The Guess Who Discussion

In the bowels of Columbia Pictures marketing, you will find the fabulous Wheel Of Blame. The wheel spins when films are perceived as having underperformed. Possible "winners" range from "bad date" to "horrible movie."

So this weekend, Hot Bloggers are fighting over the Wheel Of Success. Who should be credited (besides Columbia marketing, where the credit or blame really lies for any opening) with the estimated $21 million weekend for Guess Who?

Ashton Kutcher, whether anyone likes it or not, is a remarkable box office draw... more so because he has made almost nothing but shit. Both The Butterfly Effect and Just Married opened to more than $17 million. Both made my Worst 10 of their respective years.

Bernie Mac has previously been the lead star in one one film, Mr. 3000, which opened to just $8.7 million.

But it is true that the "urban" market has been flexing its muscles like crazy lately.

The exit polling numbers on Guess Who were:
59% under 25
54% Female 46% male
55% non-caucasian (strong ethnic mix of african american, latino, asian, etc)

Honestly, I'm not sure what the exit polling is on your average comedy release these days. But it would be silly to give Bernie Mac all the "non-caucasian" credit... or to give too much credit to Ashton Kutcher.

No one will ever have a real answer here. My personal guess would be that Sony would be estimating and grossing higher without Easter Sunday to compete with, putting the gross around $23 or $24 million... or almost the combination of the opening grosses of both Kutcher & Mac's last films, allowing a few million for crossover audiences. Seems fair to me.

I would say that Kutcher is a guy who can consistently open movies in the mid teens on his celebrity and Mac is a guy who can open movies around $5 million - $8 million on his celebrity.

And personally, I discount any draw from the remake of a great film... apparently, the power of it was thrown out in the screenplay and is completely neligible in the sell.

What do you think?

Comments

[Stella's Boy]

Well over half of the audience was under 25. People falling into that age group, white or not, are not huge Bernie Mac fans. Generally speaking, they don't watch his TV show, they didn't see Mr. 3000 and if they saw Ocean's 11 and/or 12, they might have enjoyed his character but they sure as hell didn't see it because of him. He is not much of a draw with the under 25 crowd. Not even close to the draw that Kutcher is with white and non-white people under 25.

[Chester]

Personally, I think this whole discussion so far (here and on the prior thread) has been misdirected and failrly conclusory. The problem is that everyone has started from the assumption that either Ashton Kutcher or Bernie Mac were primarily responsible for the film's success, without even beginning to consider that maybe it was neither.

My wife and I wanted to go to the movies last night. We took a look on movietickets.com at what was playing around Los Angeles, and saw that it was pretty much the SOS playing everywhere. Like many other regular moviegoers, we had already seen virtually all of the "respectable" mainstream fare still available in theatres (e.g., "Million Dollar Baby," "The Upside of Anger," "Robots," "Hitch"). The only prevalent new choices were "Guess Who" and "Miss Congeniality 2," with a very few select theatres showing "Melinda and Melinda."

Given those options, we boldly chose to stay home. But I think the throngs of people who opted for a Saturday night out at the movies may have picked "Guess Who" by default. Their thinking process may have been: Better to take a chance on something that at least appears to be new and fresh than to have to have a second unpleasant encounter with the tiresome "Miss Congeniality."

So if you ask me, this is mostly about successful scheduling. "Guess Who" may have succeeded only in filling a very empty slot in the March calendar. The questionable allure of both Ashton Kutcher and Bernie Mac - both of whose TV shows are struggling, to say the least, and are expected to be axed at the end of this season - IMHO had far less to do with it. Yes, these performers undeniably helped increase awareness of the film. Kutcher has certainly been all over the place lately, including a hosting gig last week on SNL. But I think there's a huge difference between being a helpful promotional tool and having genuine star power.

[Stella's Boy]

I don't want to see either one, but if I had to pick, I'd certainly choose Guess Who over Miss Congeniality 2. No contest.

[Joe Leydon]

All of which raises the question: Why weren't there more new movies in release this weekend? Has Easter become the new Labor Day in terms of being perceived as a bad time to launch new product? What if, say, a kick-ass action movie had opened Friday? Hey, what if "Sin City" had opened one week early?

And if it really does all boil down to scheduling: What if "Man of the House" (admittedly, not a great movie, but better than some) and "Guess Who" had swapped opening dates? Would "Man" have posted, if not "Guess Who" numbers, then at least appreciably better opening weekend b.o. than it did last month?

[Stella's Boy]

I would say that Man of the House was doomed no matter when it opened. I don't think it would have done any better this past weekend.

[Chester]

I completely agree with Stella's Boy. My feeling is that a film like "Man of the House" simply lacked the synergy needed for success. It's logline, something like "Gruff old cop is forced to guard a bunch of cheerleaders," made it sound way too 1970s-ish. Tommy Lee Jones, respected actor that he is, I'm sorry to say has never had any strong box-office pull and has never opened a movie on his own. (Pair him with someone like Harrison Ford or Will Smith, that's a different story.) And as Stella's Boy has again astutely observed, "Guess Who" at least had a well-received trailer, while I personally saw the trailer for "Man of the House" get hissed. The scathing reviews obviously didn't help matters any. Sure, "Man of the House" could have done a little better if scheduled more fortuitously, but I think it's pretty clear it was always doomed out of the gate - another theatrical release that was nothing more than a promotional tool for when it comes out on DVD and plays on HBO.

[Martin]

Having not followed release dates for a few weeks, I thought that Sin City was coming out this weekend. This w/e felt to me like the crest of the film's marketing, based on how many ads/articles/etc. that I've seen. Usually without checking release dates I generally have a feeling when a film is coming out based on how much "stuff" is out there. I think that if SC had opened this weekend it would have made a ton. Next w/e I'm sure it will do well, but I think it's a week late on the crest.

[KamikazeCamel]

"All of which raises the question: Why weren't there more new movies in release this weekend? Has Easter become the new Labor Day in terms of being perceived as a bad time to launch new product? What if, say, a kick-ass action movie had opened Friday? Hey, what if "Sin City" had opened one week early?"

Have a look at what was released last year and you'll see why.

...The Alamo and The Whole Ten Yards. uh-huh.

And, on what Chester said about picking a movie on the spot, I think he's right but not primarily because MC2 looks unoriginal, but because Ashton is ACTUALLY popular with people my age (17-21) and Bernie Mac is (somehow) perceived as funny. And people would rather take a punt with a movie starring those two than a movie that looks the exact same the first one.

[Kernan]

The comparisons to the original Guess Who's Coming To Dinner are very interesting. People have forgotten that the original was not intended to be a social drama but rather a comedy. Because of the climate of the sixties the film has over time had an aura of relevance attached to it that it did deserve but has really changes the historic remembrance of a film that was meant as a comedy of manners.
The new Ashton and Bernie version jettisoned the political relevance in part because the cast is geared to comedy not drama but also because times have changed and the issue of interracial marriage no longer has the political relevance it once had.
When it come to the box office, no one saw this because they liked the original. As the numbers point out most of the audience weren't even alive for the original. The cast was the draw and though I'm not a fan of Ashton Kutcher it cannot be denied, he hhas an audience connection reminiscent of Adam Sandler. That good looking doofus thing that mainstream audiences love. Kutcher's fanbase is not quite as large as Sandler's and less of a sure bet but it is quite similar.

[salmon]

David: I'm glad you've tempered your initial overplaying of the Kutcher factor. Yes he does have quite large pulling power with a specific demographic. And it's a reasonable argument that he was probably responsible for more of the gross than Bernie Mac. But Kutcher is still a mid-level, mid-teens draw at best, imho. The combination of of Kutcher, Bernie Mac, and the cross-cultural appeal of the film is what pushed it over the 20 million mark. The announcement of "Ashton Kutcher:superstar" seemed somewhat premature. The teenage and teenage girl demographic is a notoriously fickle one, and there's little evidence that Kutcher's fanbase is advancing beyond that. They may well outgrow him in the next two years. This film isn't his quite his "adult" crossover that confirms his wider appeal.

Have you seen the New York Times box office analysis this morning? They seem to concur that the "big story" of GUESS WHO'S opening isn't that fact that Kutcher is still holding on to his demographic, but that African-American themed films and casts seem to be having an unusually strong quarter. It''s the big story for most analysts. Here's the link if you're interested:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/28/movies/28boxo.html

[L&DB]

Poland just seemed to have miss, due possibly to
being out of this country, that this film was not
sold as an Kutcher film. They sold it as a film
for an African-American family demographic. Poland
just missed what's going on with film all together.

[bicycle bob]

give kutcher credit for opening movies. but he needs new agents to get some better scripts. his roles have been terrible

[Ben Grimm]

The original Guess Who was not a "great film"...

[L&DB]

Bub, I would give him all sorts of props if he
COULD open a movie. Yet, outside of Poland buying
into all of those magazine covers with Kutcher's
face on them, he has not proven to be a star that
can open a movie. Neither has Brad Pitt really,
but like I said earlier; not like pretty guys
keep people AWAY from the theatre. Unless they
are Affleck, but that's a total dick move on the
audiences part in that case.

[Stella's Boy]

Kutcher is an awful actor who I would like to see much less of, but it is false to state that he can't open a movie. Yes, My Boss's Daughter did poorly, but it was dumped in August of the year it came out and had no chance. But, look at the openings of Dude, Where's My Car, Just Married, The Butterfly Effect and now Guess Who. How can you say he can't open a movie? Is he a huge movie star? No. Does he have any talent? I would say that he does not. But he has opened movies.

[Terence D]

All I know is that my two daughters aged 14 and 11 both saw this movie with groups of friends this weekend. They would not have seen this if it starred the skinny red head or the foreign guy. We'll find out the true box office of Kutcher once he starts getting better material to work with.

[Stella's Boy]

But does Kutcher really have any interest in better material, whatever that may be?

[Joe Sullivan]

It isn't too hard to disect. Young people have bad taste in films. All of Ashton's hit movies have opened in the Spring (Jan, Feb and March). I doubt he could open a summer movie or a winter movie.

Side Note: Dude, Where's My Car was a big hit because it had a funny trailer and stupid title. Not because of Ashton.

[Stella's Boy]

Lots of people have bad taste in films. All I'm saying is Kutcher does have drawing power. I think it is mistaken to say otherwise and act like he has had nothing to do with the strong openings of his many bad movies.

[David Poland]

Sorry... but some of you guys are delusional.

That NYT story was lazy journalism and didn't show much insight. There are also similar stories regarding Spanish language films now and again.

Ashton Kutcher has an audience. If you can't deal with it, I'm sorry. But opening a movie in the teens is not weak. It is very, very strong and very, very rare.

And I know exactly how they sold the movie... they DIDN'T sell it as a Black film... Bernie Mac was not "doing ghetto" in the ads, unlike Beauty Shop. Be Cool was not sold as a Black film. Will Smith is one of ten major movie stars on the planet right now (If that many).

All this phenomenon really means is that a decade of New Line product has paid off in an extra $20 million at the box office for many of the films targetting black audiences. You ask me, Coach Carter underperformed, not effectively crossing over to the white audience that would be willing to pay to see a Sam Jackson movie. Diary of a Mad Black Woman is a phenom in the mode of The Passion of The Christ and is not the start of a trend. (See: Woman, Thou Art Loosed.)

There is a reason why Morris Chesnut is in every Screen Gems movie. But get some perspective. Jamie Foxx in Breakin' All The Rules grossed in total less than Will Smith grosses on opening day.

The future of the film industry is niche programming and the "urban" niche is mighty mighty... has been... will be... but let's not get carried away.

I rolled my eyes regarding The Butterfly Effect... before it came out. But that movie was sold on Kutcher, Kutcher, and Kutcher. And it worked. I am not one to jump on box office bandwagons. There are movies that do business on concept all the time and the talent is not the key. This is what makes the Sahara pitch interesting. They are selling it as a sequel to National Treasure now. So if it opens, is that credit to Matthew McConaughey or to the pitch? On the same level, how much of National Treasure's start can be put on Nic Cage? I know what Nic's agent would say, but...

[bicycle bob]

at this point u can put kutcher in any movie and have it open #1. the guy has something going for him. wooderson is no kutcher at the box office. this has been proven. he can't open a movie. even good movies. sahara is gonna bomb. if kutcher was in it, it would open at the top.

[salmon]

If the NYT article was lazy, sloppy journalism, then so was your initial article on this story. It seemed like you wrote the first thing that popped up in your head, without examining all bases.

I only speak for myself, but I never denied Kutcher had some level of box office clout and a sizable niche audience, so I'm not exactly in denial that he's got one. You were the one who went insane and tried to attribute the ENTIRE 21-24 (whatever the final tally is) million gross to young Mr Kutcher.

You were initially making claims about Kutcher being responsible for the whole shebang, as if the new Adam Sandler or Jim Carrey had just arrived. You couldn't even be bothered to credit Bernie Mac (or black people in general)with adding a few extra million to the takings. Only some lame dismissal of Mac making any contribution to the gross on the basis of MR 3000.

You toned down your rhetoric with your second article on this story, yet you seem pissed off that you can't hold to your orginal position and credit Mr Kutcher for the movie's ENTIRE opening (which you vainly attempted to do).

Before you take potshots at the NYT, you might want to put your own journalistic house in order.

[Stella's Boy]

Honestly, I believe that you could replace Bernie Mac with almost any African-American actor in his age range, unknown or otherwise, and Guess Who would have opened to essentially the same number. I don't think Mac had much, if anything, to do with the opening. The Guess Who audience was nearly 60% under 25. That is Kutcher's fan base, not Mac's. People under 25 don't give two shits about Bernie Mac, and some probably don't even know/care who he is.

[L&DB]

If I am delusional. Why exactly did Guess Who sell
itself as starring "BERNIE MAC & ASHTON KUTCHER?"
Kutcher has about as much of a fanbase as any of
those other supposed young stars that we are all
supposed to get behind because they are pretty.

And we apparently see the Butterfly Effect marketing
differently as well. Since I could have sworn that
the trailers on that DVD on my floor sell the flick
as a warped TIME TRAVEL flick not an Ashton Kutcher
flick. He just happened to be in it.

Yet you bring up the pitch. While at the same time
obliviously ignoring that the Butterfly Effect had
the pitch of being a GENRE flick. If Sahara goes
well, then yes, Matthew Mac's representation will
be pissing themselves. However, unlike Guess Who
and the Butterfly Effect, that movie is being
sold on him being the action star, Zahn being
the whacky sidekick, and Cruz being the tiny
hot piece of ass.

Sure it's all subjective, but please do not call
me delusional. When you go and pull something
like this out your ass. I do mean that in jest.
So no one get all uppidy about the last statement.

[David Poland]

Actualy, Sal, I think it was you who made it ALL about Ashton. There was no strong rhetoric. I never said the ENTIRE opening was Kutcher's.

Let me repeat -
"But $22-$26 million is pretty impressive for an Ashton Kutcher comedy that is getting no benefit from the cache of the original film and with Bernie Mac coming off of Mr. 3000 and with a gimmick that probably isn’t all that interesting anymore."

That is still true.

Kutcher was the primary sell on this film. Would it have opened as well with Franklyn Ajaye in the Mac role? No. But I don't imagine that it would have dropped by more than 20% either.

So while you are so busy defending the New York Times by not defending their story, but attacking me inaccurately, do me a favor and take a deep breath. There is a reason why this is on a blog now and it is so you can offer your perspective. I don't mind being corrected and I don't mind being disagreed with. But I do mind when the obsessions of others become accussations about comments that I never made. I do believe in the power of omission being similar to the power of action. But presuming intent is bad rhetoric.