SPEARE'S TIPS - The Films of 11/16/11-11/18/11

[Shrykespeare]

Not since The Help have I underestimated a film’s potential than I did with Immortals. I admit it: I was not impressed with what I saw from the trailers and the advertising, and when I saw the film itself, I was equally unimpressed. However, I was clearly in the minority, as the film soared to a $32 million OW, just ahead of Adam Sandler’s latest “comedy”, Jack and Jill ($26 million), as well as Puss in Boots’ third weekend ($25.5 million). As predicted, Lars Von Trier’s Melancholia easily took first in the PTA race.

There are only three movies to talk about this week. Why? Well, most likely because no one wants to get their asses kicked by what will likely be the second-highest-grossing film of 2011. That film, of course is The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Pt. 1, the penultimate chapter in the monster literary series by author Stephanie Meyer. Taking a page out of the Harry Potter lexicon, the filmmakers decided to split the final volume into two parts, with the final film coming one year from now.

If anyone of you who regularly reads my column is an aficionado of the Twilight series (either the books, the movies, or both), I can only imagine that you have kept that little factoid to yourself. And I can’t blame you, as the demographic for these stories have always been, and continue to be, teenage girls. But the fanatical following that that demographic has shown these films is far too monstrous to ignore. So scoff though we might at the notion of actually sitting down and watching this film, you would be incredibly foolish to leave it off your slates. It’s going to be in over 4,000 theaters, and that only happens with the biggest of the big.

I won’t go far into the plot, given the indifference that has been prevalent about the boards about this entire franchise: at this point, Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) and vampire Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) are now married, and have decided to honeymoon in Rio to consummate said marriage. Not long after, however, Bella finds out that she is pregnant with a human/vampire hybrid, a pregnancy that she may very well not survive unless she is “vampirized” herself. And not only that, this union may put Edward and his entire family at grave risk from the Volutir, the council of vampire leaders, who may decide that Bella’s child not live to see the light of… well, the moon, I guess.

The last two Twilight films, New Moon and Eclipse, have managed in the neighborhood of $140-$150 million in its first weekend, and I see no reason to change those numbers for Breaking Dawn Pt. 1. I will predict exactly $150 million in its first five days, which seems safe enough. Another safe bet is that the user Rating will be awful, like in the 3.0-4.0 range, but given it’s enormous numbers in the other categories (esp. Box Office), that’s a trade-off I think you can live with.

Lest I forget, the fan-base of the Twilight films have a tendency to see the films in theaters within days or hours of the film opening, and not much after that. Therefore, you can expect about a 60-70% drop in the next two weeks, which may make Top 5 points rather problematic. It’s the most expensive property of the season, naturally, with a price tag of $34 in Ultimate ($37 in Box Office), and for that, I think you can expect ten Top 5 points, five PTA and $280 million. Based on early word, I have a hard time believing Breaking Dawn will crack $300 million, especially when you get the myriad of December blockbusters entering the game. But even with all these negatives, I have to recommend this film. It’s really, when you think about it, the only film this winter that is pretty much guaranteed to hit the $250 million mark.

It’s interesting: since its inception in 2001, Pixar films have won the Oscar for Best Animated Feature six times, including the last four (with Ratatouille, WALL-E, Up and Toy Story 3). The last Pixar film that did not win this award was Cars, which lost in 2006 to Happy Feet. How ironic that the sequels to both films come in the same year. And I never thought I’d say this, but I would be amazed if either one won the award this year (it’s really as wide open as it’s ever been, IMHO).

It was five years ago this week that Happy Feet debuted in theaters, pulling in $41 million on its way to $198 million overall. Who would have thought that a film with, no obvious plot, consisting of little more than well-animated penguins singing and dancing, could become such a big hit? (Yes, I know, there was a plot, but I never saw the film, so I couldn’t tell you what it was.)

One thing that hasn’t changed for the sequel, Happy Feet Two – apart from the singing and dancing, of course – is the fact that some of the biggest names in Hollywood have lent their vocal talents to the film. Elijah Wood, Robin Williams and Hugo Weaving reprise their roles, and they are joined by Brad Pitt and Matt Damon (playing krill, if you can believe it), along with Hank Azaria, Anthony LaPaglia and musical artists Pink and Common.

According to Wikipedia, the plot is thus: Mumble the penguin (Wood) has a problem: his son Erik (E.G. Daily), who is reluctant to dance, encounters Amazing Hero Puffin called "The Mighty Sven" (Azaria), whom he thinks is a penguin who can fly. Things get worse for Mumble when the world is shaken by powerful forces, causing him to bring together the penguin nations and their allies to set things right.

Happy Feet Two will be debuting in over 3,600 theaters this Friday. If it follows the same pattern as the original, it will drop between 30-40% in its next two weekends, with the drops dropping to single digits as we get closer to Christmas. So, for $25 in Ultimate leagues ($27 in Box Office), I’ll predict an OW of $44 million, on its way to eight Top 5 points, several PTA, $140 million and a decent-but-not-spectacular Rating (the original finished at 6.6). I know, $140 seems low, but with a plethora of kids’ movies coming next week, I have to believe that that will make a dent in its bottom line. It seems to be good counterprogramming to the “horror” (interpret that however you want) of Twilight.

The only limited-release film this week is The Descendants, which will actually be debuting in five locations on Wednesday before expanding to 27 theaters on Friday. Based on the novel of the same name by Kaui Hart Hemmings, the film is brought to theaters courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures and director Alexander Payne, who helmed such acclaimed films as Election, About Schmidt and Sideways (for which Payne won an Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay). The Descendants has already stared racking up accolades as well, winning Best Feature Film at the Hawaii International Film Festival and Actor of the Year Award at the Hollywood Film Festival for star George Clooney.

Set in Hawaii, The Descendants tells the story of Matt King (Clooney), an indifferent husband and father of two girls who is forced to reexamine his life after his wife – who he later learns was unfaithful – falls into a coma following a boating accident. He must also find a way to reconnect with his daughters, while also deciding whether or not do sell the family’s land, a Hawaiian estate handed down from Hawaiian royalty.

Last week, Lars Von Trier joined Jeff Nichols, Pedro Almodovar and Sean Durkin on the list of directors whose latest outings we expected to turn into PTA champions and did just that. Will Payne be joining that list this week? Well, it will take a monumental turnout for The Descendants to top Twilight: Breaking Dawn in that category, but it’s not out of the realm of possibility.

Critics have absolutely loved this film so far. At RT, The Descendants has a current score of 91% Fresh (on 30/33 reviews), and its current IMDb User Rating of 8.0 (on over 400 votes) also makes this a very tantalizing prospect. Is it worth $7 in the Ultimate leagues? I just don’t know. With numerous potential PTA threats coming up next week, the likelihood that The Descendants can produce PTA points in back-to-back weeks is rather small.


My predictions for the weekend of November 18-20, 2011:

1. Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 1 - $150 million
2. Happy Feet Two - $44 million
3. Immortals - $17 million
4. Puss in Boots - $16 million
5. Jack and Jill - $14 million

Well, that will do it for me for another week. Next week, six new films debut on Thanksgiving Wednesday that hope to stem the tidal wave brought on by vampire romance and dancing penguins. The three wide-release movies coming to town are: The Muppets, the long-awaited return of Kermit the Frog, Miss Piggy and the gang; Hugo, a fantasy-adventure film from noteworthy director Martin Scorsese; and Arthur Christmas, an animated holiday film from Aardman Studios. The three limited-release films coming next week are definitely Oscar-bait films, and they are: My Week With Marilyn, starring Michelle Williams as the doomed bombshell of the 50’s; A Dangerous Method, a twist on Sigmund Freud’s life from director David Cronenberg; and The Artist, a black/white throwback romantic drama starring John Goodman.

Celebrities with milestone (div. by 10) birthdays this week:

Beverly D’Angelo (National Lampoon’s “Vacation” series) (60 on 11/15)
Stephen Root (King of the Hill, Dodgeball, Office Space) (60 on 11/17)
Meg Ryan (Sleepless in Seattle, When Harry Met Sally) (50 on 11/19)

Later!

[numbersix]

Hard to tell how this weekend will fare. Are Twihards bored or is the wedding the event of the cinematic year? Boosch says there's a huge division in how the fans saw the last book, but I'm not sure if that will stop them wanting to watch the film. As for Happy Feet 2, is there too much competition for family movies (Puss, then Muppets, Hugo, Arthur Christmas all coming up)? And will Twilight 4 take all the teens and tweens away from the dancing penguins?

As for Descendants, it's on most of my slates. 27 theatres is a lot for a PTA champ, which is a shame, but I'm hoping its Oscar glory may get it some T5 points and a healty BO figure by the time it runs out of steam in late Jan.

1. Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 1 - $140 million
2. Happy Feet Two - $39 million
3. Immortals - $15 million
4. Puss in Boots - $14 million
5. Jack and Jill - $13 million

[BanksIsDaFuture]

Finally, the heavy hitters of fall/winter are starting to appear. From here on out, it's going to be mostly huge blockbusters taking up the Top 5, and Oscar-bait taking up all the PTA. This and the summer are the best times of the year.

Breaking Dawn will be as huge, if not "huge-r", than Eclipse and New Moon. I think 155/300 is the perfect prediction.

Happy Feet Two...it has huge name recognition but I've seen little marketing for it. It'll probably do well enough, but didn't the first one make $200M? It'll fall way short of that, maybe $120M overall. I think The Muppets will cut into its legs pretty severely.

[Buscemi]

The Muppets isn't going to do that well. Most of the appeal is focused squarely towards people of college age or older while family appeal is still limited. Also, the two-hour run time and the majority of marketing being Internet-focused will hurt it. The highest it could get to is third place before quick drops due to fanboy effect.

Most of the family crowd will head to Happy Feet or Hugo (Arthur Christmas is still an outside shot despite a great Rotten Tomatoes rating).

Predictions:

1. Breaking Dawn Part I $145 million ($70 million opening day, $40 million Saturday, $35 million Sunday)
2. Happy Feet Two $42 million
3. Puss in Boots $16 million
4. Immortals $14 million
5. Jack and Jill $13 million

[englishozzy]

Im still holding out for The Muppets to be the sleeper hit of the summer (or winter for you guys). In terms of this week, and how much it pains me to say it, i think Shryke is pretty much spot on for Twilight. It will be interesting to see how Happy Feet 2 goes and I'm pegging it for a underwhelming OW.

1. Breaking Dawn Part 1 - $150 million
2. Happy Feet 2 - $30 million
3. Immortals - $15 million
4. Puss in Boots - $14 million
5. Jack and Jill - $11 million

[numbersix]

The Muppets isn't going to do that well. Most of the appeal is focused squarely towards people of college age or older while family appeal is still limited. Also, the two-hour run time and the majority of marketing being Internet-focused will hurt it. The highest it could get to is third place before quick drops due to fanboy effect.

While we should keep this for next week's column, don't forget that a lot of its target audience are young parents and have the decision about what to go see in the cinema for Thanksgiving. It's risky because the film seems very adult-oriented and referential so it could be a bore for the kids. To be continued...

[Buscemi]

Two years ago (at the same time, no less), we had Fantastic Mr. Fox aimed towards a similar audience. It bombed (but of course, Fox barely promoted it).

The film is way too risky because Disney isn't selling the film to families, but to an unreliable college-age Internet crowd. Most films aimed towards this crowd (Scott Pilgrim, Sucker Punch, Jennifer's Body) flop. Also, films tend to drop hard the week after Thanksgiving. A film like this will not hold at all.

[BanksIsDaFuture]

The Muppets are probably being overhyped a little - especially by the Internet and 20-30 somethings, but I still think it'll do well. $100M well at least.

I think Hugo is a bust, especially because all the advertising has been vague as hell. I think the movie is about building a robot in the subways of Paris or something like that, but they're giving none of the plot away.

I mean, I've watched this three times and still have no idea what Hugo is supposed to be...

[Buscemi]

Early word on Hugo is excellent though and it's gotten a lot of Oscar buzz over the past few weeks.

And here is a history of The Muppets at the box office:

When The Muppet Show was on:
The Muppet Movie (1979) $65,200,000 (adjusted: $206,769,700)
The Great Muppet Caper (1981) $31,206,251 (adjusted: $89,353,200)

Post-The Muppet Show:
The Muppets Take Manhattan (1984) $25,534,703 (adjusted: $60,492,900)
The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992) $27,281,504 (adjusted: $52,354,200)
Muppet Treasure Island (1996) $34,327,391 (adjusted: $61,820,400)
Muppets From Space (1999) $16,304,786 (adjusted: $26,051,500)

Statistics do not favor The Muppets, especially with the lack of a television presence that the first two had.

[numbersix]

Yes but let's not forget the reboot factor. Statistically, 2009's Star Trek has been faring nothing like the past few feature films, but yet it did.

Plus, your argument that the film is aimed at the "college-age internet crowd" is a little outdated (not to mention being so broad that the links don't really make sense). Pretty much everyone under 40 is internet literate these days, and The Muppets has been targeting them. I suspect they're going for young parents,

The best element of your argument, though, is Fantastic Mr Fox. Indeed, that did rely on hipster nostalgia (choppy stop-motion animation) and was a family film but it certainly didn't fare particularly well. I suspect people clocked pretty quickly that it really wasn't a kids film but a Wes Anderson film (and it performed similarly). The Muppets, despite the referentiality, is going for a more slapstick, "fun", approach, unlike Anderson's muted offbeat style. Now, whether that will be enough is the question, and I honestly don't know. My gut is saying the widespread appeal of The Muppets, an appeal that has lasted well beyond the show, not to mention the possible resurgence in fans by DVD releases of the show, is that it will beat both Hugo and Arthur Christmas for the weekend.

[Buscemi]

The Muppets isn't a reboot. It's very clearly a sequel to the other films. So you cannot apply the reboot factor here.

And the "anyone under 40 is Internet literate" claim, do you see or hear anyone not college age obsessing over the film? No, you do not. This is a film with a limited audience and will drop quickly as a result.

[numbersix]

The Muppets isn't a reboot. It's very clearly a sequel to the other films. So you cannot apply the reboot factor here.

I think you can consider it a reboot in that it has a new writer and director who have decided to change their approach to the humour (so much so that it has ruffled the feathers of Henson purists) to tie in with a new audience. Perhaps reboot isn't the word, but there's a very different change of tone and approach (like Star Trek) in place here.

And the "anyone under 40 is Internet literate" claim, do you see or hear anyone not college age obsessing over the film? No, you do not. This is a film with a limited audience and will drop quickly as a result.

Well, yes, I mean there has been plenty of TV spots and trailers over here in terms of advertising. I think there has been as aspect of marketing (the spoof trailers) that have been geared towards college kids. But again, I return to my point that these are also geared towards Gen-Xers (who are net literate), and they are now starting to have kids, and are even more aware of the Muppets than kids in their early 20s. Perhaps I say this because my parents, my older brother (late 30s), and myself have all heard about this film from separate sources (TV, print, and the net).

[Buscemi]

If parents influenced the decisions in what movies to take their kids to see, Fantastic Mr. Fox would have fared much better at the box office and Alvin and the Chipmunks 2 would have flopped.

Simply put, the movie hasn't been marketed to children and that's a major mistake by Disney. It needs the children's audience to succeed, which it doesn't. It's a one-quadrant movie that could easily drop 60% in the second week.

[numbersix]

Interestingly, I asked a guy I used to work with (he was in his late 30s, with 3 kids all under 10) why was he taking his kids to see Alvin 2 over the Christmas, and his answer was simply because there was nothing else appropriate (Avatar was too old, Princess and the Frog wasn't out yet but in the US it was already 5 weeks in before Alvin 2 struck, A Christmas Carol even further), yet going to the cinema is essential during holiday times to just get out of the house. It wasn't his kids who were demanding to see Alvin, it was he who decided what to see, and he felt this was the best option. Now, while he's only one person and this not may be general for everyone, it did teach me something valuable. (Ultimately, he also took his kids to see Avatar but they were bored by it, they were just too young).

As for Fantastic Mr Fox, it didn't fare well because it was a Wes Anderson film, not a kids film. Nuanced, idiosyncratic, distinctly Anderson-esque even from the marketing. If it was marketed at kids it probably would have done even worse!

[Buscemi]

But didn't Fantastic Mr. Fox do well in the UK (where it opened first) because it was marketed to children?