Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
February 24, 2015
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Jay Barney: The numbers for McFarland, USA are right about what I would expect, and probably a hair below what the studio wanted, but the people at Disney have to be satisfied. The money locked into this was fairly cheap; it was made for about $17 million. So expectations were not super high. This week’s number eats into much of that expense. It’ll match its budget during its second weekend of release, and the rest of its run will swallow up much of the marketing costs.
I know we have discussed Costner a bit in recent weeks, but this is another example of his making pretty good career moves, albeit safe, and returning to a level of prominence at the box office. Since Man of Steel’s release in June of 2013, he has been one of the busier actors and done quite well. Jack Ryan, Shadow Recruit was the only true disappointment. His two other 2014 films were nothing special, but did okay at the box office. Three Days to Kill made a little money. Draft Day was a push. Black or White is at the end of its run, but quietly has made money. Now he is going to have another small success on his hands. My point is this, and all things are relative, but Costner is getting work and making studios small amounts of coin. Guys like Johnny Depp or Nicholas Cage can’t claim that at the moment.
Matthew Huntley: There will always be an audience, myself included, for inspirational sports films like McFarland, USA. They're safe, reliable, feel-good pictures, and while they all won't make as much money as, say, Remember the Titans, they'll probably continue to thrive enough to sustain the genre. This is something Disney excels in and I've got to say McFarland's numbers are actually higher than I would have expected seeing as it revolves around a cross country team and not football, baseball or basketball. If the movie follows the same trajectory as the last Disney film of this type, Million Dollar Arm, it will cap out at around $40-$45 million, which, as Jay suggested, will ensure profitability. And given that McFarland has better reviews, there's no reason to think it won't at least do this well. I haven't seen it yet, but I'm already happy for it in this regard. Maybe it's the whole feel-goody nature of it.
Michael Lynderey: It's a good number, and the film will be another minor notch in Costner's belt. But I'm just really confused why Disney didn't release McFarland USA on its original date of November 21, 2014? The movie is solid filmmaking, and has been reviewed as such. It would have opened to at least as much in November at it has now, but holiday legs could have gone so far as to even double the total amount it'll take in now. Yes, it would have opened against Hunger Games and a week before the Penguins of Madagascar, but this strategy has been pre-tested: The Blind Side, a similarly inspirational culture clash sports film, opened on the same weekend as Twilight 2, and cleaned up even in the first three days as counter-programming (and that was before its unprecedented 2009-style legs set in).
I'm not saying this film would have repeated Blind Side's performance (some key audience-pleasing elements are missing, though I think McFarland is the better film). But McFarland, USA grossing $100 million wouldn't have totally been out of the question, especially since the early December period in particular was bereft of any major releases. Instead, it's going to pull in relatively low-key numbers in a part of the release calendar almost invariably used as filler. I really don't understand this schedule change.
Edwin Davies: I agree that this is a solid result for the film, and maybe even a little better than I would have expected given that cross country running isn't exactly a sport proven to get people into theaters. I read some reports prior to release that said the marketing was being geared toward Hispanic audiences, so perhaps targeted marketing combined with Costner's diminished but enduring appeal managed to get out a few different audiences who might not have gone to see a film about running otherwise.
Ryan Kyle: To lift the lyrics of a Garfunkel & Oates comedy song to describe my take on this film's performance, "Your new girlfriend's like a pair of beige curtains/Not good, not bad, just there/I couldn't pick her out of a lineup/She's as special as air."
Kim Hollis: It's a pretty good performance, particularly for a movie that has such a niche sport as cross country as its focus. It's the kind of movie that will be fondly remembered by fans of inspirational sports movies (i'm generally one of them). I do wonder if word-of-mouth may encourage more families to get out and see the film. Variety reports that there was a lot of interest from the Latino community, which I think is further evidence that targeting niche films to that demographic is a wise move by any studio.
David Mumpower: Is there some sort of Kevin Costner autodial service when studios cast sports movies? Unlike Million Dollar Arm and Draft Day, the most recent major sports movie releases, McFarland looked really good. I suspect it's going to have a long life on home video as an instant classic. It's got an A Cinemascore and a 91% audience grade at Rotten Tomatoes. Those are the early indicators of a beloved sports movie. I really like that it's about cross country in that it falls more into the Searching for Bobby Fischer realm of less heralded sports.
Kim Hollis: What are your thoughts on the Oscar ceremony? What were your favorite parts? What did the Academy get right (and wrong)?
Michael Lynderey: Pretty solid, and fairly long, but since the Oscars are once a year it's disappointing if they don't go overboard. Neil Patrick Harris was a fun host who didn't rock the boat or spend excessive amounts of time on unsuccessful humor. I wasn't surprised by much tonight. As someone who follows the Oscar season, the surprises this year were really cumulative, like how Boyhood went from a year-long shoe-in frontrunner that no one thought could lose Best Picture to a movie that, during the last couple of weeks, few expected to win. Or how Michael Keaton's comeback story was truncated mid-January; for months and months, Keaton was polling ahead of his film (Birdman), its director, and its screenplay. In a turnabout, Birdman ended up winning in all those categories tonight, but Keaton didn't carry his. It's the equivalent of when, in a parliamentary electoral system, a party does extremely well while its leader loses his own seat.
Some interesting speeches (Patricia Arquette, Graham Moore), a few odd moments (Terrence Howard), and one real crowd-pleaser (Idina Menzel and John Travolta, my favorite moment of the night; kudos to whoever came up with this satisfying bit of redemption and closure).
One sociological fact that few seem to have noticed: 33-year-old Eddie Redmayne is the first person born in the 1980s to win either Best Actor or Best Supporting Actor (I'm not talking about Best Actress or Best Supporting Actress, awards that several actresses born in the 1980s, and one in the 1990s, have won). As such, I consider Eddie a surprising glass ceiling shatterer of sorts for my generation.
One odd prediction: Eddie wins again next year, for The Danish Girl. Look up the plot summary and tell me I'm wrong.
Edwin Davies: Overall I enjoyed and was interested in the ceremony, even if I thought that some of the wins, like The Imitation Game winning for Screenplay, were nuts. Still, Graham Moore's speech, which was wonderful, highlighted what was great about the night overall, which was that people came up and by and large gave speeches that were more often than not passionate and even political.
I thought that Neil Patrick Harris started strongly with the opening number, then spent the rest of the show being undercut by bad writing, the predictions box running joke - which was beaten into the ground then failed to deliver on the punchline, and the general bloat and scale of the event. He was game for anything and tried his best, but I thought that somberness of occasion meant that his more caustic one-liners fell flat in the room, even the ones which weren't horribly ill-advised (like the "for some treason" joke immediately after Citizenfour won, or making a joke about the winner for best documentary short's dress immediately after she talked about her son committing suicide). He tried to keep it going until the very end, but I don't think that the material was up to the performer.
More than anything, this year demonstrated why it's a great idea to include performances of all the nominees for Best Song when they put effort and thought into the presentation. They've been minimized in previous years, but the sheer fun of the "Everything is Awesome" performance or the power of "Glory" really showed how that can be brilliant, especially compared to the interpretative dance numbers that were all the rage a few years ago.
Michael Lynderey: I thought "for some treason" was practically the best joke of the night! In so much as it even was a joke.
David Mumpower: I'm in a zen place about The Academy Awards. 2014 was a solid year for cinema even if it lacked that one dominant film. I thought it was very cool to see every nominee for Best Picture win something, and I was absolutely thrilled that BOP's favorite, Whiplash, won three Academy Awards.
I felt that Birdman's victories in Best Picture and Best Director were maddening, as the film lives or dies with Michael Keaton, who lost Best Actor to an inferior performance. As I've said multiple times, The Theory of Everything is much more Felicity Jones's film. If someone should have won, it was her rather than him. As silly as the votes in those categories may be, it's the Academy Awards and that sort of nonsense happens every year.
Instead, I focus on the positives such as the wonderful speech by Common and John Legend, their majestic live performance, and the glorious recreation of "Everything Is Awesome." That's the most I've been reminded of Blame Canada by Robin Williams in the interim. I also quite enjoy Neil Patrick Harris's sense of humor, and I was thrilled by the introductory scene. The magic trick with the Oscar predictions was a great idea that was beaten into the ground, dug up, and then beaten into the ground once more. I loved the payoff. I despised the dozen references to it.
Overall, this was a largely spiritless show save for the many brilliant acceptance speeches, and I could feel the enthusiasm for it die during the final 90 minutes. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to call (not text) my mom.
Kim Hollis: I thought the show was more entertaining than most people seem to. Apparently Neil Patrick Harris has my kind of sense of humor (not that I didn't already know that. It was just more in evidence as I laughed at a lot of jokes people thought fell flat). Like David, I'm fairly irritated that Michael Keaton didn't win for Best Actor when Birdman took the other major prizes. The film rides on his performance, after all. On the other hand, I was thrilled that Birdman did win. I think it may be the first time ever that my favorite film of the year won Best Picture.
As for the most entertaining portion of the show, I think there were a few highlights. J.K. Simmons' speech was my favorite of the night. "Everything Is Awesome" and "Glory" were both absolutely fantastic, and I'd agree that all of the Best Song performances were solid. And even though I get extremely annoyed by the needless "tributes" like The Wizard of Oz last year and Sound of Music this year, Lady Gaga killed it.