Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
June 2, 2015
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Edwin Davies: I've compared it to the performance of John Carter, a previous big budget adaptation of questionable material from Disney, and while it probably won't be as big of a bomb as that one was - it cost less and is on track to earn a bit more - it's still in the same ballpark.
In terms of why the film hasn't performed particularly well, I think that's largely due to the marketing failing to get across why it's interesting. I didn't particularly care for the film, but there's a lot of spectacle and heart to it that should have been front and center in the trailers, but the ads never managed to sell what the story was (a problem caused by the film itself, since it withholds explanations of what is going on until the last 20 minutes or so) and the ads never managed to recapture the excitement of the first Super Bowl spot.
Felix Quinonez: I really want to but can't find a way to put a positive spin on this performance. When you consider the amount of Hype Tomorrowland had and its huge budget, this just isn't enough. I would (generously) label this a definite disappointment. But wouldn't argue with someone who called it an outright flop.
Michael Lynderey: Well, it's bad, very bad, and all kinds of negativity following that, as well. I guess I have to look at it from the point of view of my expectations: this is a film that I thought had a decent chance to be as big as summer's second biggest, or at the very least make it over $200 million. Instead, it's not going to pass $100 million (just like the aforementioned The Lone Ranger, a film I enjoyed). It's precisely that element of mystery and the unknown that inflated my (and others) expectations that probably ended up dooming Tomorrowland. Once the reviews came in and the mystery subsided, audiences weren't left with much to go for except a decent if unexceptional action-adventure starring George Clooney, a man not quite known as a draw for family audiences.
By the way, I think the May 15th releases (Mad Max and Pitch Perfect) and the May 22nd releases (Tomorrowland and Poltergeist) should have probably switched spots. Can you imagine Pitch Perfect over Memorial Day weekend? $100 million four-day?
Ryan Kyle: This is a terrible result, however it doesn't have the air of being a mega-bomb surrounding it like the aforementioned Lone Ranger or John Carter (which it really is on the same level on) due to there not being any reports of behind-the-scenes turmoil long plaguing the release before it came out. Disney gambles big with their original properties and this one was a bust. With no real family films out there in the market and an appealing ad campaign (albeit one that didn't tell much of a plot, since the film really doesn't have one), there is no real reason this shouldn't have found an audience besides the film itself just not being a great product. With a second week dip of 57%, Tomorrowland isn't even certain to crack $100 million and it doesn't look as if overseas can bail this one out. Yet, with Avengers still printing out cash, Disney really has no need to worry about this film's under-performance with that and Inside Out around the corner.
Jason Barney: There is really no way to paint this other than a pretty big disappointment. Looking at it through the budgetary lens is most explanatory, and two weeks away from the opening, Tomorrowland is not doing well. The budget was just huge, which symbolizes the ambition behind the effort, but it is sinking fast. $190 million spent on a film that has earned just $63 million domestically and barely more than that internationally? Ouch. The drops have not been kind. Unfortunately for Disney, this will go down as one of the bigger disappointments of the year.
Kim Hollis: Poltergeist debuted over Memorial Day weekend with a four-day total of $26.3 million and has a cumulative total to date of $38.5 million. What do you think about the performance of this remake?
Edwin Davies: This strikes me as pretty fine. Poltergeist cost more than most horror films do these days, which tend to be micro-budget offerings that make huge returns on investment with the sort of performance we've seen from the film so far, and that makes it less impressive than the likes of Unfriended. Still, it should eke out a slender profit while still in theaters, which is a pretty anticlimactic result for a remake that has been in one stage of development or another for more than a decade. It certainly isn't going to threaten the success of the original, which, when adjusted for inflation, earned more than $200 million back in 1982.
Felix Quinonez: I think it's an OK performance and will see a profit before all is said and done. No one will lose their job but no one's career will be made because of this. On the other hand, because the original is held in such high regard, I'm thinking they were hoping for more than this when they brought back the Poltergeist brand. They could have made this kind of profit off any micro-budgeted horror movie.
Michael Lynderey: Well, it'll be the highest grossing horror film of 2015 for now, easily beating Unfriended. And I suppose given the budget and other things, it's not the worst result in the world. But Poltergeist isn't just another remake - it's a redo of one of the biggest horror films of the 1980s, and one that was known for its quality and class. It's a shame that its remake has ended up as another generic ghost movie with a middling box office gross. I think the property is of such a high level that it deserved a bigger-scale treatment and more respect. That's one of my issues with this trend of remakes: it turns giants into men, memorable films into mediocrities that don't stand out at all from all the other horror films around them, and usually don't capture what made the originals so special.
Ryan Kyle: In a year from now, no one will remember this movie even happened. For a horror film not released produced by Jason Blum or shot for a penny, this is a higher than usual result. I expected a lower opening, given the lack of hype surrounding it, but the release date change to open ahead of Insidious 3 was a smart move. Quick falls ahead should have the movie top out at about $50 million or double its opening weekend. Money will be made, but not much more than the initial investment.
Jason Barney: Remakes of classic horror films earn a shrug from me anyway, and Poltergeist was the definition of a painfully boring Memorial Day weekend slate. It will make money in the long run, but other than being an option for movie-goers for the next couple of weeks, this will be a totally forgettable project.