Monday Morning Quarterback
By BOP Staff
August 25, 2015
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Ryan Kyle: This is a pretty poor result given that the usual trend for horror sequels is to pop bigger when they open and then drop off faster. The original was well-received and the marketing was everywhere; however, the reviews killed this one, as it was seen as an inferior product. There hasn't been a horror flick for quite some time so there should have been a market hungry for this. Late August is also a usually good time for horror films as The Final Destination, Halloween 2 (Rob Zombie's version), The Last Exorcism, and The Possession all found audiences. Made for peanuts, if this was an original property I'd chalk this up as a win, but being a sequel opening to almost less than half of the original, I'd say this is a loss for Focus who apparently acquired the property somewhere along the way from Lionsgate/Summit, who released the original. There will likely be a Sinister 3; however, I'd expect it to go straight-to-VOD.
Ben Gruchow: Ahh, but Ryan, your examples are flawed. All of those movies were PG-13 and relatively gore-free, and...wait. Wait a sec...Okay, so they were 75% R-rated and 50% very gory. But they also all had highly bankable talent in front of the camera. I mean, Scout-Taylor Compton and Mykelti Williamson alone are - OK, wait. But none of those had such a mercenary-sounding and obligatory title or...log-line. Whatever. This happened because reasons.
This actually does make a good amount of sense to me as an opening, and reminds me of a slightly rosier spin on what happened back in 2012 when Silent Hill: Revelation came out. Sinister did well, but A) I don't think anyone was really asking for a sequel to it, and the movie's ending didn't point explicitly at one, and B) three years is an eternity for horror-movie series. Also, C) the sequel sucked. I quite liked the first Sinister, and I only had an initial glimmer of interest in the sequel that lasted approximately as long as it took to see the directorial reins handed over to a first-timer and virtually no character connection to the first film. The 12% Rotten Tomatoes score was really just reinforcement.
Felix Quinonez: It might be a bit disappointing but it should be just fine. The fact that it already matched its budget in its opening weekend pretty much guarantees that the movie will make a profit. If not in theaters, then definitely in the home video market. Because these movies are relatively cheap to make they have a low bar to cross in order to be considered a win. And I wouldn't be surprised if there was a Sinister 3.
Matthew Huntley: When I saw the numbers for Sinister 2's opening weekend, it made me realize there's a trend with recent horror sequels, from The Woman in Black 2 to Insidious Chapter 3: they are all under-performing, at least compared to their originals and most analysts' expectations. The reason for this, I think, is not just the poor reviews (that's never stopped audiences before), but rather the lack of variety and originality. I wasn't a huge fan of the first Sinister, but at least it was the first in the franchise, and Sinister 2 just simply seemed like more of the same. Whether that's true, I'll have to wait and see, but if it is, this may have been the mass's excuse for not paying for it. It's a simple case of "been there, done that."
Edwin Davies: Horror sequels are a tricky thing. Part of the fun of a horror film is that it can shock and surprise you, but a sequel by its very definition can't be all that surprising. The first Sinister was well-liked and creepy as hell, but once you know what's going on, there isn't much room for surprising audiences a second time or expanding the mythology. That, and the fact that almost no one from the first film would be in the second one, meant that it was going to be an uphill struggle for Sinister 2 anyway, but reviews and middling word-of-mouth sealed the deal, and will probably mean that it ends up having way worse legs than the first film. Still, it didn't cost much and Shannyn Sossamon got a paycheck, so it's not all bad.
Jason Barney: I don't think this is disappointing by any stretch of the imagination. The horror genre has a pretty limited audience, and it is rare where we see any sort of break out into the mainstream. The Purge or The Conjuring are those sorta rare films that gain exposure with some of the general movie going fans. It is not like Sinister 2 was looking to expand the brand or launch a summer franchise. I don't mean to be snarky, but the fact Sinister 2 was even made is a statement to the success of the first one. There are plenty of films, even within the horror genre, that simply break even.
Sinister 2 will make money. It has matched its production budget in its first weekend, and the marketing costs can't have been too great for a film like this. Sure it won't be as successful as the first, and it will be a non-factor at the box office by the middle of the week, but the money is nearly in the bank at this point.
Michael Lynderey: I think the first movie's ending did inspire the need for a sequel. After all (and not to spoil anything too much here), at the end of the first film, the main antagonist, the ancient demon Bughuul, should have been captured by the police, charged with his crimes, convicted, sentenced, and placed into an incarceratory facility for an indefinite period of time. And none of this happened (spoiler: this actually doesn't happen in Sinister 2, either).
Horror film sequels almost always finish lower than their first films (Saw and Insidious are exceptions), but they don't often open this much lower, either (although The Grudge 2's total is hilariously lower than that for the first movie, and Blair Witch 2 is another one where there's a huge depreciation). I guess the bad reviews hurt it. In fact, this month doesn't seem to be very good to genre films. There's an odd dynamic where Straight Outta Compton is #1 by a country mile, then there's Fantastic Four with about $55 million, then The Gift and The Man From U.N.C.L.E. with about $40 million a pop, and then everything else that came out this August likely won't even touch $30 million. It's pretty slow, even for this time of year.
Kim Hollis: While I think this is a pretty blah result (particularly since Sinister 2 had a bigger budget than you usually see for a Blumhouse project), it’s going to make a little bit of money for the studio. Horror hasn’t done particularly well as a genre this year, and I think we may continue to see these sorts of mediocre box office numbers until someone comes out with a concept that gets people buzzing. I’d like to say it should be an original or exciting concept, but I think the horror audience is incredibly mercurial, so it’s really hard to predict what they’re going to like.
David Mumpower: As generally occurs in these situations, we're having two different conversations here. The first is whether Sinister 2 has done well enough to make money. Clearly, it has. The bar is set so low with these frugal horror franchise releases that any double digits debut is a win. The more germane conversation is whether the Sinister sequel is a successful project. It is NOT. The cardinal rule for titles like this is that they sustain the franchise by earning enough to justify a sequel. With such a lousy opening weekend, the Sinister franchise just took on more water than it can shovel out before the ship sinks. As to Kim's point, I think she's on to something here. The horror audience is growing more difficult to anticipate. Projects like this historically would've done better. I suspect the erosion here is due to video streaming fanatics deciding they'll wait to Netflix it.