Summer Survey #2
Okay… using the prior survey as a way to narrow the summer’s most promising box office films down to ten, here is a smaller list to work with and a different way to work through it. Good luck.
May 18, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
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
PELHAM is going to command you upside the head like that part where the mighty General Zod killed a 10-year-old British child with an exploding siren in the TV cut of SUPERMAN II.
TERMINATOR 4 looks like it was shot on aluminum foil, with all the color variation of a faded 1972 quarter.
I know we can do all those color-reversal/bleach bypass desaturation grain tricks up the ass now thanks to editing on computers, but is it too much to ask that PRIMARY COLORS ever rear their heads in movies again?
Almost makes me wish Joel Schumacher had directed the fuck outta that bitch and shot it using hot pink, purple, aquamarine and magenta lens filters.
COLORS, PEOPLE.
I think it’s an attempt to blend the CGI in. If you look at some older CG it has that off-beige or gray shading that doesn’t reflect light properly. I think Iron Man had a nice balance-probably one reason I loved it so much.
Not that I’m a big McG apologist, but he and his cinematography have a reasonable explanation for the look:
“We talked to the people who monitored Chernobyl about what the world would sound and look and taste and feel like after the bombs have gone off,” said McG. “Then we got a dead Kodak stock. We baked it in the sun a little bit too long to damage the film, and then we shot on uncorrected Panavision lenses that flare more easily and aren’t quite as sharp as Primo lenses but have an interesting patina. Most importantly we added three times as much silver in the processing than one traditionally would to a color stock. Add it all up and you get this otherworldly, desolate feeling.”
More tidbits here, if anyone’s interested:
http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2009/01/terminator-dire.html
I don’t expect any of those movies to be any good, except for Up and maybe Bruno. And I don’t yet have any desire to actually get off the couch and go see Up.
Lex, they still use primary colors in chick flicks. Real men don’t need to see a bunch of rainbows in their action movies.
My question is about the biggest wildcards of the season. Which film has the best chance to wildly exceed expectations? Which film may be an unexpected dud? Which film is the most difficult to forecast?
Star Trek = dud. I love ST, and am a geek about it, but dud nonetheless.
i beg to differ, aris p (have you seen it?)
aris is right. Dud. That franchise is kaput. You can pretty it up all you want, but what’s done is done.
By the way, I’m an old timey Star Trek fan, but the only reason I’ll see this mess is because my wife is an Abrams whore.
I haven’t seen it. But with every weekend being followed by another summer blockbuster, ST’s opening weekend’s going to have to be huge, as these things go. Granted, people will be caught up in summer film machine mode so a 50 million opening is doable, but “science fiction” & “star trek” are going to throw the same people off who said “big blue testicles” and “rorshcah… whaaa?”. The name is what’s going to sell this film, and im not sure what that brand has going for it anymore. It’s not “giant space battle film” that’s going to bring people to the theater. IMO.
The biggest grossing Star Trek movie ever is Star Trek 4, which came out 20 years ago and barely topped $100 million. The last Trek film barely pulled in $40m domestic.
Remember, Cloverfield only made it to $80 million. Star Trek won’t see the high side of $120.
On the surprising dud idea (good question mystery). I’m going to go with Night at the Museum 2. Now, YES, I’m aware it’s kid fare, sequel and on a holiday weekend etc. But…I’ve got a feeling that even the kids are over the concept, and I literally have never met anyone who loved the first one. I barely got through 10 minutes myself, but I’m in my cynical 20’s. So i think it’ll be a dud in the expectations standard.
Trek will have a huge opening weekend, I bet. How long that will last…over $100M, doesn’t get to $200M.
oh for fucks sake. to both aris and wrecktum, shut yer face if you haven’t even seen the movie. i am so sick of people commenting about the quality of/bagging on the potential of films THEY HAVEN’T EVEN SEEN, often based on the trailer.
news flash: TRAILERS ARE NOT THE MOVIE. the trailer for trek doesn’t even hint at the style of the film, which has big action but quite a unique look and stylie photography, and at heart is character-driven, a cult of personality. it has the potential to to big business because it’s entertaining as hell.
wrecktum: trek is a mess? based on what? the trailer?
aris p: ‘It’s not “giant space battle film” that’s going to bring people to the theater. IMO.’ based on what? the trailer?
btw: trek has some of the best aerial dogfight-type space battles i’ve seen in a long time.
i’m calling bullshit on your bullshit
“oh for fucks sake. to both aris and wrecktum, shut yer face if you haven’t even seen the movie. i am so sick of people commenting about the quality of/bagging on the potential of films THEY HAVEN’T EVEN SEEN, often based on the trailer”
How’s life at Bad Robot? Stressful? I’d assume so considering how much money’s been blown on this Star Trek movie and it isn’t tracking beyond the typical geek brigade.
Wait…you can’t be a Bad Robot drone. Cuz even the most dunderheaded braindead office clerk in the business knows that movie quality has nothing to do with boxoffice performance. Sorry to assume.
Yeah, if you look at the track record of Star Trek…they’re not blockbuster movies. They always seem mid-range. ALthough this is the first that actually looks like a real blockbuster in terms of style and budget, so who knows. But I’d be surprised if it made crazy money. I’m thinking MI3 cash. Which may be good enough.
Hopefully Abrams learned from his last movie that when shooting an action scene, there are other shots he can use other than “extreme close up.” All that budget and they could have shot half the action scenes in my backyard.
found a review of the new Star Trek
http://www.totalfilm.com/reviews/cinema/star-trek-1
The film doesn’t come out until May. How come the review is already published?
wrecktum, you just called trek a ‘mess’, a film you haven’t seen. how does that relate to box office pray tell? it doesn’t. you were making disparaging remarks about the quality of a film you haven’t seen, so just admit it and stop back-peddling on your unicycle.
(and i have no idea what ‘bad robot’ is, i’m a kiwi, but i’m pretty sure you were being a wanker so piss off)
perm, jj abrams did NOT direct ‘cloverfield’, if that’s the movie to which you referred.
ployp, supposedly there is an embargo but it seems to have gone the way of the dodo with the movie premiering around the globe
“Which film has the best chance to wildly exceed expectations? Which film may be an unexpected dud?”
I agree. But the problem is we do not really know the standards anymore.
T3 with Arnold only scratched 150 domestic but cleaned up overseas. Would that be ok for T4? I suspect they want more from it than 150.
Angels and Demons will probably also do much better overseas than domestic but the first is not terribly loved. What is a hit for them? If it does 150 domestic are people disappointed? It is also opening around a lot of films that are probably more anticipated. Though Hanks is still a draw.
All the praise and press ink in the world could not get Borat over 130 domestic but it had such a low budget…will Bruno’s producers be satisfied if it does not cross 100 million domestic. I will be very surprised if it does.
Most of these films will do fine after ancilliary is taken into consideration but I’m curious as to what the perception will be.
I am most curious abous Potter. I would bet on it being huge but I for one am all Pottered out and I suspect I may not be the only one. How many time can we see the same movie over and over again with no climax?
leahnz, I was referring to MI3.
Harry Potter and Transformers 2 are the closest we have to sure things, although Tran2 will do much less than the first, imo. I would put Up in here, too, but I don’t think it will reach the heights of some of Pixar’s past hits (in other words, another crawl to $200 mill).
I actually think Night at the Museum 2 will be a big hit.
Angels & Demons is up in the air for me, but I’m completely outside the loop on this franchise.
Terminator: Salvation could be big, but its one of those movies that gets hurt if it’s not good. It needs its franchise fans behind it, but if McG blows it…
I think the negative points people have offered against Star Trek are valid. It has the look and feel of a summer tentpole, but its still STAR TREK. Most people have made up their minds about how interested they are in the franchise, and it has no momentum. It could be a loser this summer.
‘I think the negative points people have offered against Star Trek are valid. It has the look and feel of a summer tentpole, but its still STAR TREK. Most people have made up their minds about how interested they are in the franchise, and it has no momentum. It could be a loser this summer.’
most people have made up their minds, mystery? are you, in fact, a mind reader of the world’s population? how could you possibly know this?
and, ‘it has no momentum’? again, based on what? i’d really like to know (because you and your mates don’t think it’ll be any good? well that settled it then!) and it’s cool to call a movie you haven’t seen ‘a mess’?
the sweeping, smarty-pants, based-on-nothing-but personal-opinion calls on this blog are extremely annoying.
perm: oh, well, ok then! 😉
ployp, they got rid of the embargo. At least they did in places like Australia.
Hopscotch, i’m also getting a Doctor Dolittle 2 or Stuart Little 2 vibe, but I could easily be proven wrong.
“wrecktum, you just called trek a ‘mess’, a film you haven’t seen. how does that relate to box office pray tell? it doesn’t. you were making disparaging remarks about the quality of a film you haven’t seen, so just admit it and stop back-peddling on your unicycle.”
My boxoffice analysis (which is sound, wait until the opening and eat crow then) has nothing to do with my opinion of the project. If you actually read what I wrote you’d see that I was an old time Star Trek fan from before you were born. This spazzed-out, douchebagged “Star Trek” is not the Trek I know, so I reject it sight unseen. It has nothing to do with the quality of the film (it could be Citizen Kane in space for all I fuckin know) and everything to do with someone besides Bill Shatner playing Kirk.
“(and i have no idea what ‘bad robot’ is, i’m a kiwi, but i’m pretty sure you were being a wanker so piss off)”
Ensign Rand must be played by a sheep. Baaaaa Robot.
leahnz- why are you taking this so personally? Seems like its affecting your comprehension.
The franchise has a track record. That record has been in decline. The last film tanked domestically, and the films have not been a strong international draw. The last TV series (Enterprise) was the least successful yet.
The Star Trek franchise is 40+ years old. It is a known entity. Most people know how they feel about the franchise. Point is, the new flick is not being released into a vacuum.
It the film’s fate sealed? Certainly not. But based on the budget and marketing push for it, the powers that be have expectations that outstrip the historical performance of the franchise. In this way, Star Trek may be an unexpected dud.
Personally, I hope it’s great and does well. I’m a long-time fan. But what do you think we’re doing here? What do you think all of these polls are about?
leahnz — i’m not deciding its fate on the trailer. Everything you say about the film can be right. I’m saying why i think it will be a dud. And that’s because I think no one (other than the trekies for the most part) give a shit about the BRAND. So nothing about the trailer. The BRAND and the NAME mean shit for the average moviegoer. period. Get carried away as much as you want.
And for the record, that trailer was solely for people who are on ritalin. Maybe, just maybe, Abrams and his ilk can consider making a trailer like the original Star Trek film. You know what? THEN people, like my 35 year old friends (some of whom are sci-fi fans but not ST fans) MIGHT want to see this film.
‘leahnz- why are you taking this so personally? Seems like its affecting your comprehension.’
(that actually made me laugh for some reason)
of course ‘star trek’ could bomb in a big way, of course the franchise is tired and old, this is not exactly breaking news. but the new ‘trek’ might be the one ‘big’ movie that actually breaks out and achieves beyond expectations because it’s actually good (which it is; i’ve yet to talk to one person who’s seen it that didn’t find it surprisingly well conceived and hugely entertaining). the film has obviously been made to appeal to a wide audience with a new generation of fans in mind, to revive ‘trek’ lore for a new era of space adventure. roddenberry himself said he hoped one day the back-story for his beloved characters would be told, and behold, his wish has been granted – albeit in a slightly time-bending way.
i’m not taking anything ‘personally’, i didn’t work on the project – and even if i had i rarely take comments about a film personally because whether or not someone likes a movie is completely subjective and i have no problem with that – nor is my comprehension impaired (no more than usual, anyway); predicting box office is a monumental waste of time imho but by all means have at it, i’m just sick to the gills of the no-it-all snark that accompanies much of the prognostication, people talking about films they haven’t seen like they have, or making predictions based on trailers, which seems to happen a good deal. nobody knows nothing about how a film will perform, and people pretending they do is silly.
(goodness, wrecktum, why don’t you go suck on some more lemons, i don’t think you’re quite as big a sourpuss as you could be. and re: ‘you’d see that I was an old time Star Trek fan from before you were born’…you know when i was born? creepy)
While the Star Trek franchise certainly was in decline for the last decade or so of its existence, it still feels like this new movie is breaking out of the box sufficiently to not be a part of that same trajectory – this is a reboot, after all, and we don’t judge Batman Begins by the same standard as Batman & Robin, right? So I think that $150m is the lowest it will end up at, and that all the talk re: no previous Trek movie making over $120m isn’t as important as it might seem (plus, $120m in 1986 dollars is what, $190 today?)
And I say this as somebody who kind of hopes the movie fails because I don’t have much faith in Abrams to have a ‘vision’ of anything other than sex and melodrama selling.
Except the last ones made 70 and 45 million. And Batman and Robin still opened really big. And I don’t know if it’s broken out of the box enough just yet…the trailers and stuff to me just look like slightly jacked up and sexed up Star Trek…which also described Enterprise. I only saw parts of those episodes, but it seemed every time I’d flip past the Vaulcan chick was in her underwear in a sauna.
But I’d stick with MI3 numbers…$150 mil, like Jeff said. Although I see now that it only made 130 mil…uh oh!
And you’ve got Wolverine on one side and Terminator on the other…hmmm.
And looking at the list of movies this year…damn, there’s hardly any big movies I’m interested in seeing. I love summer action movies but I’m pretty blah about Wolverine or Terminator, and I don’t want to see some children’s live action movie of GI Joe. Sommers is able to take any decent idea (like an Helsing) and make an insufferable movie out of it. Not that GI Joe is really a decent idea.
Last year there were a ton of movies I wanted to see, so many I didn’t get a chance to see a lot of them in the theater.
I think all these movies will do better than expected, unless they do worse than expected, or merely meet expectations.
As for Star Trek, I think jeff is correct about the reboot factor working in the film’s favor. Younger folks who want sci-fi action but know little about the franchise will look upon it as a new thing. Then it’ll all be up to word of mouth.
It’s entirely possible that I’m misjudging the overall franchise’s brand-name strength. And yeah, the last two movies were pretty weak, but the reason for that, I’d say, and the increased weakness of Voyage and Enterprise from the mid-90s on had to do with the fact that they were both playing more and more to an insular fan base. I didn’t watch a lot of Enterprise, but half of the episodes referred to stuff that had happened in the original series – they were really chasing the hardcore nerds at the expense of relevant storytelling and characters (ground quickly picked up by Battlestar Galactica).
But yeah, it’s entirely possible that it could be this year’s Speed Racer – a franchise start-up based on an outdated property with wayyyyy too big of a budget.
Mostly I just want to counter the “no Trek movie has ever made over $120m” meme, which is meaningless in 2009 terms. Another example, the 1979 movie’s $139m worldwide gross must be over $250m adjusted for inflation, right?
The Star Trek problem is not very complicated.
The domestic figure is not the key… international and the failure of the series to translate is.
Again, no Trek film has done as much as $200 million worldwide. This film cost no less than $215m, some would say $250m.
If the film made $300m worldwide… much more than an inflation adjustment… it still loses big money.
Trek has a rock solid core… and historically is rejected by nonTrek-obsessed audiences. The ambition here is to make this “not your father’s Trek.”. We will not know of that worked until the second weekend numbers roll in… regardless of quality.
David, you and I are very contentiously agreeing with each other.