2005 at the Box Office (1 Viewer)

[TerryRL]

Concerning "Rush Hour 3", director Brett Ratner was first sidetracked by the new 'Superman' movie. He just completed "After the Sunset" and he has back to back projects at Sony that he is signed for (one a comedy and the other an action film). He's also said to be in negotiations with Fox to helm "Josiah's Canon" (starring Sean Connery).

There's no telling when his schedule will free up time to do "Rush Hour 3". He does plan on doing the movie, but it won't be a 2005 (or even likely a 2006) release.

 

[Pete-D]

Isn't Ratner also attached to Samurai Jack? Or is that not happening anymore?

What in the world is James Cameron doing these days?

 

[Malcolm R]

Still skulking around the wreckage of the Titanic, one assumes.

 

[Tino]

James Cameron is in pre-production on an untitled 3D Sci-FI epic that he will be directing.

 

[Pete-D]

Still skulking around the wreckage of the Titanic, one assumes.

... or maybe he's still busy counting all the money Titanic made, heh.

So I'm assuming we'll be seeing nada from Cameron until 2006 or maybe even 2007, right?

 

[TerryRL]

Ratner is attached to helm the live-action "Samurai Jack" movie for New Line. This one is stuck in development hell and it'll likely be a few years before this one sees the light of day.

As for Cameron's digitally shot 3-D sci-fi extravaganza, you're right in not expecting it until either 2006 or 2007. Plus, he has the tenth anniversary of "Titanic" in 2007 to look forward to. Expect a new DVD (likely to be loaded with features) commemorating the anniversary.

 

[TerryRL]

The Hollywood Reporter revealed Paramount's plans of releasing "The War of the Worlds" on June 29th of 2005. This despite the fact that the movie has yet to begin principle photography.

As everyone knows, Paramount originally had scheduled M:I-3 to be released on that date, but many delays forced the movie to be moved to a summer 2006 slot. Paramount fully intends on 'War' being their Summer 2005 tentpole release.

Spielberg and ILM are going to have to work quick to make that date. We'll see what happens.

 

[Jim Barg]

Wow, Paramount must be really desperate to get something out in June if they're trying to shoehorn an effects-heavy production that hasn't even started filming in that slot. Yeesh.

It's almost as bad as Fox trying to squeeze out Fantastic Four for the July 4th weekend... at least they're filming it now (and from what I've read, the script could use a polish or two).

 

[TerryRL]

The FF script has a few problems, but overall is a solid piece of work and should end up being a really cool "origin" movie ala the first 'X-Men' feature.

I'm not really surprised by Paramount's move here. Summer 2004 was a complete disaster for them and they haven't had a mega-summer-blockbuster that earned more than $150 million since M:I-2's run in 2000 ($215.4 million). Since then their biggest summer hit was Summer 2001's "Tomb Raider" ($131.1 million), followed by "The Sum of All Fears ($119 million) in Summer 2002, and "The Italian Job" ($106.1 million) in Summer 2003.

This past summer saw Paramount fail to have a $100 million-plus earner as "The Manchurian Candidate" did ok as it pulled in $64 million, but the highly touted remake of "The Stepford Wives" barely registered with movie-goers as it took in only $59.4 million at a cost of more than $125 million. Ouch.

With "The War of the Worlds", Paramount (who is co-producing with DreamWorks) feels they have a movie that could be the top grossing flick of the summer next year. I completely understand why they are fast-tracking it to theaters. They need a mega-blockbuster summer release in a bad way. A big enough hit can erase years of disappointments.

 

[Ray H]

Is MGM (or is it Sony now?) really hoping for Bond 21 in November? Seems a little early to me. This is without word on a script or official confirmation of the lead actor. How long does it usually take to bang one of these Bond flicks out?

 

[TerryRL]

Yep, MGM (Sony) is hoping to have Bond 21 ready for a November 2005 release. They have time because they aren't expected to begin shooting until January. Depending on how FX heavy the script is, the last few Bond flicks take about 4-5 months to shoot with the rest of the time devoted to post-production.

A decision on exactly who will be playing 007 will be made very soon. There is a chance that Pierce Brosnan will return to the role for one more go, but "several" candidates have been looked at in case Brosnan is serious about not coming back. The fact that his romantic-comedy with Julianne Moore ("Laws of Attraction") went tits up at the box office may have made him a lot less anxious to walk away from doing a fifth stint in the role.

Expect the whole Bond issue to be settled over the course of the next couple of months.

 

[Malcolm R]

Steven Spielberg will not be rushed. If he needs more time for WOTW, he'll get it regardless of what the studio has planned.

 

[Kevin Grey]

I tend to agree and he's such a fast shooter that I don't think principal photography will be a problem. This issue to me is whether ILM and the dozen other effects houses they'll have to contract out can get *quality* work in time. By the time it could become clear that the effects are looking shoddy (early Summer) it may be too late to push the release back. I think a very rushed post-production were at least partly responsible for some of the poor effects in both "Mummy Returns" and "Van Helsing."

 

[TerryRL]

I'm also afraid of the FX ending up looking barely adequate. For the most part, these movies are on such tight schedules that the FX work almost always suffers as a result. I'll never understand why the studios continue to lock release dates before a movie even makes it to pre-production.

As Kevin pointed out, some of the poor FX work done in "The Mummy Returns" and "Van Helsing" weren't ILM's fault. They simply didn't have time enough in the schedule to allow for better work. The Scorpion King sequence in 'Returns' was a late addition to the schedule, hence why it looks so incomplete.

I know Paramount is desperate for a summer blockbuster, but I really do hope that the FX aren't rushed into completion, otherwise whole sequences may be lost because they're nowhere near being complete enough to make the deadline.

 

[Pete-D]

I think it's Stephen Sommers' fault.

I mean really, when you're thinking up of scenes that require heavy FX that late in the game, that's your problem for overtaxing ILM.

I don't fault Universal for sticking to the date. The Mummy Returns and Van Helsing are pure popcorn movies, this isn't American Beauty or even Lord of the Rings. These are movies that they have every right to expect should be finished on time.

Steven Spielberg will get the benefit of the doubt if he asks for it. The other big difference is it will also have Tom Cruise. Of course the studio would want that in the summer, but if they ask for more time given the circumstances, then they'll get it.

But this isn't the same as Sommers, who was given adequete time for both Van Helsing and The Mummy Returns and a blank cheque. That's simply a director who got carried away.

 

[Kevin Grey]

But they're pretty much overtaxing ILM on War of the Worlds from the start just by virtue of the schedule. I can't imagine that it won't be extremely FX heavy and their window is very tight. Spielberg certainly has a lot of clout and I'm sure the techs will do their best for him but Episode III has got to be their priority now. Who's doing the effects on Fantastic Four? If its ILM then I'd be pretty worried if they can handle the workload considering how rushed of a schedule FF has too.

Lethal Weapon 4 was pretty notorius for an extremely tight shooting schedule (and no script). They started principal photography in January IIRC and the movie was released in late July and from what I understand they were really scrambling to finish it. War of the Worlds is being filmed on a very similar schedule but has probably a couple orders of magnitude of the post-production work that LW4 needed.

 

[TerryRL]

A lot of the fault does lay at Sommers' feet in regards to ILM's shortened schedule (adding large FX sequences in the 11th hour is never a good idea, but Sommers is notorious for doing just that), but Hollywood studios have also been at fault in the last few years by putting such a high priority on locking a release date. Take 'X3' for example. No director, no script and Fox has no intention of changing it's early May 2006 launch.

As for 'War', Paramount expects the movie to be ready in 10 months and not a single frame of film has been shot yet. ILM may end up with only about 5 to 6 months to complete anywhere from 500 to 1,000 shots, depending on the final FX total.

As far as I know, ILM's three main projects for 2005 are 'Revenge of the Sith', "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" and "The War of the Worlds". Either Digital Domain or Sony Imageworks will likely end up doing "Fantastic Four".

 

[Jim Barg]

Very true. Although from what it sounds like (and from what I saw tonight), Sky Captain may well be a fall surprise. Perhaps it could edge its way towards that $130 million mark, but I see it definitely cracking the $70 million barrier here in the States.

Still, with no one cast besides Cruise and a June 29 date set, this could be a bad situation for the studio. Christmas might be the better position for it, as HP3 and Bond 21 will have made their money, and the marketplace is large enough at that time for both Kong and WOTW.

 

[TerryRL]

I agree, but Paramount doesn't want to have to face both "King Kong" and the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' sequel (which is also slated for a December launch). Paramount is after those fat summer dollars and they feel they have a movie that could bring in ID4-type business. I get why they want that release date, I just doubt that it's all that realistic considering that they are still only in pre-production at this point.

As for 'Sky Captain', I think it could end up being a bigger hit than most expect.

 

[Jim Barg]

Hardly realistic at all. But then, as you've said, the studio needs a big blockbuster.



Interesting. Where'd you hear that the POTC sequels (they are still shooting two back to back, right?) were being pushed up from Summer/Christmas 2006 to Christmas 2005/Summer 2006? Still, whenever they open the film, there'll be competition of some sort. Whether it's orange superheroes or hairy apes remains to be seen.

This reminds me a bit of Titanic and both Mission Impossible films, if only because Paramount had all three films set in release dates, then had to push them back six months respectively because of production difficulties. Yet the box office didn't suffer at all. The same could very well happen here.