Weekend Estimates by Paramountal Jackass Activity Klady
Well, the $3m Paranormal Activity 2 was as front-loaded as front-loaded gets. So it wasn’t a $50m launch… but $40 million-plus doesn’t come anywhere close to sucking.
After that, it’s a parade of strong holds, led by the two family films, Secretariat and Legends of The Guardians. This should probably be a reminder to all studios that although they are all chasing teens, someone is missing a real opportunity to dominate that always-solid market with a new franchise-level picture right now. Instead, we’re waiting 2 more weeks for for Megamind.
The one strong holding film that seems to be a surprise is Life As We Know It. But again, what else is there in the Chick Flick category? Sometimes it just seems like certain niches get awfully thin… and then other times, they are so overloaded, films choke on each other.
Yeah I’d say the top horror-movie opening of all-time is far away from sucking. Especially for a film made on 3 million with a P&A budget half as big as normal. Two Paramount films made for a combined $23 million are on the way to $225 million domestic, probably 400 million worldwide. Between this and the massively successful Iron Man 2 DVD (which took 3 weeks to blow by Alice in Wonderland in sales/gross) it’s been a nice October.
Actually Paramount is in for a Rocky ride EthanG It does not own Iron Man and if it’s future Revenues are dependent on Cheap Horror Films and Reality cable shows to Movies than it should get out of the business now.
Impressive but not unexpected. I’m sure PA3 will be announced Monday, if it hasn’t already. haven’t seen it yet but watched the original at home last night and, well, that stuff worked on me well enough to give me a nightmare. Either you relate to the stuff or you don’t. I don’t know why a demon needs to turn a light on and off either, but the fact that a light was being turned on and off is enough.
I’m more frightened, though, by NFL officials clusterf*****g my Dolphins today. Most painful Dolphins loss in several years. My god it hurts. Now i know how the Lions felt. Make a horror movie about the idiotic NFL officiating.
Gotta disagree Simms… The American public does not have an endlessly voracious appetite for superhero movies…the peak’s probably been reached. “The Avengers” won’t make the sum of its parts and will be extremely expensive. Paramount is bailing at just the right time after “Thor” and “Captain America.”
Paramount has turned into a ruthlessly lean/efficient model of how to be profitable the last year or so, reaping big bucks from distribution fees and cheap, massively profitable films. They mostly avoid big-budget spectacles that are risky endeavors…”Airbender” is a total disaster but will probably make money due to its fanbase/ancillaries.
They also are not reliant just on cheapo fare. In addition to continuing to have deals with Dreamworks A/Marvel through 2011, they have Tintin, MI4 (by far the riskiest move), Footloose, & Abrams’s Super 8 on tap along with low-budget bonanzas like Paranormal 3 and Justin Bieber 3D.
Paramount… a model of efficiency? Wow. Did anyone see that coming?
Actually, Paramount has turned into AIP.
I think there’s still plenty of room for superhero movies that are good. I don’t foresee much success for The Green Hornet, but I do for Thor.
After Up in the Air and Star Trek last year and Shutter Island this year (with the highest hopes for Fighter and True Grit), Paramount is quickly becoming the studio of quality after years of subpar material. Remember when the original Jackass was the only bright spot on their slate? Since Zodiac there has been a steady rise in their projects, having them make bank on a couple of ultra disposable entertainments is hardly a high price to pay. At least they’re not spending outragous amounts of money on their junk (ahem, Jonah Hex, Yogi Bear, Cats and Dogs).
There is success to be had in the superhero movie, if you keep the budgets from becoming obscene.
150 million seems like the minimum for a Marvel/DC character. I know Disney wants to do a few modestly budgeted second tier character flicks… but we’ll see.
I’m far more interested in seeing what Gondry does with “Hornet” than I am in Branagh’s take on “Thor.” After all, “Much Ado About Nothing” (his last respectable film) was 13 years ago.
As much as I love Russell, “The Fighter” looks thoroughly, depressingly generic to me. (And, Gawd, do I thoroughly detest/despise/loathe Christian Bale whenever he’s pretending to be an “American.” Or, uh, Batman.)
Oops.
Make that 17 years ago.
…i.e., since Branagh’s last decent film (“Much Ado”).
Movieman: Have to disagree — although I’m willing to admit I am in a small minority when I insist that Branagh’s “Love’s Labour’s Lost” was a charming piece of work.
Yes Ethan, the American public does have an ENDLESS FREAKING LOVE FOR SUPERHERO because it’s been going on for like 60 plus years. If you really feel that way that way about superheroes and Paramount, uh, yeah I am going to stop because Paramount are not even that good a studio at the moment without DW.
Gondry’s just a hired hand. Seth Rogen’s the star, co-writer and executive producer. It’ll be HIS movie pretty much all the way.
“Paramount (are) not even that good a studio at the moment without DW.”
Paramount used to only make money on Spongebob and Rugrats. Stepford Wives was a tentpole for God’s Sake. Do people think Paramount was better back in the Sahara days?
Regardless of that I do want to ask what people feel about them shutting down Vantage. They seemed like a perfectly strong depentent quality-wise. Loved Blood, Into the Wild and thought Defience, Margot, Rev Road and some others were strong films. I know they weren’t profitable but looking at the films that have come out since they essentially shut the doors after Road, it seems to me that Up in The Air, Fighter, and True Grit would all have been likely to be released under that label (based on budget and filmmaker’s previous works).
Air did great business and would have practically doubled Vantages high grosser. Does anyone think movies have a better chance under the parent studio name than with the dependent? Does it matter if Somewhere is Focus or Universal, Black Swan is Fox or Searchlight?
And if they were still picking up indies at festivals, couldn’t they have gotten better grosses for films like the Messenger and Winter’s Bone than these tiny indie studios did?
Superheroes are cyclical, the difference this time is they are absorbing genres instead of competing against them. In the 80’s, Green Lantern was The Last Starfighter, Thor was Highlander, Cap was Indy. There was no need to pursue superhero properties because the characters didn’t posses any self-contained identity, making the actor more important to the role. Reeves was Superman, West was Batman, Bixby was The Hulk, and Carter was Wonder Woman. Burton’s Batman showed how the superhero could reinvent the action film, but it took Blade to open the idea that superhero properties were genre migratory.
I’d completely forgotten about “Labour’s Lost,” Joe. But, uh, nope. Not a fan of that one either.
Besides the utter debacle that was his “Sleuth” deconstruction, I’ll never be able to forgive Branagh for his stillborn “Magic Flute.” The 1975 Bergman version remains one of the few perfect movies I’ve ever seen.
And while I laud him for his ambition, Branagh’s four-hour “Hamlet” was a derriere-numbing reminder why most everyone does an abbreviated version of the Shakespeare play.
Is it just me, or did the spark go out in Branagh’s filmmaking after his split from Emma Thompson?
Actually, I quite liked his complete “Hamlet.” I went back to it to kinda-sorta cleanse the palate after seeing the misbegotten Ethan Hawke update.
I wish Branagh would direct more comedies. “In the Bleak Midwinter” (a.k.a. “A Midwinter’s Tale”) has long been one of my favorite overlooked gems.
http://www.movingpictureshow.com/archives/mpsMidwinterTale.htm
Totally agree that superhero movies are cyclical. And there is always such a thing as over-saturation. 2011: five major superhero in 6 months, and another five in the 12 after that? I don’t think so. Paramount is wise to cut and run.
Par & Sony seem to be running slightly different business models that deviate from the traditional at this point; Paramount focuses on extreme efficiency and Sony on extreme (often unconventional) marketing. I think it allows both studios to release, on AVERAGE, better films than the other 4 whether it be high-brow or low-brow.
Also hcat, Vantage is still alive just totally re-branded. It’s kind of like Sony Classics & Screen Gems mashed together now…which the jury is out on I’d say lol.
Ethan, yes, cutting and running from possible large distribution fees is rational. Sure it is. That aside, you seem to act as if one film in the genre dictates the entire genre. If one of them sucks, it does not reflect on the others, because that’s how these films have been compartmentalized for years. Seriously, Paramount/DW are morons and it will show when Avengers comes out to do what it’s going to do.
I understand this blog is all about downplaying one of the biggest genres in the history of film but that does not make such downplaying sound. It’s a bit off to me and again, cyclical or not, these films should all make decent bank without the next two years. Walking away from that, is just stupid.
I love Almeredya’s “Hamlet,” Joe. And at 112 minutes, it was a lot eaasier to sit through than Branagh’s slog. Just about the only thing I remember from the Branagh today (besides Robin Williams’ sheer awfulness) is Kate Winslet’s lovely Ophelia.
“easier,” duh.
Gosh, I guess I’d better not direct you to Kurosawa’s “The Bad sleep Well.” It’s a whopping big 150 minutes. LOL.
I loved Branagh’s Hamlet. Except for Robin Williams. But even Much Ado let Keanu Reeves speak.
I’m not trying to downplay superhero movies at all IO. There comes a period of over-saturation after the success of almost all genres…horror after the explosion in 2006, digital animated films around the same time. Too many films are made at once to take advantage of a public trend and they end up hurting each other. Marvel wanted more than made sense this summer, and so Par. made a business decision, so far backed up by Iron Man 2’s box office numbers, DVD smash or not.
Maybe the marquee names in the films next year will help prevent a big letdown like in 2003/2004…but the public is going to grow weary soon.
I love “The Bad Sleep Well,” Joe.
And “Shoah,” too.
I don’t have a problem with long films per se. But I did have a problem with Branagh’s “Hamlet” which felt supremely self-indulgent to me.
(And I thought Keanu was charming in “Much Ado,” Krillian. I really admired him for putting his neck on the line by taking the role–especially after being crucified for “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” the previous year.)
Actually, if I recall correctly, Michael Keaton was much more painful to endure than Keanu in Branagh’s “Much Ado.”
J.L., going back a few posts, that Ethan Hawke Hamlet was PAINFUL. It’s rare that something is so ill-executed that I feel sorry for the people involved, but by the time they showed that embarrassing modern take on The Mouse Trap (Or was it The Mousetrap? I don’t have my copy of Hamlet on me at the moment), I could barely even look at the screen.
he doesn’t direct it (to my knowledge), but branagh is superb as kurt wallander in ‘wallander’, one of the best cop shows i’ve ever seen and my favourite at the moment – tho season two just ended here and i’m not sure if there will be more
moved the post over to the BYOB
Awesome!