Weekend Estimates by Born Klady
Well… Total Recall‘s estimated 68% drop tells us everything we need to know about The Slump and Aurora and The Olympics and Twitter BUzz… People Hate Shitty Movies.
Bourne is obviously not a home run right out of the box, but interestingly, the estimated $40.2m million start will be #10 or #11 of this summer… and Bourne Identity’s $27m launch in 2002 was the 12th best that summer. So there is some argument for equivalence. However, the awareness on the reboot is much higher than the awareness on the first of the franchise. I call it pretty even… the story will be clearer in time.
The Campaign can also be argued on both sides. You could do the “Will Ferrell opened this to almost the same number as Johnny Depp opened Dark Shadows.” Or you could argue that this is Ferrell’s weakest launch amongst his films that are not considered misses. You could compare Zach Z to John C Reilly unfavorably or you could just assume that the premise of this film is just not as attractive as the one offered for Step Brothers.
Surely, steadily, The Dark Knight Rises is proving to be no box office disappointment on any level. Yes, it’s about $50m behind TDK at this point. It’s also the third fastest film in history getting to $350m and will be the 4th fastest to $400 million when it breaks that mark, probably Thursday. (Avatar accelerated at around this point in its run.) It looks like it’s headed to somewhere around $450m domestic, which puts it behind only Avatar, Titanic, Avengers, TDK, and Phantom Menace in terms of first-one gross. The foreign total should now be over $400m as well. As I said from the start, this film might suffer Sith Syndrome, a climactic franchise film that isn’t the top grosser of the franchise. But even if it is $950m…. nothing bad in that.
Hope Springs, Sony wants you to know, was cheap. They were in for under $20m, picking up the film from Mandate and the remnants of MGM. Good for them. If you think Sony is happy with a $15.3m launch for a Meryl Streep rom-com in August, you believe that WB is happy with $27.4m for Will Ferrell and Zach G. But it will not be a financial loser… so that’s very nice.
And if you were just guessing, what would you think was the #3 film of this summer worldwide. If it didn’t start with an Ice Age, you’d be wrong. Dark Knight just passed the film, which like its predecessor, has generated a massive international number ($620m)… more internationally than any other animated film has done in total this year. Amazing.
I live in Mexico and for some reason the Ice Age movies are extremely popular here. Each time one is released it vies for the top-grossing-film-of-the-year title. I don’t get it…
TDKR will actually finish ahead of “Phantom Menace’s first-run gross which was about $431 million. Not only the 3rd biggest summer release ever domestically, even if you adjust for inflation, your favorite thing to do, it’s the 6th biggest of the last 10 summers (Pirates 2, Spidey 2, Revenge of the Sith).
I’m guessing you meant Ice Age 4 has made more internationally than any other animated film worldwide this year? Still amazing, and will probably top its predecessor as the #1 international animated film of all-time. Currently trails by $70 million, and has yet to open in Italy where Ice Age 3 made $44 million. Also grosses should see a bounce with the Olympics ending.
Most importantly, Fox would have probably lost money this summer without it, which would have been a first.
Echo JoseRC, surprised about the Ice Age movies. Not so surprised it does well overseas given it is the 4th installment, but am surprised at how well it is doing. Always surprised that Pixar movies do not perform like Ice Age overseas.
Yes ET… this summer
Seems like every other thread someone has to pop up and explain that part of the ICE AGE films’ great international success is due to the voices being re-dubbed by popular comedians in the various territories.
Anyone think Killer Joe could’ve passed the $1 million mark if they’d trimmed about ten seconds to get an R-rating?
WB updated the TDKR to $835 million worldwide. Assuming it does ok in China, where TDK didn’t play, 1 billion is in the bag.
In Venezuela, “Ice Age 4” ranks now as the king in the box office for 2012, second only to “The Avengers”. If you look at the global box office, it’s knocking out “The Dark Knight Rises.”
Even though it is almost invisible in the US now, “Prometheus” is surviving well overseas too, having grossed almost 195 million after opening in Spain last week and Germany in this one. (source is Boxoffice.com)
Caught Bourne today. A complete turd. I found the film every inch as cynical as any Marvel movie in that it exists only to further a franchise, the film’s story has no point. Renner himself isn’t anything special in it. He’s not bad but certainly isn’t interesting which fails the Movie Star sniff test. That ending. Oh my god fuck all of you (the studio, not you guys on the blog.). How smug to think you’ve earned a sequel/franchise that we’d be interested in. That last chase sequence is so incredibly tedious, so boring. Anyone find themselves wondering a.) why this world class assassin has everything he needs to hunt Bourne Jr down except a fucking gun? And b.) why does Renner take it on faith that this guy is such a badass he has to run from him?
Please, Movie Gods, let this movie tank. It didn’t even provide us the satisfaction of seeing Edward Norton get punched in the nose.
LEGACY POWER YOU WILL BOW.
I also like how every BOURNE sequel wheels out the Ultimate BadAss Hitman for the last act, and the guy’s always some suave GQ motherfucker out and about in aviator shades when he gets the call. He’s never like taking a shit or buying a 5-dollar footlong at Subway. No, it’s like Karl Urban drinking at a Russian strip club at 2am or this slick Thai badass hanging out in some fish bazaar in a leather jacket gambling on dice games.
I still don’t know why they spend 2 PLUS HOURS on TREADSTONE BLACKBRIAR PAMELA LANDY plot points from 3 movies back, when the only thing Renner really does is take a trip to Manila to pick up some pills.
How did CELESTE AND JESSE get such a small release/SLOOOOOOOW rollout?
That seems like it could’ve nailed that “cheery receptionist who listens to ’80s Rewind at her desk and REALLY likes Jim and Pam” sweet spot in wide release. Why platform an NBC-actor romcom, even if it’s a kind of indie/mumbly one? Seems like the kind of thing that could be doing OK business if it was pushed in mainstream TV ads… instead, its target audience hasn’t even heard of it.
So is Gustavo Razara Spanish for Steven Kaye?
So Amazing Spiderman is now the fourth highest domestic grosser for Columbia behind..the three other spidermans. And some people questioned why they would reboot it so soon.
As for Streep her recent successes all had somewhat recognizable (if not beloved) source material and had pretty young ladies to appeal to a more youthful crowd. Complicated had a young supporting cast but the big names, farcical aspects of the plot, and Christmas release date helped put that over the top. Streep appealing simply to her own age group is certainly not going to produce the same numbers, the budget seems to reflect this expectaion, so while there isn’t a huge upside I doubt they are terribly disapointed.
Regardless if voices are dubbed for Ice Agr, it’s still impressive. That is quite a haul.
Which is the more head-scratching appearance by an Oscar-nominated actress in a major release this weekend, Elisabeth Shue’s three lines in Hope Springs or Joan Allen’s one line in Bourne?
Though he is not an academy award nominated actress, I’ll nominate Bill Nighy in Total Recall as a wasted head scratching appearance. Wrath of the Titans at least made his character fun.
Joan Allen in Bourne may not even be new footage… but that one is about continuity… same for Strathairn.
Shue I can’t speak for.
Nighy was in the UNDERWORLD movies, so he may have done it as a favor to Weisman.
“I still don’t know why they spend 2 PLUS HOURS on TREADSTONE BLACKBRIAR PAMELA LANDY plot points from 3 movies back, when the only thing Renner really does is take a trip to Manila to pick up some pills.”
Yes yes yes. I have absolutely no idea why Renner’s character does any of the things he does. This isn’t Damon in the first Bourne. He knows who he is, what he is, how he came to be. If the idea is that he suddenly acquired a conscience, that doesn’t add up because he was pretty cold blooded in how he dispatched those security guards at the Manilla plant who weren’t really all that threatening.
The more I’ve thought about it, the more I *hate* this movie.
@YancySkancy- aren’t Disney/Pixar/Dreamworks movies also redubbed by local comedians/actors as well?
I’m with DP on Allen/Strathairn but SHue only makes sense if the movie was once intended as an ensemble affair but 3/4 of her role got edited when they decided to focus on the therapy sessions.
Wow (re: Amblynman posts)… will anyone mount an argument for Bourne? This is one of those movies I would normally see simply out of theatrical routine (rather than from a compelling want), but I *hate* the feeling of *hating* movies
I just find it hilarious that an action movie has finally tried to explain its hero’s superhuman agility and reflexes by saying, umm, his special DNA allows him to do that! And yet he’s performing the same feats of derring-do we’ve seen completely unaltered beat cops and vigilantes and British spies and war veterans pulling off for the last thirty years.
You’d think a superhuman being would move more along the lines of Ritchie’s Holmes–able to rapidly analyze a situation and come up with an elegant solution; resorting to violence would be like an admission of failure (I’m reminded of the time-traveler in Asimov’s The End of Eternity who altered the outcome of a war by sneaking into a ship’s supply room to move a spare part from one shelf to another, or…hell, any episode of Doctor Who).
But then that wouldn’t be much of an action movie, would it? Oops.
Matt wrote: @YancySkancy- aren’t Disney/Pixar/Dreamworks movies also redubbed by local comedians/actors as well?
I have no idea, but probably so. Which might be part of the reason those films also do so well internationally, for all I know.
Since we’re talking about it, here is the list of animated films and their overseas earnings (courtesy of boxofficemojo). *Lion King and Nemo include their additional runs. But the top 10 are basically sequels. Setting aside King/Nemo for a second (cause of additional runs), it’s amazing how much Ice Age 3 and 4 and Toy Story 3 are behemoths over the next in line. It will be interesting to see where Brave will get to as it still has many of it’s overseas openings ahead of it (currently at $147.1) – can it even crack the Top 15? Also interesting how well Ratatouille did overseas as it’s (seems to me) reputation is an underperformer of the Pixar movies. It is the #3 Pixar performer overseas for original Pixar movies.
1 Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs $690.10
2 Toy Story 3 $648.20
3 Ice Age: Continental Drift $620.50
4 The Lion King $528.80*
5 Finding Nemo $528.20*
6 Shrek Forever After $513.90
7 Kung Fu Panda 2 $500.40
8 Shrek 2 $478.60
9 Shrek the Third $476.20
10 Ice Age: The Meltdown $460.10
11 Up $438.30
12 Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa $423.90
13 Ratatouille $417.30
14 Kung Fu Panda $416.30
15 Puss in Boots $405.40
16 Tangled $389.90
17 The Incredibles $370.00
18 Cars 2 $368.40
19 The Simpsons Movie $343.90
20 Rio $341.00
21 Madagascar $339.10
22 Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted $336.40
23 WALL-E $297.50
Longhshanks, I won’t exactly make a case for Bourne Legacy, but I will say this: it’s not as big a drop-off from the Greengrass sequels as some are saying. Damon’s character is more interesting, yes, and Greengrass is generally a vaguely better stylist… but it’s pretty much the same thing as those movies. I wouldn’t say Bourne Supremacy/Ultimatum have really strong reasons for existing, story-wise. Yeah, it’s slightly less compelling if you take Damon out of the equation, but to me Legacy more exposes the humdrum nature of many of the sequels’ aspects, rather than representing a major comedown, and for me, Liman’s first movie is still considerably better than any of the follow-ups.
Longer review if anyone is interested:
http://bit.ly/S7U9lp
Pretty deceiving publicity for Bourne Legacy to have Joan Allen’s name fourth on the poster. Or Albert Finney fifth for that matter; his part’s not much bigger.
JasonB, I think boxofficemojo jumped the gun on FINDING NEMO. Its additional run is actually this coming September.
@etguild2 Good catch.
Amblynman spot on re: Bourne. Just what on earth was the point of the film? Yeah they’re clearly setting up an extension of the franchise but couldn’t they have found a way of doing that in 15 minutes then spent 105 minutes on an actual plot that viewers would have found even remotely compelling?
All this talk about the ending of the film makes me want to talk about the beginning of “Bourne.” All of that Alaska stuff? Useless.
I could not agree more with the Bourne sentiments expressed here. I even thought the trailers were already an effective set up in stating that “there were always more than one”. That’s the easy out right there. The first three Bournes provided the foundation for more stories.
SPOILER ALERT: What irritated me as well, was that you never really got to see how “good” this new Bourne aka Alex Cross was. No hand to hand combat with his peers, only street cops, who actually were just doing their jobs, and he’s out cracking necks. No explanation was offered as to why he’s possibly killing innocent folk.
And there was basically no emotion shown when he realized that he was betrayed by his employers. He’s basically on a hunt for his pills, and the movie ends on that note. What made Bourne so good was the interaction between the grunt worker and the ones that supposed to be pulling all the strings. We got none of that here. All we got was junkie looking for his next fix. Bummer. I can get that any number of Reality cable channels.
@Jessie
I don’t necessarily disagree with you regarding the last two Bourne sequels. However there was a thrust and motivation for Bourne and his story. The same cant be said for Renner’s Cross. His character and movie literally have no reason to exist. He’s not righting any wrongs, avenging any injustices, or even “looking to bring the whole thing down.”. I wish that last part applied, actually. Damon just wanted to be left alone, imagine if Cross were a legit rabble rouser out to wreck the food chain? Bam – instant stakes and motivation.
This movie gave us nothing to root for. Worst of all it was boring as shit. The last chase goes on forever with no real payoff.
If I almost sound angry about the movie, I am. I despise this trend in Hollywood to simply use films as bridges to other films. I don’t mind sEries or cliffhangers, but these aren’t that. They are incomplete entertainment thrown at us in a carny like manner to herd the suckers in for one more ticket. Earn my fucking business, you bastards. I practically want to smack Jackson for the third Hobbit.
BOURNE SPOILERS:
I enjoyed it, and yet, it did feel like a hammock movie. Norton and Keach and Murphy and Boutsakiris spent the second half of the movie looking at monitors and reminding us of the stakes, the plot points, what this means, Bourne, Treadstone, motivations, implications… Hey, he’s on the move.
We did get Cross v Larx 3. Of course, it was all chase, no real hand-to-hand combat.
I think the point was to show an agent who wanted to do the program, who liked it, who didn’t have a memory lapse, who was going to go Flowers for Algernon unless he flew to the Philippines and got the virus.
I liked the Alaska stuff, I liked the lab shoot-out, I liked the showdown in the house that eventually burned down. The Philippines stuff got long, and the ending was a fizzle, but it seemed it was really just setting up Cross and Bourne to team up for Part 5.
I’m sorry, I still have no idea why Croas and Bourne would team up? What is it CRoss wants?
Cross is now super but he needs to stay hidden. Bourne’s going to convince him the only way to get THEM to leave them alone is to take the whole thing down.
Can we say now Hollywood learned its lesson that if you’re going to remake Verhoeven, you need someone better than Wiseman? Probably not.
I read (Drew McWeeny, Drew McWeeny, Drew McWeeny)’s thoughts on the RoboCop script he read, and now I’m terrified. Just when I was digging the supporting cast…
As much as I like Drew, is complains about that script seemsed a little daft. Suddenly, satirizing modern corporate practices ISN’T something that should be in a Robocop movie (like they WOUNLDN’T market-test something like that)? Odd line of thinking, there.
So he tweeted a script review of a movie that just started production? What’s the point? Just to share a few oh-so-clever quips and say he got to read it?
Robocop without anti-corporate jabs would be like Starship Troopers without anti-bug propaganda.
Seriously, do these morons think Robocop is just an action movie?
The first thing the DAWN OF THE DEAD remake did was drop the anti-consumerist theme.
Does drew have a policy on script reviews? After the JJ Abrams Superman debacle I thought he was off them. I don’t read Hitfix so I have no clue. Apparently these were Tweets. Is it ok to sandbag a production as long it’s not officially on the site? And it may be on the site. Don’t know, don’t read it.
But basically the response on other sites reporting his tweets are extremely negative. Those tweets got picked up by every film site and has been viewed as legitimate news. As a writer, I find kicking a production in the nuts to be distasteful. And I can’t fault the guy for posting his thoughts on a script for a film site. That’s his gig. Hes an entertainment reporter. But as a guy who used to write scripts, doesn’t he see the inherent flaw in publicly raking something over the coals?
And maybe he wasn’t that harsh to it, but the stuff on the websites that have picked up his tweets as reporting are shining a very unfavorable light on the project based on his snippets.
Maybe another reason why twitter isn’t really the best place for criticism.
It alsmost felt like he wanted to see if he still has the juice he did when he killed Abram’s Superman. Though… that may be a bit harsh.
And in retrospect, changes to the source material or no – I think that would have been a HELL of a lot more interesting film than what Singer gave us.
The Abrams Superman debacle wasn’t a debacle for Drew, but for the studio. We got spared a Superman where Luthor is from Krypton and Jor-El talks his son back to life from Krypto-heaven. I for one am glad that died.
And I don’t think Drew was harshing on anti-corporate satire as a whole, but the apparent lame jabs based on facile references to the original (“I wouldn’t buy that for a dollar,” etc.)
I’m not even concerned with the specific criticisms. Drew is a smart guy who has read a lot of scripts. The what doesnt concern me. It’s the why.
Why does any legitimate online presence review a script for a movie, much less someone who is a creative writer. I realize the debacle was the studios, but Drew elected to publicly crucify the project for whatever reason.
The key words are “whatever reason”
Is it to generate page views? Out of some misguided attempt to derail the project and/or get his two cents in about the legitimacy of the project before they’ve even filmed the thing? In the fleeting hopes that some harsh criticism will force the producers to rethink their take on the property.
And I’m not posturing here. I’d love to know the answer. I won’t assume to understand why Drew, a guy who writes screenplays, would dismantle an as yet unproduced screenplay in a public forum. Maybe the producers sent him the script. I don’t know.
But what I know is doing what he does from time to time does nothing to benefit the finished film or the people making it. So the question is “why?”
Who benefits from this other than Drew?
Well, with Superman, he was at AICN, a site where the entire raison d’etre used to be leaking spy information like script reports that wasn’t supposed to be getting out, hence every writer but Harry having a pseudonym to avoid retaliation.
They’ve gotten away from that in recent years – and every pseudonym now has a known real name attached – to become more of a standard film blog, but love it or hate it, that kind of thing is what made them a big deal initially.
Okay, so this thread had me wondering why Renner’s character had the same name as the title character of the upcoming James Patterson adaptation starring Tyler Perry. Turns out he doesn’t. It’s Aaron Cross, not Alex.
That Alex Cross movie looks like so bad.
“The first thing the DAWN OF THE DEAD remake did was drop the anti-consumerist theme.”
…which is why people won’t still be watching it thirty years from now, unlike the original.
Even on its 25th anniversary (a whole month ago) folks were ragging on the movie’s dated FX, and yet Robocop is still watched and remembered fondly because the entire package makes a perfect whole. Cut the corporate snarking and it’s just another forgettable action movie.
As for why Drew did what he did, sure, he got a big blast of publicity, but I’m still going with “In the fleeting hopes that some harsh criticism will force the producers to rethink their take on the property.” Why else do you think the story blew up so hot and fast, unless most readers shared his opinion about tinkering with the original’s message?
As for Superman, y’all forgot to mention that Abrams wanted a 3-picture deal, with most of the story taking place far from Earth, with Superman all but absent from one entire third of the trilogy.
And I’m also thankful that Carnahan’s “idea for a certain retro, red-suited, Serpico-styled superhero went up in smoke today.” Daredevil…Serpico? Good Lord Baby Jeebus.
Okay, you made me look up Drew’s comments, and holy crap it is worse than I imagined. They not only make fun of the original movie, but Robocop, in an Al Queda training camp? Uh, what part of RoboCOP did these folks forget? He’s a friggin’ police officer, not a bipedal weapons platform.
Why even buy the rights to Robocop if you just want to film a humanoid Transformer?
Oh, and the guy who wrote this mess was also handed the opportunity to write the next Dune reboot? Yeesh.
“As for why Drew did what he did, sure, he got a big blast of publicity, but I’m still going with “In the fleeting hopes that some harsh criticism will force the producers to rethink their take on the property.” Why else do you think the story blew up so hot and fast, unless most readers shared his opinion about tinkering with the original’s message?”
It’s this kind of sentiment that makes me laugh. It’s that JS Partisan style entitlement over a property. By doing that, Drew has basically said “i disagree with where you have taken and/or will be taking this property”.
Drew is armchair screenwriting/producing. Whether he admits it or not. He’s giving coverage when no one asked for it.
And it’s his right to do. His job is to get eyeballs looking his way. This certainly achieved that. But again, i would think someone who worked in the industry as a writer would respect the work of others and the process. That’s the part that seems so patently disingenuous to me. If you claim to love movies. If you’re a fan, why do you meddle? Because you care? Maybe. Because you think you know better? More likely.
This kind of stuff is very telling. I’m sure Drew doesn’t think he lacks respect for the film industry. after the Superman situation, it should be obvious that peeling an as yet filmed screenplay like an onion does nothing but create negative buzz for the project. The well has been poisoned. Not that will impact the big picture. But a big percentage of the audience for a remake like Robocop is online. Drew’s tweets have been retweeted on every film site and blog. Go to google and type in “New Robocop” and you’ll see ROBOCOP IS A TRANSFORMER popping up everywhere. The well has been poisoned.
And again, not faulting Drew for trying to generate hits. It’s how he makes his living. This is what you have to do keep an audience. However, if you claim to be a writer and you’re out there doing armchair coverage, you obviously have little to no respect for the working screenwriters out there.
I still don’t know if this actually ran on HitFix or people just took Drew’s tweets and turned them into a story. I think that’s where the argument gets interesting. If Drew posted nothing on HitFix, then technically he didn’t ‘officially’ write anything about it. And that’s a wonderful way to skirt any real responsibility.
When you type “Drew McWeeny” and “Robocop” into google, you get no stories linking to hitfix, but you get a thousand other sites that ran it as a story. Examples:
Spoilers! ROBOCOP Is A Transformer In The Remake! – comicbookmovie.com
Drew McWeeny Destroys Robocop — POP GOES THE WEEK!! (some site called popgoestheweek.com)
Robocop Remake Script Has Been Eviscerated « furiousfanboys.com
Horror of horrors: ‘Robocop’ remake to be a Transformer, fight Al Qaeda – examiner.com
Robocop is a transformer who fights Al-Qaeda – FilmDrunk
“RoboCop Remake Script Details Emerge Via Twitter”
All of this from some Tweets. Fascinating.
It’s nothing to lose sleep over, but i think the fact that Drew writes for a website, tweeted this stuff, ‘eviscerates’ the script, and doesn’t even have it on the site he writes for? He breaks the story on Twitter? Certainly there has to be some interesting grey area here. It’s not ok to post a story about how much Drew hated the Robocop script, but unofficially on Twitter you can piss all over it?
So the website exists for his official positions and we can to Twitter to find out what he really thinks?
Awesome.
“…if you claim to be a writer and you’re out there doing armchair coverage, you obviously have little to no respect for the working screenwriters out there.”
Screenwriters who turn out garbage like this don’t deserve any respect. The word “hack” gets tossed around a lot but in this case perhaps “whore” works better.
The whole point of remakes, reboots, sequels and prequels is to exploit an existing fanbase; if you piss them off at the outset by mocking what they like then you deserve to watch your movie go down in flames.
I hope Drew did more than poison the well, I hope he destroyed the entire project. It deserved to die.
“I hope Drew did more than poison the well, I hope he destroyed the entire project. It deserved to die.”
Where in his job description covers killing projects in the crib?
He appears to be the canary in the coal mine, hired to warn us of upcoming disaster. Succeeded.
Did Drew do like a script takedown of JA RULE WRECKS CHARLOTTE or something?
So he’s the film industry watchdog, saving the world from film projects he deems unworthy based on a screenplay.
Lex, I got nothing against Drew and woni’t begrudge a guy for trying to make a buck. If the studio and filmmakers aren’t upset over it, why should anyone else be? Just fascinated by the story and marvelling at the precedent.
When film reporters deviate from the form and pre-judge movies before they’re even made so vocally and with such vitriol.
Id ask if Drew ever took down one of your projects, but that would require you producing something. Maybe you can get him to review one of your drunken suicidal foot rants. I think id actually read that.
Um, Drew is a geek. He loves movies. He cares about the Robocop franchise, as many do. I think his tweets were no more than a fan showing dismay with where the script is taking the character. As a fan, I am glad he has “the juice” to be noticed when pointing out these things.
Taking it wider (TM Matt Lauer), is there ANY COVERAGE, EVER, of any REMAKE of a geek property that will ever be positive? All respect to Drew, I think the post-AICN, post-“geeks inherit the earth,” post “Lucas raped my childhood” logic is that ALL “remakes” are gonna get such an unfair shake from 30-40-year-old “geek” bloggers who were in that 1982 sweet spot of megafans who will FOREVER AND EVER act like ANY variation on their beloved dorky franchise or original is a TRANSGRESSION AGAINST HUMANITY, nobody’s really taking it seriously anymore.
RoboCop is a fine movie and all, but at this point some studio could announce a “remake” of fucking LICENSE TO DRIVE, and a Drew-level “major film blogger” would stalk that fucking production like Jason Vorhees looking to do it in for DESECRATING THE MASTERWORK from their 10th grade summer. It’s Boy Who Cried Wolf at this point.
Lex, i completely agree. You said it a thousand times better than i did. I think i said ‘JS Partisan level entitlement over properties’.
It always reads odd to me, because it makes the film bloggers sound like they believe they have more ownership of the property than the person or studio who holds the rights.
3 movies and 3 billion dollars later there are people who still tell Don Murphy in an unrelenting volume how “wrong” they got the Transformers.
And i don’t know how serious people take it in the real world. But i know yesterday the half dozen sites i frequent could not stop talking about ROBOCOP IS A TRANSFORMER. And because he did it on twitter, we only get the easily digestable snippets. Those are what people pick up on. Twitter is nothing but headlines without context. Where if he had done a piece on HitFix carefully reviewing the script it might of come across less like a evisceration and more like the intelligent analysis from someone who knows about screenplays.
I think its just as much about the vehicle he chose to deliver the message as the message itself.
And of course, its also the reactions you get, like Joe’s and SamLowry’s. People who argue that he’s protecting the integrity of the project.
At my last count, there was one good Robocop movie. The first one. A pulply ‘not a disaster’ second one. A train wreck that was Robocop 3. A couple of really bad TV series and TV movies. An animated series. And yet, ‘the fans’ still are able to disregard the vast majority of the terrible Robocop related product that spewed out for a decade after the original. And now with a reboot of the property they get up in arms because of ‘changes to the character’?
Entitlement’s a funny thing.
Yes there is no greater calling in life than protecting the sacred Robocop franchise. And let’s hope Drew killed a project because his word is gospel. WWDD. If he doesn’t like it, no way it could be good.
But the fans do have “more ownership of the property than the person or studio who holds the rights” because those who hold the rights have acted time and again like they would sell their own sainted mothers into prostitution if they thought they could make a buck from it.
THEY MADE FUN OF THE ORIGINAL ROBOCOP RIGHT THERE IN THE SCRIPT…yet you expect us to believe they have the best interests of the character in mind because they bought the ownership rights? By that logic you could successfully argue that no slave was ever mistreated because no owner would ever damage his property.
Oh, and “Money =/= Correct”. If someone made a billion dollars by turning Charles Foster Kane into an action hero, would that prove they had a better understanding of Citizen Kane than Orson Welles? No, it does not, and yes it is entirely possible if not likely that Murphy completely misunderstands the Transformers while still pulling in bucketloads of money.
Oh, and one key ingredient was missing when Robocop’s owners sold him into prostitution: The World-Wide Web. The fans had no idea what was going on until the finished product was ready, yet if you go back and look at the steep decline in sales figures (from $53M to $46M to $11M?) you can tell they hated what they saw.
Nowadays, thanks to Hollywood’s implicit support of AICN and so many other leak sites because “there’s no such thing as bad publicity”, superfans like Drew have the power and the authority to call them on their shit whenever they go completely off the rails.
The Transformers argument is a good one, because its not that it made money. It made money three consecutive times in spite of rampant complaining about the quality of the movies and treatment of the property.
So its not money I’m arguing. It’s consistency. Three films, all dismantled by the online “protectors of the property”, and still all three are massive successes. By saying they “got it wrong”, you’re presenting the idea that there’s a more successful iteration of the property that would be better than the three billion dollar franchise they produced.
I didn’t like any of the transformers movies. However I lack the balls or the entitlement to claim “they got it wrong”. Looking at the consistent success of all three films, is say they got it right.
And maybe that’s the point. There is no one right or wrong for a property. Just different interpretations. And fanboys and bloggers like Drew feel as if they know what is right or wrong for a property. I think that assertion takes balls. Much like the poster last month who claimed they knew what was right or wrong for Godzilla based on hos lifelong devotion to the character. There’s nothing wrong with having an opinion on a property. Acting as though you are one who is vest suited to judge the direction of Robocop, Godzilla, or Spiderman is fanboy posturing. Because there is no one “right” interpretation.
Sam, that’s a terrible argument and you should be ashamed at yourself.
Seriously, equating the rights of an intangible concept with a human being? Do you also hate Airplane! for making fun of Zero Hour, or the hugely successful Stargate SG1 for making fun of the Stargate movie RIGHT THERE IN THE SCRIPT.
“THEY MADE FUN OF THE ORIGINAL ROBOCOP RIGHT THERE IN THE SCRIPT”
Yeah, saying an 80’s design looks… *gasp* like an 80’s design is sacrilege!!!
Wow, Sam has an unhealthy attachment to RoboCop, it seems…
Foamy, I am trying but failing to see the distinction between owning a character and owning a human being. You are in complete control of each one, you can make them dance like a marionette or expose themselves in public if you’d like, and as long as you hold the rights there’s apparently no one who can stop you.
Wasn’t that the point of S1m0ne?
If I was a fan of Zero Hour! or a WWII vet or Bosley Crowther I’d probably be pissed, although now that I think about it I did read Airport when I was in high school, maybe as a result of seeing this movie or perhaps because I’d seen all the Airport movies, and found Airplane! only mildly amusing, in the poo-flinging sense.
I guess the question is whether Airplane! or the Stargate TV show made fun of something that deserved to be mocked, and in the case of Robocop it’s undeserved, if not nonsensical. Making fun of him for looking like a toy or being from the ’80s differs from the Transformers direction they want to take him in how?
Just yesterday I was at Yesterland, looking at pictures of the Wonders of Life pavilion, reading that it was closed primarily because it looked dated, like something out of Miami Vice, and I wondered “Why would that matter at Disney World?”
P.S. I can understand why Crowther was so pissed about Bonnie and Clyde. He was not just alive but mature enough to know when they were committing their crimes that they were truly hideous human beings. Seeing a movie romanticizing them must have been galling, like seeing the Sikh temple shooter portrayed as a mighty Christian warrior fighting for righteousness and goodness.
And the idea that the geek sites i.e. vocal fans “have the power and the authority to call them on their shit whenever they go completely off the rails.”
The power? The authority? If that’s not the definition of ‘entitled fanboys’, i don’t know what is. Yikes. Just yikes.
Sam, this is a serious question:
By whose authority?
The main thing is this, with TOTAL RECAL being the new textbook example: if you remake a “genre classic,” you invite two things: those that love the original to exclaim, “Why?” and those who are expected to see it in theaters but have zero attachment to the original.
What happens: fans of the original write-off the remake and potential fans of the remake don’t get the original’s raison de entre, but a plastic shadow. Few will be satisfied. So how about an original idea?
Anghus, Hollywood gave guys like Drew the power, and the fans give them the authority. Simple.
The original creators should have the ultimate control, but in Hollywood and the courts the only people who matter are those who currently hold the rights, which is why the fans have to step in whenever someone who wants to revive a beloved character just to shake a few more pennies out of his pockets proves that he cares not one whit for the sanctity of the character.
Wasn’t there a discussion here a few months back about Sondheim attacking “Gershwin’s Porgy and Bess”, which proved to be far less Gershwin than the original? I don’t recall anyone accusing Sondheim of being an entitled fanboy then.
Today Drew writes a column lambasting “hysterical headlines, wild overreactions, and tabloid sensationalism” and a general lack of journalistic integrity (the kerfuffle over Stewart and a sequel to Snow White & the Huntsman). Is an extremely critical Twitter script review the pinnacle of journalistic integrity and completely devoid of that which he finds deplorable?
The hypocrisy – IT BURNS.
Eh it’s more like a mild tingle as opposed to a burn.
He has not yet learned to tame the beast he rides.
I just like quoting THE EXORCIST. One so rarely can.
Really? I toss out a few “your mother smokes cocks in hell” nearly every day on the subway.
So the lesson for the day is that McWeeny, Sondheim and Crowther all acted like “entitled fanboys” for pointing out how new takes violated the canon, and yet of the three Crowther went the furthest and suffered the hardest. He simply would not let Bonnie & Clyde go, attacking it every chance he had, and in return was so mocked by the kiddies who never knew Bonnie or Clyde but thought the movie was rilly kewl that he eventually lost his job over it.
Now that’s dedication, but all for naught, because most young fools would still place Bonnie & Clyde on a spectrum closer to Romeo & Juliet than, say, Fred & Rosemary.
She/He/The Devil actually says, “Your mother SUCKS cocks in Hell.” But who’s counting?
Sam you seem to be blurring the line between enthusist and professional. Do you think Sondheim and McWeeny have the same amount of credibility? A giant of his respective field and someone with a dream job of analyzing his field.
As for Crowther, it seemed that the end was on its way for him B&C or not. He had a problem with amplified violence, the 70’s would not have been kind.
Sam, Crowther was a staunch foe of censorship but he also literally killed Orson Welles CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT from getting US distribution. Among other films that didn’t pass his smell test.
And much worse on Crowther, he was worried that DR. STRANGELOVE would cause us to lose faith in our institutions. That’s a man out of time by 1964.
Christian, oops messed up the quote, guess I’ve seen the television edit too many times “your mother smokes Kools in jail”
Sam: Maybe it’s just me, but I get the feeling you supported Crowther in that dust-up. Does it miff you that Arthur Penn got the last laugh?
http://www.movingpictureshow.com/dialogues/mpsArthurPenn.htm
Hcat, someone who doesn’t have a job with a studio or a production company would be much more credible than someone who may be trying to push a product. He has no skin in the game, as the kiddies would say, which gives him a considerable amount of independence.
And after reading both sides of the debate at Wellesnet, I find it odd to see Sarris attacking Crowther like he’s a corrupt old despot refusing to transfer power to the glorious young revolutionaries while Crowther’s chief complaint is that Welles mumbles, a lot. Perhaps the film just needed closed captions.
I’m not a fan of amplified violence, either. I had to walk out of An American Werewolf in London for a breather halfway through, and though I bought the tape years later I don’t think I’ve ever unwrapped it. I’d have to side with him on that one.
And Joe, looking down the list of Penn’s films, I’ve never made it through many of them, and though I’m a big fan of Penn & Teller I thought that movie was not at all good. I never liked “New Hollywood”, perhaps because I liked Hitchcock more than Penn, Peckinpah, Coppola, etc.
Let’s put it this way: I’d rather be shot than watch any Godfather movie ever again.
Sam I agree that McWeeny independance gives him some credibility, but what I was argueing against was lumping him in with Sondheim and Crowthers. They are three different animals.
Sam, writing off Welles by way of Crowther and pretending Hitchcock didn’t help usher in the age of black comedy violence…
Sam, I turn 60 next week. But I have to say: You sound a lot older than me.
I was wondering about other 1980’s movies they could remake. Seems like Short Circuit is the most obvious. Adventures in Babysitting. The Running Man. Couldn’t do Weird Science, cuz the boys were 15. Statutory rape issues.
I thought someone was already at work on a Short Circuit remake? Or is that just an early sign of dementia on my part?
My problem with Sams analogy is this: the other two deal with finished products, not a work in progress. Drew is pissing on the foundation before its even set.
As someone who understands the process, id expect he’d have more respect for it.
I’d imagine if someone crapped all over Jaws based on the script Spielberg had in his bags when he headed to Martha’s Vineyard they would’ve been pleasantly surprised by the outcome.
However…
To garnish the script with garbage like this then expect us to believe it’ll all be fixed before post tells us a) the script doesn’t really matter, in fact, it never really matters, and b) the fact that so many people signed off on this script tells us what they think of the original movie. Those exact words on the page may not make the final cut, but the sentiment very likely will.
I have to wonder, though: Who, then, should be the speaker for the fans? The defender of the canon, the one who can tell Hollywood “You’re doing it wrong”? Harlan Ellison was vocal for quite a while but has, uh, started to step back a bit from the stage, for obvious reasons (and it doesn’t help that his webpage looks about 15 years out of date).
the canon? This is Robocop, the Bachman Turner Overdrive of Science Fiction, big enough at one time to be remembered now but having done nothing past the initial success. It was an enjoyable movie dimisinished by sequels that it only received because it was owned by a second rate studio with no other potential franchises.
“defender of the canon…” Really?
And here I thought I thought I was a massive geek.
Why should a new take be beholden to any “canon”? You sound like the AICN talkbackers, and their never-ending complaints. “They’re remaking xxxx? Why can’t they make something original? Wait…. they’re changing things?? It’s not a slavishly (and pointlessly) faithful rehash?? Why can’t they respect the original?!?!?!”
I want a remake of Lethal Weapon but with the original cast. I want to see the current versions of Mad Mel and Scary Gary throwing down on a front lawn while an elderly Danny Glover eggs them on.
Reading Sam’s last paragraph that Eyes of an Angel song popped into my head.
“Who will speak for the fans? Held merciless to the studios who don’t understand the properties as well as they do. Forced to watch entertainment that contradicts the established canon. Won’t someone think of the fans?”
Jesus, for all they ways that the industry kisses the ass of this particular group you would think they would be a little more appreciative. If they were tentpoling westerns the way they are dropping super hero and science fiction properties I think I could find a way to take the good with the bad and not get miffed at every little thing.
And again Robocop is a minor thing, like Total Recall, people responded to Verhoven’s craziness, not some underlying brilliance of the concept. It was the singer not the song.
And Sam if you are not a fan of amplified violence how are you a defender of Robocop?
Sam, are you aware Harlan Ellison hated ROBOCOP? Specifically for its…violence.
Joe, you’re not crazy. There is a SHORT CIRCUIT remake in the works, apparently.
I would love to see the LETHAL WEAPON 5 Shane Black allegedly wrote, especially after seeing Gibson in fine form in GET THE GRINGO.
“And Sam if you are not a fan of amplified violence how are you a defender of Robocop?”
Maybe because I haven’t seen the movie in about twenty years and forgot it was there.
In looking up a clip for the godawful cartoon earlier today, I found the poster had inserted the shooting of the executive midway through and, yeah, it was excessive. (I am aware he looped it 3x in the clip, but I also recall that Verhoeven had to trim the shooting of Murphy by several frames because the movie couldn’t even get an “R” the first time around. When was the last time THAT happened?)
So no, not a fan of amplified violence, though I can appreciate the dark humor value of it, like when the guy who posted this clip followed the line “I’ve already arranged for someone to look after your son” with the mugshot of Myra Hindley, which is probably what inspired me to look up Fred and Rosemary earlier.
And to bring this full-circle, when Robo’s partner in the clip says “I had a partner one time–he was killed by a robot”, we see a scene from Short Circuit of an evil Johnny causing a car crash.