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

See, their last name is Focker, which is funny.

Kim Hollis: Little Fockers earned $25.8 million this weekend, giving it a running total of $102.6 million after 12 days in release. Is this a good enough result for a sequel to one of the most popular comedies of all-time?

Reagen Sulewski: This is one of those bittersweet results for a studio, considering the numbers that Meet the Fockers put up, and which this film won't approach. But then, if you go and ask a studio if (let's say) $175 million is an acceptable domestic total for the third film in a family comedy series, they'd jump at that figure. But as they say, the saddest words in the English language are "what might have been".

Josh Spiegel: Considering the toxic reviews and weak word-of-mouth, yeah, this will do for the time being. But then you look at the budget, and who knows how happy Universal will be. This movie should not have cost so much money, but then again, should there have even been a third Fockers movie? Sometimes unnecessary movies can be fun, but sometimes, they're just taking up space in the multiplexes for no good reason. I'm still sad this didn't tank harder, but the number is woeful compared with what the second film did in 2004.





Shalimar Sahota: It may be a sequel to a popular comedy, but it wasn't really a great one to begin with, and it looks like audiences have latched on. It's a pure example of carrying on with a franchise that really should have been left alone. However, crossing the $100 million mark has to be good news for Universal, and it'll likely show a small profit, but not enough to greenlight Fockers on Vacation.

Edwin Davies: If the second film was held in high regard and hailed as a modern classic, then this would be pretty disappointing, both critically and commercially, because it would represent a huge fall for the franchise. However, since Meet The Fockers, whilst popular, is generally looked on as a far inferior follow-up to a decent first film, one which eroded a lot of the goodwill from that original, then Little Fockers' performance to date has to be seen as solid since it hasn't flopped. Far from it. Obviously the studio would like it to be closer to the figures that Meet The Fockers saw at the same point in its run, but it'll still end up with a decent domestic total which will probably be doubled by the international grosses.

David Mumpower: Little Fockers falls into that category that I describe as Victory Lap Sequels. A recent example was Sex and the City 2, a similarly toxic (as Josh described it) sequel that earned $95.3 million domestically, roughly 62% of the original. We are looking at a similar result for Little Fockers, which looks to fall a bit short of $175 million now. Is that a good enough result? Of course. Could Universal have earned more if the third film in the franchise been, you know, good? Absolutely. That makes the answer to the posed question yes, but it also means that as was the case with Sex and the City 2, money was left on the table due to the lackluster quality. I also think that in lieu of a triumphant trailer, Little Fockers was always going to be viewed by most consumers as a case of too little, too late. The story had run its course. Movie goers seem to recognize that any attempt to introduce children into the equation is a Home Alone 3/Look Who's Talking Too scenario. Credit the customers with showing a bit of restraint here.

Continued:       1       2       3