Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
June 3, 2014
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Edwin Davies: This is better than I was expecting; I thought a performance in line with that of Snow White and the Huntsman ($56.2 million) was the most likely result, since both are visually striking retellings of classic stories. That Maleficent did considerably better says a lot about the strength of the Disney marketing machine, as well as the benefit of tying the film so directly to one of Disney's classics. It already had a pre-existing mythology and iconography to draw upon, something which was hinted at by the use of "Once Upon a Dream" in many of the ads, and it promised to show that familiar story in a new light, which is the sort of thing that can be really appealing when done well. It also helped that it directly targeted a female audience at a time when most new releases are aimed squarely at teenaged boys; the only other film in the Top 10 that could fit that description is The Other Woman, which is now six weekends old and isn't as family-oriented as Maleficent. So the film hit its target demographic hard at a time when it was being underserved.
Jason Barney: This is a very strong opening weekend and there are a couple of factors leading up to it. The film does not appear to stand out, but it was released at a time when the box office is red hot. This is four out of five weekends where the #1 film has opened at near-7$0 million or more, so Disney lucked out with respect to the schedule. When things cool off is anybody's guess.
It should do fine from here, as this was above most predictions. The international numbers are already strong, and the domestic box office is solid. This is a definite win for everyone involved, especially Jolie. It proves that she is still a draw, and when the role is just entertaining enough, people will spend their hard earned cash to see her perform. Taking on this type of role was a very good choice.
Reagen Sulewski: One sort of gets the feeling Disney saw other studios trying these live action princess movies and decided to step in like someone protecting their territory - "no, no, this is *our* thing, and we're gonna show you how it's done." And then followed through, of course, even if the film looks more like a testament to set design than anything else. I also think that this built off Enchanted much in the same way that Frozen built off Tangled - you prove the concept, then put out a quasi-sequel. I wonder if studios won't angle towards more of this rather than exhausting their franchises with endless sequels that fizzle out spectacularly.
Max Braden: This is a nice and strong opening. Throughout the run-up to the movie, I kept comparing it to Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, which opened to $116 million four years ago. Now that's a huge number and I never expected Maleficent to open over 100, but the strong visual and fantasy elements of the movie seemed to me to appeal to the same young teen audience, as well as older audiences who have memories of the original animated Sleeping Beauty. The main role was the most obvious casting for Angelina Jolie since Tomb Raider, and I think that was at least half the draw for audiences who went to see it. This could have been a $40 million opening in other circumstances, so $70 million is a great result.
David Mumpower: Anecdotally, we were at Walt Disney World a couple of weeks ago. The sheer volume of people walking around in Maleficent horns blew me away. After Mickey Mouse ears, they were the second most popular choice of headgear, even over baseball hats. As the opening weekend box office splits would indicate, most of the people wearing them were women. The concept of the Disney villainess is ever-popular among with the core fans of Disney. The casting of Angelina Jolie in the title role is a masterstroke. Popular concept plus perfect casting combined with the current popularity of gothic storytelling in cinema results in a scintillating opening weekend. The other key point I would make here is that the worst performance by a number one movie in May was $49 million. The summer box office campaign is off to a tremendous start.
Kim Hollis: Although the box office result isn't really surprising to me, I think Disney has to be pleased with the debut for Maleficent. This always felt like a solid release to me, and the studio did a nice job of marketing it to the key audience, which was clearly women. People really seem to enjoy these alternate viewpoint stories when done well, and with Jolie at the center, this one seemed destined for good things. Honestly, it's surprising to me that Wicked hasn't already been adapted for the screen.
Kim Hollis: Do you give more credit to the concept (live-action villain from a classic Disney cartoon) or to Angelina Jolie for this film's success?
Edwin Davies: I think the concept got the film most of the way there but Jolie pushed it over the top. To go back to the Snow White and the Huntsman example, that was a film based on a very similar concept and which had a similar visual aesthetic, but Kristen Stewart, despite being a star of five hugely successful films in four years, is not someone who had established herself as someone other than her signature character, and she was sticking pretty closely to a genre that she had been associated with. Angelina Jolie, on the other hand, is one of the most famous women in the world, has not been in a live-action role for almost four years, and this is a fairly atypical role for her, so there's a great sense of novelty to Maleficent that I think pushed the film to a level that it might not have achieved with another actress in the role. However, the strength of the Disney brand and the affection people still have for their classic fairytales probably means that the film would have done pretty well regardless, if not necessarily this well.
Jason Barney: Domestically, I am not sure you can separate the two. Her face was all over the marketing. Sure the story is already very well known, but having an established, known, lead like Jolie anchor the story was key. The credit for this can't really be divided up, as it is a combination of the two.
However, I think the international numbers will have something to do with Jolie's stardom. This will be one of those films that plays better overseas than at home. Much of the reason for that will be linked to her presence.
Max Braden: The casting has to take the majority of the credit. Angelina was absolutely right to play this sweet and dangerous queen. She didn't just look the part, but even the short phrases spoken in the trailer *sounded* seductive. Elle Fanning wasn't featured much in the advertising I saw, and her recognition may be waning a bit since Super 8 compared to actresses like Shailene Woodley lately, but Fanning's brightness in looks and demeanor also perfectly complimented the darkness of Jolie's character. I do think the concept played a part, but I thought about it less consciously than the casting. I think it fits right in with the reboots and origin stories we've seen about well-known characters over the last decade, and is similar to Christopher Nolan's Batman in showing how the hero can be perceived as a villain. I think the casting put people in theaters opening weekend, and the concept will help sustain buzz for the movie over its total run.
David Mumpower: I agree with Max in that I admire what Disney accomplished in casting Jolie. Let's speak in sweeping stereotypes about the actress as well as the average Disney fan. Jolie has a stigma in that she exudes such a strong streak of sensuality that a lot of women have resented her over the years, especially early in her career. The gossip arm of entertainment media capitalized on this perception in portraying her as the selfish seductress in the Jennifer Aniston/Brad Pitt divorce. Rather than have her play against type, Disney capitalized upon the perception by offering her a role that embodies that sort of personality. In the process, they targeted a lot of Disney fans who choose to see the world in black and white terms due to the classic staples from the studio. I would be hard pressed to name a better job of casting in recent memory. I suspect most people who are asked to describe Maleficent have no idea what the story of the film is but I am confident that most of them know exactly who plays the eponymous lead.
Kim Hollis: I do think this concept would have found success with or without Jolie, but her being in the lead role probably was the difference between perhaps a $40-50 million opening and a $70 million debut. Her face is everywhere in association with the film. I saw very few images of any other cast member. With that said, David mentions that women sometimes negatively react to her, so her casting actually could have backfired. I think it works because she's the villain rather than the heroine here.