« I'm In Austin... | Main | Confusing Opinion For Fact Again? »
March 12, 2006
Sunday Estimates by Klady
A huge congratulations is due Gerry Rich and the team at Paramount Pictures for turning a movie that was having some serious problems with interest among its core audience into a strong opener with a new campaign run over just a couple of weeks.
The big questions about the success of Failure To Launch are going to be about the value of Matthew McConaughey and Sarah Jessica Parker, who is in her second theatrical hit in three months. Fox focused on Parker first and foremost throughout the campaign for The Family Stone. Here, Paramount ended up going away from Parker to focus on the parents in order to explain the horrible title. But one could argue that they laid the groundwork for her (and McConaghey’s) fan base and that once the title was explained, the early work filled the pot.
Disney did okay with The Shaggy Dog, but didn’t hit it out of the park. I don’t know that there was anything more they could have done, short of making a different movie. Still, kids legs are long.
Fox Searchlight didn’t quite find the sweet spot with The Hills Have Eyes either. It got nice reviews for the genre, especially amongst the geeks. Searchlight was a bit hamstrung by MPAA limitations of TV ads, but both Screen Gems and Lionsgate have managed to work around it and craft advertising and word-of-mouth publicity that brought out bigger numbers, particularly with teen girls on the Screen Gems side.
I’m not saying it was a terrible opening. It wasn’t. And if the film makes $40 million domestic for Searchlight, it will make a nice profit. But the transition of Searchlight from a small, smart, hands-on division to a bigger, faster, more ad-driven business is worth keeping an eye on.
3-Day Estimates / Weekend / % Change / Cume
Failure to Launch / 24.7 / - / 24.7
The Shaggy Dog / 16.1 / - / 16.1
The Hills Have Eyes / 15.6 / - / 15.6
16 Blocks / 7.2 / -39% / 22.7
Madea's Family Reunion / 5.6 / -56% / 55.5
Eight Below / 5.3 / -47% / 66.3
The Pink Panther / 3.7 / -46% / 74.7
Aquamarine / 3.5 / -53% / 12.0
Ulraviolet / 3.5 / -61% / 14.7
Date Movie / 2.4 / -53% / 44.2
Posted by poland at March 12, 2006 06:35 PM
Comments
After Failure to Launch and How to Lose a Guy, Matthew McConoughey better start lining up all the B-list actresses he can so he can prolong his career another 5 years.
Posted by: b diddy
at March 12, 2006 06:39 PM
I'm not sure why so many were predicting "Failure" to be a flop. Consider that there hasn't been a romantic comedy since the holidays. Factor in McConoughey's appeal and you have the recipe for a decent hit. Sure, it looks like an awful movie, but that hasn't stopped other rom coms from doing well at the box office.
Posted by: martindale
at March 12, 2006 07:31 PM
It was so predicted because tracking was in the toilet, which is why the campaign changed so drastically.
Posted by: David Poland
at March 12, 2006 07:51 PM
Actually, Failure to Launch was tracking better than Shaggy Dog and Hills Have Eyes for at least two to three weeks before opening.. but I think the new ad campaign made the difference between a $15 million opening and a close to $24 million one. I thought the market was in desperate need of a strong rom-com... my sister who never goes to the movies was telling me how she wanted to see this weeks ago not realizing that it didn't open until this past Friday.
Posted by: EDouglas
at March 12, 2006 08:14 PM
Is there a place where one can gain access to the great and powerful "Tracking" or is it something you have to, like, pay money for?
Posted by: jeffmcm
at March 12, 2006 08:57 PM
Can you imagine what might have happened if they had clicked into a better campaign earlier and released this at Valentine's Day?
Let's not forget that other B-grade actress that has co-starred with Matthew lately. PENELOPE CRUZ! You know... the one that can't speak english.
The Hills Have Eyes' lower gross is a bit disappointing. Why THIS one that didn't go gangbusters? God, I don't understand the people that go see these movies. SO finicky.
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0
at March 12, 2006 10:49 PM
Paramount ran ads on sport radio stations featuring Terry Bradshaw. GENIUS. How many times have guys ever gotten their ladies to go see a rom-com? GENIUS. Somebody in the marketing department just earned a Caribbean vacation.
Posted by: frame24
at March 13, 2006 07:53 AM
Saw Beowulf & Grendel up here in Canadaland. It's pretty good in many ways--scenery, violence, most of the acting, decent storyline--but man, does Sarah Polley drag the whole thing down. :( Everyone sounds very "epic" and "legendary" with their Norse accents (and odd Scottish/Irish thrown in), but the Canuck accent just stands out...eek.
Iceland does look like an amazing place to visit, though.
Posted by: Kambei
at March 13, 2006 01:22 PM
You know men went to see "Failure to Launch" when word got out that Terry Bradshaw bared his arse.
Posted by: Chucky in Jersey
at March 13, 2006 04:02 PM
I'm jealous... been dying to see Beowulf & Grendel and no idea when it might open here. I love Iceland!
Posted by: EDouglas
at March 13, 2006 04:26 PM
Wait, weren't they making a huge Beowulf movie that was set to be a huge blockbuster? Why are they releasing it in limited Canadian release? Or is this another one of those two-at-once situations?
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0
at March 13, 2006 10:10 PM
You're thinking of the Robert Zemeckis Beowulf movie, made in the same style as The Polar Express, due out next year.
Posted by: jeffmcm
at March 13, 2006 10:12 PM
yeah...there's no CGI in this one, that's for sure. The monster is just some huge guy in heavy make-up. It's not too bad, though, because the guy is very very large--and it makes the story somewhat closer to the realms of believability. The best special effect is Iceland, though. It fits the story so well, it's on par with the New Zealand landscapes in LOTR. But I still don't recommend the movie too highly.
Posted by: Kambei
at March 14, 2006 05:41 AM
I'm still so confused as to why they would make a Beowulf and Grendel movie and release it in limited release in Canada? It's such a big tale, why did it only get a version like this? I thought the Sarah Polley version was meant to be BIG. Strange.
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0
at March 14, 2006 11:30 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)