2005 at the Box Office (1 Viewer)

[TerryRL]

I think 'War' is going to be a huge hit regardless of when it's released, but Paramount really wants it for the summer.

As for 'Pirates', the last I had heard they were targeting a December 2005 release, with the third film opening in July of 2006. I had heard Disney wanted to avoid opening the third one in December of 2006 because that's when DreamWorks plans on unveiling the third 'Shrek' movie.

Of course, all this could change at the drop of a dime.

 

[Malcolm R]

Disney definitely should wait at least a year between sequels. Worked perfectly for the LOTR films. "Back to the Future" and "The Matrix" both released sequels within about 6 months of each other and suffered massive declines.

And Disney running scared of another studio's animated film? Now there's a change in the times.

 

[TerryRL]

Given how successful "Shrek 2" was, can you really blame them for being a little hesitant to open anything near "Shrek 3"? But I know what you mean. Without Pixar, Disney will definitely struggle in the realm of CG animated movies. Next summer's "Chicken Little" has a lot of pressure on it to deliver big numbers in the wake of Pixar's departure. Especially considering November '05 will mark the final Disney/Pixar collaboration, "Cars".

As for 'Pirates', I also think they should wait a year between releases, but they're opting to release the movies about six months apart. It'll be interesting to see how well the third one performs as compared to the second. As Malcolm pointed out, releasing a third film so close to the second one has historically resulted in the third film being the least successful of it's respective trilogy (i.e. "Back to the Future Part III" and "The Matrix Revolutions").

 

[TerryRL]

Looks like Disney has abandoned any ideas of releasing "Pirates of the Caribbean: Treasures of the Lost Abyss" in December of 2005. The highly anticipated sequel has been pushed back to a June/July 2006 release, with the third film hitting theaters in either November or December of that year.

'Pirates' director Gore Verbinski just completed the drama "The Weather Man", which will star Nicolas Cage, Michael Caine and Hope Davis. That film hits theaters in April. Verbinski will likely take a couple of weeks off before diving into pre-production on the two 'Pirates' sequels, which are set to begin shooting sometime next summer.

Universal has also opted to push their video game based action flick "Spy-Hunter" to a summer 2006 release date. Both The Rock and director John Woo are still attached, but Rock will shoot "Doom" before going into "Spy-Hunter" (there's also talk of Rock appearing in the fourth 'Terminator' movie as well, which is also tentatively set for a 2006 release). Woo may shoot something else as well before jumping into "Spy-Hunter".

 

[TerryRL]

The release schedule on the second page has been updated.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...93#post2340393

Disney/Pixar's "Cars" is now a Summer 2006 entry, with Disney moving their non-Pixar CG animated flick "Chicken Little" from it's July 2005 slot to the November spot which had been held by "Cars".

 

[Adam_S]

do you think you could add a link to the release schedule in the first post Terry? or better yet copy it onto the first post?

There looks to be a very ugly time for Brothers Grimm--sandwiched in between four fantasy monster-grossers Harry Potter, Narnia, and King Kong... it'd probably do better to drop back four weeks to October, or the first weekend of November at least.

Adam

 

[TerryRL]

I think Miramax will only move the movie a week or two away from the date it's already in, if they move it at all. I think the studio may keep it right where it is. They may be hoping that the third 'Potter' film will suffer the same steep second-weekend decline that 'Prisoner of Azkaban" had (62%).

Depending on how strong Universal's "The 40 Year-Old Virgin" plays (and if the sophomore weekend slide of 'Prisoner of Azkaban' wasn't a fluke), 'Grimm' could have three strong weeks at the box office before having to deal with 'The Chronicles of Narnia' and "Underworld 2".

 

[JoSAN]

.

 

[TerryRL]

I fully expect "Batman Begins" to be the best of the 'Batman' flicks we've seen thus far (which really isn't saying that much in all honesty), but I think WB has really screwed the pooch so far with two really weak trailers for the movie.

I think it's a mistake for WB to market the film as if it's the first 'Batman' movie we've ever seen. The trailers only show him in full costume in quick glimpses as if they're keeping the lid on his appearance in the movie. C'mon people, we've seen the guy in the suit in four previous movies. Why go the "keep his look secret" route? WB will be releasing one more trailer BB before it's June release (likely with the February 18th release of WB's "Constantine") and they'll probably load it with action shots.

WB has a lot riding on this movie because it does represent Time Warner's third biggest franchise (behind WB's 'Harry Potter' and New Line's 'Lord of the Rings'). Plus, they have to go a long way in making people forget about the last 'Batman' flick, 1997's "Batman & Robin", which ultimately killed that first franchise. As I said before, I do think this will be the best of the 'Batman' flicks because David Goyer's script is fantastic and I'm a huge fan of director Christopher Nolan.

Fox on the other hand has done a really solid job thus far getting the word out on "Fantastic Four" and the trailers (the first rumored to be attached to "Elektra" next month) should go a long way in building even more hype. At this point, I'm not all that shocked to see FF being the more anticipated movie than BB. This is the first big screen adventure for the FF characters and it has a "newness" to it that BB is definitely lacking, in spite of it also being an "origin" movie.

As JoSan said, FF could indeed end up being the biggest superhero hit of 2005. It's going to be very interesting to see which one ends up being the bigger hit with moviegoers.

 

[TerryRL]

As for 'Harry Potter', I'm not surprised that WB is allowing such a massive budget for 'Goblet of Fire'. The three HP flicks have so far tallied $2.6 billion worldwide and Time Warner is fully expecting the series to ultimately top both 'James Bond' (20 films/$3.7 billion) and 'Star Wars' (5 films/$3.3 billion) as the biggest motion picture franchise in history once all seven films are released.

Plus with all the merchandise, as well as the massive home video sales, Time Warner is swimming in money because of the HP franchise. After 'Goblet of Fire' hits theaters next year, there will only be three more films to make and I wouldn't be surprised if WB spent $250 million on each one. The massive success of the three existing films is allowing the studio to take a "spare no expense" type of attitude with the series (much like Sony's attitude with the "Spider-Man" movies).

 

[JoSAN]

.

 

[TerryRL]

I agree with pretty much everything you stated.

Other than the new additions to the 'Batman' and 'Superman' franchises, "Wonder Woman" and "Shazam!" are the only DC superheros set to hit the big screen (in either 2006 or 2007). There had been talk of possibly doing films for "The Flash" and "The Green Lantern" (the Wally West and Jon Stewart versions of the characters), but at this point WB is putting all their eggs in the baskets of 'Batman' and 'Superman' (especially in light of the recent disaster that was "Catwoman").

Despite the lower than expected grosses for "Blade: Trinity", Marvel is having an amazing run with the 'Spider-Man' and 'X-Men' franchises. "Fantastic Four" will likely be among the big hits of 2005, giving Marvel yet another lucrative franchise. Both "Iron Man" and "Ghost Rider" have massive franchise potential and should both do solid business in 2006.

Marvel and Fox have wisely chosen to spin-off Wolverine and Magneto films from the 'X-Men' franchise ('X3' is set for a May, 2006 release), while a "Captain America" feature could become a reality during the next few years.

All in all, DC has some serious catching up to do.

 

[Malcolm R]

I don't think anyone doubts that WB has the money, we're just wondering what they're possibly spending it on. It seems like a huge jump in budget (double?) from the first films when it's not going to be substantially longer or more effects-intensive.

 

[TerryRL]

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

Weekend Estimates

#1 "Meet the Fockers" $42.8 million ($163.4 million) -7%
#2 "Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events" $14.7 million ($94.7 million) +16%
#3 "The Aviator" $11.2 million ($31.0 million) +30%
#4 "Fat Albert" $10.7 million ($33.9 million) +7%
#5 "Ocean's Twelve" $9.2 million ($106.8 million) +10%
#6 "National Treasure" $7.0 million ($154.7 million) +76%
#7 "Spanglish" $6.3 million ($31.0 million) +35%
#8 "The Polar Express" $5.7 million ($155.2 million) -12%
#9 "The Phantom of the Opera" $4.8 million ($16.2 million) +20%
#10 "Darkness" $4.5 million ($16.5 million) -26%

Universal's "Meet the Fockers" continues to blow away the competition as it established the biggest New Year's Day gross in history ($18.0 million), passing the previous record ($12.7 million) which was held by 'The Return of the King'. Last weekend the movie took another record away from ROTK as it posted the biggest Christmas Day tally in history. It earned $19.5 million compared to the $13.9 million ROTK posted in 2003. 'Fockers' also established the biggest Tuesday gross ever during the week as it pulled in $12.6 million (taking another record for ROTK, it had the previous record mark of $12.4 million).

'Fockers' saw only a 7% dip in business and has so far tallied a massive $163.4 million after only 12 days in theaters. The movie is now only $2.8 million away from passing the entire domestic haul of "Meet the Parents" ($166.2 million) back in 2000. A final tally in the neighborhood of $250 million is now expected.

After more than a year, Paramount Studios will finally get a $100 million earner as 'Lemony Snickets' saw a 16% increase in business this weekend, bringing it's total to nearly $95 million. By this time next weekend the film will have passed the century mark.

Miramax's Oscar hopeful "The Aviator" saw a 30% increase, Fox's "Fat Albert" took a 7% increase, WB's "Ocean's Twelve" saw a 10% increase as it passed the century mark this weekend, Disney's "National Treasure" took a massive 76% bump, Sony's "Spanglish" got a much needed 35% bump, and WB's "The Phantom of the Opera" saw a 20% increase.

WB's "The Polar Express" took only a 12% decline as it passed the $150 million mark, and Dimention's "Darkness" took a 26% hit.

It's a new year with a whole host of new expectations from the studios. Next weekend Universal gets things underway with the first new release of the year, the horror film "White Noise". Expect it to put up a strong challenge to "Meet the Fockers" for the top spot.

Judging from the current schedule (on page 2 of this thread) the studios have a very strong lineup for 2005. The studios are expecting that this will be the biggest year ever at the box office. 2004 pulled in $9.086 billion (a record $9.4 billion counting 2003 holdovers), shy of the record marks held by 2003 ($9.185 billion/$9.27 billion counting 2002 holdovers) and 2002 ($9.167 billion/$9.32 billion counting 2001 holdovers).

We'll see what happens.

 

[Tino]

Nice to see that Terry finally has a boxoffice thread!

Go Terry!

 

[TerryRL]

Thanks Tino.

 

[ScottR]

I told you guys Phantom would bomb.

 

[Kevin Grey]

Why the dramatic increase for "National Treasure"? Did Disney push it into more theaters or make another marketing push?

 

[Malcolm R]

Some of both, I think. They added a few theaters (about 80), and I saw a lot of new advertising last week ("See the film that was #1 FOR THREE WEEKS!").

 

[Adam_ME]

My bad. I misread it as "Affleck was da bomb in Phantoms, yo".