The Hot Blog
Lots of happy stories at the box office this weekend… for a change. That is to say, not just one movie having a story to tell and everything else looking weak.
Home has a good chance of being DreamWorks Animation’s best opening since it moved to Fox a couple years ago and the third best non-sequel opener in the history of the company. No, it doesn’t look like the next Shrek, but a solid success on the heels of last summer’s solid success with Dragon 2 and Jeffrey Katzenberg may get some sleep this weekend.
After this weekend, three of the top five openings of 2015 will have targeted children (Spongebob, Cinderella, Home). I look forward to the New York Times expose on how the market has shifted away from its new focus on women – this week’s crap analysis – to children. I know that it is frustrating to perceive a lack of interest in women in the film industry, but it should not cloud our minds and send us down the road of making up misleading stats. Hollywood has always had a strong interest in the female audience and, like all other audiences, exploiting it. You can be sure that if Screen Gems had It Follows, they would have opened it to over $20 million by targeting the strong female horror audience that has driven many of Screen Gems’ biggest hits. The New York Times leaned on the lame “it’s cyclical” thing to cover their ass with a lot of bad reporting on their “women in charge” story. But the cycle is Disney targeting balancing their male lean starting back with the femme re-build on Tangled in 2010. Alice, Oz, and of course, most profoundly Frozen have all come since. Insurgent is just a copy of the 7-year-old Twilight franchise. And 50 Shades is its own thing. As for why boys aren’t coming to the box office in huge numbers early this year, poking at two delayed-because-they-were-trouble films (Jupiter Ascending and Chappie) is closer to a lie than disingenuous, especially while avoiding the surprise male-driven success of Kingsman: The Secret Service and the sexually ambiguous Spongebob.
Enough about that… though I did see an editor discussing Brooks Barnes’ absurd article on CBS this morning and it occurred to me that the editor, who seems to think that the article made any sense at all, might be the problem. (Amusingly, the movie fan co-anchor chewed up some of the NYT BS in a cheerful, unintentional way… just by knowing a little bit about movies.)
Meanwhile, Get Hard‘s opening is nothing to sneeze at. After some wildly over-the-top political correctness came out of the film’s SXSW premiere, Warner Bros actively avoided addressing the issue and as a result, it dies quickly. It may not be the most honest play, but it worked. This $12.8m opening day is the third-best of Will Ferrell’s live-action career. And yes, Kevin Hart certainly is a big part of that success. But Ice Cube-led Ride Along is the only film of Hart’s to open as well, with Think Like A Man coming close. But to be in the position to be wondering which actor deserves more credit for this opening is a good place to be.
Insurgent is doing okay. Won’t match Divergent, which was a bit soft. Keep those talks with the company-buying suckers… uh, Chinese… going.
Cinderella will come in well behind the other Disney live-action adaptations, but it also seems to have cost a lot less, so…
Kingsman: The Secret Service has hit $300 million worldwide. I don’t know if it will ever play China, but if it doesn’t it will be a hugely popular illegal DVD, as it is really a kind of modern chopsocky picture, albeit with more weapons. But a lot of balletic violence should be very popular in the Far East. (The film does not seem to have opened Japan either.)
Expanding well is It Follows, which no longer has day-n-date VOD following it and trying to murder its financial prospects (did Harvey have to have sex with someone to make that happen?). I believe strongly that day-n-date VOD has a place that matters to the smallest indies. But I don’t know how anyone can argue that it doesn’t create a glass ceiling for theatrical. It Follows will likely be Radius’ highest theatrical grosser EVER by the end of this weekend, passing Oscar-winning doc 20 Feet From Stardom. But frankly, it is still underperforming what was possible had it been positioned as a straight theatrical months before its release, with a full and proper theatrical campaign. I’m talking $40m – $50m theatrical, minimum.
Also doing nicely in its debut is While We’re Young from Noah Baumbach, released by A24. It should end the weekend with between $40-45k per screen.
The Salt of the Earth, the Oscar-nominated Wim Wenders doc, will also close in on $10k per screen this weekend.
The grass always seems greener on the other side. But it is not always the case. In the case of The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, it is a sad story of insecurity, fear, oversized yet easily bruised ego, and a lack of perspective on itself.
With due respect to a very bright and talented person, it started with the hiring of Dawn Hudson, whose top achievement was The Independent Spirit Awards, which has bounced around time slots, live shows, taped shows, locations, etc for years with an ever-declining significance, mostly because it become a faint echo of The Oscars a day before The Oscars. When it really was just a great cocktail and social event on the beach for the indie world – and it is still that, in part – the organization and Dawn were fast risers on the scene. By the time Ms. Hudson left, the show had reached an uncomfortable, awkward middle age, losing much of the luster she had worked so hard to build.
So who does The Academy, whose #1 priority is that TV show that pays all the bills, hire? The person with a show on the down-slope with a rather narrow view of the movie world.
And what Dawn has brought to The Academy, skilled as she is at many things, is that anxiety of the climber. Since her arrival, The Academy, perhaps the most stable and boring of all Hollywood institutions for decades under a politburo lead by Bruce Davis, Leslie Unger, and others, has become a constant work-in-progress… that just keeps losing footing in its desperation to climb.
Dear Academy… you are the golden gods… you are the kings of all award shows… you are the pinnacle of careers. Perhaps it is time to start acting like the home run hitter rather than the kid who is scared of being picked last for the kickball game even though you own the ball and the field.
And I have news for you. You can throw yourself, publicity-istically, on the pyre of Political Correctness all you like, but even adding 100 annual new members who would not normally qualify to become Academy members, the Academy is going to be white in the vast majority for many years to come and statistically dominated by men for not quite as long, but for a while. And if The Academy is going to remain above the rest of the groups, the average age will be “Old” forever. If more than 10% of The Academy is under 40 at any time, The Academy starts to become a joke. This organization has built its reputation – deserved or not… I will leave that to others to endlessly whine about – on the veteran status of its members. Yes, there is some under-40 talent out there that deserves a place at the table. Almost all of those are actors.
But here is the note… Jay Duplass is already 42. Mark Duplass turns 40 next year. I think they make a pretty fair tipping point. Not The Puffy Chair at 30. But multiple movies a year as producers, writers, and actors? They have come of age. Maybe next year. Maybe the year after. But they have accomplished enough to be taken seriously as potential Academy members. Make sense?
The annual drama around each telecast is, to say the least, idiotic. The ratings go up a little. The ratings go down a little. You remain on top of the heap. The Grammys made their run at The Oscars. But they have fallen back. And they have a huge built-in advantage. They have turned their award show into a 3-hour concert starring the top musical performers in the world. Music performance is a mega-business and people will tune in for one-of-a-kind moments like that. But sorry, Oscar… you can’t emulate that because film is not a live performance medium. So get over it already.
There are two issues that are very controversial within The Industry, though most civilians could not care less… or don’t know that they care because its all subtext. The Voting Process and The Date of The Show.
Even within The Industry and within the sliver of industry watchers called Oscar Writers, there is plenty of debate on both of these issues. And to be completely fair, the significance of both is utterly subjective. Personally, my position on both issues is about consumer/civilian benefit. I believe in Oscar – although it has become a media obscenity on many levels – and I want the show and the honor to not only survive, but thrive. And I believe that transparency – even fake transparency – on these issues allows the conversation for civilians to become about the show and the movies and not constant debate over minutiae.
The are two outstanding issues about voting. Should there be 10 nominees or 5 and should there be a simpler voting system that doesn’t require endless explaining every season that still doesn’t stick for 99% of people you ask (including Oscar writers)?
My position, regardless of the number of nominees, there should simply be weighted voting of each voter’s Top 3 choices for Best Picture. Very, very simple. This balances out the (irrational) fear of 10%+1 or even 20%+1 winning over films that are more widely popular. If someone chooses not to vote for 3 then their vote for picture is eliminated. Period. No shenanigans. I am not a supporter of any system designed to get to a 50%+1 winner because it has a legitimate chance of devaluing passion. But I agree that just picking a #1, especially with a wider field, can be problematic.
As for the question of 10 nominees or 5, I should say that I do not support, like, find interesting, or condone the current middle ground in which the number floats depending on the math between 5 and 10 nominees. This is not something fans can rely on. It is a distraction with no upside. If you are good with more than 5, just settle on 10 and let it be.
And I have become a fan of the 10 nominee system over time. Initially, I was against it, fearful that it would, in fact, be manipulated into embarrassing choices as nominees. But that is, factually, not what has happened. The first year of the expanded list was, by far, the most commercial of the six years to date. A big part of that was Avatar‘s massive gross sitting atop the chart. The 10 films that year averaged $151m before nomination and $170m per in final domestic gross. This year, it was $26m per film before nomination and $83m in the end. I believe that is the low for pre-nomination gross in the modern history of Oscar, with 5 nominees or 10 or in between. Of course, the post-award totals were skewed mightily by the massive success of American Sniper and were not a record low at all.
How do you interpret these stats? Again, all opinion on every side. Some would say that the low average gross at the time of nomination was bad for The Academy and left the Oscar show with a pool of films that didn’t draw an audience. Others (like myself) would say that this shows that discrimination about gross has finally been left behind by Academy members and they are picking their favorites in a more honest way and that this benefits the power and legitimacy of The Oscars in the short and long run.
How about this? When Crash won in 2005, it was the lowest grossing winner since 1987′s The Last Emperor. But it still was in the unintentional tradition of one of the top two grossers of each Best Picture field winning. In the 20 years prior to Crash, only twice had the Best Picture winner not been amongst the top two domestic grossers in the BP field by the time the dust settled (Last Emperor and American Beauty, which couldn’t catch up to The Sixth Sense or The Green Mile). The Departed, No Country For Old Men, and Slumdog Millionaire, the three films with just 5 nominees after Crash, also followed in the two two tradition.
And then came the first year of ten nominees and The Hurt Locker, which was #8 domestic grosser amongst the 10 nominees. Eighth of ten, Like The Last Emperor was fourth of five, so not a singularity. But a very rare event. Was it a fluke?
Well, the next season, The King’s Speech took us back to the old “top two” stat, essentially, by being the #4 domestic grosser amongst 10 nominees. But then The Artist was #7 of 9 nominees. Argo returned to “top four,” though in a field of nine, so a little less successful, statistically, than the old “top two.” 12 Years A Slave, which was attacked pre-release by The New York Times for having potential awards problems because of anticipated low grosses, was #5 of 9. And this last season, Birdman was #5 of 8 Best Picture nominees.
So in four of the six seasons with more than 5 Best Picture nominees, a film won from the lower half of the list of domestic grossers, when this had happened only once in the 24 seasons of 5 BP nominees before (American Beauty was #3, putting it dead center).
For me, this statistical reality, combined with the many strong movies that have gotten the opportunity to be nominated for Best Picture, make me a strong proponent of the 10 Best Picture nominee system.
Next… The date of the show.
This one is a no-brainer to me. Earlier. The only reason to give out awards for the last year’s movies a full two months (or more) after the end of the year is the claim that the show couldn’t be put together quickly enough to manage the transition. But I say, “BS to that.” Just do it.
Maybe ABC wants the show in a sweeps month (February), so okay. But aside from that, get ‘er done.
And by pushing the Oscar back into late January, early February, the industry will be forced to abandon strategies that rely so heavily on late entries. Also, the films that want to open in October and November will be spared the insane expense of holdingholdingholding for months just to have a chance to be in the game. How much earlier will other awards go? Who cares? Let them destroy their brands at their own risk. Academy is king/queen.
The Show – Big barrel of monkeys.
Let me keep this brief.
1. Hire a TV producer for no less than 5 years.
2. Hire a host who will commit to no less than 3 years.
3. Try to build the show to honor the movies… those nominated and perhaps those popular ones that are not. This is not a concert. This is not a hipster event to try to grab the imagination of the under 25s. These are the fucking Academy Awards. Buckle your seat belts. It’s going to be a bumpy ride. (Note to all of you who just rolled their eyes in a “TV is so much better now” posture… my movie award show eats your TV award show’s rating alive. Roll that!)
4. Get the Special Honorees on the show. The brand of Oscar is being and making movie history. Embrace it.
5. Get your nominees on stage giving out awards. Month after month is spent building up these people. Audiences want to see them, not the young stars on April’s big action movie. They will get their slot on the MTV Movie Awards.
6. Try to build a second show that so clearly honors and explains the work of some of the below-the-line categories that those branches are happy to be a part of that show and can remove some of the time stress from the big show. Just kicking them to the curb is not, as The Academy has learned repeatedly, going to happen. Ever.
7. If you want to honor the hit movies of the year, don’t pussyfoot around. Just do it. The tuxedos will enjoy it too. Over do it. Go big. Then go back to honoring the movies that are nominated.
8. Did I mention that this is not a concert… not a stand-up venue… not about pandering to people who will never watch a stuffy old awards. It is about making a great show for the 40 million or so people who will not miss a stuffy old award show under pain of death.
Be The Academy.
Engage the limitations of your role in the world with honesty and kindness, not fear and excuses.
This is an exercise in branding. 95%. And what is The Academy’s brand. Established stars in tuxedos celebrating the hell out of themselves.
A.B.C. Always Be Cocky. You are The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences. Step to it.
Feels sleepy at the box office, even with back-to-back $50m+ opening weekends.
Woe to the white male. Cinderella, Insurgent, and even Fifty Shades of Grey… where is the product for us?
Oh yeah, we got The Gunman and Run All Night. Thanks a lot, Hollywood! If we white men weren’t directing all but one of these films and dominating the executive offices, we would be deeply, deeply offended.
Yeah, we got Kingsman: The Secret Service, which continues to do strong numbers. And American Sniper, of course. But those Hollywood people only teased us with those Oscar nominations that went no where. SNUB!
At least The Weinsteins decided to expand the pure, old-fashioned gore of It Follows into more theaters… wait… it’s brilliant, non-traditional horror? And there are some hot girls, but they aren’t exploited the way they usually are in horror? And it’s about something bigger? Damn it! At least they screwed it up by not deciding on a more aggressive theatrical position until after it was slotted for VOD, spent almost nothing in marketing, and can now claim that it didn’t really work, just doubling the gross by expanding to 8x the screens this weekend. See… can’t blame VOD.
Okay… coming out of character… can’t stand it anymore.
It Follows is a movie that could have easily done $20 million domestic if released with that intent. Screen Gems would have opened it to 20 back in the day. Teenage girls would love it, if someone sold it to them. Radius knew something was up when it became the must-see for serious genre fans… but the film is more than that. There should be op-ed pieces being done on it and fights on various Gawker-based sites. Every time I describe it someone, they want to see it.
But someone has to tell them it’s in theaters. I have zero question that there is a day-n-date VOD glass ceiling that makes the releasing method great for many indies and a complete soul killer for some of the films that would have been break-outs back in the days before VOD came into vogue at IFC and Magnolia. And I have enormous respect for so many of the choices that IFC and Magnolia and Radius make every day of the year. These companies are, with Sony Classics and a parade of smaller distributors, the soul of cinema in this era. BUT… they need to stop pretending that day-n-date is always the best choice for a “smaller” film. It Follows has been blowing people away for almost a year already. Snowpiercer came from a filmmaker with a history of making beloved films… and this time, it was in English! And to be fair, plenty of people are still talking about Harvey Weinstein blowing his opportunity on Paddington, which people of all ages seem to love.
Weinstein/Radius needs The Clash’s “Should I Stay or Should I Go?” playing in the office 24/7, because they are at the crux of the dilemma for indie film these days. If I go there will be trouble. But if I stay there will be double. It’s bloody hard to play the middle.
And it’s not just Weinstein. Fox Searchlight, which has had massive success, including winning Best Picture two years in a row with New Regency, has often run into this problem. Calvary, Belle, Dom Hemingway, I Origins, and The Drop did $26 million domestic between them last year, $20m+ of it from 2 of the films. But strong, interesting choices. Good movies. A couple of great movies. And… meh. Profit against cost, etc, etc, they may have done okay. But that group of films should have done better. Searchlight isn’t dumb in the spring and smart in the fall. They are always smart and always well intended. Just didn’t get there.
There is nothing easy in the distribution game, except Batman. And while opportunity has expanded, the business is harder than ever. Searchlight doesn’t have the day-n-date VOD option. Weinstein/Radius does. But knowing when to use that tool and when to spend on the marketing required for real theatrical success, etc, etc, etc… all challenging. For companies whose average films are going to gross $2-5 million, a theatrical marketing budget is not a light decision.
Sony Classics, perhaps, lives in the middle of this more than any other distributor. Because of being a part of Sony, they don’t have the day-n-date option either. But they have a lot of “smaller” films with smaller expectations, some of which break out. $17 million with maybe a couple more million coming for Still Alice is a happy surprise. In the nearly 4 years since Midnight in Paris, the company has had only had 6 films go double-digits in millions. Three were Woody Allen. Two were Best Picture nominees this year. And most recently, Still Alice. But SPC has had many successful releases in that period. Of 61 releases since Paris, only 11 have grossed less than $500k in the US. Those are very strong numbers in today’s indie market. In IFC’s last 61 releases (including Boyhood), they’ve only had 11 of those films gross over $350k domestic theatrical. (Different model, but that’s my point.)
Even A24, which has been killing it, with 13 of their 15 releases in their first 2 years grossing at least $1 million, has had only one film gross over $7 million (Spring Breakers) and their other bigger grossers (A Most Violent Year, The Spectacular Now, The Bling Ring) feel like they left a lot of money on the theatrical table.
Anyway… I don’t come to piss on Radius or even VOD. But it’s time for some big rethinking… again. And theatrical should be a part of that re-think.
After looking at the footage of the doc again, I believe the second interview—including the Times Square walk and trips to family real estate—was shot in early April 2012. I also believe that the interview they say in the film that they had “leverage” to get was a third interview, not the second one.
Anyway… lots of questions and followups to ask…
Question: When, specifically, did you realize that the non-interview ramblings of Durst in the first interview might have editorial value? Were you aware he had a propensity to talk to himself at that time and did you hope he would?
Question: How long was the second interview? Was it, as it was shown, almost exclusively about building to the moment of showing him the two signatures? Did oh do the Times Square walk before that? When you ended the interview, as seen on TV, did you actually end the interview or was there any expectation that you might continue?
Question: Why would you leave Durst confessing to have faked his alibi in his wife’s murder case out of the film? Was this about maintaining tension until the end?
Question: Why is there surveillance footage of Saraf and Durst in Los Angeles? When was it taken? Why were you filming Durst without his knowledge at that point? Was it before or after the incriminating letter? Was it before or after the second interview?
Question: Were you trying for a third interview for a year or longer without success, under the assumption that Bob Durst might still think you were on his side? When exactly did the call in which Durst seems to abruptly hang up on Andrew take place?
Question: What triggered your first contact with police? Was there ongoing communication? Did you have anything to add, aside from the incriminating envelope and the bathroom audio?
Question: What happened in 2014? Why didn’t the film come out that year? What would the film have looked like without the bathroom audio?
SXSW seems to have reached Peak Sundance this year.
That’s not a compliment.
Four South Bys from Bridesmaids and the trend of big studio films doing early (or not-so-early) reach out to geek audiences has become the norm, not the surprise. For Team Apatow/Feig/Stoller, it’s become a tradition. Forgetting Sarah Marshall in 2008, Bridesmaids in 2011, Neighbors in 2013, and this year, two films, Trainwreck and Spy.
Worth noting, Universal, Universal, Universal, Universal, Fox.
Also worth noting: No The Five-Year Engagement, no Begin Again, no The Heat, no Get Him To The Greek, no Ted.
2012: Cabin In The Woods ($42m), 21 Jump Street ($138m)
2013: Evil Dead ($54m), The Incredible Burt Wonderstone ($23m)
2914: Neighbors ($150m), Veronica Mars ($3.3m), Chef ($31m), Cesar Chavez ($6m)
What will be the results for Get Hard, Spy, Trainwreck, and Universal’s Ex Machina this year? Most likely, very strong.
This is the eternal question about these premieres at film festivals, whether the biggest in the world or the high middle or the low end… or ComicCon, for that matter.
It is completely understandable that the media has grabbed onto the idea that SWSW is “The Raunchy Comedy Fest.” It’s not that. But that is what has become the lead story now, year after year.
This is the devil’s bargain that festivals are faced with… do they try to focus attention on the high quality films that can’t afford to chase national media attention or do the festivals grab media attention with studio films with studio marketing budgets (and stars) and try to spread it around?
Like it or not, the history of film festival growth seems to be directly related the “pandering” to movies that don’t need festivals, aside from as a cheap marketing event to a targeted demographic group.
The conversation gets a little different in the fall, when Telluride, Toronto, and New York all spread ‘em for the “awards films” that draw attention. Some of those have smaller budgets for marketing and really need to catapult effect from these festivals. And, for the most part, the films themselves are more ambitious than summer comedy or horror.
But that is really a different issue. And I have written about ComicCon many times… that I don’t think anyone can legitimately point to a single movie that was going to do a lot of business that would have done a noticeable amount less had they not gone to ComicCon. Inversely, there is a long list of films that got LOVE at the Con and ended up bombing anyway.
For studios, “premiere” at festivals like SXSW are just word-of-mouth screenings in a fan-oriented environment. Each festival has a personality. And the tone is set with the critics in attendance as well. Of course, critics mean little with commercial comedies and horror films, as has been proven repeatedly by films that are loved in these circumstances, but then are considered commercial underperformers. And I can’t recall a single case of a film in which the movie was destined for relative modesty at the box office but was then raised to the heavens by a festival screening.
It was great for Universal to have the in-house enthusiasm for Bridesmaids that was stoked by a successful sneak at SXSW – which is really what these are – and they rode that wave all the way to May (2 months away). The film opened to a solid, but unspectacular $26 million and then proceeded to do more than 6x opening weekend domestically… which is spectacular. Likewise, Ted, opened in late June with no festivals… opened stronger and did a tremendous (in that context) 4x opening. In other words, two R-rated comedies that Universal knew were good opened – one lesser but with longer legs and one stronger with strong but not as long legs – and which one would expect got the festival bump?
So indulge me when I say that these screenings mean a lot to the people involved and nearly nothing to the ultimate marketing of these movies. And none of these movies – or any other wide release – opens without successful marketing.
That said, does it matter?
In the end, it only matters to me because I do not want my experience of discovering a movie derailed by “buzz” from a million different buzzers, large and small. I can’t be swayed and I don’t want to concern myself with avoiding positive or negative context for a film when I first see it… as a consumer or as a critic.
What do The Hollywood Reporter and Variety think? I could not care less. Both have been right about movies and both have been wrong. And unless the critic is one with whose work I am deeply familiar, I have no reason to trust anyone just because they write under a journalistic banner whose name I know. This is also true with, say, The NY Times. I read Manohla and Tony for criticism, not that paper.
Is it bad for the lower profile films at these festivals? Good question. Answer is, “both” and every story as to why and to what degree is different.
Is this bad or good for MOVIES? Meaningless, really. There is more accessible movie writing than ever in the history of the world and has it changed the financials a whit? Not that I can see.
I will admit… when I started writing this, my eyes were rolling. I look forward to seeing Trainwreck and Spy, but I also know that they wouldn’t have gone if they weren’t already testing pretty well. Amy Schumer is the great comedic mind of the moment – Lorne Michaels missed that one, big time – Apatow knows comedy and Hader is always a joy. Melissa McCarthy is funny even when she isn’t and Spy sounds like the great John Belushi or Chris Farley or Jim Carrey movie that wasn’t. But I don’t really need to know what trades or geeks think of these films months in advance. I’ll know what to think when the lights come on.
On the other hand… who cares? God bless SXSW and all the festivals and all the people who go and enjoy the films and the event of it all.
There is a natural conflict. These movies aren’t there as art. They are there as a piece of a business plan. But… even if it doesn’t earn any of the films a single extra dime… who cares? And if it distracts from more serious work at SXSW, that is SXSW’s choice and they will navigate it as they see fit.
I guess in the end, it is how I feel about Sundance too. “Paris Hilton is taking up too much oxygen!” Well, then YOU are the one paying too much attention to Paris Hilton, because you could well go through all 10 days of the festival and never see her, never know where she is, and never care.
Posted from a camp site…
So who’s next? Room for your suggestions below…
What does one say about the weakest box office weekend of 2015 led by the weakest #1 grosser of any weekend in 2015?
Next weekend, Cinderella will push the market back into the top half of 2015 weekends. So goes the rollercoaster of release dates.
Before we allow the creeping terror of the “2015 box office would be crappy without American Sniper” spin, here is one very easy to chew stat. There has never been more than two $50 million+ openings in Jan-Mar (Q1) in the history of the film business. Considering the next two weekends (Cinderella/Insurgent) Q1 2015 will have FOUR. Add on top of that the remarkable expansion of American Sniper.
Want to expand the survey a bit, to $30 million openings? 2015 will come up one short of the record of 8 such openings, which has happened a couple of times. But then again, the budgets on this year’s 7 $30 million+ Q1 openers will be significantly less than either 2010 or 2012 (the year’s with 8 such openings).
Look… I am not arguing that this year’s early box office is world-beating, fat, rich excitement. But it is strong and solid. And arguing any kind of “trouble” is myopic and irrational.
The happiest story of the weekend was the opening of The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, which topped any weekend of the original film and is in position to match or top the number of the first film domestically. The First Marigold made its larger fortune overseas, where it scored $90m. The Second is already has $20m in the bank chasing that number.
Kingsman: The Secret Service is not only on the tip of $100m domestically, but also, $250m worldwide.
The success of Still Alice is worth noting. It’s up to $14.7 million domestic. That outdoes both 2014 titles Foxcatcher and Whiplash. And it will likely outdo Sony Classics’ top 2013 title To Rome with Love ($16.7 million). It won’t come close to either of the recent SPC Woody Allen hits, Blue Jasmine or Midnight in Paris. But did anyone see a strong commercial play in this movie? I know that the first driving force for picking up the film at Toronto last year was the sense that Julianne Moore was sure to win the Oscar with it. But this is quite a happy upside… not just for SPC, but for the film and filmmakers, who have to be thrilled that their work is being so widely seen, even before post-theatrical.
Arthouse/limited release films were soft as well, with the re-issue of Grey Gardens doing the best per-screen on 1 ($11k) and Phillipine romantic drama Crazy Beautiful You doing $500k on 47 screens as a niche market smash.
Sorry… having some e-mail problems this morning and there is no box office chart… so far…
If it makes you feel better, the weekend sucks. Happens. Next weekend will be all about the girl. I wish Cinderella was actually a good movie. It’s not. But it does hit the iconic heart strings. More on that later.
I avoided Chappie. Too sad.
The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel took a shot at a wide release and it seems to have paid off…
And here we are…
Remember when last weekend looked kinda crappy? This weekend tops it. The only weaker weekend this year so far was Super Bowl weekend.
Will Smith’s Big Willie has shrunk. Focus is not a disastrous opening, but it’s not a happy one either. Of course, WB pushed out a movie with many variations on the ad campaign, no particularly recognizable star aside from Smith (with due respect to Margot Robbie… one movie, no nomination, not yet anything approaching a box-office draw), and a title that didn’t help. Keep in mind… when the then-most-recent Batman, George Clooney, came out in what was a truly great movie—Out of Sight—with Jennifer Lopez by his side, and the film opened to $12 million, which in 1998 looked a lot like $19 million looks this morning. Movies that aren’t on the nose are hard sells.
And of course… international. Smith’s films, whether Seven Pounds or After Earth, have all done significantly more internationally than domestically in the past five years.
The other newcomer, The Lazarus Effect, has a direct-to-DVD budget and a conservative marketing budget. So even if it’s just $20 million domestic, this will end up being—adding up worldwide and post-theatrical revenues—a profitable piece of business.
50 Shades Of Grey continues to fall like a stone domestically. It will likely have a lower domestic total than Spongebob: Sponge Out of Water when all is said and done. But… it will also do $400 million-plus internationally. So don’t cry for poor Anastasia.
McFarland USA may have found a little stride in its step with a 29% drop this weekend. This indicates a strong Saturday, meaning that family audiences are now checking out the film more aggressively.
American Sniper will pass Guardians of the Galaxy on Thursday as #2 film released in 2014 and will likely pass THG: Mockingjay 1 on Sunday, Monday or Tuesday next week and become the #1 of 2014.
Still Alice expanded out to 1.318 screens on the Julianne Moore win as Best Actress and did a strong $2.7 million.
Best Picture winner Birdman added screens and $2 million to its domestic total, passing $40 million.
Two films, in exclusive release, managed over $12k per screen; ’71 and The Hunting Ground. But it was a round indie weekend, more so than even in the wide-release business. Sony Classics is having a busy weekend with Oscar players Still Alice, Whiplash, Mr. Turner, Leviathan and Wild Tales.
As is so often the case, the premature reporting of weekend estimates from east coast matinees leads to increased disappointment for the studios that encourage such silliness. Focus is an underdog to get to $20 million this weekend, though this could be one where there is a Sunday estimate that is higher than the actual. It’s also possible that the cold in the east and midwest will help or hurt over today and tomorrow. What we know for sure is that this is not a glorious return of the too-little-seen Mr. Smith. Starring in only his fourth film in the seven years since his last big hit, Hancock, Smith still has “it,” but about half the biggest moviegoing demo in America has no real idea of who he is/was. WB will look to the overseas audience to keep this from being a big money loser, as they came to the rescue of Seven Pounds ($98m international), Men in Black III ($445m int), and After Earth ($183m int).
Focus is clearly a move to a more adult positioning of Smith’s career… from high-energy bad boy to adult intelligence and sensuality. He has the chops. But he probably needed more experienced hands behind the camera. Smith’s stardom has come from very definable characters who lacked real mystery. This dude in Focus is meant to be a cipher from beginning to end. And the marketing has flailed as a result. In trying to find the tone that will connect with Smith’s audience, WB has come up with a lot of approaches… which has muddied the water while still not finding the golden ticket. A lot of smart and very talented people have come up short on this one.
The Lazarus Effect ain’t coming back. But it’s Relativity, so this is about where the company lives. Did you know that Relativity has never had an opening over $33 million? This is their 33rd release as an independent and it will be their 20th not to open to at least $10 million. Sometimes, the company is just designed to be a certain thing and there is just not getting over that mission statement. Relativity is built on international pre-sales, which means that domestic distribution is not life and death. And there you go. Interestingly, the company opened Oculus last April to $12 million with no name talent and will open Lazarus to under $10 million with Olivia Wilde and Mark Duplass. But speaking to the mission statement… it’s a Blumhouse movie that cost under $4 million, which makes it cheaper to make than network TV or a Netflix Original. But it will also be Blumhouse’s worst opening in 5 years (16 films) with the exception of Dark Skies, which Dimension opened to $8 million a few years ago.
50 Shades of Grey is the proverbial dropping stone domestically. $170 million domestic looks like a reach about now. But… it will still pass $500 million worldwide this weekend, so get over it.
Kingsman: The Secret Service hasn’t found that second wind I was hoping it would. But it should be near $85 million at the end of this weekend and $100 million domestic is still well within reach. It should also hop over 50 Shades – and maybe even Lazarus – in the all-unimportant Top 10 slotting chart. Internationally, the film is already over $100 million and there is some gas left in that tank.
Another film I was rooting for, McFarland USA, reminds how challenging it can be for a company that is really good at releasing giant films to release something more delicate (and without a bottomless pit of marketing dollars). This is Disney’s sixth attempt at a non-blockbuster in the last year (Muppets Most Wanted, Bears, Million Dollar Arm, The Hundred Foot Journey, Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day) and the high for the group, domestically, is $67 million. The budgets, except for Muppets, which was coming off a more successful reboot, were under $30 million. And there seems to be a $30 million range for international on these. So it’s not dragging down Blockbusterville. But most of these titles seemed to offer more upside than the current big-eyed Mouse House is finding.
Oscar Bump is soft. Very soft. American Sniper is holding well… but it was holding well before Oscar night. Same with The Imitation Game. Birdman expanded its re-release this weekend from 407 screens to 1215. The Friday gross more than doubled from last weekend. But it’s still just a $500,000 Friday and maybe a $1.5 million weekend. Likewise, Still Alice went from 765 screen s to 1318, but got only a 10% bump out of it, even with Julianne Moore’s Oscar win. It’s looking at a $2 million weekend.