web
counter
 

10 Movies that Should've Made an Assload More Than They Did in 2011

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Box Office Round-Ups | Comments (49)



The-Muppets-2011-Movie-Final-Poster1.jpg

With no new wide releases this weekend, there’s little of interest to report on the box office. Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part I held its spot atop the charts for the third week in a row, amassing $16 million to bring its total to $247 million so far. Martin Scorsese’s Hugo added theaters and jumped to number three, adding $7.6 million to bring its total to $25 million, while Arthur Christmas had the best hold among any film since 2005’s Just Friends, dropping only 12 percent and landing at number four with $7 million (and $25 million overall). It should continue to play well — and may even improve — all the way up until Christmas.

But what I want to talk about is The Muppets, which held on to the number two spot this week but added only $11.2 million. After ten days, its total stands at $56 million.

That’s terrible. And I don’t get it. I don’t get it because this is the movie almost everyone I know has gone to see. It’s a movie I’ve already seen twice. It appeals to all ages, those with kids and without, new fans and old. Critics love it. You’d be hard pressed to find many people who have seen it and didn’t walk out grinning like a goddamn idiot, and it features a few moderate (Jason Segel, Amy Adams) to bigger (Jack Black) stars. Plus Muppets. Meanwhile, Rango and Rio make $123 and $143 million respectively and, all due respect, I don’t remember which is which (one had Johnny Depp and a lizard. The other had some Angry Birds or something). The Smurfs — THE SMURFS — made $142 million with no star power, bad reviews, and NO MUPPETS.

It’s a goddamn mystery. But it’s not the only one this year. There are nine other films that had what I thought the right ingredients, positive reviews, good word of mouth, and the talent involved, if not to be huge hits, at least become moderate successes.

10 Movies that Should’ve Made an Assload More Than They Did in 2011

The Muppets: $56 million. The Muppets will probably end up with around $85-$90 million overall, which isn’t bad until you compare it to the likes of The Smurfs, another movie that played on 80s nostalgia that somehow did manage to connect.

50/50: $34 million. You got the guy from Inception, the guy from Knocked Up, and one of the women from Twilight, a great script that featured a heady mix of sadness and comedy and 50/50 nevertheless fizzled, lost during a month when movie attendance was slumping,

Drive: $34 million. I know that ultra-violent mood pieces aren’t necessarily a big draw, but there were a lot of folks that were pissed off that the ad campaigns suggested something that Drive wasn’t. Nevermind how great the movie was, why didn’t more people go to see the movie advertised? The movie star may be dead, but it shouldn’t be, not while Ryan Gosling is cranking out movies. I’m not saying Drive should’ve been the $200 million hit that Fast Five was, I’m just saying it should’ve made at least $50 or $60 million.

Winnie the Pooh: $26 million. Another sweet children’s movie with wide appeal and a brand character that nevertheless failed to find an audience, though I absolutely could not tell you why.

Fright Night: $18 million. The best horror movie of the year, a remake WITH VAMPIRES, and it appealed to critics. Look: I consider myself hard on movies, but few are harder than Daniel Carlson. Some of us may set the bar a little lower than Dan, but goddamn it, if Dan says a movie is good, you better f*cking believe it’s good. Where were the horror hounds? The teenagers? They showed up for Insidious ? Why couldn’t they show up for a horror flick that was actually good?

Warrior: $13 million. A huge star in the making, Tom Hardy, plus not only one but two Rocky stories. Audiences almost always show up for boxing flicks; this one was like boxing on heroin plus it was a feel good flick and it still managed to keep a PG-13 rating. That’s the perfect marketing pitch, and yet, audiences stayed away.

Win Win: $10 million. Another feel-good formula movie that just happened to be written and directed by an indie guy (Tom McCarthy). If people had just given this movie a chance, it could’ve been a hit. All the storytelling ingredients were there; all that was missing were people to buy tickets.

Attack the Block: $1 million. This is the movie that Super 8 should’ve been: A killer sci-fi flick that successfully tapped into that Amblin vibe. the online hype was deafening (in fact, it might have been overkill), but online hype and a dollar will buy you jack squat.

Hesher: $382,000. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plus Natalie Portman alone should’ve fetched this movie $5 million at the box office, but you add to it generally positive reviews and a cult-ish vibe, and it makes no sense to me why Hesher did not perform better.

Tucker & Dale Vs. Evil: $223,000. Most big horror movie fans managed to see Tucker & Dale Vs. Evil before it even opened (thanks to a long delay between the festival circuit and its release, plus torrents), it was a huge hit with audiences, and the perfect midnight movie kind of film. Not exactly blockbuster material, but it should’ve at least did 1983 Evil Dead numbers ($3 million). Alas, despite a great online marketing campaign and a small cult of supporters, Tucker & Dale went nowhere.










Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



David Fincher's 'The Girl Who Played with Fire' Review: Suck Denby, I Beat You By Two Years | The 10 Best TV Episodes of the Week Features Twice the Nick Kroll









Comments

Forget the box office, I wanna know why "50/50" is not in the run for Best Original Screenplay.

Posted by: Pants at December 5, 2011 12:02 AM

Also, like "Drive", "Warrior" suffered from a phenomenally bad screening strategy and the campaign was so-so. The trailer for the movie was awful. I'm not surprised it didn't do as well as it could've, but this could be blamed majorly on Lionsgate.

Posted by: Pants at December 5, 2011 12:07 AM

Fact: My mother would have gone and seen 50/50 if it wasn't an R rated movie. I think both of my parents stopped watching Gone Baby Gone within 15 minutes due to the language.

I have seen one of the movies listed and I didn't buy the ticket. The last movies I remember going to see and paying for them were Easy A, Thor, and IM2. My Netflix DVD/Instant queues on the other hand are huge(100+ each). If I went and saw movies a lot, I would say five of the movies I would have gone and seen.

Posted by: Matt at December 5, 2011 12:15 AM

I don't really have any love for Muppets. I watched Muppet Babies, but that was about it. Perhaps I was too young by just this much. So, I went into this thread thinking, "People aren't into The Muppets, get the fuck over it.". However, seeing how much Rio and Rango made makes me see your point, and the numbers for The Smurfs make me weep.

However, I think it is pretty plain to see what the difference is. It's puppets and old school animation vs. CGI. That's what the little kids are into these days. I don't dismiss them outright (the movies, not the kids), but they seem like pretty safe bets these days. All you have to do is have a decent story (optional) and then throw in a ridiculously cute or kinda ugly (and usually very small and probably with big eyes) character pulling some face and making a funny/cute sound and you're golden. I mean, EVERY.GOD.DAMN. one of those trailers has that. It's just so...easy. But, hey, they're out to make money.

It wouldn't make any god damn sense, but make a CGI Muppet movie* and see what happens. Verily, I say, gang busters.

* - I mean, look at that. Fuckin' oxymoron...

Posted by: pissant at December 5, 2011 12:15 AM

The Muppets are too smart for many people. Sad, but that's the truth. The Smurfs will give you fart, poop, and piss jokes; The Muppets might assume your IQ rubs up against the three-digit barrier.

I took my daughter and a couple of her friends to see Fright Night (they are major David Tennant fans). I enjoyed it a lot. We've already ordered the DVD. As far as Win Win, I think it looked "too indie" to many people. Attack the Block was a blast, but nobody emphasized the fact that the young lead was a dead ringer for Denzel Washington. Ultimately the downfall of most of these films was a refusal to fit into easy categories. Most people I know want to know exactly what they're getting when they go into the theater. That's depressing but true. It's why no one will like New Year's Eve, but it will make money. It will be utterly familiar and unsurprising, and that's a selling point for a lot of folks. Lots of them don't even go to the movies to be entertained; they go to be numbed.

Posted by: alone in the dark at December 5, 2011 12:20 AM

Yeah, I'd say the simplest, and probably truest answer, is that it's not animated. Cartoons will always attract more people with kids, because kids love cartoons. I know I did as a kid, and every kid I know does, and they'd rather watch cartoons instead of live action, even if it's muppets. It's just how it is.

Posted by: figgy at December 5, 2011 12:27 AM

And I might be wrong, but I think the biggest drawback to all the movies mentioned above was just lack of real star power. That and bad marketing. Ryan Gosling doesn't get people to theaters, and neither does Tom Hardy. People barely know who that guy is. Oh, he was in Inception? He wasn't Leo DiCaprio, so why should we remember him? Fright Night...When's the last time Colin Farrell got people to the theaters? Aside from Doctor Who fans, who in the US even knows who David Tennant is? I didn't even know Hesher had been released, and I think I'm pretty well informed when it comes to movies.

I mean, I agree that it sucks that these movies didn't get bigger bucks, but there's a vast difference between what we Pajibans consider worthy and what the general public does. I don't think it's hard to understand why these movies didn't make a lot of money.

And I don't think the answer is necessarily that people are dumb. People just want the safe bet. Why go into a movie with a guy you've never heard of and risk being bored (and waste your money), when you could go to the one with the guy who's all over the place and was kind of cute and funny on The Today Show? At least you know he'll be cute and funny, and that you'll probably be entertained to some degree.

Don't ask me to explain Adam Sandler movies, though. That shit's just messed up.

Posted by: figgy at December 5, 2011 12:38 AM

I don't care about Muppets, but that's because I was born in 85 and the cast of Jackass are my generation's Muppets.

Posted by: Larold at December 5, 2011 12:48 AM

Hesher sucked bad and I love all the actors in it. Fright Night was absolute garbage and it was my #1 of the year to see, I love me some Farrell but fuck did it suck...The reason why 1/2 of the list didn't make more is because, quite frankly, your opinion is wrong. they really were not great.

Posted by: The Minn at December 5, 2011 1:45 AM

I had never heard of Attack the Block (outside of passing references, the name made me think it was about soccer hooligans for some reason) until now, but I'll probably see it at some point if it's sci fi. Tucker and Dale was great, and I left the Muppets for DVD, because I'm not that interested in the Muppets, and Jason Segel is my only real draw there. I don't like Horror or Drama, so that accounts for most of the rest.

Posted by: Chugga at December 5, 2011 2:07 AM

Man I saw most of these movies in the theatre. 50/50 was a fucking awesome movie and JGL should get nommed for it. Funny enough Dustin 50/50 had two twilight women in it. BOth Anna Kendrick and Bryce Dallas Howard have appeared in that shite of a franchise. I prefer to think of Anna Kendrick is the awesome character from Up in the Air and Bryce Dallas Howard as a great bitch actress(as in her best roles tend to be the bitch roles.)

Posted by: Alyson at December 5, 2011 2:44 AM

I found Win Win bland to put it mildly.
50/50 was a great movie.
Fright Night prolly suffered from a remake fatigue from audiences, plus the original was pretty good and not so old, so why bother? I didn't.
Looking forward for some of the others.

Posted by: Ozpinhead at December 5, 2011 5:31 AM

So, my daughter loves Muppets. We exposed her to all the old stuff and she saw the Henson exhibit at the AMMI. She is all about Henson magic.
Here's the sad thing, many parents assume out of hand their children will only like animated films and don't try to upset the apple cart. With my daughter we expose her to lots of great children's entertainment. As the parent, I need to be entertained.
She wanted to see Surfs and we went. And, I was really annoyed. I hate 3-D conversion and the movie was just bad. But, there are many other children's films we have greatly enjoyed. And, as it stands right now, she has already talked about The Muppets more in 2 weeks than she ever did about The Smurfs and she listens to the soundtrack daily.
I think The Muppets will do well and have much more staying power. I have faith that taste wins out.
Attack the Block, people are dumb. That was John Carpenter meets The Monster Squad and was so great. All who haven't seen it should check it out now on DVD.

Posted by: Amy Patrick at December 5, 2011 7:31 AM

Found one! My boyfriend both walked into the muppets with low expectations AND walked out not even close to being won over. (What is the opposite of "won over?" IS IT "LOST?!?")

I can't decide whether I'm more upset about this than I should be, or if I'm ignoring a huge red flag that's slapping the shit out of me.

Posted by: chanohack at December 5, 2011 7:50 AM

The problem for some of these is advertising (other than on Pajiba, I never saw anything in press for Hesher, Attack the Block, or Win Win). Also, not all of these got a wide enough release for most people to see.

Only slightly related note? Smurfs, for as awful as it was, did have NPH and Hank Azaria. Hank has less star power these days, but NPH is absolutely a draw, so I wouldn't discount that.

Posted by: KatSings at December 5, 2011 8:20 AM

Fright Night was great and all, but I'd place Insidious above it on a 2011 horror ranking (and Martha Marcy May Marlene as well, which I will officially start arguing is a horror film as it's still giving me nightmares weeks after seeing it). Then again, I'm not the biggest vampire fan, so I might be biased towards badass haunted house films.

Posted by: Robert at December 5, 2011 8:51 AM

I saw Fright Night this weekend and enjoyed it immensely. I had no expectations going in, but it was just great fun. And also had tense bits! And I cared about the characters! Who knew such a thing was possible these days in horror(ish) movies? Everyone in it was great.

50/50 is still out here and I will go see it as soon as I have time.

Posted by: Carrie/Teabelly at December 5, 2011 9:12 AM

Speaking from a small college town in the Midwest, I didn't see a lot of these because they didn't play here. Half of the time my local art theater has its head up its ass (who the fuck wants to see the newest Pirates movie at an indie theater?!), and the other half of the time they're playing stuff I want to see at inconvenient times. Tucker and Dale was only here for a weekend, and it was at Halloween when I was throwing a party and couldn't get out to see it.

Posted by: antoinette jeanine at December 5, 2011 9:16 AM

i saw 50/50(nice & touching),DRIVE(overrated because of the tiny script),FRIDAY NIGHT(forgettable but nice),ATTACK THE BLOCK(good surprise: i only saw it because it was the movie in the theater that i didn't see) and WARRIOR (cliché story/awful score used but good actors & efficient fights) and i live in france

Posted by: carrie at December 5, 2011 9:39 AM

JGL may be beloved in certain circles, but that doesn't mean he's ready to carry a vanity pic about a poor, violent, angry loner. That's why nobody saw Hesher -- the only people who might identify with the central character probably prefer escapism to having their own crappy experiences reflected back at them.

Posted by: sansho1 at December 5, 2011 9:41 AM

The Muppets should have been CG and in 3D if it wanted to make cash. The reality is kids don't watch the Muppets anymore. Think about it, the people that are loving the movie are adults that remember the Muppets. My nieces and nephews watch either cartoons, not the Muppets.

Posted by: Junierizzle at December 5, 2011 10:07 AM

As far as Win Win, I think it looked "too indie" to many people

I think this gets to the heart of a lot of the disappointing movies on the list. There are a lot of people out there who are a lot happier not forking over 20+ bucks/person for a movie and popcorn that will play just as nicely on their 40" LCD at home. Especially since these type of indies are often overpraised by critics, I often walk out wondering "that's it? That boring waste of time was better reviewed than blockbuster x?" I feel a lot better about my disappointment when I've only spent 2 bucks and made my own popcorn for the family.

Win Win was a perfect example. It was reasonably good (but slow), but it was nowhere near as entertaining as Heat or Shaun of the Dead which had virtually the same Metascores. BTW I disagree that Win Win is a "feel-good formula movie." The Blind Side and Miracle were feel good formula movies. Win Win could have used a little more feel-good Vision Quest type formula mojo IMO.

I love the muppets. But my kids are not only not interested but actively against them. I must have dropped them on their heads when they were babies. For them animation (CGI or traditional) is good, puppets are bad. I don't think they are all that atypical of preteens and younger in their opinion.

Posted by: ed newman at December 5, 2011 10:25 AM

The Mr and I took our 6 year old to the Muppets this last Saturday - and she thoroughly enjoyed it. We even listened to her rendition of "Am I a Man or a Muppet" for most of Sunday. It may just be my kid, but she loved the singing and the dancing. I look forward to the BluRay to see what kind of extras and outtakes didn't make it into the film.

Posted by: Tereasa at December 5, 2011 10:30 AM

The reason why 1/2 of the list didn't make more is because, quite frankly, your opinion is wrong. Posted by: The Minn at December 5, 2011 1:45 AM

Man, I really hope someone gets you a dictionary for Christmas.

Regardless, I enjoyed most of these, but most of them were killed by a lack of decent marketing, particularly 50/50 - it seemed like they couldn't quite figure out whether to market it as a comedy or a drama.

Posted by: Ghisent at December 5, 2011 10:31 AM

I also really enjoyed Fright Night, mostly due to my love for the original.
I will be in the group of people that see The Muppet Movie late, this week probably. I really thought the first couple of weeks would be crowded.

Posted by: Daria at December 5, 2011 10:59 AM

I'm not worried about grammar or spelling or sentence structure when I post on the internet. Nor do I care about this, tiresome, age old comeback when it comes to what i previously just said. don't you have something better to do?

Posted by: The Minn at December 5, 2011 11:06 AM

I think a lot of the reason these movies did poorly was the advertising. I saw not a single ad for Attack the Block. I've seen some mentions of it online, but assumed it was an older movie rather than one that was still in theaters until right now when I read your writeup. I've actually never heard of Win Win until this column, and I saw maybe one ad for Hesher? And I consume a lot of media of various kinds, but I don't really read trade press (unless Pajiba counts) -- something that's true for most of the moviegoing public.

The Muppets, by contrast, got a TON of advertising space, but man were the ads they chose to run terrible. I went to see the documentary about the guy who created Elmo (which was fabulous, and should be seen by all) and thus should clearly be an easy draw to the actual muppet movie, but I had zero interest in it from watching the ads.

Posted by: Artemis at December 5, 2011 11:08 AM

I think a big part of the problem is access. As far as I know, Hesher and Tucker & Dale Vs. Evil didn't play near me, and Attack the Block, Warrior, and Fright Night were all gone before I could see them.

I'm having the same trouble with My Week With Marilynn. I would love to see it, but it's only playing in one theater on the other side of the city. In a crappy neighborhood with no parking. So it would take a lot of fucking effort PLUS $10.25 to go see it and I'm not sure it's worth it.

Posted by: mandasarah at December 5, 2011 11:23 AM

I honestly had no idea that Attack the Block was a scifi film. Somehow, my head conflated the film with Stomp the Yard, You Got Served, and Step Up 2 the Street, and I assumed it was just another hip-hop dance film. The fact that I saw zero marketing for it anywhere -- just a poster on the side of a theatre as I walked in to see something else -- didn't help. Now I want to see it, dammit.

Posted by: PDamian at December 5, 2011 11:51 AM

Hesher never got mainstream release. I kept looking for it in upstate NY to no avail. Blame the studios.

Posted by: courtney at December 5, 2011 12:10 PM

If you want to get technical, Attack the Block, Hesher, Tucker and Dale, and Win Win never went wide. Most of America did not have a chance to see them and they were only marketed for the areas with theaters that played them. 50/50 opened wide, but not as wide as a Twilight or Transformers.

And The Minn, if you think Ghisent's comment had anything to do with your grammar, you didn't get it. He was telling you to look up "opinion" in the dictionary since you swear there's such a thing as a "wrong" one.

Posted by: Robert at December 5, 2011 12:24 PM

I saw that Tucker and Dale was playing this past week at Space Gallery here in Portland, but I saw it listed too late. I'd see that!

Posted by: El L Cool J at December 5, 2011 2:45 PM

If you have to drive across town (LA) to see a movie at the one theater at which it is playing for all of two weeks, well, you may well skip it.

Posted by: James S at December 5, 2011 3:51 PM

The comments to this article have made me more determined than ever to That Mom who bans things like sugar, processed foods, CG and 3D from the house. "YOU CAN WATCH BEAUTIFUL 2D ANIMATION OR MASTERFUL PUPPETRY OR YOU CAN WATCH NOTHING! OR, TRY THIS ON FOR SIZE, GO OUTSIDE AND RIDE A BIKE OR BUILD A FORT!" That's what I'll tell the little ingrates.

(really, I'm only going to raise dogs)

Posted by: Angeleno Ewok at December 5, 2011 4:08 PM

I like to consider myself a pretty big horror buff, and I failed to see "Fright Night" in theaters simply because I find it hard to trust Hollywood to make a decent horror flick anymore, regardless of what critics say.

Not only have they managed to water down and dilute a genre that is inherently cheesy already (the good kind of cheesy), but they have tried to shove a "PG-13" rating down our throats in order to sell more tickets when the Horror genre also inherently needs an "R" rating. At least, I don't remember the last time I actually enjoyed a movie that is supposed to somehow feature violence while only being allowed to allude to what is actually happening.

Yes, I realize that Fright Night was rated "R," but I've simply come to the point in my mind where I believe that big budget Hollywood would rather make their Horror movies more digestible to a larger audience rather than something people actually want to see. Maybe that is a cynical viewpoint, but I haven't seen much to corroborate the other side of the issue.

However, considering I do trust a lot of the reviews on Pajiba, I will make a point of seeing this movie in the near future. I hope it makes me eat my words.

Posted by: Rob at December 5, 2011 4:11 PM

Save for the Muppets, all of those movies were available online either before or at the same time they were in theaters. That is the problem. Well, Hersher sucked. That was another problem. And the kids in Attack the Block didn't speak a language easily understood. Incomprehensible. And who was that movie's target audience? It was rated R, so no one under 17 could see in the theater. Yet it appealed mostly to 14 yr old boys.

Posted by: Sean at December 5, 2011 9:32 PM

Posted by: Angeleno Ewok

HEE. Genius comment.

Posted by: figgy at December 5, 2011 10:12 PM

In fairness to Hescher, I'm pretty sure it didn't come to any of the theaters around me. I had to wait to Netflix that movie. Which sucks, because I want to meet the other people that live nearby that would go see Hescher. I want to be friends with them.

Posted by: AngelArm45 at December 6, 2011 3:42 AM

Friends With Benefits. I can't believe the Kutcher/Portman crapfest did better than this. Maybe my Mila girl crush has me blinded but I thought she was funny, sexy, beautiful, funny, adorable, cool, funny, and JT was damn good too. Plus, Richard Jenkins!!!

Posted by: kirbyjay at December 6, 2011 5:53 AM

I thought Drive sucked. *shrug*

Posted by: Joy at December 6, 2011 8:43 AM

Attack The Block was dope, but I saw it on DVD. Trust, fam!

Posted by: the new transported man at December 6, 2011 9:20 AM

You lost me when you referred to Fright Night as "good." Yes, Colin Farrell was terrific in it, but that's where the positive aspects end. The movie itself was awful. Replace Fright Night with Drive Angry and you have a pretty solid list here.

Posted by: Dan at December 6, 2011 11:36 AM

Also, The Smurfs mainly did as well as it did because for a few weeks, it was the only family-friendly movie in theaters, so any family outing to the movies was stuck watching that garbage. A family outing today will give them a choice between The Muppets, Puss in Boots, Happy Feet 2, Arthur Christmas, and Hugo.

Posted by: Dan at December 6, 2011 11:40 AM

I had no desire to see any of these except Drive (because I'm a Nicolas Winding Refn fan) and Attack the Block (just because of word of mouth), but none of these titles attracted me by way of their marketing. I don't see these box office failures as a reflection of the films, but rather the distribution companies. Considering that box office is all these distributors care about, its strange to see them screw over so many quality products every year.

But in their defense, how is it possible to market Fright Night as the one horror remake that actually doesn't suck? Especially when it was preceded by dozens of truly awful similar remakes.

Posted by: Bumboclot at December 6, 2011 11:55 AM

Attack the Block sucked. I saw it at a press screening, and it was really weak. The characters were so unlikable.

After seeing a press screening in May, I told everyone I know that it was awful. If I had some small part in it not being a bigger success, then you're welcome. Happy to have saved you 10 bucks.

Super 8 was a simular story, but was executed so much better.

Posted by: Krazy Joe at December 6, 2011 2:56 PM

I love when people respond to comments with "Don't you have anything better to do?"

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Posted by: anon33 at December 6, 2011 4:43 PM

Attack the Block is the second best film of 2011, after Hugo.

Posted by: Dan at December 6, 2011 6:09 PM

Forget the box office, I wanna know why "50/50" is not in the run for Best Original Screenplay.
p.s:if you interested, please check this exciting club for fun seekcasual.com
Thank you very much.

Posted by: kengao at December 6, 2011 11:01 PM

Your list is right and I mostly agree (not a fan of Drive, but not every movie has to be appealing to everyone)

My only comment is, Rango is a phenomenal movie and you have no right to say it didn't sell enough (maybe even it didn't sold as much as it should have!!!) Thankfully the movie (and Gore Verbiniski) would get the Oscar they wholeheartedly deserve :)
ILM FTW

Posted by: shora at December 7, 2011 6:08 PM