Wed Notes II
Avatar DVD – The most interesting part of the April DVD release is that the highest grossing film of all-time is getting a DVD release 18 weeks after release.
Al the talk about 16 weeks and 14 weeks and 12 week DVD windows make us forget… the actually theatrical window of value after the studios have used marketing muscle to front-load the box office is about 8 to 10 weeks. A movie like The Blind Side, with 12 weekends of more than $2 million and 17 weekends of over $1 million is a very, very rare exception.
Of the rest of the Top Ten for 2009, here are the number of weekends with $1m grosses…
Transformers 2, Harry Potter VI, Twilight: New Moon, Chipmunks: The Squeakquel, Sherlock Holmes – 8 weeks
Up, Star Trek – 10 weeks
The Hangover – 14 weeks
Avatar did $6.5m last weekend, 13 weekends in… and that’s with losing many 3D screens to Alice. There is little doubt that the weekend before the film arrives on DVD, it will still do more than $1 million.
And still, the DVD lands.
Is it marketing? Is it Fox’s fiscal quarter? Is it concern about piracy becoming more of an issue for American dvd buyers? Is it short-window insanity… even as they talk about a summer re-release of the film?
By the way, Titanic had thirty $1 million weekends. Different world.
===========
The notion that Green Zone’s soft open has dick all to do with whether the Bourne Franchise still has juice in it with Matt Damon aboard is absurd. Truly idiotic on its face.
Audiences are not stupid. They didn’t think Remember Me was Twilight 3 and they didn’t actually think that Green Zone was Bourne 4.
The Bourne problem that Universal DOES have is that Greengrass is still saying he’s out and Damon is saying that he’s out with him. If that is the case, it is no longer a franchise, but a re-boot. And that has its own dangers.
===========
There is some chance that neither MGM nor Miramax will be sold, in spite of all the noise. Disney is on more of a mission to dump their history, so it has a better chance of selling at a low price, especially to Harvey Weinstein, who will not pay the $700m asking price, but could do deal in which Disney still gets a piece of the revenue of the revived library in exchange for letting him have his glory at a price.
At MGM, the same problem remains… either you write off more than 2/3rds of the value of the investment or you sit on it, waiting for it to become worth more again. The logic is, why sell for so little when if you are going to take the hit, you might as well gamble and see what the future brings.
The same game is being played, essentially, with Focus and Overture… sell if the deal is rich enough (read: dumb enough?), but don’t dump an asset just because you can. No one wants to be Paramount looking at Summit’s success with Twilight the next time around.
Fox, DreamWorks, and Disney are pretty much the only studios that would not be sold by the owners/investors right now. Besides Universal being in the process of being sold and MGM being foreclosed upon, make no mistake that Sony, Viacom, and Time-Warner would all sell to The Deep Pockets if there were any out there that deep and that interested. This remains a high-risk, low-reward business… even as guys like Iger are seeking to make it a low-risk, medium-reward business going forward… just like Reed wants Variety to get out of the publishing business as its main gig and to focus on branding. What a way to go!
“The Bourne problem that Universal DOES have is that Greengrass is still saying he’s out and Damon is saying that he’s out with him. If that is the case, it is no longer a franchise, but a re-boot. And that has its own dangers.”
Which is the Bourne problem that shields the greater Bourne problem if Greengrass and Damon jumped on at any point: the story was thoroughly and completely finished. There was nothing left to do and nowhere left to go with Jason Bourne’s quest. Even the third entry of the series was deja vu heavy.
Nevermind that the only reason for a reboot is to milk the cash Bourne cow till the teats can touch each other across each hemisphere of the globe.
Reboot Bourne with WORTHINGTON. GOOD IDEA. Actually, no need to reboot whatsoever, just flip the actor like when Moore or Lazenby took over as Bond. A new Bourne, but no new timeline and no bullshit origin stories. Just replace the actor and don’t even comment on it. Worthington would KILL as Bourne. AS ALWAYS. WORTHINGTON POWER.
Love Greengrass, SORT OF liked Green Zone, but, man, get this guy some new directorial tricks, stat. If some people thought Bourne III was a through-the-paces rehash of Supremacy, GZ is about as patented and surprise-free as a new Tim Burton/Johnny Depp pairing.
Can’t entirely say if DP is right or wrong on the issue, as most audiences don’t make connections between directors and “auteurs” and whatnot, but the cold, grinding, mechanical vibe of GZ *does* make me a little LESS excited about another Bourne movie.
Worthington has no power. The success of Avatar and the probably success of Clash will have NOTHING to do with Worthington. It wouldn’t matter who was in either of those movies they would have made money. Things are different with Bouren. Bourne is not a movie that you can just plug in anyone and have it keep on being a success. Damon’s strong acting was a huge part of the success of the Bourne movies and Worthington has never show he has strong acting chops.
It’s debatable whether or not a reboot of Bourne could work. When “Identity” came out, by no means was it a sure thing. I remember reading around blogs that Matt Damon as an action star was laughable. With the right actor, director, and story it might work. I’m sure if Worthington had the right story and director, I don’t see why it can’t be a decent flick.
“Which is the Bourne problem that shields the greater Bourne problem if Greengrass and Damon jumped on at any point: the story was thoroughly and completely finished. There was nothing left to do and nowhere left to go with Jason Bourne’s quest. Even the third entry of the series was deja vu heavy.”
This was a great point…
I did not think it flowed at all, just my thoughts
David, any chance you can comment on how you got the Avatar math from your recent post? Why Cameron’s take is bigger than the non-Fox financing partners, or even why it’s as big as you’ve listed? Not debating, just find it hard to understand, despite the film’s runaway success.
Guesstimate of 10% gross participation. It’s a bit higher than Variety’s guesstimate of his % points, but roughly on par with Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich.
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/features/2010/03/top-hollywood-earners-201003
Vanity Fair. WUTEVAH.
(Also Starcentral apparently)
I think the “Damon is over” or “Damon is box office poison” cries are premature and inaccurate. Outside of Ocean’s 13 and Bourne Supremacy, The Good Shepherd made $60 million with him in the lead role. I’m a fan of the movie, but it’s slow and nearly three hours long. Hardly a mainstream crowd pleaser. Did anyone think The Informant was going to make more than $33 million? It’s another Damon movie I like a lot, but it was a tough sell and the gross seems about right to me. Invictus has a Shawshank Redemption-ish title and looked dry and not all that interesting. Green Zone had plenty of production problems and just didn’t entice people very well. By the time it opened its disappointment seemed inevitable.
Hey I have an important Wednesday Note:
FANNING POWER. BOW.
I just watched the first and second Bourne movies over the weekend, again. The first still holds up as a solid, well-made action spy flick, with a touch of a love story. It’s not very jumpy or rough the way Greengrass’ movie were, but the story actually made some sense and the characters really worked well. The idea of a killer who doesn’t remember being a killer – and can he change from that life – if very compelling.
But the second movie (Supremacy?) really didn’t hold up. The story made almost no sense. The quick cutting still sucks, because you can’t tell what’s going on. The only thing they really got right is the idea of going through the movie with the camera about three feet behind Bourne, so you’re inside the car for car crashes and close to the action. In many ways, it’s like a videogame.
I’m not even going to bother with the third one, as I remember that just being a rehash.
Oops yeah I meant Ultimatum.
So there’s a slight chance that Avatar might still be in the top ten when the DVD drops, unless theater owners drop if from their screens in anticipation.
Glad to hear others think that the third Bourne was a bit of a retread. I didn’t think it forwarded the story at all and all the action mirrored the other two installments. I still own it and watch it occasionally but I would have been just as happy if they had ended it with the second. And without Damon there is no purpose in having another one. It is hardly a beloved property, they didn’t actually greenlight the sequal until they saw the rental returns on the first one. But if your highest profile action franchise stars Vin Diesel, I guess you have to pull at whatever straws you have.
They could do a prequel and call it BOURNE YESTERDAY.
Invictus is surely going to be huge on DVD, right? People seeing it who didn’t even realise Morgan and Matt had a movie out from Clint Eastwood (or that were turned off by all the rugby). etc.
The Bourne Supremacy is still my favourite of that series. It’s almost a perfect movie, actually, for what it’s doing.
MGM IS for sale and who’s kicking the tires? Time Warner.
The stupidity out of the way first: Sam Worthing-less-ton is this generation’s Tab Hunter and really needs to get on to the Mark Hamill part of his career arc (doing voice work and getting older at each new convention he shows up for). LexG has some serious man-crush going on for this boring slab of no-personality that borders on derangement.
Bigger Stupidity: Fox’s AVATAR window. They must not have any faith in DATE NIGHT, MARMADUKE (okay, NO ONE has faith in MARMADUKE), A-TEAM or KNIGHT & DAY and need the DVD sales to prop up the 2nd quarter. Otherwise, why not think outside the box and hold off the DVD until Cameron tries his re-launch on IMAX in late summer if it actually comes to pass?
The DVD is not going to be that big (except as a screener for Samsung’s 3D TVs) and the added time will increase the desire to maybe see it again on home video for those not tempted back out. The re-release launch will keep it in people’s consciousness until the DVD street date.
WORTHINGTON POWER. GOD.
If they could just put Worthington, Chris Evans and Paul Walker in EVERY MALE-LEAD ACTION ROLE, I wouldn’t complain. Much rather have a likable, somewhat anonynous straight-shooter cipher type in the lead than some hambone showboater or smart-ass floppy-haired kid.
Worthington is a perfect synthesis of Skeet Ulrich, early K-Fed, and Evil Dr. Will from BIG BROTHER 2.
LexG: Met K-Stew and Dakota today. They were very charming young ladies.
YEP YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP.
LEXG SAYS:
Go see The Runaways… then go door to door reporting that you saw it to your neighbors. ZING. GOOD JOKE. PUT IT ON THE POSTER.
Holy SHIT, even Humbert Humbert might’ve said, “Too much.” Who directed this thing, Gary Glitter? Not since the Fiona Apple “Criminal” video will you have been so uncomfortable.
FIVE STARS. You know what time it is.
K-STEW PLUS SQUIRT GUN = GOLD.
Actually, LexG, I immediately thought of you when I heard the line: “Jail Fuckin’ Bait! Jack Fuckin’ Pot!”
Why do people have such disdain for Sam Worthington already. It’s not his fault that you’re too lazy to seek out movies like Somersault and are instead judging him on his ability to get cast in big budget movies. Besides, he’s got more than enough personality when he’s not being thrust on stage at an awards show.
Joe, was Kristen all shy and earnest and eyebrow-scrunchy and thoughtful and demure??? And Dakota all poised and charmingly sweet and good-natured?
They are like EBONY AND IVORY.
Kamikaze: NO complaints about Worthington over here.
On the other hand, do you guys happen to want Alex O’Loughlin back? What did we ever do to deserve him? Was he a star back there or something? He’s getting pushed as a big TV and now movie guy here, and it’s mystifying.
Why, yes. Yes they were.
I read somewhere, and I will completely mangle the quote with my misremembered paraphrasing, that the people you should want to work with aren’t those who look good but rather those that make the people around them look good.
(And I’m not talking about “Sucking so bad that even mediocre performances are good by comparison”)
For me, Tom Cruise is an example of the first – he sells tickets, but he does so by being Tom “Almost Jumping On The Couch Crazy” Cruise. Everyone else around him is in his shadow whether they like it or not – the exceptions being Dustin Hoffman, Jack Nicholson, and arguably Jamie Foxx.
Sam Worthington, on the other hand, comes in and gives a good (if not stand-out) performance… but also lets you appreciate the others around him. And I think the whole experience lifts because of it. I don’t think it’s bland, I just think after 30-odd years of scene-chewing ostentatious actors (Jim Carrey in the 90s…) that it’s a shock to see a leading man who leads by allowing other to look good, because that’s traditionally the province of the supporting role.
I like Worthington too. He’s excellent in Somersault, gives the best performance in T: Salvation (yes not saying much), is fine in Avatar and gives a fun performance in Rogue.
Lex, I can only remember him making two movies here in Australia. He was good in Oyster Farmer, but there’s also Feed, which is about a man who feeds women to death in order to get his kicks. I haven’t seen it, but… well, yeah.
You can have him. Just make sure he takes his shirt off more since that’s about all he’s good for these days. I like how Three Rivers was cancelled after one episode.