I've said this countless times, but it remains true. If studios budget a film so that said film basically has to set records in some capacity (be it personal bests for the director or star), they are always setting themselves up for disaster. You can't count on every Jim Carrey comedy to pull in Bruce Almighty numbers anymore than you can expect every Russell Crowe movie to play like Gladiator. So if you're looking to budget a Ridley Scott movie starring Russell Crowe, you might want to notice that their personal best is indeed Gladiator, which grossed $187 million in the US and $457 million worldwide. Thus, you might not want to spend so much that said new movie absolutely has to gross around those figures in order to break even. But, accidentally or otherwise, that is just what Universal has done with Robin Hood. So what should have been a fine opening weekend of turns into a sigh of relief.Costing as much as $237 million (with apparent tax breaks knocking the price down to $155 million), the Ridley Scott prequel-tale of the famous Sherwood Forest archer opened with $36 million in domestic box office and $110 million in worldwide grosses. Universal expected the overseas numbers to carry the day and that seems to be what is happening thus far. The film grossed $74 million in overseas dollars, or twice what it grossed in America (it was number 01 in fifty-two foreign territories). The film is actually Universal's second-biggest overseas opening, behind the $84 million foreign debut of King Kong in December 2005. In America, the film scored just a 'B-' in Cinema Score polling, implying a short run due to indifferent or negative word of mouth. The film also played 62% over 30 years old, which could actually be a positive (the gender split was 56% male). With no real adult offerings until the nostalgia-fueled The A-Team on June 11th (my late Pappa Joe would have loved to see that), the film could survive as a second-choice for general adult moviegoers who have already seen Iron Man 2 and don't care for the R-rated shenanigans of MacGruber or Sex and the City 2. Ironically, in terms of the dreaded 'second film of summer' curse, Robin Hood scored the biggest opening weekend ever to not be number one during the second weekend of summer. Only Troy ($44 million) and Star Trek ($79 million) opened better. The rest of the contenders on this weekend have been littered with low-budget adult vehicles (The Horse Whisperer, Monster-In-Law), or over-budgeted financial disasters (Battlefield Earth, Poseidon, Speed Racer).
Outside variables aside, this is Russel Crowe's biggest opening weekend as a stand-alone draw, and his second-biggest opening ever behind American Gangster ($43 million) which starred Denzel Washington. This is director Ridley Scott's third-biggest debut, behind Hannibal ($58 million) and American Gangster. I have no idea what caused costs to shoot so high, but the escalating budget turned what should have been a solid win for Universal into a near-miss. Frankly, considering the poor reviews and drab marketing materials ("It's like Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, but less entertaining!"), I'm genuinely shocked it opened as well as it did. This is certainly not as problematic as the disastrous showings of The Wolfman ($138 million worldwide gross on a $150 million budget) and The Green Zone ($86 million worldwide gross on a $100 million budget). With all of the hub-bub about the adult-driven drama or adult thriller being dead, I will say over and over again that it is very much alive and profitable if the films can be made for under $50 million. Universal and company got lucky with Robin Hood. If the film can cross $100 million in the US and get to $400 million worldwide, it might have a shot at long-term profitability. But, had costs been reasonably contained (say, no more than $125 million), this would count as a genuine hit.
Letters From Juliet opened pretty well for a Summit release. The $13.5 million debut is the fourth-biggest debut in the company history, behind the Twilight films and the $22 million debut of Knowing. The film was more of a stereotypical 'chick flick' than the war-torn romance of Dear John, so a similar opening was never in the cards. As a test of Amanda Seyfried's star power, it was an okay display, as the film wasn't selling anything but Seyfried, unless you're able to argue that Vanessa Redgrave can open a movie. Regardless, Summit certainly tried their best this time around, with long-lead press screenings (which backfired when the reviews were negative) and a national sneak preview last Sunday (the film scored an 'A-' from Cinema Score this weekend), and the $30 million film has already had much of its costs worked out through sale of foreign distribution rights. Demos were a whopping 81% female and 63% over 25 years old. Expect Seyfried to regain some luster when the more buzz-worthy April 2011 release, The Girl with the Red Riding Hood. That horror picture is directed by Catherine Hardwicke and stars Julie Christie and the sure-to-perish Gary Oldman. The other main wide release was Just Wright, which opened to a mediocre $8.2 million. The Queen Latifah/Common romantic comedy set in the world of NBA basketball perhaps dropped the ball by opening in the midst of the NBA playoffs. If your team won, you were probably busy celebrating over the weekend. If you're from Cleveland, you were probably contemplating suicide. Point being, the Fox Searchlight release opened well below the $12 million debuts of Beauty Shop, Last Holiday, and Taxi.That brings us to the actual number one film of the weekend, which was again Iron Man 2. Dropping a sharp but not horrible 59%, the sequel pulled in $52 million in its second weekend and now sits with $211 million in US grosses and $457 million worldwide. Of the films that have grossed over $45 million in their second weekends, only The Incredibles ($261 million), Monsters Inc, How the Grinch Stole Christmas ($260 million), and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire ($291 million) failed to reach $300 million domestic. Still, it will probably crawl to $300 million and drop dead soon after as serious demo competition is on the way (Shrek: The Final Forever After Chapter, Prince of Persia, and Sex and the City 2) in the next two weekends. While the film should still make it to $700 million, the solid but not astronomical performance should give pause to Marvel, Disney, and Paramount in regards to just how much they want to spend on The Avengers. Iron Man 2 was the only sure thing coming out of the Marvel library in the near-future, and it will likely fight for a spot in the top-five grossers of 2010 come December. It won't come close to worldwide champ Alice in Wonderland, which is currently the sixth-biggest worldwide grosser ($980 million!) of all-time. If $320 million domestic is the apparent ceiling for Marvel films not called Spider-Man, then Marvel should budget accordingly and/or find a way to split the cost over two mega movies.
There's not much else to report. How to Train Your Dragon is now at $207 million, and it will surely surpass Kung Fu Panda ($215 million) by the end of the month or sooner, depending on how it weathers the arrival of Shrek: Whatever the Hell this Fourth Movie is Called. Date Night is still holding strong, dropping 26% and approaching $87 million. A Nightmare On Elm Street dropped another 50% and ends its third weekend with $56 million. Next weekend should be another mammoth one, as the aforementioned fourth Shrek picture opens against MacGruber. On one hand, the Saturday Night Live comedy/90s action film satire has garnered rave reviews from the screening at the SXSW Festival earlier this year. On the other hand, the only press screening is the night before opening day. As always, we'll see...
Scott Mendelson
Scott, I have my own theory as to why Just Wright underperformed and it has nothing to do with the generally boring NBA playoffs. On my blog I theorized the problem is Queen Latifah is less than convincing as a romantic lead because of her closeted sexual orientation.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't a swipe at Latifah, but it's been an open secret in the Black community that her private preference is for other women. Which is cool when it comes to her ususal light comedies where she typically plays the "sassy sista with an attitude" role she has perfected.
But as a heterosexual woman in love with a man, Latifah is as miscast as if she were named the next Bond girl.
I quoted L.A. activist and blogger Jasmyne Cannick when she wrote about Queen Latifah a few years ago, I’m sure if I asked my 87 year-old grandmother today if she thought Latifah was gay she’s say yes. And if I followed that up with, but would you still go and see her in a movie, she’d say yes to that too. The reason for that is simple. When it comes to celebrities, I don’t think people care the way they would if the person in question were a Senator, Governor, quarterback, short-stop, or point guard. The other and perhaps most important reason that I don’t think her sexuality would be that much of an issue is that, what most gay people who think they’re pulling off straight don’t seem to realize is that people know. They may not say anything to your face about it, but they know. I don’t care how long the weave is, how packed the MAC is, or how high the heels are, you are who you are and it always comes through loud and clear regardless of how hard you try to hide it. Even in interviews when the simplest answer you could ever give to the question of your sexuality is either yes I am gay, no I am straight, or I am bisexual. End of story. All of the shucking and jiving and elaborate drawn out answers that are strangely reminiscent of the dances done by politicians on subjects they’d rather not be speaking on, end up telling the story for you.
It's only a hunch, but Latifah's audience just isn't interested in buying tickets to see a pure fantasy that has such a high degree of implausibility.
http://jeffwinbush.com/2010/05/17/queen-latifah-ladies-first-or-only/
Well, as you know, there is an ongoing debate on whether openly gay actors can convincingly play heterosexual love interests. I'm in the camp of 'it's called acting, silly', but there is a stigma. And to be fair, I find it hard to swallow when someone like Jodie Foster plays a character who is unintelligent. People get slammed for saying 'I don't buy gay people in hetero love stories', but we all have our biases.
ReplyDeleteScott, I have my own theory as to why Just Wright underperformed and it has nothing to do with the generally boring NBA playoffs. On my blog I theorized the problem is Queen Latifah is less than convincing as a romantic lead because of her closeted sexual orientation.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't a swipe at Latifah, but it's been an open secret in the Black community that her private preference is for other women. Which is cool when it comes to her ususal light comedies where she typically plays the "sassy sista with an attitude" role she has perfected.
But as a heterosexual woman in love with a man, Latifah is as miscast as if she were named the next Bond girl.
I quoted L.A. activist and blogger Jasmyne Cannick when she wrote about Queen Latifah a few years ago, I’m sure if I asked my 87 year-old grandmother today if she thought Latifah was gay she’s say yes. And if I followed that up with, but would you still go and see her in a movie, she’d say yes to that too. The reason for that is simple. When it comes to celebrities, I don’t think people care the way they would if the person in question were a Senator, Governor, quarterback, short-stop, or point guard. The other and perhaps most important reason that I don’t think her sexuality would be that much of an issue is that, what most gay people who think they’re pulling off straight don’t seem to realize is that people know. They may not say anything to your face about it, but they know. I don’t care how long the weave is, how packed the MAC is, or how high the heels are, you are who you are and it always comes through loud and clear regardless of how hard you try to hide it. Even in interviews when the simplest answer you could ever give to the question of your sexuality is either yes I am gay, no I am straight, or I am bisexual. End of story. All of the shucking and jiving and elaborate drawn out answers that are strangely reminiscent of the dances done by politicians on subjects they’d rather not be speaking on, end up telling the story for you.
It's only a hunch, but Latifah's audience just isn't interested in buying tickets to see a pure fantasy that has such a high degree of implausibility.
http://jeffwinbush.com/2010/05/17/queen-latifah-ladies-first-or-only/