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

Like, say, Halloween, perhaps?

Kim Hollis: BOP has always pointed out that competition is largely overstated in the marketplace except in instances of cannibalized demographics. Do you think Halloween II would have made significantly more money opening on a different weekend?

Josh Spiegel: As I mentioned in the other topic, absolutely. I know that some people were sour on the first new Halloween film from Rob Zombie, but the figures it made this weekend show that not enough people were sour on it. If there had only been the one horror movie, despite being released two months before the holiday, it probably would have paid off with something closer to the $26 million the 2007 version made. Of course, had The Final Destination not been in 3-D, we would have seen closer numbers; as it is, Halloween II could have benefited from less competition.

Tim Briody: Significantly? No. Around what the 2007 reboot made? Absolutely.

Sean Collier: I agree - a jump, but not much of one. Perhaps not too far north of $20 Million. I think the weakish result indicates that there are some series diehards and Zombie fans on board, but that's about it; a lack of competition would've directed a few more to the theaters, but I just don't think it's a mainstream project at all.

David Mumpower: I'm in disagreement with you all on this subject. Independent of release date, competition or the like, factors I generally find overstated, this was the result I would have predicted for a too-quick horror sequel like this. There was nothing novel about Halloween II, and that's why it was modestly budgeted at $15 million. This is a low key, low risk project, genre arbitrage as it were.

The most likely answer is severe lack of Snoopy

Kim Hollis: Taking Woodstock, a Focus Features release in 1,893 locations, opened to $3.7 million. Why did this particular Ang Lee project not take off?





Josh Spiegel: The reviews for Taking Woodstock were tepid, the lead is a comedian who's not extremely well-known, and the previews seemed to be showing a couple different movies; one a broad comedy, one a true-life light drama. Moreover, if anyone was expecting to see any of the performers from Woodstock in the film, they were probably turned off by reports that the famous concert is a background to the overall story. At the end of the day, we can chalk this one up to a simple lack of interest from the public.

Max Braden: It looked dead boring, and that's what most of the reviews seemed to say. Plus, nobody's liked hippies since, like, the '90s.

Sean Collier: I thought this one would open a bit bigger - the reaction was very positive at an early screening I attended, and just weeks off of the 40th anniversary of the concert, I saw this as a very well-timed move. I suppose the unfocused marketing sunk Taking Woodstock - if nothing else, they could've highlighted the fact that this is Ang Lee's first English-language film since Brokeback Mountain.

Reagen Sulewski: Dear Boomers: No one cares. Please go away now. Sincerely, us.

David Mumpower: It needed more Nine Inch Nails rolling around in the mud. Too old a reference?

Continued:       1       2