Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
February 25, 2015
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Jason Barney: Keeping things in perspective, I am going to say the opening for The DUFF is pretty impressive. No records were set, and no one will be talking about this one in a week or two, but you can’t argue with the success. First, of the top seven films, two others also being new openers, The Duff only had 2,575 screens. It wasn’t a lot, but Hot Tub 2 and McFarland USA both had slightly more screens. This is one indication that The Duff brought out its target crowd. Second, for the type of movie this is, I’d have to agree with comments from Reagen Sulewski in the weekend forecast. High school comedies are a very specific genre and not many studios "go there" in the current movie industry. Finally, the numbers are going to be great for the studio. The investment for Lionsgate was pretty small, in the $9 million range. I can’t imagine marketing costs being much for this one. So this weekend, where The DUFF did well against the other two openers, beat its own tracking, and nearly paid back the investment and marketing cost. I’d say it is a pretty clear success.
Matthew Huntley: This is a commendable performance indeed, not least because it has no major stars; was, as Jason indicated, not playing on too many screens; and was relatively low-profile marketing-wise. CBS/Lionsgate should be more than happy about these numbers and perhaps the former can start to gain more clout as a studio. I'm not sure how long The DUFF's legs will be given the target demographic likely "rushed" out on opening weekend, but it's got me curious, especially because of its better-than-average reviews. I can see this thriving even more on the home market and making stars out of its cast as a result. In the grand scheme of things, I think it will be a sleeper, but one that people will look fondly over after seeing it.
Edwin Davies: I'd go so far as to say that this is a great result for all the reasons that have been mentioned so far. The DUFF was basically considered a non-factor going in to the weekend, and while it didn't cause a huge upset, it did do better than pretty much anyone predicted and covered its budget in its first weekend. I think this result is at least partly due to the rarity of these kind of high school comedies adding a sense of novelty, and the efforts of the cast, who plugged the film relentlessly on social media. Mae Whitman and Ken Jeong were especially active about spreading the word on Twitter, and while they aren't the biggest stars in the world, they do have a significant number of fans and they were clearly able to motivate a lot of them.
Ryan Kyle: All things considered, this is a very impressive opening for the struggling CBS Films. Making its budget back by the end of the weekend is always an accomplishment for a film starring only faces that the target demo of tweens care about. Well received by critics and audiences, I wouldn't be surprised to see The DUFF slowly collect a tidy sum of money and finish closer to $40 million than $30 million, especially since Cinderella is still a few weeks away. Heavily marketed through social media and lightly through traditional means, I can't imagine that the P&A spend will prevent this from seeing profit at the domestic box office (which is very important since overseas should be a non-factor on this one).
Kim Hollis: This performance is terrific, and The DUFF is the kind of movie that is going to be popular on video as well. The studios involved in this should be excited about the potential profit and the performers, particularly Mae Whitman, are going to be remembered in what's likely to be a cult teen flick.
David Mumpower: The DUFF looked awesome and it performed beyond my wildest expectations. Relative to scale, this is going to be one of the biggest box office winners of 2015 prior to summer. It's also proof positive that the best teen films are driven by the concept and the ads rather than star power. I'm a bit sad for Mae Whitman that she's still playing high school students a full decade after Arrested Development. Then again, she was age-appropriate then, so I may be reading too much into it.
Kim Hollis: Hot Tub Time Machine 2 crashed and burned, earning only $6 million. What went wrong?
Jason Barney: Poor timing. A lot of competition. A sequel that didn't have to happen....
Even though the numbers, the concept, and the attempt at a cash grab are terrible, I don’t think this is as bad a situation as the numbers alone would suggest. The story of the original is somewhat interesting, partially because of its success and partially because of the situation MGM/UA was in at the time. MGM actually made a good deal of money with the original, but the extra cash did little to help their crumbling finances.
Now Paramount is putting this sequel out there, and despite most of us feeling this product should not exist, it actually did “okay” this weekend. It has got some work to do, and it will be out of the top ten by next weekend, but the budget was only $14 million. There is a slight chance the film matches its production budget, but it will not recoup its marketing costs unless it gets some overseas support.
Matthew Huntley: I think Jason hit the nail on the head when he wrote, "A sequel that didn't have to happen...", and I would go further by adding, "A sequel no one really wanted." Yes, the first Hot Tub was a decent moneymaker, and to be fair, Hot Tub 2 did have a fraction of the original's budget, but because the original wasn't overly liked, at least not in my social circle, this one seemed like a pointless cash grab and it backfired. I would argue the reason it did so poorly was because of how, let's face it, stupid, the ads made it look. I'm not one to judge a book by its cover, but everything about the trailer and TV spots made it seem loud, obnoxious and unfunny. If it's as bad as it looks, then it deserves what it got. I guess now I'll have to see it to really know for sure.
Michael Lynderey: This is the kind of movie where the opening could have just as easily been double what it was, if only the reviews were good. The original could have been a dreadful dirge instead of a fun and entertaining piece of raunch, and the same is pretty much true of the sequel. Yes, no one really needs to see a movie called Hot Tub Time Machine 2, and you'd expect it to be pretty bad. But you could just as well have said the same thing about the first film. The difference is that the filmmakers delivered last time, but went on auto-pilot for this go-around (the absence of John Cusack possibly somewhat depressed the proceedings). I'm curious why they moved it back from December 25th. The film couldn't have possibly done any worse then.
Edwin Davies: Changing the release date probably hurt the film a fair bit. Ironically, the reason why it was moved was that it would have opened opposite The Interview on Christmas Day, and the studio probably realized that they would get pummeled if they went up against another high-concept R-rated comedy. By the time that The Interview's release had been cancelled then partially un-cancelled, everything was set up for a February release date for Hot Tub Time Machine 2. Had the studio stuck to their guns and opened the film on Christmas Day, it could have benefited from being the only adult comedy in the marketplace and ridden the holiday box office to a decent number, whereas now it looks likely to get quickly forgotten.
This strikes me as a much worse replay of the situation we saw last year with Horrible Bosses 2. Both are sequels to moderately successful films that were well-liked, but not massively so, and both came out over three years after the previous installment. It seems like there is a pretty small window for releasing a quickly made sequel, and it's usually about two years. By this point, it seems that most people have forgotten the first film, or have reached a point where they view it as a one-joke premise that didn't need to be repeated.
Ryan Kyle: This is pretty awful for opening last out of the trio of newcomers it was expected to lead. I feel bad for MGM. Too financially burdened to develop any original ideas, they are forced to mine their library for remakes and sequels that nobody wants, making it just a vicious cycle. With the biggest star of the original gone and the nostalgia factor missing (they go into the future instead of back in time this go-around), Hot Tub Time Machine 2 lost everything that made the first one a minor hit. With heavier-than-expected R-rated competition (Kingsman last week and Focus the next), audiences couldn't be bothered to pay for a movie that probably isn't worth more than a rental. With a C-minus Cinemascore, the word-of-mouth should be pretty dire. I'd be surprised if the end total will even match the $14 million budget.
David Mumpower: I'm going to reiterate something I mentioned with Horrible Bosses 2. I knew the film was in trouble when I thought the ads looked funny. That's generally death for a comedy. I also bring it up due to the natural comparison between the two. Each is a concept comedy whose premise sold tickets. Apparently, we can update that to reflect that tickets are sold once and only once. HTTM2 has been advertised more than any film in recent memory, so this is a savage loss once we factor in marketing expenses. I love that The Duff, a movie that was smartly advertised to the right demographics, has crushed a movie whose commercials were like an assault on network television.