Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
December 3, 2014
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Matthew Huntley: This result is disappointing, yes, but not altogether surprising. The studio simply chose a really bad time to release a vulgar, R-rated adult comedy into the marketplace, not only because of its content (audiences are typically looking for feel-good and/or action-adventure films this time of year) but also because there's so much competition right now, particularly for mature viewers. You can't say they didn't take a risk, but it unfortunately backfired and the result was a five-day opening that couldn't match the original's three-day opening. If it was up to me, I would have slated Horrible Bosses 2 for April or late July, when it could have had an audience more to itself, but late November?! It seems fairly obvious this was too much of a gamble and the numbers support the losing end of this.
Edwin Davies: I would say that this is a slightly stronger result than the one for Penguins of Madagascar since it cost only a third of what the DreamWorks film did and, as Matthew pointed out, it was working in an environment that isn't particularly friendly to R-rated comedies. That could play to its advantage in the long-run, though, because people might decide to check the film out next weekend once they're away from their families and are free to enjoy some filthy laughs. It should recoup its $43 million budget in the next two weeks, and then it'll probably get lost in the holiday shuffle, particularly if The Interview becomes this year's counter-programming Christmas movie of choice, a la The Wolf of Wall Street. It probably won't lose money, but it has to be considered a disappointment for the studio, both on its own terms and in relation to its predecessor.
Jason Barney: In 2011 the original did quite well, and it is clear Warner Bros. wanted to try and cash in on some of that good will. It still might happen, but it is going to be difficult to replicate anything close to the performance of Horrible Bosses. The budgetary numbers are shaky from the start. The original earned $117 million against a budget of $35 million. The overseas take added another $92 million. Nothing indicates the numbers will be anywhere close to that with this entry. It cost $43 million to make and has opened to a weak, holiday-inflated $22 million. If the formula for success is that a film must earn more than double its production budget to be profitable, Horrible Bosses needs to cash in big time overseas.
Bruce Hall: Compared to the $28 million opening of the original, this is no doubt a weak start. A five day haul of $23 million makes it look better, and when you add the international cume we're looking at almost $35 million. I have to agree that this was probably not the best time to release an R-rated comedy - but despite barely cracking the top five opening weekend, Horrible Bosses 2 should post a modest profit by the end of the year. This is far from a triumph, but it's hardly a disaster, either.
Safety tip, though - I wouldn't hold my breath for Horrible Bosses 3.
Felix Quinonez: It's not terrible but it's definitely not a hit. I agree that it was a bad release date. Thanksgiving weekend seems like a terrible choice for this, especially since it was a crowded weekend. But I think it should also show studios that just because a movie makes money doesn't mean it justifies a sequel. I mean the first Horrible Bosses made a lot of money but it wasn't really a memorable comedy that people were quoting. I think people enjoyed the movie enough at the time but I doubt audiences were demanding for a sequel for the last three years.
Brett Ballard-Beach: I disagree about the release date being a factor. I think HB2 falls into the subset quirk of "sequels that nobody was really asking for - from an audience standpoint – “to successful but not necessarily beloved movies.” I always use Analyze This/That as an example. The earnings were $106 million for the former and $32 million for the latter. One article I read suggested that an initial idea for the sequel was that Bateman et. al would have become the new Horrible Bosses which may have been dicier commercially speaking, but if they pulled it off could have led to better reviews and more positive word-of-mouth. In the end, that could have pushed HB2 a lot closer to the first film's gross. A drop-off of at least 50% seems on-target here (from $117 million to $58 million).
Kim Hollis: I’d agree that release date probably shouldn’t matter all that much here. If people wanted a sequel, they would have showed up. I’m actually a little bit baffled by this result, because I laughed every time I ever saw a commercial for Horrible Bosses 2. At almost everything in every ad. And yet I didn’t see the film this weekend, so I guess I’m part of the problem.
David Mumpower: I too thought the ads looked great yet I have yet to watch the movie. To a larger point, most of you give more benefit of the doubt here than I do. Sequels are supposed to open better than their predecessors. Horrible Bosses 2 has earned approximately 60% of the first film during its first week, and that number includes holiday inflation. The first film grossed $117.5 million; the sequel is unlikely to garner half that amount. Even if the budget is small, there is a tremendous financial hit here in terms of opportunity cost.
Kim Hollis: The Imitation Game got started in four theaters with a total of $479,352. Between this, Birdman and The Theory of Everything, which one do you think is the current Oscar front-runner? Or do you think it's something else?
Edwin Davies: I think that all three are pretty strong contenders for Best Actor, but Birdman is probably too weird to be a contender for Best Picture. (It probably has the strongest chance of winning Best Actor, though, because Keaton is such a beloved figure and his comeback makes for a nice story.) It's hard to say for certain whether the other two will be able to last the long haul since Selma, which has received pretty rapturous responses from those who've seen it and has attained a great deal more relevance in the wake of the Ferguson verdict, has not been released and so hasn't had much chance to make its presence known. Currently, I'd say that The Theory of Everything has the slight edge over its opponents, but all three of those films should land a Best Picture nomination if they have use the 5-10 nomination system.
Bruce Hall: I'm not sure there's a clear front runner right now, but Selma has gotten near universal praise. Such a well-reviewed film with such a revered historical figure at its core is hard to bet against. This and Richard Linklater's "Boyhood" look to me to be the best bets at the moment.
Felix Quinonez: It doesn't feel to me like there's a clear Oscar front-runner and I haven't seen any of those movies. But if we're going to talk Oscars I want to throw Interstellar in there. Sure the reviews haven't been that great but it's hanging in there and people are still talking about it. And of course I can't forget to mention that the movie is AMAZING. Not only that but Christopher Nolan has been overlooked in the past and maybe this'll be his year. Maybe Interstellar could be the dark horse, or the long shot. Or maybe this is just wishful thinking but it's soooo good.
Brett Ballard-Beach: I think TTOE and TIG will split the "British biopic of historically significant figures" (I mean normally there's only one contender a year, right?) and so even though they will probs both get Pic noms, and Best Actor noms, neither will win the former (for sure) or the latter (less sure). Birdman appears - since I have not seen - to be a little too inside baseballish about filmmaking, actors, and Broadway to be the frontrunner. I lean towards Boyhood, small as it is, as I think the Academy (monolithically speaking) may be at a point where they can recognize Linklater for 25 years of mostly incredible filmmaking. The film would allow him to be honored even if he doesn’t get director or screenplay.
Kim Hollis: I think that The Theory of Everything has that sort of pedigree that Oscar voters look for. It’s a little reminiscent of The King’s Speech a few years ago where there were probably more deserving winners (i.e. The Social Network) but those stodgier voters tend to go for the fluffier, more heartwarming stories. I think Birdman gets a nomination but it is indeed likely too weird for voters to give it the Best Picture nod. Boyhood is a popular choice at the moment, yes, but I worry it’s a little too small for the Academy for a win. The interesting thing about this year’s race is that there aren’t really any big box office contenders truly in the mix. Sure, we can talk about Interstellar (it’s not getting a nomination, I don’t think) and Gone Girl (which seems to be fading), but the early contenders do seem to all be of the smaller variety. Selma could play a part, but it’s interesting that it hasn’t gotten much love so far from any awards that have taken place thus far. The Imitation Game had a pretty explosive weekend, so I think it bears watching closely in the coming days.
David Mumpower: Since you all have done a wonderful job in negating optimism for most of the serious contenders, you have opened the door for me. I am going off the board and taking Angelina Jolie’s Unbroken. She is an extremely popular second generation celebrity actress with connections to a lot of heavyweights. And now she has vastly surpassed expectations for her project. It offers a bit of Cast Away and Chariots of Fire with some World War II lineage as well. If voters view it as something more than say, Invictus, I think it has the pedigree to win. Of course, most of the suggestions above border on mortal locks to receive nominations. The same is not true of Unbroken, so my suggestion is a much higher risk.