The Hot Blog

While I agree its a misnomer to lump The Passion in with other ones, I'd say a substantial number of people who saw it saw it because of the book it was based on. To me, Jurassic Park is the obvious comparison--high concept, and while Da Vinci doesn't have the effects selling point that Jurassic Park did, two factors:

1. As a book, TDVC has been bigger than Jurassic Park ever was.
2. The cast of JP was largely (though not exclusively) non-"stars," while you have a star-driven cast here.

Dave, you are seriously slipping if you think that $135M is a probably number for DA VINCI CODE. A runaway bestseller in HARDBACK (I don't think you can emphasize that enough) that just came out in paperback, it might represent the first truly adult summer blockbuster. It will open on the weekend between two 3's, MISSION and X-MEN, a full two weeks after Cruise's impossible mission and a week past the improbable BO hit POSEIDON.

It is also aimed squarely at vast audience that is still badly underserved: older moviegoers. Comparing it to other bestsellers was not where to look for past clues to performace, it was theater. If DRIVING MISS DAISY could top $106M and A FEW GOOD MEN hit $141M, I'll put a dinner on DAVINCI hitting at least $150M. I'm not as confident as others that it will easily get to $200M because with this audience it will come down to execution. There's also new blood at Sony in the marketing department having their first summer.

A side thought: why are we discussing only the domestic box office for a film with an international cast and universal interest within the Christian world, especially areas heavily Catholic?

Shall I open the "bidding" at half a billion for theatrical gross?

The DaVinci Code as a book is light years ahead of any of the others on that list in terms of popularity. I know you're discounting Harry Potter as a book aimed at kids (though just as many adults read them) but it's probably a better comparison in terms of how many people have read The DaVinci Code.

And Tom Hanks is a bigger star than anybody in those top adult adaptations.

DaVinci will hit $200M easily, and Roy is right that it will kill internationally as well.

Lord of the Rings is an adult book. It's long, dense, and complicated, and it's really not appropriate for kids under 12 or 13, even if they could understand it.

Just because it's fantasy doesn't mean it's for kids. There's plenty that is for kids, but plenty that's not.

(Speaking of fantasy... the best new book none of you are reading: His Majesty's Dragon by Naomi Novik.)

I don't think Poland's out of line at all with the figure for Da Vinci. Yes, it sold an enormous number of copies in hardback. But how many people actually liked the damn thing? I got sucked into the hype and picked up a copy, and it's probably one of the worst books I've ever read.

Which doesn't necessarily translate into a failure at the box office, but I believe a fairly large portion of the people who bought the book will skip it. I certainly won't get suckered twice.

The points about it being an older-audience story are well taken. But which group has had the most drop off in theater attendance in recent years? The same demographic.

I bet we see a big opening weekend. Say $60mil. Rapid and large drops from then on. It'll be huge on dvd though.

If I was a really cynical, money grubbing producer right now in Hollywood who wanted to make big bucks I'd nab up the rights to Crichton's State of Fear and Ann Rice's Christ the Lord.

I'm sure they are still on the market...and who ever gets them would make big bucks.

I didn't like Da Vinci Code either but an enormous amount of people liked it. It didn't only sell a lot of copies, it sold a lot of books ABOUT it (The truth about the Da Vinci Code, etc...) which is a sign of outstanding popularity. Besides, the novel's biggest problems resides in Dan Brown's writing, not the story itself. Ron Howard is much better storyteller.

P.s.: War of the World was significantly driven by the book. Maybe Spielberg and Cruise were the biggest draw but the book is too much of a classic not to have been an important factor.

It was a long time ago, but how heated was the Anne Rice phenomenon in the 80s and 90s?

Interview With The Vampire
with young Brad Pitt and superheated Tom Cruise
$105 million domestic/ $118 million foreign

That's all I'm sayin'.

Hardly an embarrassment. But not in the Top Ten that year.

Clear & Present Danger was. (#7) And Forrest Gump was the biggest film of that year... but did that sell have anything to do with the book? I don't think so.

Book buyers and movie ticket buyers are not the same people.

Need I bring up the 80 million people who paid $80 - $100 a ticket to go see Phantom of the Opera? The film sold about 25 million tickets worldwide.

How about the book Gone with the Wind, which has had decades to sell 28 million copies...still not as much as Da Vinci Code's 40 million?

DP, what figure do you think Da Vinci is going to open at if you're prognosticating such a low final total?

Where's The Godfather? I know Poland hates adjusting for inflation, but in today's dollars Godfather made more than War of the Worlds and Perfect Storm combined.

$135 mill. for Da Vinci is a crazy number based on what I have no idea. If it does under $200 domestic that will be a major surprise for most folks.

The DaVince code is also one that, like The Passion of the Christ, will get people in by virtue of it's nature. People will wanna see what it's all about, if they don't want to read the book.

On Phantom of the Opera, seeing it on Broadway/West End/whatever and seeing the movie is different to reading a book and seeing a movie. On broadway it's already been represented visually by actors people adore. Da Vinci Code is possibly something a lot of fans will want to SEE as well as read.

And while you say "it is possible to gross more than $140 million domestic on one of these films" you have to add in inflation, man! "Green Mile" would be around $155mil, "Bridget Jones" (which to be honest, was a completely different variety of EVERYTHING) $85mil, "Silence of the Lambs"'s $130mil would be maybe around $180? Those are complete stabs in the dark but that says something.

And also, why not go back further (even with GwtW you're missing some potentially big titles)? "To Kill A Mockingbird"? "East of Eden"? "Breakfast at Tiffany's"? "Psycho"? I'm sure at least one of them did excellent business.

Also, I am SO glad you responded to that Mama Cass person. Ugh. That argument is SO old. I was gonna point out "Monster-in-Law" was probably the biggest mid-range movie of last Summer. I do agree with Nicole and Jodie though.

I admire Dave's backing up of his Da Vinci prediction.

I must say, I still find it hard to believe it could possibly do under 200 let alone 150...but now I am starting to question. Hmmmmmm.

One thing that could hurt it is that it is coming out around a time when there are so many huge films. Also, MI3 will just as easily be considered 'adult' entertainment. Cruise has a huge 40+ fan base because he has been around for so darned long.

My Ann Rice reference had more to do with the subject matter and having source material that was sincere as opposed to Hardwicke's Nativity which has a whiff of Godard's Hail Mary about it.

Perhaps Gibson knows something we don't about that production (which also comes out early December) and that is why he moved Apocalypto?

On the book buyers vs movie ticket buyers question, I remember reading a quote or study a few years back that went something like this...

...more people will see an episode of a television show that is an out and out flop than purchase the biggest selling book or see the top movie in the land, just by virtue of how many homes it gets into.

If Da Vinci does do under 150...I'm getting Dave to pick my next lottery ticket numbers!

I've never seen Godard's Hail Mary, but I have a hard time imagining that any movie by Catherine Hardwicke would be as good as the worst Godard film.

It's interesting to look at this in comparison to "The Kite Runner," should that movie ever get made. Unlike "Da Vinci Code," it's not a thriller, it won't really carry over to younger audiences and despite its incredible popularity as a book, I don't think it'll be a slam-dunk blockbuster. That said, I'm in the camp that suggests "Da Vinci Code" is such an "event" that it'll cross over to teens in a HUGE way (Tom Hanks, trippy, horror-type trailer). Yeah, not like "Harry Potter," but the kids'll (and I mean 13+) be there.

Never even heard of the Kite Runner, but it sounds like a shitty title. Comparing it to a cultural phenomenon like Da Vinci is silly.

I don't think the movies opening at the same time than Da Vinci Code will hurt his box office one bit. In fact, I'm surprised the other studios didn't run away from it: Tom Cruise's public image took a serious hit lately, X-Men 3 doesn't have that good of a buzz behind it and I don't think Wolfgang Peterson ever had to face such a hard competition.

If Forrest Gump doesn't count (and I agree with your assessment here, Dave), then neither do Schindler's List or A Beautiful Mind. Neither books were near the runaway phenomenons of Da Vinci, or the other books you mention, and both movies were sold based on the story, star power, and the director, rather than a "based on the book" pull.

Also, Dave, it's "Da Vinci" not "Di Vinci".

His Majesty's Dragon = excellent book

I don't want to see a movie of it though... sometimes there are things that I want to keep as I imagine them (I didn't go to see The Passion for just that reason).

I do think Da Vinci Code will make HUGE $$ (not from me, though, I thought the book stunk).

Dave is wrong wrong wrong on his Da Vinci assessment. The book is beyind a phenom. He cites INTERVIEW WITH A VAMPIRE as some sort of equivalent. Then he took another hit on the pipe. Delusional forecasting - will bring rain and pain in Miami again. DA VINCI will breeze to $200m. It looks absolutely horrible to me but its that very essence of a protracted MURDER SHE WROTE espisode with Hanks in a dress. It'll make Dave's 135m prediction look twonky. If it only does 135m then I swear I'll dress up like McAdams and rub his big Fijian feet.

Interview with The Vampire was also a pretty darn hard R and based on a book that had been out for over 15 years at that point. It wasn't striking while the iron was hot. Also, that cast looks a lot starrier in retrospect. Pitt was just breaking, Banderas was largely a nobody, and Dunst WAS a nobody.

Not sure any of these book comparisons are valid. With the exception of Potter and Jurassic, which of these had the massive, worldwide sales #'s that DVC has had? Ultimately thats what it comes down to. DVC, Potter, and Jurassic Park. IN other words, DVC will do at least $200 mill domestic, possibly much more.

Matt also said what I was thinking. The book has only been out for a few years and is still in the top 3 Best Sellers list. A lot of the books you sight were not.

And, yes, A Beautiful Mind was definitely not sold on the book. It was sold as an Oscar-contender starring RUSSELL CROWE and directed by (oddly enough) RON HOWARD. It was released in December (unlike Cinderella Man's June or whenever it was), it got Oscar nods and then wins, etc.

The Firm was a pretty popular piece of crap novel and that got to $158 M in 1993, while the novel was still hot and with a big star. But likewise, Presumed Innocent didn't do so well with a big star while the novel was still hot...I don't think DP's estimate is necessarily too off base.

Presumed Innocent sold a million copies in hardback. Da Vinci Code, forty million.

OK, I've repeated that stat enough. I'm not a Da Vinci Code in the least, but I don't know how you can ignore that massive number and think this film won't be one of the highest-grossing movies of the year.

I meant to say "I'm not a Da Vinci Code fanboy in the least." I'm certainly not the actual Da Vinci Code...or am I? wah ha ha...

Interestingly enough, just looked at the BO for Presumed Innocent. Only $86 domestic, but $135 worldwide! in 1990...not great, but way better than i had remembered. maybe Dave's prediction is way off...people love their thrillers...

There's another title that I am surprised no one has mentioned so far that is very relevent here: THE NAME OF THE ROSE.

A true international bestseller (and one of Eco's most accessible books), the R-rated medival monastery-set thriller grossed $77M in 1986 dollars. 90% of that money came from overseas where the book was more of a hit.

Here's what I think is going to be ironically funny a year from now: when Poland starts making references like he does now to the box office phenomenon of GREEK WEDDING and PASSION/CHRIST to DA CODE when talking about slumps or summer BO previews.

Does anyone else think that the only reason he doesn't just go "You know, in light of all of the factors you bloggers have raised, $135M is a very improbably number.." is that he simple wants to the bragging rights if it turns out to be true? For him the downside of being wrong is simply having to shrug and go "What can I say, based on blah, blah, blah..." Smart move, but not very honest.

I could understand if he was hedging around $150-175M. Even with all the factors that others and myself have pointed out, I still hesitate to say $200M. That May 19th date bothers me, for two reasons.

Number one is that it is in the middle of the summer's first pre-ordained blockbusters MI:3 and X-MEN 3. Hell, I think POSIDEON will probably bleed off some of the older audience curious to see an update of a film they remember (I begrudgingly admit that the trailer looks much better that I thought it might). Seems Howard didn't learn his lesson last year about opening adult-targeted films too early in the summer. There's alot of people who will go see something more "mature" but who still like their summer fluff. Wait until late July/early August when "Superhero-fatigue" sets in. Just think of all the Shyamalan films that have reaped profits this way. Outside of the Will Farrell NASCAR comedy TALLADEGA NIGHTS, there's nothing in August that has that sort of mass appeal.

Second is that more time is needed for the paperback-driven interest to hit critical mass, carried in countless beach and pool bags. Right now, they will mostly be spurring DVD sales as the film opens before summer vacations start.

But overseas, I am much more confident that getting past $350M is doable, for a combined worldwide haul of at least half a billion.

What's missing in the Da Vinci discussion is the question of religion. How are religious groups going to respond to this? Reports coming say that some churches will feature sermons where they debunk stuff in the movie. But will this massive group check out a film that concerns their beliefs? Or will they protest it or just boycott? My guess is that many will still go for references to their faith and enjoyment of religious spectacle as I gather most Christians can separate fictional, fantasy entertainment from what they really believe. And it makes a good conversation piece that can appeal to a younger generation.

I thought several posters (this topic is running on two seperate threads) had mentioned the religious angle.

Especially in the US I think it will be a factor. I don't see any serious protest or boycott here as the film attacks a secret organization of faith within a church that is hiding a religious truth from us and not that church or religion itself.

I am wondering how long it will be before someone calls it a "Post 9/11 Religious Film," where the shadowy, paranoia-inducing nature of dogma-based terrorism makes people more accepting of conspiracy theories within respected institutions.

I think Da Vinci implicates more than just Opus Dei. It suggests that the foundation of Christianity was tampered with throughout history. But I don't think that should realistically keep people from the box office. Even as its revisionist theories are somewhat threatening, I think it can also be a validating experience for religious people who complain that movies don't engage ideas that are important to them.

What it comes down to is if religion gave the movie its blessing, it would hit $200 m in its sleep.

^^But that's not the case; the Catholic Church is demanding a disclaimer up front that the movie is completely fictional. I don't think religious people tend to like this kind of religiously-oriented movie, as others can testify.

But I think as all the Da Vinci spin offs attest to, it's getting people interested in the subject and is stirring real interest in rather obscure subject matter. Churches should definitely recognize the positives of that kind of dialogue, and I think the Sony should try to reach out to the religious audience (they already have put up a discussion site) and definitely put up the disclaimer even if it destroys Brown's self-promotion of it as being factual. I guess in a way I'm baiting our friend...what do you think, sir?

"Seems Howard didn't learn his lesson last year about opening adult-targeted films too early in the summer."

I don't think it's a valid comparison. CINDERELLA was a biopic and came across as a bit of a downer (which it certainly was in its first 45 minutes), whereas DaVINCI is being sold first and foremost as an action-thriller, plus Hanks is a much bigger (and better-liked) star than Crowe--and he hasn't thrown a phone at anyone lately.

I think that comparing DA CODE to the misadventure of opening "FIST BISCUIT" at the start of last summer is more than valid. The faulty reasoning behind that fiasco was "counter-programming" of serious adult fare against summer fluff. It didn't work and I would argue that it is further proof that the prime release window for such films is later in summer when most families take summer vacation, that way you get not only filmgoers having "Superhero Fatigue" but also those on vacation ready to do something "grown-up" while the kids do their thing.

DA VINCI is actually twice as bad from that perspective as it has it's feet in both camps of being a thriller and a film for more mature audiences. Sure, fans of the book (those not put off by what apparently many feel is bad casting) and those who find films like MI:3 and X-Men silly child stuff will welcome it, but what of the rest? To hit $200M it has to appeal to a more mass audience.

Hell, moving it a few weeks into June would have made more sense as there's really only CARS between X-MEN and SUPERMAN when it comes to high profile summer popcorn films.

Also, Hanks has cooled so much in the last couple of years and been in so many misfires or underperformers that I have to agree with Poland that he has slipped from being mega-star back to just being a star. This pattern he has found himself in since 2000 of his films coming out every two years has not been helped by the less than spectacular impact those films have had.

If you dismiss ROAD TO PERDITION (which made $104M in US), the last time he was in a film whose numbers were driven largely on the basis of Tom Hanks being in it was CASTAWAY. I think this is something Sony believes as well, as they are not so far using "Tom Hanks" the brand to sell the movie. Audiences are fickle and when you deny them an actor in they type of role they have come to enjoy them most in, the "must-see" factor is going to cool off.

Hanks works best as decent, likeable everyday guys whether it's in comedy (SLEEPLESS, TERMINAL, CATCH ME) or more dramatic ones (RYAN, GREEN MILE, CASTAWAY or APOLLO 13). Long haired Harvard professors specializing in "Religious Symbology" is not that type of role. Mind you, I'm not making any comment on Hanks' ability to play these roles. I'm just pointing out the obvious nature of the public's desire to see certain actors in certain roles.

I also think box office performances of both LADYKILLERS and TERMINAL show that Hanks' heat has died considerably of late (both failed to reach the $100M mark that had become routine for Hanks). No, I think for the film to reach $200M it will come down to the simple fact that the film is good enough to generate great word of mouth as last year's CRASH did.

It better do better than that, since Crash topped out around $55m, which is what they're going to hope for Da Vinci's opening weekend.

Well, when you consider the advertising and release pattern, $55M is rather impressive number for the film

But I mentioned CRASH as it was, IMHO, the film with the best word of mouth last year (a film that I am not a big fan of). One that not only drove box office and DVD sales, but was the single biggest factor behind its win for best picture. Over and over, I either overheard someone talking the film up with other or talking it up with me. BROKBACK was always an obligation, like assigned reading for COMP 201 whereas CRASH was the book that your girlfriend gave you breathlessly with a "You HAVE to read this!" (like "9 1/2 Weeks" or "White Palace" were back in my day).

Should DA CODE manage to engender that, then it has a shot at being Hanks' first $200M since CASTAWAY.

I agree that Hanks playing somewhat against type will not help the film a great deal. But that's smart since the selling point is the story. I wouldn't be surprised if some Amelie lovers wanted to see Audrey in English. But other than that, the story about the Holy Grail is in fact the Holy Grail.

Let's not forget many many people who have avoided the hype and the book, who may want to come into the movie fresh just to find out what the hoopla is all about (or at least be done with it so they can enter into watercooler discussions).

Imagine how much better Crash could have done if it had actually been a good movie!

lol, good one Jeff. Just imagine!

On the advertising side of things I hate the trailers, but like the poster. I think marketing the movie on the Mona Lisa is great. You have TOM HANKS and what do u plaster on billboards? A yonks old painting of a woman who smiles ever-so-slightly. I like it when movies do that sort of thing.

I haven't read the book, don't want to. I won't go and spend my $ on it and hope that you won't either. It's heresy!! Dan Brown claims to be a Christian, but no true Christian would defile the Bible in this way. I would like to get involved with a protest or a group of True Christians that would be willing to post ourselves outside the theaters with literature of the truth. Any Takers?

Merlin

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

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: