MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Early Box Office Analysis

The 3 Rings movies, the 3 new Star Wars movies, both Matrix sequels, both Jurassic sequels, the

Be Sociable, Share!

147 Responses to “Early Box Office Analysis”

  1. Chester says:

    “I have spent so much time arguing against the idiotic

  2. Eric says:

    It’ll be a real shame if Batman Begins underperforms. I know WB spent a ton on marketing, but the results were underwhelming at best. I wasn’t really impressed with any of the trailers until the last, and the posters are mediocre.
    The movie is easily my favorite so far this summer. The movie is also much, much better than the marketing. How rare.

  3. MarketingGuru says:

    While well-marketed movies seem to be review-proof on opening weekend despite their quality, a new paradigm is developing: even good reviews are no longer that important. Movies succeed from the perception of what they have to offer. “BB” was marketed too dark (like “Constantine”), too much about creating “a new mythology,” which isn’t of interest to mainstream moviegoers who are looking for another “Independence Day” experience, not “Cinderella Bat.” Also, Christian Bale is too icy cold. Katie Holmes was, and is, irrelevent. The studio produced a sequel/prequel that no one was clamoring for (like “Tomb Raider 2”), except Time Warner shareholders and diehard fanboys.
    Therefore, I don’t think it’s too early to make an assumption that “BB” is a disappointment. It will not have strong legs. No $200 mil for this one.
    And I’ll predict now that “Fantastic Four” will actually perform better than “Batman Begins,” because regardless of its quality it looks like light, mainstream, braindead fun – just what people want. And Jessica Alba is hot (Fox has figured that one out). It will play to both fanboys and Shrek-loving kids.

  4. Chester says:

    Also, I’m not sure anyone who suggests that the TomKat controversy hurt “Batman Begins” deserves a smack. Unfortunately, it seems that most of the publicity around BB has been hijacked by TomKat. And,as I stated on the ‘BACKLASH ALERT!!!” thread, some percentage of the audience may have gotten its fill of tabloid fodder last weekend – especially if it found that sitting through “Mr. and Mrs. Smith” was a debilitating waste of time and money.

  5. jeffmcm says:

    Chester makes a very good point. Marketing Guru, meanwhile, makes his/her usual once-a-week appearance to tell us stuff we already knew or is just plain wrong.

  6. Chester says:

    “If Batman Begins is only $20 million ahead of Mr. & Mrs. Smith after their first weekends, why will BB be reported as soft while everyone marveled at MMS?”
    Um, because BB will have made less Friday through Sunday than MMS. And because we’re talking about friggin’ Batman – BATMAN! – one of the most valuable crossover brand names in all of entertainment.
    If BB’s opening weekend disappoints as now expected, it will likely have a number of far-reaching implications. First, you can expect the Warner Brothers suits to take a much, much more demanding look at Bryan Singer’s upcoming Superman movie. Second, when they convene to ask “Where did we go wrong?” the answer may be: “We made a great movie. We got a great director. We got a fantastic script. We put out a top-quality product. We shouldn’t have done any of that.”

  7. ecreels says:

    “Um, because BB will have made less Friday through Sunday than MMS.”
    Which is because BB opened on a Wednesday instead of a Friday, let’s not forget. Had Batman stuck to its original Friday release, I’m quite sure it would have handily outpaced the Smiths.
    The numbers may well be a bit lower than expected, but if I were a WB guy, I’d be neither crying in my beer, nor popping champaigne corks.

  8. Angelus21 says:

    I think Batman will have some legs and be fine in the long run.

  9. Paul V says:

    I think Chester’s have a great point about people going out the first weekend to see a new movie before it gets more to the little matchbox size screens. One of the reasons Pirites had great legs with the fact Pirites stayed on the biggest screens throughout it run.

  10. jeffmcm says:

    Sorry Marketing Guru, I was unnecessarily mean to you earlier.

  11. L&DB says:

    I agree with that guy who got his ass handed to him by him? Bats should have legs. This easily ranks as the best COMIC BOOK ADAPTATION EVER. The word of mouth alone should carry this sucker to X-Men levels of cash. Funny. That the new movie-going audience is a generation once removed from the 1989 Bats. So, now, WB has to sell Bats all over again to people who were not even born back in 1989. That, I find funny. Plus, I love the BWP guy giving dissing the posters of Begins. I agree that the last trailer excedes the other two (much like the new FF trailer that makes the rest look bad in comparison), but those posters went for iconic images in a day and time where those are hard to produce. I give props to the WB for that. Also, this is Warners. They sell white people to the rest of the world very well. It looks like, because teenagers are daft wankers, for the rest of the world to carry the Bat slack. One last thing; Revenge will hit 400 million. Watch.

  12. Chester says:

    ecreels, what you’re saying is a valid spin on the numbers, but it’s spin nonetheless. When some people here (including me) lamented on Thursday about the disappointing opening-day gross, others angrily and validly responded that it was hasty to make any judgments based on a preliminary midweek total. Now that it seems the weekend’s gross will be lower than expected as well, others (including you) will now validly argue that it was brought down by the number of people who saw the movie midweek.
    The common denominator: Any way you spin them, the box office figures are something of a disappointment.

  13. Joe Leydon says:

    Here’s something else that’s so obvious that we tend to forget about it: If you’re 25 or under, as far as you’re concerned, there has ALWAYS been homevideo. Whenever I’ve suggested that people might be losing the moviegoing habit, and have opted to wait for DVD release, some folks on this blog have counter-argued: Hey, why didn’t this happen during the ’80s when Beta and VHS came in? Well, because back then, homevid was still a novelty. You now have an entire generation of potential moviegoers who have grown up with the option of “wait to rent” instead of “rush out to opening weekend.” Think about that: An entire freakin’ generation.
    I keep going back to the idea of a tipping point: Within the past two years — indeed, perhaps within the last several months — DVD has penetrated the marketplace to such a degree that now, for many people who used to be at least OCCASIONAL moviegoers, waiting for homevid release has become standard operational procedure.
    Look, I’m not exactly happy about this, and I agree that it’s premature (though perhaps not as premature as I might like) to write obits for megaplexes. But consider this: If “Batman” (especially a

  14. Harry Sullivan says:

    Pop quiz hotshots.
    BB looks to open “soft” because:
    A) The Katie Holmes BS (which is BS!)
    B) It’s a very dark film and as Ron Howard (and Sam Raimi and Bryan Singer) can tell you dark ain’t what we want this summer.
    C) As well made as the film is, it’s all pretty redundant. The Tim Burton original (sixteen years back) covers much of the same material using the same dark tone. Warners was planning more of a remake than a sequel here and truthfully, the franchise didn’t really need it. The batsuit is not anything new, and as fantastic as the cast is, filmgoers have been through the tortured Bruce Wayne bit before. Heck, ten years ago the Val Kilmer version decides to put the pain behind him and move on. Nolan’s version seems to jump back into the muck instead of truly reinventing the character. I do think the movie is really well made and thought out (the best one yet), but like I said, America’s sorta been there with The Bat. There’s no big appettite to see Bruce Wayne be Bruce Wayne all over again.

  15. L&DB says:

    Well, home video being around forever does make a lot of sense. Yet, I think Cindy in the Cinderella post made a good point. There is easily a growing generational gap growing at the BOX OFFICE. The older audience, phased out back in the early 90s because the kids go to the movies more, are easily staying home more and more because they can hit up the Wal-Mart one day, and see the flick at their leisure. Which makes sense. Due in large part to their generation never growing accustomed to the way MTV has changed the world. So, now, the movie audience has been cut down, and the studios are shooting themselves in the foot by not scheduling this year better. Back to Bats. Again, Chester can spin it the best he can, but his conjecture still smells like ass. Go back to X-Men Chester. Think about the similar grosses. The next Bat flick will easily get close to 250 or 300. Stating it a disappointment now, totally, ignores proven box-office history from the last 5 years.

  16. L&DB says:

    Harry, people have no problem with dark during the Summer. Since I do remember them enjoying a film dinosaurs, on a park, and things really got interesting at night. Plus, you make two statements that totally ignore what Nolan and Goyer had crafted with this Batman film. Unlike all the previous Batman films sans maybe the animated ones (since Dini and Timm always understood Bats more than Burton or Schumacher). This films makes Bats the central character. All of the villians were the leads in the previous four films. You even mention Batman Forever, which did go back to this origin, but focused it around the Riddler and Two-Face. This film makes Bats the central character in his film, and it rules because of it. This is Batman. Not that putrid and rancid excrement Burton put on the screen from his warped mind. Bats just needs to make X-men movie because it’s restarting the entire franchise. The same goes with Supes. Restart them both to make a sequel for big profit.

  17. Arc says:

    Batman is tracking just ahead of PotC, and legs are possible. My original final prediction was $215 million like X2, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it stops at the T3 $150 million area. A worldwide total is up in the air, as Australia reports are weak at the moment. I’d kill to find out the marketing budget on this one.
    Yes, Constantine (to a degree) & Batman were marketed too dark, and Batman lacked “money shots” to remember from adverts. The appeal to adults on both cases was noble for comic book adaptations, but seems not to be as effective as the standard family and/or teenager route. When asked, a few people told me they weren’t interested in Batman because “That movie had been done before.” The sign to audiences that Warner Bros. had learned, and that serious films were on the way was almost lost with last year’s Catwoman.
    Still, a possible $50 million weekend is nothing to put aside. I hope for the best, as this movie deserves a healthy run.

  18. Chester says:

    I agree, Joe. What also tends to be overlooked is that over that same generational period home entertainment prices have plummeted while theatre ticket prices have skyrocketed. The $11 I paid for a single midweek ticket to “Batman Begins” is only about three or four dollars less than what I typically pay to OWN a brand-new just-released DVD. As for the hardware, you can now buy a 55-inch widescreen projection HDTV set for under $1,400, and can pick up a serviceable surround-sound setup (including receiver, five speakers and a DVD player) for about $200. That’s why when someone like Dave Poland angrily refuses to accept that such economically sensible options may be altering audiences’/consumers’ traditional preferences, his adamant posture continues to be a source of ongoing bewilderment to many of us.

  19. Chester says:

    LDB, I hope you’re right that “Batman Begins” has legs and becomes the true blockbuster everyone expected. My comments have only been about the disappointment of the here and now. But nobody will be happier than me if the coming weeks bring better news.

  20. Martin says:

    agreed, it’s a little too early to call BB’s #’s a disappointment. But clearly, it’s not a world-beater at this point. Is it on pace with X-men 1 or 2? I don’t recall their exact #’s, but it feels a little low in comparison. On the one hand, I give WB credit for not changing their marketing mid-way to try and sell a movie they didn’t have. On the other hand, this is not a movie that will make over $200 mill. in the US. I don’t know what their expectations were though. Considering it’s budget/marketing/etc. is $185 million considering a success worthy of a sequel? It’s kind of hard to argue against that, but with the numbers game getting more and more stratospheric, I guess it’s possible that a new Batman franchise could die on a $185 domestic.. but I doubt it.

  21. Joe Leydon says:

    Something to think about: Joel Schumacher told me (and the thousand or so other journalists who interviewed him at the time) that he deliberately avoided darkness in “Batman and Robin” because, in his view, people were tired of the whole tormented-Bruce-Wayne thing, and wanted a relatively lighter and brighter approach to the character. (I’m paraphrasing from memory here, but as I recall, he said something like, “If you knew Bruce Wayne in real life, you’d be telling him by this point, ‘Hey, get over yourself.'”) Now, maybe JS erred too far in the other direction. (Well, OK, he DEFINITELY erred too far.) But did he have a point after all?

  22. Harry Sullivan says:

    You’re right about the lack of “money shots” in the trailer. The previews didn’t give us that one new incredible moment to connect us to the story of Batman again in the 21st century.
    This conversation isn’t about the merit of the film and what should happen because of it’s quality. we can agree it’s more sophisticated than ever. It should be about marketing and the moviegoing enviroment and why the series was revamped to begin with so close to the previous incarnation.

  23. jeffmcm says:

    I never thought it was audiences who didn’t care for the dark and tormented Batman, I thought it was WB execs who thought Tim Burton had taken the franchise into a weird perverse place with Batman Returns. If any comic book hero is expected to be grim, it’s Bruce Wayne.

  24. Martin says:

    I think JS definitely erred too far in other direction, but Burton’s #1 and JS #1, to me anyway, both seemed to be in that middle area. And I think general audiences would say that Batman 1 and 3 are now considered the most favorite ones. As soon as I saw the marketing on BB I knew it would have trouble doing gigantic #’s. It was never going to be, probably never even meant, to do Spiderman business. As soon as Nolan was called aboard, it became a more specifically targeted picture. Serious, intelligent (as much as it can be anyway), and aimed at a male audience. Spiderman hit all quadrants, date movie, teen and kid fantasy movie, adult comic book movie, big summer action movie, etc. I don’t think that WB was ever under the impression they were making a $400 mill. domestic movie with BB. It was made to bring some respect back to the franchise, and enough success to justify a couple sequels.

  25. Chester says:

    I agree with all those who’ve said the marketing should have been better. My main gripe there is that the trailers failed to show how unique and bold Christian Bale is in the lead. The deep ferocity Bale brought to the character is one of the key highlights of this adaptation, but it is nowhere to be found in the slick-playboy clips chosen for the film’s trailers.

  26. Joe Leydon says:
  27. Chester says:

    C’mon, Martin, do you honestly think, especially in today’s comic-book movie world, that Warner Brothers wasn’t trying to milk Batman for all he’s worth? As someone already pointed out here, they’ve spent about $185 million so far on this film.
    As for Christopher Nolan, there was no reason to think his previously acclaimed style wouldn’t attract mass audiences to Batman. Look at what an indie director like Bryan Singer did for X-Men. Authenticity sells these movies, and Nolan had sufficiently proven he could deliver the well-grounded goods.

  28. jeffmcm says:

    Burton is not a good narrative director or all that spectacular of an action director. He’s his own thing, so if WB wanted to turn the franchise in a more popcorn-selling direction, canning him was exactly the right thing to do.

  29. jeffmcm says:

    I should add that I love almost all of Burton’s movies.

  30. Chester says:

    jeffmcm, I’ve never agreed more with any of your posts.
    Speaking of Tim Burton, am I the only one who expects “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” to be a dud?

  31. Chester says:

    jeff, I was referring to your 12:38 post. As for the one that followed, I only love some of Burton’s movies. They’re all very cool, but as such they tend to just leave me cold and unimpressed. I thought “Ed Wood” was genuinely great and “Big Fish” was surprisingly effective, though.

  32. RDP says:

    “That’s why when someone like Dave Poland angrily refuses to accept that such economically sensible options may be altering audiences’/consumers’ traditional preferences, his adamant posture continues to be a source of ongoing bewilderment to many of us.”
    I don’t think David is saying that there is no way a shift is happening, I think he’s lamenting the fact that people are taking a very limited time period, calling it a trend when it may or may not be a trend and assigning an explanation to it that may or may not be the case while apparently not even attempting to look for other potential explanations.
    Story after story says the sky is falling because theatrical is down big this year so far. DVDs are blamed (even though the AP poll says people with big home theaters and the like are more likely to go to the theater than those who don’t and even though sales of DVDs are also down) and its accepted as fait accompli that the theatrical business is over and that a seismic shift has occurred forever altering the landscape of the movie business.
    All I see Dave saying is why don’t we wait and see if theatrical really is dead before declaring it so.

  33. L&DB says:

    Joe, I think you are showing your age by stating that horrid show from the 60s has had some lasting effects on the Bat mythos. The only thing that blasted show did in it’s run; ALMOST KILLING BATMAN. Again, Bats is Bats. An entire generation show one of the greatest animated series ever, tell Batman’s character the way it should be told. We now live in an age, Im callin it right here, that does not have the SACK to watch this Batman flick. Parents probably kept their kids from seeing because they thought it was too dark. Yet, back in 1989, countless parents took their kids to see Bats due to the marketing boom surround that film. We live in a pansy ass nation now, with pansy ass parents, who do not understand the world their kids are living. Hopefully after all the yentas get together and talk about the flick, and let their kids go see it. They are probably still steamin from the immolation scene in Revenge, that will send their kids into some trippy flicks in the future. This flick will have legs. If the kids can sit through orc beheadings, then Bats should not be a thing. Of course, the lack of sack, might hinder my box office projections. Yet the best comic book adaptation ever deserves better than the American public is giving it.

  34. Harry Sullivan says:

    Yep. Burton really marches to his own beat. If I were at Warners I wouldn’t hire the guy to do an action movie either. He’s an oddball and, as much fun as Beetlejuice and Ed Wood were, there’s not much in this ADHD world that people connect too with him. The trailer for “Charlie and The Chocolate Factory” isn’t good at all. The production design looks empty and drab. Johnny Depp seems to be in his own world, trying for weirdness instead of cool and sinister like Gene Wilder.
    I’m beginning to think that cinema in general after so many off years (the last great one was 1999) is finally falling apart. We’re in the 1980s again. Mining comic books hysterically is the last gasp (Avi Arad as the new John Hughes). It’s gonna take another 25 year old genius (a brand new Welles or Speilberg) to bring us back into the seats… someone who’s gonna slow us down again and let movies “chew its food.” Tarantino and Shyamalan came close… then ended up being one-trick ponies.
    Any takers?

  35. L&DB says:

    and I apologize to jeff in advance for that previous post. Way too many typos, and I would hate to cause him a migrane.

  36. L&DB says:

    That Charlie and the Chocolate Factory trailer rules. Maybe it doesnt work for you because you are a cold-hearted cynic and your inner child has died. Or, maybe, you dont like a pale Johnny Depp. I hope the latter, not the former, because you being a cold-hearted cynic with a dead inner child would be just sad. Im talking breaking Rory’s heart at a dance-a-thon sad.

  37. L&DB says:

    Harry, you need to watch more TV. It easily has outshown cinema for close to 8 years. Who wants cinema that slows down? Yeah. Let’s have another friggin Signs or the Village. Yeah, that’s all we need, another friggin 25 year old stoner, that takes forever and a day to make a film. Then, with the apex flick of his career, splits them up, and drags it out for 8 FRIGGIN MONTHS! Go watch Primer. Go watch countless flicks that come out each year that can rock your world. Your statements read like those music fans that constantly complain about music sucking. Then you find something like the White Stripes, who have been around for years, and discover how out of sorts those statements are. Man. I have a great amount of distaste for that way of thinking.

  38. Arc says:

    L&DB: I think you’re correct on parents staying away from this Batman, and not for very good reasons. Did anyone SEE Prince’s Batdance video? It makes the fact that Batman was a hit all the more astounding. However, while the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory teaser worked, this new trailer has one major problem… Of all things, Johnny Depp. He doesn’t seem to be bringing anything worthwhile to the tale.
    Arc: Hopes to be a “25 year old genius” one day.

  39. VGM says:

    “Compare, say, ‘You Only Live Twice’ to ‘GoldenEye’ and you

  40. Harry Sullivan says:

    Uh, mainstream music DOES suck, L&DB. As a whole, yes indeedy.
    The White Stripes is just a flower in the desert. I agree, they are great… but have you watched MTV since Kurt Cobain died? It’s been recycling itself for a decade now.
    And when I say “slow it down,” I mean trusting the audience’s ability to take in real ideas. We need a new level of realisim to help us feel again. Like the opening battle of “Private Ryan” except with romance or sex or comedy.
    To call young Spielberg and Welles “stoners” is a little off I think. I’m not talking good movies in general, you can find them all around (again, flowers in the desert)… I’m talking great mega popular movies that become classics. Something that challenges the money counters here in Hollywood. Remember “The Godfather” and “ET?” I’m talking about bringing intimacy and urgency back in a fresh way. Peter Jackson seems to be figuring this out.

  41. Martin says:

    I think it would be fair to say that the latest generation of moviemakers, the true home-video generation, is clearly more interesting in rehashing previously successful ideas than coming up with their own. We are legitimately in a bad time for moviemaking, which cannot be solely laid at the feet of the studios. You go back to the weekly releases of 20-30 yrs ago and compare them today and it’s a joke. Even the 90s had a few great years of films. Granted, (to get back on topic) this Batman movie is a vast improvement. But then the question needs to be asked.. did anyone really want or need another Batman movie? Based on these numbers, there’s clearly an audience.. but will as many people see this movie as the original Batman? No. With this endless cycles of remakes/adaptations/sequels inevitably audiences will feel like they’re no longer getting something special out of new releases. So yeah, I’d still agree with Dave that moviegoing is down, and mostly due to the movies.

  42. jeffmcm says:

    What do Goldfinger and Goldeneye have in common with each other besides similar titles and the standard Bond formula?
    I agree that the Chocolate Factory trailer looks good. At Batman last night the audience had a good reaction to it (although they really went nuts for the WotW trailer, no reaction at all to The Island).

  43. Martin says:

    I don’t know what the tracking is on The Island, but I think it will be a hit. Kind of says a lot that perhaps one of the most original Hollywood films of the summer is from Michael Bay.

  44. Harry Sullivan says:

    The moviegoing public isn’t waiting for the next explosionist explosion or crudest crude joke. They don’t need us to top something that’s played out for decades (see my first post today about redundancies). People are looking for the next moment of genius, the moment that captures the times we live in. It’s looking for its next Haley Joel Osment weeping in the car with his mother (real grief), or bulletholes leaking in medic Giovanni Ribisi’s chest (real violence), or the horror/exhilaration of hearing white guys use the word “nigger” in a Tarantino flick (realistic race). We want to feel again and we want that feeling to mean something as the stakes keep getting higher. Hollywood (in general) is failing our expectations for it to evolve. And we’re long overdue. Who can blame people for starting to stay away?

  45. Joe Leydon says:

    What I meant by comparing “You Only Live Twice” to “GoldenEye” — the former worked in the ’60s, but would NEVER be accepted by action fans (or even many Bond fans) today; the latter may offend Bond movie purists (though, let’s face it, it DID jump-start the stalled series), but it’s much, much closer to what most mainstream movigoers want from contemporary actuion lfix. Once again – not saying that’s good, not saying that’s bad, only that it is.
    And, once again, I stand by the statement that the ’60s “Batman” TV series (which was still in heavy-rotation reruns as recently as 10 years ago) is the “Batman” that many people are most familiar with. Or, to be more precise, the one that many people grew up with. Unless, of course, we’re talking about comic book fans. Think I’m wrong? OK, go back at look at the print and TV coverage given this new (and MUCH better) movie has gotten. Now, spot all the references to “Holy (Fill in the Blank), Batman!” Sorry, that’s a sign of the TV show’s (for better or worse) enduring influence.

  46. Joe Leydon says:

    Yikes! Make that “contemporary action flix.”

  47. Chester says:

    A number of people here have asked if audiences really wanted or needed another Batman movie. It’s a fair question, and it’s certainly one that casts a long shadow on the upcoming Superman film. Batman at least has always been a prime subject for artistic reconceptions. Superman … not so much.

  48. jeffmcm says:

    I agree, Superman is a less rich and interesting character, and I don’t know what the new movie will have to offer aside from modern special effects and bigger spectacle than ever.

  49. Martin says:

    Superman is a faint memory at this point, it will be easier for audiences to accept a new one. Plus, Reeve is gone.. it almost feels like now is the time for a new Superman. That last Batman was not too long ago, and all 4 Batman movies have been major DVD renters and sellers. To general audiences, this probably feels more than Batman 5 rather than a whole new franchise. Or to be more specific, it probably feels like Batman: the Prequel. SW got away with it, but trying to sell the idea of a prequel is tough when Backstory is often the least interesting part of a story.

  50. Joe Leydon says:

    Jeff and Chester: I’m not sure I agree about Superman. Think of this way — in the last 17 years, there have been THREE different live-action TV shows based on the mythos (Superboy, Lois and Clark and now Smallville), a couple of animated series and the whole Superman Dies/Reborn comic book cycle. Obviously, there are many different approaches to take to the character.

  51. Chester says:

    Pop Quiz: What was the ad slogan for the first of Christopher Reeves’s Superman movies?
    Answer: “You will believe a man can fly.”
    That flying-man effect was a pretty huge deal back in 1978. Today it just seems kind of quaint. Yet now, almost 30 years later, I don’t see anything remarkably new about Superman to entice a new generation of moviegoers. And people tend to forget that the Christopher Reeves films got really tired really quick.
    Joe, I think you may be negating your own point. After all, with all of the Superman choices we’ve had on TV, isn’t it reasonable to suspect that audiences may not really want/need another “Origin of Superman” film?

  52. jeffmcm says:

    Joe, you may be right about all those TV shows, but I never watched them. All I can speak from is my own experience, and while I enjoy the first two Reeve movies, I still don’t know what Singer’s movie will offer story-wise that they didn’t already do in the 1978 one. The big question is going to be, what does a modern audience want to see in a Superman movie?
    To me, the big weakness of Superman is that it’s hard to make him into an underdog, which is what Americans love above all else, and which has been present in most of the recent superhero movies.

  53. Joe Leydon says:

    Jeff: Well, remember that two generations have come along since the ’78 film. And I have to wonder how many people under, say 20, have bothered to watch that “old” movie.
    Speaking of old: Hey, I’m 52, and my son is out driving around with his posse in my car. What excuse do you other losers have for being home on a Saturday night? Why aren’t you out at the movies?

  54. Chester says:

    I’m babysitting my daughter while my wife studies for an exam. When you’ve got young kids, you can’t help but stay home on a lot of Saturday nights. Which I suppose may explain why I’m more prone to argue the benefits of DVDs and home entertainment than I used to be.

  55. Joe Leydon says:

    Chester: With all due respect, you’re not babysitting your daughter. You’re being a great father. You babysit other people’s kids. Plus, you get paid for that.

  56. MarketingGuru says:

    Slightly off-topic and gossipy, but one wonders if a soft performance for “Batman” will snap Katie Holmes out of her soul-selling pact. Perhaps an alliance with The Centered One isn’t all that helpful. And with numerous siblings and a lawyer for a father I’m expecting her to be the subject of some kind of intervention soon and then a quick end for the pseudo-relationship. I’m sure there are times when Nicole wishes she could have those 10 years of her life back — after “Dead Calm” she would have done just fine without TC.
    As for Saturday night, I also have family obligations. Watching “Bewitched” on TV (the original). Would have liked to seen a more faithful approach to the series for the movie, with a more appropriate actress like Alicia Silverstone. Nathan Lane would have made a GREAT Doctor Bombay.

  57. JckNapier2 says:

    No no no no no no no!
    Actually, the Batman show from the 60s SAVED the Batman franchise, as sales were low and the comic was on the verge of cancellation at the time of the premiere. As for the show’s unfair reputation for being dumb, not so. A) It was actually very faithful to the comics at the time it was made (many episodes are direct adaptations from comic stories. B) The show was and is a definitive 60s time capsule, both in its visual presentation and it’s subtle tweaking of 1950s values as something funny, campy, and to be ridculed by knowing adults. At least for the first season, Batman was a very smart, very good show.
    Scott Mendelson

  58. JckNapier2 says:

    For the record, I’ve been gone all day and may be posting a few times as I read various posts and offer comments. Feel free to read or ignore at your choosing.
    Responding to another post, I watch the Burton films about once a year. They really haven’t dated, they simply were pretty leisurely paced for their time too. They weren’t truly action films, but comic book character studies (or, as for the second film, gothic fairy tales). Even in 1989, Batman surely had less action and slower pacing than Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade or Lethal Weapon 2. Whether you like them or not is up to you, but today I find it rather refreshing how slowly paced and character-driven the movies are. That’s mainly why the terrible action scenes of Batman Begins didn’t bother me THAT much, because I never went to Batman films for the kicking and the punching.
    Scott Mendelson

  59. KamikazeCamel says:

    It sorta makes me the happiest person in the world to see L&DB using a Gilmore Girls reference of this blog!
    One thing that I don’t think anybody has really touched upon with great detail is that maybe people are just sort of sick of superhero movies…? We’ve had so many bad ones lately that when they see one marketed like BB did they may have decided to stay away.
    …just a thought.
    Another thing, people keep comparing this to the original X-Men… well, what happened when they made a sequen to THAT movie?

  60. Lota says:

    Well Joe, I am defintely a loser, but I had to be out working with my posse for 5 days straight staying in an overpriced hotel with a f*cked up wireless so this is fun in comparison.
    And the “Batman theories” are many, aren’t they? My brothers and their pals absolutely love the old Adam West batman since it’s so hysterically cheese and my youngests brothers are in in their early 20s. They spend all their time guessing who the villains are since Vincent Price and Julie Newmar are names they’ve only vaguely have heard of. The cartoon “POW” and “WAP” and all the other bubbles that appeared during the fight scenes make them laugh hysterically. They think it’s tres Japonois…like prehistoric Takashi Miike and they aren’t far off the mark.
    Their favorite Batman was the first one. As dated as it is, it is stillt he first “cool” non-G rated Disney movie they were allowed to see.
    I loved the first Batman despite Basinger’s screaming. It may have not been like the ‘real’ comic,but it was entertaining.

  61. JT says:

    I think its a real shame if the film isnt a big success ( or big enough to warrent a sequel!). I’ve seen it twice now since Tuesday night and am seeing it on Imax tomorrow. I think it is great and easily the best comic to film yet. Will it end up like Master & Commander? A truly great, visionary film that never gets at least a sequel, if not a trilogy? I hope not. I just want the film to do good. It is smart, exciting, thought provoking and quite amazing in its parts. It’d be a shame to see it fail in any regard.

  62. Joe Leydon says:

    One nice upside to staying home on Saturday night: I got to see the original “Cat People” on TCM. Spooky stuff.

  63. ecreels says:

    Here’s one possibilty for the lower-than-expected gross I haven’t seen discussed directly here.
    A friend of mine says that when it comes to sequels how well a particular movie fares often depends on how well the last installment did. Examples: Back to the Future 2 did pretty well because people loved the first movie. But then after audiences were disappointed in 2, the grosses for 3 weren’t that high even though it’s commonly agreed 3 is the better movie. You could also say that since people thought badly of Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones did less well.
    People really hated Batman and Robin. Is it possible that stench still lingers even eight years later? Or is this more a case of the movie being too dark/dour?

  64. L&DB says:

    Word Camel. Word. Secondly, while Joe has made statements thaat caused me to lash out like Lorelai whenever Rory gets hurt or does something dumb (FEEL THAT!). He makes a great point defending Supes. Supes has such moral complexity to it, that I am literally driven mad. When these friggin people say Supes is a boring character. Yeah. A dude sent her from a distant planet, with abilites far beyond our own, that can destroy us all if he wanted too. Somehow ranks as boring? Bollocks. Supes has more moral ambiguity to his character than Bats has ever had. Go rent the first three seasons of Smallville Jeff. TOM WELLING, not that Singer boy toy, will make you believe a MAN CAN FLY. One last thing; Joe, older people reference that TV show. No offense. More mature folks help the tax burden and what not, but that show almost destroyed the mythos of the character. Sure it helped to sell copies, but it took Frank Miller to fix the character a decade and a half later. Im still sticking with Bats having legs. If people can flock to a shizerrific Spider-Man film. Then come on, the best comic book adaptation ever (or since last Summer) has to get the people out at some point. Does War of the Thetans come out this coming weekend or not? Fill a brother in.

  65. lazarus says:

    Sorry to change subjects, but L&DB, I’m still trying to figure out how you see Sith getting to $400 million. And this is coming from a HUGE prequel fan.
    Regardless, Poland shouldn’t have to eat shit because Episode III should still be able to pass Return of the King and reclaim the geek throne back from Lord of the Rings (It needs $377 and is at $340 not including this weekend). $400 million would have been cool, but a 6th film in a series making $300 is a miracle anyway and should be applauded, especially with material that dark. Harry Potter 6 will be lucky to get half of that. So much for all the naysayers who thought it would be more diminishing returns.
    Batman Begins will have some legs, but I don’t know if the X-Men comparison is apt. The latter was a complete unknown quanity outside the geek circle. And the word of mouth is that BB is a bit of a downer; that’s a big difference from raving to your friends about how charismatic and kick ass Hugh Jackman is. Bale will get mucho critical respect from this performance (and will certainly get more offers), but he’s not going to become the It Boy like Jackman did. I applaud Nolan and Bale for taking this film seriously, but everyone involved knew there would be commercial ramifications with those choices. I’m guessing they will still be pleased with the results, and even if this one doesn’t pack the teens in the seats over and over again, enough adults will hear how good of a film it is and show up.
    No way this thing isn’t hitting $200 million. I just can’t see it. War of the Worlds will steal some thunder but Fantastic Four is going down HARD.

  66. jeffmcm says:

    Not being a big fan of shirtless guys, I’ve never seen Smallville. It could be great. All I know is, I’ve never seen Kal-El developed interestingly. He’s too much of an American icon to be an outsider, too powerful to be an underdog. Here’s hoping Singer is the guy who figures out how to make it come together.

  67. mack says:

    I hope FF dies quickly too.

  68. Paul V says:

    Those are the weekend numbers from Box office Mojo. Less than 50 million with is soft but signs that it getting more than just the FNMB1829 since it did have a nice friday to saturday bump of around 3 million or so.
    *FNMB1829 means Friday Night Males Between 18-29 who’s movies tend to hold even or drop on saturday night.
    1.Batman Begins WB $46,935,000
    2 Mr. and Mrs. Smith Fox $27,300,000
    3 Madagascar DW $11,100,000
    4 Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith Fox $9,700,000
    5 The Longest Yard Par. $8,000,000
    6 The Adventures of Shark Boy and Lava Girl (3D) Dim. $6,633,000
    7 The Perfect Man Uni. $5,478,000
    8 Cinderella Man Uni. $5,233,000
    9 The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants WB $3,170,000
    10 The Honeymooners Par. $2,570,000
    11 Crash Lions $1,250,000
    12 Monster-in-Law NL $1,125,000

  69. Joe Leydon says:

    As for the “Bat” b.o., well, $71 million after five days ain’t chopped liver. Trouble is, “Mr. and Mrs. Smith” had $61.8 million after its first five days. In other words, less than $10 million — not $20 million, as Dave appeared to predict — difference. Don’t get me wrong, I really liked “Batman Begins.” But I simply don’t see how, in terms of summer blockbusters, it won’t be viewed as an under-achiever.

  70. Chucky in Jersey says:

    Mr. Poland was part right and part wrong. Overall B.O. was down again (17 weekends in a row!) but “Star Wars Episode 3” was off only 35 percent in its 5th weekend.

  71. Martin says:

    It looks like BB came out alright, the question now comes down to what kind of dropoff it has next weekend. If the film ends up doing less than $200 mill. domestic, I think it will be considered a disappointment. At this point, under $200 mill. domestic looks very likely. But good reviews and int’l success (which doesn’t seem guaranteed at this point) could pave the way for sequels. These current numbers, while nice, are not far off The Hulk’s. (and that film did $130 US and was considered a bomb).

  72. Martin says:

    Also, if WOTW came a week or so later, I’d say SITH had a shot at $400 mill., but between next weekend’s releases and Wed. WOTW, I think SITH is going to finish up just under $390. Which for everyone involved has to be considered a major success, and which fits right in with predictions (less than Ep 1, more than Ep 2.)

  73. Joe Leydon says:

    I know there’s been a lot of Tom Cruise dissing here and elsehwree, but I saw the TV spots again last night, and I have to say — “WotW” looks like it will crush everything in its path. Even if it truly plumbs heretofore uncharted depths of suck, it still could score bigger than any summer release other than “Sith.” And if it’s good…

  74. JckNapier2 says:

    Well, out and out apocalypse was averted (well above $42.6 million, and just high enough so that corrected estimates will put it above Batman Returns… hmm…), but something else odd has happened. The spin on the numbers seem to be positive, as if it was enough to ‘ressurect a failed franchise’ or some baloney. However false this is, if the ‘spin’ says that this opening and the eventual $180+ million total (just a valid estimate) is good enough, then who cares what we think? It’ll be considered a success, we’ll get our sequel, and all will be merry.
    Scott Mendelson

  75. Eric says:

    That’s a good point, Scott. Although I’d like the people behind Batman Begins to be rewarded for their efforts with a lot of money, it makes little difference to me what the final take is.
    In other words, I don’t care if it’s real success or simply the perception of success that brings about a sequel, as long as it comes.

  76. schlockweister says:

    Though the opening weekend was underwhelming, I think there’s still a chance BB can make some big noise in the box office. I know a lot of my friends, who would be among the target audience of BB, were not terribly interested in the movie when it opened, but they are growing increasingly so from my and others’ praise of it.
    The power of word-of-mouth, I think, is often overrated, but I think here it might actually prove true.

  77. Walker says:

    Will Nolan get to do the next James Bond film?

  78. Martin says:

    I don’t think they could pay Nolan enough to do a Bond film. Bond films are where over the hill directors go to cash in and head off into the sunset. I think Nolan’s got enough ahead of him that he’s not quite ready to end it all with something like a Bond movie. I don’t think he’ll do a sequel to BB either, with someone like Aronofsky taking up the reins on #2.

  79. RDP says:

    How do they figure year-to-year drops anyway? Do they take the weekend that falls closest to the date from the year before (i.e. This is June 17-19, 2005 and last year there was a weekend June 18-20?) or is it the equivilent week of the year (this is the 24th weekend of the year and there was a 24th weekend of last year, as well)?
    Just curious which number was being looked at (I assume it’s the former rather than the latter).

  80. Eric says:

    Martin, I think Nolan and all the other key players are contracted for two sequels. Somebody correct me if I’m wrong.

  81. Twitchy says:

    To the person who thought THE ISLAND looked original.
    Huh?
    Have you heard of LOGAN’S RUN? Have you heard of THE CLONUS HORROR (probably not, but it’s a sci-fi thriller from the late 70’s that just came out on DVD).
    Looks to me like Bay took the scripts to these films, threw them in a blender, and then added a lot of things blowing up real good. Instant Hollywood blockbuster!

  82. lazarus says:

    Nolan hasn’t committed yet, but Bale has. They were both on Charlie Rose the other night and Nolan was being very vague about his intentions. Bale was trying to embarrass him into giving a “yes” right on the show. I’m guessing Nolan will want to know how much control he will have on a sequel, and surely the box office numbers are going to affect the studio’s wishes in that regard.
    If he walks, it’s gotta be Fincher. Really. He’ll maintain the tone, and he’s a better visualist than Nolan anyway. Plus we know he’s great with actors.

  83. Martin says:

    Twitchy, for one thing Bay had nothing to do with the writing tasks on The Island. Secondly, a mish-mosh of old sci-fi stories is still more original than remakes and sequels. If this were an outright remake of Logan’s then I’d agree with you, but to me it seems to be ‘somewhat’ original. Yes, I think “The Island” looks more original than another Star Wars, Batman, War of the Worlds, Herbie, or Longest Yard.

  84. Martin says:

    Lazarus, do you give these guys any respect at all? I mean, Fincher couldn’t even settle on a Lords of Dogtown script, you think he’s willing to jump into a comic book started by another director? You’re insane.

  85. jeffmcm says:

    I would agree with you, Martin, if only Michael Bay was a director interested in something other than explosions and chases.

  86. Joe Leydon says:

    Excuse me, Laz, but if Nolan bails, how do you know they won’t go to Brett Ratner? Or go back to Joel Schumacher? Assuming, of course, that they decide to make a sequel. I mean, some people are still waiting for that “Godzilla” sequel.

  87. Martin says:

    And Fincher is a guy that is so fanatical to detail that he literally makes 3D previs of an entire film before starting production. He may be good at “choosing” actors, but any director that leaves so little room for improvisation is hardly a great “actor’s” director. Hitchcock was a great, but many if not all actors disliked his methods.

  88. L&DB says:

    Wow jeff. You are that hung up, that you couldnt handle maybe six episode out of 22. Where Welling has his shirt off? Dude, that is beyond freaky. Look it to taking care of that with professional help, or going to be a beach for you must be a bitch for you. Smallville tell Kal-El’s story exceding well. As does it tell the story of Lex Luthor better than most comics or films ever had. Laz, Revenge can just hang around for another month or two, and get 400. IT’s not that far off! It’s doable man! It’s doable!

  89. jeffmcm says:

    My point was Smallville was a show marketed towards the WB’s audience of teenage girls. I’m glad you liked it so much, but I don’t watch WB shows.

  90. bulldog says:

    Some prayers are being said by the makers of Batman right now. This 5 day 71M total isn’t a runaway smash and not a dismal failure. What to do? How to spin? Who to hire/fire?
    This 5 day total sits just behind Hulk with 73M on its way to a final gross of 132M, and just above the 70M of Pirates of the Caribbean on its way to a 305M gross. Proven that 5 day numbers could mean nothing.
    Pirates faced Bad Boys 2, Tomb Raider, Spy Kids, and American Wedding in its following weeks. The Batmobile faces a computer dehanced Lindsay and her love mobile next week, and has a clear 14 days since its Wednesday opening till War of the Worlds, (which I think is some breathing room), and then Fantastic Four 9 days later.
    Batman will be no Hulk. It may also be no Pirates, but just for the hell of it, if it comes in the middle of those two, we’re looking at 215M gross. Look at the drop next week with no direct competition and we’ll see whether this Caped Crusader has wings…errr legs.

  91. joefitz84 says:

    Michael Bay is interested in story? Says who?

  92. lazarus says:

    When I said it’s gotta be Fincher for Bats 2, I was talking about my own personal choice, not who they WILL go with. But Martin, your comment about Fincher not stepping into a pre-existing story–remember something called Alien3? And I know that tanked but the film gets a bad rap, and maybe he feels he could do it better this time. Plus, maybe Fincher’s an old Batman fan. You never know. Who would have thought Nolan would be interested?
    As for Fincher’s skill with actors, Fight Club anyone? Perhaps Edward Norton’s most interesting performance (if not as showy as American History X or Primal Fear), a 180 from Helena Bonham Carter, and a brilliant self-parody from Brad Pitt. Do I even need to mention the AMAZING scene between Morgan Freeman and Gwyneth Paltrow in Seven? Or the great work from the young Kristen Stewart in Panic Room?
    I know Fincher’s been extremely indecisive since his last effort, but I’m sure it wasn’t him bailing on every project. There may have been some where money fell through, actors became unavailable, whatever. But he’s worked with some great actors who all seem to respect him. If he can handle Douglas, Foster, Freeman, Pitt, Penn, etc., he can handle Bale. Caine, and Oldman. While Freeman might not have much clout in this franchise, I’m sure he wouldn’t mind being in front of Fincher’s camera again.
    Who else would be better for this material? You can’t tell me Aronofsky is a more likely candidate, especially after losing Year One. They won’t make the same mistake twice of going from dark to camp. I guess it could always be someone like Joe Carnahan but I still think Fincher gets considered.

  93. Chester says:

    lazarus, I agree with most of what you said, but your argument falls apart because you based it on the fact that Fincher has already directed a sequel, “Alien 3.” Fincher was a nobody at the time he directed that film, a nobody whose only known credit was Madonna’s “Express Yourself” music video, so he would have been certifiably crazy not to take the assignment. Keep in mind also that six years had passed between “Aliens” and “Alien 3,” and that each film in that series had its own very unique directorial tone.

  94. Joe Leydon says:

    Excuse me, but isn’t all this talk about sequels just a tad premature? I mean, shouldn’t we wait to see for sure that “Batman Begins” will generate the kind of biz that makes a sequel a slam-dunk certainty? Like I said before: I haven’t heard much about “Godzilla 2” lately. And “Daredevil 2” seems to have slipped off the radar. And yet, at one time, both those proposed sequels were at least tentatively announced.

  95. Lota says:

    I would agree with Mr Leydon except that Sequels have been slapped heartily on the back welcomed to the Club even before the first has made a profit, especially if an ageing star who has studio support is the expected lead and is going to “produce”. no names mentioned.
    Make profit, make more or lose lots don;t make more is too sensible.
    I would like a sequel to Godzilla if it they call it Mothra vs. LAX. I can see the taglines now.
    “Waiting outside LAX too long in your socks? In 2006 Mothra will vanquish you!”
    “You go go Mothra, FU LAX.”
    and let those little fairies sing.

  96. Joe Leydon says:

    Been flying some unfriendly skies this weekend, Lota?

  97. jeffmcm says:

    Lota seems to be pulling a L&DB tonight.

  98. Lota says:

    the skies are very friendly. LAX is not, and I get to go back to the behemoth of INsecurity, LAX, again, in a matter of days. But then I get to read your article while standing shoeless in a long f*cking line and sic the city rats on you if appropriate ‘spect isn’t shown to Mr Evans.

  99. Joe Leydon says:

    I’ve been dieting so long, I just might eat those rats. (April 25: 283 pounds. June 19: 240 pounds.) But not to worry: Mr. Evans gets his props. It’s part of my major suck-up campaign to cajole him into more interviews for my master’s thesis.

  100. Lota says:

    might want to hurry up Leydon as his tan doesn’t have the natural zing it used to. he must be in his late 70s now. if he isn’t up to an interview, ask him if you can interview Kid Notorious (you’ll get better gossip on the post studio system anyway).
    rats aren’t good rodents to eat if you’re on a diet. too many carbs.

  101. Joe Leydon says:

    Hey, they have to taste better than freakin’ rice cakes!

  102. lazarus says:

    No sequel? Are you people deranged? There is no way in HELL they aren’t making a follow up. Batman is DC’s #1 cash cow. Who knows; people might think Superman is cheesy as all hell, especially with a no-name in the lead. This isn’t Blade, it’s a well-known brand. This is the start of a new franchise, regardless of whether or not it comes anywhere near Spider-Man’s numbers. It’s clear they’re trying to mix some artistic ambition with their commercial endeavors, and likely aren’t expecting as big of a payoff.
    This film would have to bottom out at $100 mil for that to even be a snowflake’s chance in hell. But it won’t. It won’t break any records, but it’s going to make money. They won’t pull the franchise and rest it again. This is here to stay, and isn’t Bale already signed for 3?
    And Chester, I don’t believe my case for Fincher rests solely on the fact that he directed Alien3. I’m well aware it was his first gig. That’s why I added the thought that he might be interested in giving that type of film another go. Perhaps you didn’t read the rest of my post, but there are bigger reasons someone like Fincher is a likelihood as well as a great choice.

  103. sky_capitan says:

    46 million for BB? And the first thing that comes to mind is, that’s it? For the whole weekend?
    I can’t believe Dave is predicting only 80 million domestic for Fantastic Four. I want to see it more than BB. Prepare to be mistaken, Dave. Besides, it can’t be THAT bad, can it?
    No I’ve never seen Logan’s Run, but The Island is still the #1 movie I want to see this summer…
    It looks original to ME…
    Okay, last comment, why did Spielberg have to put Tom Cruise in War Of The Worlds? He could have put just about anyone in there and it would still be massive. why why why! I would rather see Russell Crowe in this than Cinderella Man. Will Smith helped make Independence Day massive, but any reporter who gives any credit to the box-office success of WOTW to Tom Cruise, I will want to… well… fill in the blank…
    ______
    !

  104. hh says:

    FYI, the cast and Nolan made it very clear during their press campaign that only Bale is contracted for a sequel. Even Michael Caine isn’t. Nolan isn’t as well.
    And let’s see how it does this weekend and during the week. Does “Land” eat into it next weekend? The strong Variety review for it was surprising (it’s good, but it’s not amazing) Will be interesting to see.

  105. KamikazeCamel says:

    Joe, “Cat People” is pretty damn eerie isn’t that? The scene where (I’ve forgotten her name) the lady is walking down the street and then into her building and then goes for a swim…! omg, i was slightly terrorfied. Great stuff. Simone Simon was great.
    However, “The Curse of the Cat People” is complete and utter crap.
    “No way this thing isn’t hitting $200 million. I just can’t see it. War of the Worlds will steal some thunder but Fantastic Four is going down HARD.”
    …huh? $200mil? It would need to gross 3 times what it made of these 5 days… and i don’t see that happening.
    I see Fantastic Four actually opening with the same 3 day total that Batman did. Around the $45mil mark. I mean, surely, there’s some films people wanna see.

  106. KamikazeCamel says:

    Actually, i take back that not getting to $200mil thing. It could possibly get there – i had forgotten that Pirates of the Caribbean started with $70mil over 5 days as well.
    We’ll see…
    Land of the Dead will probably be another middling success. $18mil opening maybe? I dunno. I still don’t understand their marketing it as a film by George A Romero. Sure, to people here and fans of his other movies that means something (but they don’t NEED to be told it’s a George A Romero movie) but to your ordinary “black and white? fuck off” teenager they wouldnt have a clue as to who he is. And to essentially base your marketing around him… well, it seemed a bit silly to me.
    GO HERBIE!!

  107. L&DB says:

    Uh Camel, let a brother drop some science on you. All of the DEAD films have George’s name before the title. It’s his world and he gets the props. If I created something such as that, my own universe, then I sure as hell will get that credity. Serenity should be titled “Joss Whedon’s Serenity” because damn that would be cool. Yet, there’s your answer Camel. And let us move on to Jeff. First off, you friggin neaner neaner, I make sense all the time. Not the type of sense you like. The pretty white, pearly teeth sense, that comes with a nice suit and really black socks. But a sense that you seemingly have a hard time comprehending because you said THE WB HAS AN AUDIENCE. Hey, brain dead, have you ever heard of a show titled Everwood? Gilmore Girls? Even One Tree FREAKIN HILL? These shows are not aimed at teenage girls (maybe One Tree Hill because Chad Michael Murray, to quote his wife Sophia; “Is so dreamy”) but a wide audience. It’s myopic thinking like yours. That keeps those idiots who vote for the Emmys from giving Lauren Graham the award recognition she so richly deseves. Hell. Treat Williams gives better performances on Everwood than most of the friggin talent who get Oscars and are married to trophy lives, or kiss really good actresses who suck at being superheros. You want to label something, then watch it first. Go rent season one of Everwood. Go rent all three seasons of both Gilmore Girls and Smallville, and even written the One Tree Hill DVDs because Moira Kelly could use some cash. Then you will see that what you posted on this board easily out ranks anything stupid I have said, Spam Dooley has said, or Joe Leydon has said when saying things about me (congrats on the weight loss Joe. Get ready for water weight hell). You bloody potzer.

  108. L&DB says:

    Here are the corrections to some key typos as to avoid jeff from similtaneously peeing and defecating at the sametime. Credit not credity. HAS AN AUDIENCE should be replaced with a HAS AN TARGET AUDIENCE. Finally, go RENT One Tree Hill season one. Dont go ‘written.’ Hopefully I posted these in time to keep jeff from a hazardous situation.

  109. jeffmcm says:

    I never said I didn’t like Smallville. I just said I had no interest in it, and I don’t have the hundreds of hours of spare time to do all the renting and viewing you suggest. But thanks, it’ll just have to be my loss.

  110. L&DB says:

    You do know hour-long dramas are not an hour right? 43 minutes over 22 episodes does not equate to hundred of hours. You are just being a hypocrite, and again you never have a decent response. You can call the thunder, but not the storm that follows it jeff. You have to be a politician of some sort, because you are the master of ducking a question.

  111. bicycle bob says:

    jeff ducks a question??? good heavens no. he would never

  112. BluStealer says:

    The sequel is already in the pre production stages. They have a trilogy mapped out and if you saw the film you saw how the lead into a second one for sure.

  113. patrick says:

    Speaking of soft box office, I went to the sneak preview of the new Herbie film yesterday afternoon and there were less than 25 people in the whole theater! At a sneak preview! Those things are usually sold out, heck, even Cinderlla Man was sold out at the sneak preview I went to. So I am not expecting this one to do very well, although its not a terrible movie. It’s corny, but so were the original ones. This one is very G-rated, except for Lohan’s rack — which was definitely not altered like they said it was! I’m sure of that.

  114. Joe Leydon says:

    For those of you who care, this is from today’s Cynthia Turner’s Cynopsis column: The first movie trailer for Universal Pictures’ new film King Kong will make its world premiere simultaneously across all nine NBC Universal TV networks, in a hi-def 2:30m roadblock event, Monday, June 27, 8:59:30-9:02p. The 9 networks are NBC, Sci Fi, USA Network, Bravo, MSNBC, CNBC, Telemundo, Mun2 and Universal HD.

  115. BluStealer says:

    There is something about Lindsay. The girl is a star.

  116. Terence D says:

    The WB has an audience? Maybe just from critics and a small section of girls out there. But not much else.

  117. patrick says:

    I agree with you Blu, Lindsay definately has a star presence. It’s weird how I was able to watch her in Herbie and tune out all the gossipy stuff that has been reported about her yet every time Katie Holmes showed up in Batman all I could think about was her freak show relationship with Tom Cruise, and that hurt the film for me.

  118. Terence D says:

    Ok, I’ll say it. She was great in Mean Girls and Freaky Friday.

  119. jeffmcm says:

    I’m sorry, did someone ask me a question? The closest I see up there is “have you ever heard of Everwood” and the answer is…yes.
    And 43 minutes x 22 episodes x 7 different seasons of shows LDB mentions = 110 hours, so yes, hundreds was an exaggeration. I’m so sorry. If I dodged any other questions please remind me of them.

  120. LesterFreed says:

    Everwood? Who else can say sappy and melodramatic?

  121. Joe Leydon says:

    I fully realize that anything nice I say about Lindsay Lohan will sound borderline creepy coming from a guy my age. But she’s definitely someone with star power. And she’s a fine actress. I hope good things happen for her. And I expect good things from her.
    So, OK: Tell me, fellow Hot Bloggers: What will gross bigger next weekend? “Herbie” or “Bewitched”?

  122. jesse says:

    Let me offer some dissent on this Lohan business. I don’t understand why she’s considered (a.) a talented actress with (b.) star presence. She’s pretty much the same as any other tween/teen “star,” but with a raspier voice.
    Granted, she was acceptable in “Mean Girls,” but it’s not as if she brought anything new to the part (except the revelation that she looks much cuter in plain/normal clothes than slutty ones). And the “Freaky Friday” remake is horribly overrated — what a screechy, whiny slog (the movie, not Lohan — although she does at least 60% of the screaming).
    Sure, she might be more of a natural than Hilary Duff, but does it really improve the quality of “Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen” so much? I’ve never seen a Lohan performance and said “ah ha, I see what they’re talking about, she really has something here.” It was more watching “Mean Girls” and going, “oh, good, she didn’t ruin the movie.”
    Also, there’s nothing to suggest to me that Lohan has better taste in material than any other starlet out there. Maybe that shouldn’t color my appreciation of her acting abilities, but it does; wouldn’t a brighter, more interesting star get bored of dopey Disney comedies? Herbie is, what, her third? Fourth?
    That said, it should be tight between “Herbie” and “Bewitched,” moneywise. Neither seems to be exactly a bullseye for what they’re aiming for. “Herbie” has NASCAR appeal, Lohan appeal, and slapstick appeal, but are ten-year-olds going to get that excited about cars? (Especially given that Lohan appeals mainly to younger girls, while the racing angle seems like it would appeal more to boys. Maybe I’m being sexist, though.)
    “Bewitched” sold itself first as a wacky Will Ferrell comedy, and now it’s going more for sweet romantic comedy. But that doesn’t exactly fit with the goofy Ferrell-isms.
    I definitely have more interest in “Bewitched,” because, odd as the pairing is, Ferrell and Kidman are two my favorite actors. Then again, I held out hope for “Stepford Wives,” too, and it didn’t get me much of anywhere.
    Both — and “Land of the Dead” — should all have a shot at the $20 mil mark. Hopefully that will put them all behind the second weekend of Batman Begins.

  123. Joe Leydon says:

    If “Batman Begins” slips to No. 2 (or worse) this weekend, will that pretty much end the sequel talk?

  124. patrick says:

    I say Bewitched will open higher than Herbie, but only because it will sell more full priced tickets than Herbie does. I just don’t think this weekend will stop the box office slump. Maybe War of the Wrolds will, but who knows.

  125. bicycle bob says:

    i’ll take lohan over kidman

  126. Joe Leydon says:

    Bob: Yeah, I bet you would.

  127. bicycle bob says:

    in box office and life. youth is served

  128. Telemachos says:

    From the AP box-office report:
    “Distribution boss Fellman said “Batman Begins” opened strongly enough that he expects the studio will push ahead with a sequel.”
    btw, actuals are out and BB made $2 million more than the estimates.
    With strong WOM and reviews hinting at decent legs, I’d be very surprised if WB didn’t greenlight a sequel shortly.

  129. Mark says:

    The chances of there not being a sequel to Batman? 1%.

  130. joefitz84 says:

    Bewitched will do better than people think. It will surprise a lot of the industry that is already writing its eulogy.

  131. Martin says:

    Bewitched will not do well, which is too bad because I think Will Ferrell is a talented guy. BB’s getting a sequel is 50/50 if you ask me, and entirely depends on how it holds up next weekend. If the film doesn’t make it to $150, if it ends at that dreaded Godzilla and Hulk $140 mark, it may not get a sequel.

  132. Paul V says:

    I think they be a squel this because it will have legs.

  133. L&DB says:

    Damn it. I want to lay into Terence in ways that will talked about for all of two post. Yet, you damn people, and your damn need to limit cursing. So, let me just be blunt. Terence, do you like being a hypocrite? Or does your job as a fulfledge ass require you to be that way? Praising Mean Girls and Freaky Friday right after bashing the WB. Makes you appear to be the biggest idiot I might have ever come across on the internet, and that’s including the CHUD commentators. TV Critics back the WB shows for a reason; THEY ARE GOOD. They cranked out better hour-long dramas that mean something to people and sell boxsets. Than those god awful CSIs and Law Orders that get more ratings, but dont sell as well. Plus, you are labelling the audience again, and that just goes to demonstrate your local of mental abilities. At least Jeff came back with some sort of arguemt. Even though it shows him to be close minded simpleton, but I think much better than Question Duckin Jeff, than Hypocritical Terence. Jeff, ducker, you said hundred of hours, not a 110 hours. Your math still stinkins. Not let us move on to dancing and naked chicken strips.

  134. jeffmcm says:

    I still don’t know what I ducked.
    And it’s a shame, because I have 80 or 90 hours of free time this week that I don’t know what to do with, alas not the full 110. I will have to remain a simpleton.
    (Why do I sometimes feel like I’m arguing with Jar-Jar when LDB is up?)

  135. L&DB says:

    Jeff, you duck countless questions. If Bob of all people see it. It happens. And if you are talking to Jar-Jar. Then am I talking to an myopic asshole? I THINK SO! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! One more time for the people in the back. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

  136. jeffmcm says:

    Give me some of these countless questions, I’m all about dialogue, especially from the guy who goes wooooo. Seriously, please.

  137. Gowan Comon says:

    I think the important thing from the get-go for the whole Batman franchise was not about shattering everything box office-wise. It was about getting the franchise back on track, getting away from the excesses for the Schumaker glam flicks and getting down-to-Earth, getting back to basis and delivering a good movie. Sure $$$ is great and they won`t lose their shirts but the Nolan/Bale was never about outdoing Spider-Man or whatever.
    I think David Poland`s assumptions(obsessions) about box office is kind-of missing the point.

  138. L&DB says:

    Good post Gowan. I think people such as Chester and Poland might have missed the point with Batman. Not every comic book franchise has to set the world on fire. It just has to turn a profit, and be true to the characters. Batman Begins tells Batman the way it should be told. Not every comic book fan buys Spidey and Bats. Neither would everyone who likes Spidey’s last film (the first one sucks) would like this Batman film. Those folks should love the FF film. Since it’s heroes do not fight in the shadows, but in the daytime! This film did good for a reboot of a franchise. Anyone thinking it was going to be Spidey. Seemingly sees the comic book films in a black or white area ignoring the great big grey MASS in the middle. And jeff; the woo’s are there to show you Im being silly. Lessen the blow and what not.

  139. KamikazeCamel says:

    but L&DB perfectly fine to have Romeros name before the title but to revolve the entire marketing around him seems wrong. But keep up the WB stuff! They truly are a good network. Gilmore Girls! [early] Dawson’s Creek! Everwood! and so on…
    aaanyway.
    On Lindsay Lohan. I sort of really love “Freaky Friday” – it’s so bloody fun! Curtis was robbed of that Oscar nomination! And “Mean Girls” is, well, Mean Girls is just brilliant. That Mark Waters is a talented man. And I am actually sort of looking forward to “Herbie: Fully Loaded” it looks fun! And I must say “Bewitched” is looking better and better every time I see an ad for it.
    It could still be bad, but it could actually be good! I mean it does have Nicole, Will and Shirley MacLaine (people forget she’s in it but she is) and it’s written/directed by Nora Ephron who everyone seems to have forgotten has made good movies before.
    I think Bewitched may come out on top with around $27mil and Herbie on $24mil. “Land of the Dead” may skulk around at about $16mil. I dunno.

  140. Joe Leydon says:

    Interesting piece in today’s (Tuesday’s) LA Times about current box-office slump. The money quote:
    More worrisome, executives say, is the industry’s penchant for flooding the market on opening weekend, often putting a would-be blockbuster in more than 4,000 theaters. Beyond the added expense of those wide releases, the strategy leaves little time for curiosity to build for good movies and accelerates bad buzz, which can now be passed with viral speed on the Internet.
    “Now at midnight on Friday evening, you’re dead or alive,” said Lucy Fisher, a producer of the upcoming “Bewitched” and a 30-year veteran of the industry. “However long it took to make the movie, by Friday night, except for Academy[-Award-type] movies, your fate gets cast.”
    Something to think about the next time we want to rag anyone on the blog for placing too much importance on (or reading too much into) opening-day grosses. Evidently, people in the biz — including seasoned vets — do the very same thing.

  141. bicycle bob says:

    they’ve been doing the opening weekend thing now for a long time. where was that analysis when the box office was huge?

  142. Terence D says:

    Anyone else think LDB and Jeff are a married couple?

  143. BluStealer says:

    The War of the Roses. Light.

  144. Terence D says:

    The studios will never get away from the opening weekend strategy. It is just too much money to leave. But I think they should start looking at other means of recouping losses for movies that don’t open well. Quicker return time to dvd, more marketing.

  145. Joe Leydon says:

    Once again: Look at the remark about opening day grosses. By midnight Friday, the die is cast, the future is clear. So maybe Chester and a few others here shouldn’t be accused of jumping the gun when they make predictions (or guesses) based on opening day grosses. Because that’s how it is done in the real world. It’s a shame, but it appears to be the way of the world.

  146. Stella's Boy says:

    Yeah Chester was right.

  147. Terence D says:

    It is common knowledge that everyone looks at opening weekend numbers. Studios, agents, the public. What has to change is a movie holds strong and builds and gets better. It hasn’t happend for a long time. It has been one and done.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon