Does a 'Piranha 3D' Sequel Sound Like a Good Idea?
I'm talking strictly from a business perspective of course
Piranha 3D was inexplicably adored by critics and on opening weekend managed to score with its target audience on only the smallest of levels. This is a truth that was made obvious this past weekend when The Last Exorcism doubled Piranha's week one box-office haul despite the latter's inflated 3D ticket prices. And things won't be improving for the little three-dimensional killer fish.
If there was a time to see Piranha 3D in theaters it has, more or less, passed.
After the film wasn't screened for press here in Seattle I decided to catch it at an early Friday matinee in an effort to get a review online. My screening included myself and seven other patrons. This isn't the ideal situation for watching a film that requires a rowdy, ready to have fun crowd. Yet, with Piranha's 57.4% drop this last weekend and the fact it will be gone from the top ten next week and most likely scraping the bottom of the barrell for a measly $2.5 million over Labor Day weekend makes me wonder if the immediately announced sequel is something Dimension Films still has in their plans.
Piranha 3D was made for $24 million and has so far managed $18.2 million after a week and a half in theaters. Not an impressive haul and nowhere near profitability, especially considering that $24 million doesn't include prints and advertising. Of course, it still has foreign dollars to consider, but by the looks of things, Dimension and the Weinstein Co. handed foreign distribution rights off to everyone and their mother. Who knows what kind of return, if any, they'll see now.
This brings me back to the sequel Dimension announced as being in the works last Monday, one day after the film's lackluster opening weekend. Considering horror is so cheap to make, and they obviously spent very little on Piranha's lackluster CGI and 2D-to-3D post conversion, a sequel doesn't seem too far fetched. However, the fact the press release came in with one tiny quote from producer Mark Canton and zero details on where they would be taking the new film, who would be directing, writing, etc. was a bit sketchy. Instead they decided to focus on four critical quotes and link to several other reviews online and draw attention to online buzz.
In short, it felt like just another marketing piece intent on keeping the film in the news cycle for just a bit longer.
Of course, I fell prey to the release and wrote up my own article as did every other movie-based website be it blog or trade magazine. In this sense, it worked, a bit of free marketing and hardly a commitment from the studio to actually make a sequel and only Canton's quote saying, "We can't wait to get to work on the sequel."
After the film's dramatic drop off and its inability to beat a bunch of old action stars in their second weekend, a Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer spoof that opened on Wednesday and the poorly reviewed Lottery Ticket which played in nearly 500 fewer theaters, from a business perspective what sense does a sequel really make?
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a sequel. It would give me a chance to try and see the film with the audience it's intended to be seen with. Considering the chance for that to happen with this current release is already over and none of my friends are interested in going to see it, a sequel is the only chance I'll have to see it with a rambunctious and eager crowd. One thing's for certain, if a sequel does come out I won't be going to a matinee; a late night, opening day screening seems like the only option.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 10 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
I guess they must have decided that it does. I'm not sure box-office performance at any scale is any more a barrier to a sequel these days.
With Hollywood accounting skewing things it's just a business and if they feel there's a market for a sequel then one will get made.
Although sequels can be announced early after a film is released and then end up not getting made.
If a sequel is made, I can't see it being made for more than the original $24m. And with such a small budget, the risk is rather small because through overseas, domestic, dvds and merchandise this sort of franchise can make a profit (however small it is).
I think they were excited about the critical praise that's why they announced a sequel so fast. Maybe they might reconsider it now.
I think the generations that had fun with their horror movies no longer drive the market… Current moviegoers have no taste for schlock, no matter how skillfully it is executed (assuming that's not an oxymoron), and have no patience for humor. I fear that, had they made Piranha 3D as a solemn, straight-forward horror film rather than being playful and winking at the audience, they likely would have had a much bigger hit.
Of course, even classics of the genre such Evil Dead 2, House, Tremors, Fright Night, American Werewolf in London up to modern takes like Grindhouse, Shaun of the Dead or Drag Me to Hell can be revered by critics and aficionados, and yet were mostly cult hits and failed to really break out among larger audiences.
I think the studio may make another direct-to-video sequel to Piranha because cult status can indeed drive these films to strong profitability, but if there's a lesson to be learned for studios it's probably that audiences don't know how to react to a movie that makes fun of itself… especially a horror film.
Sure, bring it on, just shoot it in native 3D this time
pfffft no !!!
I'm really not sure what happened to this film on the way to theaters. It sounded like a decent concept, it had a good trailer and it delivered on the goods it advertised: Naked chicks and lots of gore! Add to that the fact that the final product was a bawdy good time, I was shocked that the film has yet to recover its meager budget.
Perhaps foreign and DVD sales will bring this thing into the positive; otherwise, I just don't see how a sequel is a good idea. I hope I'm proven wrong; at least this film was better than the recent Friday The 13th & Nightmare On Elm Street retreads.
"Thems the Facts"
Honestly, my biggest surprise was that this didn't become a modest hit. I mean, everytime I saw the trailer in a theater, the audience laughed. And not a "man this looks stupid" laugh, it was more like a "ah what the hell, I'll see that" laugh.
Guess I was wrong.
I don't think there's anything left to tell for a sequel…. Unnecessary to make a sequel from a film who weren't profitable as this movie..
Regards from Indonesia
i think that a sequel would be a good idea because the first one was alot of fun.
BUT there has to be a few things that the movie studio HAS to to to make it a worthy sequel,
1) use some of the money made of the first one and put it towards actually 3D cameras so we can get some decent 3D
2)better CGI, all the practical effects of all the springbreakers gore was good, but when they went underwater the CGI made it look cheesy
3) the cheesyness of the movie was fun and i know that that was the point of the movie, but tone down the cheese factor a liiiitttttlleee bit