Monday Morning Quarterback
By BOP Staff
March 24, 2015
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Ryan Kyle: I feel as if this film could have really benefited by having a longer gap than just a year between installments. With an arguably hefty fan base of the book from the last film, letting Divergent breathe on DVD and cable could have converted a few more fans to come this go-around instead of being on par with the last. Insurgent also benefited from 3D, so even fewer tickets were sold than Divergent. This is about as passable as it gets, although overseas should be bolstered by the strong action visuals. I liked the print campaign, and for being sold as an action film instead of a sci-fi romance, I'm surprised this didn't open higher. The only note of encouragement in the numbers is the very light Saturday fall, showing that unlike most YA-franchises, the fans of this film aren't in a rush to see it opening weekend, but over the next few weeks.
Edwin Davies: I'm not sure if more time between installments could have helped Insurgent all that much - the first film has been on DVD since August and the fans of the books are exactly the sort of fans who will rush out and buy it as soon as possible. It would have helped more if Divergent had been better, or if it had at least pandered to its audience better. New Moon came out a year after Twilight and doubled its opening weekend, and while Twilight was not a particularly good film, it did satisfy its audience and gave them what they wanted from an adaptation of a book they liked. Divergent was also not especially good, but more important, it didn't fire up the fan base as much as the earlier film did. Maybe it's because Divergent is more sci-fi than romance so the pent up desire to see the film was somehow not as strong, but you could say the
same about The Hunger Games and that series wasn't exactly hurt by its genre.
This result underlines what I've always thought is the Divergent series' biggest weakness: it has never distinguished itself as anything more than a Hunger Games imitator. Obviously the series has a decent number of fans who will show up to support it, as evidenced by the slight dip in opening weekend (though, as Ryan rightly points out, that total is padded by 3D and IMAX pricing so it's already shedding its audience) but to the layman, it's no different from any number of post-Twilight YA adaptations.
Max Braden: Holding steady compared to the first movie isn't bad, but it's not great. But then I don't know that anyone really thought of this movie series as great. Divergent's reviews were significantly weaker than the past three Hunger Games movies, and Shailene Woodley isn't yet the star that Jennifer Lawrence is. My problem with the trailer for Insurgent is that Shailene's character never really looked in peril, cruising through obstacles as if she's just on a theme park adventure ride. The Hunger Games is more compelling because there seems to be more at stake for the underdogs.
Michael Lynderey: For a long time, I was sure Insurgent would trump Divergent's opening, the way New Moon increased significantly over Twilight. Then as the Friday numbers were coming in, it looked like Insurgent would actually open noticeably lower than the first film. As it turns out, neither scenario took place and the film ended up basically mirroring Divergent, which probably means they didn't gain or lose any fans from the first movie. I'd expect the next film to score a lot lower, though, unless they change their mind and (re-)combine the next two films back into just the one. By the way, that this franchise ended up on such a high perch in the first place is still a surprise to me. The young adult sci-fi/fantasy genre looked dead in the water in 2013, but Divergent and The Maze Runner resurrected it in full force. Divergent had fairly solid legs, though, something I'm not sure Insurgent will be able to manage. I suspect it'll finish with around $115 million to the first film's $150 million.
Kim Hollis: I’d call it a fairly blah, very average performance. I wasn’t really expecting it to blow Divergent out of the water, because that first film wasn’t that well regarded and also because the audience feels extremely limited. Whereas other YA adaptations such as Twilight and The Hunger Games have a broad reach to adults, the Divergent series doesn’t really have that sort of appeal. I also tend to think that some of their audience may have already aged out. The big challenge here is expanding the audience beyond the hard-core fans you already have, and without that same rabid fandom experienced by the bigger franchise, I think the mid-$50 million range is about where you’re stuck. I would agree that the studio should strongly reconsider the plan to split the final book into three films, because the drop-off for the next movie is going to be considerable, and bad enough that it may irreparably damage the brand.
David Mumpower: I’m of the opinion that this is a best case scenario result. First of all, I believe that delaying the opening any further would have been a mistake. The audience for this film is growing up. Every year matters for the tween lit genre, which is why we’ve witnessed annual releases for Twilight and The Hunger Games. A 2015 release was an imperative to get this project off the ground.
The reason why I consider this performance to qualify as best case is my own wording. Here were my comments regarding Insurgent almost exactly a year ago today:
“In this regard, I believe that Divergent is an odd, unlikely companion to The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe in terms of cautionary tales about would-be franchises. Narnia had one strong selling point, which happened to be the built-in branding of the first title. The other six novels are obscure. After the first film, the Narnia franchise had nowhere to go but down. Divergent is the inverse in that there is a tremendous story ahead according to every fan of the novels who has passionately described their quality. Unfortunately, the first film provides little incentive for those of us who have not read the books to continue watching the movies. "Sit through the first one and we promise the sequels will be better" does not qualify as a great tagline, yet it is appropriate for Divergent.
Given the above, what I have to say about the opening weekend of Divergent is that we are discussing similar box office (albeit fewer tickets sold) as Wanted. That is a movie that did not merit a sequel, and I question whether Divergent does either, at least given what has transpired thus far. Since we already know that one is forthcoming, my current expectation is that Insurgent (or whatever it is called) follows the path of Narnia and Percy Jackson. At best, it will match the box office of its predecessor. At worst, it barely attains half of whatever Divergent manages. The failing here is in rewarding viewers with a high quality first film. I think the "disappointing"/"satisfactory" opening weekend box office reflects a failure to achieve this all-important feat.”
So, effectively matching the last film is a win based upon my previous logic. The flaw is that once again, the quality of the movie itself is lackluster. In point of fact, it’s a step down in quality from the already poorly received Divergent, which is 41 percent fresh at Rotten Tomatoes. Insurgent is only 31 percent. Simply stated, the attempt to create a franchise has failed here. Alas, they are already casting for Allegiant and inexplicably plan to split it into two parts, so we’re stuck with this misfire for another two films.