2006 at the Box Office

Discussion in 'Movies' started by TerryRL, Dec 31, 2005.

  1. Chuck Mayer

    Chuck Mayer Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Messages:
    8,180
    Likes Received:
    377
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Real Name:
    Chuck Mayer
    Well, the psychology comments came on the heels of his PPD fiasco, so they probably actually go together. Perhaps he could have salvaged it then, but the guy was being honest with his opinion. His choice. Stupid, I might add.

    I think he could still be the biggest movie star for a few years, even with a backlash. Hollywood takes forever to let a major slide down a bit. He's extremely savvy. One smart, Cameron Crowe romance...and much will be forgiven [​IMG]
     
  2. Holadem

    Holadem Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2000
    Messages:
    8,967
    Likes Received:
    0
    A romance flick is the worse possible pick he could make at this point [​IMG].

    I think he should take a couple of years off to be with his family, and make some sorta unoficial come back - with a smallish, Oscar bait flick.

    --
    H
     
  3. Cory S.

    Cory S. Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Messages:
    989
    Likes Received:
    8
    Estimates are out adn M:I III made about 48.5 this weekend and frankly, I'm pissed about it.

    Audiences today will let something like Failure to Launch make damn near 100 million dollars and this film can't get to at least 70 this weekend?

    Say what you want about Cruise but he brings it with every action film and this one is no different. It's his best action by far in his career and also the best Mission film.

    Disappointment, but not the BOMB the papers will make it out to be on Monday morning.
     
  4. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    29,428
    Likes Received:
    4,787
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    Why are you pissed? Don't people have the right to spend their discretionary monies on whatever film(s) they want to? I liked the film too, but I'm not going to get bent out of shape, if people don't want to see this film for whatever reasons they may have.




    Crawdaddy
     
  5. Luis Cruz

    Luis Cruz Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 1999
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the low opening has hit everyone off-guard. I think we need to see if its legs will hold up. It has good reviews, good word of mouth so far, and could play well throughout May and into June. Could have another Batman Begins on our hands.
     
  6. Ray Chuang

    Ray Chuang Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    0
    Robert,

    I am a bit stunned that Mission Impossible III only made an estimated US$48.5 million! [​IMG]

    You'd think it would make more like US$75-US$80 million.
     
  7. Malcolm R

    Malcolm R Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    12,735
    Likes Received:
    583
    Real Name:
    Malcolm
    What kind of a comparison is that? You're comparing the lifetime gross of one film to the opening 3 days of another?

    If MI3 fails to crack the $100M barrier, then we'll talk.
     
  8. TerryRL

    TerryRL Producer

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2001
    Messages:
    3,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Weekend Estimates

    #1 "Mission: Impossible III" $48.0 million
    #2 "RV" $11.0 million ($31.0 million) -32%
    #3 "An American Haunting" $6.3 million
    #4 "Stick It" $5.5 million ($17.9 million) -49%
    #5 "United 93" $5.2 million ($20.0 million) -54%
    #6 "Ice Age: The Meltdown" $4.0 million ($183.2 million) -44%
    #7 "Silent Hill" $3.9 million ($40.8 million) -58%
    #8 "Scary Movie 4" $3.7 million ($83.7 million) -51%
    #9 "Akeelah and the Bee" $3.40 million ($10.6 million) -43%
    #10 "Hoot" $3.40 million

    The box office was up a very healthy 24% compared to this time last year (when "Kingdom of Heaven" got off to a disappointing $19.6 million start) as M:I-III led the field. The pricey sequel didn't meet its lofty expectations and the industry is abuzz about the much lower-than-expected debut. Compared to this point in 2004 (when "Van Helsing" got out of the gate with a $51.7 million tally), the box office was down 4%.

    "Mission: Impossible III" took the top spot this weekend with a disappointing $48 million haul. Paramount's $150 million-plus sequel (factor in the marketing costs and the total spent on the movie nears the $200 million mark) easily ranks as the most expensive film ever for both the studio and star Tom Cruise. The movie was expected to open with at least $65 million, given all the pre-release hype. The best news the studio got this weekend was the film's $70 million international start.

    M:I-III did become the third biggest opening ever for Cruise, ranking behind "War of the Worlds" ($64.8 million) and "Mission: Impossible 2" ($57.8 million). M:I-III also gives Cruise his 18th #1 opening. The sequel's $11,846 per-theater average from its whopping 4,054 locations (the fourth widest release in history) was easily the best of the top ten. Still, the $48 million debut will give many in the media a lot to chew on concerning whether or not Cruise's antics of the past year had anything to do with the film's disappointing start. Is Hollywood's biggest star losing his midas touch?

    Paramount tried to put a positive spin on the lower-than-expected $48 million tally by pointing out that last summer's "Batman Begins" got out of the gates with a slightly disappointing $48.7 million haul, but legged its way to more than $205 million thanks to great word-of-mouth and very strong legs. Honestly, I doubt the same fate awaits M:I-III. I do think the film will become the seventh consecutive $100 million-plus performer for Cruise (he would share this industry record with Tom Hanks), as well as being a solid hit overseas (as its $70 million opening indicates), but it could ultimately be seen as a major disappointment if it doesn't have legs.

    Sony's "RV" had a solid hold this weekend as it saw only a 32% dip in business. The $50 million comedy has so far tallied $31 million and looks like its on course for a final mark in the neighborhood of $60-$70 million.

    Freestyle Releasing's "An American Haunting" got off to a decent start as it pulled in more than $6 million this weekend. The film (which cost only $14 million to make) earned a respectable 3,824 per-theater average from its 1,668 locations, which was the second best of the top ten behind M:I-III.

    Disney's "Stick It" was off by 49% this weekend and has so far earned just under $18 million. Look for a final mark in the area of $30-$35 million.

    Universal's "United 93" took a 54% hit in business and has pulled in $20 million thus far. The $15 million film isn't turning into the leggy hit that many were expecting and the studio is now expecting it to also top out with $30-$35 million.

    Fox's "Ice Age: The Meltdown" has now tallied $183.2 million. Sony's "Silent Hill" has now earned just under $41 million. The Weinstein's "Scary Movie 4" is close to the $84 million mark. Lionsgate's "Akeelah and the Bee" was off a moderate 43% and looks like it'll end its run with about $20 million. New Line's "Hoot" crashed and burned this weekend as it only earned $3.4 million upon its debut.

    Next weekend will see the releases of WB's "Poseidon", Fox's "Just My Luck", and Disney's "Goal! The Dream Begins". "Poseidon" is expected to have little difficulty debuting in the top spot next weekend. It'll be very interesting if the movie pulls in stronger numbers than M:I-III.
     
  9. Joel C

    Joel C Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 1999
    Messages:
    1,633
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm just glad Mission III got good critical reviews, so JJ Abrahms can use it as a career springboard. Who would think that such an accomplished, slick and suspenseful action movie was a director's first? Though I guess his Alias and Lost episodes amount to mini-movies.
     
  10. Timothy Alexander

    Timothy Alexander Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 1999
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    0

    Hell, the first two episodes of Lost were better directed than most bigbudgeted action movies.
     
  11. WadeLil

    WadeLil Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    I cant say that im suprised at all by MI3s showing.For the first time in seven years i can only name 2 movies that im looking forward to this summer.Usually its 8 to 10.And i wouldnt be suprised at all if MI3 is the first of many box office underperformers.CRUISE is one of my top 5 actors but the trailers for MI3 did nothing for me.I dont care about any of his recent flubs as long as his movies are good ill continue to support them.But like i said im just not into most of the movies this summer...........Now 2007 thats a total diffrent story.
     
  12. TerryRL

    TerryRL Producer

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2001
    Messages:
    3,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    As WadeLil eluded to, 2007 will probably be a different much different story since "Spider-Man 3" will be the movie opening this weekend a year from now. Two weeks after that will bring "Shrek the Third", followed another two weeks by the final 'Pirates of the Caribbean' movie.

    Personally, the movie I'm amped to see is still two years away, the "Batman Begins" sequel.
     
  13. James@R

    James@R Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2005
    Messages:
    333
    Likes Received:
    0

    Agreed. I'm always surprised when people get upset over that kind've stuff.

    Anyway, I think the film should have legs, especially since the next big action film isn't due until the end of May.
     
  14. Nathan V

    Nathan V Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    0
    The press is going to have a field day with this. What a shame. And as far as 2006 is concerned, I'm already ranking it up there with 1999 and 1960- look at the lineup of directors in 4th quarter!

    Regards,
    Nathan
     
  15. James@R

    James@R Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2005
    Messages:
    333
    Likes Received:
    0

    I think that's what this really comes down to, as the press is really making this out to be a huge flop.

    Personally, I'm a little surprised by the 70+ million everyone was predicting in the first place. If Cruise's biggest opening (WOTW) was $64 million over a five day holiday, why did they expect this to be so much higher?
     
  16. TerryRL

    TerryRL Producer

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2001
    Messages:
    3,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    WOTW's five-day total was $77.0 million, its Friday thru Sunday haul was $64.8 million.

    Considering that this was the opening weekend of the summer season and Cruise is the industry's biggest star in his biggest film franchise, most within the industry expected a monster opening. Instead, as was pointed out on the Box Office Mojo site, M:I-III suffered the same third film letdown that accompanied such franchises as "Beverly Hills Cop" and "The Matrix".
     
  17. James@R

    James@R Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2005
    Messages:
    333
    Likes Received:
    0

    Okay, I thought something about that figure seemed 'off'. I still think the predictions were a little too hopeful, though. [​IMG]
     
  18. Nathan V

    Nathan V Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some ramblings-

    I wonder if a part of this could be from something other than Cruise, such as the 'fact' that Mission: Impossible, as a TV show and an action franchise, is simply not that high on people's priority lists. In other words I wonder if the general thought out there, instead of being, "Heavens, how I hate Cruise," is more along the lines of "Great, Cruise is in it, but I don't care about the rest of the movie. I'll rent."

    EW's latest issue has a cover article on Cruise, BO, and the star system (printed before MI3 opened, of course), and discusses much of what has been said here. An industry rep is quoted in the article, effectively sayng, "if it does 300, everything's fine. If it does 185-225, it's up in the air. If it does 150, people will wonder if he's over."

    Even if it does 150, which may well happen now, I don't think anyone can legitimately say he's done. The real litmus test will be his next action vehicle. As we know, the public is forgiving as all hell. Russell Crowe was beating a lot of people up and throwing things for a while, but he's still highly respected as an actor (and rightly so, in my book).

    The article also mentioned how the factor uniting many of the recent monster hits in the last half-decade is NOT the presence of marquee names, but what the article calls "the geek factor." (side note: notice how much forum activity has gone down, now that SW and LOTR are over?) In other words, built-in fanbases. Bill Mechanic talks about how getting a big star is actually sometimes more risky than not getting one, because the star causes such a ballooning of the budget (Cinderella Man, etc). If they don't NEED a star, he says, they don't get one (Superman). Now that stars cost too much, (the article says), they're sought after when they need to be there to cement audience interest- when the rest of the movie wouldn't draw as many people (MI3). The EW article is saying that these kinds of "star is the driving interest to see film" movies are waning, and they may or may not have a point. Personally I think they, and everybody else, is exaggerating about the demise of the star system.

    Getting back to MI- the franchise would be nowhere without Cruise. Imagine the first 2 installments with him, and a third one starring Gyllenhaal or Ben Affleck. Give me a break. Nobody went to MI2 because they wanted to see cool gadgets from the show or get into the franchise's characters (aka Ving Rhames [​IMG] ). There's just not that much interest in the MI franchise/show entity, and this may be an additional factor in the film's underperformance. Ebert, in his review, downgrades the latest installment from the previous ones, NOT because it is lacking in quality compared to the previous films, but simply because he feels it was 'more of the same.' Hell, these could almost qualify as remakes instead of sequels. Perhaps the public feels the same (as Ebert) and is just not that enamored with seeing an MI film in theatres right now. If it was Cruise AND an interesting, appealing original concept (a la Mr, Mrs Smith, although I don't even want to begin to imagine Holmes in the Jolie role, but that's another thread), I think the numbers would be significantly more formidable.

    With the cost of living rising, people are making slightly different choices now. Look at King Kong's dvd returns. What movies do adults go see now, besides the ones they take their kids to? Sure bets. Stuff they HAVE to see on the big screen, or stuff they KNOW will be excellent. People weren't sure about Kong. People aren't sure about this either, and the question is: how much does Cruise have to do with it? The press will say everything, but we should think twice.

    In all, I think the public WANTS to continue to love Cruise. He's cool as all hell, and he's hot as hell, depending on your gender. You can't not the love the guy when he cracks that big smile. The main thing, I think, is his next blockbuster. I wonder if he'll do some oscar-type films for a while. The EW article also recognizes Cruise's 20+ years as a shrewd businessman, and wonders if the past year wasn't a big stunt. If thoughts were food, it'd be Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years' right now, with a blowout giveaway at the grocery store.

    Regards,
    Nathan
     
  19. Nathan V

    Nathan V Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    0
    Another thing will be whether or not it beats Poseidon next week. I think it will.
     
  20. Rob Bartlett

    Rob Bartlett Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    0
    1) You can't really compare other Cruise openings to this because, besides being different in genre and tone--they weren't sequels. If this number was for Collateral, people would be jumping for joy. But it's a sequel--and the rule of thumb is; Sequels open bigger and fall harder. The latter pretty much always happens, so you have to ensure the former, to save face where you can.

    2) I don't think we're looking a phenomenal legs here--remember, it's a sequel. What was Batman Begins's multiplier compared to three of the four other Batman movies? Besides, this movie has opened in 4000 theaters--exhibitors are't going to want a lame duck taking up space that could go to DaVinci or X-Men.

    3) I think being six years after the last one hurt it. MI2 wasn't leaving anyone with baed breath for the next installment, and we've seena couple of enw franchises come along since then. And many of these action franchises--be they LOTR or the Bourne series or the better Marvel comics adaptations--they've run circles around Ethan Hunt in the enthusiams department. Standards have been raised, and attentions have been shifted. Granted, it appears MI3 made a valiant attempt to meet the others in quality--but too little, too late.

    4) Even if this entry wasn't too shabby, you can't really point at a big budget franchise picture doing below-par numbers and be frustrated at the American public. The underdog this is not. It may be a good entry, but it' a follow-up to two movies that were never anything really special--it's the franchise's own fault for not building up much cache or resonance. I'm sure years from now people will be saying "Hey, that was pretty good" but I shed no tears for this movie's performance.
     

Share This Page