Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
February 3, 2016
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Jason Barney: Unfortunately this opening wasn't bad enough. I hate to sound too critical, but I would have to be in a certain frame of mind - like having seen every other film available - to even consider paying money to see this. On the plus side, most people seem to agree. Opening in ninth place during a relatively soft time of the year, to just under $6 million presents a certain lack of enthusiasm most films would want to avoid. The sad thing is this film may float toward profitability.
Ryan Kyle: Hopefully this low gross will finally be the straw that breaks the camel's back and make these Wayans parody films disappear (or at least only be made for VOD). A $5.9 million opening is poor for any release, but made for only $5 million, no real coin will be lost outside of the spend for prints and advertising. It's another loss for Open Road Films, a distributor that still hasn't found its groove.
Felix Quinonez: It's definitely nothing to brag about, but it did actually surpass its production budget in three days. So, while I can't imagine this having anything close to resembling legs, I can still see a possibility of it turning a profit so there could still be more of these "movies."
Ben Gruchow: A bad Wayans spoof is still better than a good Friedberg/Seltzer spoof, and probably more gratifying than a Zucker spoof at this point. That said, I haven't seen the movie yet, but there are precious few moments in the trailer where I even cracked a faint smile; the RT score aside, I think it's telling that there's been no footage of the movie marketed or screened beyond that single trailer. Wayans was a guest on The Daily Show a few days back; despite a sharp and genial air from him during the interview itself, the customary clip shown was nothing beyond the short bit of the female lead getting her head stuck in the elevator. Still not funny, and there wasn't much audible laughter from the audience in the studio.
Kim Hollis: I guess it's fine considering the budget, but I sort of wonder why they even bother with this stuff at this point. Here's a movie with no apparent audience - the people who like 50 Shades of Grey aren't going to watch it, and the people who mock the source material don't want anything to do with the spoof, either. And yet I'm sure we'll see another version of the same idea in a couple more years.
David Mumpower: By my calculations, it earned one dollar per ESPN commercial aired. Seriously, I felt like the movie was stalking me. As was the case with A Haunted House and its sequel, one of the least likely sequels ever by the way, it's the type of performance that will justify further satires. For a minimal investment, producers receive slightly better than minimal returns, making this a weird form of virtual arbitrage. But seriously, the real winner here is me since I never have to watch a commercial for the movie again.
Kim Hollis: Jane Got a Gun, a western featuring Natalie Portman, earned $835,572 this weekend and had a per venue average of $664. What do you think about this?
Ryan Kyle: I'd say this was an abysmal opening for any regular film, but for how much behind-the-scenes turmoil this movie has had, just being released in 1210 theaters is a big enough accomplishment. Between the director not showing up the first day of filming and then being promptly replaced, stars dropping out, the original distributor going bankrupt, and the Parisian premiere being cancelled for being the same week as the Paris terrorist attacks, Jane never caught a break. Originally planned to be released in just a few hundred theaters until a last minute uptick from The Weinstein Company with almost zero advertising, expectations weren't high to begin with. This release feels almost more or less contractual (same with Friday's Ethan Hawke/Emma Watson horror flick from TWC as well) and was filmed so long ago that I wouldn't be surprised if most of the cast was aware it hadn't come out yet.
Felix Quinonez: I think this is pretty terrible but not surprising. With all of the trouble this movie went through before even hitting the theaters and the fact that the studio basically put it out to die, you couldn't really expect much more from it. In the end it will be forgotten about by the end of the month. But because most movie goers don't even know about it, I don't think any one's career will really suffer.
Ben Gruchow: It's a film that's going to discover a moderate second life on Netflix/Vudu/Hulu/whichever; Natalie Portman fans, Ewan MacGregor fans, and Western fans will see it, see the 100-minute runtime, and take the plunge on it. It's not a film for the ages, and I can't see myself having anything but the faintest memory of it by the end of the year, but nor is it the failure you'd expect from such a tortured production history and release date. To go outright positive on it for a moment, it looks very nice on a theater screen. It'll be gone from theaters inside of three weeks or so; I'm interested to find out what happens to it next, if anything.
Kim Hollis: It's a shame that everything surrounding the making and marketing of the film is such a disaster, because I actually think a Western featuring Portman seems potentially interesting. Obviously, the Weinstein Company let it hang out to dry, but it probably isn't really hurting them to allow that to happen.
Then again, maybe movies like Jane's Got a Gun are why Relativity is bankrupt now.
David Mumpower: Ryan's point is important if only because it demonstrates that the better story here occurred behind the scenes. The making of Jane's Got a Gun would be a better movie than the one released into theaters. While the performance of the film itself is virtually pointless, I'd still suggest that people read this excellent Vulture piece about why Relativity failed.