MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

20 Weeks Of Summer – Reasonable Expectations

After a well chewed over start with M:I3, I thought it might be a good idea to lay out some landmarks for the season before we see the films or their marketing campaigns.
The column

Be Sociable, Share!

25 Responses to “20 Weeks Of Summer – Reasonable Expectations”

  1. Me says:

    I think Dave’s right about expectations being overblown. People say Superman *should* kill, but really, who asked for this movie (a la Kong)? Cars *should* kill, but have you seen the trailer? The Break-Up *should* do okay, but the media is mistaking tabloid heat for actual desire to see this thing.
    The only movies the public seems to really be craving are X-3, Pirates and Cars (assuming it is better than it looks). It wouldn’t surprise me if those three end up doing the best.

  2. York "Budd" Durden says:

    Prairie Home Companion will be bigger than anyone can now foresee. There is a yawning chasm of entertainment for people of the demographic that enjoys the radio broadcast, and if promoted properly, it’ll be the biggest Altman financial success since M*A*S*H.
    Seriously.

  3. ROTC says:

    IMHO “The Break-Up” is the kind of movie that will probably benefit from its tabloid heat (look at how astonishingly well the putrid “Mr. and Mrs. Smith” did last year). It also fills the adult comedy/romance gap that “Wedding Crashers” and “40-Year-Old Virgin” occupied last summer. And I think its current trailer hits the bullseye.

  4. Hopscotch says:

    I’ve heard good things on “The Break-Up”. However, I’ve heard the laughter count is not that high and the film turns very seriously emotionally towards the end. I think it’ll do good. But not $150M good.

  5. ROTC says:

    “People say Superman *should* kill, but really, who asked for this movie (a la Kong)?” I totally agree, although I think M:I3 may be a bit better comparison than Kong. Studios too readily assume their franchises are safe bets, but in reality certain ones are held in low regard by the moviegoing public (are you listening Paramount re: your next “Tomb Raider” shitbox?) and aren’t assured comparable enormous box-office returns based on name value alone. So another Spider-Man, Harry Potter or X-Men sequel are reasonably assured, while another Mission: Impossible or Charlie’s Angels should have been questionable prospects despite the successes of the originals. Even “Batman Returns” started off a lot more sluggishly than many expected last summer and only held up over its run because of great reviews and WOM.

  6. palmtree says:

    You mean, Batman Begins.
    The new Cars trailer on Apple is an improvement. You get more of a sense of character rather than cheesy jokes. Won’t be huge huge but should do okay.

  7. ROTC says:

    “You mean, Batman Begins.” Yikes! Thanks for the correction, palmtree.

  8. Aladdin Sane says:

    I think pretty much everyone and their dog is looking forward to POTC right now. Most of my coworkers talk about it every now and again…followed by X3…and then, it seems it’s up in the air…
    Regular folk aren’t talking about Superman right now, but that could change as the newest trailer gets more exposure.
    And honestly, I know it’s Pixar, but from what my friends/coworkers etc say, Cars isn’t getting much love. I think it may be hard pressed to reach even $200m. Of course, I’ve been wrong before, and it is a powerful brand. We’ll see.

  9. Crow T Robot says:

    I don’t see Pirates 2 doing any better than The Mummy 2. In fact, they look like the exact same movie.

  10. Hopscotch says:

    Pixar’s lowest gross is $162M for “A Bug’s Life”, which I’d say is there worse feature and that says A LOT about this company.
    If you’re a parent with kids under the age of 10, you’ve lived and breated Pixar movies since your kids were newborns, you’ll take them to anything they release. Their brand is that strong. Cars will be the third or fourth highest grossing film of the summer.
    Miami Vice is the one I’m curious about…$100M or $60M? not sure.

  11. David Poland says:

    One massive difference, Crow… the first Pirates did double what Mummy did…
    Of course, your “they look the same’ is kind of laughable to me. I see three Depp beats in the trailer, plus two Davy Jones shots that by themselves top the tow Mummy movies combined for me.

  12. Crow T Robot says:

    First off, Fraser’s “Honey they don’t come through doors!” line is funnier than any Depp quip I’ve seen yet.
    Second, what I’m talking about is the very same pretty boy swashbuckler (Depp = Fraser), big effects money shots, “beware the curse, “not this again,” “the gangs all back together,” overblown smarm-edy all over again…
    I think your woody for the first Pirates film has left you a tad unfocused, DVD. This ain’t Star Wars we’re talking. We’ll be lucky to get a three star film here. (And you really think there’s no room for comparison with the Sommer’s flick? Dude!)
    And bringing up the previous film’s grosses… come on… after what we’ve seen this month!

  13. palmtree says:

    Depp=Fraser is mathematically unsound.
    The first Pirates outgrossed domestically three Harry Potter movies, a Star Wars movie, Narnia, the first Shrek, etc. So yes, it is on the level of those movies.
    Having said that, 390 sounds too high…probably closer to 340.

  14. Martin says:

    Does Bryan Singer think he’s Superman?

  15. Me says:

    I think the first PotC movie earned so much goodwill (like The Matrix, but for the whole family), that no matter how bad the second one is, it’ll still do major business.
    I think the Pixar brand name buys Cars a big opening weekend. The strength of the film and WOM will decide its course from there.

  16. Nicol D says:

    I recently watched the first Pirates again. It is a genuine pleasure and high quality film; really is the ‘way they used to mak’em’.
    I also am looking forward to Monster House. Many found Polar Express ‘creepy’; perhaps the production team took the crix to heart and Monster House will be equally so.

  17. sky_capitan says:

    I just watched the trailer and it’s incredibly dull… I should actually say it really sucks. Do you have to be under 10 to appreciate it?
    Kevin Spacey looks like a less than funny Dr. Evil too.
    The only good thing about Superman Returns is it has is Kate Bosworth.

  18. sky_capitan says:

    and yeah, I was referring to Superman Returns when I said the trailer sucks

  19. Crow T Robot says:

    Come now, if The Mummy Returns were being released next month, Entertainment Weakly would most certainly have a stupid graphic comparing the two films… right down to the two British leading ladies both nominated for Oscars this year.
    Interesting though how one was a ride that became a movie while the other…
    …alright I’ll shut the fuck up.

  20. IanIRL says:

    PotC has easily the best trailer online right now – followed, I would say, by X3. PotC has impressive monsters, some really fun looking action and Johnny Depp. I predict about $290 –

  21. Lynn says:

    Yeah, I agree that Fraser != Depp. And I really like Fraser in the Mummy movies, though Oded Fehr beat him by far in the eye candy category in the second one, IMO šŸ™‚
    But with Johnny Depp as Capt. Jack… you have the sheer outrageousness of his performance, and the OMG Disney is really letting him do that? factor. By comparison, Fraser is a pretty typical matinee hero — much closer to Orlando Bloom than Johnny Depp.
    “Captain Jack is Back” was the teaser tag line for good reason… you wouldn’t have had that with Fraser’s character. Whose name I can’t remember šŸ™‚
    (Although “Ardeth Bay is Back” would’ve gotten me into the theater…)

  22. Martin says:

    Comparing POTC to the Mummy movies is really idiotic. Like comparing Filet Mignon to McDonalds.

  23. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    If you’re going to compare The Mummy and The Mummy Returns to the two POTC then you should note that The Mummy Returns actually grossed $50mil more than The Mummy. The original made $155mil while Returns made $202mil
    Cars I think will debut to around $50mil but when people actually see it and realise its not as bad as many think then it’ll keep going good. Many of my friends don’t think Cars looks any good. But one friend of mine was all “what on earth is that? That looks bad” but then I said “but, it’s Pixar!” and they went “oh! I’ll definitely see it then” so…
    And yes, if A Bug’s Life is the worst Pixar has ever done (which is true) then that is the biggest compliment to Pixar you could give. Excellent movie.

  24. jeffmcm says:

    POTC is not Filet Mignon. It’s In & Out. But it’s still fast food.

  25. Martin says:

    I would tend to agree that most Pixar movies are overrated, although I did like Toy Story and Incredibles (for the most part). I find them to be a very dull organization that’s more about printing money than making unique, creative entertainment. Although Dreamworks doesn’t do much better, I find them to be less overtly “Disney”fied than Pixar’s output. If you think about it, Pixar is really making the ultimate sellout films. Animation used to be about pushing the boundaries of the film medium, but since Toy Story all they’ve done is re-package the same pap in shinier envelopes. Which is not to say that they’re poor envelopes, but they’re products, no more no less. We’re still waiting for the great Citizen Kane of 3D animated films, but Pixar seems like the last company to do it.

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” ā€” 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 ā€” 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 ā€” he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” ā€” and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging ā€” I was with her at that moment ā€” 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 namedā€”” “Yeah, sure ā€” 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 Iā€™m on the phone with you now, after all thatā€™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 didnā€™t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. Thereā€™s not a case of that. He wasnā€™t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had ā€” if that were what the accusation involved ā€” 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. Iā€™m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, ā€œYou know, itā€™s not this, itā€™s thatā€? Because ā€” let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. TimesĀ piece, thatā€™s what it lacked. Thatā€™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