Monday Morning Quarterback Part III
By BOP Staff
July 23, 2015
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Edwin Davies: I think it's an interesting situation since, while it is true that Trainwreck came to because of how much buzz Inside Amy Schumer got, and its success so far is no doubt driven by the huge number of fans that she has gained from it, she needed someone with the clout of Judd Apatow to make the movie that she envisioned. If she had got involved with people who were just interested in harnessing her celebrity without employing her talent, or who wanted to sand down the rough edges and make something more conventional, I don't think that the end results would have been as impressive. It helps to have someone who can facilitate the transition from viral star to mainstream star.
Felix Quinonez: I'm not sure that this is exactly a test case because even though Schumer got her start that way, the movie was clearly guided by Apatow. Her success doesn't mean that any viral celebrity can come out with a movie and attract huge audiences. Apatow helped mold her work into something that would play well as a feature length movie as opposed to one long series of sketches.
Kim Hollis: Even though Trainwreck is directed by a bigger name in Judd Apatow, I still think this film was an interesting test case of more viral celebrity. Obviously, not every film is going to get a wide release or a name director, but I think it's an interesting story to track. Millennials and younger spend a significant time on YouTube - it passed cable TV networks recently with regard to time spent watching - and I believe that we'll start to see a shift in the way celebrities are "built" as a result.
Max Braden: I think the Smosh movie owes something to Jackass, which started on TV with guys taking the approach, "Hey let's film ourselves being stupid!" 15 years ago, and 2012's Project X, which was scripted but shot in the style of "we're the handheld-video-everything-and-see-what-happens generation." Smosh's audience demographic almost certainly skews much younger than for shows on Comedy Central, and I thought the movie was a "National Lampoon's Presents" entry. I'm vaguely familiar with Smosh, and though I haven't watched them, I think there wasn't much intent on making the movie as a foray into something bigger. More like "Hey! we did something cool, check it out!" and then move on to the next thing to get attention. It's just another blurb for their brand, supported by their large number of followers. Other YouTubers could probably manage the same thing, but I don't see it as a sustainable genre until the TouTubers look at their brand as something they should cultivate with focus rather than stab at things for viewer count.
And by the way - Dude! - Smosh: The Movie is directed by Alex Winter, Esq.!
David Mumpower: Something I find fascinating about the viral celebrity phenomenon is that it's training an entire generation of viewers to consume media differently. There was a project last year featuring YouTube stars (if that's an apt term) that received very little marketing via conventional media. It shot to the top of download rankings anyway, because that's the way the target audience expected the distribution model to work. Schumer releasing a film in theaters borders on archaic in comparison to this style, which should keep movie exhibitors and distributors up at night. Part of the process for generations now is training teens how to attend movies. Smosh is about to demonstrate that an entirely new blueprint exists that many people under 25 find preferable.
Kim Hollis: One of BOP's loyal readers, Bruce, sent in an interesting theoretical question we enjoyed so much that we started wondering if we should solicit reader questions for Monday Morning Quarterback. He asks, "What if in Terminator: Genisys, Kyle Reese had been played by Chris Pratt, while Jai Courtney had played the raptor wrangler role in Jurassic World? What do you think the difference in their respective box office totals would have been?"
Ben Gruchow: Oh, to have the ability to take this one step further and posit, "What if in Terminator Genisys, Kyle Reese had been played by Andy Dwyer?"
I think Jurassic World's total would be about the same (I maintain that the number of people who were swayed by Chris Pratt's involvement in the dinosaur movie one way or another is so small that it's statistically nonexistent). I *do* think he would have bought a little more interest in Genisys, but only so much that we'd be looking at something more like Terminator Salvation's box office. Christian Bale had less of an "it" factor than Chris Pratt does, I guess, but he was still coming off of the (at the time) second-biggest movie of all time when he starred in Salvation.
Edwin Davies: I think that it probably would have had a noticeable impact on Jurassic World's opening weekend. Not by a huge amount - I'm not talking $100 million less or anything - but I could see it opening to less than Age of Ultron without a known presence like Pratt. Not merely because he was coming off of Guardians of the Galaxy, but also because he's a compelling media presence who did a great job of selling the film through press appearances. The same is not true of Jai Courtney, who is pretty much unknown and doesn't have the real-life charisma to make people interested in his projects. Over the long term, the film would have probably been a juggernaut regardless of the star, but it would have lost a little energy out of the gate, which would have impacted its final total substantially.
I don't think that Pratt could have turned Genisys into a hit, but he would have brought something more to the character and would have given the film his all when it came to charming the media, which could have helped it over opening weekend and maybe lifted it above Salvation. That's a pretty low bar, but one that I think Pratt could have cleared.
Felix Quinonez: I think in both cases the box office would be about the same. I really think a lot of people are overselling the Chris Pratt box office draw. I don't want to discount how great he was in Guardians of the Galaxy and I do believe it was his breakout role. But I don't think that he carried the success of that movie on his shoulders. I think that he happened to be in two big franchise movies right after another but it doesn't prove he's a huge star that can make any movie a huge hit. I think Jurassic World was going to be huge without him and Genisys would have been a flop regardless of who played Kyle Reese.
Max Braden: I haven't seen either yet but the concept of a Jai Courtney dinosaur movie is only slightly more appealing to me than an Aaron Taylor-Johnson dinosaur movie, and I didn't like Godzilla much at all. I'd have to think Jurassic World would have taken a significant hit for that casting. Pratt would have done a little better with Genisys, but I think the problem there is that the role would be more "Pratt!" than Reese. Pratt just isn't quite right for that character, so even though he may have been able to pull in more audience, I'm guessing the movie would have felt more disjointed in tone.
Kim Hollis: I tend to agree with Max. I think Jai Courtney in Jurassic World would have made it a significantly less impacting film at the box office. It wouldn't have gotten the opening weekend record, and it wouldn't have passed Avengers in total worldwide box office. There are numerous reasons for this, primary among them the fact that Courtney is about as charismatic as a block of wood. Pratt was critical in the marketing for JW, and then after the film hit theaters, his presence only expanded its box office. The raptor wrangler meme probably wouldn't have been a thing with Courtney in that role, because who cares?
I do think Pratt's efforts at marketing and media would have lifted Genisys some, but I don't think the two films would have traded places box office wise. Instead, we'd probably be talking about JW as a decent win for Universal and TG as a movie that was improved by the presence of Pratt.
David Mumpower: I'm a bit more extreme with my opinions than others stated here. I'm convinced that the presence of Pratt added a great deal to the bottom line of Jurassic World. It was always going to do well, because people love the concept. The opening of the actual theme park is a killer premise that sells. With Chris Pratt onboard, however, it levels up as the perfect combination of actor and role at exactly the right moment in time.
Conversely, Jai Courtney is a warm body and little more. He not only adds nothing to the box office but also probably subtracts from the total due to his innate dullness. His casting in Terminator: Genisys didn't cause the film's domestic failure since the script did that. He certainly wasn't a net positive, though.
Someone made the determination that the combination of The Doctor and Khaleesi would be enough to cause fanboys and fangirls to rush to see the film. So, they got lazy with the story. Their target audience is too smart for filmmakers to treat them so nonchalantly. Still, if Chris Pratt had starred opposite Khaleesi, I do think Paramount would have enticed more fence-sitters to take a chance on the project. It's similar to Ant-Man in this regard. A small change here or there can have dramatic ripples.
Star power isn't the end-all, be-all to movie marketing. It does help in combination with other factors, though. Chris Pratt is hot right now, and so his presence would have aided either project. Jai Courtney has done nothing to help the bottom line of *deep breath* Jack Reacher, A Good Day to Die Hard, I, Frankenstein, Divergent/Insurgent, and now Terminator Genisys. That's an amazing track record of negation. He's like the David Hume of Hollywood blockbusters.