MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Weekend Estimates by 2 Gun Klady

20130804-102837.jpg

2 Guns is a good opening for Wahlberg or a good opening for Denzel. There was no noticeable bump coming from teaming the two solid openers. However, Denzel’s international history shows bigger numbers when he’s teamed with a white guy… so there may be a payoff there.

The film is a reasonable and often mis-structured piece of studio b-movie making… not as good as, say, Timecop, but with shiny objects dropped around, like Paula Patton shot to benefit every curve or Edward James Olmos getting hit in the face a lot or lots of stuff blowin’ up real good.

2 Smurfs (the Asian way of saying it) is looking to the rest of the world to make up for American disinterest in any more blue smurfing animation… and will get away with it.

The Wolverine will become the 15th $100m domestic grosser of the summer this week.

0 Grown Ups/2 Movies will be another solid hit for Mr Sandler. Expect a wave of “Sandler Is Back!” stories from adoring critics. (heh heh)

Very strong opening for The Spectacular Now (as usual, don’t assume that it will extrapolate to big wide grosses… though I would love that). Also, continued muscle by Blue Jasmine, now on 50 screens.

Be Sociable, Share!

130 Responses to “Weekend Estimates by 2 Gun Klady”

  1. Etguild2 says:

    From an investment standpoint, all someone like Loeb needs to do is look at Sony’s film schedule in late summer, which is one of the most batshit in recent history. Then agressively frame the beginnings of a narrative, and after people attack you, sit back and watch disappointment after failure after bomb manifest in a perception based market. Because Sony’s slate here in August…it’s like someone had a giant calendar dart board and this was how they decided when to open their movies.

    *”One Direction: This Is Us” is slam dunk money…the band might not reach Bieber heights from 2009, but it’s far and away guaranteed to sell more than Jonas and Katy Perry, probably combined. The only way you could screw this up…is by opening it on Labor Day weekend, INDISPUTABLY the worst weekend of the year for kids/tweens. A kid/tween movie has never broken $9 million on that weekend, and while this will certainly still open to at least $15 million, there is no reason not to move the film to mid-October (no competition scheduled). Sheer insanity.

    *”The Smurfs 2″ should have decamped to the sure-fire “Alvin and the Chipmunks” mid-December date as soon as Disney made its move with “Planes” which also has a built in audience (Cars 2 made almost $370 million internationally), as Despicable Me 2 (and to a lesser extent Turbo) already made for a crowded marketplace…The first “Smurfs” had the benefit of the most barren summer landscapes for kids in recent history. It’ll make money, but as much as $200 million less than the first worldwide, and it jeopardizes a part 3. “Walking With Dinosaurs” is the only kiddie targeted fare in December, and stuff like that has a history of underperforming (Eragon, Water Horse) in that month.

    *”Mortal Instruments” then could have then moved up to the “Smurfs” date. It’s going to likely misfire either way, but its current pre-Labor Day release is a death sentence, especially right after “Percy Jackson,” and parents/tweens may have have been more willing to opt for a YA fantasy as opposed to another tot-targeted toon this weekend. It certainly would have not done worse than it’s going to.

    *This would have opened space for Big Sony to concentrate more on what’s been a muddled and confusing “Elysium” campaign (Mortal Instruments is Screen Gems’ responsibility). It’s really been all over the place, and doesn’t look like it has the reviews to help it take off either. Sad.

    As it stands, it looks like all four of these movies will be disappointments or outright failures. And Loeb will have a real argument in a month from now.

  2. anghus says:

    If only there was some brave soul who could boldly proclaim the superiority of Blue Jasmine’s per theater average and let people know just how successful this new Woody Allen film is…

    …Help us Stephen Kaye… You’re our only hope!

  3. cadavra says:

    I’ll repeat: Every studio has slumps. I did some research, and the last time Sony had a summer this bad was 1996, the year of CABLE GUY, STRIPTEASE and MULTIPLICITY. That’s seventeen years ago! So they were way overdue. Meanwhile, nobody says squat about Paramount, which was practically in a coma even before they lost Marvel and DWA. So let’s just ease off a little. It’s the nature of the biz.

  4. Steven Kaye says:

    “Continued muscle by Blue Jasmine”. Heh. I didn’t realise Poland had such a talent for droll understatement.

  5. nick says:

    Ummm…Timecop? How exactly is that film relevant to ANYTHING these days?

  6. Bitplayer says:

    If Mortal Instruments is anything like the book the movie will be total fucking garbage. It was almost unreadable. At least Twilight had the whole pre-teen can’t fuck tension. I don’t see Instruments having that going for it.

  7. Amblinman says:

    “*This would have opened space for Big Sony to concentrate more on what’s been a muddled and confusing “Elysium” campaign (Mortal Instruments is Screen Gems’ responsibility). It’s really been all over the place, and doesn’t look like it has the reviews to help it take off either. Sad.”

    The movie may fail but how has the campaign been “muddled?” The trailers and TV commercials have been pretty clear in driving home both the social message and the Damon-kicking-ass-as-a-cyborg message. What part of the trailers did you find “confusing?” They all but spell out every beat of the movie (well, I certainly hope not anyway.)

  8. Foamy Squirrel says:

    So Pac Rim is just under $300mil WW this weekend thanks to a huge boost by China (with the usual caveats as to how much of that Chinese money will make it across the pacific). Fanboys have already started rejoicing that their movie has gone from “Money Loser” to “?” (it’s still not guaranteed “Money Maker” yet).

    The argument I keep seeing as to why fans are so invested in hoping Pac Rim becomes profitable by sheer force of will (and the number of threads where fans put forward questionable arguments regarding the profitability is LARGE) is that it somehow represents the hopes and dreams of original movies getting made, as opposed to sequels and remakes. As covered in the other thread, “originals” are not actually that rare – and even in the Sci Fi space you’ve got things like Inception, Super-8, Battle: LA, Cloverfield, District 9, and Elysium regularly getting pumped out.

    What makes this “it MUST become profitable” investment kinda weird is that most of the people who put forward arguments that this represents a pushback of corporate moneygrabs (a) are also hugely invested in the Marvel Universe (which is about as adapt-y and merchandise-y as you can get), and (b) ignore Avatar – the largest movie of all time, which only came out 4 years ago and is an original movie.

  9. Jermsguy says:

    Why does it seem like Avatar came out eight years ago and hardly anyone remembers it?

  10. Steven Kaye says:

    By the way, Blue Jasmine’s PTA of $40,440 was the second-highest for the weekend, behind the $50,000 scored by something called The Spectacular Now. Of course, the latter was only showing in 4 theatres as opposed to Jasmine’s 48, and its PTA was a pittance compared to the $160,000 Allen’s film garnered for 6 theatres on its debut.

    Also, Blue Jasmine’s PTA was the best at this level of expansion since the release of Zero Dark Thirty, when its third weekend did $44,000 on 60 theatres post-New Year’s.

  11. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Steven Kaye, why are you not talking about Pacific Rim? CLEARLY it’s the more important news story.

  12. Steven Kaye says:

    Pacific Rim? Doesn’t it have to make at least $400 million before it can be considered profitable? And isn’t that practically impossible theatrically?

  13. Amblinman says:

    @Jermsguy, because Avatar was a piece of shit. It’s Cameron so there are “moments” here and there but otherwise what a whole bunch of nothing. You can’t argue with the box office but I would argue that the movie has had zero relevance pop culturally and most people don’t care. That Cameron thinks he’s created a new Star Wars is bad news for anyone who didn’t want a non-prolific filmmaker of his capabilities wasting the next ten years of his career on this bullshit.

    I guess it could be worse. He could be making superhero movies.

  14. Etguild2 says:

    “What part of the trailers did you find “confusing?”

    I didn’t personally find the FULL trailers confusing, but it’s having a hard time distinguishing itself for most of the people I know who see shorter versions. I’ve gotten everything from “the one with giant robots,” to “the lead looks like Matt Damon” and “is Matt Damon a robot?” The full trailers themselves aren’t really confusing, but the TV/outdoor campaign sure is. I haven’t seen one that crisply distills the message into a 20-30 second bite that makes it appealing enough to rouse non-fanboy interest. The primary poster is just awful, it looks like a random bald guy with his back turned and what looks like futuristic camera equipment behind him. Also, any attempt to pique women’s interest has been discarded by relegating Jodie Foster to the background. By comparison, the D9 campaign was masterful.

    @cadavra, I totally agree with you, but it’s maddening that a lot of Sony’s issues this summer are easily preventable, and that we’ll likely see an explosion in Loeb stories by Labor Day because of it.

  15. anghus says:

    Well, if anyone knows about the perils of the pacific rim, its Woody Allen

  16. Amblinman says:

    Etguild2, I guess we just disagree. Everyone *I* know is quite clear on the film’s concept. Most posters for big budget films are terrible and simply advertise that famous people are in this movie. I question whether a poster does a lot to sell or dissuade these days with the bombardment of 5 versions of trailers and umpteenth featurettes. You’re bringing up the District 9 campaign compared to this one as a means to suggest if this fails its due to marketing. I can’t see it. If this fails it will probably be due to it not being a good movie or perhaps people are just tired by now.

    I brought this up before with PR: perhaps at this point in the summer people are just tired of seeing things clanging against other things? It’s probably not fair to lump Elysium in with all the rest (we’ll see) but to the general public, they really don’t know who Blomkamp is and why they should care that this is his clanging metal movie. Maybe in that respect you have a point that people think it looks like other things, but I don’t think that’s a marketing problem. I think that’s a shit-ton-of-clanging-metal movies problem.

  17. leahnz says:

    i rather adore avatar – and every single person including the baby next door cares and it’s the most relevant pop culture event in the last 400 years (plus the highest selling blu-ray ever, i read it so it must be true). so there you go, i guess your anecdotal ‘nobody cares’ thesis is thusly proved wrong by my anecdotal ‘everybody cares’ rebuttal.

  18. hcat says:

    Am I a terrible person in that after watching the last Elsyium trailer I can see totally siding with Foster. Christ they had to move to space to get away from the riff-raff and they just keep on coming, what more do they have to do to get the point across?

  19. anghus says:

    “Am I a terrible person in that after watching the last Elsyium trailer I can see totally siding with Foster. Christ they had to move to space to get away from the riff-raff and they just keep on coming, what more do they have to do to get the point across?”

    Oh man. I love this comment so much.

    Someone needs to recut the trailer with a voice over of Foster as the hero of the piece.

  20. amblinman says:

    “i rather adore avatar – and every single person including the baby next door cares and it’s the most relevant pop culture event in the last 400 years”

    The part about the baby next door caring about Avatar, I buy.

  21. anghus says:

    “The part about the baby next door caring about Avatar, I buy.”

    Agreed. Liking Avatar does require lacking a fully formed brain.

  22. Etguild2 says:

    Yeah Amblin, you might be right, maybe they couldn’t do anything at this point to make it distinguish itself due to all the similar movies. Movie fans I know are definitely interested but everyone else I’ve talked to is mostly “blah.” A lot like “Pacific Rim….”

    “Someone needs to recut the trailer with a voice over of Foster as the hero of the piece.”

    This.

  23. amblinman says:

    I think that was probably Rim’s problem too. It doesn’t matter that this was Guillermo Del Toro’s giant robot movie, people see everyone else’s giant robot movie.

    Anecdote: I was talking to a friend about upcoming movies I was interested in, she’s a movie fan but not obsessive like me/us. So I get to X-Men: DOFP. I tell her this is one of the few comic book properties I’m actually excited about. She asks me for the synopsis and I start telling her about the mutant concentration camp stuff…and then I got to the sentinels. You know…giant…fucking…robots. I basically stopped when I realized her eyes were glazing over the moment those words, “giant robots”, came out of my mouth. It doesn’t matter that this is being made by Bryan Singer, and the source material is awesome, and it’s a sequel to an excellent film. Sentinels/giant robots. All these things just start sounding like the others, unfortunately.

  24. Etguild2 says:

    Haha, I think it’s easier to get people excited about DOFP by just listing the cast.

  25. hcat says:

    Glad to know I am not the only one who felt that way. I guess I would be expecting too much from a summer blockbuster since I am hoping for a Twilight Zone ending where Elsyium turns out not to be the Hamptons in space its made to be in the trailer but more of a commune created to escape the war and pollution of earth and Damon actually turns out to be the antagonist by violently storming the gates.

  26. hcat says:

    Isn’t the Days of Future Past cast simply previous X-Men actors. Putting them all together isn’t going to create that much of a bump. The time travel thing might drum up a bit of interest but looking at First Class and Wolverine, the franchise is shrinking in popularity after being overshadowed by Dark Knight and Avengers. It reminds of that line from The Office “just how many of these vampires am I supposed to give a damn about.”

  27. Etguild2 says:

    Yeah but both “First Class” and the original two were well received, and the profiles of a lot of the actors…Jennifer Lawrence, Michael Fassbender, Anna Paquin, even Nicolas Hoult and Ellen Page to an extent…have risen considerably since their last participation. Patrick Stewart and McKellen have become even more beloved in the last 8 years. And they could get a little GoT bump by adding Peter Dinklage;)

    Obviously they need a good story too…but cast I think is a bigger selling point on this one.

  28. anghus says:

    Theyre going to push DOFP as ‘the avengers of the x-men universe’ by smooshing both franchises together.

    Spoiler Alert: It’ll do better than First Class, but if they’re expecting more than say… Star Trek Into Darkness numbers, they’re nuts.

    “Glad to know I am not the only one who felt that way. I guess I would be expecting too much from a summer blockbuster since I am hoping for a Twilight Zone ending where Elsyium turns out not to be the Hamptons in space its made to be in the trailer but more of a commune created to escape the war and pollution of earth and Damon actually turns out to be the antagonist by violently storming the gates.”

    God, that would be so awesome. After District 9 and seeing the plight of the alien poor, i’d love to see Blomhamp mix it up and have it turn out at the end that Damon is basically the villain of the piece.

    That would be a movie of brilliance that i think seems wayyyyyy too good to be true.

  29. Chris S. says:

    @ amblinman “I think that was probably Rim’s problem too. It doesn’t matter that this was Guillermo Del Toro’s giant robot movie, people see everyone else’s giant robot movie.”

    “Everyone else’s giant robot movie”? What examples come to mind besides Transformers? (which aren’t really “giant” robots anyway) This is a very small genre in Hollywood live action. Before Transformers you’d have to go all the way back to… Robot Jox?

  30. anghus says:

    i think he’s talking more size and scope.

    Blockbusters keeps raising the bar with the scope of action scenes. Something i refer to as ‘eye and ear fucking’. every third act is a giant city destroying, world ending affair with so much noise that it all starts to blend together.

    Third act of three Transformers movies, Avatar, Man of Steel, Avengers, Iron Man 3, Pacific Rim, Star Trek Into Darkness, GI Joe, Jack the Giant Slayer…

    The 200 million dollar movie is so predictable its practically a genre.

    I think i gave World War Z and extra star for making the third act a relatively quiet, claustrophobic affair.

    The marketing for Pacific Rim is markedly similar to a lot of other Summer blockbusters. And what didn’t it feature…

    a single, solitary marquee actor.

    Doesn’t take a rocket scientist (or a Jaeger pilot) to figure that one out.

  31. hcat says:

    Though to be fair, Will Smith, Tom Cruise, and Johnny Depp and to a lesser extent Channing Tatum are all Marquee actors, and that didn’t bring their projects over the top (though I am pretty sure Oblivion ended up in the black)

  32. Amblinman says:

    Anghus beat me to it, Chris. Beyond that, isn’t everything with some form of mechanical figures fighting each other thrown into the Transformers pile by the general public? Battleship immediately springs to mind.

  33. leahnz says:

    “Liking Avatar does require lacking a fully formed brain.”

    oh well you got me there, you guys are SO COOL, i wish i was as smart as you. oh and also, go fuck yourselves, pompous windbags – avatar rules and you drools (and 3 more to come, TRIPLE AWESOMENESS. here’s a tip: don’t go see them and just whine douchily on blogs about them hahahaha, pretty smart huh)

    oh yeah and also, elysium should totally be about the rich ruling class being SO COOL, and the working class on whose backs they got rich as THE VILLAINS living in the toxic dump the rich people’s companies created, because that would be SO SUBVERSIVE and CLEVER! the braintrust

  34. anghus says:

    imagine a film as well received as Pacific Rim with a name actor.

    I’m stunned, downright AMAZED that Del Toro has been allowed to operate in a vacuum where he makes three Summer movies without a single name actor. Two Hellboys and now Pacific Rim.

    And everybody saw how well the geeky Hellboys did at the box office with no names attached.

    I mean i hate when people play armchair studio exec as much as the next guy, but who on Earth saw Del Toro’s track record and then thought 200 million dollars and nary a household name would yield different results.

    The guy is Einstein’s definition of insanity. Doing the same thing three fucking times and expecting a different result.

    I don’t know if i’d ever say people deserve to lose money on a film, but its real hard to find any sympathy for people who seemed almost determined to struggle to find the break-even point on such an ill conceived project.

    leah, Avatar is like a ride at Universal Studios. Visually stimulating and deep as a puddle of piss. I’ll see every subsequent sequel because i get paid to. Which is why i see a lot of shit these days.

    And again, with Elysium, it would be so much more interesting if someone vilified the angry masses instead of turning it into a very lazy, expected allegory for corporate one percent-ery. Didn’t Pacific Rim shoehorn in a thing about climate change being responsible for allowing the Kaiju to thrive? And of course, After Earth also used that tidbit.

    It’s been done. To death.

  35. leahnz says:

    blah blah blah, you wish you were del toro, anghus. christ

  36. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    Hellboys did just fine Anghus. In fact their ROI was excellent. He made the films he wanted to make with the people he wanted. Somehow you’ve turned this into a negative. I’m sure GDT is very concerned by your insight.

    So you’ve seen Elysium.
    Or did you go to the Rex Reed School of Criticism?

  37. Foamy Squirrel says:

    JBD – do you know something no-one else does? According to BOMojo (usual caveats as to the quality of their information):

    Hellboy – Budget $66mil Dom $59.6mil Int $39.7mil
    Hellboy 2 – Budget $85mil Dom $76mil Int $84.4mil

    Those aren’t “excellent ROI” numbers.

  38. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    Yes I do. They did fine. Mojo has the ability to make 12yr olds BO pundits. It’s only part of the picture.

  39. Amblinman says:

    @Anghus, after all the names who have died at the box office this summer, why do you think PR would be different? I just don’t think that concept needs a huge name to sell it. Hey, since we’ve been shitting on it look at Avatar. Sam Worthington wasn’t and still isn’t a big name. I never really can tell if Cameron has reached Spielberg level of name recognition where he can sell a movie to th general public.

    Eh. I guess a film from “the director of Aliens, T2, and Titanic” would be a decent pull.

  40. Amblinman says:

    @leanhz, you forgot to call us hipsters. Don’t forget the hipsters.

  41. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Here’s the thing – I’m willing to take, for example, Don Murphy’s word that X movie he was associated with performed at a certain level. I know he worked on those movies.

    I’m less inclined to take the word of an anonymous poster that the publicly available information is misleading. I’m open to the idea that it is… but put up or shut up. 😉

  42. leahnz says:

    i actually don’t know what a hipster is — i don’t think we grow them here and i don’t think i know any there or even transplanted ones – the muricans i know working here tend to be super duper-geeks or hard-case rat-bags-with-tats artist-types – so i really can’t call you one, but i’ll take your word for it.

    and i will say, the sheer pomposity avatar brings out in people who don’t like it is pretty hilarious — fine, you don’t like/hate the movie, i could care less, but the seemingly sheer NEED to impugn the intelligence of/demean and name-call people who enjoy avatar for the technicolor anti-establishment pro-environmental ode-to-nature fable it is as feebs and dolts says a great deal about ‘you’ and the degree to which you think the sun shines so brilliantly out your own ass and very, very little about avatar fans or the film itself, widely and critically praised the world over by very bright people from all walks of life. but haters gonna get their hate on, cuz it must make you feel good to tear people down, yee haw!

  43. anghus says:

    Leah, you’re so bad at this.

    because I levy criticism of Del Toro I must secretly be envious of his success. Because every critic/writer who has an opinion must judge from a position of envy.

    poor argument, even for you who is usually pretty bad at this.

  44. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Leah – The pejorative form of “Hipster” is pretty much entirely what you described in the 2nd paragraph. A pompous jackass who is too cool for school, often accompanied by distinctively anachronistic appearance (facial hair, hat, oversized/thick rimmed glasses etc). See here for some examples.

    The ultimate hipster douche is someone who has gone so far that they no longer use direct putdowns, but claim they enjoy the subject “ironically”.

    Not all hipsters are like that, of course, but if taken in large enough dosages they do become exceedingly grating – so the term has a lot of negative associations these days.

  45. Amblinman says:

    “The ultimate hipster douche is someone who has gone so far that they no longer use direct putdowns, but claim they enjoy the subject “ironically”

    This rules me out. I can’t even pretend to enjoy watching Avatar. 🙁

  46. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Don’t worry, if you miss out on “ultimate” hipster douche I’m sure you can still qualify for “proto” hipster douche with minimal effort.

  47. leahnz says:

    lmao that link’s pretty funny foamy, i actually get it now, a face/type to go with the name – and boy are there ever a few hipsters here…

    anghus, being told i’m ‘bad at this’ (whatever ‘this’ is, writing meaningless shit on a movie blog?) by you is like a gleaming badge of honor, i have no desire to conform to your definition of ‘blog profundity’, but maybe a dictionary definition is in order…if you think that you somehow ‘know’ more about movies than me, well bring it on, pop tart, i ain’t scared — that you apparently think you’re ‘good’ at this is so weird though, and sort of sad; do you think this is the national debating chamber or something? i thought it was a dorky movie blog. not particularly sorry to offend your delicate genius tho

  48. Etguild2 says:

    I get the hatred of “Avatar,” but I think it largely comes from a place of bristling elitism in response to the populist reputation of the movie on the part of film geeks more than anything. I liked it, and some of my favorite critics like Dave White of movies.com and David Denby of the New Yorker, not soft touches when it comes to movies, really liked it too. Hell, Manohla Dargis and Kenneth Turan loved it, and while they certainly aren’t the be all to end all, they don’t exactly register as slobbering neanderthals when it comes to film either.

    It’s still the most visually impressive display of CGI and 3D I’ve seen in a theater (Inception, and Hugo/Cameron’s Titanic re-issue come close for me respectively)…not an easy title to hold onto after nearly 4 years in the age of a new RED camera every 3 months.

    Oh, and some fucking idiot named David Poland said “It tugs the heart. It makes you shout. And it is an overwhelming feast of visual artistry unlike anything you have ever seen before” by the way.

  49. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    Here’s the thing Foamy. Take it however you want. I honestly don’t really give a flying fugazi. You have Mojo. I have lunches. 🙂 There’d be a Part 3 if GDT wanted one. Well that and if he could do it for 60.

  50. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Oh, LUNCH. I mean, you could mention tax rebates, which are perfectly linkable, or home video sales, which probably have a number of news articles, or even merchandising, which has any number of possible sources to back your position.

    But LUNCH? How could anyone possibly doubt that…

  51. Amblinman says:

    @etguild, I can’t believe you didn’t wrench your shoulder overreaching like that. Perhaps I didn’t like it because I thought the story was dull, the acting mediocre, and the dialogue inane? Even turning him into a 10 foot tall blue alien with a tail counldnt make Worthington an interesting screen presence. The “hatred” you perceive for Avatar is no different than a lot of snark aimed towards movies that become easy punching bags, like Transformers (hey, I liked it – ohmahgorsh ah losted mah street credz!).

    I’m happy Poland and those critics you mentioned liked the film. It’s good to enjoy movies you see. 🙂

  52. Amblinman says:

    “Foamy Squirrel says:
    August 5, 2013 at 8:36 pm
    Don’t worry, if you miss out on “ultimate” hipster douche I’m sure you can still qualify for “proto” hipster douche with minimal effort.”

    Absolutely! I find myself thoroughly enjoying your posts!

  53. Etguild2 says:

    Is that you Armond? Talking about hating “Avatar” and the brainless babies who approve of it, while liking “Transformers 28” again are we? 😉

    The hate for “Avatar” (which has come up on this blog again and again and again and again) is excessive and out of proportion to anything aside from its status as the top grossing film of all time, which acts as a big shiny “kick me” sign to movie fans.

    I’m perfectly fine with you disliking it (2009 had a number of overpraised works, “Hurt Locker” at the front of the pack for my money), but do we have to bring it up every couple months when it indisputably was a game-changing technical achievement? Let’s talk about how they effed up “Tron,” Nolanized Supes, or made “Alien” funny and confusing….something, anything except this stale topic, which always brings not just the knives out but the shivs.

  54. Hcat says:

    While I didn’t love avatar, I would probably still rewatch it before any of the marvel movies, all the potters, and all but the first rings. Of the mega budgeted cgi fests that the studios have been hurling at us the past decade or so I would certainly put it in the top few. Though I might be a poor judge since I would rather watch unstoppable again than anything to do with magic or space.

    And Leah, the point of my post was that Elsyuim would not be the rich toxic polluters who sucked the earth dry, no one was suggesting making them the good guys, but make the station a group that read the writing on the wall and decided to take their socialized medicine, sustainable farming practices, and solar panels and take off. Now as the terrestrials crumbled under their consumption these ex-pats would be seen as a them, the other, the elites.

    But this would mean it would ultimately make the story a tale of people defending their off world paradise against a hostile force from a dying earth…..and that’s already been done.

  55. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Glad you’re enjoying them Amblinman.

    …WAIT A SECOND…

  56. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Hcat – I think the problem with doing that is that’s pretty much “Atlas Shrugged”, with all the baggage that entails.

    It’s already been done without that baggage, but always by dehumanizing the “riffraff” – the minute you start treating them as people you immediately bring class warfare into it, and by showing the “elite” as being on the right side… well it’ll have to be fairly deftly handled.

  57. Hcat says:

    i disagree there, isn’t the current version more ryandian, with the rich people leaving and the poor unable to carry on without them? What I suggesting is having the people on Elsyuim not be ryandian industrialists but more academics who found a way to survive as everyone else burned the earth to the ground.

    Mostly what I am worried about is that this great hope for summer intelligence movie will turn into nothing more than video game carnage with the people of the space station ‘having it coming’ and giving Damon free liscence to mow them down like wheat. I don’t see the movie as having a message or being an intellectual enterprise if it turns out to be Doom but with WASPs instead of mutant demons.

  58. Foamy Squirrel says:

    My understanding (and I haven’t seen the movie) is that the poor working class generate all of the goods and services while the rich Elite take 99% of the benefits without contributing. This is the opposite of the Objectivist worldview, where if you create the value you should simply keep it unless offered something of equal value in return (Rand cast this in Atlas Shrugged primarily through industrialists who “build” corporations that generate more railroads than socialized programs).

    My understanding is that in Elysium the Poor could stop being poor just by taking control of the means of production in which they work (and other Marxist slogans), while the Rich do nothing but sit around pools all day.

  59. palmtree says:

    It’s been said before but…Avatar is at the very least good storytelling, maybe a bit simple or derivative at times but still basically good. The sequels though might be great. Cameron is so smart about creating the world and bringing everyone on board. Now he’s got a great platform to do things that are maybe more risky and/or original. Let’s not pooh-pooh his incredible achievement before it even gets started.

    I think Pac Rim would have worked had it pointed out the human stories. No one cares about monsters fighting robots. But as in Evangelion and other series, the real struggle is the pilots being burdened with the responsibility of saving the world and their arrogance or cowardice in the face of the apocalypse. Just showing a character who was vulnerable like Shinji who we could follow in the trailer would have worked IMO. Sam Worthington wasn’t a star, but in Avatar you followed his journey from the wheelchair.

  60. Amblinman says:

    @etguild, I haven’t been part of any previous Avatar conversations on this blog, so forgive me. However it seems those who like it are far more defensive about liking it than those of us who hate it. By “us” I’m referring to myself and the one or two other people in this thread who took some shots at it. If you really want to know why I don’t like the movie, it’s mostly tied up in what I consider the “false positive” of making 3D a thing again (along with my aforementioned belief that it’s just a crappy movie.)

    Beyond that, I honestly don’t care about the movie. I wish it were more memorable and something special, believe me. I always want to love movies that James Cameron makes.

    P.S. Armond White?? That’s just…low. 🙁

  61. hcat says:

    Foamy, we are talking past each other, you are argueing about the movie as is and I have simply been spitballing how I would like to have seen it done. I am not saying keep the existing representations and flip who is the good guys, but that I would find it more interesting if it flipped the representations with Damon being a 10th generation tea party malcontent with a ‘oh, so you think your better than me’ attitude who lays the blame for the earth’s and his own personal condition on The Other (those goddamn pansie space hippies, what with their digitized history of the worlds art, literature, music, and shit, thinking they so smart, I’ll show em how we do things down here on the rock).

    And I don’t care how simplistic you found Avatar, anybody tell me they didn’t find Lang to be one of the best villians in recent movie history? After the cartoonish bad guys of True Lies and Titanic (Billy Zane? you have all those resources and you cast Billy fucking Zane?) I thought Cameron delivered his best baddie since the first Terminator.

  62. Amblinman says:

    Steven Lang is awesome and I thought between Avatar and Public Enemies he was on the verge of a character actor resurgence but it seems that hasn’t happened.

  63. Dr Wally Rises says:

    Almost a decade on, it becomes clearer and clearer that the real game changer in terms of a technical achievement that fundamentally alters how movies are produced, perceived and exhibited was not Avatar at all, but The Polar Express. Digital production, performance capture, IMAX and 3D did’nt make their debuts here, but I’m pretty sure that was the first to combine all those elements at the same time and bring them to critical mass. And now those are the elements we take as a given in the modern event movie.

  64. Etguild2 says:

    Oh please. First of all, passive marker optical mo-cap is what led to semi-disasters like “Beowulf” and “Flushed Away,” thanks to the uncanny valley effect. Second of all they were building on what “Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within” had already created a template for. I’d argue that “Final Fantasy” was the real pioneer in passive marker motion-capture animation.

    The passive/active OTC mo-cap “Avatar” used was completely different, and was famously used in “LOTR,” “Harry Potter” and “King Kong” beforehand. But not like this.

    The 3D in “Polar Express” was not good and was preceded by Robert Rodriguez’s reignition of it in SPY KIDS 3. Why not credit “Dial M for Murder” for a leap in 3D technology? And IMAX? Disney had already re-issued Lion King and Beauty and the Beast in IMAX by then. The “Polar Express” IMAX release was, likewise, not used till the subsequent re-releases.

    I will say that the film was an important step forward in COMBINING technology. What it wasn’t though, was a forerunner in any of it…and yes, you could say the same of “Avatar” though Cameron advanced IMAX immeasurably through his docs (Nolan beat him to IMAX feature wise, kinda).

    But still, re: “Polar,” this is like arguing that the computers in “Desk Set” were pioneers for mobile technology at this point. “Avatar” is the film that from a technical standpoint, allowed these elements to reach their full potential, and did, albeit briefly, allow people to imagine a leap in the film medium as a whole. This is why no film, until “Avatar 2,” will likely challenge it financially domestically (Avengers 2, Superman/Batman and SW Episode 7 have outside shots). Most people, when they watch Polar/Final Fantasy now…cringe (though I like FF)

  65. christian says:

    FINAL FANTASY is sooo underrated. Beautiful eco-sci-fi with a terrific James Wood voice performance.

  66. tbunny says:

    Just saw Pacific Rim in the stupid expensive IMAX 3D thing.

    -This movie is like the fanboy Illiad. It’s basically the greatest possible movie based on playing with toys. I can’t imagine how that sort of movie could be bigger, look more awesome, hit more fanboy pleasure spots. It takes GI Joe/Anime type genres and marries them with Cameron level screenwriting (in terms of pacing and character beats), and then injects the whole thing with legitimate horrific sublime. I was really taken aback by how damn scary the battles were. It’s TERRIFYING. Maybe it’s the precision base tone sound design. It’s basically liquifying your spine as you watch. The scene with the little girl alone with the monster…holy shit!

    -Overall, basically the most exquisitely perfect big dumb movie I’ve ever seen. Pure visceral filmmaking that looks like it cost a billion dollars. I found it pretty depressing.

    -Random notes: The robots must weigh more than an aircraft carrier but they can be lifted by eight Chinook style helicopters? NOT LIKELY. And why spend what appears to be trillions on giant fucking robots and tens of thousands of miles of massive coastal walls when you could evacuate coastal areas and take out those bastards with tactical nukes on cruise missiles? Oh and finally, Gypsy Danger has a sword which slices the monsters like butter but the preferred method of combat is simply wrestling and boxing? I DON’T GET IT.

  67. anghus says:

    “And why spend what appears to be trillions on giant fucking robots and tens of thousands of miles of massive coastal walls when you could evacuate coastal areas and take out those bastards with tactical nukes on cruise missiles? Oh and finally, Gypsy Danger has a sword which slices the monsters like butter but the preferred method of combat is simply wrestling and boxing? I DON’T GET IT.”

    This was my favorite dumb thing in a very dumb movie. In the opening scene they show the first monster and planes fighting it, and Idris says via voice over “it took us six days to kill it.”

    So apparently by Pacific Rim logic, they killed them with conventional weapons before, but six days was too long a span of time to wage a battle. So they sunk every resource into the Jaegers and abandoned the 24,000 Nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, submarines, planes, MOABS, pilot-less drones, and everything else for a handful of giant robots.

    Maybe they should have, i don’t know, diversified their war portfolio?

    And it becomes even more glaring when the two australian guys get out of their busted up Jaeger and fire a flare gun into a Kaiju’s eye. So maybe strapping some machine guns to those helicopters carrying the Jaegers, or, oh i dont know, flying five thousand jets armed with warheads their way to assist the Jaegers.

    Nope. Not in the idiotic world of Pacific Rim, where apparently you have one single solitary war strategy. Conventional weapons take too long, GET ME GIANT ROBOTS. The giant robots aren’t as effective as they once were, MOTHBALL ‘EM AND BUILD ME A GOD DAMNED WALL.

    I mean, there’s stupid, and then there’s missing chromosomes. Pacific Rim is staggeringly stupid, as much so as any Transformers of GI Joe movie, and yet its met with baffling level of praise.

  68. leahnz says:

    hcat, re this: “And Leah, the point of my post was that Elsyuim would not be the rich toxic polluters who sucked the earth dry, no one was suggesting making them the good guys, but make the station a group that read the writing on the wall and decided to take their socialized medicine, sustainable farming practices, and solar panels and take off. Now as the terrestrials crumbled under their consumption these ex-pats would be seen as a them, the other, the elites.

    But this would mean it would ultimately make the story a tale of people defending their off world paradise against a hostile force from a dying earth…..and that’s already been done.”

    yeah i get your drift, my comment wasn’t actually in response to your post – i was going to make that clear at the time but spaced it when i got distracted by being called a feeb by the braintrust.

    anyway, i haven’t seen Elysium yet but i guess the issue is that both concepts have ‘been done’ as you say, the scenario you outlined and the ‘have nots’ fighting back against the ruling class – a theme as old as dust – so i guess like most stories put to film it’s not just what you do but how you do it, if the material is executed in a compelling way then even an old concept can feel fresh and pack a punch. also, my impression is that the ‘elysium’ allegory also tackles the prickly subject of immigration, which also isn’t new of course but could put an interesting spin on proceedings.

    (eta i hate typing/spellchecking on my tablet, how do people with fat fingers do it)

  69. anghus says:

    Elysium as socialist propaganda….

  70. Fitzerald says:

    Don’t forget that the Kaiju have toxic waste for blood (where have I heard that before..) so we can’t use traditional weapons against them! That’s why the Jaegers never, ever shoot or stab them except every single time oh forget it. Look, there’s no convincing the geeks under the spell of this movie that any of these complaints are anything but failures to properly access your childlike wonder because Pac Rim is the Greatest Movie Evarr and these other movies are the Worst Movie Evarr. And that’s my main issue. Love what you love but destroying other movies by bleating about the same type of world building issues is childlike indeed. Ps. I have a fondness for Avatar.

  71. palmtree says:

    Yeah, the “robots” made more sense in Eva. Seriously, I don’t know why they couldn’t just remake Evangelion, which was basically what it looked like Pacific Rim wanted to be.

  72. Etguild2 says:

    Back to box office…kinda remarkable that Universal’s domestic haul this year is already its second highest total FOR AN ENTIRE YEAR ever and it’s August. It’s only $190 million from the record, and will leave FOX as the only major studio (though isn’t Summitgate a major now?) not to cross the 1.5 billion mark at the domestic box office in a single year. It continues to take risks also with only 3 of its next 16 movies sequels (and two of those sequels are movies small fan bases screamed for). Universal, all of a sudden, is the model studio…big change from pre-2012

    Fox’s very mediocre year btw, which is going to turn sour with PERCY this weekend seems to be overshadowed a lot by the Sony drama/Paramount cautiousness.

  73. anghus says:

    Man, that Percy Jackson sequel seems like an epic reach. Was anyone clammoring for a sequel? It must have done gangbusters on DVD or something…

  74. Etguild2 says:

    Just got back from a “Millers” screening (yes it feels like a 90s sitcom, but nothing bad enough to venomously attack it…it reminds me of the Fresh Prince “drugs” episode) and just didn’t feel like seeing “Percy.”

    It’s probably no worse than the original, but I understand why critics are savaging this one though it probably isn’t fair. They’re sick of this summer and I am too. What the fuck are they doing making another Percy Jackson? Why would Logan Lerman do this between the Emma Watson sandwich of “Perks” and Aronofsky?(Contractual obligations can be financial and all around catastrophes sometimes).

    Re: DVD, it did around $38 million in domestic sales which is good but not great for a tween/kids film. “Hellboy 2,” for comparison, did about $44 million, a very high box office percentage return (a subject of Boam’s lunches no doubt). The average Potter did around $105. Still that was enough with Blu-Ray (those figures were private on films released around that time) to push it well into the black, and “sequel gimme foreign money/let’s break into China” territory.

  75. Foamy Squirrel says:

    ET – I don’t know if you can call Universal a “model studio” after one year of good releases. That’s only a swing of maybe 3 movies, which can easily be attributed to random chance. Now if it can sustain that through to the end of next year, then maybe you can start saying that something is systematically going well in the studio.

  76. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    “Maybe they should have, i don’t know, diversified their war portfolio?”

    Well I got a big laugh from this

  77. Amblinman says:

    I’ve been thinking about PR and I’m wondering if perhaps the premise is too much to buy into? It’s like the phrase, you buy the premise, you buy the joke. Perhaps there is just too much as an audience we’re asked to accept within a framework that tries to be “grounded in reality.”

  78. Sam says:

    Etguild, I have to throw in with “The Polar Express” being the trend-setter. I don’t dispute what you say about the technological innovation of, say, the Final Fantasy movie. But in terms of setting the trend, well, nobody wanted to do what Final Fantasy did, because it bombed. Ditto Spy Kids 3.

    The Polar Express did a very weird thing at the box office that caught people’s attention: it kind of bombed in 2D but did gangbusters in 3D. I think that’s the point being made here: The Polar Express was the movie that made people want to jump on the 3D and mo-cap bandwagons.

  79. Chris says:

    I wonder what the budget was on “Sea of Monsters.” It moves pretty well but it looks like hell, so my guess is they made it because they could dispense with all the characters played by the adult stars and lowball the thing.

  80. Hcat says:

    Etguild, if it weren’t for the black eyes recieved by cowboys and battleship uni’s turnaround would be apparent much sooner (and even those flops were offset by bridesmaids and Ted).
    Looking solely at domestic market share gives a slanted picture. Disney appears to be doing well besides huge write offs for carter and ranger and oz not breaking even in theatrical even though it was a monster hit. Paramount has looked good the past half decade even though most of their cash went right out the door to dreamworks or marvel or whoever actually made the film. Fox and Uni often slump behind in the share simply because they release fewer movies.

    As for Sony being dragged against the coals by some asshole investor, Fuck ’em. I don’t care how much of an evil clown this guy is, Sony just released their second Smurfs movie and I don’t care what form their retribution takes as long as they bleed for their sins.

  81. Etguild2 says:

    Exactly, Universal already was rolling for for a couple years ,but had some hiccups along the way. The fact RIPD was basically glossed over illustrates how much the story has changed. Here’s the studio summer picture worldwide before last weekend which to me is really indicative of the Universal’s success also, and actually adds life to the Sony arguments as Fast & Furious 6 has outgrossed their whole slate. My argument against Disney is 60% of their gross comes from Marvel, an acquired property, which was the same legit argument against Paramount when it dominated box office in 2011 (Mojo should really add a chart for annual worldwide returns):

    2 Billion=Disney/Marvel/Pixar
    1.640=Universal/Illum
    1.455=WB
    938=Paramount
    884=Fox/DWA/Blue Sky
    685=Sony
    353=Summitgate

  82. berg says:

    I came out of Elysium and I was like, it’s an okay above average sci-fier …, but you know what, at the end of District 9 I was crying like a baby bitch, ELYSIUM NOT SO MUCH

  83. anghus says:

    “I came out of Elysium and I was like, it’s an okay above average sci-fier”

    That’s all i really need. I was talking with some other writers and i kept hearing someone say ‘where’s the classic film of 2013?’ as if the entire Summer was a wash because there wasnt one iconic film that really stood head and shoulders above the rest.

    This is the kind of weird artistic entitlement that drives me nuts. Like Veruca Salt stamping her foot going “WHERE’S MY CLASSIC BLOCKBUSTER FOR 2013 DADDY!”

    Here’s the thing: It’s July. Blockbusters aren’t just released in the summer anymore. Next, maybe there won’t be one. Maybe we the spoiled masses may just have to deal with a lot of pretty good movies this year. Which i still assert, just about big studio movie i’ve seen could be argued is somewhat salvageable or even not that bad, with the exception of After Earth, Grown Ups 2, and Hangover III for the Summer.

    But the idea that you walk away from the summer bummed because there wasn’t that one film like The Dark Knight or Inception that attained an iconic status is an Eric Cartman sized level of bitching that deserves mocking laughter. This is why you end up with all these raging reviews about an average movie with the new generation of critics torpedoing everything that doesn’t rise to the level of cinematic magic, even if its just an average film. It’s like a film gets punished because inside the critic is thinking “Damn you movie for not engaging my inner child and leaving me with a warm fuzzy glow inside.”

    Speaking of spoiled children, Harry Knowles joins my list of people launching Kickstarters that i want to see punched in the mouth which includes Zach Braff, Spike Lee, and anyone associated with the Veronica Mars movie.

    $100,000 to fund his webisodes? And from the sounds of it, that’s for ‘the second season’, which i assume means if they reach their goal they’ll be out there again next year asking for another 100k. It’d be funny if it wasnt so sad.

    Our local film festival does the same year. They get $200,000.00 in operating income from sales and grants and then right around August they say “We still need another $28,000.00” and launch a Kickstarter. And i start to feel offended that they’re out there asking for more money from the same people who already buy weekend passes and support the thing. Kickstarter is becoming the bums rush (or maybe it already has been). I get people wanting to fund stuff, but if you 200k, dont go to Kickstarter and beg for another 28k. Or if youre a Hollywood personality with access to studios, production companies, and investors, don’t go to crowdsourcing.

    Christ, how many years was Knowles financed by his fans before his financial meltdown? And now the guy is going to start an annual pledge drive?

    Kickstarter may be the greatest grift ever.

  84. Sam says:

    Geez, anghus, a movie lover craving another movie to love isn’t a spoiled child. We’re all addicts here, and I’m sure I’m not the only one tired of movies that are only just okay.

  85. Joe Leydon says:

    Actually, I think Elysium is excellent. And I can’t wait until Rush Limbaugh and other blowhards on the right start ranting about it. As I Tweeted last night: “After century of GOP obstructionism, Matt Damon finally achieves universal health care in ELYSIUM.”

    Speaking of ranting, I’me eagerly awaiting David’s eruption over this: http://www.deadline.com/2013/08/dick-clark-prods-boards-hollywood-film-awards/

  86. celluloidkid says:

    Joe, I think they might start ranting about it only if it’s actually a success at the box office and if it had been a critical darling. I haven’t seen the movie yet but it feels like some critics are being unnecessarily nasty, so having “liberal hollywood critics” against the movie probably won’t help right wingers make legit claims about liberal Hollywood or whatever…

    Damn talk about a deflating week for Elysium…my friend worked last night at the Elysium premiere at the Westwood Village and he swears that to him, none of the principals looked happy (ETA, esp. Jodie) to be there and supposedly he overheard one of them saying they were surprised at the critics.

  87. christian says:

    Anghus doesn’t love films, he just likes them. To stave off the heartbreak. What film hurt him in the past?

  88. Joe Leydon says:

    My guess: Bambi.

  89. hcat says:

    Hudson Hawk- I think it broke all our hearts.

  90. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    Knowles claims he has $10,000,000 poster / memoribilia collection. Sell one of those and he’d be fine. He won’t though because they’re his pwesents.

  91. anghus says:

    JBM, why use your money when there are gullible souls willing to finance your various nonsense?

    ‘Anghus doesn’t love films, he just likes them. To stave off the heartbreak. What film hurt him in the past?”

    Watchmen. So fucking terrible.

    In all seriousness though, just breaking down the idea of ‘great’. Every movie can’t be great, or none of them would be. There has to be average films and bad films for the great films to rise above. In our lives, most of the films we see will be a notch above or a notch below average. There is that ten percent on either side that will be great or terrible.

    The idea of every movie being great is statistically not even possible.

    I agree the cinema could use some more magical experiences, but the cream of the crop is always going to be a markedly smaller piece of the yield. That’s just fucking science my friends.

    And again… it’s July. There have been plenty of Summer that didnt deliver a diamond. And just because you didn’t find a diamond in the pan doesn’t mean that everything there is coal.

  92. Fitzerald says:

    Anghus, I think you are making a good point. I’m sick of the all or nothing world film talk inhabits these days. Movies that everybody tries to dismiss as “bad” sometimes have incredible moments and spirit in them. Give me a flawed, uneven, entertaining or intriguing experiment over a technically proper so-called prestige film every time. Well, not every time, but a good portion of the time. It’s sad. A lot of people won’t even engage in a serious conversation about movies that are not “approved.” I’ve had people say, without irony, “but it’s bad. Look at the tomato meter.” Blade Runner’s “tomato meter” would have sucked at the time. Everything has to be immediately sorted and filed. Maybe it’s the (busted out) Comp Lit PhD candidate in me, but I believe there’s endless fascination to unfairly discarded cultural products, and more to be learned from the great moments in flawed movies than most Weinstein Canon Oscar Worthies. The internet has encouraged the worst habits of so many writers about film. Desperate to outsnark and out tweet each other in their disdain, trying to grab a few thousand page views with a crappy pun on a movie title and a facile hit piece– or conversely a fanboy squee– that leads intellectually nowhere. It’s why I find this place a rare harbor. David and Leydon I find still are willing to pursue their better intellectual natures, as are a lot of you folks.

  93. Joe Leydon says:

    Anghus and Fitzgerald: Blame a lot of this on film critics. Seriously: For years — no, decades — a lot of folks in my racket have labored to make themselves heard above the din by screeching superlatives rather than detailing nuances. To be sure, readers/ticketbuyers are just as guilty: They don’t want to read equivocations, they want quick-serve, easy-to-digest judgments — how many stars? what’s the letter grade? awful or magnificent? — and that has only gotten worse with the advent of the Internet. Discussions on blogs reflect that.

  94. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    I still can’t get over seeing trailers in cinemas with stuff like

    “The Greatest Horror FIlm Ever” – horrordwarf213

  95. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    Anghus I found the Kickstarter level you need to jump on.

    For $300 you get.
    THE RARE OPPORTUNITY FOR A 15 MINUTE SKYPE SESSION WITH HARRY KNOWLES!!!

    It’d be worth the $300 just to force Knowles listen to you for 15 minutes. What would you say?

  96. Fitzerald says:

    Joe: I agree. The whole enterprise has been debased. I wish the temperature would get turned down, but of course, it won’t. Adding to it is the fact that very few critics have any idea at all about how movies are made and no respect or understanding for the artists who make films, unless you are one of the few names that get an automatic pass. The stupid scorn as default position, whether because the barrier of entry is now so low, the cultural distaste for nuance you cite, or the small-mindedness and rage that some feel because they are marginalized in the current media landscape, is so tedious. Nothing more off-putting than loud, poor writers asserting their superiority over things. Finally, FWIW, you’re one of the few critics I read regularly. Thanks for your good work.

  97. anghus says:

    JBM, I think he’d refund your money. But I’m always up for an intellectual discussion on the eroding standards of journalism with the people responsible for pissing all over it.

    Joe, I agree with you. I’ve written a half dozen columns this year on the topic of how critics had eroded away the idea of average which I’m remiss to post links to in here. I’m not a fan of whoring out my own stuff in someone else blog, but you hit on the core points. All or nothing critics who reduce everything to hyperbole. Its a masterpiece or a piece of shit. Binary theory. Its a “1” or a “0”. And the idea that a year that does not produce “a classic” is somehow a wasted year is repugnant to me. All I ever ask is for more of the hours I spend in the theater to be enjoyed than deplored. Thus Summer I was mostly entertained. To expect every hour to be a majestic, life changing ordeal is arrogant to a ridiculous degree. Hell, a hand job costs you fifty? What are you expecting for ten bucks?

  98. leahnz says:

    gee, it’s the old “it’s all or nothing now, most ‘critics’ are obnoxious fuckwits!” back-slapping oh-how-i-agree conversation for the umpteenth time on the hotblog like it’s some revelation. the truth is, pretty much .4% of moviegoers give two farts in the wind what critics think when it comes to actually going to the movies – the people for whom critic’s opinions mean anything in the scheme of things is other critics, or people who obsess on critic’s opinions such as on movie blogs – a minute number of people who will go see the movies regardless, then they can agree or disagree. the general pop doesn’t give a shit about critics, it’s wom/hype/marketing/who’s in it/type of film that holds sway (and i don’t mean it as a put-down of film criticism, just a bubble-bursting observation)

  99. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    For real?
    Marketing is more important than criticism!?!?!
    Consider bubble completely burst.

  100. Joe Leydon says:

    Leahnz: Johnny Depp and Jerry Bruckheimer likely would disagree with you. So would every publicist I have ever met at every festival I have ever attended at any time ever in my life. LOL.

  101. Jermsguy says:

    I think it’s higher than .4%. Even if it’s not specific critics, it’s “the critics.” Every time I lay out movie choices for my wife, if there’s any hesitation, her first question is “What do the critics say?”

  102. Fitzerald says:

    Don’t really get the hostility, leah. Obviously I’m not talking about reviews AS marketing or a sales tool. I’m just lamenting that a tool (an art form, even) that could be used to foment interesting discussions about film culture is increasingly used in dim-witted pursuit of clicks through zingers and snot.

  103. leahnz says:

    oh, no hostility, just pointing out the repetitiveness around here re: the subject. i was drinking beer tgifing at work (and lmao watching ‘bad santa’) so maybe i’m more verbally crude when i drink while watching bad santa and blogging, don’t know. if so my bad.

    (.4% was an exaggeration for effect, i wasn’t trying to put an actual percentage on it, i’d think that was obvious but i guess not, fwiw)

    jermsguy, why does that thing about your wife sound conveniently fake? (and you “lay out movie choices”… uh is she 12, she can’t figure out which movies look appealing to her all by herself? hopefully it isn’t how that sounds, kinda creepy.) but anyway, i’d bet the farm the VAST majority of people do not hesitate with withering uncertainty to wonder ‘but wait, what do THE CRITICS think?’ and rely on that before choosing a movie — maybe you’re obsessed with critical opinion since you talk about this stuff on blogs (and going by your name link), so perhaps you’re the influence in that regard.

    people go see what looks appealing to them for whatever myriad of reasons – what they’ve heard from people they know, the actors in them, how the trailer looked, the story or subject matter, even just what happens to be playing at the time, etc.

    joe, i know as a critic (and a very eloquent one) it must be a sensitive subject, but i think publicists are part of the ‘entertainment journalism machine’ and have their heads up their butts in terms of the importance of critics, it’s part of their job and without it they’d have less job. i don’t think it means anything looking at it from ‘outside’ the critic sewing circles.

    as for bruckheimer and depp and winklevoss (sorry his name just completely slipped my mind) attributing the failure of ‘lone ranger’ on the US critics, talk about wishful thinking, conveniently deflecting the blame from on whose shoulders the limping box office really falls: their own, cuz people just aren’t enthused for their flick.

    like cash, when it comes to movies Word of Mouth is king, for better or worse; critics can pan or praise and it makes little difference to a movie becoming a hit or a miss, it’s buzz and momentum amongst the people that decides which movies ‘catch on’ and become hits and bombs and everything in between (if critics mattered in this regard, then why do so many movies that get lukewarm to cold critical response become big hits and even more so vise versa – because as interesting and insightful, or pedestrian and tiresome, as critical opinion can be, BO hits/misses and critical hits/misses simply don’t line up nearly often enough to make a correlation, and when they do occasionally line up the existing paradigm suggests random coincidence). having said all that i do think small movies are sometimes helped by mass critical praise in terms of making a bit more bank at the BO – sometimes, sometimes not.

  104. anghus says:

    Fitz, i like your points and agree with you wholeheartedly.

    As for leah’s negativity, that’s sort of her thing. ‘look at you sods having the same conversations’ or ‘im a bubble buster’. yawn.

    She’s the hot blog version of a heckler.

  105. Hcat says:

    I would say critics still have influence not in individual reviews but certainly in the ‘declaration of a flop’ media coverage like what happened before Lone Ranger. Imagine you we’re on the fence about seeing the movie and a few days before release every Internet news site is running a story about how terrible the movie is and how much they spent on this abomination of an American hero.

    I think depp and co have a point about how the media gleefully took it down, the only real question is whether it deserved it.

  106. Etguild2 says:

    “i was drinking beer tgifing at work (and lmao watching ‘bad santa’)”

    Man, and I always thought Don, David and Joe had the best jobs on this blog.

  107. Joe Leydon says:

    I think I stopped paying any attention to the “Nobody pays attention to critics” meme somewhere around the time I interviewed Mickey Rourke and, after telling me repeatedly that he certainly pays no attention to critics, he proceeded to quote verbatim huge swathes of an already years-old LA Times pan of Year of the Dragon.

  108. christian says:

    If leah is the heckler, anghus is the Hot Blog version of Debbie Downer…

  109. leahnz says:

    thanks christian!… i think… haha

    anghus, did you just admonish me for negativity? now that’s irony

    hey i know my long-standing ‘critics don’t really matter’ stance isn’t popular around here, esp with the presence of actual and wannabe critics on the blog, but at least i’m honest. the critique of art is a mostly-noble and long-standing pursuit, but this notion that critical opinion now makes a significant difference in the success or failure of movies, that it’s anything more than a small component or cog in the machine, is not supported by reality. riddle me this: if critical opinion really mattered to the masses (and i’m not talking about the small niche of movie obsessed nuts like ‘us’), it’s a simplified view but how come so very many terrific critical darling movies praised to the high heavens make so little money? where’s this perceived ‘influence’ then? you can’t have it both ways.

    as for the paradigm hcat mentions above, yes, but that’s looking at it in hindsight, as is so often the case. the truth is, if PEOPLE liked ‘the lone ranger’ and word spread and buzz was created by the movie itself, it wouldn’t matter if it was panned by critics (like lots of movies that make $ are); if some people on the fence didn’t go because ‘the critics’ didn’t like it is really beside the point, because people go en masse to movies and make hits out of films critics don’t like all the time, it’s attributing cause and effect where none exists. a case of critical opinion reflecting that of movie-goers.

    but what do i know, i just work on making movies, not talking about them after the fact (zing!). no really, i don’t mean any offence to anyone, just sharing a POV which i know others share, even if they don’t say it out loud.

  110. Joe Leydon says:

    Actually, Leahnz, it’s been my experience that the only people who “work on making movies” and feel the need to talk about how critics don’t matter — are people who don’t make very good movies.

  111. Fitzerald says:

    Leah, I think we’re talking about two different things. I think critics matter, just not to the box office. I work on movies, some great, some not so great, and my colleagues and I sure would rather get good reviews than bad. Hell, interesting and thought provoking mixed reviews are sometimes better than raves. When one can’t respect the judgement, ideas, ethics and intellect of the people writing the reviews, it makes it easier and frankly more reasonable to simply say, “who cares what these idiots think?” rather than “what can I learn from this?”

  112. Joe Leydon says:

    I’m trying to remember: Did Ingmar Bergman ever bitch about his reviews?

  113. leahnz says:

    joe, i think you’re just being mean for the sake of it now. i respect what you do and think you do it well (and since when do you call me ‘Leahnz’, is that formality reserved for when i say something you don’t like?). i think that’s absolute bullshit, that it’s people who make good movies who care what critics think or think they matter – actually, i’d say quite the opposite is true, examples are rife.

    “When one can’t respect the judgement, ideas, ethics and intellect of the people writing the reviews, it makes it easier and frankly more reasonable to simply say, “who cares what these idiots think?” rather than “what can I learn from this?”

    woah Fitzgerald, no offence but i find that very bizarre — to put it simply, when artists start to alter how they do their work because of people’s ‘opinions’ and what ‘the tastemakers’ say after the fact…opinions are like assholes, everybody’s got one, so whose opinion do you take on board and ‘learn from’ and try to please by one assumes altering your approach to what you do – you don’t sound like a creator to me if that’s how you think, and further i’d say that type of thinking is the very PROBLEM with the industry right now, people making movies with the intent of trying to please this or that demographic/niche — i can’t say i’ve ever worked with anyone who ultimately gives two flying fucks what critics say; making movies is really hard and an enormous amount of work done by so many different types of people with differing talents – it may be a nice warm bath to receive praise and critisism can hurt but the moment artists change to please the random taste of ‘critics’, the end is extremely fucking neigh and art of any form is in BIG trouble.

  114. Ray Pride says:

    Bergman had a pseudonym, Ernest Riffe, he used only for Chaplin magazine, where he wrote slams of… Ingmar Bergman. People would complain: why does this terrible person only come out of the woodwork just to chastise poor Ingmar? “Ingmar Bergman has betrayed our confidence, lived sumptuously on our dreams and anxious questions. He has appealed to our sympathy and we have listened in amazement to his excuses and prevarications.

    “This is what we have said to ourselves: Finally the masterpiece is being born, the decisive proof that our longing has not been in vain. There has been no shortage of assurances: Large coins of respectable appearance have been in circulation, see what riches, what resources of artistic vitality and broad humanity!

    “If Ingmar Bergman were aware of the gap between the illusory value and the actual merits of his products, in spite of everything he must be credited with a certain cold-bloodedness. If he has been unaware, which is more likely, the matter is more serious because in that case Bergman doesn’t even possess the virtuosity of a swindler but must be characterized as a spiritual sleepwalker.” [more]

  115. Joe Leydon says:

    “I think that’s absolute bullshit, that it’s people who make good movies who care what critics think or think they matter – actually, i’d say quite the opposite is true, examples are rife.”

    Leahnz: With all due respect, you misread what I wrote. What I wrote was: “It’s been my experience that the only people who “work on making movies” and feel the need to talk about how critics don’t matter — are people who don’t make very good movies.

  116. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Leah makes movies, and talks about how critics don’t matter…

    Leydon with the sick burn.

  117. Fitzerald says:

    Leah, “no offense”, but what an utterly juvenile response. I am a creator, whether you think I “sound like” one or not. But who cares, that’s beside the point. Art is a conversation. Any artist who tells you they have no interest in what an intelligent audience thinks about their art is posing, at best. For what it’s worth, it’s the opinions of my trusted friends and colleagues that matter most to me, but that doesn’t mean someone else can’t have an insight. It’s a bit ridiculous for you to assert that listening to how people react to what you are doing and choosing what to take in and what to ignore is somehow damaging or anti-art. I don’t know or presume to know what part you play in the creation of movies, but this opinion you are so blithely firing out makes me think you have a not so mature or experienced idea of what it means to make art and to live as an artist. Nothing in what I said is about pandering. It’s crazy that you’d leap to “altering” one’s work to please people. Do you really think it is impossible to evolve as an artist or gauge the effectiveness of one’s message or discern how well one is connecting to specific people? Everything is just a solipsistic void? Talk about anti-art. Ironically, I bet we’d agree on a lot of things about this issue and whether anyone deserves to be an arbiter of taste, but you’ve leapt so far down my throat in such a perplexing way I had to say something.

  118. anghus says:

    Christian, the funny thing is that you may think of me as Debbie downer, but your contribution here has made so little of an imprint that I can’t even generate a reply as to what you are or who you would be.

    I do love that Leah threw down the “I help make movies.” thing. I’d always thought of her as pretentious, and she finally went and threw down the ultimate cinematic elist mantra. “oh, you write about movies… I actually make them.”. That ‘POV’ comment sums you up well. You think you navigate from a different place and that your opinions are novel. You moan about repeated conversations as if you’re above them or that you find the consensus boring.

    you called the vast majority in here hipsters. I think its pretty clear that you would be the snob.

  119. leahnz says:

    fwiw i didn’t call anyone hipsters (let alone the ‘vast majority’), that was amblinman or whatever his name is, but agreed it sort of suited a couple people here after being schooled on what a hipster is — as for the rest, blah blah blah, why don’t you mention how you’re ‘a writer’ here for the kazillianth time and go teach your hypocricy 101 class anghus

    joe, lol so ‘talking’ about it is what matters, ok…except that many people who i consider good filmakers have talked openly about critics and how they never pander to critical whims in their work and don’t really consider it, so my point stands. but nice talking to you, geeze.

    “Any artist who tells you they have no interest in what an intelligent audience thinks about their art is posing, at best.”

    Fitzgerald, what nonsense. i’m old as fuck, been an artist since i was a kid and doing different stuff in film since starting out as a complete newb on ‘heavenly creatures’ doing menial tasks, so your ‘i must be young and don’t know what i’m talking about’ assertion is horribly wrong, and right back atcha really. again, what ‘intelligent audience’, critics differ in their assesments and opinions all the time, so who is this ‘intelligent audience’ and who defines who has valid opinions and who doesn’t when it comes to critical taste and whim? again, i know and work with a shitload of artists and none care what ‘critics’ think, because who are critics? what makes their opinions valid? again, you don’t sound like any artists i know. sorry.

  120. christian says:

    “but your contribution here has made so little of an imprint that I can’t even generate a reply as to what you are or who you would be.”

    That reveals more about your insular insight. Plus you can’t hit a moving target so good.

  121. leahnz says:

    christian, anghus makes a HUGE FUCKING CONTRIBUTION here (cuz he’s a writer don’t you know) so shut up and bow to the master A. fuckin’ A!

  122. The Big Perm says:

    Wow, leahnz is on full asshole mode tonight.

  123. leahnz says:

    hey no way, i’m in a delightful mode tonight! that was this morning/last night i was in asshole mode apparently.

    (at least my comments have been pertaining to a subject – the influence of film criticism – and i’m not just weighing into the thread out of the blue to name call/call someone an asshole like you. what does that make you? charming)

  124. Fitzerald says:

    Leah, I’m glad to stop talking about this now. You aren’t listening. You’re the only one talking about “pandering.” And how exactly do you “pander” to critics? Literally, how? Do the artists you work with have disdain for critics? How about their audiences? Do they have respect for anyone? I’m just talking about having conversations. I’m not succeeding in having one with you.

  125. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    Holy hellz Leah do you sleep on the hotblog? Perm drops a comment 7hrs after your rants (blowing off your lover and best blog friend in the process) and BAM you instantly reply to him.

    I do think you need to get away from the computer. Take some yoga. I love how everytime its pointed out that you’re quite the arrogant asshole on here, you follow up with your standard

    “LOL I’m laughing here.. just a few wines with my weta chimps”

    cue Super Christian : instant defender

  126. leahnz says:

    ETA to fitzerald in case it wasn’t clear:

    hey no-one’s forcing you to talk about it, and ftr i have listened to everything you’ve said (and commented on some of it) and i believe i understand what you’re saying; i could just as easily argue that you are the one who’s not listening to me, because you still haven’t answered my question regarding your assertion that critics are an ‘intelligent audience’, but critics so often have wildly differing and conflicting views in their critique of film, so whose view is valid and ‘intelligent’, are the views of ALL critics worthy of being in ‘the conversation’ about art, or just the ones you subjectively deem worthy. do you understand what i’m getting at?

    we clearly fundamentally view the role of critic’s opinions on film as it pertains to film-making and the film industry differently; my experience is that artists view ‘critics’ as somewhat of a necessary evil, insofar as there are those who create art and then those who comment on it, and the two disciplines are not symbiotic or intertwined; critics are dependant on art, but art is not dependant on critics. personally i find some film criticism interesting, insightful and even beautifully communicated – and some i find extremely insipid – and i think the critique of film has a valid place in our culture, but i believe artistic vision being ‘influenced’ by the subjective and changing whims of critics is a dangerous thing for art as cultural expression; the philosophical ‘battle’ between artists and critics is old as the hills, it’s not like i’m proposing some radical new concept here.

  127. leahnz says:

    JBD, since i’m here i’ll say i have no idea what you’re talking about — i was on my computer late this morning, did like 5 hrs of work (i think i read/commented on the friday estimates inbetween), and then again now tonight like 5 hrs later, that i commented after perm was a koinkidink. do you honestly think i’ve been on here for over 5 hrs waiting for a reply? aren’t you sweet. oh and also, aren’t you awesome dropping in to call me an arrogant assole (you calling anyone an arrogant assole here is priceless tho, given your blog personality). just curious, are you ‘time retarded’ darling? there’s this thing called the curvature of the earth and time differences also, school teaches it, maybe worth a look see for some brushing up.
    maybe you and anghus and Big Perm can go do some yoga together, you all sound like EXACTLY THE SAME PERSON so you can downward dog each other. :-***

    (the ‘h’ on my keyboard is glitchy, but i kind of like the word assole, very phonic)

  128. anghus says:

    “Wow, leahnz is on full asshole mode tonight.”

    I wasn’t aware she had another mode.

  129. YancySkancy says:

    I have no problem believing that artists aren’t influenced by what critics think. However, the human ego makes it very difficult not to CARE what others think, whether critics or not. Many filmmakers/actors/writers, etc. are on record as saying they don’t read reviews of their work because it’s too painful or infuriating to receive negative criticism.

    I think most truly creative people go into their own little world when creating. Too much thought about how the work will eventually be perceived is either paralyzing or causes you to second-guess yourself and compromise your vision to please some mythically one-minded entity such as “the critics” or “the mass audience.”

  130. Fitzerald says:

    Aha, Leah, now I get the source of the misunderstanding. I agree with basically everything you write in that second paragraph (except the part before the semi-colon about not agreeing, ha ha.) When I said “what can I learn from this?” you took it as me saying one should pore over reviews looking for some magical key to success, which would be ridiculous. One’s process is one’s own, and there are enough people trying to interfere with it without worrying about how the end result is perceived. I’m not talking about a conversation about how you should make your own art, I’m talking about a larger cultural conversation about art. The “intelligent audience” I’m talking about is just people, anyone with something intelligent to say and expressly not people with axes to grind or idiotic and insightless commentary. Critics can obviously be in either category. So can other film makers. So can regular audience members. My original point is simply that obviously critics would like to be heard, but don’t have an inherent right to be heard by anyone. Many of them write as if they do. Like anybody else, they have to earn it. I hope that clears that up.

    And Yancy, I think what you say is true of most everyone I know in the field. But I will say that there are those who shut themselves off from the risk of doing something that could be mocked or seen as less than serious and tread in safer waters. I respect people who swing for the fences and aren’t afraid to take a shot, even if the miss will be embarrassing, if there is a chance for something special.

The Hot Blog

Leonard Klady's Friday Estimates
Friday Screens % Chg Cume
Title Gross Thtr % Chgn Cume
Venom 33 4250 NEW 33
A Star is Born 15.7 3686 NEW 15.7
Smallfoot 3.5 4131 -46% 31.3
Night School 3.5 3019 -63% 37.9
The House Wirh a Clock in its Walls 1.8 3463 -43% 49.5
A Simple Favor 1 2408 -50% 46.6
The Nun 0.75 2264 -52% 111.5
Hell Fest 0.6 2297 -70% 7.4
Crazy Rich Asians 0.6 1466 -51% 167.6
The Predator 0.25 1643 -77% 49.3
Also Debuting
The Hate U Give 0.17 36
Shine 85,600 609
Exes Baggage 75,900 62
NOTA 71,300 138
96 61,600 62
Andhadhun 55,000 54
Afsar 45,400 33
Project Gutenberg 36,000 17
Love Yatri 22,300 41
Hello, Mrs. Money 22,200 37
Studio 54 5,300 1
Loving Pablo 4,200 15
3-Day Estimates Weekend % Chg Cume
No Good Dead 24.4 (11,230) NEW 24.4
Dolphin Tale 2 16.6 (4,540) NEW 16.6
Guardians of the Galaxy 7.9 (2,550) -23% 305.8
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 4.8 (1,630) -26% 181.1
The Drop 4.4 (5,480) NEW 4.4
Let's Be Cops 4.3 (1,570) -22% 73
If I Stay 4.0 (1,320) -28% 44.9
The November Man 2.8 (1,030) -36% 22.5
The Giver 2.5 (1,120) -26% 41.2
The Hundred-Foot Journey 2.5 (1,270) -21% 49.4