The Hot Blog

"With due respect to Sony marketing, do you really think that the Spider-Man 3 campaign was why that was the previous top opener of all time?"

But...

"Kris... opening weekend numbers don't prove shit about anything but marketing."

?

Also, I think there is something to be said for "rallying the base," just as it is in politics. And no one did that better than 42 Entertainment this year.

I'm not calling "The Dark Knight" the marketing success of the year, or anything. But I think due credit isn't being applied fairly.

I do have to side with Kris on this one, if for no other reason than The Dark Knight made a hundred million more dollars on opening weekend than Batman Begins. So if just having the character is such a marketing slam-dunk, then why did Batman Begins only gross a third of what The Dark Knight did on opening weekend? I don't remember Batman Begins being the DVD behemoth that something like Austin Powers was, which might help explain the disparity and I don't think seeing Heath Ledger's last film was a primary concern for most folks.

So, I'm assuming it had to do with the marketing and those "Why so Serious" ads that have no entered the lexicon. I still haven't seen The Dark Knight (shriek! gasp! I know, I know), so I don't really have any bias one way or another.

It seems like these are two strong efforts in two different arenas, the mega-spectacular and the second-tier musical. Just like you wouldn't compare the marketing of Wanted with the marketing for The Wackness. Trying to heirarchize 'marketing efforts' like this seems so incredibly subjective that I don't see any way to compare them.

I was having a discussion earlier today with people who wondered how much of Mamma Mia's gross this w/e was based off people who wanted to go to Dark Knight and couldn't get in.

I could see why you'd have Iron Man #1. It definitely had awareness outside of a fan base. It really created something out of nothing, as I don't believe there was anything like an animated series or appearance in any other bigger comic book films. The opening was really astonishing. There was though a comic that it was based on, so I guess I can't say it was out of thin air. I just know there were a sizeable chunk of non-comic book movie going people out on opening w/e.

Not that Kung Fu Panda didn't play or open well, it's still Dreamworks ani. Not that they're ones to be mistaken w/Disney or Pixar and parents aren't necessarily seeing the name as a seal of approval, but couldn't they just tack Panda posters directly over the Shrek or Madagascar posters and sit back and watch the lines form? They prolly have Nickelodeon programmed into the FedEx computer. They just print the labels, drop the :30 sec spot into the envelope then show up with stickers and key chains right as school lets out.

I think Uni spent wisely on Wanted. The trailer, maybe all of 10 seconds, that they debuted during the Super Bowl that had Jolie spinning her car around and picking up dude before he got smashed by the truck was a great attention grabber and curiosity builder. It's a movie that didn't have the three game units under it's belt like Tomb Raider. And while Mr & Mrs Smith opened and played well, it was sold more as a rom com w/action as opposed to an action w/rom com. So in a sense, Jolie was shown in a dif light, though nothing deemed a stretch considering previous work.

The play's success def helped Mamma Mia. Hairspray had a considerably bigger cast, so I'd have to put the efforts in the top 5. It was a good move to put it opposite Dark Knight though I doubt when the date was set anyone had any idea just how dark Dark Knight would be. They also didn't oversell the counter marketing which I think was commendable. (at least none that I saw).

Hellboy I think needs more props. Reviews by both critics and fan base for the first one were pretty unforgiving. It presented itself as one of spectacle and obviously attracted an audience that didn't bother to see the first.

Wall-E, Indy and Zohan were all $40M+ opens guarantee, just add water, so none get my vote. Hancock kinda the same. Get Smart did nothing to impress me numbers or marketing wise but if you compare it to The Love Guru it just proves only death and taxes are certainties in the life.

Dark Knight was the thoroughbred WB wisely decided to just let run. They didn't pull back too much from using Ledger in mktg and they didn't suggestively parade him around like couple of buttons undone on the top of a blouse and let suggestion take its course. The argument against it being in the top 5 or even number one is like sports writers who won't vote a coach of pre-season #1 team coach of the year after the team wins the championship because it just did what it was supposed to do. Yes, Dark Knight was supposed to open big and had on paper all the makings of a champion but $155M is still the '95 Huskers, the '96 Bulls or '99 Yankees. WB managed to make it's story move from the ent section to the business & front page. Studios try to do this w/faux "buzz" all the time but this time it worked.

Dark Knight's bo performance is one for the ages because unlike Mamma Mia, which will soon make a great trivia question, it will be remembered for some time to come.

4 Best Marketing:

*Iron Man for the reasons you said.

*Kung Fu Panda right behind...Paramount/Dreamworks took a huge risk overplaying their hand, in my opinion by revving up their ad campaign LAST NOVEMBER(!) in AMC theatres, with the whole silence your cell-phone campaign. Of course they had to raise awareness, but I thought they'd gone into overkill and that people would begin to groan everytime they saw the ads. Shows how wrong I am. Overly aggressive paid off BIG time.

*What Happens in Vegas for having the balls to be low-key and emerge as the ONLY movie this summer playing solely on the appeal of their lead actors (other than Made of Honor) and turning a cheapo/crappy/generic rom-com into a $200 million worldwide hit

*Then Mamma Mia

4 Worse:

*Meet Dave for it's schizophrenia

*Space Chimps for its almost total lack of campaign. Why not just dump straight-to-DVD?

*Love Guru for one of the worst trailers in modern history.

*Narnia for doing the opposite of what worked the first time around...scaring kids and parents away.

I am with Triple on this one. Mamma Mia will go down as history as this TDK's PINK CADILLAC, which opened against The Last Crusade close to 20 years ago. So it had a good weekend, but TDK is a one of a kind thing on a lot of levels.

It really does represent (Hellboy to a similar extent) that films can have legs far outside of theatres. Batman Begins had enough legs for the last three years, that it got to more people in that time then it did during all of theatrical.

It got to people in such a phenomenal way, that they were eagerly awaiting this weekend. Be it for the Joker, be it the months of viral marketing, or the months of straight up marketing. The people were ready.

So you have to go with the rarity in life event over the musical counter-programming. This is just the way it is.

Placing Batman on the Spider-Man playing field simply doesn't work. Compare the 2004 Spider-Man 2 to the 2005 Batman Begins. Clearly, something has happened in-between, and the marketing can take credit. They hit every last note that was missed on Batman Begins, and now the payoff is flooding in.

Hang on, this isn't necessarily a once-in-a-lifetime thing here. It's an opening that's a few million more than the last record holder, also a PG-13 comic book movie that people flocked to because they loved the previous installment. And there'll be another record-breaker next year or the year after that or something.

It's still a rarity, Jeff. Happening once a year is a rarity. Nevertheless, does anything next year really look like it will motivate everyone to go see it on the opening weekend?

I know we are a year out, but I am really not sold on anything next. Especially freakin Avatar. If I wanted Thundercats. I would watch THUNDERCATS!

What I should have added is this: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN will most likely open during the week. Which would be the flick that SHOULD have the most solid chance. Nevertheless, I think this record is solid until Tony Stark puts on his suit again, then it falls once Bruce puts on his again.

You aren't sold on any of those movies because they haven't released trailers or footage or anything yet.

Which Bruce?

I had to google "Revenge of the Fallen" to know what you were talking about. Transformers 2 would have sufficed.

I don't think there's any question Transformers will top it IF they want it and don't open it Thursday. I don't see why they would open midweek...T2 is a late June release not a July 4 release.

Are we so blase with opening weekend records that it's "no question" TRANSFORMERS 2 will break the current one?

Of course there's a question about that. Everyone always pegs the next film to break a record, and usually they're wrong.

It's Revenge of the Fallen. He's the main bad guy. He deserves some dap!

Again, it has nothing to do with trailers as much as location. It may be speculation, but this is the point. I am speculating it holds until Tony Stark puts on the suit again 2010.

And by Bruce he meant Bruce Wayne. Right?

"with a 59 year old woman in the lead, playing comedy which she rarely has done to financial success"

I'd say the success of The Devil Wears Prada, a movie people still talk about, was a big factor actually. And, just to be an ABBA stickler, their music was big 30 years ago, not 20.

IO, the difference between Pink Cadillac and Mamma Mia! is that the former debuted with $4mil and barely eked out barely $12mil. I'm not that knowledgeable about American inflation, but I can't imagine that is at all similar to Mamma Mia!, which is a legitimate hit in it's own right. It's probably the quietest $28mil opening weekend ever, but it will sufficiently line the studios' coffers when you consider it had such a low budget ($50mil - looks cheaper though) and that it's already made over $100mil worldwide. So, yeah, I don't think it's fair to compare it to a dodgy Clint Eastwood movie that barely anyone remembers. It may not be a great movie, but it's a hit unlike so many counter programming over the years.

That gives Meryl two counter programming hits in three years, which I find interesting actually.

Scrap one of those "barely"s

1) Counterprogramming
2) Everyone's seen WALL-E and Hancock once already.
3) Sell outs of DK and boyfriends NOT wanting to see Space Chimps.

I think Mama Mia is a bigger hit than it looks

I will always be amazed by the marketing campaign for TEREBITHIA which got the youngsters and families out. But it might not be relevant to this thread since I can;t remember when it was released (i.e. time of year) and I am too lazy to look it up. It was false advertizing (I read the book and I knew it was) yet I wasn't annoyed by that...it was a well done movie.

spidey3 must owe alot to the marketing since the movie was not All That.

the word of mouth on TDK...judging from the imdb rating it will be pulling in the punters for a long time...who knows, it could do an Austin Powers and equal or best its first week.

Yes, Camel, that Bruce. Now if we want to talk inflation and the number of screens. I would say it's CLOSE to applicable between Cadillac and Mamma Mia. Close being the operative term.

While it's no small feat to get this must of a gross on against a JUGGERNAUT like TDK. I really cannot buy the line that getting that many people into the theatres to see Mamma Mia is really all that much of an achievement.

If we want to rank achievements. How about Pixar/Disney getting people to come out and see an animated film with TWO ROBOT LEADS? That's impressive.

Mamma Mia is a musical based around music that is 30 years old, stars a bunch of people over 50 and isn't very good. I'd say $28mil for that is quite an achievement when it was up against the highest grossing first weekend of all time.

And there's no way people who couldn't get in to a session of The Dark Knight ended up buying tickets for Mamma Mia! so we can't use that as an excuse.

Something interesting about TDK having this massive opening is that it was counter to the other films in the franchise that did so well, opting for a mid-July release instead of the traditional third week of June.

1) ABBA's music is timeless.

2) Mamma Mia! is a big freakin musical. It has toured the world a few times. So I am thinking it had a few fans waiting to see it.

3) Robots. Leads. Who do not speak for most of the movie. That's impressive.

I think you could slap the Pixar name on pretty much anything, tout it as being from the creators of Toy Story, and it would have a huge opening.

They got people to go see a movie about a rat in Paris, who cooks a dish many of the public can't even pronounce properly, last year. Robots and outer space is a snap after that.

Dave, I have to disagree with you about whether Warners hid the "darkness" in this film - sorry, they didn't.

I guess this puts you in the IOIOIO camp - he actually believed that Warners was looking to draw kids to this movie. Northing about the marketing really indicated that - hell, the first trailer featured Caine's voiceover talking about how the Joker "wanted to watch the world burn." Joker's creepy mug was all over the posters, everywhere. And the final poster showed Batman in front of a burning building, with the tagline, "Welcome to a World Without Rules."

This had to be one of the most aggressively non-kid friendly marketing campaigns I have ever seen for such a major movie - already relayed this to IOIOIOI, but Warners worked very hard to avoid a another Batman Returns word-of-mouth debacle with this one - they marketed this as a movie for adults and when the early reviews and praise for Heath Ledger started to pour in, I feel that they deliberately went for something bigger - a prestige blockbuster like Gladiator, Saving Private Ryan, Lord of the the Rings - big box office, but not too big at the expense of prestige and possible Oscar nods.

Seems to me that they were willing to maybe give up some of that early domestic box office for more revenue in the fall - there is now little doubt in my mind that The Dark Knight will probably be the biggest Blu-Ray seller ever and for a long time, now. They'll start sales in the late fall and weeks will follow with Ledger getting more and more critic's prizes - THAT is where Warners will make the true killing.

Not saying it's going to get 10 nominations or a Best Picture nod, but who knows? My pseudo-clarvoyance is telling me that Warners knew what they had, with this movie, and ran with it - you can give up kids, toys, and happy meals if you can get prestige and DVD/Blu Ray sales in exchange.

It was a great marketing campaign that hit all of the right sweet spots - they deserve enormous credit - and they probably spent a ton, too.

Geoff is correct. Three different teaser posters had blood smeared on brick, glass, and playing cards. The marketing was dark.

A few cereal commercials with The Dark Knight crossover toys packed inside aired on Nickelodeon. The toys are selling out to both geeks and children. However, Warner Brothers didn't go for a North American Burger King tie-in, instead only going with that deal overseas in Europe.

Dark Knight comes to DVD & Blu-Ray December 9th. Holiday sales are GO!

Geoff: I knew this movie clicked with the kids when I walked by the toy isle, and notice those piece of crap toys were selling like hotcakes. The kids were as psyched about this flick as most adults.

Yes, it's a dark, and little kids should not be dragged to it. Especially the poor little girls that had to sit through it last night in the screening I was watching. Seriously, those kids should have gone and seen Mamma Mia.

Nevertheless, you do not get this number unless all FOUR OF THE FREAKIN QUADRANTS came out in force to see it. Do not doubt the big dog Geoff. Woof Woof :D!

LYT's corect. Selling a movie with a French name about cooking is much harder than selling one about cute robots any day. And the lack of dialogue is a much bigger issue for older people (teen and up) than it is for little kids.

IOIOIOIO, obviously when you get to grosses, this big, it has to include all four quadrants, including kids, but you cannot deny that Warners did not MARKET this thing to kids. Ok, so what if there were some toys made? Hell, the Terminator and Alien movies also had toy lines.

Warners is trying to succeed at what Sony failed at with Spiderman 2, late in the game, in 2004 - they thought they had a shot at Oscar nods with all of the rave reviews and started making that the focal point of campaign for the DVD campaign, but it was just too late. It's Spiderman and a Spiderman can only do a what a spider can.

Warners was ahead of the curve on this one, with early Ledger hype and serious critical buzz - they were NEVER hiding this thing from critics and I would highly doubt any kind of embargo. They are going for the gold with this one and want it all - is this really going to get a Best Picture nomination? Probably not.

But Tofu, you obviously know more than I do - can't believe they already have a date. Blu Ray and DVD sales are going to be huge, bigger than usual, with Ledger garnering lots of critic's awards.

IOIOIOI, my point is that Happy Meals and critic's prizes usually don't go hand-in-hand - I think Warners made a choice for the latter and it was probably a smart business decision. This movie was never going to be huge with the kids, although, I would not be suprised if come Halloween, the Joker is the most popular home-made costume for pre-teens.

Yeah, I am "so blase'" about this record now, especially because frontloading has increased so spectacularly the last few years. The record is as close to meaningless as you can get....the overall $250 million box office breaking Dead Man's Chest $218 million is much more significant, but it's not a sexy record so you don't get people jumping up and down and flapping their arms hysterically over it.

If Spiderman 3 can hold the record for largest opening weekend, any piece of crap sequal can. Transformers 2 is the biggest movie next summer. Most analysts at the time thought the FIRST one would have topped Spiderman 3's record if it had not opened on Wednesday. And consider sequals nowadays are 99% likely to be more front-loaded than the movies they're succeeding, at least if they're popular, never mind good, (Transformers was the top selling DVD of last year...ahead of Spider Pirates and Shrek despite lower domestic BO) then there, in my mind, is almost no chance Transformers 2 wouldn't break it...easily....if it opens on Friday.

Ethan: it's not a flashy record, but the Dark Knight will be in good company. If it ties that record from DMC. I am just curious if David will keep us up to date on the BAT's weekly grosses like he did with The Dead Man's Chest? Here's hopin because that week made for a fun read.

Pixar marketing is easy street thanks to the brand name. I don't know why one would assume it would be difficult to market a movie with cute robot characters as opposed to cute bugs or cute monsters.

hey, i'm just waiting for pixar to make a single film with a female protagonist...

(actually, tony scott's piece on msn a while back prompted a discussion on this very subject at work; my (male) colleague and good friend suggested that perhaps pixar assumes that while girls/women are accostemed to and can relate to male lead characters due to our cultural conditioning, boys and men might be less likely to relate to a female protagonist, thus making a female the lead character less financially viable. i don't want to believe that's true, it's to depressing, but pixar's apparent lack of balance does sort of smack of the old-fashioned patriarchal notion of females as interesting supporting characters to the male lead. what does anyone reckon, why hasn't pixar done a great girl's story a la 'spirited away'? oversight or conspiracy or just, as the joker would say, a koinkydink?)

i have a dream: that one day i'll post a comment on this blog without any typos or booboos (somewhat less ambitious than martin luther king jr's dream, i know, but a girl has to start somewhere)

I think that's probably correct, Leah, although I would assume it's more of an oversight on Pixar's part than anything conscious. I notice, though, that two of the next non-Pixar Disney animated films on the horizon are The Princess and the Frog and Rapunzel. Not exactly Mulan, but it's something.

This was the best Rapunzel (could only find it in Deutsch): http://mitglied.lycos.de/mad_2/rapunzel.html

Yeah, I don't think the PINK CADILLAC comparison is apt at all as while obviously not as big of one as Batman, MAMMA MIA! is an established brand and a powerful one at that (not even factoring in ABBA)--just not in the same circles or as "mass media friendly" as Batman. I think the big difference between this and those other mentioned post-CHICAGO musical adaptations is that MM! is still very much at its peak. PHANTOM, RENT, PRODUCERS had their most opportune movie striking period passed, and even HAIRSPRAY was definitely on the decline when the movie came out last year. MM! is still being translated and opened in new territories, two touring companies still going in addition to Broadway, plus the longtime Vegas production was supposed to close early this year but keeps on getting extended. This all in mind, wouldn't be surprised to hear Universal finally ramping up the movie of WICKED soon or announce another stab at XANADU (with Amanda Seyfried attached to either or both).

Interesting, DP. I agree: Mama Mia's opening numbers in the face of TDK is quite impressive. And as you stated earlier, whatever TDK was going to get (or now did get), we knew it would be big as the Batman movies have always been successful openers (with Begins as the outlier). All this talk about TDK and marketing and the real marketing story is with Mia.

Also interesting your theory that marketing does nothing for a $150M opening. I guess the question is at what amount of an opening does marketing not affect (approaching $100M)? And the other point is if marketing cannot help a $150M opener it can certainly hurt, right? If a movie is far below expectations. I would offer up Speed Racer as an example.

I realize my example of Speed Racer suggested they should have had a $150M opening. I didn't mean that, only that Speed Racer was far below what they should have or probably could have earned.

One canny element of the "TDK" marketing was making use of the Nolan-shooting-in-IMAX thing by going for more critics' screenings at IMAX theaters. I'm sure that led to an increase in "see it at IMAX" recommendations and an attendant box office goose, since some of those theaters were showing it 'round the clock at their higher ticket prices.

If they announce a remake of XANADU, you will see four horsemen ride in over the Hollywood sign and reduce this town to a burned out cinder.

Batman Begins made a hair over 200 million in its entire theatrical run.

The Dark Knight made 150 million in the first weekend.

I don't know how you call anything else this summer a bigger marketing success.

Iron Man perhaps, taking a second tier comic character and getting it to 300 million.

I remember people liking Batman Begins, but if you would have told me a Nolan helmed sequel would make 75% of Begins' total take in the first weekend, well, i would have accused you of huffing paint.

I dont think Mama Mia's marketing was anything special. I think a counter programming film like that would have made 20+ million if they had done nothing more than show Meryl Streep singing.

Oh wait, that's exactly what they did.

Dave, you're huffing paint on this one.

Marc Platt already announced that he is making the movie version of WICKED. also, a remake of JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR.
as far as the comments about good marketing for MAMMA MIA...are you kidding? it followed the same awkward path as most other recent musicals with a trailer in which no one is shown singing, little prior buzz (except USA TODAY, thanks to Susan Wyz..whatever), quiet build-up, no outreach to core audiences or group sales or any other novel approach in view of the nature of the product. the marketing departments for the studios are still full of 20somethings that don't really get musicals and are hard-pressed to come up with ways to sell them. on the other hand, musicals on stage make billions. the audience is there, they just have to approach their product in ways differently than the way they sell to teenage boys.

gee, i keep getting edited out.
let's try this again...

Marc Platt already announced that he is making the movie version of WICKED. also, a remake of JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR.
as far as the comments about good marketing for MAMMA MIA...are you kidding? it followed the same awkward path as most other recent musicals with a trailer in which no one is shown singing, little prior buzz (except USA TODAY, thanks to Susan Wyz..whatever), quiet build-up, no outreach to core audiences or group sales or any other novel approach in view of the nature of the product. the marketing departments for the studios are still full of 20somethings that don't really get musicals and are hard-pressed to come up with ways to sell them. on the other hand, musicals on stage make billions. the audience is there, they just have to approach their product in ways differently than the way they sell to teenage boys.

DreamWorks moved its "Kung Fu Panda" cell phone reminder from AMC to Carmike Cinemas well before the movie opened. Ethan wouldn't have noticed because Carmike isn't in NYC/LA/Chicago or most big cities.

i guess it's something, jeff, but rehashing old fairy tales (and likely made 'for girls', but that's just a cynical guess) isn't exactly the fresh, innovative and amazing fare offered up by pixar, who tend to make intelligent stories that work on some level for both children and adults. i hope someone over there at pixar realises the error of their ways! (i'm not holding my breath, tho, lest i die waiting for a great pixar heroine to save the day)

i'm not sure i buy the theory that boys won't dig a film with a female protagonist, as two of my son's all-time fave movies are 'spirited away' and 'whale rider', and he's a rough and tumble boy but roots for those girls unabashedly. a purely anecdotal observation of one small boy, tho, i know...not exactly a survey!

Boys are certainly going to be less interested in a princess movie than a Spirited Away. It's definitely an underserved market.

i'm not sure what you mean by 'underserved market', jeff, but thanks for taking an interest in the topic.

i guess my point is that a female protagonist in a pixar film ideally should be as common as a male lead in a pixar movie, movies marketed to families. a girl protagonist should not be considered a 'niche' marketed to girls whereas a male protagonist is for 'everyone', that would seem to be the problem with the current rationale (at least that's how it appears to me, i'm always thinking like a parent). the subtle sexism of it is actually a bit shocking in this supposedly enlightened 'non-sexist' era. as a parent i think a lack of female protagonists who aren't princesses or ballerinas or other such silliness is shortsighted and ultimately shortchanges both our boys and girls.

If girls are half the population and boys are half the population neither is a niche. Take turns. Boy protag. Girl protag. Dora the explorer was so hugely popular with boys and girls that most of my friends' kids told me the boys thought Diego was boring...

girls and boys can be the explorer, hero etc and many live action/drama movies reflect that I think.

Asian animation seems to have more female leaders/main characters than comics and cartoons coming out of the USA. Maybe it's just a perception but I read alot of asian comics.

MAMA MIA

I was just talking to some music production people. They think Mama Mia will take over the world! Well--it's because of the popularity of ABBA worldwide. They make the Beatles look unknown. Maybe its following will build and the opening weekend won't hurt its ability to have legs. Likely sell a gazillion DVDs as a result.

Every country I've been in (and that's alot) ABBA is a big deal across the generations. I wonder what the worldwide haul will be.

BLAH, BLAH, BORING CONVERSATION WHO GIVES A SHIT, GET OFF THE FUCKING INTERNET AND MAKE A FRIEND, MOTHERFUCKERS.

POT KETTLE BLACK BLAH BLAH BLAH LEXY

OK, LexG, give me your car keys. it's time for me to drive you home. And yeah, we can stop by Taco Bell on the way.

CRUNCH WRAP SON.

I don't even know who the FUCK sloanish is. Try making an impression.

Jeff: think about your comments for a moment. Folks have a long history of watching films with animated BUGS OR MONSTERS. The monsters and the bugs can show facial expression. While the robots are very fucking limited in what they can be shown to do. Heck, one could state all of Wall-E's actions could be held up to serious interpretation outside of the originally intended context.

So, again, selling a film to parents with screamin kids that revolve around a silent robot protagonist. Well, that took a lot of work even with a brand name.

On the whole lack of a female protagonist: Eve, Sally, Boo, and Jessie. Come on. They are almost CO-LEADS of those films. Forgetting Jessie is rather glaring to me.

The thing you also have to understand and you get this clue from the toy industry. Little boys -- the real driving force of most animated movies -- could give a crap about anything girlie or girlie related. So it may be hard to have a Pixar film with a straight up female protagonist, but it should happen some day. Hopefully.

And people have a long history of watching movies with robots in them too, IOI.
Jessie is a good character, but she's still the third lead after Buzz and Woody. Boo is a plot development, not a character.

Jeff: Boo is a character. The film does not end the way that it does without freakin BOO BEING MORE IMPORTANT THAN A PLOT DEVICE! Seriously... work with a brother.

Also... do not forget Nemo or a Bug's Life. They also have female co-leads in those films not to the degree of Eve, but they are in there.

You logic with the acceptance of Wall-E is rather mind-boggling. Your justifications can only be Threepio and Artoo, but they are a comedy team. While Wall-E revolves around inanimate objects carrying the emotional weight of the film. It's a different subtext, Jeff.

Your inability to even possibly see this point. Remains one of the reasons you and I have had... words... going on close to 4 years. Meet a brother half way sometimes. It would be appreciated.

Nemo had a worthy heroic lead but she has a mental problem which I doubt would have been done to a Boy character for goodness sake (transient global amnesia or short term memory loss as they put it). She was the buffoon of the movie & a funny one. But Hardly a role-model. And Mommy got killed by a barracuda. I loved the fish tank characters of which a few were female, but not leads--they served the same purpose as the circus bugs in a bug's life. The brainstorming freaks who help the protagonist in trouble.

A Bug's Life-I've seen in 60 times at least. let's look at the females...are they leads? I say no.

The protagonist was male. I am afraid it is all about Flik in this movie. he's an intelligent inventor but a "socially useful" fuck up which means as an ANT he is a failure. So the failure gets chucked out on his journey into the unknown; the journey of the hero. he is looking for heroes...he brings back buffoons to try to save the colony thinking they are heroes. they aren;t real heroes but with Flik's planning/ideas they become heroes and thus Flik becomes useful to his colony finally. So where are the female leads?

females:
the princess was an anal retentive helpless queenie--(Princess ata/ada?)...useless for most of the film. not much screen time. She yells & pouts & hovers.

Queen Mum (Phyllis Diller's voice) was basically an old pervert lady. "work that hand" Disgusting!

The only female who was smart enough to make a difference was the spider. She could have kicked more ass but had too little screen time.

The butterfly was like Thurston Howell's wife on Gilligan and thus a bit part.

Dot--she was a wee kid. her and her chums did something heroic but she was not a lead. She was important to the ending but again...little screen time.

I am trying to help a brother--A Bug's life is not a good example.

Dora the explorer, she's the best example there is for Be-all-you-can-be chicks in animation.

I loved Ice Age...but no females of any consequence.

At least Speed Racer 2008, live action as it was, updated Trixie and Moms to be more than the helpless gals they were in the 60s cartoon.

More Doras and Emily-the-Strange please is what i would say to animators/writers

I shouldn't be so hard on Dory. She was the feeling common sense character but...I fell like her role wasn't a lead but a catalyst to making the Dad a better man, like the mom in Cheaper by the Dozen (the old one not the new piece-o-turd one). But maybe I am being too hard.

"I don't even know who the FUCK sloanish is. Try making an impression."

That would require me to go on the internet and forget my friends as some surely have. BTW a 12 pack isn't an actual friend, LG.

I didn't say that marketing does nothing for a $150 million opening. What I say is that you can't maket a movie to a $150m opening.

It's the same as any special occurance. You can coach a kid to run faster... win races. But you can't make a kid the fastest person on earth by training. When you get to that level, it's 90% about the athelete. The coach can screw it up and get in the way... or can help and teach ways to do even better.

I would say that's what WB marketing did here. They took a thoroughbred that had one very good, but not record breaking race, and they let it run, they gave it a good jockey... but you can't cause this much of an event.

Sex & The City, yes, to the degree that it did so much better than expected in house, but it was also an existing brand.

Same was true of Transformers last summer. There was a big demand... bigger than I thought and bigger than the marketing.

Seriously... look at the Pirates 2 & 3 campaigns... and tell me how in control of the box office Disney was or even tried to be... or Shrek 3 or SN3...

Not saying that a good job was not done... but as a marketer, you cannot manufacture this kind of opening. And if you could, marketers, including WB, would.

IOI, I can't meet you halfway, because I don't think you're halfway right, plus you seem to be arguing your own points - is Eve an 'inanimate object' or is she a full-fledged emotional character and co-lead of the film? I don't think this movie was a hard sell at all, we've had robots as main characters beyond R2 and 3PO, there was a movie called 'Robots' a couple of years ago that made a very healthy $128m domestic. Film Wall-E live-action with a Roomba and you might have had a problem but that's kind of the point of Pixar - they do all the work in the filmmaking stage so the marketers can take it relatively easy in their stage.
It's actually harder to get people to show up to a movie that's just about people without some gimmick, I would argue.

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