New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Sean Collier: 3D made it remarkably successful, but it's (shockingly) even simpler than that - any horror movie that started with a hit is going to stay profitable, at least for a half-dozen films or so, since these sequels are so cheap to make.

Reagen Sulewski: Well that explains the fact that it's gotten a third sequel, but not this jump in box office. If it opens to $15 million, this is a very ho-hum conversation.

Sean Collier: Right - I think the 3-D was the difference between $15-$18 and $25+. But "Horror Sequel Becomes Profitable" is never news.

Kim Hollis: I actually think that there's something more than the 3-D happening here. Sure, some of the increase can be attributed to the 3-D, but I don't believe that's all of it. I think that we have a situation where they let the series sit for long enough for audiences to want a sequel, and then they very cleverly build it up and market it.

David Mumpower: In addition to the comments above, what always jumped out to me about The Final Destination is that this premise is organic with the 3-D concept. One of the most memorable shots from the second film in the series was a crane hook heading toward a car. That looked great in and of itself as it created suspense and terror. In 3-D, it would have been breathtaking. I strongly suspect that at several points along the line, the producers of this franchise lamented the fact that they couldn't do some of their ideas in 3-D. Conveniently enough, cinemas outfitted themselves with new technology that afforded just such an enhancement in fear-mongering.

Michael Myers is very disappointed in all of you.

Kim Hollis: Halloween II opened to $16.3 million, a solid result for the Weinsteins, but well short of the $26.4 million from the previous film. Is this a good enough result?

Josh Spiegel: The result is solid, indeed, especially considering that Halloween II opened against another horror movie and, unlike in 2007, doesn't have the Labor Day weekend boost. However...why did anyone think it was a wise idea to open two horror movies against each other? Certainly, it would seem that the mood of each film was different, even if both had the outcome of lots of bloody deaths. Still, pitting two films that want pretty much the same audience is an odd move. For The Final Destination, who knows if more money could have been made; I'd wager, though, that Halloween II could have had a big boost by not being against another film. Hey, maybe if it had opened towards...Halloween, it'd have done better?

Sean Collier: Yeah, Josh, the most bewildering thing of all in this is the distance from Halloween. It's a normal technique to open a horror film in late September so that the growing Halloween crowd gives it legs through October, but August 28th? That's just a hard move to defend, and more so for Zombie and Co. - the holiday is in the damn film's title. They didn't open My Bloody Valentine on December 8th. Anyway, considering how atrociously bad the first remake was, more attention-grabbing competition, and the questionable timing, this is a great result. I was expecting a sub-$10 million opening.

Reagen Sulewski: I don't particularly buy the release date angle - Halloween movies have opened well in August before. Furthermore - to see people talk about the Halloween or Labor Day weekend *boost*?. That's like talking about the health benefits of drinking mercury. Again, I think the answer is relatively simple here - it was plainly foolish to have two horror movies open up against each other and Halloween got beaten out by the shiny new technology.

David Mumpower: This was almost exactly the result I expected. Ignoring the presence of a direct demographic competitor for a moment, Halloween as directed by Robb Zombie sounded fresh and (relatively) original. Halloween II sounded like a money grab. An inferior sequel should open to less than its predecessor and that is exactly what happened here.

Kim Hollis: I agree with Reagen that release date really doesn't make a difference here. I'm sure that direct competition was a factor (more on that later) to some degree, but we've also seen that the market can expand to accommodate situations like these. I think the marketing on The Final Destination was certainly better, and I also believe that some of the decisions made in the first Halloween turned people away. People are getting weary of the over-saturated gore, and there's a difference in what you see in a Final Destination film (stylized, clever, sometimes tongue-in-cheek violence) versus Halloween (dark, oppressive, hyper-realistic stuff).

Continued:       1       2