December
23
Sweeney Todd Opens in 5th Place
Sweeney Todd opened to excellent reviews (87% fresh on Rottentomatoes.com) and strong initial numbers on Friday, but the movie dropped an estimated 28 % (actually 25%) between Friday and Saturday. (Here's Sunday's Variety weekend boxoffice report.) This indicates that many viewers were lured by Paramount's mainstream horror-driven ad campaign, which did not sell the film as a Stephen Sondheim musical, and walked away disappointed. (The company also seeded the internet with clips showing the musical numbers.) Selling a unique movie like this, where there is no tried-and-true pattern to follow, is admittedly tricky. So Paramount made the call to go wide with 1200 runs--and not build the movie from fewer runs in sophisticated urban markets. It now looks like Dreamworks' initial strategy might have been the right way to go. That way early adopters would spread good word and build an audience slowly over time, rather than folks being lured into seeing a movie that they wind up not liking--and spreading bad word.
Sweeney Todd is a great movie. But it is the kind of unusual and arty film that requires delicate, special handling. OK, so what if it isn't a movie with mass-market appeal? Will the Academy come through for a great film that is tainted in the marketplace? And what happened with the Screen Actors Guild bypassing Sweeney? It's quite possible that many of the SAG committee members did not see the late-breaking Sweeney; the DVD finally went out Saturday.
UPDATE: According to DreamWorks, the plan was to start at 800 screens; based on tracking and reaction to the movie they expanded to l200. The two studios agreed to the plan. There were several different spots for the movie, some with music, some not.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Hmm, do people actually go to see a movie just based on one trailer, without checking any further details? :D Or am I in the minority that finds out about a film before going to see it? Or maybe Google is just too difficult to use? It's very hard for me to understand how on earth someone would go and see Sweeney without knowing what kind of a movie it actually is. Sure, at least the very first trailer and the tv spots are misleading, and I do think the campaign could have been handled differently. However, the musical aspect has been mentioned all over the place. I just can't imagine how someone would have missed all the news reports, reviews and whatnot that clearly emphasize the singing aspect.
Posted by: Essi | December 23, 2007 at 01:21 PM
But it is the kind of unusual and arty film that requires delicate, special handling.
It's the same case with many wonderful films this year. And you're absolutely right. These types of movies need to be marketed smartly and good word-of-mouth is often key to their success.
I don't know whether the Academy will embrace Sweeney. It seems to me that it has a great chance of being nominated.
Posted by: Alison Flynn | December 23, 2007 at 02:20 PM
The Trades should read Sweeney Todd TANKS but you know it won't. Let's get honest it's going to turn off more people than it will turn on period. And the numbers prove that.
Posted by: Greg Russell | December 23, 2007 at 04:47 PM
Why are some so quick to determine that Sweeney Todd is a failure? It came in 5th place against movies opening on double and in some cases triple the screens. It's per screen average was over $7000. Looking at that figure, the film that needs to be concerned is Charlie Wilson's War which averaged about $3000. It opened on almost double the screens as Sweeney, but yet barely came in ahead of it in overall box office. So before people start considering Sweeney Todd a failure, really look at the numbers. I think the film's numbers will increase or remain steady over the next few weeks after Christmas. After all, it's not exactly a "feel good" movie, so there are those that will wait until after Christmas. For an R rated horror thriller musical to do as well as it did is fantastic.
Posted by: Donna Dowden | December 23, 2007 at 09:11 PM
Greg,
Have you even bothered to see SWEENEY. As Anne states, it's a first-rate movie.
And the fact that it may not be for everyone, so what? Did you think NORBIT was a great movie because it did almost $100 million?
Posted by: Dixon Steele | December 24, 2007 at 11:49 AM
I saw it and hate to be a party pooper again but I didn't like it at all. I found the pacing monotonous, the visuals gray and draggy and it is me or has Depp become a one trick pony? How many times now have I seen him doing his patented heavy eye makeup, Cockney voiced, eccentric performance already? And after seeing the 26th person in a row graphically getting their throat cut it sort of loses it's impact, you know what I mean?
Watching it I knew it was going to be a struggle to find an audience. Horror film fans won't like it for all the music and musicals fans won't like it for all the bloody arterial spray, so who's left? And would it kill Sondheim to write a song for once that actualy has a melody in it? I mean Wagner's Parsifal actually has more hummable tunes in it than Sweeney Todd. Todd is for people who are too scared or intimiated to actually listen to a real opera but want to pretend to have the experience of listening to a real one.
Posted by: Sergio | December 24, 2007 at 02:51 PM
Well, actually, Sweeney Todd does have some very beautiful music, Sergio. And I don't think it boils down to musical fans not liking the blood and horror fans not liking the music. A lot of musical fans have been able to get past the blood; and some of the horror fans appreciated the music.
I agree that this is a tough sell and it's difficult to find an audience, but it's not impossible. I don't think one can make such sweeping generalizations.
Posted by: Alison Flynn | December 24, 2007 at 05:49 PM
Much as I love Johnny Depp, and will say
he has an excellent singing voice, the movie
itself was boring. In a stage version, there is excitement in watching live actors perform, but in film, we are just stuck sitting there watching the actors sing. It came off as "singing heads" most of the time with no wonderful Burton sets or scenery even to look at in the background to keep us engaged, let alone awake! It held off the throat-cutting until the end, and then went way overboard on the blood.
Must give a high-five to Sasha Baron Cohen
who made a small part interesting, and again showed great talent in what this guy
is capable of -- a wonderful future career
in acting. Actually the 1997 version with Ben Kingsley was much less hyped, but far and away a better film version.
Posted by: Joan Butryn | December 27, 2007 at 07:32 PM
I thought i was AWEFUL.
Posted by: yooobabe | December 27, 2007 at 11:56 PM