Why Do People Insist On Mentioning Box Office $$$? - Charlie St. Cloud (2010) Discussion

[–] mike-aiello 15 years ago

People thought this would be do well because it was one of the first dramatic films Zac Efron has done where he is in the leading role and carrying the entire film. It didn't do well. That's why people are talking about box office. Where were all of Efron's fans? Can he be successful as a leading man in more serious, adult roles? His acting wasn't too bad, but the box office suggests he can't open a film based on name alone, like some thought he may be able to.

reply

[–] carrotcake8 15 years ago

i thank my fellow poster for his take on my comment. now he brings up an
interesting point can *ANY* hot actor/actress open *ANY* film on name alone?
at no point in the 114 year history of the movies has this proven to be
true.

take the recent example of REMEMBER ME starring Robert Pattinson. from his
supposed rabid TWILIGHT fan base alone the film should have made back its
production cost the opening weekend. but it didn't. in fact during its
theatrical run it barely made back its production costs. for me REMEMBER ME
is better than any of the three TWILIGHT films released to date. RM could
have easily been an R rated film but the film makers made the conscious
decision to make a PG-13 film so Robert's rabid fans from the PG-13
rated TWILIGHT franchise could see the film. but that didn't seem to matter.
likewise THE RUNAWAYS starring Kristen Stewart did no business. granted the
film had an R rating but i'm guessing many TWI-hards are over 17.

which brings me back to Zac. i saw the film and must say Zac gave a rather
earnest performance. but like Robert P. where was the huge fan base Zac supposedly has? what Zac devotee wouldn't want to see Zac especially if
he's gorgeously photographed which includes 3 barechested scenes.
as with RM CSC could easily have been an R rated(just read the book)
but the film makers made the conscious decision to make a PG-13 film.

so in closing does any hot young actor/actress in fact have as rabid
a fan base as everyone things they do?

reply

[–] lanie_renee2003 15 years ago

Zac has a rabid fan base. Perhaps not as rabid as it once was, but just two weeks ago he brought the largest crowd ever to an autograph signing at the Mall of America. I can't even venture a guess as to why they didn't come out and see the movie other than some of them may just have no interest in seeing him in a sad movie. A lot of his fans are young, but he's steadily building an older base.A lot of comments I've seen are that the movie was over-marketed or that the subject matter was too sappy for people

reply

[–] mike-aiello 15 years ago

Well carrotcake, I'm not sure if you're referring to only Disney stars or what, but Sandra Bullock is an example of an actress who can open a movie on name alone. Look at "The Blind Side" last year, it was not being heavily advertised six months in advance, it was also a sentimental family/sports drama - and Bullock managed to make over $200,000 and won an Academy Award for it. So yes there are stars that are able to make movies successful based on name alone. Would as many people have gone to see the film if Jennifer Aniston had been in the lead? I don't really think so.

As for the guys, Will Smith is a very popular actor and can easily draw a large number of people to see his films, most recently Hancock. I wouldn't call that film a masterpiece but Smith was sure able to sell it. Tom Cruise also used to be able to before he started acting weird.

But if you're referring just to teenage heartthrobs, then I guess you're right. I hope Zac finds better success next time, but he'd better choose his roles carefully because if he gets another one or two flops like Charlie St. Cloud then casting directors might not be too keen on casting him in the lead to bring in audiences anymore.

reply

[–] carrotcake8 15 years ago

as always i thank my fellow poster for his take on my comments.
another thought or two for you. i await your reply.

i admit Sandra Bullock gave an Oscar worthy performance in THE BLIND
SIDE which probably prompted many people to go see it more so then if
any other actress starred in it. but even Bullock devotees didn't exactly
flock to go see PREMONITION or ALL ABOUT STEVE even though she was starred
in them. also granted Will Smith has had many successes but he's had big
disappointments as well. for instance ALI one of the best sports bio
film ever made for which Smith received his 1st Oscar nom for Best Actor.
the fact that ALI was a big box office disappointment people are still trying
to figure out many years after its release. also Smith's recent film SEVEN
POUNDS was a box office disappointment as well. maybe the film was too
morbid or just didn't work but having Smith as the star didn't seem to
matter. they've had many successes and i have greatly enjoyed many of Bullock
and Smith's films myself but as movie history tells us just because a big proven box office star stars in a new film doesn't necessarily mean it will make a
dime.

also one other comment about Zac E. and CHARLIE ST. CLOUD. i'm not saying
it was a perfect film but i have to say i say Zac did a commendable job. which
begs a question- even if half of Zac's alleged huge fan base saw the film it
should have made twice as much. i mean what Zac devotee wouldn't want to see
Zac gorgeously photographed. plus in 3 scenes he's barechested. what gives
here?

reply

[–] KelVintage 15 years ago

Nobody can predict the box office anymore. Not trying to start anything mate but Bullock's next film might be a flop.

I think only three things can help a movie open strong and stay strong: hype, star power, and good-word-of-mouth.

Efron CAN open a film by himself as proven by 17 Again.

I was surprised at the box office...I didn't really think about it so I didn't have a number in my head but I thought it would do better than it did. More than 15 million maybe?

To be fair, 17 Again debuted with over 20 million dollars which is very solid. Thus, Efron CAN open a film and I thought he was taking a good step by doing a drama without alienating his fans since the film is PG-13, but perhaps a drama in the middle of the summer was a bad move on the studio's part? I believe CSC was supposed to be released in Sept or Oct where it probably would have done better. Efron is competing with Inception and a crowded field. Also, we have to keep in mind that dramas do tend to make less than action/thriller films, or at least it takes them longer to make money back.

Please visit my website at http://embark.to/kelvintage and tell me what you think! Thank you!

reply

[–] CBlodg 15 years ago

Completely agreed. CSC easily could have/should have been a R rated film. But Hollywood being what it is today and looking to make the sure buck chose to make a PG-13 movie and missed the mark.

Don't get me wrong, the movie was great, but had they followed the book more it would have been excellent.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ADawn07 15 years ago

I must point out the The Runaways was never widley released. (At least, not to my knowledge). It was viewed at many film festivals though. And had a limited release...supposedly. The rental rate is pretty high now that it is out for the people to see.

Though, your point certainly still stands. I do agree with you. It has been proven so many times over. =)

reply

[–] Poppy85 14 years ago

I'd like to mention that Remember Me did just fine making $56,032,889 worldwide with a production budget of $16,000,000.
Rob has a very strong international fan base who ignored the negative press and the blatant attempts by some critics to destroy this little gem.

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=rememberme.htm

For those that may be interested in what the film was actually about.

http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/reacting-to-remember-me-an-interv iew-with-screenwriter-will-fetters

reply

[–] LiVenLoVe902 15 years ago

Because the Box Office amounts do matter to the studio, no matter what they say.

When more people go to see a movie called "Cats and Dogs : Kitty Galore", there is a huge problem. Everyone knew the movie was out there. It's just that Zac Efron does not have the star power anymore to sell a movie and while his acting might have been alright, it is not a good movie to stay high in the Box Office by word of mouth ( like perhaps Inception has.)

I could have held you in my arms forever, and it still wouldn't be long enough.

reply

[–] emmie10 15 years ago

As it turns out more people did see CSC as it settled into #5 this weekend- but I also agree that this movie could have been excellent if it had been done more to the author's vision and less to "thinking" they are appealing to a particular demographic. I hate that marketing vultures made an artless decision and put a young man building a career on the line alone like that.

It's a lot of pressure when the critic's collective consensus is that he was the only good thing in that film-and they had such a good book to pattern this from

reply

[–] dbwilyumz 13 years ago

I agree. The director thought the story was "cheesy" and saw his job as "taking some of that out of it." He rewrote the script, which had already been rewritten more than once. I don't think he and the producer ever got a good handle on the story - what were they trying to say? Kim Bassinger and Ray Liota had very small roles, and then they left half of what they did on the cutting room floor. Was Charlie seeing ghosts or delusional? They wanted to keep the question open, but of course Charlie's experience had to be real or the story made no sense - Tess's apparition led him to rescue her, so it had to be real. Charlie's assistant at the cemetery was British - why? The only black guy in the movie is the one Charlie punches in the face - was that choice really necessary? The director talked up the fact that there's supposed to be some kind of class struggle involved - Charlie is from the "wrong side of the tracks." But what does that have to do with the story they are telling? Charlie could have been a rich kid and it wouldn't have made a difference. The fact that they came back and reshot the closing scene shows they weren't clear on the story they were telling. I could go on and on. Grrr.

reply

[–] harmedandderangerous 15 years ago

So piss poor box office opening, 4.8 imdb user rating and 26% on Rotten Tomatoes. That's 0 for 3 in whatever criteria are available to gauge whether this is a good movie. Sometimes a movie just sucks.

I'm going to go way out on a limb and predict that this is not the 21st century's answer to The Wizard of Oz. I know, I'm bold like that.

reply

[–] mike-aiello 15 years ago

carrotcake - I would ask you to look at the figures for "Premonition" and "All About Steve" again. Granted, both films weren't good, but both I believe still came in third at the box office during their respective release dates. "Premonition" made more on its opening than Charlie St. Cloud and although "All About Steve" made less, it was only a million less and when you consider how frankly bad of a film "Steve" is, that's not a good thing for Efron and his film. So, Sandra certainly has box office appeal even in her really bad movies, and that's why studios pick them up -- even if they stink, they know Bullock will get them some money. She has a solid fan base.

And as for your comment on Zac - you said it perfectly. Zac was shirtless and gorgeously filmed, so the fact that it scored $12 million out of the expected $18 million does say something. It's not all Zac's fault, but rest assured, studios and casting directors aren't going to keep putting Efron out there if his films all become like this. One flop won't destroy him, but you know critics and haters alike are all priding themselves in correctly predicting this film's failure and furthering their idea that Efron is just a pretty boy with no real Hollywood future.

reply

[–] KelVintage 15 years ago

I think people don't want to see Zac in a drama maybe?

17 Again was PG-13 as well. I think CSC might have been too dramatic for many of the younger fans and maybe the teenage ones simply are not interested in dramatic roles for Efron.

He has a two year deal with WB so I doubt that they would destroy that contract based on one film...but I may be wrong. He just needs to take a step back, age a little bit and take on thriller roles. Or romantic comedies may be next for him...again, I think he's a little young but it could work. He would have the teens and then the ladies in their late 20s or even 30s who would be interested.

The box office is difficult to predict though...

Please visit my website at http://embark.to/kelvintage and tell me what you think! Thank you!

reply

[–] CBlodg 15 years ago

I don't have a problem seeing Zac in a drama (but I'm far from the demographic you described), I have a problem seeing him in a PG-13 drama, that could have and SHOULD have been way better. The book was amazing and quite frankly, they tried to follow the book, but failed in the 'important' parts.

I'm of the mind that he needs to do some kind of thriller or war type movie that doesn't simply appeal to his base. The marketing of the movie didn't help in that all it showed was him shirtless. Universal is as much to blame for this lack-luster showing as it spent much of it's time and money focusing on Scott Pilgrim and a couple of other movie; then they suddenly started to really ramp up promotion a few weeks ago.

If you look at the promotion job WB did for 17 Again, it was long and drawn out, calculated. Much of Universal's marketing these days has sucked some kind of awful anyway.

reply

[–] mike-aiello 15 years ago

A thriller might not be a bad move, although in all honesty, most thrillers nowadays are not that original or good, but it could get a different crowd to see Efron at the very least.

reply

[–] stilt54 15 years ago

well 17 again came out when Zac was more popular with the teens/ tweens than he is now . So the box office reflects that.. so you can't really say he can open a film just yet. However, now he is not at his peak in terms of his fan crowd.. Rob, Taylor Lautner, and Justin Bieber replaced him in terms of fan base. Zac really needs to broaden his appeal to different demographics to have a long lasting career at the top.

reply

[–] harmedandderangerous 15 years ago

Justin Bieber is Zac Efron's mini-me. So really, Zac still has that limelight he had a year or two ago. See evidence below if you don't believe me.

http://www.katu.com/entertainment/99064969.html

http://www.inquisitr.com/48943/zac-efron-wants-to-be-james-bond-villai %20n/

reply

[–] stilt54 15 years ago

lol uh noooo

reply

[–] harmedandderangerous 15 years ago

I only call it like I see it. All we need is a Doctor Evil round table and Bieber sitting on Efron's lap in the Big Chair and it will be as evident as the sun on a cloudless afternoon.

reply

[–] venusebony 15 years ago

Box office matters regardless of whether fans of Efron agree or not! The box office proves this movie is a complete flop! Efron did not take a chance with this film and his fans obviously avoided it.

reply

[–] emmie10 15 years ago

Im curious about how the weekday #s influence the amount of theatres that a movie will have in the coming weeks. I noticed that this movie today had the least drop-off from Sunday. The biggest drops were Salt and Cats & Dogs-each of those have about 1000 or so more theatres than CSC.

This is just today of course, and I expect Salt to keep its theatre count for awhile, but the Cats and Dogs one seems to not be holding up well enough to hang on to that many theatres for long. How far into a run do they make chose decisions?

reply

[–] Candace64 15 years ago

I think it's obvious Justin Bieber is the king of heartthrobs now.. don't know why that person is trying to prove otherwise.

To the OP box office numbers are very important studios want actors who can bring them money.. the main thing is the money. Efron hasn't proven he can bring a crowd to the movies from his name alone. Even if it's not a box office hit studios atleast want a move that is acclaimed enough to make it to the awards circuits etc because that also reflects well on them plus brings more prestige, better DVD sales etc etc. Charlie St Cloud had none of those things that's why it's a big deal. Especially with an actor that still has to prove himself. Too be honest i don't think he has the chops like Johnny and Leo to break out of the stage he's in. He'll be like Orlando Bloom, Josh Hartnett, RYan Phillipe level.... i.e not a top acclaimed actor

reply

[–] VirginOnPromNight 15 years ago

yea yea, TITANIC and AVATAR also both failed miserably at the box office. it was only many years later that they became so beloved

reply

[–] fluffchop 10 years ago

If you're an investor then money is the only purpose of making a film. Nothing else AT ALL matters. That's why people mention box office figures.

---
Scientologists love Narnia, there's plenty of closet space.

reply