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

Kim Hollis: Jack the Giant Slayer, the latest fairy tale movie adaptation, earned $27.2 million this year against a budget of $190 million. What do you think about this result?

Jay Barney: The $190 million budget was a bit of a surprise to me, and this opening weekend is REALLY bad for this Warner Bros project. The ultimate goal is to make money, and this film, even if it has unbelievable holds for the next several weeks, is just a lock to fall far short of expectations. I was surprised by the price tag and even more surprised by the failure. An opening of $27 million for a film marketed like this one is just awful. Honestly, I would have thought it would be able to at least meet the tracking numbers, the $40 million range, but to be more than 25% below that means this film is in serious trouble. Maybe it is "Fantasy Fatigue", but I am not sure I buy into that. The Hobbit still did quite well, and even something like Hansel and Gretel has more than made back its budget. This is just a huge miss, the biggest of the year so far. Even when foreign receipts are taken into account, Warner Bros is not going to make money on this one.

Felix Quinonez: I felt like this was going to be a flop for a while now but even I'm shocked to see how low its take was this weekend. I know there's going to be a lot of talk about its overseas market and maybe it will help to soften the blow but there's no other way to put this, it's a disaster. I don't think it's quite as bad as John Carter did last year but to even be in the same league (from a box office perspective) as that movie is bad news.

Bruce Hall: There are those who will tell you that including marketing costs for this long delayed film, the exposure may be closer to $300 million. Either way, this is a disastrous opening that I think a lot of people at Warner Bros saw coming, whether they want to admit it or not.

Matthew Huntley: Since the words "bad," "huge miss," "flop" and "disastrous" have already been written, I'll not add insult to injury regarding Jack's performance. I'll only offer a theory as to why this happened, which is not because the movie itself is bad but because its appeal was too limited. It is, essentially, a kids movie that was marketed as a family movie, a term that could even expand to couples. But a good family movie is one that's good for the whole family, and this one's range was too narrow and ended up being just sort of ho-hum (as opposed to fo-fum, wah wah). It's a shame, too, because even though the material was nothing to get terribly excited about, the movie didn't deserve to fail like it did.

Shalimar Sahota: Well, this doesn't look good. I wonder what kind of total we would be looking at here if we took out the extra cost for 3D tickets? Even though he means well, when Matthew describes it as material that's "nothing to get terribly excited about," then that kinda sums it up. Its placement on the calendar is also awkward. I'm being bombarded with ads for two family fantasy films opening close to one another - Jack the Giant Slayer and Disney's Oz the Great and Powerful, and I'd actually rather wait and see Oz. I guess many others are probably thinking the same thing? Jack the Giant Slayer is merely a taster for what's opening next week.

Continued:       1       2       3