Jennifer’s Body Opens To Less Than $7 Million

John Campea 76 Comments

I knew it wasn’t going to open to $40 million or anything like that. I knew people weren’t waiting to see Megan Fox lead a film in huge numbers… but even I didn’t expect to see something this bad. Despite all the hype and all the marketing, “Jennifer’s Body” only managed to make $6.8 million on it’s opening weekend and come in 5th place on the box office charts.

Can this now end the idea that people will line up to see Megan Fox just because she’s hot?

Not 1 single dollar of The Transformers money came from people going just to see her.

This career will be short. She’s got a deal right now… but as soon as it’s up, you won’t see her leading a film again.

Jonah Hex might do ok at the box office… but if it does anything, I hope this weekend proves it won’t be because of her.

Jennifer’s Body was marketed around Megan Fox. It was all about Megan Fox. It teased us with Fox making out with another girl. It teased us with MAYBE seeing her naked. And yet, still no one went to go see it.

I don’t think there’s anything left to say really.

Comment with Facebook

About John Campea

View all posts by John Campea →

You may like these posts

76 thoughts on “Jennifer’s Body Opens To Less Than $7 Million”

  1. Just a really really bad script. sorry diablo but that was awful.

    I only went to see it coz my male friends wanted to see megan fox. Im not her fan and i dont think she has a lot of talent but most people (by people here i mean horny guys) that i know went to see her.
    I wonder how bad it would have done without megan…

  2. Wont go see this pathetic, stupid movie ever! They seen how popular Twilight was and tried to do another vampire movie. Forget it Jennifers Body you will never be Twilight or anything close. The Twilight Series has morals and is a movie young teens can go to, on the other hand this movie is crap! It just goes to show what the public really wants is good, clean movies! I dont think Megan Fox will win any awards for this one. Her body just cant buy these ratings hmmm?

  4. This is something I just thought about. Say if this movie starred some other hot commodity female lead that everybody, or the majority there of, thinks is an amazing actor. The movie remained the same, they pushed the same marketing toward this other actress, so basically the only thing to change would be the lead actress. Do you think the movie would have done better? If the answer is no, then maybe it is not Megan Fox’s fault the movie did so poorly opening weekend, whom it seems people are quick to blame for the poor draw.

    Same question could be asked if the movie starred a bunch or relative unknowns.

    1. It’s a great question Jeremy, but I would say the answer is a resounding “yes”.

      Megan Fox is simply not a draw. People do not care, nor do people in general have any hope she’ll do something well.

      I guarantee you, if you put Natalie Portman in that role, the movie does better than $7 million. Why? Because she is a draw. Maybe it still doesn’t do $40 million, but it does better. Just my opinion.

      1. The Other Boleyn Girl’s opening weekend was just over $8mil. That had both Portman and ScarJo in it. Granted, it only opened in half as many theaters and I am sure had a smaller budget. That, plus a release date in February may both play a part in the low take, but if you could base a movie strictly on who starred in it and their quality of acting then you think it would have still done better.

        Though in end numbers, I am sure the Other Boleyn Girl’s number probably would really shine over what Jennifer’s Body ends up with.

        Just using this as an example, though, that just because somebody as respect as Portman is in a movie does not mean that every role she takes means big money.

      2. A better example involving Portman, MR. MAGORIUM’S WONDER EMPORIUM. That opened in a thousand more theaters than Jennifer’s Body, was an all ages movie, and opened around Christmas… opening weekend: just over $9mil. Portman, Hoffman, and Bateman, lots of mans, who would of thought it would do that bad? I honestly liked that movie a lot.

    2. Hey Jeremy,

      I see what you’re saying, but I think you’re comparing apples to Oranges.

      Period Pieces almost NEVER to well financially. Plus, the marketing budget was a fraction of what Jennifer’s Body was.

      On top of that, the demographic Jennifer’s Body targeted is a much higher “theater going” demographic.

      I’m certainly not saying Jennifer’s Body failed exclusively BECAUSE of Megan Fox, but the whole entire film is marketed around her.

      My MAIN point in all of this is that Megan Fox is not a draw. This is a film that should have done better… not blockbuster better… but better.

      1. I honestly don’t know about that. I think a big part of its poor draw is timing. Do you think that if the market was better, meaning more money for people to see movies, and maybe a release around Halloween would have changed the outcome any?

      2. I think a Halloween release COULD have helped it a little bit… but once again, Megan Fox would have had nothing to do with it.

        I don’t think the economy has anything to do with it either. The BoxOffice is reporting record numbers and “Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs” opened with over $30 million for the 3rd largest opening in September history.

      7. To be honest, I don’t think being the “highest grossing summer” really eliminates a poor economy playing a part in a movie like Jennifer’s Body doing poorly. It was the highest grossing summer because of movies like G.I. Joe, Transformers, Terminator: Salvation, Harry Potter, Up, and so on and so forth being released that are guaranteed cash cows that people will one way or the other find the funds to go see. Lesser known IPs and/or new IPs are more than likely going to be hurt because people are not going to want to spend their hard earned money on something that is as of yet tried and true. I’m highly budgeted at the moment, but I did not let that stand in my way of seeing Transformer 2 and Terminator.

        You might say, “but District 9 came out, and look at what that new IP accomplished!” My retort to that to that would be several things, but the one that stands out the most is how publicized that movie was about being backed by Peter “Lord of the Rings” Jackson. Even though he did not direct the movie, that name sells. Not to mention all the hype about oh-my-god-this-movie-is-directed-by-the-guy-that-Jackson-wanted-to-direct-Halo!

        This year was so highly grossing because so many big named titles came out that people were not going to allow the opportunity slip buy at seeing in theaters because of low funds.

        To say that I can’t blame the economy is already proven wrong by me alone. I would love to see Jennifer’s Body, 9, and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs in the theaters, but I am holding out and saving that money to ensure I have money for movies that I have high hopes for; like Avatar.

        All it takes is one person that is not seeing a movie due to financial crunches to make it a fact that the current economic climate plays a part in a movie doing worse than it might have had the economy been better.

        And no, I did not say the economy was 100% responsible. I just asked if possibly it and timing of the release could have played a part in the movie doing poorly. Just as before that I asked if changing the cast could have changed the outcome.

      8. Oh, and by the way, I’m not trying to say Jennifer’s Body would have been neither a hit or a financial success. However, I do think if the economy was better and the movie was released around halloween that it would of probably hit in the teens or maybe twenties opening weekend. Make it PG-13 and that would of been even more guaranteed.

        Bet the next Saw movie will hit up near $30~40mil if not more opening weekend because it’s a proven franchise and people like to see horror movies around Halloween. I highly doubt that will be any better than Jennifer’s Body. The first Saw I thought was great and quite original, but every sequel there after has been awful.

      9. It’s a pity, because I think that this is probably the best role for Megan Fox yet. Partly because she actually looks natural while doing it. Almost like she kinda knows what she’s doing. Not saying she actually does know what she’s doing, but the role works for her.

        For some reason, she’s good at playing a sassy, men-eating seductress.

      3. She won’t lick you because shes a sexist who finds men to be “dirty”, and she feels “safer” with girls. Megan Fox is just the greatest practical joke in the history of Hollywood.

  6. Wouldn’t most bad acting be credited to the director that says “ok, that was super, let’s move on to the next scene.”? Also, what other decent female actress would have fit the role, and even then, would it have drawn a larger audience?

    1. Hey Derbmeister,

      You said:

      “Wouldn’t most bad acting be credited to the director that says “ok, that was super, let’s move on to the next scene.”?”

      No. A director can only bring the best an actor has to offer out of them. No director can draw water from a stone.

      You have major time limits when shooting a movie. No matter how bad an actor does a scene, at some point you have to say “cut” and move on to the next shot.

      1. I agree, for the most part, but on the other side you have George Lucas wringing godawful performances out of Oscar-caliber actors like Liam Neeson, Natalie Portman, and Ewan McGregor. While I think proper attribution to an actor’s ability (or lack) is appropriate, I don’t think we can write off the director completely.

        Having not seen the film, however, I cannot render a verdict in this case.

  9. For awhile now, we’ve heard various reports that Fox is barely in JONAH HEX – despite the fact that we saw TONS of reports and pictures of her on set and her name/face was flashed all over the posters at Comic-Con this past July.

    If anything, this means Warner Brothers and the marketing folks behind HEX will down-play her involvement more so than they did before. Then again, opening opposite TOY STORY 3 won’t help matters either for them.

  10. I NEVER EVER do this, no matter how bad a film is, but I left pretty early, I could see where it was headed, it was awful from what I saw.

    In my head I was thinking “this is from the guy who wrote Juno!?!”

    1. I have to disagree thematticus,

      The opening weekend box office has very little to do with the writer of a film. It’s more about the marketing and the stars.

      The longer term success or failure can have more to do with the writer with word of mouth and or repeat viewings (ie. the quality of the film), but not really opening weekend. Just my opinion.

    2. Not an opinion, its a fact.

      The 2nd week is always for the writer, producers, director (especially the director)

      Nothing can please a director more then a 2nd week on top of the list

      The first week is the studio’s

    3. one writer wins a Academy Award and people act like she is gifted or something she had one good story to tell and told it really well. Most of my friends can tell you a really grate story really well that doesn’t mean they are good story tellers or does it?

      And Sylvester Stonlone won or was nominated for a oscar for Rocky and is he considered a grate writer?

  13. You know if the movie is rated R they might as well shown Megan Fox naked. That would bring in more ppl. The main problem was the story, written by Diablo Cody. I think Juno was a fluke for that woman.

    1. Agreed, it drove me crazy when she said she got the Marilyn Monroe tattoo as a statement of hollywood exploiting her, for her looks. Last I checked, the same thing is going with Fox, she gets roles because she’s a great looking girl. At least Monroe had a bit of acting talent though…Fox seems to bite the hands that feed her.

  15. There really wasn’t a significant draw for male audiences. For any movie to be successful, it needs to have some level of appeal to female audiences.

    If guy’s wanted to watch a woman who looked like a porn star they’d do it online in the privacy of their own home.

    Transformers made money because it was Transformers, not Megan Fox.

    It still looked way too much like a teen drama which put off guys who wouldn’t be caught dead watching it publicly.

  17. I don’t know John. I’m willing to believe some folks saw Transformers just to see Megan Fox, at least the $7 million worth that saw Jennifer’s Body. If I believed everyone who saw that trainwreck watched it just because they wanted to see it, then I would probably just give up on humanity altogether.

  19. I went to the midnight showing on Thurs. night. I’m a big fan of Diablo Cody, but this flick is awful. Mostly, I think it was terribly directed. Also, the soundtrack was utter shit (the exact kind of “retarded soundtrack” that the Seth Cohen character mentions in the movie). Megan Fox couldn’t be more emotionally vacant. And sorry Diablo, but the script lame. i can’t recommend this one.

  20. Most of the people who I know who went to see the movie saw it because of Megan Fox and no other reason. Same thing with transformers. I think you can spin this around and say that Megan Fox single handedly brought in 7mil and if the movie was actually good it would have brought in even more.

    The problem was that they relied solely on Fox’s sex appeal to bring in the money which doing that set’s them up for failure. I don’t blame Fox, she did exactly what she was supposed to do, I blame the marketers and Karyn Kusama.

  21. I saw it on Sat night with 2 other people in the theater. The movie is mediocre from beginning to end. It basicaly a pointless exercise as it not scary at all, and with the exception of a few cool lines not really funny. Fox is OK in the film but I couldn’t think of her as anything but Megan Fox the celebrity and never really her character. That fact will hurt her going forward. Theres no suspense or any real story to drive it along its 100 minute running time.

    Chuck

  22. I didn’t see this movie, and it had nothing to do with Megan Fox being in it. I didn’t see this movie, or any movie this weekend, because money is tight! I used to to see movies every weekend, now I’m lucky if I see one once a month. The world is not currently on top of it’s game at the moment financially, in case you didn’t hear, and first thing budgets cut tend to cut out is entertainment funds. It takes something that looks really amazing for me to fork out the cash to see it these days, and I am guessing I’m not the only one that is like this. If I could afford it, I would have gone to see this and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs over the weekend, but have to be picky on what I spend money on means I am saving my money for something that I think looks amazing.

    So the final thoughts here, neither Megan Fox nor the movie looking bad played a part in not seeing this. Sure the movie looked bad, but it never looked like it was supposed to take itself serious. It looked like they were trying to make a bad campy 80s horror movie, which I think is pretty cool. Horror movies just happen to be one set of movies I through on the backburner for future Netflix rentals.

  24. To the film’s credit, this thing only had a budget of sixteen million dollars and I think the makers were generally interested more in turning this into a cult success than having a huge opening weekend.

    It’s almost half way toward making that budget back will probably break even before it goes out on DVD, where it will really start making a profit. Not to mention the foreign box office.

    1. “To the film’s credit..”
      There are many other films in the same genre as this one made for that same amount or less that had better profit in an opening weekend that also have become cult hits.

      By the way, if the budget was 16 million? Last I checked 6.8 million is less than half.

    2. Something to keep in mind MJS, is while $16.5 was the REPORTED budget, that doesn’t count the roughly $30-$40 million they spent on marketing. Trust me… the studio was not just looking for a “break even” deal on this film.

  25. Yeah. It’s really hard to speculate on other hypothetical movies, but the only reason I didn’t see this is because I don’t care for the horror genre. It doesn’t bother me, it just doesn’t tend to entertain me.

  26. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not impressed with Megan Fox’s acting abilities at all but I think this movie’s failure has a lot to do with people just getting tired of these stupid teen horror/thriller movies. Hollywood seems to release dozens of these each year.

  27. critic are so quick to judge this (like snakes on a plane) that people didn’t see the movie because of some strange circumstance surrounding a theory that the audience doesn’t like this or that actor or it was all hype, etc.

    i think it’s fair to say no one really want to see these movies because they look boring. i didn’t want to see snakes on a plane because i don’t care about snakes on a plane. and i don’t want to see jennifer’s body, not because of megan fox, but because the movie looks dumb.

    1. I think you are right for the most part, but the truth is somewhere in between. What Megan Fox brought to the movie (at least in the adverts) was her sexuality. They banked on the teaser of her making out with another girl (who cares?) and possibly being naked (I’m sure there are pics online)as selling points. That’s all they showed us. So what the thinking person got from the promotions was that the movie had little more to offer than Megan Fox.

  28. Too bad that the movie did so poorly at the box office. It was a very fun movie and Adam Brody was awesome in it. Deliciously fun and I will be purchasing a copy for my home viewing pleasure.

  29. I actually just realized that I only wanted to see Jennifer’s Body to see Fox nude, because as soon as they said she wasn’t, I gave up on it.

    Someone who went to see the film told me that they were only scared because she wasn’t naked.

  32. Perhaps noone went to see it because the movie looked, you know, bad. A little bit unfair to put the disappointment squarely on her shoulders. Stars far bigger than Fox have had similarly bad opening weekends. There aren’t that many stars that can attract a large opening weekend despite their movie being woeful.

    1. Hey Michael,

      I completely agree that the fault does not solely rest with Fox. However…

      This movie was built and marketed completely around her. All the ads were all about Megan. When a film busts so totally like this one did, there is a lot of blame to go around no doubt… however… I also think it means you start with what the movie was marketed around… and that was Megan Fox. Just my opinion.

      3. This was not the type of movie you could take a date to. The movie also looked too girly to be a guys night out type flick and the thing came out in September so there was no built in audience.

        The guys who want to see Megan Fox so bad will just download the thing at home so they can have some personal time…

      4. Didn’t Diablo Cody write Jennifer’s Body? I’m not sure it was meant to be a vehicle for Megan Fox but I’d put the writer up at the top of the list. Megan Fox is total eye candy but if the story is bad along with poor acting then I’m sure anything would be bad with that mix. Besides it’s not like she’s been in anything that requires her to act. She’s the hot girlfriend in Transformers and plays the hot dumb actress in How to Lose Friends so she hasn’t really done anything that you can judge her ability on. I can take or leave her but popcorn movies is really all she has been in up til now.

      5. I didnt go see it as I consider most Horror type movies Rentals. Lets be honest, how many Horror movies open huge anyhow? I am sure John can give me the statistics on that?

        I think this movie had two things going against it as well, Everyone knew there was no nudity in this film and they were pushing it hard, almost deception! Also, there seems to be a 50/50 crowd when it comes to Diablo Cody, you either seem to like her or hate her. I find that strange but oh well.

        I will see this when rental comes out.

    2. Yeah I agree with you. If Megan Fox had been in say a date movie that actually looked good, then I would have given it a second thought.

      But I wouldn’t have seen this movie even if it had Angelina Jolie in it. If it had Angelina and Brad though, then I would have definitely gone. Cause now you’re talking.

Leave a Reply