The Hot Blog

"The estimate is less than $200,000 off of being the #2 Christmas movie opening of all-time.

The only non-sequels in Jim Carrey's history to open significantly better were Bruce Almighty, Grinch, and Horton Hears A Who!."

I thought Grinch was a Christmas movie too.

Yes. Grinch is the #1.

Yes. Grinch was a Christmas movie. It was the #1 Christmas movie opener of all time by a long shot. It was also a non-sequel.

Different paragraphs. Different issues.

OK.

Nice spin, Poland, but the fact is, this was a soft opening. Considering the budget, filmmakers involved, distribution and marketing strategy....soft is an understatement.

The studio (especially Cook loyalists who saw this movie as potential vidication of his slate) will be a depressing place to be tomorrow.

Dave, while I agree with most of you said including the overhype of "expectations," sorry this WAS a disappointing opening.

Since 2001, the first weekend of November has been a prime launching spot for animated films, especially those from Disney - Monsters Inc., The Incredibles, Madagascar II all did over $60 million. Even Bee Movie did over $40 million.

Motion capture or not, this film did significantly less than all of those an probably also cost significantly more than them. You cannot tell me that Disney was not expecting more.....

I'll just join the chorus and say that removed from the spin of the press, I'll 2nd what Geoff said. I don't believe Disney was looking at the other Christmas themed movies for a comparison. Unfortunate for them. They were looking at the history of the weekend.

INCREDIBLES $70M,
MADAGASCAR 2 $63M,
MONSTERS INC $62m,
8 MILE $51M,
MATRIX REVOLUTIONS $48M,
AMERICAN GANGSTER $43M,
CHARLIE'S ANGELS $40M,
CHICKEN LITTLE $40M,
THE WATERBOY $39M,
BEE MOVIE $38M,
RANSOM $34M

The weekend has proven the capacity to launch tentpole films, and launch them huge. A CHRISTMAS CAROL was being positioned as a big dog in the house. Wisely or not, Christmas or not, they saw the lucrative potential of the weekend and went for it, and missed. And while Dave you are playing the game of 'expectations', it's also playing the game of 'expectations' to expect 'legs'.

Studios in my humble opinion, don't like to gamble on the chance of legs with their high priced films, they prefer to be successful out of the gate, or have the perception of success, and if legs result, well then that's just gravy.

Can you theoretically propose that ACC will have legs? Based on the history of these films, sure, why not. But while you wait for this film to grow legs, there will be plenty of nail biting, and second guessing, and maybe saying that a live action version of Jim Carrey as the Scrooge, with all his comedic talents, might have been a more profitable way to go, albeit a lower production cost, and maybe they might have gotten those GRINCH numbers they were foolishly looking at.

Again... you are both spinning what you want to believe for whatever reasons.

Comparings a motion capture Christmas movie to Pixar openings and a DreamWorks sequel is absurd on the face of it. Have you seen the marketing on this movie? Would you take your 4 year old without some word of mouth? Not the same market. Apples & Oranges. Bee Movie was made for little kids... and if ACC does a 3.3x multiple, it will be an absolute disappointment. But you don't have any way of knowing how it will play out... and you have a ton of evidence that it is quite likely to outgross Bee Movie.

And I have to tell you... people at Disney... Cook loyalists... knew this was what was coming WEEKS ago. Would they have preferred to have the biggest family opening ever in November that isn't clearly friendly to under-8s? Sure. But wait... they are that. Would they have preferred a $50 million launch. Obviously. But this material is not built for an easy family sell... anymore than Adam Sandler was last December ($27m opening with a multiple of 4 in, basically, 5 weekends).

So you agree on overhype of "expectations" except in this case?

And Wreck... you aren't actually considering ANY of the things you are saying need to be considered. You are just screaming "FAILURE!" because it gets you off.

Someone, at some point, might have believed that this was a $300 million domestic grosser. But that person was smoking crack. There is NOTHING that suggests that it was remotely possible for this to be a $300 million movie, which is what a $45 million launch for a Christmas movie on this date would suggest.

And I've already recited Zemeckis' history - his best ever opening - and Carrey's history.

You don't care. You have embraced this dumb "lump of coal" opening mantra and now you are going to Fox News it until the end.

This is not the big danger movie on Dick Cook's portfolio. It's Prince of Persia, a late May movie being sold in November of the year before.

You guys are all premature box office ejaculators. And you think that studio execs are more ignorant than they are.

Really, Bulldog... Disney looked at The Waterboy and Matrix Revolutions and Charlie's Angels and figured that the first weekend date was magic?

Does it make any sense to you that the company that released The Santa Clause on the second weekend of November and both of its sequels a week earlier, were following the actual history that they had experienced their very selves?

Are they hoping for the 7x multiple of the first film or the 4x multiple of the sequel? Well... duh.

But the cult of box office ignoramuses have written that it is a big disappointment because competing studios told them so and now, anything other than self-flagellation is "spin."

Spare me.

Yes... they would have loved $40m instead of $30m. That would still have been reported as soft. But the film would have had a better shot at being profitable, not just potential breakeven, which is where we are now.

Lord I didn't mean to kick this off

"So what was a "good" opening for Zemeckis' Carol? Well, regardless of the price tag on the film, anyone who rationalized to themselves that this film was going to break out the way Grinch did was betting against reality."

1)That's very disingenuous coming from the same person who told us to put GI Joe's $55 million opening in the context of how much money was spent on the film.

It's absolutely ridiculous to characterize this opening as successful based on all the effort Disney put into marketing this film:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/business/media/26carol.html

"So what was a "good" opening for Zemeckis' Carol? Well, regardless of the price tag on the film, anyone who rationalized to themselves that this film was going to break out the way Grinch did was betting against reality."

2)Based on the extraordinary budget and marketing put into A Christmas Carol, I would disagree.

As I said in another thread, I was totally wrong on "This Is It." Ill eat a shoe for that one if you do the same with "Paranormal Activity" DP.

"We need to get a handle on what is news and what is our personal expectations... or even expectations set for us by publicists with a vested interest in hype."

3) Now that's just ridiculous. We're talking about a film that in the context of its budget, is probably at the minimum, going to end with the same gross relative to "Terminator: Salvation" and "Wild Wild West." Those films are not successes. Ditto with this film. This has nothing to do with my personal expectations. When a studio drops $175-$200 million to make a movie and spends months driving a train around the country to promote it, it's expecting a bigger opening than "Four Christmases."

If not, then there's something seriously wrong.

I have little interest in seeing ACC. We have seen the mo cap and 3D technology and the trailers did little to sell me the movie. I more wonder the thought process of hiring Jim Carey to be in the film. I mean, again just based on the trailers, he seems to be playing it very straight. When you think Jim Carey and animation, I expect to laugh at least once at the trailer. Why couldn't Bob just team up with Hanks again.

Also, I do think that 30 mil is soft. With the extra 3D and IMAX revenue and the higher ticket prices, I wonder if it sold less than half as many tickets opening weekend as Grinch.

With 2012, Planet 51, Old Dogs, and Fantastic Fox(which surprisingly my family wants to see), I think that ACC will have a tough battle to go over 140 and more importantly keeping screens. I am sure that Avatar will eat ALL the 3D screens the week before Christmas.

I love Bobby Z and I really hope that he will out of the computer lab and go make a flesh and blood movie again like Romancing the Stone, Back to the Future, or Forest Gump.

THE POLAR EXPRESS' opening was also considered soft. ACC won't have nearly the legs that TPE had, but its legs will be good (at least for a month, when it loses most of its 3-D screens). But until then, it'll be really helped by the more-expensive 3-D tickets, and the quite-expensive IMAX 3-D tickets.

That and, like all Disney Christmas-themed entertainment, it'll sell quite well over future holiday seasons, and is probably a handy candidate for holiday re-releases as well.

So while, yes, this opening is a bit soft, Disney will be just fine with ACC in the long run.

One last thought: Cameron's "Avatar" will be judged by somewhat different expectations, even by rival studios, because he's had so much to do with the advancement of technology and the expansion of digital 3D, so regardless if "Avatar" underperforms in relation to its budget, studios and exhibitors will still be reaping the benefits of its release for years to come.

Also keep in mind, "Avatar" is going to be huge overseas. "A Christmas Carol," at least if it's in line with previous motion-capture efforts, and its international opening this weekend, won't.

Don't get your panties in a bunch Dave. You're being doggedly pragmatic without accepting certain realities. If you were to define each movie as its own business model then how can you put ACC in the same context as some of the other Christmas movies that you compared it to. And this is purely from the studio's standpoint I'm surmising here.

With THE POLAR EXPRESS being the only movie I see here with a relatively higher budget, Disney was obviously hoping that this performs, not like those other Christmas movies, but above the norm, hence the above the norm spend.

You don't invest more money to make the same amount. That's just plain stupid. You invest more because you believe that your product has a greater chance of exceeding the normal expectations. I'm not arguing the foolishness or wisdom of this, its just the business, any business, and this is called SHOW BUSINESS.

The weekend has the capacity to deliver the kind of numbers that would make this business model a success, because they, and others, have been successful here before, and with varied product, not just aimed at kids, but adults as well, and with this they had hoped to get both. if not the 7 year olds, at least the ten to 70 year olds. They were aiming wide. They failed. At least in the 1st weekend. The other weekends will write the story. But for now, this 1st weekend is a failure, not a bomb, just a failure that can be righted over time.

I don't know why it is Dave, that you continuously try to be sole defender of supposed level-headedness, when the most that some people are saying is that the studio was gunning for more. And I don't see why they should not have gunned for more when their level of investment signified that that is what they were doing. A-List actor, A-List director, A-List Studio, A-List technology, A-List Marketing, A-List Source Material, should equal A-List Box Office.

The stores may love to push Xmas before Halloween, but the Xmas season really does not start until Thanksgiving Week. So let us all come back to the topic of this film being a failure or not in a couple of weeks. If it's truly struggling during the time where the Xmas spirit is beginning to reach it's zenith, then it's a flop. If it's alive and kicking going into December, then there's another story to be told with this film.

It's not like it's going to be forgotten. Next year it will sell a lot of DVDs/BDs, and it will most likely end up in a few years repeated endless like Elf and A Christmas Story. So I see it as a more long term sort of deal, then a right now sort of deal.

It's far too early to call the film a flop. As others have said (not DP) the opening weekend of $30 mill, for a film with a supposed budget of $175-200 mill, seems to be on the low end. But the flip side of the coin is that this is a Christmas movie and we're well over a month away from Christmas. So I think it's reasonable to guess that ACC will hold on fairly well and get to at least breakeven numbers by the time DVD is thru. Then it should rake in profits on further re-releases and holiday fare on TV. It would have been pretty hard to "lose" on this movie, though with a $200 mill budget they seem to have cut it pretty close. But the reality is that, it's very unlikely the film will be in red ink for too long.

"This is not the big danger movie on Dick Cook's portfolio. It's Prince of Persia, a late May movie being sold in November of the year before."

Wow, spending millions on marketing six months in advance? Boy, you got me there. Disney never did that with A Christmas Carol. Oh, wait. Yes they did.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2009-05-07-disney-christmas-carol-train_N.htm

Prince of Persia looks like the type of movie that lingers with little kids for their entire lives. If the adults do not get it, then that's the point. It's the KIDS! THE KIDS! Who will determine if it's a hit or not. It looks like a goofy romp. What's wrong with that in 2010?

Does Disney have any particular special business alliances or equity partners that might have covered some of the ACC cost? I only ask because of the NY Times article online today (technically, I guess it comes out tomorrow in their paper edition) concerning News Corp and Fox and how they've very shrewdly found ways to cover their investment in AVATAR to maximize their ability to turn a profit despite such a huge budget.

Both sides have legit positions. The opening was probably slightly disappointing, but does anyone really doubt that this will lack legs. Dave's example of the BEDTIME STORIES multiple seems like a good one here.

And if he's reaching a bit on the issue of Disney's advertising for Prince of Persia being a big deal, I echo (what I believe to be his larger point) that this thing has the makings of a being a true financial dud. Somewhat dated video game + leading man with minimal appeal = Toy Story 4 being announced in the trades the Monday after.

Telemachos, they have, but Disney is a much more financially stable company than Newscorp. So they really can take the hit, sell some Lion King BDs next year, and keep on trucking. Due in large part to their foresight in not owning newspapers.

David, I was with you until I saw those other openings. 8 MILE, an R-rated film starring a non-actor with a definite audience ceiling, opened to $51 million. AMERICAN GANGSTERS, a three-hour R-rated vehicle for two stars with shaky B.O. histories, opened to $43 million. And even CHICKEN LITTLE, arguably the worst Disney animated feature ever, opened to $40 million. And all did it without the 3-D and IMAX surcharges. Sorry, sir, but CAROL has to be considered a disappointment in the light of these numbers.

Cad - You too are getting caught up in Opening Weekend Fever.

If A Christmas Carol ends up at $110m or $130 or $135m million domestic - the final domestic grosses of 8 Mile, American Gangster, and Chicken Little - there is no question that Disney will be disappointed.

But that is the point. Disney is looking for the film to do a 6x multiple or better. That is why a Christmas movie opens on November 6.

And Wreck, nice try on the train, but I can assure you that Disney spent more money on Persia this weekend than they did on six months of that train chugging around the country. And there is quite a difference between a 20 minute immersive experience like the train tour and a 2 minute spot that is already all over the web.

And IO, you know shit about studio finances. Seriously. On this, you have no idea what you are talking about.

"And Wreck, nice try on the train, but I can assure you that Disney spent more money on Persia this weekend than they did on six months of that train chugging around the country."

And I can assure you that you're wrong.

I don't know how widespread it was at the time, but Chicken Little did have Disney Digital 3D theaters back in November 2005.

While November 6th is arguably way too early to open an Xmas-themed movie, it does make a certain degree of dollars and sense.
Consider.
Since even the best Yule flicks are essentially "over" b.o-wise before New Year's Day rolls around, why would a studio open
a holiday movie (particularly a costly one like "CC") Thanksgiving weekend, knowing that they've realistically got only one good month of solid playtime before its built-in expiration date kicks in?
The only Christmassy film I can recall that evinced any real legs after the holidays were over was the original "Home Alone" back in 1990-1. And that was probably because moviegoers (correctly) perceived it as more of a slapstick comedy than traditional Santa Claus fare.
That's probably why even the more popular Xmas pictures are d.o.a. when they hit bargain/second-run houses in late January/early February.
...and why their dvd releases are traditionally held back until the following Yule season rather than follow typical ancillary rules (in which case they'd be on Wallmart shelves before Easter).

Is it wrong to speculate that if you look at he history of Christmas movies and see that the one outlier at $55 million starred Jim Carrey and this one did as well, that maybe perhaps possibly the studio thought Jim Carrey + Christmas = dollars? Especially looking at the track record of other animated movies opening around the same time?

Cause sorry, but I can't imagine ANYONE went to see Bee Movie. But it made more money!

I do wonder though, why is the sucess of Paranormal Activity overhyped? Even if we said the studio lied and the movie cost two million dollars...still, a two million dollar horror movie starring nobodies is pretty amazing.

What is the proper amount of hype for this? If anything, I would like to see lots of hype because then maybe Hollywood would get a clue and realize non-sequel non-remake horror movies could do well.

Though I don't think it's a disappointment, Disney has until 12/18 with the majority of their money screens, and the picture will be dead 12/26, so a 6x opening is rather unlikely unless it flatlines. If the film cost around $200 Million, it will probably not make that domestically because the film has a timeline, so the question is if the picture will get to around $200 in the next 42-50 days. That would be the best it could do.

Soft and disappointing - especially from the sources it comes from - is about perception. I agree wholeheartedly with Box office reporting partly becoming about gaming the image of a film. But perception, whatever I don't think you can look at this and say it's anything near good, because the uphill got a bit steeper. Did Disney know that? Probably, but that doesn't mean that this looks to be much of a win. Then again, if it's a annual picture, then there may be a little more life in it than something like American Gangster in the long run. I don't know if attaining profitability in 2015 was the gameplan, though.

I'm sure this was just a coincidence, Poland.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118011071.html?categoryId=13&cs=1&cache=false

Poland, it's called SPECULATION! I cannot speculate on this topic? Really? All I read from you is speculation. Unless someone is giving you the SOLID NUMBERS, and you are reporting on THOSE NUMBERS. You are speculating as well. So kiss my ass, David. The thought that your speculation is more important than anyone else's, is really fucking funny.

You are nothing more than a show business movie speculator. You are not a reporter, nor a critic, or even a film reviewer. Oh I am sorry. How dare I make any statements in regards to the great and mighty David Poland. Seriously dude, you picked Lex. Ha.

Weekend actual number was almost a full million below box office mojo's initial estimate...usually a reflection of poor word of mouth. We shall see.

Ethan, you are way more reliable than chest hair. The more you contribute to this blog. The better.

"I don't know how widespread it was at the time, but Chicken Little did have Disney Digital 3D theaters back in November 2005."

Correct, but the tickets were sold at "regular" prices. The 3-D surcharges only started about a year or so ago.

"Cad - You too are getting caught up in Opening Weekend Fever.

If A Christmas Carol ends up at $110m or $130 or $135m million domestic - the final domestic grosses of 8 Mile, American Gangster, and Chicken Little - there is no question that Disney will be disappointed.

But that is the point. Disney is looking for the film to do a 6x multiple or better. That is why a Christmas movie opens on November 6."

No argument there, on the release date issue or anything else. But for such a heavily-hyped event family film with a big star, beloved story, tons of visual effects, plus 3-D and IMAX, this is not an opening that bodes well. Will there be strong enough WOM to keep it going? Haven't seen the CinemaScore grade, but a 6x finale strikes me as a real stretch at this point. (And I want the film to succeed, as I have two good friends in the cast.)

No new BYOB, so I wasn't sure where to put this.
But has anyone else noticed that Malick's "Tree of Life" has vanished from the list of year-end, award platform releases?
Saw that one coming months ago, so it's not really a surprise.
Guess we'll have to wait until next Christmas to finally see it.
I wonder if Apparition will still be around to release it.
Or whether "Tree" will wind up with in some new distributer's treehouse.

Yeah a few weeks ago it was announced that Tree of Life would not be ready in time for its scheduled Christmas release date. It's now scheduled for sometime in 2010. I don't think it has a specific release date yet.

I heard it's because they're forcing him to reshoot it in 3D. My guess is that Tree of Life 3D will be in theaters by August 2011.

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.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: