Friday Box Office
Not too much to say. The 300 drop is not surprising. The only real surprise this weekend is the strong opening of Dead Silence, which theoretically is right up against the 300 audience.
Decent reviews for Premonition seem to indicate that Wild Hogs will still be able to advertise “#1 comedy In America” for a third weekend.
I am rather disgusted by the spin that Variety continues to put on the “300 vs The Critics” thing. But I am equally irritated by critics who are fighting the issue as well, giving it more life. Even the great and wise Joe Morgenstern wrote about it in the WSJ Weekend Journal. And the fact is that this stuff happens every year and though the number was and is massive, we are a long, long way from any indication that anything has changed because of this movie… as in, “Didn’t we have this discussion last July when Pirates 3 opened?”
It is, simply, idiotic to argue that saying that this film is like a videogame is wrong either in conceit or detail. Rarely has a film so accurately embodied that accusation, whether you think “it’s a videogame” is praise or an insult. It is equally foolhardy to argue that all CG-heavy movies are the same as videogames. It is equally idiotic to start the “critics are out of touch” schtick again… yes, they are out of touch… they are in the business critical analysis of films. Real audiences don’t have that responsibility. And we don’t know what real audiences think of 300 yet. Based on that opening, when it hits $300 million, I will start writing about how the film really has become a cultural event. Until then, it’s chasing Night At The Fucking Museum.
So where are the trend stories about America wanting more movies about museums?
Are you really going to shit on the fact that 300 made a hundred million in its first 7 days by saying “it’s still chasing Night at the FUCKING Museum”? Night at the Museum was rated PG. 300 is rated R. You’re a tool.
NATM was god bloody awful. I’m more concerned about WILD HOGS finishing #1 than I am 300. Actually, I really concerned that ZODIAC isn’t doing better. It’s a terrific piece of work.
Decent reviews for “Premonition”? It just made RT’s bottom 100!
To blackcloud: Sandra Bullock has a large following that’s why the movie is pulling in audience — but it’s one of the most idiot movies released and she should be ashamed of being in this movie. A total failure. Also, the commercials make it seem like a super-natural horror movie, and it’s neither. At best it’s a straight to video/TV movie on FX. But Sandra doesn’t go straight to video.
Anyhoo, about 300. For a movie made for $60Mil this will set up other ‘comic’ book/graphic novels to be made in the same way and for small budget. Sin City was made for $40Mil and had an all-star cast. Is this the Hollywood version of “race to the bottom”, big name stars working in small budgeted movies and getting back-end vs. front-end money?
I saw 300 along with an aud. of fan boys, pre-teens, teens, and actually the reaction was dead silence at the end. People got up, left the theatre. They came they saw they left. There was applause at my showing, no yells, whistles. Not sure people were satisfied. The movie is what it is – a lavish set decoration piece with no storyline – at least one that’s really involved and heightens emotions. I just pray there won’t be a “300” sequel. So the 64% drop (based on aud. reaction and I est’d 50%) was expected. Does this movie have legs? I don’t think so. Would be surprised if it made over $200Mil, (but that would be an excellent take)- because at this point the aud. feedback is out there and the remaining aud. will wait for the video release.
DP, maybe it would save you time if you started telling us what _isn’t_ idiotic instead of these laundry lists of what is.
Nobody who ever makes these, “this movie was just like a video game” comments has ever even played a video game.
I agree with Brett B. I find the whole “the movie is like a video game” thing incoherent, since it’s unclear just what that means. Is the plot like a video game? The look? The characters? The power-ups? The bonus lives? What?
I would say the visuals, the lack of characters, and the narrative mode were all basically the same as in a video game where you are a hero fighting increasingly bigger, stranger bad guys and advancing to different levels.
I thought it was hysterical when Uwo Boll inserted actual computer game footage into House of the Dead. And when a character died the camera spun around them and the screen faded to red. I tellsya, it was hilarious.
…And then it turned out he was being serious and it all became incredibly sad and depressing and ridiculously stupid.
Also, why is La Vie en Rose being released now? Marion Cotillard could’ve had a run at Oscar (if reviews are to be believed, the film was very Hollywood-biopicised). Yet, they give it a March release? Wow. That’s one of my early Oscar predix down already.
“300” is nothing like a videogame. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Anyone who believes so simply doesn’t play videogames and doesn’t grasp the concept fully. Nor have they looked at the comic book, since the film and the comic look EXACTLY THE SAME. EXACTLY. You are then entering the territory of accusing Frank Miller of making comic books that look exactly like videogames, and then you just look really stupid.
Thricedamned, how does what you are saying consist as a counterargument?
If “300” looks exactly like the comic it was based on, then it’s hard to say that “300” looks like a videogame unless you also claim that the comic looks like a videogame as well.
Are you?
I believe it can look both exactly like the comic, and resemble a videogame at the same time. Obviously the comic was not a videogame, but the movie is certainly structured like one.
Plus, if the comic and the movie look EXACTLY THE SAME. EXACTLY. Then the movie isn’t really much of a cinematic achievement, then, is it?
Thricedamned:
Don’t neglect the element of motion. Graphic novels can offer the illusion of motion with a still frame. By contrast, movies are supposed to illustrate motion. Whenever 300 employs slow-mo to recapture an image from Miller’s comic, it appears to imitate a convention of action videogames (the Prince of Persia series, Enter the Matrix, F.E.A.R.), rather than a convention of action films. This is because the technique adds more tension in a videogame that one is playing, whereas it removes it in a film by reducing the kinetic thrill experienced by a passive audience.
Corollary: sure, the Matrix sequels were action films that employed slow-motion too, but they were similarly accused of seeming like videogames.
I don’t agree that if a film looks EXACTLY like the source material, it automatically makes it a cinematic failure. I believe that it is quite hard to follow the source material closely and still make it work, as I feel Znyder managed to.
However, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree that “300” looks like a videogame, since I’ve played them all my life (and work on one) and “300” is in my mind nothing like one, neither in look or structure.
ThriceDamned:
Do you disagree with the suggestion that a slow-motion shot of a character pulling off an action stunt is more reminiscent of a action-based videogame than an action film (especially if the shot captures the full-body motion of the character)?
Thrice, as an expert, what do you consider the parameters to be of the ‘video game look’?
For me, the fact that Snyder followed Miller’s work slavishly means that he had 90% of his work as a director done for him already. The hard work was actually achieved by his crew. The job of a director is not just to achieve certain shots, bur to _craft_ them as well, to determine what is most artistically vital about a scene or a film and find the best visuals to allow that to happen. It means that Snyder was, in fact, a 2nd unit director on this film.
Kamikaze, I’m pretty sure La Vie en Rose only opened in Canada this weekend. I don’t know when it’s coming out in the U.S.
Some would argue that a great director is one who expertly manages a set by coordinating a talented crew and then let them all do a fantastic job at their own work. No idea if this applies to Snyder but you seem to have an outdated notion of the role of director.
I don’t really understand the whole move as videogame concept since games are by their very nature interactive and movies are passive. You can say it “looks” like a video game but does that really imply anything important at all?
First of all, just because I work in the gaming industry and happen to be a movie nut, I’m not going around calling myself an “expert” in what constitutes a videogame movie and what doesn’t. Your words, not mine.
As it happens, I find very few movies to look like videogames at all, which has sort of been my point through of all of this. I think that particular moniker gets thrown around way too often, and it usually doesn’t take anything more than some perhaps less-than-perfect CGI, and that’s not even a requirement. I saw lots of people throwing around that tired old cliche for King Kong for instance, a movie that in my mind is as far removed from videogames as you can possibly get and had spectacular CGI imagery.
In my mind, a videogame movie is in fact a movie made from a videogame. Silent Hill, Mortal Kombat and Doom are videogame movies in my mind, movies that are so closely connected to their origins that they take specific images and “gimmicks” (such as the FPS scene from Doom) straight from the source.
“300” is in my mind clearly a comic book movie, not a videogame movie.
Krazy Eyes:
“I don’t really understand the whole move as videogame concept since games are by their very nature interactive and movies are passive.”
That is precisely the root of the problem: fundamental differences in the nature of each medium means that conventional techniques are not directly translatable between them. Slow-mo is useful in videogames because it aids the execution of a move, thus providing the thrill of accomplishing it.
Used in an action film, it diffuses tension because we’re watching a move being executed. As we watch a Spartan leap, raise his spear, and bring it sluicing down on his foe, entirely in slow-mo, do we at any point feel the threat of danger for our hero? At this point, the excitement derived from kineticism and fear of being damaged is gone. Unless you can appreciate the artful depiction of balletic violence, that an action film “looks like a videogame” hurts it more than it helps.
I agree DP is wrong, it doesn’t look like a video game, at the least the ones I’ve seen people play. It looks like the comic book (graphic novel) and that’s a triumph in cinematic drawing – just like Sin City looks like the graphic novel. Very well drawn and like I stated before, great set decorations. Storyline – aint there unless you call warring for one hour a storyline.
jeffmcm:
Since I don’t wish to live up to Thricedamned’s name by addressing him once more, how valid do you find my suggestion that 300 is considered a “videogame-like movie” due to the way it portrays motion? And if you find it valid, could you ask Thrice what he feels about it, since he seems to respond more readily to the points you have raised?
i hate the video game/movie comparisons, but i can see why they are apt for 300, mainly because of the middle of the film.
The spartans fight a wave of invaders, they kill them violently, then they take a break.
then another, different wave comes and attacks them, bigger, better, stronger than the last one.
Stage 1 – Persian Footsoldiers
Stage 2 – The Immortals
Stage 3 – Immortals with Giant Brute warrior Boss
Stage 4 – Bomb throwing magicians
etc. etc.
So, while you can debate why people say it’s like a video game, there certainly is a similar structure in the film’s second act.
“For me, the fact that Snyder followed Miller’s work slavishly means that he had 90% of his work as a director done for him already. The hard work was actually achieved by his crew. The job of a director is not just to achieve certain shots, bur to _craft_ them as well, to determine what is most artistically vital about a scene or a film and find the best visuals to allow that to happen. It means that Snyder was, in fact, a 2nd unit director on this film.”
Sorry, Jeff, this is nuts and betrays a large amount of ignorance in regards not just to filmmaking but the source material. You’re like Jeff Wells’ little hater lapdog on this movie, which is fine, but you’re sounding like those Asian film freaks who shit on THE DEPARTED because it was an adaptation.
I’m not sure I understand the argument that slo-mo action is strictly a video game convention. There have been slo-mo action scenes in movies dating all the way back to the pre-vidgame ’60s. Are you saying that “The Wild Bunch” looked like a video game?
“Sorry, Jeff, this is nuts and betrays a large amount of ignorance in regards not just to filmmaking but the source material.”
well said.
Joe, very good point. Anyone saying the slow-mo stuff is ripping off video games needs to get a little more film history. Certainly, Woo patented this look well before video games, and no consoles in the 90s before Matrix came out could do decent “slow-mo” effects, so one could say Matrix defined this “style” and games copied it.
Calling the 300 visual style a ripoff of games is downright ignorant. The 2nd act structure is a better argument. The problem I’m having is with all the entertainment-writer buffoons who make comments “300 is like a videogame” and then make no effort to back it up. It’s a big dumb action movie aimed at 18-35 action fans – these have been around a lot longer than the video games they’re supposedly emulating.
“300” is very much like Donkey Kong. Or maybe Pac-Man. Why? Because I say so. QED.
I am an unabashed fan of 300. I think it is leaps and bounds as visually stunning as anything I have seen in cinema as of late.
However, I do think that one question has been raised about it that is valid. That of authorship.
Obviously Zack Snyder is the director of 300…but is he it’s author?
There seems to be a new group of films coming out that make this question a valid one.
Take note also the films of Charlie Kaufman. They certainly seem to come more from his mind than anything from Gondry or Jonze.
Even a film like True Romance (and to a much lesser extent NBK) is considered a product of Quentin Tarantino’s mind than Tony Scott (although certainly NBK is a Stone film first).
I respect that Robert Rodriguez put down Frank Miller as a co-director on Sin City. Should the same be done of 300? I can very clearly see 300 as a work of the mind of Frank Miller. I do not know enough about Snyder to say it of him.
Again, I love the film and respect the hard directorial work Snyder must have employed to bring this epic to the screen. But I also no longer cling to archaic notions of the director being the sole author of a film.
Certainly in the case of the greats like Ford, Kubrick, Kurosawa (and that crowd) that is true. I know what a Scorsese film is. I know what a Spielberg film is. I know what a Gibson film is.
I know what a Tarantino film is.
I have no clue what a Brett Ratner film is. What does Jay Roach bring to a film? Ditto Tom Shadyac or McG.
Not that these guys can’t do decent work…but are they film author’s or just studio guns for hire? Should we rethink the whole “A film by” credit?
We all know that studios hire many new directors precisely because they have no real vision and will give them product to sell. I think Snyder did a bang up job on 300. I look forward eagerly to his next film. He is no hack and seems intelligent. But as far as tone, visual style and meaning is 300 not also a Frank Miller film?
I think this is a discussion that will be avoided for a while. But as more young directors are directly influenced by the visual style of comics and more comic artists realize this, it is not hard to envision in the next 5-10 years a comic artist insisting on a contractual co-directing credit and sighting Frank Miller as an example.
It’s a discussion worth having.
i liked 300, and i liked Dawn of the Dead.
Is Zack Snyder capable of making a movie if he doesn’t have source material to regurgitate on the screen?
I think that’s the real argument here.
Authorship issues aside, i think we’re coming upon a generation of new filmmakers who do little but regurgitate rather than create.
but hey, im entertained, so maybe i shouldn’t be complaining.
Chris Rock’s “Wife” not doing good.
I THINK I LOVE MY WIFE
Fox Searchlight
theaters – 1,776 Total =$5,715,000 / 3
Why oh why and how do “TV movie” movies get to the big screen? Just hearing the premise, I kept saying…hm…this sounds like a TV sitcom…maybe Chris should have pitched it to cable. Or it could make a really good sitcom, what do you think?
I THINK I LOVE MY LIFE only cost 11 mil to make. At the end of the day, it will make Searchlight a nice chunk of change.
That’s debatable Mason, but I would tend to agree since I didn’t see or hear an ad till the day before it came out.
“For me, the fact that Snyder followed Miller’s work slavishly means that he had 90% of his work as a director done for him already. The hard work was actually achieved by his crew. The job of a director is not just to achieve certain shots, bur to _craft_ them as well, to determine what is most artistically vital about a scene or a film and find the best visuals to allow that to happen. It means that Snyder was, in fact, a 2nd unit director on this film.
Posted by: jeffmcm”
Quoted again because it is just too funny.
Snyder had a very pretty, but abstract, source to pull more structured storyboards and a script from. How does this make it different from any other production after that point? Hint: It doesn’t.
Was this honestly a strong opening for Dead Silence? Not a god-awful average, but strong?
And I guess we won’t be talking about any openings from now on until they pass the $250 million NatM mark. Damn. That’s gonna suck!
I don’t know what you people think a director is except that you seem to think he’s just a guy who follows someone else’s ideas and filters those to the production designer and cinematographer. Like I said: if you’re following someone else’s creative orders, by definition you are a second unit director. “Hack” is not necessarily a bad term. It just means you are doing a work for hire and not for any personal stake you may have in the material.
A director _should be_, if he has any personal vision at all, the guy (or gal) who takes a script and invests it with their own creative imprimatur. I know this is an auteurist argument, but I consider a film with the director-as-auteur to be superior, in general, to a film where the producer or author of a material that has been adapted was the auteur. Frank Miller already made his 300. Was there any reason to make it again besides money and to spread its pernicious influence further?
“I respect that Robert Rodriguez put down Frank Miller as a co-director on Sin City. Should the same be done of 300? I can very clearly see 300 as a work of the mind of Frank Miller. I do not know enough about Snyder to say it of him.”
Nicol: Rodriguez did that because Miller was on set dailt, co-directing with him. That was not the case on 300. I was actually on set the first time Frank Miller had come to visit, and it was during the last third of shooting.
PS: I can’t be Wells’s lapdog because I think he is a scumbag and I’ve lately been arguing for him to stop his multiple daily posts on the movie.
Nicol: there have always been directors with no particular interest/ability to control a movie’s authorship. I don’t think you could say what a film by William Dieterle or Mark Robson or Sydney Pollack looks like either. If anything I would expect that the dawning age of cheaper digital video would mean more independent voices out there.
Plus, as I think you yourself have stated, the current trend of comic adaptations to movies will not last forever.
Jeff, I don’t see anyone running around proclaiming the auteuristic genius of Zack Snyder. Most press has given equal attention to both Snyder and Miller. I do not think that the auteur theory applies to all films – there are specific filmmakers like Stone, Mann, Spielberg, etc. – but that hardly means every film needs or is creatively designed by a single auteur. If there were lots of articles comparing Snyder to other auteurs I’d have a problem, but I think he’s still finding his voice. 300 is likely not the creative pinnacle of his career.
I don’t disagree with you.
I just think that Snyder abandoned any interest in doing something with 300’s content and allowed Miller’s voice to predominate (not necessarily a bad thing) but at the cost of concentrating purely on crafting superficial visuals (a bad thing).
jeff,
you’re really, really reaching here.
you’re arguing a very poor point from a very weak foundation.
300, while not perfect, was an entertaining film translated from a graphic novel, that has been enjoyed by many people.
You’re looking for a negative on a story that really has none.
It made money. The word of mouth is excellent. It proves that comic books and graphic novels can be translated to the screen and appreciated by mainstream audiences, for an affordable budget no less.
I would think it’s success would make most people fairly happy that something so out there was well received.
If nothing else, it’s quite different than anything else out there, done in a truly unique way.
Art is subjective. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it lacks value.
I’m sure you would agree that there have been plenty of horrible movies that have made lots of money and been enjoyed by many people.
Plus, it’s not ‘quite different from anything else out there, dont in a truly unique way’. It’s a gladiator movie. They’ve been making those since the 1920s. The only difference is that it’s juiced up with the shiniest new digital effects. Storywise it offers nothing new.
I really don’t care what the source material was or how the movie was made or what techniques Snyder used or any of that. My dislike of the movie is purely on the subject of its content, which is vicious and dehumanizing.
Since ‘all art is subjective’ then you have to also agree that I’m perfectly valid in expressing my opinion of the movie’s general lack of value.
Seriously, though, do any of you actually pay attention to what a movie says or is about or does something have to bludgeon you with Crash-level obviousness in order to make a statement?
the story has been done before, but you could say that of every movie in the theater.
every.
single.
one.
Show me a film in the top 10 that hasn’t been done before, or isn’t a variation on a previous film or adapted work.
The fact that the material is nothing new shouldn’t shock you at all, so your indignation focused on 300 feels rather fake.
The non valid part of your argument is your complaint with Snyder. That’s the poor argument on a weak foundation. You’re taking your dislike of the movie and using it as some kind of foundation to discredit Snyder’s contribution to it.
That’s fanboy bullshit, and i’m calling Shennanegans.
Oh no! Shenanigans!
I wasn’t trying to claim that a movie has to be fresh and original to be good – I was just trying to discredit your statement “it’s quite different than anything else out there, done in a truly unique way.” By saying “Show me a film in the top 10 that hasn’t been done before, or isn’t a variation on a previous film or adapted work” you have conceded the point to me.
Once again, my problem with the movie is that it encourages its audience to revel in bloodlust, with the aid of state-of-the-art special effects and striking visuals. If it had been made poorly, I wouldn’t care.
I ask, can anyone here name a movie, any movie, that urges its audience to want to _kill_ more than this one? To cheer at the slaughter of the bad guys? Anyone? Bueller?
“I ask, can anyone here name a movie, any movie, that urges its audience to want to _kill_ more than this one? To cheer at the slaughter of the bad guys? Anyone? Bueller?”
Kill Bill Vol. 1
Most Zombie Films
Most zombie films put you-the-audience in a position of being the fleeing victim. Your goal is not to kill (who, the zombies?) but to survive.
Duh.
Kill Bill V.1 is actually a pretty good attempt. I would say that it falls short of what I’m asking for due to its heightened degree of cartoonishness. I think Tarantino is a smart enough filmmaker to know not to take his own adolescent will-to-power fantasies too seriously, whereas Snyder in 300 takes his bloodlust _very_ seriously and refuses to leaven it with anything that might deflate it.
Plus, and this is important, Kill Bill does not have a political component (against who, nameless henchmen?), and 300 clearly does (against Our Enemies, The Barbarians).
This has been fun but I have to go see El Topo at the Nuart now, adios.
“I would say that it falls short of what I’m asking for due to its heightened degree of cartoonishness.”
And 300 wasn’t cartoonish?
Not as much, no. 300 clearly took itself _very_ seriously. A sense of humor like Tarantino’s goes a long way (okay, now I have to go).
Okay, all this 300 talk is boring…
Why is everyone reporting Premonition’s budget as $20 million? Surely Sandra didn’t cut her price for that tripe.
And where can one watch this movie David has talked about… Night at the Fucking Museum?
I visited a Museum on the subject of Fucking in Japan once. There really is a franchise waiting to breakout in this department!
There’s one in Amsterdam, too. Memorable for the chair that looks like a giant penis.
>>>>Okay, all this 300 talk is boring…
Why is everyone reporting Premonition’s budget as $20 million? Surely Sandra didn’t cut her price for that tripe.< On the contrary, your post is extremely boring. Who gives a rat's ass about Sandra's price?
We have a new winner.
Pat, that was incredibly unnecessary.
Also, I’m sure Night at the Fucking Museum will be out in 2-3 months starring Ben Fillerup as a poor down on his luck, yet surprisingly well endowed, new security night guard. One night, upon awakening a curse hidden for thousands of years, all the really hot sexy (and totally not decomposed) mummies wake up, strip off their constrictive bandages and have a big wild orgy in the tribal exhibit before being busted by the manager in the morning who decides to join in.