Hugo Deflates Somewhat
Paramount’s decision to open Hugo on 1277 screens last Wednesday indicated (to me at least) that they were hedging their bets and hoping that critical raves and a word-of-mouth groundswell might materialize. As of last night Hugo had pulled in $8,545,000 after three days (having opened on 11.23) in 1277 theatres. That works out to a $6691 per-screen average…not bad, could be better. But it was fifth-placed after Breaking Dawn, The Muppets, Happy Feet 2 and Arthur Xmas (none of which I give a damn about).
Let’s spitball and say Hugo, which yesterday earned $4,532,000, ends up with $14 million for the five days and maybe $12 million for the Friday-to-Sunday period. It’s considered a decent-to-healthy theatrical run when a film earns triple its opening weekend haul. An exceptional run means a quadrupling or quintupling of the same tally. Even if Hugo quintuples the $12 million weekend figure, it ends up with $60 million…but I think it’s more likely to triple and end up with $35 million, if that. There’s also foreign plus DVD/Blurays, digital downloads and broadcast TV sales ahead, but it still seems like a bust when you factor in Hugo‘s reported cost of $170 million.
“There’s no doubt it’s going to lose money,” says boxoffice.com‘s Phil Contrino. “But with that said, I wouldn’t be surprised to see it scratch and claw its way to $50 or $60 million domestically. It needs to make as much as it can before the the Christmas releases come along and cripple it.”
I know, I know — what do we care if Hugo is a financial bust or not? Are we Paramount stockholders? Let’s just see it and love it and recommend it to our friends. Except I can’t honestly tell my friends that it’s a jump-for-joy experience. The only part of Hugo that really sings is the last 20 or 25 minutes. The “let’s-all-rally-round-Marty-because-we-love-his-moviemaking-heart” critical fraternity has nonethless amped up the chatter to a point in which Kris Tapley is forecasting that Hugo could be one of the top three Best Picture contenders along with War Horse and The Artist.
That could happen (as much as that scenario perplexes me) but there’s always a certain deflation of value and spirit when a Best Picture contender that has obviously cost a lot to make fails to earn sufficient coin.
I still maintain that Hugo‘s 127-minute length limits the family audience. If it had only been, say, 90 or 95 minutes, it would have been a lot easier sit for kids and for people like me as well. The first 75% is too long, too indulgent, too taken with itself.
I wonder if Hugo would have made the same or slightly less so far if it had kept the original title of Hugo Cabret?
Believe me, it perplexes me, too. But filmmakers really respond to it, and that’s the audience when you’re talking about Oscar hopefuls. Could be a here and now thing, though. In a month’s time, “Hugo” could easily be a speck in the rearview. A shame. Though I feel similarly about the film overall as you do.
Why do people who are passionate about movies – viewed as art – care about box-office? For a non-American that is completely sad and ridiculous.
Maybe they should move the Oscars from the Kodak to Wall Street.
Also worth noting – next week welcomes exactly ZERO new wide releases. Not sure when the last time that happened in a winter or summer period.
Shortening the first part of the film could have helped but adding “Cabret” to the title will just give those who aren’t familiar w/ French names something to mispronounce. Perhaps the film could have used a box office “name” to help sell it. You see the $150M onsceen so I don’t know if they could have made it for less.
I have been too busy with the fam to see it; catching We Bought a Zoo in a little while, my first film of the holiday weekend – may catch Hugo tomorrow, or early next week…my guess is that there will be a latent surge for Hugo, and next weekend will be good.
Gregorious is correct, art and commerce don’t mix – or at least should not be spoken about in equal terms. I look forward to seeing Hugo after purchasing a $12 ticket ( might go Tues night 1/2 price). If I were an executive – get the hell out of my office with your $170 million budgeted flop.
You know how Lex complains about how FOX shoots its movies in the same Toronto forest? Well, why do all Paramount kiddie films look like they recycled the same Addams Family movie sets and costume designers?
“I still maintain that Hugo’s 127-minute length limits the family audience. If it had only been, say, 90 or 95 minutes, it would have been a lot easier sit for kids and for people like me as well.”
So it’s basically Scorsese’s Wachowski Speed Racer, except non-hipsters will actually vouch for it?
Sams: Yeah, it was kind of ridiculous to try to sell a tentpole film off of Marty’s name. He’s not a hitmaker, and even the few movies of his which did make money had more to do with his cast than him.
Also, don’t tell me it doesn’t matter that Hugo bombed. It’s losing to a spin-off of a 35-year old puppet series which only cost a third of the budget. Anyway you spin it, that’s got to hurt.
Especially when it would’ve probably done just as well if it were made for DTV. Plus, you gotta wonder if Jimmy’s not enough to save Hugo, whether or not Titanic 3D will also bomb. As for next week, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy opens, and I’m curious how it will do.
I maintain that the first two thirds are better than the final third in the sense that the final third doesn’t offer a satisfying resolution to the central mystery that the main character is investigating for a solid 90 minutes.
In a different film I may have found the filmmaking stuff satisfying, but it felt awkward and tacked on. The first part is enchanting, gorgeous, and haunting; the kind of film that Tim Burton should have been making for the last ten years.
I get why film lovers are responding to the last half hour, but after the 90 minute mark I just wanted resolution, not a whole new act.
I get everyone’s problems with it. It’s a weirdly-structured and kind of flawed movie. It starts out as one thing and ends as another, without quite making the transition sensible. But I was never bored with it, parts were absolutely enthralling, and I believe the stuff about George Melies is going to play better with kids than most people think. We’ve simply been trained to think that kids want nothing more than dancing animals…
“I still maintain that Hugo’s 127-minute length limits the family audience. If it had only been, say, 90 or 95 minutes, it would have been a lot easier sit for kids and for people like me as well.”
Does Joe Popcorn or his wife and kids actually look at running-times? I seriously doubt it. They may bark to their book-club friends about how it felt a little long, but they certainly don’t say, “115 or less! We can’t sit through those extra 10!”
As for the film, I thought it was endlessly intriguing stuff. On the surface, it appears like an artist experimenting with a base-level genre film, but the more you stick with it, it’s a Scorsese film through and through – unmistakable. It’s quite remarkable in that way.
I was kind-of thrown off by how peculiar the film is structured (which I believe is what makes it feel longer than it is) but the kind of artistry, ingenuity and originality in this thing is a breath of fresh air – I kind of want to see it again.
“Well, why do all Paramount kiddie films look like they recycled the same Addams Family movie sets and costume designers?”
Graham King fully financed HUGO with Columbia slated to release it as they did THE TOURIST. It was King’s insistence on a Thanksgiving/pre-Xmas release that saw distribution shift over to Paramount. So you can’t blame them for the look of the film.
By the way, for the record, Breaking Dawn Pt. 1 is the worst of the series.
We’re certainly atypical, but as a family while our first choice was Hugo (due to Scorcese for me and my wife and the book for my kids), we saw the Muppets (which was not bad) yesterday since we had some smaller cousins in tow. I’m figuring Hugo will still be around next week.
Hugo could be a top contender; War Horse will not be.
And p.s. Jeff, you are/were wrong about Hugo. Even if it loses money that changes nothing except confirm what I already know about movie going audiences. By supporting this argument you are saying Breaking Dawn is a better film. Two things that don’t matter: how much money Hugo made, whether the Academy recognizes it or not. They don’t matter because all that really matters is that Scorsese made a hell of a film. The rest of it is pointless chatter – a roll of the dice – a card game in Vegas. Doesn’t impact the quality of the film.
I’m surprised, actually, Jeff, at how you keep needing to torpedo this film. Why? What does it do to you if it’s successful? Argue against your own complaints about it? I don’t get it.
Too bad Wells doesn’t give a damn about The Muppets because it’s VERY good. You’d think a movie with a 97% “fresh” rating on Rotten Tomatoes would get a little more respect around here.
Sasha Stone writes: “I’m surprised, actually, Jeff, at how you keep needing to torpedo this film. Why? What does it do to you if it’s successful? Argue against your own complaints about it?”
Answer’s simple, Sasha; Jeff gets a very special kind of joy shitting on anything that he thinks the monks and dweebs are too excited about. Thinks it gives him a hand up on them. It eases the resentment he built up against a whole other “cadre” of critics whose perceived rejection stung him a generation ago. And he also knows he’s got a strong and pissy amen chorus of his most obnoxious claque members on this one. So it’s all “Fuck Scorsese and his kid’s movie and let’s all watch ‘Touch of Evil’ in 1.33 and drive the snobs crazy” time. Only the snobs don’t get driven crazy. They just…
“Hugo” has made nearly as much as “Arthur Christmas” (which has also gotten some great reviews) even tho’ it’s on 1/3 as many screens. Surely that counts for something. And “The Muppets” is beyond wonderful — Segel is some sort of genius and the songs by Bret (Flight of the Conchords) McKenzie are very very clever. Saw it in a packed house in SF and there was loud sustained applause when it was over.
Sasha, define ‘contender.’
IMO, War Horse will definitely be nominated.
Hugo has an outside chance at nomination; it is on a fairly big and growing bubble along with several other films, and not all of them will make it in.
FWIW – just got out of the We Bought a Zoo screening. This is lesser, 2nd tier Crowe, but it is a sweet enough movie that will appeal to lots of folks. The little 7 year old girl steals every scene…can’t wait to hear Jeff trash this one, though, because if he thought War Horse laid on the schmaltz too thick, surely he will be gagging on Zoo…
Chase: “Does Joe Popcorn or his wife and kids actually look at running-times?”
They probably do, or Where the Wild Things Are wouldn’t have disappointed. And that one was 90 minutes, but felt even longer.
“They may bark to their book-club friends about how it felt a little long, but they certainly don’t say, “115 or less! We can’t sit through those extra 10!”"
Again, tell that to everyone who saw Speed Racer.
Hoyk: I don’t see why they’d drop Columbia and go to Paramount if they end up doing the Thanksgiving/pre-Xmas release anyway.
Sasha: Well, whether or not Jeff likes Breaking Dawn, and regardless of its quality, or lack thereof, it probably gives the target audience what it wants better than Hugo. Marty should’ve started small, by being a producer on a children’s film, and then work his way up to directing. This is like that time they thought it was a good idea for PTA to direct an Adam Sandler movie. Hugo might actually live up to its critical hype, but it’s clearly not any more bold, exciting, or interesting than the average Chris Columbus movie.
Is it at all possible that, while “Hugo” was NEVER going to open in first over Thanksgiving; what REALLY cut into it more than opening was opening against “The Muppets” specifically – i.e. they’re both occupying some of eachother’s space in the “ostensible-kiddie-movie-that’s-really-an-adult-movie-geek-nostalgia-trip” subgenre?
I’m unsure if it holds water or not, but it feels like a BIG chunk the audience that would (WILL, once they see it) really love “Hugo” – 30-and-over hardcore film-nerds – was making a pilgrimage to “The Muppets” this week. For comparison’s sake: imagine opening “Lion King 3D” and “Titanic 3D” on the same weekend… one of them would get KILLED because it’s the same damn audience.
Can we talk about how great The Muppets is? Because it totally fucking is. LIFE AFFIRMING. In a better world, it would be an easy Best Picture frontrunner. Fuck, I swear, somehow they made Kermit way more expressive, I don’t know how. At least it probably has an easy Original Song win plus additional nomination, and Sound Mixing/Editing are not out of the question.
SPOILER ALERT O’CLOCK:
Did anyone else find the last 30 seconds or so jarring? It’s all beautiful and sweet and a nice homage to Meiles and Kingsley has this warm, involving arc and finale… So much so, that I think by the end, the Jude Law’s-love-for-his-son/giving him the gift of movies stuff was totally backburnered. So it’s odd when, at the very capper, out of nowhere Moretzy starts doing some voiceover (did she narrate anything in the previous 120 minutes?) about Hugo and his father’s love for him… I don’t know if it’s just that Kingsley is so overpowering or the movie-love overtakes the orphan story, or Asa Butterball just isn’t good enough that he’s the guy you’re caring about (I wasn’t)…. but in my head, I was like, Eh, why is Chloe DROPPING THE KNOWLEDGE about parental love and passing the baton of cinema from father to son, when for the last 45 minutes it’s been ALL about this sad old man’s arc? I was mostly loving the movie right up until then, but honestly as Moretz did that VO and we ended on the Bicentennial Man in closeup, it had that pricked-with-a-pin exploding balloon feeling where the credits come up and you have a momentary “huh?” Maybe it’s just me… maybe it’s just a nitpick… thought it was a strange choice.
Also as good as the 3D is– maybe the best ever– the gimmick renders the entire movie like that– when it ends, it’s like a dream you just remember bits and pieces from. It so distorts the narrative experience and how we process and digest information; With ALL THE CRITICS who complain about Avid techniques and “shaky cam,” it blows my mind that they can somehow follow 3d, which is a zillion times more disorienting and seems to corrupt all perception of time, depth, and space, to the point where you keep catching yourself zoning out and having to remember what was just said.
Beautiful movie, but ENOUGH ENOUGH with this gimmick.
Agree with the Muppets love. Segel moves up several notches on the quality meter and should be acknowledged as a solid, talented writer and movie craftsman.
@Lex,
Yeah, the ending narration is weird; and blatantly ONLY there to remind us that this stuff was declared to be important back in Act I.
I’d be inclined to bet that the narration was actually supposed to OPEN the film, further establishing the whimsical “bedtime-story version of something that happened” tone… but in editing they realized that the 2nd half Melies story UTTERLY overpowers any interest in Hugo and his robot – especially given the head-slappingly contrived “instead of just TELLING you something that you realistically should already have figured out when I showed you that drawing you TOTALLY recognized, I’m going to go get it as a surprise all on my own so something can happen to deliver some semblance of tension” angle and Cohen’s “Hey! My character arc was completed like 20 minutes ago, but I’ll turn back into the bad guy for a few minutes” bit. All due respect to Scorsese… that’s clumsy.
Also, there’s ZERO reason, thematically, to go back for the robot. The robot story is OVER once it signs Melies name to the drawing; the clear implication being that this is the big developmental evolution for Hugo himself: He solved the “childhood mystery” (inherited from parent) of “what is this broken toy and can I fix it?” and must now graduate to the more complex “grownup mystery” (taken up on his own) of “who is this broken PERSON and can I fix HIM?” It makes perfect tonal/thematic/structural sense; and to suddenly decide that we need to do the “race to the macguffin” ending smacks of someone assuming (not unreasonably) that the ACTUAL children in the audience aren’t going to be invested in the old-people-movies story and are instead still wanting closure about the robot.
“Also, there’s ZERO reason, thematically, to go back for the robot.”
Really? [spoilers]
The whole movie thus far has involved Hugo taking stuff from Georges without permission. You don’t see any thematic need for him to return that key piece of property he didn’t even know needed to be returned? When the other underlying theme of the movie is intellectual property being lost/not taken seriously, and nobody wanting to return it to where it belongs?
And that dialogue when Hugo apologize for the robot being broken, and Georges saying “No he isn’t. He worked perfectly” is sentimentality done just right. The robot worked perfectly because he brought Hugo to a family that would take him in and restored Georges’ faith in his own work.
sometimes I really thought my time is run faster..time flies..
Lex is spot-on with that end scene. I was wondering who the hell made Moretz this big sage on life and love? And her accent, I dont even.
The movie also throws in the fact Hugo loved movies out of nowhere. If anything he and his father should have been going to movies first, then after fixing the robot.
Kakihara: Speed Racer is far more creative, and earnest than this film. It’s transitions, editing, story structure, makes it one of the most unique movies, let alone blockbusters, of the past decade.
*Its
Whoa, awesome read. I just now found your site and am already a fan.
cheap hotels in new york city
Plastic surgeon new york
Luke Y. Thompson is absolutely right there.
I love saying something for the first time.
(I’m just giving you shit, LYT. But good call, seriously.)
The parallels, biz wise, to “The Golden Compass” are fascinating. The budget is roughly the same, the key art campaign very similar, but two interesting differences.
“Compass” had Kidman, who might have provided the overseas oomph at the boxoffice. Pic did an amazing overseas gross to offset a meager $70 mil in the USA.
I haven’t seen Hugo yet (the curse of living in Australia as a film fan), but it makes me happy to see comments like Rashad’s. Speed Racer needs more respect.
You really make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this topic to be really something which I think I would never understand. It seems too complicated and very broad for me. I am looking forward for your next post.
scrapbooking organizer
how to pass a drug test in 24 hours
Really great work,Thanks for sharing all of your story. seminyak accommodation seminyak villa rental villa ubud bali seminyak villas seminyak villa teak furniture rumah pekanbaru jam tangan kursi tamu kopi luwak badut kursus bahasa korea om onny jasa seo murah pasang iklan gratis citra indah zodiak souvenir pernikahan buka aura souvenir pernikahan hot news all round toko bunga kanvas lukis cream anisa