WEEKEND BOX OFFICE: PG and G-Rated films dominate marketplace
Desperate Icebreakers
2 The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie $33,500,000
3 The Incredibles $26,790,000 ($177,822,000)
4 The Polar Express $15,215,000 - 34% ($51,010,000)
5 Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason $10,106,000 ($21,573,000)
6 After the Sunset $5,275,000 -52.5% ($19,292,000)
7 Ray $4,561,000 -45.8% ($59,188,000)
8 The Grudge $3,800,000 -45.8% ($104,411,000)
9 Seed of Chucky $3,136,000 -64.3% ($13,355,000)
10 SawLions $3,000,000 -53.4% ($50,473,000)
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/
I'm glad that post I made on Friday, predicting the box office, never went
through, cause it was all wrong. But anyway....I'm really surprised about
National Treasure, and I think this group is to. I don't believe any website
predicted it would be #1. I expected it to come in third, behind The
Incredibles and Spongebob. But oh well. With a 34 percent drop, PolarX
retains some shred of dignity, but not much. The film is clearly not going
to win the hearts and minds of moviegoers. Then again, it took a generation
for Wizard of Oz to catch on. My question: why is National Treasure rated
PG? I mean, I can't think of a single PG film Cage has ever been in.
"Bridge Jones: The Edge of Insanity for Giving Renee $20 million to Star"
did worse than last weekend when it was in limited release. Unbelieveable.
She clearly didn't deserve a check that big, no matter how big the foreign
returns were on the first film. With 'Sunset' bombing, Brett Ratner may be
wishing he was still on the Superman 5 project.
GREAT NEWS: "Surviving Christmas", which was released a week or two before
Halloween, is now due on DVD December 21st!!!! That just may be the worlds
record for the quickest turnaround from theater to home entertainment for a
major Hollywood release. Ever.
------------------
Icebreaker
"Way to go Jerri! You just ruined my best chance for an Indian. Look people,
I know you all want to play Pilgrims. I like buckles to. But I need savages.
Hey, do any of you know the black kids?"
Derek Janssen
> 1 National Treasure $35,298,000
> 2 The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie $33,500,000
> 3 The Incredibles $26,790,000 ($177,822,000)
> 4 The Polar Express $15,215,000 - 34% ($51,010,000)
> 5 Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason $10,106,000 ($21,573,000)
> 6 After the Sunset $5,275,000 -52.5% ($19,292,000)
> 7 Ray $4,561,000 -45.8% ($59,188,000)
> 8 The Grudge $3,800,000 -45.8% ($104,411,000)
> 9 Seed of Chucky $3,136,000 -64.3% ($13,355,000)
> 10 SawLions $3,000,000 -53.4% ($50,473,000)
>
> http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/
>
> I'm glad that post I made on Friday, predicting the box office, never went
> through, cause it was all wrong.
We're glad, too. :)
> But anyway....I'm really surprised about
> National Treasure, and I think this group is to. I don't believe any website
> predicted it would be #1. I expected it to come in third, behind The
> Incredibles and Spongebob. But oh well. With a 34 percent drop, PolarX
> retains some shred of dignity, but not much. The film is clearly not going
> to win the hearts and minds of moviegoers. Then again, it took a generation
> for Wizard of Oz to catch on.
Wizard of Oz had live people in it.
> My question: why is National Treasure rated
> PG? I mean, I can't think of a single PG film Cage has ever been in.
(Checks posts: Let's see, done the "Raising Arizona" joke, "Honeymoon
in Vegas" is too obscure, nobody likes "Peggy Sue", that leaves...Eesh,
oh lord, not that gag--Oh, well, think of England:)
...Snap out of it! <slap!>
> GREAT NEWS: "Surviving Christmas", which was released a week or two before
> Halloween, is now due on DVD December 21st!!!! That just may be the worlds
> record for the quickest turnaround from theater to home entertainment for a
> major Hollywood release. Ever.
It STILL isn't. Two posts later.
Derek Janssen
dja...@charter.net
Michael Johnson
<Desperate_...@walmart.com> wrote:
>1 National Treasure $35,298,000
>2 The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie $33,500,000
>3 The Incredibles $26,790,000 ($177,822,000)
>4 The Polar Express $15,215,000 - 34% ($51,010,000)
>5 Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason $10,106,000 ($21,573,000)
>6 After the Sunset $5,275,000 -52.5% ($19,292,000)
>7 Ray $4,561,000 -45.8% ($59,188,000)
>8 The Grudge $3,800,000 -45.8% ($104,411,000)
>9 Seed of Chucky $3,136,000 -64.3% ($13,355,000)
>10 SawLions $3,000,000 -53.4% ($50,473,000)
>
>http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/
>
>I'm glad that post I made on Friday, predicting the box office, never went
>through, cause it was all wrong. But anyway....I'm really surprised about
>National Treasure, and I think this group is to. I don't believe any website
>predicted it would be #1. I expected it to come in third, behind The
>Incredibles and Spongebob. But oh well. With a 34 percent drop, PolarX
>retains some shred of dignity, but not much. The film is clearly not going
>to win the hearts and minds of moviegoers. Then again, it took a generation
>for Wizard of Oz to catch on.
The Wizard of Oz wasn't successful in its initial release?
>My question: why is National Treasure rated PG? I mean, I can't think of a
>single PG film Cage has ever been in.
I think it was a bold move personally, and one that paid off.
>"Bridge Jones: The Edge of Insanity for Giving Renee $20 million to Star"
>did worse than last weekend when it was in limited release. Unbelieveable.
>She clearly didn't deserve a check that big, no matter how big the foreign
>returns were on the first film.
Man Ice... you keep losing it. BJ2 only cost $40 million to make, of
which it has allready pulled $20 million, and they haven't exactly
been burning up the marketing avenues with dollars. We complain about
actor's salary when they balloon a picture up to $100+ million.. not
on a $40 mil film. The way its situated.. there isn't much way BJ2
won't make a lot of money, regardless of its domestic. One question I
would have though.. is what gave this thing an 'R' rating? Does she at
least show some tits or something?
And foreign returns are just as valid as domestic. I don't care if a
movie made money from theaters on Mars... money is money.
Interesting points of order this fall season. The Grudge having broken
$104 million and Saw breaking $50 million. Both are just stunning
given their budgets.
-MJ
John Harkness
wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 13:41:06 -0500, "Desperate Icebreakers"
><Desperate_...@walmart.com> wrote:
>
>>1 National Treasure $35,298,000
>>2 The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie $33,500,000
>>3 The Incredibles $26,790,000 ($177,822,000)
>>4 The Polar Express $15,215,000 - 34% ($51,010,000)
>>5 Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason $10,106,000 ($21,573,000)
>>6 After the Sunset $5,275,000 -52.5% ($19,292,000)
>>7 Ray $4,561,000 -45.8% ($59,188,000)
>>8 The Grudge $3,800,000 -45.8% ($104,411,000)
>>9 Seed of Chucky $3,136,000 -64.3% ($13,355,000)
>>10 SawLions $3,000,000 -53.4% ($50,473,000)
>>
>>http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/
>>
>>I'm glad that post I made on Friday, predicting the box office, never went
>>through, cause it was all wrong. But anyway....I'm really surprised about
>>National Treasure, and I think this group is to. I don't believe any website
>>predicted it would be #1. I expected it to come in third, behind The
>>Incredibles and Spongebob. But oh well. With a 34 percent drop, PolarX
>>retains some shred of dignity, but not much. The film is clearly not going
>>to win the hearts and minds of moviegoers. Then again, it took a generation
>>for Wizard of Oz to catch on.
>
>The Wizard of Oz wasn't successful in its initial release?
It was, actually, and grabbed a clutch of Oscar nominations and won
two.
It didn't really become a beloved classic until it turned up on TV on
a regular basis in the 1960s.
John Harkness
>
Desperate Icebreakers
news:jv12q0tpm84lic6qj...@4ax.com...
> Man Ice... you keep losing it. BJ2 only cost $40 million to make, of
> which it has allready pulled $20 million, and they haven't exactly
> been burning up the marketing avenues with dollars.
Yeah, but her salary alone is 50% of the budget. That's a ratio i'm not
comfortable with, particularly when the movie is going to be rated R and the
lead actress has no track record of being a box office draw.
> And foreign returns are just as valid as domestic. I don't care if a
> movie made money from theaters on Mars... money is money.
Agreed. But I feel there should be a domestic base that comes out to support
the picture. Based on what I remember from the returns on the last one,
foreign revenues far outgrossed the domestic revenues well beyond a 50/50
split, or even a 2/3rds split. I think it was more like 25 percent domestic,
75 percent foreign. I don't know if I would have greenlit BJ2 based on that
info.
> Interesting points of order this fall season. The Grudge having broken
> $104 million and Saw breaking $50 million. Both are just stunning
> given their budgets.
Don't forget Shall We Dance (as hard as you might try).
Desperate Icebreakers
news:jv12q0tpm84lic6qj...@4ax.com...
> Man Ice... you keep losing it. BJ2 only cost $40 million to make, of
> which it has allready pulled $20 million, and they haven't exactly
> been burning up the marketing avenues with dollars.
Yeah, but her salary alone is 50% of the budget. That's a ratio i'm not
comfortable with, particularly when the movie is going to be rated R and the
lead actress has no track record of being a box office draw.
> And foreign returns are just as valid as domestic. I don't care if a
> movie made money from theaters on Mars... money is money.
Agreed. But I feel there should be a domestic base that comes out to support
the picture. Based on what I remember from the returns on the last one,
foreign revenues far outgrossed the domestic revenues well beyond a 50/50
split, or even a 2/3rds split. I think it was more like 25 percent domestic,
75 percent foreign. I don't know if I would have greenlit BJ2 based on that
info.
> Interesting points of order this fall season. The Grudge having broken
> $104 million and Saw breaking $50 million. Both are just stunning
> given their budgets.
Don't forget Shall We Dance (as hard as you might try).
------------------
Mark Steese
news:%q5od.75$Ef7...@newsfe10.lga.highwinds-media.com:
> 1 National Treasure $35,298,000
> 2 The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie $33,500,000
> 3 The Incredibles $26,790,000 ($177,822,000)
> 4 The Polar Express $15,215,000 - 34% ($51,010,000)
> 5 Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason $10,106,000 ($21,573,000)
> 6 After the Sunset $5,275,000 -52.5% ($19,292,000)
> 7 Ray $4,561,000 -45.8% ($59,188,000)
> 8 The Grudge $3,800,000 -45.8% ($104,411,000)
> 9 Seed of Chucky $3,136,000 -64.3% ($13,355,000)
> 10 SawLions $3,000,000 -53.4% ($50,473,000)
>
> http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/
>
> I'm glad that post I made on Friday, predicting the box office, never
> went through, cause it was all wrong. But anyway....I'm really
> surprised about National Treasure, and I think this group is to.
Just went to see it this afternoon. Ridiculous and wholly without
suspense, but not nearly as bad as I expected it to be. Jon Voight's
failure to get swallowed and regurgitated by a giant anaconda puppet was
severely disappointing.
> I don't believe any website predicted it would be #1. I expected it to
> come in third, behind The Incredibles and Spongebob. But oh well. With
> a 34 percent drop, PolarX retains some shred of dignity, but not much.
> The film is clearly not going to win the hearts and minds of
> moviegoers. Then again, it took a generation for Wizard of Oz to catch
> on.
Untrue. It took a generation for television to become a dominant medium,
allowing annual showings of "The Wizard of Oz" to become a tradition,
but the movie was already popular. "Over the Rainbow" had already become
a standard before the movie was ever shown on television, a fate I don't
see befalling "Hot Chocolate" or "Rockin' on Top of the World."
> My question: why is National Treasure rated PG? I mean, I can't
> think of a single PG film Cage has ever been in.
Try harder. If Derek Janssen could think of one, it could happen to you.
> "Bridge Jones: The Edge of Insanity for Giving Renee $20 million to
> Star" did worse than last weekend when it was in limited release.
> Unbelieveable. She clearly didn't deserve a check that big, no matter
> how big the foreign returns were on the first film.
You know, I think Renee Zellweger is a crappy actress, but I don't
grudge her a dime of that money. What's your problem with it? The
producers passed up the opportunity to lock her into a lower salary for
the sequel, and when they wanted her to come back, she made 'em pay for
it. Good for her. And the movie's already cleared $50 million in
combined grosses.
> With 'Sunset' bombing, Brett Ratner may be wishing he was still on the
> Superman 5 project.
Nah. "Rush Hour 3" is already in production. I doubt if ol' Brett saw
"After the Sunset" as anything more than a chance to vacation in the
Bahamas on New Line's dime.
> GREAT NEWS: "Surviving Christmas", which was released a week or two
> before Halloween, is now due on DVD December 21st!!!! That just may be
> the worlds record for the quickest turnaround from theater to home
> entertainment for a major Hollywood release. Ever.
Not only is that not the world's record, it isn't even news: Jason
(filmcritic3000) posted the release date here last Monday. We were
making jokes about it, too. It was kind of funny; you should have been
there.
--
Mark Steese
Unscramble and underscore to email
----------------------------------
In our age, there is no such thing as "keeping out of politics." All
issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies,
evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. -George Orwell
deer...@mindspring.com
Desperate Icebreakers wrote:
>
> 1 National Treasure $35,298,000
> 2 The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie $33,500,000
> 3 The Incredibles $26,790,000 ($177,822,000)
> 4 The Polar Express $15,215,000 - 34% ($51,010,000)
> 5 Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason $10,106,000 ($21,573,000)
> 6 After the Sunset $5,275,000 -52.5% ($19,292,000)
> 7 Ray $4,561,000 -45.8% ($59,188,000)
> 8 The Grudge $3,800,000 -45.8% ($104,411,000)
> 9 Seed of Chucky $3,136,000 -64.3% ($13,355,000)
> 10 SawLions $3,000,000 -53.4% ($50,473,000)
>
> http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/
>
> I'm glad that post I made on Friday, predicting the box office, never went
> through, cause it was all wrong. But anyway....I'm really surprised about
> National Treasure, and I think this group is to. I don't believe any website
> predicted it would be #1. I expected it to come in third, behind The
> Incredibles and Spongebob. But oh well.
Nah--#1 the first weekend was to be expected. _Next_ weekend is the
key...
> With a 34 percent drop, PolarX
> retains some shred of dignity, but not much. The film is clearly not going
> to win the hearts and minds of moviegoers.
Because, as Pauline Kael would have noted, "it's not from the heart,
or from the head, either. It's from the lab." :)
> Then again, it took a generation
> for Wizard of Oz to catch on. My question: why is National Treasure rated
> PG? I mean, I can't think of a single PG film Cage has ever been in.
Broader audience appeal.
>
> "Bridge Jones: The Edge of Insanity for Giving Renee $20 million to Star"
> did worse than last weekend when it was in limited release. Unbelieveable.
> She clearly didn't deserve a check that big, no matter how big the foreign
> returns were on the first film.
Why the heck _not_? Her performance was key to the first film having
what appeal it did. And, trust me, given how awful this character is
in the book, RZ deserves credit for vastly improving on her on film.
Would you say this if RZ was a male star?
> With 'Sunset' bombing, Brett Ratner may be
> wishing he was still on the Superman 5 project.
Doubtful. He's made enough money for the studios to still be
bankable. Unfortunately.
C.
**
deer...@mindspring.com
Mark Steese wrote:
>
> > I don't believe any website predicted it would be #1. I expected it to
> > come in third, behind The Incredibles and Spongebob. But oh well. With
> > a 34 percent drop, PolarX retains some shred of dignity, but not much.
> > The film is clearly not going to win the hearts and minds of
> > moviegoers. Then again, it took a generation for Wizard of Oz to catch
> > on.
>
> Untrue. It took a generation for television to become a dominant medium,
> allowing annual showings of "The Wizard of Oz" to become a tradition,
> but the movie was already popular. "Over the Rainbow" had already become
> a standard before the movie was ever shown on television, a fate I don't
> see befalling "Hot Chocolate" or "Rockin' on Top of the World."
According to Aljean Harmetz's book on the making of TWOO, it had
huge kid audiences when it was first released, but because they saw
it at half-price/matinee prices, the movie didn't do all that well
financially. And it was regarded by adults as kinda sappy; however,
when those same adults came back from WWII, they saw it (and coming
home) in a much different light--g!
>
> You know, I think Renee Zellweger is a crappy actress, but I don't
> grudge her a dime of that money. What's your problem with it? The
> producers passed up the opportunity to lock her into a lower salary for
> the sequel, and when they wanted her to come back, she made 'em pay for
> it. Good for her. And the movie's already cleared $50 million in
> combined grosses.
She earned her money big-time, because not only was this a tough
role to pull off, the character is basicially a whiny,
non-life-having drag. Zellweger at least made her sympathetic, if
not all that believeable.
C.
**
Derek Janssen
>
>>I'm glad that post I made on Friday, predicting the box office, never went
>>through, cause it was all wrong. But anyway....I'm really surprised about
>>National Treasure, and I think this group is to. I don't believe any website
>>predicted it would be #1. I expected it to come in third, behind The
>>Incredibles and Spongebob. But oh well.
>
> Nah--#1 the first weekend was to be expected. _Next_ weekend is the
> key...
Generally speaking, a Nicktoons franchise has to depend on new "convert"
audiences to stay around past the opening Pilgrimage weekend--
"Rugrats", for example, might theoretically win over some parents or
critics dragged to see it, and even "Wild Thornberries" doesn't stray
too far out of marketability.
SPSB, OTOH, is, by nature, *too* strange, too cheap-gag hyper, and
calculatedly designed to annoy...
Make the best of what you've got, Nick, it's going to be one hard sell
past the college campuses and the matinees, and they've already seen it.
>>With a 34 percent drop, PolarX
>>retains some shred of dignity, but not much. The film is clearly not going
>>to win the hearts and minds of moviegoers.
>
> Because, as Pauline Kael would have noted, "it's not from the heart,
> or from the head, either. It's from the lab." :)
Comparing PX to "One From the Heart"?--Oo...That's cold.
(But accurate on one point: Francis thought we would be amazed by Big
Sets, and Bob & Tom thought we would be amazed by Motion Capture.)
>>My question: why is National Treasure rated
>>PG? I mean, I can't think of a single PG film Cage has ever been in.
>
> Broader audience appeal.
And, as we saw from that one kissup/plant post, they're hoping to fall
back on "Parents!...Help YOUR kids learn about the Declaration of
Independence" as a last resort when the Vinchie audience doesn't pull
through.
>>With 'Sunset' bombing, Brett Ratner may be
>>wishing he was still on the Superman 5 project.
>
> Doubtful. He's made enough money for the studios to still be
> bankable. Unfortunately.
And when he isn't, they'll keep plugging away at that troubled "Rush
Hour 3".
Derek Janssen
dja...@charter.net
Desperate Icebreakers
news:Xns95A8D001...@69.28.186.121...
> Try harder. If Derek Janssen could think of one, it could happen to you.
Really? Raising Arizona WAS rated PG-13. So I don't see Derek's point.
Derek Janssen
> "Mark Steese" <makes...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns95A8D001...@69.28.186.121...
>
>
>>Try harder. If Derek Janssen could think of one, it could happen to you.
>
> Really? Raising Arizona WAS rated PG-13. So I don't see Derek's point.
You made me do a "Moonstruck" joke that even the Oscar-gag writers won't
touch anymore, and you STILL don't get it? -_-+
Derek Janssen (...LEMME AT 'IM!!!!!)
dja...@charter.net
Mark Steese
> "Mark Steese" <makes...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns95A8D001...@69.28.186.121...
>
>> Try harder. If Derek Janssen could think of one, it could happen to
>> you.
>
> Really?
Yes, it could happen to you.
> Raising Arizona WAS rated PG-13. So I don't see Derek's point.
It's hard to see when the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie.
MFalc1
>>"Bridge Jones: The Edge of Insanity for Giving Renee $20 million to Star"
>>did worse than last weekend when it was in limited release. Unbelieveable.
>>She clearly didn't deserve a check that big, no matter how big the foreign
>>returns were on the first film.
>
>Man Ice... you keep losing it. BJ2 only cost $40 million to make, of
>which it has allready pulled $20 million, and they haven't exactly
>been burning up the marketing avenues with dollars. We complain about
>actor's salary when they balloon a picture up to $100+ million.. not
>on a $40 mil film. The way its situated.. there isn't much way BJ2
>won't make a lot of money, regardless of its domestic. One question I
>would have though.. is what gave this thing an 'R' rating? Does she at
>least show some tits or something?
BRIDGET JONES: THE EDGE OF REASON got an R for language, including multiple
uses of the word "fuck" and some mild-to-moderate raunch (probably tame to
young males here who have seen the recent descendants of PORKY'S).
No nudity, though Renee kisses one of the female characters (I won't say which
one in case you change your mind and rent the DVD. Hint: the actress playing
the kissee starred in one of the pioneer "reality" series-on a basic cable
network.).
And the film has already opened quite well in the UK, so you're probably right
about its ultimate box-office.
Mark L. Falconer-film and video links at
http://hometown.aol.com/mfalc1/links.html
RECENT FILMS SEEN:
FINDING NEVERLAND ***1/2
ENDURING LOVE ***1/2
BEING JULIA ***
BRIDGET JONES: THE EDGE OF REASON ***
ALFIE (2004) **
DIG! (documentary about the Dandy Warhols and The Brian Jonestown Massacre) ***
CELLULAR *1/2
THE FORGOTTEN **
Nick Macpherson
>> My question: why is National Treasure rated PG? I mean, I can't
>> think of a single PG film Cage has ever been in.
>
>Try harder. If Derek Janssen could think of one, it could happen to you.
Has Cage made a PG rated film that hasn't been a hit? Family Man, Raising
Arizona, Gone In 60 Seconds, Moonstruck, Peggy Sue Got Married. Not a
collection of films I'd want to sit down and watch tonight but none of them
lost money.
Desperate Icebreakers
news:eC5od.77$Xk7...@newsfe10.lga.highwinds-media.com...
> (Checks posts: Let's see, done the "Raising Arizona" joke, "Honeymoon
> in Vegas" is too obscure, nobody likes "Peggy Sue", that leaves...Eesh,
> oh lord, not that gag--Oh, well, think of England:)
You're just too cool for me Derek. Being the dullard that I am, I don't get
your witty, sophisticated, Dennis Miller-like inside humor. All I can say is
that every film you just mentioned was rated PG-13, not PG. But i'm guessing
you knew that.
Desperate Icebreakers
news:20041122093613...@mb-m15.aol.com...
Peggy Sue Got Married, Raising Arizona and Gone in 60 Seconds and Family
Man were not rated PG. They were rated PG-13. It Could Happen To You was
rated PG. And Moonstruck was in 1987, and though he was in it, he wasn't the
leading man star he is today. PG movies have been the exception in his
career, not the rule.
RichA
wrote:
He's remarkably bankable, despite being different from the usual
leading men.
-Rich
That Movie Guy
>>>wishing he was still on the Superman 5 project.
>>
>> Doubtful. He's made enough money for the studios to still be
>> bankable. Unfortunately.
>
>And when he isn't, they'll keep plugging away at that troubled "Rush
>Hour 3".
>
>Derek Janssen
>dja...@charter.net
>
Either that or "I was engaged to the Noxema girl once!"
Jason
(just don't let her get behind the wheel)
MST#16103
FWIW, Derek, what kind of numbers do you see "Alexander" doing? Because, sadly,
I have a feeling the soccer-mom brigade will be out in full force for
"Christmas With The Kranks".
Jason
(Friends don't let Joe Roth direct)
MST#16103
"The first thing I do in the morning is brush
my teeth and sharpen my tongue." -- Dorothy Parker
Derek Janssen
> FWIW, Derek, what kind of numbers do you see "Alexander" doing?
It's down to Big Trailer-Hyped Debut of the Week, and "Alexander" is
big, trailer-hyped, debuting, and this week.
> Because, sadly,
> I have a feeling the soccer-mom brigade will be out in full force for
> "Christmas With The Kranks".
The only hope for mass appeal it would've had was as the First Cuddly
Christmas Film, and, for good or bad, "Polar Express" has already nobly
sacrificed itself for the cause.
And now that the official feel-snowflakey "Elf '04" has come and gone,
we're in the "Okay, I can take some time off from movies until the LOTR
comes out!" stretch where people find other things to do for the first
couple weeks in December, or don't have any time or money left from mall
shopping, and just keep existing hits in stasis until the Big
Christmas-Week December Movie comes out.
Which, seeing as we don't have an LOTR or (yeesh!) "Peter Pan" this
year, would be "Phantom of the Opera", unless there's anyone out there
seriously waiting for "Ocean's Twelve".
Derek Janssen (we're assuming the former)
dja...@charter.net
deer...@mindspring.com
Derek Janssen wrote:
> >>With a 34 percent drop, PolarX
> >>retains some shred of dignity, but not much. The film is clearly not going
> >>to win the hearts and minds of moviegoers.
> >
> > Because, as Pauline Kael would have noted, "it's not from the heart,
> > or from the head, either. It's from the lab." :)
>
> Comparing PX to "One From the Heart"?--Oo...That's cold.
;) When a moviemaker demonstratively loves his toys more than the
story he's telling and the characters he's talking about, the
results are generally colder...
> (But accurate on one point: Francis thought we would be amazed by Big
> Sets, and Bob & Tom thought we would be amazed by Motion Capture.)
Relatedly, Kerry Conran thought we'd love "sepia-vision" or whatever
the heck SKY CAPTAIN's technique was--g! I would say some Hollywood
stuff never changes, but I can't think of a historical industry
parallel for the "sons of Lucas" crew and their (usually disastrous)
FX-uber-allies attempts.
C.
**
Michael Johnson
<Desperate_...@walmart.com> wrote:
>"Michael Johnson" <mya...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:jv12q0tpm84lic6qj...@4ax.com...
>
>> Man Ice... you keep losing it. BJ2 only cost $40 million to make, of
>> which it has allready pulled $20 million, and they haven't exactly
>> been burning up the marketing avenues with dollars.
>
>Yeah, but her salary alone is 50% of the budget.
And the way its positioned its really hard not to make a profit. This
isn't some $100+ mil bloated epic she's trying to sell here. If she
stumbles out of the gates she'll still land in profitability, and
judging from the trailers.. simply from the size of her ass alone.
>That's a ratio i'm not comfortable with, particularly when the movie is
>going to be rated R and the lead actress has no track record of being
>a box office draw.
Well... apparently the makers were swimming in enough money from the
first that throwing $20 mil at her wasn't an issue.
>> And foreign returns are just as valid as domestic. I don't care if a
>> movie made money from theaters on Mars... money is money.
>
>Agreed. But I feel there should be a domestic base that comes out to support
>the picture. Based on what I remember from the returns on the last one,
>foreign revenues far outgrossed the domestic revenues well beyond a 50/50
>split, or even a 2/3rds split. I think it was more like 25 percent domestic,
>75 percent foreign. I don't know if I would have greenlit BJ2 based on that
>info.
Welcome to the new world. Take a look at some of the top box office
all-time winners. The international almost always outpaces the
domestic The #1 movie of all time only made 32.7% of that at home.
Most average in the 30's at best. There are some exceptions.. but why
try to find a line in the sand? Even with splitting hairs it still
pulled $71 mil here in the states off a $25 mil budget. Had it never
even been released internationally it still would have been a
profitable and successful film for the company that made it.
>> Interesting points of order this fall season. The Grudge having broken
>> $104 million and Saw breaking $50 million. Both are just stunning
>> given their budgets.
>
>Don't forget Shall We Dance (as hard as you might try).
The Richard Gere thing? /pullsupnumbers
50 mil budget? 52 mil domestic return? 85 mil worldwide return? You
mentioned that... why? I pointed out the two movies based on their
extreme domestic profitability.. The Grudge($104/$10mil budget) and
Saw ($50.4mil/1.2mil budget) of which both should still have
international releases to come.. a bigger backside for Grudge than Saw
due to PG-13 and a more international feel to the film, even so much
as being set in Tokyo. Shall We Dance? It can go back to the 5 dollar
DVD bin you picked it out of.
-MJ
Sue
> Which, seeing as we don't have an LOTR or (yeesh!) "Peter Pan" this
> year, would be "Phantom of the Opera", unless there's anyone out there
> seriously waiting for "Ocean's Twelve".
I don't know...I've seen some early 'Phantom' reviews that rave over it
and declare it's an Oscar contender, and others that claim the audience
they saw it with had no reaction to it (receiving only polite applause
at the end) and that it was very difficult to care about any of the
characters.
I'm hoping for the best, but from the looks of it, it's another very
slick, flashy, emotionally vacant ALW film adaptation like 'Evita'
(which did at least have a very hot Antonio Banderas in it :) ).
Sue
Derek Janssen
>
>> Which, seeing as we don't have an LOTR or (yeesh!) "Peter Pan" this
>> year, would be "Phantom of the Opera", unless there's anyone out there
>> seriously waiting for "Ocean's Twelve".
(And that's also assuming "Lemony Snicket" is still obscure enough
outside of the parent-shopping audience to take illiterate mainstream
adults by surprise...)
> I don't know...I've seen some early 'Phantom' reviews that rave over it
> and declare it's an Oscar contender, and others that claim the audience
> they saw it with had no reaction to it (receiving only polite applause
> at the end) and that it was very difficult to care about any of the
> characters.
>
> I'm hoping for the best, but from the looks of it, it's another very
> slick, flashy, emotionally vacant ALW film adaptation like 'Evita'
> (which did at least have a very hot Antonio Banderas in it :) ).
I'm still at a loss as to why Evita was so "bad" at the time, apart from
knee-jerk Madonna-movie bashing (y'know, she was actually not too shabby
in it)...
Seeing as there ARE no bad Alan Parker musicals--Nope, even "Fame" had
its isolated moments.
But the original stage musical set itself up as its own camera-angled
movie to the point that NOBODY could mess this one up unless they tried,
not even Joel Schumacher.
As for Oscar contender, never know--Even though musicals were already
"avenged" with "Chicago" two years ago, there might be enough voters who
feel like draft-dodging the Passion v. Fahrenheit holy war with some
nice nonpartisan eye candy, just for the "nyahh!" of it...
Derek Janssen
dja...@charter.net
Sue
> I'm still at a loss as to why Evita was so "bad" at the time, apart from
> knee-jerk Madonna-movie bashing (y'know, she was actually not too shabby
> in it)...
> Seeing as there ARE no bad Alan Parker musicals--Nope, even "Fame" had
> its isolated moments.
Oh, I liked Evita quite a lot and even own a copy of it. They did a
great job with it, but it's not what I'd call a really emotionally
accessible show, just because Evita was just such an unlikeable person.
It's a beautiful looking movie, and everything was done right
(especially Antonio Banderas and Jonathan Pryce as Peron, I thought),
but for all its beauty it's a rather cold movie to me. Madonna did her
best, and I agree she was fine in the role, but for me it was kind of
impossible to forget she was Madonna.
I'm concerned that Phantom may be similar, a beautiful-looking film that
hits all the right marks but still can't quite engage its audience. I'm
hoping it's a hit, partly because I like the show but mostly because I
*really* want them to do a film version of the 'Les Miserables' musical
(a far more cinematic property, I think) and there's more of a chance of
that if Phantom makes a nickel.
>
> But the original stage musical set itself up as its own camera-angled
> movie to the point that NOBODY could mess this one up unless they tried,
> not even Joel Schumacher.
I sure hope so, but I've been wondering why they took the 'Masquerade'
number, one of the most visually exciting, colorful and flamboyant songs
in the show, and put almost everyone in black and white costumes. To me
that sort of sucks most of the vitality out of the scene. I'm hoping I'm
wrong...
> As for Oscar contender, never know--Even though musicals were already
> "avenged" with "Chicago" two years ago, there might be enough voters who
> feel like draft-dodging the Passion v. Fahrenheit holy war with some
> nice nonpartisan eye candy, just for the "nyahh!" of it...
Well, if those two movies get nominated, Chris Rock will have his work
cut out for him, that's for sure!
Sue :)
deer...@mindspring.com
Derek Janssen wrote:
>
> Seeing as there ARE no bad Alan Parker musicals--Nope, even "Fame" had
> its isolated moments.
BUGSY MALONE...
> But the original stage musical set itself up as its own camera-angled
> movie to the point that NOBODY could mess this one up unless they tried,
> not even Joel Schumacher.
Hmm, good point. This still needs someone with more gothic flair
than JS, but it is flashy enough material-wise that it suits some of
his talents.
> As for Oscar contender, never know--Even though musicals were already
> "avenged" with "Chicago" two years ago, there might be enough voters who
> feel like draft-dodging the Passion v. Fahrenheit holy war with some
> nice nonpartisan eye candy, just for the "nyahh!" of it...
Hmm, you've got KINSEY and RAY, thus far. And if THE AVIATOR and
BEYOND THE SEA are better than expected, well...
C.
**
Derek Janssen
>
>>Seeing as there ARE no bad Alan Parker musicals--Nope, even "Fame" had
>>its isolated moments.
>
> BUGSY MALONE...
I'm sorry, "strange around the edges" does not necessarily equal "bad".
(This also intersecting with the collary that there are no bad 70's Paul
Williams musicals, either.) :)
>>But the original stage musical set itself up as its own camera-angled
>>movie to the point that NOBODY could mess this one up unless they tried,
>>not even Joel Schumacher.
>
> Hmm, good point. This still needs someone with more gothic flair
> than JS, but it is flashy enough material-wise that it suits some of
> his talents.
Well, this one goes back to '92, when it was still the JS of
"Flatliners" and Grisham thrillers--
It was in the contract back then, and Warner's been married to it ever
since.
>>As for Oscar contender, never know--Even though musicals were already
>>"avenged" with "Chicago" two years ago, there might be enough voters who
>>feel like draft-dodging the Passion v. Fahrenheit holy war with some
>>nice nonpartisan eye candy, just for the "nyahh!" of it...
>
> Hmm, you've got KINSEY and RAY, thus far. And if THE AVIATOR and
> BEYOND THE SEA are better than expected, well...
Ray gets off with an Actor nomination and a couple techs, if it means
they don't have to Picture it--
And "Aviator"...I've been saying it since June, so don't come crying to
me, IT'S SCRIPTED BY THE TIME MACHINE GUY!!!
(Gladiator, Sinbad, Last Samurai, Star Trek: Nemesis...How many times
are you going to make yourself a victim???)
Derek Janssen
dja...@charter.net
deer...@mindspring.com
Derek Janssen wrote:
> > BUGSY MALONE...
>
> I'm sorry, "strange around the edges" does not necessarily equal "bad".
"Around the edges?!" :)
> Ray gets off with an Actor nomination and a couple techs, if it means
> they don't have to Picture it--
Most likely. But the pickins are kinda slim in the BP department,
though...
> And "Aviator"...I've been saying it since June, so don't come crying to
> me, IT'S SCRIPTED BY THE TIME MACHINE GUY!!!
Hey, just the wack TA casting alone is enough to make one dubious.
And for a Scorcese movie, that's really strange, for his flicks are
usually near-impeccable in this department. Unless he really saw
something in these folks (with the exception of Hall and Blanchett)
that the rest of us ain't seeing, this is looking like a real
miscalculation.
C.
**
Derek Janssen
>
>> I'm still at a loss as to why Evita was so "bad" at the time, apart
>> from knee-jerk Madonna-movie bashing (y'know, she was actually not too
>> shabby in it)...
>> Seeing as there ARE no bad Alan Parker musicals--Nope, even "Fame" had
>> its isolated moments.
>
> Oh, I liked Evita quite a lot and even own a copy of it. They did a
> great job with it, but it's not what I'd call a really emotionally
> accessible show, just because Evita was just such an unlikeable person.
> It's a beautiful looking movie, and everything was done right
> (especially Antonio Banderas and Jonathan Pryce as Peron, I thought),
> but for all its beauty it's a rather cold movie to me.
Parker set things up a little *too* realistically than it was really
meant to be on stage, with people singing on real streets and regular sets--
At least "Chicago" managed to take us out of the real settings and put
the singing in its own separate flashy environment...And "Phantom" seems
to have the "flashy atmosphere" part covered.
> I'm concerned that Phantom may be similar, a beautiful-looking film that
> hits all the right marks but still can't quite engage its audience. I'm
> hoping it's a hit, partly because I like the show but mostly because I
> *really* want them to do a film version of the 'Les Miserables' musical
> (a far more cinematic property, I think) and there's more of a chance of
> that if Phantom makes a nickel.
Think union hangups are the reason we got that forgettable Liam Neeson
version in the first place--Looks like the Concert video is as close as
we're likely to get.
(Meanwhile, Chris Columbus is already set to start shooting "Rent"
in...San Francisco? 0_o?? )
>> But the original stage musical set itself up as its own camera-angled
>> movie to the point that NOBODY could mess this one up unless they
>> tried, not even Joel Schumacher.
>
> I sure hope so, but I've been wondering why they took the 'Masquerade'
> number, one of the most visually exciting, colorful and flamboyant songs
> in the show, and put almost everyone in black and white costumes. To me
> that sort of sucks most of the vitality out of the scene. I'm hoping I'm
> wrong...
Seems likely:
In the original book and stage, P is supposed to crash the party as
Poe's Red Death, complete with skull mask--
Since that wouldn't look right for closeup singing onscreen, the movie
has him with a regular mask, the Opera throwing a "black and white"
theme for the party, and it's the red that draws the big party-crashing
gasps.
Derek Janssen (it all makes sense in context...)
dja...@charter.net
deer...@mindspring.com
Derek Janssen wrote:
> (Meanwhile, Chris Columbus is already set to start shooting "Rent"
> in...San Francisco? 0_o?? )
What? Eeeeuwwwwww...
C.
**
(A walking red-state-famblee-values-plague, that guy--:PP)
Invid Fan
<deer...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Derek Janssen wrote:
>
> > (Meanwhile, Chris Columbus is already set to start shooting "Rent"
> > in...San Francisco? 0_o?? )
>
> What? Eeeeuwwwwww...
>
When are we getting "Lease"?
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
Invid Fan
<sueb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I'm concerned that Phantom may be similar, a beautiful-looking film that
> hits all the right marks but still can't quite engage its audience. I'm
> hoping it's a hit, partly because I like the show but mostly because I
> *really* want them to do a film version of the 'Les Miserables' musical
> (a far more cinematic property, I think) and there's more of a chance of
> that if Phantom makes a nickel.
>
I'd rather see 'CHESS'. I could be done on a rather small budget :)
Mark Steese
In the past, directors usually didn't have the wherewithal to set up
their own production companies, and studios tended to be tight-fisted
when it came to the special effects budget: it was pretty staggering
when Stanley Kubrick talked MGM into giving him 10.5 million to make
"2001: A Space Odyssey."
Though "2001" didn't set the box office on fire, it established a
precedent, and George Lucas, fresh from "American Graffiti," was able to
talk Fox into giving him $11 million to make "Star Wars." It's strange
to think that the success of "Star Wars" would enable Lucas to spend ten
times as much money making "Attack of the Clones." It's even stranger
that with ten times the budget, "Attack of the Clones" isn't even a
tenth as good.