Sunday Numbers (with Klady)
Shrek 4- $25.9m – off 40%
A good drop, coming off of a holiday weekend.
Greek, $17.3m – again, right on the Sarah Marshall number ($17.7m) – the studio will hope for exceptional legs, but most of the conversations I seem to have about the film start with asses, dildos, and a lack of lube… which will draw some… but not those looking for the heart the film seems to want us to see… and which, ironically, is what producer Apatow does better than any of his progeny.
Killers at $16m is not a death number. $50m domestic and $150 overseas and the film is a hit. Of course, it needs that big number overseas, where Mr Kutcher does carry more box weight (and Ms Heigl, less).
Fox must be comforted, a bit, that Marmaduke recovered with a (relatively) big Saturday of little kids. It’s still not pretty, but $8m would have been a lot uglier.
I don’t know what WB’s deal for Splice was, but $7.4m is not a great number, given the studio’s marketing budgets. Could a smaller company have done better? Probably. But the real measure is the cost added to the movie by a distributor… as is the issue with most indie companies these days.
S&TC2 (or s&thc2) is looking at the real possibility of not hitting $100m domestic. As the biggest dropper without many screens lost, it is now fair to start blaming the quality of the movie for its ongoing failure.
Robin Hood will quietly crack $100m by the end of next weekend and Summit will hit, eventually, $50m for Letters From Juliet, still well off Dear John, but a step up for the distributor.
Okay, Shrek has yet to have a 50% or more drop-off. Is it safe to assume now that the 3D bump is so substantial now that it can keep a film from dropping off by 50% or more each week or is it something else like positive WOM? Whatever the case. if Shrek 4 can have this decent of a hold, I can only imagine how well Toy Story 3 will hold during June and heading into July.
I have no idea how any kind of price bump could possibly affect weekly dropoffs. You’re going to have to elaborate on that logic there.
David, accoridng to other medias, WB tellp people that they have zero financial interest in SPLICE; WB only release SPLICE on behalf of Dark Castle (which acquired this film’s US rights and are spending about $35 million P&A). There, WB won’t lose any money on SPLICE (and WB will also get distribution fee).
SPLICE is getting mostly positive reviews from critics, but the film also gets many negative comments in twitter and garnered an D grade from CinemaScore. It may prove that SPLICE could not be opened and sold as a mainstream horror film; the film may require more careful nurturing from specialty division. (I believe that if “Memento” was opened and sold as a mainstream thriller, the film would not have the reputation it has today.)
Foamy, if the film has a bump that’s inflating it’s gross, then the gross is so inflated, that it makes it harder for that film to have the standard 50% and more drop-offs that we have become accustomed to during the Summer. Hopefully that is enough elaboration for you.
That… doesn’t make any sense. If a film has a $20mil opening and falls to $10mil, that’s a 50% dropoff. If tickets get a 50% price bump, that’s $30mil to $15mil… which is still a 50% drop.
Wait a minute. Am I misremembering that you said last week it was stoopid to suggest quality had anything to do with box office? (It stuck in my mind because I disagree.)
chris, I believe Dave’s spiel is usually “Quality has nothing to do with opening weekend.”
IO, I have to side with the Foamy Squirrel here. You’re off the rails on this one. If the value of the ticket sales is inflated for Digital 3D and IMAX the first week, and is inflated for the same reasons the second week, and still inflated in the third week, then it’s not a valid point. If Shrek wasn’t in 3D and IMAX for the first part of its run, and then was released in 3D and IMAX a few weeks later, only then would the ticket price inflation become a factor in its drop-off or lack thereof.
I’m almost afraid to ask, but does anyone know what Fox’s “Untitled Vampire Spoof” is? Box-Office Mojo lists it as opening in mid-August.
Could it–eek!–be another entry in their woebegone “Movie” (“Date,” “Epic,” etc.) series?
Sadly, it is another crappy spoof movie from the inept “writing”/”directing” team of Aaron Seltzer and Jason Friedberg.
I’m not “The” Foamy Squirrel, I’m just “A” Foamy Squirrel. We come in 6-packs.
Hey, I like reviewing Seltzer/Friedberg movies. Going to see them can be… an adventure.
http://movingpictureblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/its-disaster-all-right.html
Despite the soft box office…SATC2, Robin Hood, and Prince of Persia won’t be major money losers. SATC and Robin will probably be slightly profitable for the studios and Persia will probably lose some money…but none of them are as disastrous as “Splice,” “Marmaduke” and “Agora” are for the bottom lines of their makers.
I totally disagree that the US box office result of “Agora” is disastrous.
I guess Newmarket Films only paid little money to acquire “Agora”(which could not get an US distribution deal for a long time), and the film is having the best per-theater-average gross of any film in the North American marketplace for two weekends.
HEIGL POWER.
CHAAAAAARMING. The first 25 minutes of KILLERS, the travelogue/Bondian part in Nice with Kutcher and Heigl flirting in between his missions is the most DELIGHTFUL time to be had in a theater since Valentine’s Day. Heigl is so sunny and likable and HOT and CHARMING BEYOND BELIEF, Kutcher RULES, and I couldn’t believe how light and pleasant it all was…
Then it moves back to the U.S. suburbs and kind of loses its easy, relaxed vibe… All this dumb sitcom comedy and the visual style tones down for like a reel. Once the action kicks it, it’s pretty slick and entertaining from there out, but never tops the opening act, and I don’t know why Heigl’s SUNNY, ADORABLE CHARACTER switches to from being a DEMURE FLAKE to being so high-maintenance out of nowhere.
Plus can movies stop “explaining” their entire plot in a five-minutes-to-go blast of lightning-spoken exposition that you need a pie chart, a pause button, and the subtitles to make sense of, so much so that you’re focused on, “Wait, WHAT did he just say?” that you miss the final flurry of action?
Still: Heigl is a GREAT MOVIE STAR and cannot get enough of her. Only bad thing was they didn’t really show her feet, so points off for that too.
Ok, here’s something that’s been bugging me for a bit. I hope this makes some kind of sense…
We all know that Heigl and Kutcher are going to get ripped in the media because Killers ‘only’ opened with $16 million. And there are those that believe that Letters to Juliet surely could have pulled in $60 million, and that the failure to do so was a sign of Amanda Seyfried’s lacking starpower. Yet both of those films are perfect examples of the weaknesses inherent in the studios that released them. Letters to Juliet and Killers had no chance to opening to $20 million+, because (for whatever reason) the studios that released them don’t generally open films at that level of business. If you take away the fluke of Fahrenheit 9/11 and the Tyler Perry pictures, Lionsgate has had three $20 million+ openings in their history (Haunting in Connecticut, The Forbidden Kingdom, and My Bloody Valentine 3D). Same thing with Summit. Take away the Twilight franchise, and they’d have one $20 million+ opener (Knowing) and nothing else above $14 million in the last three or four years.
I would argue that the fact that something as poorly marketed and off-putting as Killers opened to $16 million is very much a testament to the star power of Kutcher and Heigl, and that Seyfried is a star because Letters to Juliet made any money at all (and I’d argue that in a film industry where movies could hold onto screens longer, LtJ would have made more). But that’s not the way most entertainment media reads the tea leaves. So, I guess the question is, should Amanda Seyfried have had the foresight to choose a different studio, if possible, to launch what could have been viewed as her breakout movie? Should media-targets Heigl and Kutcher have thought twice before making an expensive movie with a studio that generally can’t open stuff to over $19 million at best (and have a comparatively anemic foreign department to boot)? And are these young stars being blamed for the inability of their studios to play the ‘game’ as well as the bigger studios?
Correction…
“If you take away the fluke of Fahrenheit 9/11, the Tyler Perry pictures, and THE SAW FRANCHISE, Lionsgate has had three $20 million+ openings in their history (Haunting in Connecticut, The Forbidden Kingdom, and My Bloody Valentine 3D).”
The Ugly Truth looked absolutely dreadful, is rated R, and still opened to $27 million last July. Was its marketing significantly better than Killers?
I don’t really think Amanda Seyfried (or any young, rather new to the game actor) sits around reading pareto charts of Summit’s box-office track records. Maybe Tom Cruise in 1984 would’ve thought that kind of thing out, but I’m sure most stars are just glad to have a gig.
Not like I can see Amanda Seyfried getting an offer from her agent to make 5 mil for a romcom, and have her slam down the phone going: “No way! Clearly the box-office charts show that Summit’s inability to turn HURT LOCKER into a four-quadrant wide release above 1000 screens is a bad omen for Letters to Juliet’s fourth-week per-screen average!”
I’m sure with any starlet, it’s “Cool, they have hot fashions in Italy!” and for any actor it’s, “Fuck yeah, I get to go to France for six weeks and bang models.”
Likewise, I know Poland and you all will have breakdowns of LIONSGATE DOESN’T KNOW HOW TO OPEN NON-HORROR, but… honestly? 100% of America doesn’t go to see a movie or not based on STUDIO LOGO.
Do you really think there was gaggles of 20-something mall chicks who saw the KILLERS spots and said, “Looks cool, but LIONSGATE? No fucking way!”
Still, both movies RULED and SEYFRIED and HEIGL are SO. HOT. YOU WILL BOW.
Ugly Truth is a GOOD MOVIE.
Heigl is great in it. Butler is a buffoon as always, but those parts ruled where he was putting her in her place. It did well because it was a romcom for the ladies, but guys like Butler and liked the Tom Leykis-style chauvinist angle of it. It had something for everyone.
And so does KILLERS. It is a DELIGHT.
That was the worst part of Ugly Truth. The movie failed to even address the fact that it’s male lead had severe Neil Labute issues with woman. (Not quite, but still…)
I agree with DP that $16M is decent for Killers, but I bet the studio’s goal was at least a $20M opening. Killers should have done better with a better marketing. First or second behind Shrek was right there for the taking. Especially since Heigl probably has equal or more draw power stateside than Kutcher.
It will be interesting if it can earn more than $8M on the next weekend. Anything less, and it will fade away.
I agree Lex. I pay pretty close attention to this stuff and didn’t realize Killers was a Lionsgate movie until a week or two ago. I don’t think Killers really looked much better or worse than The Ugly Truth. Maybe it would have done better in July.
That’s just the point. Killers didn’t look any better or worse than Ugly Truth and even had a PG-13 rating, yet to opened substantially under last year’s romcom. I don’t think that moviegoers make decisions based on studios, and I never meant to imply that. But I do think that some studios have the money and/or knowledge or some unknown variable to be more competitive with marketing and screen counts than others. Random example, but would Valentine’s Day have opened to $56 million over three days on the same release date if Lionsgate or Summit were distributing? All-too-obvious example, would Friday the 13th opened as well as it did last year if Magnolia was distributing? I really don’t know why Lionsgate (a studio I like quite a bit in regards to their content) can’t break out of its own glass ceiling, but that would certainly be a factor if I were setting up a star vehicle at a prime moment of my career, especially a pricey one.
marychan…the film is playing in 4 theatres and has grossed 100k in total…the amount the re-tooled Newmarket payed for the film 7 months ago was never disclosed to my knowledge but I can’t fathom it was under six figures. Regardless I was talking about Telecino Cinema more than Newmarket…
Foamy and Ed, you still fail to connect the dots. If something is inflated so high then it’s harder for said film to lose ground because of that inflation. Shrek 4, in 2D, should be out the door already. Shrek 4, in 3D, is standing it’s ground each week and the inflated ticket price seems to be the reason. If that’s off the rails, it’s better than being on the rails with the both of you who seem to ignore the ridiculous price increase for IMAX and 3D tickets.
IO, they’re not ignoring the price increase, they’re questioning the complete lack of logic on your part.
Yes, a film that has a price bump increase is dropping less than films without that price bump. How that’s looney tunes is beyond me but this is the hot blog, the place where 3D price bumps never happened, and Avatar earned what it earned, so maybe that makes me looney tunes for disagreeing.
IO, you’re the one ignoring the effect of the price bump.
Here’s how it works.
Shrek (2D) – $10 per ticket.
Week 1 – 4million people = $40million
Week 2 – 2million people = $20million
=> $40mil to $20mil = 50% drop
Shrek (3D) – $15 per ticket
Week 1 – 4million people = $60million
Week 2 – 2million people = $30millon
=> $60mil to $20mil = 50% drop
It’s basic mathematics. The drop has nothing to do with how MUCH people are paying, it’s to do with how MANY people are paying.
Heh… I typo my own math…
“=>$60mil to $30mil = 50% drop”
Thanks for the head’s-up (and warning), Edward.
IO:
FACT: There has been a 3D price bump.
FACT: Shrek 4 is in 3D.
FACT: Shrek 4 held pretty well this weekend.
FACT: Correlation does not imply causation.
FACT: You cannot accurately conclude that there is a universal box office trend based on the behaviour of one film in the marketplace.
STRONG LIKELIHOOD: You are fucking looney.
“Yes, a film that has a price bump increase is dropping less than films without that price bump. How that’s looney tunes is beyond me but this is the hot blog, the place where 3D price bumps never happened, and Avatar earned what it earned, so maybe that makes me looney tunes for disagreeing.”
Actually, it would drop more.
Say a 3D movie in week one makes $80 million and a 2D movie (for the purposes of this example, NOT the same movie in 2D) makes $60 million. Then in week two, they both drop 40%. So in week two, the 3D movie would make $48 million and the 2D movie would make $36 million. The 3D movie still makes more than the 2D movie on that 2nd weekend, but it drops $32 million versus the $24 million the 2D movie loses.
Now this is assuming that the 3D ticket sales stay the same from week one to week two because people are buying the 3D tickets and the 2D tickets for the same film at the same 60/40 split (or however the split usually works out for films available in both formats simultaneously).
In the real world though, if a movie loses public interest and getting a reputation for being a stinker, the 3D sales would probably drop first, and fast, because it costs so much for those tickets.
Now maybe you’re thinking that the 3D movie is less susceptible to high percentage drops because the extra revenue from the surchage would make up for the losses that another 2D movie wouldn’t get, and therefore instead of a 40% drop it’ll do a 30% drop; but again, because of the extra expense of 3D tickets, a 3D movie is probably more vulnerable to an ugly percentage drop because those high priced tickets are going to be the ones people abandon first. So if the 3D surcharge artificially boosts the first weekend’s grosses and makes that 100% weekend fat and happy, the dropoff from people saying “oh hell no” to the high priced 3D ticket along with the regular priced ticket is probably a steep one.
If my math is sketchy, please correct me.
And regarding the arguement that the 3D surplus is keeping movies like Shrek 4 in theaters longer than they’d be staying if they were only in 2D, that would probably have merit if that extra amount added to the price of a ticket is nothing but gravy for the theaters. But aren’t these tickets (reputedly) costlier because the format is more expensive for theaters to utilize? If this is true, then a large percentage drop would hurt them all the same, and probably moreso because 3D tickets have to be the first that go unwanted when a movie’s not performing well at the box office.
EthanG, I guess Newmarket didn’t spend big money to acquire “Agora”, because Newmarket is clearly spending little money to release and promote this film. The US poster of “Agora” is very similar to the international poster. Newmarket also didn’t create any official website for this film (except a small page on Newmarket’s official site). There is also no US trailer of “Agora” on the internet. Furthermore, even in Village Voice (a free weekly newspaper), the film’s ad was small.
I guess Telecino Cinema wouldn’t loss too much money on this film. The film did well in foreign sales, and the film and enjoyed huge box office success in Spain.
Loco, it’s not one film it’s almost every 3D film released this year that have not seen the sort of drops we have become accustomed to discussing on this blog. Go look at the drops. Go look at Alice, even Clash was not that bad, and there has to be a reason behind it. I just think that it has to do with the 3D bump. If I am wrong, I am wrong, but there’s no need for all of you to be rude to me about it.
The problem is that you’re not providing any logic for how it’s being caused – you’re just saying there’s a correlation with 3D and then picking one aspect of that (the price) for no apparent reason.
You could equally say “The drops are lower because of the glasses”. It may be true, but you need an argument WHY.
I am not providing any logic? What does that even me? The 3D bump seems to keep films from the sort of drops we are used to seeing because it’s significant enough to keep it from happening. It’s not like we do not have proof that the ticket price for 3D/IMAX films is not doubled in some areas and that has to effect the drop. That’s logical to me but disagree all you want and you are still being a jerk to me about it, and I do not appreciate it one bit.
IS doubled in some areas and come on hot blog. The 3D bump is real. Let’s stop acting as if it’s not.
You know, I’m leery of jumping into this 3D bump argument, but I can kind of see IO’s point:
If a movie theater has a few of its screens set aside to projet 3D, it’s in its financial interest to keep 3D-friendly films on those screens as long as possible, in the absence of any more attractive options for patrons.
If movie is NOT in 3D, the exhibitors can move it into smaller screens much more quikly and easier – the fact is, until Toy Story 3D comes out and as long as Shrek has not tanked (which it is has not, even though it has underperformed), most of Shrek’s prints are protected from being downgraded to smaller screens.
So it is a bump in the sense that as long as the film performs solidly in the absence of stronger 3D competition, it can hold on to bigger screens longer than other movies.
Does that make sense?
Geoff, that makes sense to me, but it might not make sense to others in this thread. Again, if it’s a crazy point of contention to someone, I apologize and all, but Shrek 4 has yet to have a 50% or more drop off, and I find that weird.
IO – you’re still not making any sense. You’re saying higher prices are causing MORE PEOPLE TO WATCH IT.
Geoff – that would be a possibility for weeks 4+, but IO is referring to the 3rd weekend of Shrek when there’s only been 0.5% change in the number of screens.
I don’t think it makes sense to blame Heigl and Kutcher for working with Lionsgate — and I bet they did help the opening. But I do blame them for choosing to act in (and, in the case of Kutcher) produce an execrable script.
Also: it is not really that weird that Shrek 4 hasn’t had a drop of over 50% yet. It’s a family-targeted movie. Family-targeted movies dropping over 50% (in their first four or five weeks, and without being outright failures) is a relatively recent phenomenon, and usually follows a huge opening weekend (or, of course, an outright failure). I don’t think you need anything new to explain Shrek 4 not having a huge drop-off: it’s a family movie, and it’s part of a mega-successful family *franchise* to boot. Even Shrek the Third, the lameness of which seems to have been a factor in a slower start for Shrek 4, only actually had one drop over 50% in its first six weeks — following a massive $121 million opening weekend. Shrek 4 seems to be somewhat better-received, has had several weekends to dominate the kid market, *and* didn’t have as much frontloading, so small drops are pretty normal for its situation.
I could see the argument that maybe 3-D (not the price bumps, but the 3-D itself) has helped some smaller drops for movies like Clash of the Titans where it looked at the outset more like a $125 million grosser rather than a $160 million grosser, because of exhibitors sticking with it longer — that kind of makes sense, though is difficult to prove. But you don’t really need to try to puzzle out why Shrek 4 isn’t dropping hard. It’s doing solid family-movie business.
Also: swap in a TV show that apparently people used to like for some early movies that people liked, and Katherine Heigl is roughly following the Sandra Bullock career path: start out getting noticed as a charming pretty-girl-next-door type, proceed to make terrible, terrible movies for x number of years, then stage a comeback based on a couple of movies that might be considered marginally less awful than some of her worst work… so, let’s see, we can expect Heigl’s Oscar (for a movie that seems classier than Killers but, upon closer inspection, will turn out to be just about as good) in another ten or twelve years.
Although: in the middle of that, Bullock did give a really strong performance in Crash, so maybe Heigl will have one or two of those on her way.
Heigl makes GOOD MOVIES.
Plus men AND women like her, so she will be HUGE in movies. GO SEE KILLERS.
Foamy, no, that’s what you are inferring for some reason. I am stating since it’s open that it’s drops have never been over 50% or more. I find that curious. Excuse me for doing so because it apparently upsets your world view.
Alice and Titans had low drops because they had no competition, they had humoungous budgets compared to the rest of the releases. Since Persia is turning out to be a disappointment and nothing this weekend would be considered a threat to a DWA movie, Shrek is perhaps doing well by default.
I am sure Pirahna will have a 50% plus drop.
If Heigl fires her mom, gets a better publicist and bones up on the art of on-set charm and tact, she will be unstoppable. But her reputation for difficulty is catching up with her and if she doesn’t nip it in the bud soon, she’s going to have a LiLo like fall (minus the drugs).
IO – You said “the 3D bump is so substantial now that it can keep a film from dropping off by 50% or more each week”.
I am not inferring anything. I am restating exactly what you said.
If there was any doubt as to what you meant by “3D bump”, you clarified: “It’s not like we do not have proof that the ticket price for 3D/IMAX films is not doubled in some areas and that has to effect the drop”.
The drop is caused by the change in attendees. For the drop to be lower, comparatively more people would have to attend than would otherwise for a 2D film.
Therefore, you’re saying that higher prices are causing more people to watch. If that’s not what you’re trying to say, then you really need to work on expressing yourself clearly.
I also don’t think the small drops are attributable to it being in 3D. Otherwise it should have helped Final destination 3D and My Bloody Valentine 3D as well and they eached dropped 50% weekly for the 1st three weeks of their release.
Also Clash of the Titans only had a opening weekend to final gross ratio of 37.9%. When you look at all the 25 movies that opened between $56M and $66M putting the CotT $61M opening dead center, there are only four movies that had worst multipliers, Hulk 1, Valentines Day, Fantastic Four2 and 2012. So much for that 3D bump giving you legs.
Should be “they each dropped MORE THAN 50% in their first three weeks of their release.”
For gits and shiggles, I ran the numbers on the #1 films so far this year (excluding Avatar)
Here’s the graphs.
The top two are assumption checking. Topleft checks IO’s assertion that 3D is falling slower than 2D (correct). Topright checks Geoff’s assertion that 2D films are pulled from screens faster than 3D films (correct, although there’s only 4% difference after three weeks – the big change comes at week 4).
The bottom two remove scale effects. Bottomleft uses Per Theatre to remove the effect of 2D screens getting pulled faster. As you can see, by the third week 3D is pulling in double of 2D per screen – that’s a pretty big incentive to keep them.
Bottomright uses % to remove the effect of ticket prices – 3D still falls slower than 2D.
So there’s something else going on besides just screens and ticketpricing. Better quality? Novelty factor? Who knows…
If there were a way to see in to alternate realities, I’d be willing to bet Killers would have done better with a different title. It’s such a bland and generic title. Might as well call it “Vanilla.”
I have no clue what would have been a better title.
They should have called it OH MY GOD HEIGL WILL GIVE YOU AN ERECTION.
Truth in advertising.
Foamy, each week implies each week since it opened. You are the one that did not catch that, so, again apologizes in all but I thought it were self explanatory.
That aside, your own graph proved my point but you seem to want to ignore it for an unknown factor? Okay. Fine. Let’s throw in factor C and still realize that 3D films do drop slower. I am not out of left field for thinking as much and that has been my point for most of this freakin thread.
I just read this entire thread, and will now blow my head off.
(That’s poetry.)
If, by “3d bump”, IOv2 is referring to an increase in ticket price, then he’s wrong to suggest that it could reduce the percentage drop. That makes no sense. If the “bump” he’s referring to is, say, an increase in the “must-see” factor, then he can make that argument, but would have to prove that 3D is attracting more people to the theaters.
Now, if by “3d bump”, IOv2 was suggesting that given the choice between 2D and 3D versions, people are selecting the more expensive 3D option, then that could certainly lead to a decreased percentage drop in gross. Again, terribly difficult to prove. For example, when I went to see UP, I didn’t have a choice– our theater only offered the 3D version.
jesse, I’m not well-versed in Bullock’s career, but does this mean that Knocked Up is Heigl’s Speed? Or does she have a decent action movie coming up?
Also, I’m pretty sure the tagline “OH MY GOD MEGAN FOX WILL GIVE YOU AN ERECTION” would have turned Jennifer’s Body into a hit.
“When you look at all the 25 movies that opened between $56M and $66M putting the CotT $61M opening dead center, there are only four movies that had worst multipliers, Hulk 1, Valentines Day, Fantastic Four2 and 2012”
Didn’t Watchmen open somewhere in that range? Talk about a horrendous multiplier.
Watchmen = $55.2M opening weekend.
Yeah, I’d say Knocked Up is Heigl’s Speed: the female lead in a movie from a guy (Keanu/Rogen)’s point of view, a “surprise” hit that everyone was kind of expecting to be a hit by the time it came out, with appeal to both genders, followed by several lower-grossing but still profitable, some might say surprisingly so, movies. Heigl is just getting to the end of that While You Were Sleeping/The Net phase with 27 Dresses/The Ugly Truth/Killers. Next up for Bullock was Two if By Sea, In Love and War, and Speed 2 (with A Time to Kill thrown in there as the one hit). So if my (admittedly mostly meaningless) comparison continues to match up, Heigl is in for some movies that make even less than Killers, are worse-regarded than her recent hits, or both. In any of those cases: yikes.
To Bullock’s credit, after that lull, she got into a pretty comfortable place where most of her movies could gross in the $40-90 million range (Hope Floats, Practical Magic, Two Weeks Notice, Crash, The Lake House, Miss Congeniality 2, Premonition) with the occasional breakout (Miss Congeniality), even if the vast majority of these weren’t particularly well-liked or well-remembered apart from Miss Congeniality. Which I haven’t seen. In fact, going over her IMDB listing makes me realize I’ve seen relatively few Bullock movies in general. It also underlines how Bullock got this rep as a hard-working, immensely likable, survivor of a movie star by… starring in hardly any movies of any real worth. Speed is pretty excellent and I’d even maintain that Crash, undeserving as it was of an Oscar win, had some interesting stuff going on in it. From what I’ve seen, that’s most of the quality on Bullock’s resume right there.
I don’t mean to rain on her parade. I’m sure she’s a nice lady. I liked her work as Harper Lee in Infamous. But I think it is telling that people are more excited about her being a movie star than her being in any movies that are actually good. And I do wonder if Heigl is on the same path. Which is to say, I wonder if I will see another Heigl movie for the next four or five years.
Unspoken truth: “Killers” would have opened to $17-18M had Carmike not had a spat with Lionsgate. Carmike is a national chain and the fact it’s not playing anything from Lionsgate is a story.
Chuck just made a point. Given him some dap.
A story of interest to a very limited audience.
Here’s another point about this ‘3-D bump’ discussion – there have been 11 #1 movies this year. 5 of them were in 3-D (Avatar, Alice, Dragon, Titans, Shrek); big, expensive movies with big, expensive marketing budgets. The other 6 (Dear John, Valentine’s Day, Shutter Island, Kick-Ass, Nightmare on Elm Street, Iron Man 2) are, relatively speaking, titles appealing to niches – geek and date movies as opposed to titles with more mass appeal. So that’s probably a factor as well – the types of movies that are being released in 3-D.
Also, if IOI is right about any of this, it’s probably a ‘broken clock being right twice a day’ kind of thing.
that have been released in 3-D have all been big, expensive movies with big, expensive marketing budgets.
I don’t know where that last fragment came from, sorry.
Dude, why the hate? Why are you getting mad at me? I just looked at the last couple of box office reports and made conjecture based off of it. Why? All you have to do is look at the drops but again, if it upsets you that much, then ignore it. Seriously why do you think you can treat me like crap and it’s okay? What is wrong with you? It’s not appreciated so cut… it… out.
Slant gave Killers **1/2, which is pretty generous for them.
http://slantmagazine.com/film/review/killers/4850
I realize that you haven’t insulted anyone lately, IO, but this victim complex you’ve developed lately is kind of hilarious.
Loco, I never insulted anyone as bad as they insulted me. Go look and read. Lex and I, in this case, have always gotten it worse than we ever dished it out. Again, if you want to act like a jerk to someone, then go bother someone else. If I am not insulting you, if I am not cursing at you, and if I am being all sorts of civil. You are just acting like a jerk to act like a jerk and that’s just ridiculous.
Do men really like Heigl? Really asking here. I would’ve thought she wouldn’t rate any higher overall than “meh, I guess” but I could be wrong.
“Lex and I, in this case, have always gotten it worse than we ever dished it out.”
Oh please.
Christian, I know you do not want to believe it but have you been personally insulted in the worst ways by the guy who runs the blog? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm? I do not think so. Seriously, take off your rose coloured glasses, and understand that Lex and I have got slammed with some wicked insults for reasons other than the people on the hot blog just like being mean.
that should be, “for no other reason.” Seriously, David, I implore you to update this blog. Let’s get all discus or open id or whatever on this mutha!
IO, harmless as I think you are, you’ve accused folks here of being child molesters while dropping f-bombs on everybody in your path who disagree wioth your rigid insights.
IO’s f-bombs are usually pretty damn goofy, some hyped-up enthusiastic movie geek talking about turning into THE SMOKE MONSTER or something equally silly and benign.
Pretty far cry from Jeff McDouche calling people “pedophiles,” or the catty sewing circle of the Cold Blog Nerd Herd– though nothing warmed the cockles more than the recent development of most of the charter members turning on each other; The ever-lovable lesbnz– TM Poland– and Big Perm going ballistic on each other was kind of proof of what IO’s said all along.
“the catty sewing circle of the Cold Blog Nerd Herd”
That’s KNITTING circle, you philistine!
Lex, IO accused Perm of molesting children first from my recollect. Pretty ugly. I know you and IO love your new “we’re the real victims” meme but why are you and him the only ones that DP has repeatedly banned from posting?
I think his bans have less to do with whether he “likes” us more or less than, say, McDouche, and more to do with us clogging up HIS blog with bullshit. Speaking only for myself, I know for a fact that me wasting his blog space to rant about celebrity vag is a bigger no-no with David than me calling Jeff a “douche.”
But DO THE RESEARCH. Hell, didn’t McDouche (and Perm) turn on you pretty badly of late, christian? How did all that hostility feel coming your way? I know you’re a turn-the-cheek eco-warrior, but you’re hardly a guy who blows into threads drawing first blood, and look how roundly you got attacked out of nowhere.
IO and I just up the game accordingly.
Lex, I only accuse you of being a pedophile when you talk about how horny you are for teenage girls. I know, crazy!
IOI, on the other hand, calls people ‘cunts’ at the drop of a hat. Or at least he used to, maybe he’s on stronger meds now.
Jeff, in addition to being borderline libelous and utterly loathesome, when you throw the “P” word around, you apparently also don’t even know what it means.
Sue me!
Also, nobody who routinely talks about his masturbation habits to a random group of strangers has ANY RIGHT to talk about what is or isn’t loathsome.
Jeff, you are unpleasant 100% of the time on any and every blog you appear on. My new word for you, at best, is “fussy.” Chronically particular, displeased, and looking for something to complain about. Negative like 100% of the time.
Why is this? If you expended as much energy conveying any actual LOVE of movies, of women, of men, of breakfast cereal, of Bartles and Jaymes, of WHATEVER, as you do complaining about me, IO, Chucky in Jersey, Poland, Leydon, christian, who-have-you… But your ONE AND ONLY MODE is permanent BUZZKILL, just waiting for the one “in” where you can be a dispassionate, unfriendly, joyless dick.
I know you see movies on some regular basis. Yet rarely do you convey any enthusiasm for them, seen or unseen. It’s all in that same flippant, sour, downcast, unsmiling tone.
How about a little spring in your step, Jeff? A little sunshine to go with the gravel? Cheer us all up, grace us with a whimsical tune or a carefree rant filled with bonhommie for your fellow man.
Anything but terse, sour displeasure and semantic nitpicking. Are you ever wacky, or jovial, or silly… do you take EVERYTHING so damn seriously?
SHERIFF OF THE HOT BLOG: JEFF MCDOUCHE.
Boo hoo, Lex, sorry to ruin your underage-poon-loving merrymaking.
Of course, if you or Chucky or IOI weren’t so persistent in your awfulness, I’d be in a much better frame of mind. Which is why I don’t come around here as often lately.
Yes, but do you still LIKE movies?
You never express unabashed enthusiasm for ANYTHING, ANYWHERE, EVER. Why so serious? How about a more GONZO approach to all your endeavors?
Okay, getting bored now.
Less whining, moar random observations.
Jeff – Like Lex when you talk about movies you are enjoyable to read, and I am not saying I provide any insight to things at all, but it is ironic that do to all your constant scolding of people on the blog, you actually contribute less to the conversation than Chucky, Lex or IO. This thread is a great example of things deteriorating due to your presence. IO actually had a decent point that he might have inexactly worded. You don’t seem to choose your battles, just your enemies.
do should be due- talk about inexaclty worded.
and to get back to TO’s question, Yes I find Heigl increasingly hotter. I see the ads for Killers and think “dear lord she’s pretty, maybe I should see that”, then shake my head and come back to my senses. I think of her in the same regard as Anna Farris, where I hope they find a vehicle worthy of their talent because I would love to be able to watch them onscreen without cringing at the material.
And I do think the Bullock comparision is apt. They are both solid movie stars, and actors aren’t stars because they don’t have flops, they are stars because they can come back.
Christian, uh no, you got that the other way around. Before I ever had any heat with Perm, he posted that I was some sort of child molester (With much stronger language mind you) in a dead thread. He literally went out of his way to insult me in the worst way in a rather cowardly way. This is what happened. If I ever responded in any way to Perm like that, and I do not recall ever doing so, I did in a recall back to those original comment that started any beef he and I had. Notice the word “had”, because I have gone out of my way not to curse or insult people under version 2.0, and that would answer your cursing statement.
Oh yeah, my persistent awfulness? I barely posted here for four months, I read the blog, and had very little to do with the awfulness at that time. I also do not take kindly to you insinuating that I am on meds and mental problems. Not only is it not true but it’s just rude to the point of deflating any sort of point you are making, because it makes you come across as a complete and utter jerk.
Again, if you are going to be rude to me, at least do so if I am rude to you. If I am just discussing stuff on here and posting without cursing or slamming anyone in the process. The least you could do is the same.
That’s a good point, hcat. Sometimes box-office watchers or gossip columnists or whoever get obsessed with the myth that true stars have these spotless records and can wring money from any wide release. I don’t much care for Heigl, but she will probably bounce back from Killers. Hell, $16 million or so for a secondhand-looking movie with mostly bad buzz is a testament to her star power. What would that movie have made with Malin Akerman or Amanda Peet or Megan Fox or ScarJo in that role? Probably a whole lot less (plus an additional $12.50 from me in most of those cases).
Bullock and Heigl are also similar in that people seem to like them so much that it almost doesn’t matter that most of their movies are lousy, or maybe that their target audience can’t really tell the difference anyway? But I guess that’s kind of what a movie star is. I don’t like Julia Roberts movies very much either.
But I do like Anna Faris movies! I’d say she has scored two semi-worthy vehicles: Smiley Face, and The House Bunny. The latter isn’t fantastic by any means, but it gets out of her way enough for her to do a bunch of hilarious stuff, and it’s a good-hearted little movie, albeit a very silly one.
Obviously she’d do well to get some better writers, but I didn’t think House Bunny was the total slum that others seemed to. I even bought the DVD (well, used for a few bucks, but still).
OK, between jesse and hcat my theory is proven!!! J/K. Like, I think I could get behind the statements “men like Tina Fey” or “men like Megan Fox” or Jenna Fischer from The Office. Sure that’s obviously far from unanimous but in the subjective world of “likeability”, I’m not so sure Heigl rates that high. Not polarizing or scorned, mind you, but not sure how liked on the like scale. That same thing that caused you think “wait, what am I saying???”
I think she’s sorta like how men view ice cream at a baseball game. They’re prolly not going to turn it down if offered but does it rate anywhere near hot dogs, peanuts or a cold Pepsi, that’s what I’m not so sure about. Not saying guys won’t get the soft serve in the batting helmets or ice cream sandwiches in the top of the 8th when the beer lines are closed, but even on a warm night, in the middle of the fourth, before the top half of the order comes back up to bat, I don’t think ice cream is bumping nachos or fresh hot pretzel out of the pecking order.
TripleOption, I’ll take ice cream any time, anywhere, but I agree with you in principle about Heigl. She’s certainly attractive enough (although some of the ads I saw from The Ugly Truth made her look weirdly alien-like), and not to be crass, but if there was some link saying click here for naked pictures of Katherine Heigl (and it somehow seemed to be true), sure, I’d click on it pretty quickly. To be less crass, if she was in some movie that looked funny or got good reviews, I certainly wouldn’t hesitate to see it. In fact, after Knocked Up — pretty much That Movie for all intents and purposes — I was reasonably impressed with her: she seemed funny without trying to be funny, down-to-earth, intelligent, etc.
But you’re right, she’s not really the flavor I’m looking for in any given movie. She’s not hilarious like Tina Fey or Anna Faris. She’s not as hot as Megan Fox for pure eye candy. She’s not endearing like Jenna Fischer or Amy Adams. She’s not brilliant like Cate Blanchett or Samantha Morton.
So she’s neither here nor there, except that her persona of late is vaguely humorless and prim, as cleverly described in the AV Club’s review of Killers (something to the effect of, “Katherine Heigl wants you to know she is not amused by your shenanigans”). I expect there are other guys who share that reaction.
Heigl’s too uptight and weirdly vengeful towards men in most of her pictures for my tastes, I don’t know why. “I blame YOU” seems like her bumper sticker, y’know?
Nah, that’s probably an overstatement, but she does appear to gravitate towards the preternaturally brittle roles. Heigl just needs to play a character that doesn’t secretly want to repeatedly sock you in the crotch with the business end of a lawnmower once in a while.
I know it’s asking a lot of the Hot Blog Posse to actually, you know, GO TO SEE THE MOVIES if you’re going to comment on them, but…
For the record, Heigl plays kind of a spacey, Goldie Hawn-esque dork in KILLERS. She’s not shrewish or man-hating or ball-busting, at least not until the movie comes back to the states and her characterization goes out the window and she starts barking at Kutcher. But it’s more out of fear and confusion than her being any kind of man-hater.
And in the first act, she’s playing a sheepish sadsack who’s dorkily hanging out with her parents on vacation and intimidated by Kutcher and basically acting silly and fun and feminine.
I’ve watched Heigl in “The Ugly Truth”, “27 Dresses”, “Knocked Up” and every episode of “Grey’s Anatomy”. I want to see her in “Killers” because I liked the trailer, but it isn’t playing in a theater near me, and a two hour drive to the next closest screen that it is playing on would be a bit much for a picture I’m not rabidly dying to view (sorry Lex).
Lex, Heigl looking in the movie like you’ve described her is a major appeal point of the trailer, so I’m intrigued to see the non-castrating side of her. But you have to admit that if her usual on-screen persona was a poster on this blog, you two would be at each other’s throats like a couple of knife-wielding roosters.
I know Heigl annoyed people when she spoke ill of Apatow and Knocked Up a year or two ago, but are her characters really that much different than the ones played by plenty of other actresses over the years? I’ll take Lex’s word that she’s not a man-hater in Killers. She plays a hopeless romantic in 27 Dresses. She didn’t seem like any kind of man-hater in the parts of Ugly Truth I saw. I am no huge fan, but I think she has a fairly easy likability and is more appealing than many actresses her age and older who made a habit of starring in rom coms. Even if you’re not a fan of her acting or movies, it seems a little harsh and overheated to say she plays a bunch of man-haters.
Heigl got a lot of publicity twice in a short period of time a couple of years ago– first, by criticizing Apatow and Knocked Up (as Stella mentioned) and second by criticizing the recent writing on Grey’s Anatomy (the show that propelled her to fame).
It’s poor form to criticize your coworkers, and especially in the ways that she did. The incidents seemed to me at least to be a brief insight into her actual personality, as opposed to the generally pleasant romcom characters she plays on screen.
So, to answer Triple Option’s original question: I think she’s very attractive but as I see her onscreen I can’t help but think she’d probably be pissy at me for not taking out the garbage.
I get that criticizing Apatow and Knocked Up seems ungrateful, but wasn’t she saying things that others had already said about the movie? Claims of sexism in Apatow movies is hardly uncommon. Criticizing the writing of your show is definitely better done privately, but other stars have been praised recently for candid criticism. Plus, wasn’t she right? Hadn’t the writing become downright awful on that show?
Lex, I haven’t seen Killers or Ugly Truth, but I did see 27 Dresses, and that plus bad trailers for those newer movies turned me off of Heigl. I don’t think of her as a man-hater, but I don’t particularly cotton to her brand of “comedy” — like that bit in the Killers trailer with her dithering whether to call her “Jen,” “Jenny,” or “Jennifer.” Maybe someone could make that funny, but Heigl’s relatable-neurotic routine isn’t enough, from what I’ve seen. 27 Dresses had far too much of the poor-put-upon-me stuff that you get from Jennifer Aniston movies (even the few good ones!).
I’m fine with claims of sexism in Apatow movies, although sometimes I think people confuse “sexism” with “male point of view” (I do think he could stand to showcase more female comedians, obviously). But it seemed a little silly for Heigl to complain about sexism in that fairly well-written movie (in which Rogen’s character is painted as kind of a jerk as often as not!), and then do 27 Dresses, which isn’t exactly the most progressive treatment of gender roles I’ve seen in a romantic comedy.
I imagine that genre cliches and lazy writing are more culpable than Heigl in relation to Killers and its quality. I’m not saying I agree with Heigl and her comments about Knocked Up/Apatow. I’m just saying it’s stuff that has been said before.
“I think she’s very attractive but as I see her onscreen I can’t help but think she’d probably be pissy at me for not taking out the garbage.”
Not taking out the garbage is one thing, but really, this is what it is: she seems like she’d be pissy at you for MAKING the garbage. Just for ruining a garbage can that used to be pristine and perfect and unused with YOUR trash.
Stella: fair questions.
I don’t recall what others were saying about Knocked Up at the time– but were they people who had gotten paid for working on the movie? After they had read the script and agreed to star in it? I think there’s a difference between criticizing from the outside, and disavowing something that you willingly participated in, especially when the content that you criticize was present before you agreed to make the movie.
As for her comments on Grey’s Anatomy: You’re right, the writing had gotten terrible by then. It’s still classless to do it. I’ve said the same thing about Megan Fox and Shia LaBeouf: nobody forced you to act in these movies, there’s a long line of people who would gladly take your place. And it’s particularly disingenuous to complain about the crap you’ve put your name on if you just continue to make the same crap again anyway.
I just meant that Apatow has been criticized for sexism in the past. And no, I don’t think it was from anyone who had been paid to star in one of his movies. There is a difference. I don’t feel sorry for Heigl for getting rich and famous thanks to a TV show she eventually chose to publicly criticize.
At least Heigl made for some interesting reads. When given questions regarding their work, actors mostly give whatever is the Hollywood version of “One Game at a Time” rote answer.
I thought that Heigl showed real star power in 27 DRESSES, moreso than in KNOCKED UP, which is nonetheless the superior film. She deftly uses that charisma to mitigate the script’s rather muddled conception of her character (but I still liked the film, deftly directed by Anne Fletcher). As for THE UGLY TRUTH, Heigl begins the film as an almost completely unlikable pill crossed with an insecure flibbertigibbit. It’s impossible to root for her to find the true love she seeks (and, no, it probably doesn’t help that by this time the offscreen perception of her was becoming colored by seemingly ungrateful remarks). But the thing is, she’s a good actress and an attractive presence, especially once her character loosens up. Too bad no one bothered to give her and Butler some sparkling dialogue and fresh character traits. Anyway, I’m not giving up on her. As for her looks, I’ve always thought she was hot, going back to her ROSWELL days, when she was more zaftig. It’s really been interesting to see her break through like this — not something I would’ve predicted from seeing her in, say, BUG BUSTER.
Guess I have to be the Apatow-defender here, but how in the hell are Apatow’s films misogynistic? Come on – 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up – yes, there are misogynistic characters in those films, but they are portrayed as jerks and do their comeuppance in each film.
And granted, they are from the “male” POV, but every film he has directed has been a comedic showcase for Leslie Mann – she had as much funny dialogue in Knocked Up as any one and did Oscar-caliber work, yeah I’ll say it. And yes, I know she’s Apatow’s wife, but need I point you to the films of Ed Burns to see how surefire a showcase they can be for the director’s spouse???
Kristen Wiig and Aubrey Plaza were also given memorably comedic roles in his movies, too.
By the way, Apatow should be DIRECTING the first Kristen Wiig-starring movie, next year, not producing it.
Oh, I don’t think Apatow is misogynist, certainly nothing worse than sexist, and I wouldn’t call him sexist… just male-centric. Not even in a bad way. It’s weird to criticize him for not making movies from a female point of view, as he is a dude. But I do wish he’d give women more/funnier stuff to do. Heigl was necessarily the straight lady for Knocked Up. Keener was pretty funny in 40-Year-Old Virgin, but in a quiet way that Keener is often funny; she didn’t get a big showcase like any of the guys. You can add Jane Lynch, too, to the list of women who got laughs in his movies, along with Mann and Plaza and Wiig. But: Lynch has less screen-time than at laast three OTHER workplace friends on 40yo Virgin. Wiig basically does her SNL shtick in Knocked Up, for two short scenes that aren’t particularly necessary to the movie. Plaza is wonderful in Funny People, and that movie gave me a big crush on her… but her role isn’t as major as Leslie Mann’s, and in that movie, Mann is probably the least funny major character. She’s good in it, but far funnier in Knocked Up.
So yeah, I agree that he should be directing the Wiig-starring movie, if only so he can break up the dude party. That’s one thing I miss in his films that was so present in Freaks & Geeks: that show certainly had more male cast members, but the girls on that show — Lindsay and Kim and to a lesser extent Millie — were wonderfully written, and very funny and humane and just great.