The Hot Blog

I'm not sure about Disney's number (though it is all a gamble right now - and this number is as correct as any).

I just think that the combination of Pirates (which has amazing goodwill from the first movie) and Cars (which is starting to pick up some good reviews) could blow the doors off this summer. Anything else Disney finds will just be gravy.

Wow. Could New Line destroy the goodwill from the Lord of the Rings films any quicker?

Hope they invested some of that money in something other than shitty films.

I think "goodwill" is one of the most overused words around here. And it's such a nebulous concept.

Did New Line earn any goodwill from LOTR?

Anyone else want to watch Bandidas? That movie seems to be a lot of fun.

When His Dark Materials comes out, New Line will be counting on fond memories of LOTR.

Step Up can be a hit in two easy steps, one which it's too late to do if hasn't been done already:

1. A trailer MUST be attached to every DVD Disney sells of inexplicable phenom "High School Musical."
2. Release "Stick It" on DVD in early August, and bundle with free ticket.

I also think you're way low on Fox. Garfield looks horrid, but'll do decent bank, Super Ex-Girlfriend strikes me as the paradigm of a late July sleeper, especially if Superman primes the pump right, and Devil Wears Prada would seem to be a potential hit, at least based on book sales and Streep getting a chance to play ultra-bitch.

I've never read His Dark Materials. Are they close in popularity to LOTR or Harry Potter?

I love Meryl Streep, Matt, but have you seen her box office history?

$100 million doemstic grossers as star? Zero.
$50 million doemstic grossers as star in the last decade? Zero.

The Hours did $47 million... thanks to the Oscar push.
The Manchurian Candidate did $66 million... with Denzel.
Afer those, One True Thing... $23 million. And that number repeats on Prime and Adaptation, both with significant co-stars.

I think Garfield will do around $60 million. Super Ex could come on. But Prada has almost no chance of passing $30 million.

I've been hearing very good response from people in relation to the Super Ex Girlfriend trailer.

While I'm not saying The Devil Wears Prada is gonna be huge, I think it has the potential to get respectible numbers. Especially if there's some form of Oprah push or something.

Anyway, your numbers seem pretty solid I suppose. Although I don't get the Monster House love.

I also have wondered about the Monster House love. It looks like the weak sister in a summer filled with Cars, Over the Hedge, the Garfield sequel and Ant Bully. DP, what do you know that you're not telling us about this movie?

Devil Wears Prada has been getting lots of good buzz, from what I've been hearing.

As an elementary school teacher, I can tell you the kids were excited about exactly two summer movies last week: "X-Men 3" and "Monster House."

They couldn't have care any less about "Superman Returns." And, oddly enough - those I'm sure this will change, "Cars" was completely off their radar screen.

I only read the first His Dark Materials book. It was OK but not good enough to inspre me to continue reading the series. My guess is it's going to be a very tough sell.

What I know about His Dark Materials is that the author (Pullman?) said the Narnia books are evil and fascistic and the worst thing in history. He said that when Lion, Witch, etc. opened last year. I'm sure that's the kind of publicity New Line wants. They probably have guys with tranquilizer guns standing by in case he opens his mouth again. Or maybe just regular guns.

I'm not saying Prada at 100M, but a 50-60M take wouldn't surprise me at all. What intrigues me is the kind of odd trailer strategy they've followed--it's not a "joke, joke, joke" summary trailer, but simply a scene from the movie, which I think may help with those audiences who (somewhat rightly) believe that a trailer "ruins all the good parts" of a movie.

I too think PRADA could be a sleeper. Streep may not be big B.O., but Hathaway has at least two $100 million hits under her belt. Besides, who were the draws in THE NOTEBOOK?

I posted this on Anne Thompson's blog (Risky Biz) so I thought I should also post it here. Alan Green

Anne and David

You know, I couldn't care less about DVC. I didn't read the book and I don't like that type of movie. But, I know enough to know what I think doesn't really matter. DVC may approach a billion dollars in worldwide grosses (despite the fact that I did not see it), and that’s without DVD dollars. That there will be a sequel can’t be debated. The public and the studio want it. Who will direct or star in it is another question.

So, why did so many people see this movie? We were told by the Cannes press that DVC was plodding at best. Was it because Ron Howard directed? Because Tom Hanks was in it? Give me a break. It was because the book the movie is based on sold 60 million copies. The fan base for this movie is gargantuan. People went to see this movie because they wanted to – because they liked the book.

Bruce Willis announced at Cannes that a Die Hard 4 is in pre-production. What makes that franchise a hit? The novel? No such thing. It’s Bruce Willis fighting the bad guys that people want to see. So, switching out Bruce for another actor would be ‘less than desirable’ for Die Hard 4. But, not so with DVC – Hanks and Tautou may have been appealing elements of the movie but they are not the reason people went to see it. Switch them out for the sequel and you will still have a huge hit. If Howard takes a pass, you still have a hit. Can you imagine someone saying, “Oh, no. I’m not seeing this movie because Ron what’s-his-name didn’t direct it.” Besides, Grazer is capable of producing a movie that Howard does not direct, is he not? I don’t think Grazer would take a pass – he may have looked shell-shocked at Cannes but I think this was sympathetic – in his heart he was all, “Yes! Score!” Howard, yeah – he was shell-shocked for real – but Grazer is ready to start the sequel.

Now, back to money. Hanks has enough of it and he’s not the kind of person to subject himself to more ridicule in order to secure a paycheck. His place in the industry is almost unshakeable. Tautou is up and coming and would probably seize the opportunity to become A-list. So, switch out Hanks? Why not? Nobody would notice. Switch out Tautou – no way, everybody would notice (but, it wouldn’t make a difference at the box office, and therein lies the rub).

It doesn’t matter what I think. What matters is what the public wants. So, I agree with you both. The sequel will be made, and it will be made with or without any or all of the principals from the first movie. If none of the same people return for the sequel a lot of fans will find it a criminal trespass and will refuse to see the movie. But, that won’t make any difference. The sequel will make gobs of money despite their protests, despite the fact that I won’t see it, and no matter who directs or stars in it.

Kim Masters is not out of line suggesting that Howard and Hanks may not return for the sequel. After all, all she said was there is no deal in place at this time. (I don’t think she suggested that Grazer or Imagine would not be involved). Of course Pascal would assure us that Ron and Tom will return for the next movie – telling us everything is status quo is a reflex for an executive – but it doesn’t necessarily mean anything. The only thing that counts is the fact that the book sold 60 million copies and the public wants another flick. Who stars in or directs the sequel won’t even register.

Actually, "Die Hard" was based on a novel - "Nothing Lasts Forever," by Roderick Thorp. Of course, it had nothing to do with the film being a hit, so your point is the same.

Appreciate the post... but think you put it on the wrong entry, Alan...

The reason I am high on Monster House is that I think it works more broadly than any of the other animation hitting the market.

Cars is very boy and kinda young. (How old are you when you stop obsessing on Thomas The Tank Engine?)

Over The Hedge is already fading.

Ant Bully barely exists yet.

Garfield is a niche.

Monster House seems ready to go boy/girl, still fun for teens, not irritating to adults.

The Goonies was a surprise #4 in 1985 and is now a hot cult movie. This movie reminds me of an animated version of that vibe... very Donner... more so than Superman Returns... Burton Light (not Lite). Peopel want to have fun in the summer. Pirates wil be huge! And I think Monster House can be the top kids choice of the summer with some significant crossover.

But I have not seen the complete film... could always be wrong.

That makes sense, except for "not irritating to adults"...it looks about as irritating as Garfield to me. But I don't have kids either.

Cars will appeal to adults, especially I suspect to those who like automobiles.

And if there's one thing we know about Americans, we like automobiles. (Hey, this sounds like an opening for Chucky in Jersey to talk about propaganda).

We like automobiles, but do we really like movies about automobiles? Recent history suggests not.

It's also going to be a lot harder to connect to the characters in Cars than in any other Pixar movie... I mean, they're cars, fer chrissake.

Cars are harder to relate to than bugs or fish?

I think many people have "relationships" with their cars...giving them names, decorating them, having fond memories of them, etc.

What's creepy though is that the cars are watching other cars race...i thought it would at least try to connect it to the human world as in Toy Story.

Yes, I think cars are harder to relate to than bugs or fish. A car is not a living organism.

And yes, if anyone can pull it off, it's the Pixar crew. But nothing I've seen of "Cars" makes me think it'll be up to par.

Pixar still has the best record of quality in the business, but they peaked with "Monsters, Inc." and have been on a slight decline since "Toy Story 2."

How does that work, since Toy Story 2 was before Monsters Inc.?
I still disagree with you on the cars thing...you don't get inside a fish every day and go around town and interact with people inside of other fish. But that's just my opinion.

Huh. My mistake, I thought "Monsters" came first. But that works even better for my point, which is that it's mostly been downhill since "Monsters."

The car thing is, as you say, probably opinion. I've just never had any sort of emotional connection with a car-- I appreciate my car, I have fond memories of times in it, but the car itself? It's inanimate metal.

My expectations might be different if the design of the cars were different. As it is, the eyes-for-windshields and especially the cars' mouths are goofy and jarring.

The cars do look too much like those claymation Chevron car commercials.

'die hard' was based on a novel? hmm. sorry i posted in the wrong entry, but it's just as relevant here as anywhere.

ag

Sample conversation with my best friend when we were at the movies recently upon seeing the big display for Cars:

Me: I wanna see that!
My Friend: You're kidding right? That's looks like a silly kids movie.
Me: But it's Pixar!
My Friend: Oh! We have to see it then.

Then we saw "She's the Man" and the world fell off it's axis because it wasn't that bad.

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: