The Hot Blog

Is that saying Star Wars is going to be a disappointment? I don't really think so.

After all the numbers are posted, if "House of Wax" fails to outgross even "Boogeyman," can we read that as sign that the horror cycle is waning? Or is this an aberration?

I'd say it's an aberration. I don't think this will slow down the horror craze. Now there's a Day of the Dead remake on the way.

And don't forget that Romero's own zombie sequel, Land of the Dead, is on the way, too. Oddly enough, I expect Romero's movie to be one of the better recent horror movies, but only lukewarm at the box office.

Romero is one of those well-liked guys that just can't turn a profit these days, no matter the quality of the movie. Kind of like the Coen Brothers, who are going through a rough patch, too.

House of Wax was released at the wrong time and was poorly marketed, without much of a hook to it beyond typical teens-in-danger stuff.
It didn't help that it was a crappy movie, too.
But I think it was an aberration. Land of the Dead might actually do well, thanks to its good cast and if the marketing holds up...here's hoping.

If they release 15 crappy horror movies, one is eventually not going to make its projections.

Joel Silver was about a year late on the paris hilton parade.

Let's discuss Mister Silver. It is my opinion that he has become irrelevant in today's marketplace -- a dinosaur, if you will. His "producer" choices seem to be outdated (like the use of Paris) and his films have underperformed. Look at his Dark Castle films. The fact that House of Wax (which actually cost closer to 55 million) will make about half as much as White Noise is shameful. Apart from the Matrix movies (the sequels were unimpressive in my opinion) his recent track record is terrible.

I disagree that $400 million is inevitable. I think it will easily pass $300 million, but the dour tone is going to curtail repeat viewings, and its second-weekend business is going to take an unavoidable hit from the combination of THE LONGEST YARD and MADAGASCAR. Also, I don't think civilian word-of-mouth is going to be uniformly stellar.

Take this for what it's worth, but there wasn't a single showtime sold out at The Grove when I was there this afternoon. I know that the Arclight is currently STAR WARS Central in Hollywood, but I figured the evening showtimes at least would've been knocked out by 4 PM. Could mean nothing, but if those Saturday numbers fall under $30 million, $400 million is an impossibility.

I think people who will be seeing The Longest Yard next weekend (teenagers predominantly I would guess) would have either already seen SW3 or don't intend to.

I feel vindicated about M-i-Ls success. I always thought it would be, so that makes me happy. Anything to keep Jane Fonda in the movie business!

And Joel Silver actually has "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" on his roster, which is meant to be good and Oscar-worthy and "V For Vendetta" could be great! But really, outside of the late 80s where he had that run of movies like Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, Predator and so on, has he ever been considered "relevant". Other than The Matrix.

Land of the Dead could do decent "Dawn of the Dead '04" numbers if it's marketed well but if they keep with the theme of the trailer they might not. It [the trailer] was a bit too focused on George Romero (let's face, what random teenager who goes to the movies almost exclusively during Summer knows who he is?) and made the film look like another "zombies vs. a small pack of humans" movie.

Kaz, my young Australian Paduan, I disagree that "Longest Yard" will draw a predominantly teen audience. In fact, I would venture to predict it will skew even more heavily toward 25+ males, especially those sports fans (and sports talk radio listeners) who view the 1974 original as some kinda classic. Put it this way: Sandler and Rock might get the younger demo, but the movie itself will have even wider appeal.

Just saw Star Wars Ep 3. Did anyone else find that the acting brought the film down, and that the effects were blurred together to render the entire film unexciting?

I'm so disappointed that I'm disappointed! (if that's makes any sense at all) And I had low expectations too. Ian McDiarmid was great, though!

Except for the midnight shows SW is not selling out in my area either. Not even the one digital screen in the city that's at my favorite multiplex. Still I can't see this film falling below $30 mil on Saturday. A number below $30 mil would be SHOCKING an indication of extreme frontloadedness and bad legs to come. I expect SW to earn at least $40 mil Saturday and finish with over $100 mil for the three day weekend. I also expect SW to drop hard next weekend with Madagascar and The Longest Yard opening. I think SW will drop to second next weekend behind Madagascar. While I do think $350 mil is a lock whether the film gets to $400 mil depends on how hard it falls next weekend.

Andrew, I've seen the film twice now, and both times I thought the acting was on par with (maybe even a little better than) the other prequels. Despite that, I recommend the film because I think the plot at last made coherent sense and hit some genuine emotional heights.

Your point about the special effects is an interesting one, though. I'm trying to think of a single effect that really stood out and nothing in particular comes to mind. (Maybe those enemy droids that ate away at Obi Wan's ship.) While I can't deny the film's CGI achievements and its art direction, no individual piece of it made any unique impression on me.

Along the same lines, my personal peeve has to be for all the tiresome light-saber battles. IMHO all of them had a "been there, done that" quality, and there were just too many of them that went on way too long. What a relief it was to see Obi-Wan pick up a pistol at last.

Been there, done that? Dude, SIX TIMES, and I still
get all jacked up when Obi and Anakin start swinging
those sabers behind their backs. Again, those duels
tell a story like the fights in the Matrix sequels.
You either like them or not. It's an absolute sithy
thing. Sometimes you are just stuck with what you
are given in terms of responses.

Andrew, dude, go watch LOTR or something. Not that
this might actually reflect how you feel, but I read
your comments like another bitter 20 something. Who
has a hardcore nostalgic streak running back towards
Empire or maybe not even that far. You are entitled,
but what did you want from these films? Im willing
to bet there are films out there you love and enjoy
with flaws as gapping as a certain part on a certain
type of star. Yet SW has to somehow excede everything
that those films do not? Again this might all be
conjecture on my part. I just have read enough of
your comments in the last years to feel as if I
have some idea where they are coming from.

Eric, like your friends with the BWP, Romero has not
made a STUDIO film in years. He has not been able
to turn a profit due in large part to his film being
mostly indie releases. If anyone should get the cash
from this horrour boom. It should be George. He
has never had a REAL BONAFIDE BOX OFFICE HIT. Night
did good numbers but he did not get the cash. So
this is his chance. IF the folks will see shitty
flicks, then hopefully they will see a zombie flick
from a GUY WHO CREATED THEM! If not; were doomed.

So much for Dave running the real numbers.

Subtract the 16.9 percent from the unique midnight showings and Friday's numbers were actually up 6.9% from Thursday. Clearly it's dropping like a rock.

The number I heard for Friday was 35.5 million, that tally gives the film the eighth biggest single day mark ever, as well as the third best Friday gross in history. The Friday grosses of "Spider-Man" ($39.4 million) and "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" ($38.2 million) are bigger. Those numbers are the first day in theaters for both Spidey and 'Harry Potter', not the second (to be fair Spidey's saturday was bigger).

Biggest Daily Marks for the Prequel Trilogy...

#1 'Revenge of the Sith' $50.0 million (Thursday/opening day)
#2 'Revenge of the Sith' $35.5 million (Friday/second day)
#3 'Attack of the Clones' $31.2 million (Saturday/third day)
#4 'Attack of the Clones' $30.1 million (Thursday/opening day)
#5 'The Phantom Menace' $28.5 million (Wednesday/opening day)

Some cool graph comparisons that show the correlation between wide release and front loaded releases. It happened between TESB and ROTJ when initial theatres went from about 100 to about 1000 :

http://www.the-numbers.com/features/starwars.php

(Thanks to HTF for the info and link)

Adam

Sure. It's dropping like a 24 karat rock.

1. Has anyone considered that the weakness of the Dark Castle films may be as much Zemeckis's fault as Silver's?
2. Let's wait until next weekend to gauge Sith's hold. It's too early to tell now, non-sold-out theaters or not.
3. Blurred-together special effects? Perhaps you had a bad print/projector/projectionist. I thought the opening space battle was spectacular and you have to remember that the entire lava planet is CGI, every last bit of it. The acting was not a strong aspect, but in my opinion it was better than in the last two.
4. I have to agree with a certain amount of light-saber fatigue. It is all basically the same by now, especially since the action is so CGI-frenetic at this point.

It's no where close to being similar. I would gather
some folks on here are not too heavily into fight
choreography. Also not all of the duel on Mustafar
is CGI. A lot of that volcanic footage comes from
McCallum going to Hawaii to get some plates. Same
goes with Kashsyyk, Alderran, and so on.

Thank you, Adam, for the website promotion.

And the idea that you can dump the midnight shows is just dumb. That's kind of like analyzing the three day without the fourth day... uh, no.

There are dozens of ways of looking at the numbers. Don't be getting on my shit because you want to see it some other way.

Don't be getting on my shit? Gosh, Dave: I love it when you channel Eminem.

Saturday action from the Edgewater Multiplex in Edgewater NJ (between the Lincoln Tunnel and the GW Bridge):

"Episode 3" in DLP -- 1 hall, 3 of 4 shows sold out as of early evening.

"Episode 3" in 35mm -- 4 halls, only 3 shows (of a possible 15) sold out as of early evening.

"Monster-in-Law" -- 2 halls, at least 1 show sold out.

"Crash" (which I saw and liked) -- 1 hall, half-filled at the 5:10 show.

All those OVERHYPED! midnight shows of "Episode 3" scared off those who would have gone on the weekend. Not to mention the horror stories from the midnight shows -- 1 reel in Japanese (Eatontown NJ), film started out of frame (northern KY).

What in the blue hell are you talking about Chuck?

I live in Phoenix. I've seen Sith twice this weekend, on Thursday night and Saturday afternoon, and as soon as it stops selling out (nearly every showtime, all weekend), I'll go see it on the only digital projector in town. The biggest screen in town is also selling out pretty consistently this weekend. My local cineplex has it in their four biggest auditoriums and they told me it's been about 85-95% full for every showtime on every screen, with a handful sold out.

Oh, and the only light saber fight I didn't like was the one where the first three strikes killed three Jedi masters. It wasn't even fast - it's as though they didn't actually expect a fight somehow, or ... I don't know. It was bizarre.

Went to it again. I'm sorry, but I was just bored. I like many flawed films, even "LOTR" has its "flawe d moments", but I just couldn't get into it. George Lucas has a brilliantly imaginative mind, but he's not a good director when it comes to working with actors, and and his writing just doesn't work. He's a created a vivid, beautiful world; a world that look so much more real in EP 4,5,6.
Oh well. Can't have everything in life, right? I'd gladly see another trilogy, though. Or a film based on the different books? Just thoughts...

Hey Andrew, at least you seem honest unlike most
folks on the net. I still have the gut punch from
it. That fucker absolutely kills me, but still
got to see it again and again! SW goodness in a
theatre always better than at home.

I still don't get how people can critisise the new SW movies for bad acting and when very original isn't exactly the cream of the crop.

Man, all this Star Wars talk is making me tired.

All I know is is that I'm seeing "2046" next weekend and I am pumped.

Then SW some time after that...

Natalia Portman makes Carrie Fisher look like Joan Crawford. I didn't think she could be this bad but she is.

If its a hit in Jersey, it must be really big.

say what u want about star wars 3 but the acting of some of key players was downright terrible.

Bad acting about as subjective as a bad pop song.
Yet Bob now slags the acting. After two weeks ago
stating you cant slag it. Due to most of the time
people are acting next to Wookies. Look at Bob pull
a Jay Mariotti like flip-flop.

I thought Neeson, McGregor, and McDiarmid gave good performances in the prequels. But I would like to see ANYONE else besides L&DB defend the other lead performances.

Although I admit that Christensen was better in RotS.

Bad acting is really not subjective. Everyone knows how wooden and stitled Christiansen is in scenes with Portman. And vice versa. That's more like universal knowledge. How can you possibly defend the acting of those two? I really think some people here just like arguing.

Someone just used "slag" in a post here. We may have to stop and wonder. Just like Natalie did for three movies. Wondering why the heck she signed up for this and then always thought... "Paycheck....Paycheck."

the acting of some of them was terrible. not going to take away from my enjoyment of the film because they're acting against a blue screen 75% of the time. up against wookies droids and aliens. but it is what it is. maybe portman just isn't that good. or maybe the direction of lucas stunk. who knows. but i know the acting was poor

Anyone that says the acting in Sith was good needs to have their head examined. But who sees a Star Wars movie for great acting? Even though R2 should win a best supporting actor nomination.

Yoda should be first in line for awards.

Runner front he should be.

A Yoda talking joke. How original. Should I "LOL"?

No, but you can KMA if you'd like.

I don't think Natalie was simply making these movies for a paycheck. I don't even like the Star Wars movies that much but I'd star in them if I could.

Terence, what a dispicable state you are in. You
think people like arguing? No Terence. I actually
like the acting in all the prequels. One of the
only reason people jump on the acting; JAKE LLOYD!
GUESS WHAT? He's only in one movie! If you cant
handle a little kid acting, then IM sorry. I
find his silly exposition dialogue hilarious.

I also like Hayden and Portman more than Ford and
Fisher. Am I saying that just to argue? Hell no.
Im saying that because I get a damn GUT PUNCH from
Revenge because their performances draw me in. I
hate seeing Anakin throw it all away, and I hate
seeing Padme die of a broken heart. Yeah. I type
this because I just like to argue. How utterly
god damn motherfucking repulsively ridiculous.

Yeah arguing is so much fun. It's so much fun to
have be attack and then defend yourself constantly.
Oh the hilarity. I get the acting. I get what
Lucas' wanted to do. Heck. I doubt many of you
gave two shits about the underlying story of Attack
or even TPM. Feel as you wish, but do not come
at me with some weak ass shit like that Terence.

You don't 'get' the acting. You ACCEPT the acting. I 'get' what Lucas wanted to do. That doesn't mean I think he did a totally good job. I'm really happy you are so emotionally affected but like I said, you are the only person on this board to defend their performances.

Uh no, I dont accept the acting. I understand the
acting. Yeah. All those stilted tones are there
for a reason. You know? " More civilized weapon for
a more CIVILIZED age" type of thing.

So let me get this straight; I really like something
more than the rest of you, but I have some sort of
secret motivation behind it? That's absolutely
silly.

i don't accept anything. fisher really makes portman look bad. if portman can't out act carrie fisher than her career is in trouble

L&DB, again I just think you like arguing for really over nothing. You can call it dispicable but its just who you really are. If you're trying to say Christiansen is better than Harrison Ford you obviously like arguing over nothing since you couldn't be more wrong. Or you have no taste. Maybe its both.

If you take the star wars movies out of Hayden's filmography he's actually a pretty great actor! And similarly to Natalie Portman.

However, some people their performances in the respective SW films. Good for them. I thought Hayden was awful in Clones but have heard much better things about him in Sith.

"if portman can't out act carrie fisher than her career is in trouble"

The fact she just got a Golden Globe award and an Oscar nomination doesn't mean anything then?

I think Natalie may have peaked in Beautiful Girls. Because she was horrendous in these three movies. Marissa Tomei has won an Oscar. What does it prove?

Didn't Pia Zadora win a Golden Globe? I don't look to award nominations for quality. I see it on the screen and I'm sorry. I didn't find her in Star Wars, Garden State, Where the Heart is, and Anywhere But Here to be good acting performances.

First of all, Carrie was nothing before star wars and Natalie was something. And after SW ended, Carrie kept on being nobody, so Natalie will keep on being Natalie Portman...
...sorry, Academy Award Nominee Natalie Portman.
And she looks good without hair!

carrie is one of the highest paid screenwriters in hollywood. and u think princess leia u think her. half the audience doesn't even know portmans name in the film. they just laugh when she starts emoting.

I think Portman is a decent enough actress. Real good in Closer. But thats call it what it is here. She is beyond terrible in Star Wars. Blame it on whoever you want. But she stinks.

Okay, the stilted tones are there for a reason. Great. But why are Natalie and Hayden so much worse at delivering them than Ewan, Sam Jackson, or McDiarmid?
Portman was good before but Lucas has sucked the talent out of her.

Jeff, did you even see the movie? I don't think theres any reason to explain. You obviously haven't seen it or the first two.

what are you talking about?

just thinking about their scenes alone makes me cringe. i don't think anyone cringed at ford and fisher in 4-5-6

What Portman needs is for V for Vendetta to be real good to make everyone forget how bad her acting was in Star Wars.

You guys can talk shit all you want about the bad acting of Portman and Christensen, but Ian McDiarmid rocked in that movie.

The monologue he gives in the Opera house scene is great. Granted, it's actually a piece of well written stuff for Star Wars, and that it's an actual simple conversation scene between two live actors helps.

But he hits some great beats in that scene. And there's some great subtext in the face as he talks about how the apprentice killed the Sith master. You can just see that interior monologue in his eyes, reliving the memory of killing his master as he tells the story.

I blame performance problems on Lucas. The dialogue is hard to deliver. The special effect/green screen technical conditions almost dictate a new style of acting be developed to handle the conditions of the environment...

But Lucas had dialogue and acting coaches on set. And there's still some clunky moments in the first half. And I think this is because (and I could be wrong) Lucas doesn't really give his actors many takes to get the scene right. If I understand right, he only shoots four or so takes and he just moves on figuring he'll edit the performance in post.

And I think Yoda in this new film eclisped Gollum for being able to digitally emote.

Say what you want about Portman or Christensen; but McDiarmid owns in this movie and deserves recognition for delivering some quality acting in a difficult setting that many talents have not been able to pull off.

I agree, McDiarmid in this movie is worth the price of admission alone. He's obviously enjoying himself as he gives the performance too...bad guys always have more fun.

Lucas got real lucky casting him back in the originals. He worked out well.

Terence, only a total dick such as yourself, would
believe someone has an opinion because they LIKE
TO ARGUE. You sir are beyond the lunacy of Devin
Farci sir. DEVIN FARCI! That's saying something
since he likes Oldboy.

If people start laughing during any Padme scene, then
watch me drop the "ASSHOLE" card. Total Doogie
on their part. This whole fucking thing comes
down to people liking Ford and Fisher more than
Hayden and Portman.

But hey, again, I pay to see these films because
I love them. So you dont. Im just sure your
favourite films can be slashed just as much. Since
they all most be international and domestic champs
loved by hundred of millions of people. Oh I forgot.
Those films are not SW. Ha ha. STAR WARS IS LEGION.
As they say; "Im done."

"Portman was good before but Lucas has sucked the talent out of her."

...er, Closer and Garden State came after she worked with Georgie Lucas!!! And they're her two best performances followed by The Professional and then Beautiful Girls.

Me thinks you just don't like her period. Same goes for Terence, sheesh, what DOES it take to impress you outside of annoying and repetitive pop culture references in annoying and repetitive Dreamworks animations movies?

Well maybe I just meant that in the films where she worked with Lucas, her performances weren't that good.
And I actually don't like either Closer or Garden State very much.
But it is entirely possible that I don't like her in general. However, her Star Wars performances are still much stiffer than her performances in general.

And L&DB, I don't consider myself an asshole, but I chuckle a little every time I hear "I don't like sand. It's coarse and rough...you're soft." or however it goes. Come on. It's ridiculous.

I love that line. I have no idea if this might
be a post, again. If not. I absolutely love that
line. Apparently Jeff and some assholes, have a
problem with metaphors ;).

i don't think it makes anyone a "dick" because they prefer the acting of ford and fisher. ldb, maybe u should relax and lose the nasty language. its not becoming of u, sweetie

I really don't see the need to throw around the curse words. Is your vocabulary that limited that you need to call people "assholes" and "dicks"? What are you going to call me now? The C Bomb?

Apparently, I am a total dick. For saying that Natalie Portmans acting was terrible in the prequels. If that makes me a dick, then so be it. I've been called worse but much better people than someone who goes by the name L and DB.

L&DB, I understand metaphors. You have to get over this attitude that you're smarter than everyone who just doesn't understand Lucas. My problem with the line is, in the combination of writing and acting, it's hilarious when Lucas wanted it to be touching.

If LDB thinks hes smarter than anyone, he's yet to show it here. I do not take one for intelligent when they continually have to use curse words and profanity to make a point. That shows a lack of intelligence.

Again, if you have a problem with cursing. I see
you as not only a prude but an elitist. I have no
respect for prudes or elitist Mark. So take that
for what it's worth.

Jeff, for a FACT, I know I know more about SW than
you ever will. Did you not catch what Commander Bly
said last week? Well duh.... Again, you can hate
the films, the acting, and the dialogue all you
want. Yet, do not act like you know what's going
on. Since you are rather all sorts of surface
because you slag a line that is touching. Yet you
find it hilarious. See...that means I know more
than you when it comes to SW.

And if you dont want people to be honest about how
they feel towards the reactions of other's towards
thing. Then, well, I just think that's being a phoney.
It's just a word. Plus it's not name calling. I
think some of you get upset at an aspect of name
calling. When there is not name calling around.
Refering to one being a dick or an asshole does
not automatically make them one. It's a statement
towards a part of one's opinions more than one's
character. You see? Opinion, not the person. I
explained it once.

I would take your opinions more seriously if you could write one coherent sentence.

I guess that makes me an elitist and a snob, right?

Am I the only one who has never heard of a thought being called a dick or an asshole? As in "your opinion is such an asshole." Just wondering.

To paraphase Chris Tucker; "CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND
THE WORDS IM PUTTIN ON THE SCREEN?" You might not
be an elitist or a snob, but you sure have shitty
reading comprehension jeff.

Maybe in your part of town Blau. In my part of town,
you can be a nice guy. Even if one your opinions are
just utterly "asshole" or "dick" in nature.

Don't fight everybody, I will put everything as simple as I can:
Lucas created one of the most incredible worlds ever on a movie...
...and fill it up with some of the worst dialogue.
It's a tie!

LDB: I get it now. It's just like how your opinions show that your mother's a whore.

Nothing personal.

LDB, please. What does this sentence mean: "And if you dont want people to be honest about how
they feel towards the reactions of other's towards thing."
It starts off okay but in its last six words it degrades into meaninglessness.
I will admit that Lucas can at least complete a thought using words and punctuation.

ANYWAY. There is consensus on the dialogue issue even if LDB refuses to believe that Lucas and Shakespeare are anything other than equals.

Blau, you never insult one's mom. Never. It's
just tasteless. You have a rather poor sense of
decorum. As Bill Dautrive would say; "SHAME ON YOU
BLAU! SHAME!"

Besides another person insulting my mom. Jeff, excuse
me for a typo early in the morning. God forbid
you lack to cognitive qualities to extrapolate the point
in a mangle sentenced. I will do my best to use
the wiki, and start using the hacker vocabulary.
To not only really confuse you. Yet, just because.
w00t. w00t.

Also jeff, do not think you are in the majority.
When it comes to the dialogue in the prequels. Not
everyone hates it as you like to assume they do. So
everyone on this blog hates it. Big deal. They also
hate the Matrix Sequels, and Brother Ken and Brother
West can surely explain that away rather easily.

I am convinced the prequels are slagged more for
the past than for the present. Meaning, you should
never ever add more stories to a modern mythology
30 years later. Though I love them. Those films
have had to deal with more personal psychobabble
bullshit from moviegoers, than any other film
trilogy ever. Never have three films had to live
up to so much STUFF in people's minds.

Oy to the vey with *** ******* ***** ******.

And only an elitist would believe his opinions
had some consensus. Jeff. You are, so deep.

Besides jeff's warming and caring personality,
IM DONE with this. Let us move on to the Memorial
Day Weekend.

You're doing better, I can almost totally understand you.
But if you hate personal psychobabble bullshit...then why do you like the Matrix Sequels so much?
Ha ha ha.
I have no problems with you loving these movies. I just think you should admit they're flawed and that people aren't idiots if they don't like them.

I'm sorry to keep ragging on you but you make it too easy: the definition of an elitist is one who thinks his opinions are better than those of the masses, or popular consensus...you're the elitist here.
You are, so amusing.

LDB: Why shouldn't I slam your bitch mother? You think it's OK to call a stranger who has stated his opinion an asshole or a dick, like it's any less likely to get your teeth hammered out. Insults are insults and you don't get to reinvent the rules as you go along scumbag.

Don't be too mean...he's probably only 15 or 16 and doesn't know any better.

LDB is a bitch. Why even bother?

LDB, really has no clue. He just rambles and rambles and rambles. I wish he had a point.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)