Let this weekend be a study in recognizable advertising versus selling something a bit off the beaten path. Two distinctly aged box office behemoths battled this weekend, with Sylvester Stallone’s “The Expendables” defeating Julia Roberts’ “Eat Pray Love,” and both handily outdistancing the offbeat “Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World.” Lionsgate finally opens something that isn’t a “Saw” or Tyler Perry movie, Sony takes the safe bet, and Universal continues a banner year during which they took baths on “Green Zone,” “The Wolfman” and “Robin Hood.”
Marketing tells the story of this weekend, as Lionsgate has been pushing “The Expendables” hard for months now. It’s also been a bait-and-switch, with the advertisements spotlighting a Stallone-Willis-Schwarzenegger teaming, likely upsetting more than a few action heads looking for their dream lineup and ending up with Randy Couture trading blows with the likes of Gary Daniels and Steve Austin. Still, there’s no shrugging off what is the biggest opening in Stallone’s career by far, not to mention that he also wrote and directed. How many other 65-year-olds do you know who can pull that off?
“Expendables” is expected to explode overseas, but this sexy domestic opening number is likely to spur sequel talk, especially considering Stallone isn’t getting much younger. But what does this do overall for Stallone? Not much, we’d guess, and the opening merely keeps some of the featured players in the public eye for now, though we’d like to see Dolph Lundgren in a few more romantic comedies. Expect the excitable Stallone to continue pushing another ”Expendables” with whomever was left out this first time, and maybe that wacky “Poe” movie he’s been discussing for ages.
People who expected it to be a fair fight between Stallone and Julia must have too much Planet Hollywood on the brain. “Eat Pray Love” was pushed as a female-centric travelogue, but as counter-programming, its performance surpassed similar films in the genre. Julia’s star power isn’t what it used to be, and she’s been relying on co-stars and brand names to boost her recent offerings – the last actual hit to rely almost entirely on her star power was “Erin Brockovich” ten years ago. Goosing something that appears as vapid and empty as “Eat Pray Love” past $20 million has to be confirmation that people still want to watch her, and it’s easy to see this performing a lot like last summer’s “Julie and Julia,” and maybe even outdrawing “The Expendables” in the long run.
No such luck for “Scott Pilgrim.” Somehow, Universal felt the best time to release this unusual comic adaptation was on the same weekend as two massively-commercial films with easily recognizable stars. Nor did it help that the wishful thinkers at Universal, the one studio still gladly financing properties with a bit of quirk to them, sold the film exactly how it is, a genre-hopping comic fantasy with breakneck pacing and a not-exactly-ready-for-Teen-Beat cast of semi-to-unfamiliar faces. Not a surprise to see this perform almost exactly like Michael Cera’s previous PG-13 romance, “Nick And Norah’s Infinite Playlist,” as both were indie music-centric projects based on niche source material. The studio was likely banking on $20 million, $15m at least, but Cera’s fan base is not going to turn out in such a competitive weekend.
If you ask us, using the film’s wacky dialogue in the trailer to explain the premise, specifically with the film’s fringe characters Comeau and Matthew Patel, was probably a major turn-off. People watching clips from the film wouldn’t listen, wondering instead, who’s this puffy loser with the pretentious glasses, and what’s with this spastic Indian? As much as everyone on the web had their own idea of the film, that trailer was the very first intro to this world for most of the audience, and to have key information emerge from Comeau (who is Ramona Flowers?) and Patel (seven evil exes) provides the first, and strongest impression on the casual moviegoer, who would otherwise be more intrigued by older action guys or rich white women discovering the world. Still, where were the “Twilight” fans? Where was the “Glee” fan base*?
We’re going to take a right turn here and say that the failure of “Scott Pilgrim” to connect very much falls on the audience. Universal stuck their neck out not only to release it but to finance the picture at an ambitious (unwise?) $60 million, and even with two massive competitors in “Expendables” and “Eat Pray Love,” the studio made sure to let everyone know the film was coming with a muscular ad campaign. It seems clear people were merely turned off by the film. Internet commentators with their heads up their asses make up reasons for failure, like a mainstream backlash against Michael Cera (who the general public is mostly apathetic or ignorant towards), or a hatred for “hipsters” (as if anyone who’s not a blogger gives a shit what a hipster is). But sometimes the bulk of audiences, when faced with something unconventional and wild (“Pilgrim”) versus two pictures with very obvious agendas and outcomes that clearly play by a very recognizable set of rules, is going to take the path of least resistance. The movie was out there, and people said “no thanks.” It’s apathy, and it’s expected. In five years, if people are still picking these two films over “Pilgrim”? Well, that’s a disease. We’ll cross that bridge when we get there.
“Pilgrim” couldn’t even beat “The Other Guys” and “Inception,” the former headed towards hit status, the other at a comfortable $250 million. “The Other Guys” should be an easy $100 million in the bank, though it could weather the dog days of summer and hit $120 or so, which Sony, wary of Will Ferrell’s limited star appeal overseas, would be happy about. Though it does appear Ferrell films might have hit their ceiling, and “Other Guys,” the most four-quadrant-y film in his body of work, is only going to be an average performer for him. And “Inception”? We’ve gone over how this is a big win for all involved, but hey – this is a big win for all involved. $300 million remains a possibility, but the WB’s gonna need to give this film some giddy-up power to reach that milestone.
Speaking of legs, Jesus, do people like this “Despicable Me” thing. We could swear some of these CGI ‘toons seem interchangeable, and we would wager that no one would name it their favorite film of the season, but this thing performed and then some. Even if “Scott Pilgrim” takes a massive weekend #2 fall, Universal can seek solace in the possibility that “Despicable Me” could still be threatening the top five next weekend. The same can’t be said of “Step Up 3D,” which seriously deflated in weekend two, and will lose a whole bunch of 3D screens next weekend. “Step Up” remains profitable, most likely, but it looks like it’s time to go the “Bring It On” direction with cheap DVD sequels.
“Salt” has been garnering some sequel talk, but Sony is probably going to wait for strong international coin before green-lighting that particular bad boy. The lack of James Bond revenue at Sony, in addition to the absence of Jason Bourne in the marketplace, suggests there’s room for another “Salt” adventure, though we’d suggest stepping up their game in part two – perhaps a big star as a villain Angelina Jolie’s gotta take down? We’d heartily nominate Tom Cruise for obvious reasons.
“Dinner For Schmucks” is garnering the same lukewarm response films with multiple television personalities garner. Paul Rudd is in mid-level leading man territory, but you pair Steve Carrel with second or third-tier comedians from television shows, and people will probably be reminded they can see him for free on NBC Thursday nights. There’s also the more troubling concept that Carrel turned off viewers by going full retard, but that implies audiences have a threshold for popular comedians acting like mental defectives, and Adam Sandler’s grosses handily disprove that. Meanwhile, “Cats And Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore” is dying a slow and painful death, though we’re still stunned the damn thing even exists.
In indie theaters, the steam has been taken out of “The Kids Are All Right” as the film lost 164 screens and fell out of the top ten, though it should threaten $20 million before the end of its run. “Get Low” might have similar crossover potential as it pulled in $387k in its third weekend and should continue its expansion. Meanwhile, the Aussie thriller “Animal Kingdom” had a strong opening on only seven screens, tallying $64k for the week’s second highest per-screen behind “The Expendables.” “Tales From Earthsea” sat on the shelf for four years but was able to generate $20k on five screens, while last week’s debut “Lebanon,” adding an additional screen, barely missed a step, nabbing $17k, showing potential for a long run. Support your local art house, guys and gals.
1. Grumpy Old Mercenaries – $35 million
2. Eat, Pray, Spend – $23.7 million
3. The Other Guys – $18 million ($71 mil.)
4. Inception – $11.4 million ($249 mil.)
5. Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World – $10.5 million
6. Despicable Me – $6.8 million ($222 mil.)
7. Step Up 3D – $6.6 million ($30 mil.)
8. Salt – $6.4 million ($104 mil.)
9. Dinner For Schmucks – $6.3 million ($59 mil.)
10. Cats And Dogs: The Revenge Of Vagina Cat Jokes – $4.1 million ($35 mil.)
*And yes, we know “Glee” creator Ryan Murphy directed “Eay Pray Love” but that’s an audience of teens. None of them would ever be interested in Julia Roberts because she’s fucking ANCIENT to them. And those who did want to see it could also see “Scott Pilgrim” because that demographic has nothing but endless piles of disposable income. It’s not a recession if you’re a fifteen year old girl, and it never will be.