2008 at the Box Office - Page 2

TerryRL · 12-15-2007, 08:45 AM

Potential $100 million-plus domestic performers (i.e. the 35 movies the studios believe will top the century mark)...

Listed Alphabetically
(bold indicates film is expected to be among the year's top five biggest hits)
"10,000 B.C." (WB)
"Bedtime Stories" (Disney)
"Body of Lies" (WB)
"Bond 22" (MGM/Sony)
"Cloverfield" (Paramount)
"The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian" (Disney/Walden Media)
"The Dark Knight" (WB)
"The Day the Earth Stood Still" (Fox)
"Fool's Gold" (WB)
"Four Christmases" (New Line)
"Get Smart" (WB)
"Hancock" (Sony)
"The Happening" (Fox)
"Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" (WB)
"Hellboy II: The Golden Army" (Universal)
"Horton Hears a Who" (Fox)
"The Incredible Hulk" (Universal)
"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" (Lucasfilm/Paramount)
"Iron Man" (Paramount)
"Kung Fu Panda" (DreamWorks/Paramount)
"The Love Guru" (Paramount)
"Madagascar: The Crate Escape" (DreamWorks/Paramount)
"The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" (Universal)
"The Pineapple Express" (Sony)
"Revolutionary Road" (DreamWorks/Paramount)
"Semi-Pro" (New Line)
"Seven Pounds" (Sony)
"Speed Racer" (WB)
"Star Trek XI" (Paramount)
"Tropic Thunder" (DreamWorks/Paramount)
"Valkyrie" (United Artists)
"Wall-E" (Disney/Pixar)
"Yes Man" (WB)
"You Don't Mess with the Zohan" (Sony)
"X-Files 2" (Fox)

2003 currently holds the record with highest number of $100 million-plus earning releases at 29. Although, '07 could match this amount. "Enchanted", "I Am Legend", and "Alvin & the Chipmunks" (should it go over $100 mil) will give '07 26 movies to earn at least $100 million domestically. With films like AVP-R, "Charlie Wilson's War", National Treasure 2, 'Sweeney Todd', and 'Walk Hard' still on the schedule, '07 has a very good shot at matching (or eclipsing) the record.

As for '08, the studios seem "cautiously optimistic" that the slumps will be few and far between during the year, ultimately producing the biggest number of overall hits ever. Of course many of these films could crash and burn while others surprise, but this is how things are looking at this point.

As indicated, Indy IV, Harry Potter, TDK, Narnia, and "Wall-E" are the five flicks expected to be the biggest hits of '08.

DavidPla · 12-15-2007, 10:54 AM

Terry, is 200 Million really the NEW 100 million. It seems getting to 100 million was such a feat and you were called a "blockbuster".. yet now even if you get there you can still be labeled a disaster. Is a movie officially called a blockbuster once past 200 M now?

DavidPla · 12-15-2007, 10:54 AM

Colin Jacobson · 12-15-2007, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidPla

Terry, is 200 Million really the NEW 100 million. It seems getting to 100 million was such a feat and you were called a "blockbuster".. yet now even if you get there you can still be labeled a disaster. Is a movie officially called a blockbuster once past 200 M now?

$200M has been "the new $100M" for a long time. I've been arguing for about a decade that $100M is meaningless for blockbuster status, though it's all relative. For instance, the $124M take of Devil Wears Prada was a MUCH bigger accomplishment than the $135M gross of M:I 3.

But for true "hit" status, $200M has been the bar for at least a decade. When 20+ movies make $100M in a year, it's not exactly rare, is it?

Colin Jacobson · 12-15-2007, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Les Samuel

Indiana Jones 4: $450 million

Wow - that's a REALLY high estimate, IMO. I think something around $250 is more likely. Grosses over $400M are awfully rare, and I really don't think Indy can go that high...

TerryRL · 12-15-2007, 01:16 PM

David, box office successes are now (more or less) dictated by budget. As Colin pointed out, "The Devil Wears Prada" topping the century mark was a much bigger deal than M:I-3 doing it because A) 'Prada' wasn't expected to earn that much and B) it cost only $35 million to make compared to the more than $150 million spent on M:I-3.

'Prada' made more than 9 times its budget worldwide for Fox, while Paramount needed a strong overseas run on top of decent DVD sales just to break even with what was ultimately spent on M:I-3.

$100 million is still a big deal, but mainly for smaller and/or "prestige" films. Today, most consider a legit blockbuster to be something earning over $200 million, but there are exceptions to that rule (i.e. "King Kong" and "Superman Returns").

Anything over $250 million will automatically get a green-light for a sequel, while $300 million-plus performances are seen as the industry holy grail. Your film earns that kind of money and the studios will essentially give you a blank check on your next project.

Jose Martinez · 12-15-2007, 01:56 PM

Valkyrie will prove once and for all that Tom Cruise's star has burnt out. I predict less than $60 mil total domestic.

TerryRL · 12-15-2007, 04:21 PM

With a budget north of $80 million, UA is confident that this film can re-capture some of the Cruise magic at the box office. The film was moved to October to better compete for Oscar gold.

With Bryan Singer at the helm, as well as a stellar cast surrounding Cruise, this one could potentially put Cruise back in the winner's circle at the box office. It also has the potential to sink UA. We'll see what happens.

Kevin Grey · 12-15-2007, 05:05 PM

Valkyrie just doesn't strike me as very commercial. I hope it's a helluva movie but the concept just doesn't scream "big hit" to me.

Jose Martinez · 12-15-2007, 08:22 PM

maybe if they advertise the movie as if he's not really the star then maybe it'll become a hit.

Edwin-S · 12-16-2007, 09:23 PM

Valkyrie looks like it could be a pretty decent movie, regardless of Tom Cruise's bizarre beliefs. I think it could do well, but I agree that it is highly doubtful that it would reach blockbuster status.

Bill GrandPre · 12-16-2007, 10:33 PM