Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Single Screen Dilemma 2006: James Bond or Happy Feet?

This is topic Single Screen Dilemma 2006: James Bond or Happy Feet? in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=001782

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-14-2006, 08:38 PM:

Every year, Film Techers have helped us smaller operators decide which movie will have the best "buzz" and the best "legs." Hopefully this year will be no different.

If you had a single screen, would you book "Casino Royale" or "Happy Feet?" Remember, they have to hold up in a small town for at least 2 weeks.

I had been leaning toward Casino, but I'm feeling myself wavering after watching audience reactions to the Happy Feet trailer. Any thoughts from the F-T ranks?

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 10-14-2006, 08:54 PM:

Happy Feet. Trailer looks good, and at least in my town, Bond doesn't play very well.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 10-14-2006, 09:04 PM:

So the 30th animated kids movie with animals to be released this year or a new Bond film? I'd go with the new Bond film but if you have more families with kids that attend you theater, then the kids film is probably a better choice

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 10-14-2006, 10:05 PM:

Thing is Happy Feet actually looks original. Whilst I've not bothered with any of the computer animated kids films this year I'll make the effort to see this.

What you could do is take Bond for two weeks and then when Christmas vacation hits bring Happy Feet in, guessing you do 11am shows in the holidays? If Casino Royale does do well you could run Happy Feet 11am 1pm 3pm 5pm 7pm and Bond 9pm. Although it really does depend on if you do well on kids films or not.

[ 10-16-2006, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: Caleb Johnstone-Cowan ]

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 10-14-2006, 11:01 PM:

The kid films I would think would sell the most concessions....

(Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 10-14-2006, 11:20 PM:

Happy Feet

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-15-2006, 12:57 AM:

The reason this is a particularly hard decision for me is, while we do really well with kids movies, we also do well with films that are "hyped up" like the Harry Potters and the Pirates of the Carribeans and such. With the advance talk this new Bond is getting, I just wonder if it falls into that kind of category or is it going to be a one-weekend picture.

We haven't done all that wonderful on previous Bonds. But then we've never opened one on the break, either.

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 10-15-2006, 06:32 AM:

007 all the way! As Mike Heenan mentioned, there have been a bunch of animated films recently. Casino Royale is about the only high profile franchise/event film of 2006's holiday season.

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 10-15-2006, 07:04 AM:

'Happy Feet' has a lot of buzz from it's banners and sparce ads.

The 007 preview has been receive rather cold. If I had to stake money on one or the other, I would choose 'Happy Feet', unless my market showed a strong following for Bond in the past...

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 10-15-2006, 11:58 AM:

I think the Happy Feet trailer will suit them fine.

Bond is the way to go. An actioner that will sell later in the evening [thumbsup]

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 10-16-2006, 10:54 AM:

I think Casino Royale has the possibility of doing to the James Bond franchise what Batman Begins did to that franchise. It wiped the slate clean and drew an audience that was tired of what had been done to the franchise (both suffered from movies that progressively diluted the franchise).

I've seen the publicity for Happy Feet and I just don't see the draw. I've got kids, and I can't imagine taking them to see it. Maybe on a Saturday for a cheap matinee, maybe. I brought home a beach towel from Showest with the penguin from Happy Feet, and my 6-year-old chose a different beach towel to use this summer when given the choice.

Unless your audience is primarily families with kids and you don't do very good evening business (so you depend on weekend matinees for your traffic), I would go with Casino Royale.

It's too bad you can't run Happy Feet until 6pm and then show Casino Royale after 6pm!

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-16-2006, 02:15 PM:

I'm trying to withhold judgment on Casino Royale until it is released. I don't consider this "re-imaging" of James Bond to be on the same par as the very different (and superior) Batman Begins. Judy Dench is back playing "M" and the movie is directed by Martin Campbell, the guy who directed Goldeneye.

The idea of a blond James Bond is still very controversial even though Daniel Craig is a very good actor. The only problem I have with his casting is he seems better suited to bad guy roles. He was downright creepy in The Road To Perdition. Still, the guy has a good "I'm going to kick your teeth in if you fuck with me" angry glare that scares people and gets coked-up fashion models aroused. So he might actually be really good in the role. I just think Clive Owen would have been a safer choice to play James Bond.

Anyway, Happy Feet does seem like the umpteenth talking animals CGI movie to come out this year. However, its production quality looks very good and seems to tread close to Pixar's very high standard bar. The movie was directed by George Miller, his first feature effort since Babe: Pig in the City in 1998. Yes, this is the same guy who directed the Mad Max movies.

I think for general audience appeal, Happy Feet looks like the safer choice. But I do have concerns the whole CGI animals thing has gone way past the saturation point. On top of that, the movie reportedly will not have any 3D versions, despite those IMAX 3D teaser trailers that ran during summer.

Basically, both movies could end up sucking ass. I'm not hoping for that negative outcome, but the possibility is definitely there.

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 10-16-2006, 02:44 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I don't consider this "re-imaging" of James Bond to be on the same par as the very different (and superior) Batman Begins. Judy Dench is back playing "M" and the movie is directed by Martin Campbell, the guy who directed Goldeneye.

It's also written by Neal Purvis & Robert Wade, the same guys that wrote the last two Bond pics. I think we're getting a lot of hype with the promise of starting fresh, but I don't see how they could possibly deliver on that promise. Example dialog (from the trailer):

Woman : The treasury has agreed to stake you in the game. But if you lose, our government will have directly financed terrorism. I will be keeping my eye on our government's money; and off your perfectly formed ass.

James Bond: You noticed.

[puke]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-16-2006, 03:00 PM:

Hmm. Okay. Go with Happy Feet!

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-16-2006, 06:36 PM:

Happy feet is going to be huge. Or I can set up theater 2 for you in a railroad boxcar across the street..... Bond stuff seems to peter out pretty fast over the last few releases. Who can resist those cute Penguins anyway... the H.F. trailer is an attention getter.

quote: Steve Scott
An actioner that will sell later in the evening

There is no later evening in Forsyth... Mike has a time switch that automatically rolls up the sidewalks and puts em to bed after the last show starts [Wink]

.

Mark

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 10-16-2006, 07:24 PM:

Go with Happy Feet.

Pierce Brosnan is gone. Remember a previous Bond replacement by the name of George Lazenby (sp?)? This franchise may have come to a close.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 10-18-2006, 11:55 PM:

quote: John T. Hendrickson, Jr
Pierce Brosnan is gone. Remember a previous Bond replacement by the name of George Lazenby (sp?)? This franchise may have come to a close.

Following that logic, why would a theater book ANOTHER CGI animal movie? I think THAT format has worn out its welcome for a while. At first it was fun and novel, now, every other movie that comes out is a CGI animal flick. When did the public last see a Bond movie? Its new, its different, the trailer looks AWESOME (we've been fooled before, I know) but if I had a choice, I'd definately go with Bond...hands down.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-19-2006, 12:13 PM:

quote: Frank Dubrois
Following that logic, why would a theater book ANOTHER CGI animal movie? I think THAT format has worn out its welcome for a while.

Well, OPEN SEASON did pretty well for us. Not a blockbuster, but well above average.

Mark: You're right, and everyone who's still on the sidewalks when they roll up is automatically swept into the bars (or the Speedway Cafe).

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 10-19-2006, 12:22 PM:

Sometimes being cool is more important than making money, and no one's cooler than James Bond. [Cool]

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 10-20-2006, 11:29 AM:

quote: Mike Schindler
Sometimes being cool is more important than making money, and no one's cooler than James Bond.

Yes... Cool is good, however you can't pay the mortgage, utilities, payroll, payroll taxes, film rental, shipping, vendors, etc. with "cool" no matter how cool it is.

At my drive-in, we primarily thrive on what we call "the minivan crowd". Every new kid/family movie that comes out we try our hardest to get it - even going "off-the-break" for a week prior to it's release date in order to make sure we don't have to play another week of something else that hasn't worked so well. Since August of this year, there really hasn't been alot worth showing that will attract our "minivan crowd". Some of the studios withheld the family films from us on the break, citing the "we're not doing drive-ins on the break with this one" CRAP. By doing so, they litterally almost drove us out of business. If I can't get family friendly type films on at least one screen - I'm pretty much done for the entire weekend. Let's face it... mainstream movies now have a 3 week shelf life at the theatre - especially kids films. If we can't get it the night it opens nationwide, it won't be bringing folks in 3 weeks later. Cars and Shrek 2 were definite exceptions to that rule though.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-20-2006, 12:38 PM:

quote: Barry Floyd
If we can't get it the night it opens nationwide, it won't be bringing folks in 3 weeks later. Cars and Shrek 2 were definite exceptions to that rule though.

I can vouch for that. We've had exceptions too...when Star WArs III came out the same time as Madagascar, we went with Star Wars even though it had a 3 week commitment for us. It turned out to be a good choice - the bloom fell off the Star Wars rose after those three weeks but Madagascar built up a big following during its opening weeks, so we played Madagascar right after Star Wars and wound up kicking major ass with both films.

Usually I've found that if a movie is getting major hype among young adults, we need to get it as fast as possible because the "want to see" fades quickly. Kids movies are more durable if they're good.

The wild card in this situation is that it's Bond -- we've never done well with a Bond picture, so even though this one is getting the major hype, it might not connect with our audience. Based on that and the opinions here, I think we're going to go with Happy Feet (if we can, that is....we haven't been promised a print, yet!)

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 10-20-2006, 02:31 PM:

When we played "Cars" this summer, on the opening weekend Saturday night, we had 1,411 people watching on that one screen. Funny thing though... the town our theatre is in only has a population of 1,354. So we actually doubled the population of our town for one night. [Big Grin]

Given the right product combined with the right weather, it's a win-win situation for both us as the exhibitor and the studio.

As our weather here gets colder.. the attendance starts to dwindle, and the amount of return we can give back to the studio becomes less and less. If we get shut out of opening a print and then bring it in 2-3 weeks later, we're lucky sometimes to make enough to cover the minimum film rentals.

Tonight we open FLICKA... don't have a clue what it's gonna do??

Our intention is to play FLICKA for two weeks, then bring in Santa Claus 3 for two weeks, and then play "Happy Feet" on one side and the new Bond on the other until Thanksgiving weekend.

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 10-21-2006, 09:53 AM:

Ok, I just watched the trailer for Casino Royale. What an ultraviolent piece of crap. Looks like the Transporter, and all those other useless action movies as of recent. Looks completely un-original and un-inspired.

Now, if Hugh Jackman was playing Bond, yeah, we'd have a hit on our hands. But otherwise, I'd definitely go with HAPPY FEET!

My .02 cents....

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 11-20-2006, 01:08 PM:

quote:
The wild card in this situation is that it's Bond -- we've never done well with a Bond picture, so even though this one is getting the major hype, it might not connect with our audience. Based on that and the opinions here, I think we're going to go with Happy Feet (if we can, that is....we haven't been promised a print, yet!)

Now that the opening weekend has come and gone, what did you do, and how did it turn out for you? Are you happy with the results?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-20-2006, 03:12 PM:

We went with Happy Feet, and it has done pretty well - not blockbuster business by any means but very good. I think this next weekend will be huge.

So far we haven't had one phone call or inquiry about 007, so I think we made the right choice. We'll play Casino Royale in a couple of weeks, and with the positive reviews and etc. we should be fine.

Thanks for all the opinions everyone...film-techers were right on, as always! [thumbsup]

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 11-20-2006, 06:00 PM:

Bond is beaton by a dancing penguin. [Razz]

Daily Mail report November 20th 2006. (no link available)

James Bond has been beaten at the U.S box office by a dancing penguin. Casino Royale, with Daniel Craig as the new 007, took £21.5million over the week-end, while the animated tale Happy Feet grossed £22.4million.

Critics had raved about Craig's performance but Mumblies, a penguin with two left feet when it comes to dancing, proved to be a bigger draw.

Happy Feet opens in the UK on 8th December 2006.

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 11-20-2006, 09:32 PM:

Shocked that Bond didn't beat Happy Feet. In the UK it was mental doubt there was a spare seat anywhere in the evenings. Next weekend could be bigger if Bond stays strong, UK also has Jackass and Tenacious D opening and there is Dhoom 2 which is one of the bigger Indian films this year.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 11-20-2006, 10:02 PM:

Bond is huge..Happy Feet is just another non-Pixar CGI movie. I've stopped going to them..I think people are just getting saturated with em now. CGI no longer has the WOW factor it used to. Bond is always good. I saw a few minutes of the Dancing Penguins flick, weee, big deal. I saw a few minutes of Bond, and I wanted to sit down and watch more. I refuse to watch anymore CGI animated flicks until the next Shrek movie, then the next Pixar..thats all.

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 11-21-2006, 10:53 AM:

But did you buy popcorn and candy and drinks for all the kids? Oh, you maybe only bought a cup of coffee? I see. [Razz]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-21-2006, 12:24 PM:

Also kids pay lower ticket prices, so in terms of butts in the seats, Happy Feet REALLY beat Bond.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 11-21-2006, 03:41 PM:

I'm glad to hear that Happy Feet worked out for you, Mike. You have a good point about kids' seats vs. adults in regards to ticket prices.

When looking at the box office numbers, I think it's important to keep in mind that the number of screens for Happy Feet was greater.

From Box Office Mojo:

Happy Feet: $41.5M 3,804 screens = $10,918 average
Casino Royale: $40.8M 3,434 screens = $11,890 average

Both factors just illustrate why box office numbers can be misleading. Kids admission is lower, and the saturation of a release both affect the total box office draw.

I'd be curious to see actual attendance totals for each.

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 11-23-2006, 01:53 AM:

Casino Royale had quite a bit longer running time too, so the number of shows per day (for many theatres) would be less than of Happy Feet.