Jersey Boys movie looking at a weak 12 million opening - Page 3

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 6/21/14 at 9:58pm

And then you add the R rating, to my thinking (others disagree) a bizarre component. A musical about a halcyon era that you can't really take your family too.

It's worked like this for 9 years. People who see the tour still write quaint complaint letters to the editor of their local paper after seeing the show and being appalled at the language. But because it has worked like this for 9 years, they probably didn't think they needed to clean it up on screen.

In fact, there were some instances where they changed "****ing" to "freaking" or just took it out all together. But they also added a few in, so the exchange might've actually balanced out.

[RooMcGoo]

Posted: 6/21/14 at 10:08pm

Even if the movie makes no money, the musical is still one of few to crack the code for making piles of money...piles.
An Incomplete History of Jersey Boys

[CukorLover]

Posted: 6/22/14 at 12:21am

What a slog of a movie. Eastwood has sapped the life and energy out of what could have been a much more enchanting "musical" in the right hands. He's borrowed from the great Martin Scorsese's director playbook, but to ill effect. He's chosen the sluggish melodrama route, and most of the movie just sits there in dead space. Aside from chopping up the songs, theres surprisingly little underscoring, and the use of a monochromatic film stock only emphasizes the dreariness of it all.

Christopher Walken, Vincent Piazza,and Mike Doyle fare best, while John Lloyd Young only comes to life when he sings. He's surprisingly wooden with very little screen charisma which is unfortunate due to the size of the role. The stage version obviously covered his weak acting chops with it's terrific staging, design, energy , and last but not least, the MUSIC!

Even the final "music video" over the credit role looked like it was hastily made. Finally, here was Sergio Trujillo's big shot at some choreography, but he chose to use most of the moves from the stage version, which did not translate well to the screen and gave the whole thing an amateur quality.

[Alan Henry]

Posted: 6/22/14 at 1:03am

It's funny, because here in Canada the movie is Rated 14A. Anyone over 14 can see it without a parent.

I'm surprised this would be considered rated R in America.

Also a question for the Americans:

In Canada we have rating 18A - where anyone can see it if they are accompanied by an adult or 18 and over. We also have a rated R where you have to be 18 and even with a parent you can't see it in the theatre.

What are your rules about who can see a rated R movie. Do you have an 18A equivalent? Updated On: 6/22/14 at 01:03 AM

[haterobics]

Posted: 6/22/14 at 1:35am

It is interesting how the narrative that this movie will fail remains constant. Originally, some sites were saying it would only make $12M and might not even make it into the top 5, and then they upped the projection to $15M and said it will place at #4... but it is still failing.

So, I guess if you can keep changing the parameters of failure, you never have to revisit your original premise? Why not leave it at $12M and let it surpass expectations? That seems more honest to changing them after you see Friday's numbers, and then moving the number to where it could still fall short.

I rarely pay attention to box office, so maybe this is just normal?

[Mr. Nowack]

Posted: 6/22/14 at 2:11am

bwayto, it sounds like your 18A is equivalent to our R, and your R is equivalent to our NC-17 (which rarely get widely distributed).

[The Other One]

Posted: 6/22/14 at 7:33am

"Christopher Walken, Vincent Piazza,and Mike Doyle fare best, while John Lloyd Young only comes to life when he sings."

Keep this in mind the next time you question a film being cast with experienced film actors vs. musical theater stars. Very different media, and not everyone successfully crosses between the two.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 6/22/14 at 9:40am

I liked it. *shrug*

Possible spoiler?: Though I enjoyed the movie, I thought it was unnecessary to have the entire cast sing and dance to "Oh What a Night" at the end. And then stand still awkwardly for a minute. It should have just ended after they were inducted into the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 6/22/14 at 10:06am

Haterobics, the "narrative" about it failing has little to do with whether it makes $12 or $15. The movie cost $40 plus marketing. Opening to $15 mil in almost 3000 screens is a sigh that a movie basically has no legs and will fizzle out before breaking even, that's tanking regardless of how you spin it. As a comparison, THINK LIKE A MAN TOO (which cost $10 mil less to make and is playing in a 2200 screens) is making double or more of what this movie is making. Here's Nikki Finke's analysis:

Without any significant uptick in what had been lousy tracking, Clint Eastwood’s Jersey Boys (Warner Bros – 2,905 theaters) Jersey-Boys-Posteropened to only $4.6M Friday. Pic went up +17% Saturday for $5.4M. But now it’s tanking for only $13.5M this weekend at a cost around $40M. I hear the studio wanted the summer release, not Clint, who made more of a drama than a musical about Frankie Valli and The Four Seasons based on the Broadway production nearing a decade-long run based on the original book written by Marshall Brickman and Rick Elice who also wrote this screenplay. (Might have had more traction in the Fall?) What’s interesting is that it’s the first Clint Eastwood film to get a test screening in a long time. Maybe because Clint wasn’t exactly the natural choice to present Valli’s story which he directed as R-rated for some reason known only to him. Unfortunately the knocks against the pic are that it’s slow, lacked a musical background (seriously), and didn’t come alive until the last 15 minutes including credits. Biggest mistake might have been not using more artists’ music to set the feel for the time period. (Don’t feel badly for Clint, however: word is American Sniper was a tough and demanding shoot for him but looks good. He plans to take a year off from filmmaking afterwards.) John Lloyd who starred on stage in the role in 2005 plays Frankie both young and old while also cast are Joe Pesci (who’s been in the Witness Protection Program apparently) and Christopher Walken. Eastwood produced along with Graham King and Rob Lorenz.
NikkiFinke.com

[Jonwo]

Posted: 6/22/14 at 11:15am

I think releasing it in summer was a bad idea, had it been released in October, I think it would had a slightly better opening and perhaps better legs.

[haterobics]

Posted: 6/22/14 at 12:01pm

"Haterobics, the "narrative" about it failing has little to do with whether it makes $12 or $15. The movie cost $40 plus marketing. Opening to $15 mil in almost 3000 screens is a sigh that a movie basically has no legs and will fizzle out before breaking even, that's tanking regardless of how you spin it."

That has nothing to do with what I said, though. I was only interested in the narrative.

But to follow your logic, and using the example cited in some articles that Eastwood's J. Edgar did even worse at opening ($11.2M), then let's look at how that movie fared (since that doesn't require predicting the future like Jersey Boys):

J. Edgar had a $35M production budget, and made $37.3M domestic and $47.3M foreign, for a $84.6M total, which explains why Clint and Woody Allen keep making movies without having a "hit" every time. Their films typically don't lose money. And that is before home video, digital downloads, cable, and on and on.

And J. Edgar opened in the #5 spot and never had an uptick after that, it just slowly fell off the charts. Slowly being the key word.

So, that is why I think the narrative is funky. It is all short-sighted and geared around whether the movie will be a monster hit, but completely disregards paying back the studio for the movie as a marker of success.

Updated On: 6/22/14 at 12:01 PM

[mikem]

Posted: 6/22/14 at 12:40pm

Haterobics, movie box office estimates always get revised as the weekend goes on. The idea is to try to refine the estimate as more data comes in. The original estimate ($12 mil) was before anyone actually paid money to see the film and came from pundits and not from the studio. The second estimate ($14 - $15 mil) was after Friday's numbers came in higher than the original estimate would have warranted. The most recent estimate ($13.5 million) was from the studio itself, and was lower than the last estimate because Saturday's numbers were less than hoped. The actual weekend number will be released on Monday. That number is almost always lower than the final studio estimate (it's in the studio's best interest to overestimate rather than underestimate, so the final estimate is almost always a bit generous). So the actual number is probably somewhere around $13.2 - $13.4 million.

There is a game aspect to the estimates. If a studio gives a pre-opening estimate, it's usually a lowball estimate. So when the Friday numbers come in, they can say they exceeded expectations. That estimate is often higher than the final estimate, so the early word is that the movie is overperforming. Then the final estimate is usually an overestimate of the actual numbers, so the numbers published in Monday's papers look good. That's a pretty common trajectory.

J Edgar opened in 1000 fewer theaters in mid-November. The expectations were different (although I think J Edgar was also an underperformer). J Edgar probably also had more foreign box office interest than Jersey Boys does. Leonardo DiCaprio is a movie star with a high international appeal. Foreign box office is not going to move Jersey Boys into profitability. Jersey Boys is not going to be profitable for the studio.

Updated On: 6/22/14 at 12:40 PM

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 6/22/14 at 12:57pm

I agree that Eastwood keeps making movies because his films tend to break even. I'd be curious to see how much money J. EDGAR actually made once you factor in a worldwide marketing campaign (not included in the production budget). And yes, as mikem said, J. EDGAR had the Leonardo DiCaprio factor to generate interest abroad (the film majorly flopped in the U.S. as the numbers you provided show, $37.5 domestic on a $36 budget is a huge disappointment, especially for a so-called "Oscar movie"), and Eastwood is a big name abroad. I don't see this movie getting much traction internationally. In the end, the movie didn't work out in the U.S.

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/22/14 at 1:10pm

My big problem with Jersey Boys is that the story isn't all that unique or compelling. It's mildly interesting at best, with some good, well-known songs.

On Broadway, it was the musical numbers creating the excitement and energy, not so much the story or the characters. They were both fine, just not great. It all seemed like I'd seen it before in other "pop group gets famous" stories. A familiar arc with nothing special.

A film version would only bring out the downside even more.

Updated On: 6/22/14 at 01:10 PM

[kidbroadway2]

Posted: 6/22/14 at 1:38pm

This show should have been directed by literally anyone else who would have focused on making this a glorified music video.



Also shocked that the PR team didn't have the 4 of them on every morning show/late show SINGING the songs from the show. That would have been a major reason for a lot of people (including me) to go out and see it.


Will still def. check this out at some point, but very disappointing and another strike against Hollywood making any future broadway musical movies.

[east side story]

Posted: 6/22/14 at 2:08pm

John Lloyd Young was hoping to parlay this into a film career. Don't see him being cast in a lucrative Marvel franchise anytime soon. He is Lea Michele with (bigger) balls. And of course they dated in the past.

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/22/14 at 3:18pm

I have to say this about the "Mamma Mia!" movie ... it knew exactly what it was and didn't pretend to be anything else: a two-hour island "getaway" from the real world. It's just "fun fluff." The movie captured that appeal from the stage show, and look what happened.

[jo]

Posted: 6/22/14 at 3:36pm

It was also perfectly positioned for a spot during the summer season for movies. The movie actually came in second during the week when The Dark Knight opened and turned out to be a very good counterprogramming move on the part of the studio... But what was even more unexpected was its worldwide box office appeal.

Interesting that the two highest scoring movie musicals at the worldwide box office were Mamma Mia! and Les Miserables, both from Universal Studio. And Amanda Seyfried must be their good luck charm



Updated On: 6/22/14 at 03:36 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/22/14 at 3:45pm

For those who have seen it, how is Sergio Trujillo's musical staging? I thought his work was so intrinsic to the success of the show on stage: it was visually thrilling and dynamic and kept the story moving in a way that totally matched the music in spirit.

Does his work have any impact on film? Or does Clint Eastwood's ponderousness defeat it?

[CukorLover]

Posted: 6/22/14 at 3:59pm

Joey, first off, theres very little of it throughout the film. And when we do see it, its the toe-heel in place stuff from the stage version, but again very little of it. Almost like the film had no choreographer. During the credit role theres a music video type sequence where he references most of the stuff from his Broadway gig ( when the entire cast is on stage), but even then, it loses it's luster on the transfer to film. Looks like Trujillo did well for stage, but is not an expert with camera choreography. Not many are.

[ClydeBarrow]

Posted: 6/22/14 at 4:02pm

Well a lot of older people saw JERSEY BOYS in the cinema this weekend. The film played 92% over-25 years old, 84% over 35, and 72% over 50.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 6/22/14 at 4:19pm

Does his work have any impact on film? Or does Clint Eastwood's ponderousness defeat it?


Most of the choreography used for Walk Like a Man, some of Who Loves You, some of Sherry, and most of the finale is in the film. I think some of the choreography used on stage in Beggin' is used in Working My Way Back. Anytime the guys were dancing, it was choreography directly from the show.

[madbrian]

Posted: 6/22/14 at 4:31pm

Boxofficemojo's weekend estimate is $13.5m.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 6/22/14 at 5:54pm

Well, Trujillo can only do so much. It's more of the cinematographer's fault as well as the director's if the choreography that works so well on stage doesn't pop on camera. I imagine Eastwood has very little idea of how to stage a musical number in a way that it sizzles the way people like Jerome Robbins, Rob Marshall, and Gene Kelly (all choreographers of the films they directed) have done it/did it in the past.

[promisespromises2]

Posted: 6/22/14 at 6:26pm

So I saw it. And I've never seen the show on Broadway or anywhere else but my mom just saw the recent tour and loved it.

Anyway, overall I thought it was ok. The singing bits were by far my favorite. Everyone was fine at acting.

Some things that bothered me were:
-John Lloyd Young had a confused look on his face the whole movie (at least that's what it seemed to me).
-I know it's not supposed to be all about his daughter, but it felt very anti-climatic when she passed. I think they rushed that whole part so it was hard to feel sympathy for any of them.
-The makeup when they were old was awful. I thought the last ten minutes, including the end credits, were really strange and not as fun as you could tell they were trying to make it.

Overall though I actually enjoyed it and it was nice to see this adaptation without paying for the actual live show (Jersey Boys has never been one of my favorites).

And to back up ClydeBarrows statement, I was literally the only one in the theater under the age of 50 (I'm 23).