davies: I think that the return of the old guard, both in front of and behind the camera, was a big part of what made this such a strong opening weekend. Even though the First Class cast have seen their stock increase precipitously since the first film came out (well, some more than others) I don't think the first film convinced enough people that the X-Men series was worth returning to, even if it did right the boat as far as critics were concerned and still did solid business. Bringing the original cast and director in signaled both a continuity with the original trilogy (which was kind of unclear since First Class seemed to be starting fresh but also included a cameo by Wolverine) and suggested that people who really knew what they were doing were going to be in charge of shaping the film. The quality of the final product says a lot about how much everyone involved wanted, and possibly needed, to get this one right, but I do think that bringing back so many familiar faces really helped convince skeptics that it was worth dipping in to the X-Men world again, even if they had been burned on numerous previous occasions.
Max Braden: Every time I try to pick one trio, I look at the other and think that's the winner. You can't deny that your tried-and-true actors are a strong draw, but the other actors are really the new hotness in current movies right now. We want to see all of them. It helps too that the characters are so interesting that the reason we want to see both pairs is to see how they each approach the same character, in the character's early stages of enlightenment and after years of experience.
David Mumpower: I am a firm believer that every little bit helps. Rather than choose a side, my argument would be that the overwhelming popularity of several actors involved with the project paid dividends. The social media bromance between Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart is as viral as anything on the internet. It seems like they make headlines every quarter by doing something awesome.
I don’t know if we count him for the current or prior cast at this point, but Hugh Jackman is as popular as any actor in the world. Plus, the difference between him and most of his peers is that he has never experienced the media backlash that is almost automatic for high profile celebrities (you’ve been warned, Jennifer Lawrence). Jackman seems like such a kind and passionate man, and that provides him a shield against the casual libel that generally drives the Internet.
Amongst the new cast, Lawrence now claims yet another $90 million opening, her third. It is also her fourth $50+ million debut as well as her sixth (!) $100 million movie. She is 23-years-old. Her boyfriend, Nicholas Hoult, may not be a draw yet but he did star in last year’s surprise hit, Warm Bodies. Plus, he gets all kinds of media attention because he dates Jennifer Lawrence. And then there is Michael Fassbender, who has quickly become one of the most respected actors on the planet.
X-Men: Days of Future Past did not succeed because of any one individual (although I would pick Lawrence over Jackman if forced to choose). It excelled because it has more popular actors in the cast than almost any film in recent memory. In this regard, it is the first real demonstration that social media popularity can be a hidden factor in box office performance.
Kim Hollis: I actually believe that one of the primary reasons audiences were so interested in this film was the fact that both the new and the old cast were involved. It’s a tantalizing prospect to see how a story involving both sets of performers can possibly work, and lent a lot of mystery and anticipation to the film’s release. I’m not sure how much credit I’d give Singer, though. At this point, I have to think he’s as much of a detriment to the marketing as he is a credit. I think Fox is somewhat fortunate that bad headlines for him didn’t have much (if any) of an impact on the movie’s success.
Edwin Davies: Adam Sandler managed to con audiences out of $14.3 million this weekend with his latest paid vacation/movie Blended, making for one of his worst opening weekends ever. What do you think of this result, and what does it mean for Sandler's appeal, since it's coming so soon after similar failures like Jack & Jill and That's My Boy?
Jay Barney: This is an awful opening. I respect Sandler's brand as it has brought in a lot of coin over the years. I am not really a fan of Adam Sandler, more of the longevity of his relevance. I became a fan of SNL after he left, and I did not see any of the films which brought him to stardom early in the last decade. I don't think he should be too concerned, even with this flop. He has entered the post peak part of his career, and it is clear now that not every film is going to be a breakout success. What we will probably see from him is more sequels, or maybe he will take on roles with other large leads, where he would be part of an ensemble. I am not really at the point to say that his career is flailing when Hotel Transylvania was a pretty big success and when Grown Ups 2 made a good deal of money.
Bruce Hall: Blended is a disaster, but Sandler himself is not. Here are three recent examples that I think are representative of his output.
In 2011 "Jack and Jill" may have only pulled down $74 million domestically, but it topped out at at $150 million worldwide - against a $79 million dollar budget. If that's a failure, I can't wait to screw up that bad.
In 2012, "That's My Boy" returned worldwide box office of $58 million against a $67 million budget. Ouch. No way to spin that one. Why do they keep letting this guy make movies?
They do because of movies like "Grown Ups 2" - which a lot of people hate more than Al Qaeda - which stands at $247 million worldwide against an $80 million budget.
Yes, a depressing number of Mr. Sandler's movies are garbage and I'm sure not excusing that. But if you look over his catalog, they tend to be highly profitable garbage, and that's exactly the kind of "failure" people want to be in bed with.
Edwin Davies: In terms of Sandler's recent output, I'd say that Jack & Jill was a borderline success at best, since even if it did do $150 million worldwide, that probably still wasn't enough to earn a profit once marketing costs are factored into the equation. It wasn't a bomb to the same extent that That's My Boy was, but it still wasn't a resounding success. Blended looks like it'll fall into the same category; it might get close to covering its budget domestically, but it's unlikely anyone will walk away considering it a success.
In assessing Sandler's appeal as a star, I think that while he can still have a Grown Ups 2, which benefited from being a sequel to one of his more popular films, there is a definite downward trend with his live-action, original films. I think that people are getting tired of his persona and the fact that his films are largely awful, and while there still seems to be residual goodwill towards him from his earlier comedies and occasional good films like Punch-Drunk Love, it's slowly draining away, either because his original fans are outgrowing him or because it's hard for a man in his late-40s to cultivate a newer generation of fans with scatological comedies, especially when that generation has grown up constantly being told that Adam Sandler is terrible.
I think we might see him transitioning into doing more voiceover work in the next few years, if only because the suspiciously high budgets for his live-action films might start to look like bad investment if he can't guarantee at least $100 million domestic the way that he did throughout the '00s. Or, he'll start having to slash those budgets to be more likely to turn a profit, something that seems to have started with Blended, which cost only $40 million to produce, which is roughly half of what his films tend to cost.
Max Braden: His pattern is becoming old and strained: everyone in the movie stands in a lineup, Sandler mocks someone with snide insults that are supposed to be funny, Sandler suffers from pratfalls, Sandler tries to turn it around with some sweet gesture. At least in 50 First Dates you could get behind the perseverance and the unique setup. Here you're left wondering what the difference is between this and Just Go With It, and they come across looking like direct-to-video entries in the National Lampoon series of cheap comedies.
David Mumpower: What I would add about Blended in particular is that its production budget of $40 million is modest for a title with a pair of bona fide lead actors. I presume that Drew Barrymore and Adam Sandler took less money upfront in anticipation of better backend revenue. That appears to be a significant miscalculation as the only backend this movie has gotten is of the Sir Mixalot variety. Still, I think it is only being called a disaster because Sandler has become such a hard target for Internet mockery. Blended has earned $17.7 million in four days. It should clear $30 million domestically at a minimum, and $40 million is not outside the realm of possibility. The A- Cinemascore identifies the fact that Sandler’s core audience of loyal fans was once again satisfied by the project.
We are only describing Blended in harsher terms because 1) It is Sandler and 2) The combination of Sandler and Barrymore has delivered two previous romantic comedies that were each wonderful. So, expectations were raised for a third union of the two. In reality, they are no different than Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan, who created three films together. Sleepless in Seattle and You’ve Got Mail are both classics. You may not even remember or have heard of the third film, Joe vs the Volcano. Blended was an attempt to capture lightning in a bottle for a third time. I am not quite ready to write its epitaph despite the fact that everyone else is rushing to judgment. Let’s see where the movie stands in another two weeks and go from there.
Kim Hollis: I actually think that $14 million plus is pretty impressive given the fact that Sandler has given us a consecutive line of crap over the past few years. Somehow, people still keep going to his films, though admittedly that number is smaller than it had been. Since fans seem to like it, this is the kind of thing that may hang around for a little bit, too (a la Grown Ups). It’s really tough to understand the audience. With that said, I really do like Sandler even if I haven’t seen one of his movies since Funny People. I know he acknowledges that he’s just doing these things for a paid vacation, but he can be really charming in the right role.