Box Office Analysis: "The Terminal"

Steven Spielberg is quite possibly the biggest icon director of today?s time; Tom Hanks is quite possibly the biggest icon actor of today?s time as well. Putting these two behind Saving Private Ryan resulted in a big blockbuster that raked in $216.1 million domestically. And putting Hanks on a deserted island for two hours resulted in $233.6 million domestically with Cast Away.

Some people would look at The Terminal and expect immediate box office success for the film ? I mean, seriously, what film fan doesn?t like this combination of talent? But with The Terminal, there?s just something about this film that doesn?t ring right ? something?s different, and sometimes different is good, but this is the kind of ?different? that makes you think twice.

Some moviegoers might?ve thought twice about walking into Private Ryan considering the mass of buzz on the film?s extremely intense opening war scene. But since that film had Oscar written all over it and Spielberg had made Schindler?s List a classic with that very somber, hard story to digest, there were a lot of filmgoers who went to see it regardless.

My doubts on Terminal living up to Spielberg?s other box office successes (in terms of debut, at least) began when I saw the first teaser trailer released in late-April of this year (when the movie would debut just a little over a month later). I had seen the teaser for Cast Away (which opened in December of 2000) at X-Men in July of 2000, and I had seen the teaser for Artificial Intelligence at Cast Away six months before A.I.?s debut.

The teaser for The Terminal didn?t give away much, and if I may speak frankly it was pretty bland. Cast Away?s ad was pretty fascinating, and even A.I. picked up intrigue despite its ambiguity. Then I saw the full trailer for Terminal when I saw Troy: it looked a little better than the teaser made the film out to be, but coming from Spielberg, well, did he ?really? have to direct this?

I had seen the trailer for Catch Me If You Can at The Ring in October of 2002, two months before its nationwide debut. The trailer was fun, stylish, and had a pulse, and featured an onscreen duo (let alone Spielberg?s direction) that could definitely be worth our time during the holidays. With The Terminal, we?re met with the always-charming presence of Hanks, and the trailer?s style does have a little bit of glitz but not to a unique extent. The ad makes the film look like Cast Away in an airport with more of a comedic spin ? many people will find this factor unique and amusing, but part of the intrigue of Cast Away was ?How the hell is this film going to work like this??

Cast Away proved to moviegoers that it was possible to tell such a limited story in so much screen time. Because of the fascination that resulted from that film, The Terminal comes off more ordinary, though still offers very good talent. As a result, moviegoers young and old might not have such a die-hard urge to see how Hanks copes with being stuck in an airport for two hours because they already saw it done in the other film. A lot of people are still going to see it, but the familiarity aspect is likely to cut off a portion of the audience that craves something original and awe-inspiring.

Catch Me If You Can also co-starred Christopher Walken, who can appeal to audiences as young as in their early-20?s, and up into their senior age range. The Terminal co-stars Catherine Zeta-Jones, who is mostly appealing to adult women but she isn?t a guaranteed box office attraction, as was proven with Intolerable Cruelty. She starred in America?s Sweethearts as one of the headlining actresses, but that comedy also benefited from a bright ensemble cast that could kill with the right script. The same goes for Stanley Tucci (in Terminal), whom many people know or at least recognize, but he is also not an actor known to sell tickets.

Spielberg has said that he?s maintained a list of actors of whom he wants to work with one day, and as each film production wraps he crosses those people who were in his film off the list. Zeta-Jones and Stanley Tucci were probably on that list, but when marketing the film this is not a golden ensemble.

When I see commercials for The Terminal, the clips are bombarded with positive reviews from critics ? not all of them are prominent critics, but critics nonetheless. The voice-over narrator says something like ?Last week at sold out sneak previews across the nation?? to help promote the film, giving it a very friendly vibe. For a Steven Spielberg movie starring Tom Hanks that?s opening in the summer, this film?s marketing campaign has come off a bit desperate.

If The Terminal had strong pre-release buzz and folks were planning to hit theaters on opening weekend in full force, are these mentions really necessary? And in the Los Angeles Times, the poster ad for The Terminal has several big review quotes surrounding the title ? for Spielberg?s previous films I don?t even think there were reviews trying to sell his product. The ad-campaign has given me the impression that DreamWorks knows this is a different kind of Spielberg film, and one that could be harder to reach as wide of an audience as Catch Me If You Can or some of his other works.

When Matchstick Men debuted, the media went crazy trying to sell the con flick. I heard so many ad mentions on the radio before it came out (especially of Ebert and Roeper?s raving comments) that it felt like it was going to easily sell at the box office. Even if there were people who didn?t know what the film was about, I figured the constant attention could make them want to seek knowledge.

The downside is that the film only starred Nicolas Cage, as well as the up-and-coming Sam Rockwell, and the unknown Alison Lohman. And the film was directed by Ridley Scott, more known for his bigger productions (this was very small-scale for him). I had Matchstick Men opening to about half the level of Ocean?s 11, having been tricked by the media?s illusion that this film would actually appeal to a broad audience. Granted, Hanks and Spielberg have a bit more power in persuading mainstream moviegoers to see their movies than Cage and Scott do, but I don?t think the comparison is all that dissimilar.

When DreamWorks announced that they were holding sneak preview sessions for The Terminal across the nation, my eyes really opened. I?ve never seen a Steven Spielberg film hold a round of sneaks, and he?s known to refuse to test screen his movies prior to release (test screenings are shows in advance with exit polls where the audience writes down comments/suggestions).

Generally sneak previews are hosted to help word of mouth spread when pre-release buzz may not be where the studio wants it to be. There have been times when movies have opened big even after sneak previews ? Bringing Down the House scored $31.1 million in its debut, and The Last Samurai posted a strong $24.3 million. But Bringing Down the House crossed over in its racial appeal, had a trailer that a lot of people liked, and was the first big comedy in a while. The Last Samurai, though having a rather unknown director, offered trailers that shook theaters in intensity whenever they played, garnering solid attention. It looked like a Tom Cruise film that could be pretty powerful with the right execution, and its maturity attracted a big adult audience.

The sneak previews immediately made me think of Jennifer Lopez? movie, Maid in Manhattan ($18.7 million - $6,590 per-screen), which opened similarly to You?ve Got Mail?s $18.4 million ($6,841 per-screen) debut. Maid didn?t have Hanks and Spielberg, but in terms of the simplistic story and its genre that movie is not that different.

When I initially estimated a low $20?s box office debut for The Terminal, I realized that figure was not that far from Secret Window?s bow of $18.2 million ($6,043 per-screen). That thriller was just Johnny Depp coming off of the Pirates of the Caribbean success, which made me question: are Hanks and Spielberg really going to play to this level?

On one level this realization made me want to consider inching higher on the box office scale, but a figure as such almost seemed logical. The Terminal doesn?t come off like a film that you have to see on opening night or even on its opening weekend to keep up with the buzz. Some of the reviewers call it a crowd pleaser rather than one of the best pictures of the year, the latter being a description you might expect with a film of this talent. Crowd pleasers sometimes have good legs throughout the upcoming weeks (especially when they don't open big), which is the route that The Terminal could very well take.

The trailers and television commercials make this film out to be a light, diverting time, a description that does not always send moviegoers flocking through the doors immediately. It has been clear through The Terminal?s marketing campaign that this is not Minority Report, nor Cast Away in awe-inspiring experiences, sending some of Spielberg and Hanks? fans a hint that it?s okay to take your time to see it.

I?ve had a feeling that this film would be over-estimated, but I can easily understand why those forecasts would be pondered. A film starring Tom Hanks, directed by Spielberg, opening on June 18, debuting in the low $20?s does sound a bit absurd to me at first sight. But if you look at what?s really offered on the table, and the film's comparisons and what they offered, it starts to sound somewhat logical. I could be wrong, but this could be an example that even the best and most well known talents can have their soft days.