Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by TerryRL, Nov 2, 2006.
"300" a smash?
WATCHMEN HERE WE COME.
Sin City was successful? Austin Powers Goldmember did $73m in it's opening weekend. Considering the internet hype and fan fervor I expected Sin City to breeze past $100m at the US box office. Van Helsing did a lot more and no one liked it (or so it seemed).
Before "Sin City", director Robert Rodriguez's biggest hit movies all came from the "Spy Kids" trilogy. "Sin City" wasn't expected to be a giant smash. It was expected to do well, but 'Sky Captain' had crashed and burned the year before and there were some doubts about whether or not "Sin City" would only appeal to the fans of Frank Miller's comic series. If we've learned anything over the last several years is that internet hype doesn't necessarily translate into huge box office.
"Sin City" went on to become Rodriguez's biggest non-"Spy Kids" hit. Overall, the movie pulled in close to $159 million worldwide, while costing a modest $40 million to make. Add in the fact that the movie was also hugely popular on DVD, the Weinstein Co. is very anxious to do a follow-up ("Sin City: A Dame to Die For") because the first one made them some coin.
As for "Van Helsing", director Stephen Sommers was coming off of the hugely successful 'Mummy' films (the two films earning nearly $850 million combined worldwide) and the movie was set the launch the summer 2004 season. The movie did pocket $300 million worldwide, but was deemed a disappointment because when you factor in marketing costs (more than $50 million), the movie cost Universal well over $200 million to make. Plans for a franchise of "Van Helsing" flicks were ultimately nixed by the studio.
You can't really compare 'Goldmember' because it was the third film of a very lucrative franchise. "Sin City" was the (hoped for) first flick of a potential film series. Plus, 'Goldmember' and "Van Helsing" were PG-13 movies while "Sin City" earned an R rating.
I have no idea what "300" is, but I really liked "Sky Captain" while I hated "Sin City" with infinite intensity. I'll have to find a trailer.
have you watched the 1962 film, 'The 300 Spartans', from which Miller's comic book is based on? there's a few lines from in the trailer and in the comic that pays homage to the '62 version of the film, notably the arrows under the sun line.
I haven't seen The 300 Spartans nor do I know too much about the actual event, but Wikipedia told me that the arrows under the sun line is supposed to be a historical quote from whatever the heck they documented these things in back then. I've heard Miller used the movie as a big inspiration so that'd explain anything else.
I think 300 will be a boxoffice disappointment. I want to see it, but I don't think the general public will bite much.
in terms of historical accuracy (with regard to the events surrounding the battle), the 1962 version should have a lot of the goodies from the book Gates of Fire as well. both the comic book and the new movie is a much more dramatized (deranged/disfigured monsters) and fantastical. i expect entertainment, not accuracy.
in that respect, the 62 version was a bit dry. there were also a lot of OVERT Christian themes (lingering from the 50's conservative model), like no pre-marital sex, what should a good Christian do, etc. ironically, it takes place within a pagan cultural, anyway....
Yeah, I don't expect this one will be much bigger than Sin City. It seems like another one of those movies that excites the Internet fanboys but doesn't get much reaction from the rest of the world...
I doubt it will reach SS's numbers.
well it's one of those things that we'll have to see =^).
it's like borat. who knew it was going to be the phenomenon it became? i think the marketing/promotion took on a life of its own, so hopefully the cast/crew of 300 will think of somn. perhaps they should goto interviews nearly constume-less like they are in the movie (if they're still in the same shape).
I have not seen that film, but thanks to your recommendation, Netflix is sending it to me tomorrow. I didn't even know that there was a '62 version of the movie. Thanks for the 411.
As for the '07 version, I think if the movie has a strong opening (something north of $20 million) and benefits from solid word-of-mouth, that it has a decent shot at coming close to the numbers posted by "Sin City". At least, that's what I'm hoping for if the movie turns out to be nearly as good as the comic its based on.
terry, thx =D. i dunno if you live near a metropolitan but if you do and your local public library system is decent, you can actually borrow SD-DVD's for free or minimal fee (.4-$1) . that's what i did =D. i even used the internet to do the reservation. so... in a way, when i pay my local state taxes, i'm already paying for 'taxflix', but people aren't taking advantage of it. there's a ton of goods in your local pub library. that's why i never subscribe to netflix anymore. the library's got the latest blockbuster and far-reaching classics and growing. i'm already paying for it.
Unfortunately, the closest library to me (one of my city's smaller branches) has a really lame selection. Netflix is just far more convenient for me.
what's that old saying, don't judge a book by its cover . if you DO live in a metropolitan city that invests in .edu (like top10 city in US), it doesn't matter if your local brand is large or small. they are all linked to a larger network of libraries where they can transfer material back and forth. that's where online infrastructure comes in. the way i do is i que it up like netflix via the library network's web online UI with my library card, and the library network emails me when my book/DVD/CD/any media is ready for pickup at the library. my lib is just a 5min. walk away. with the combined borrowing power of the library network there's a lot more than you tiny branch =D. it doesn't hurt to investigate. it might just save you $ on that netflix subscription =D.
Don't you dare take my Netflix away from me!
I'll look into chief. Thanks for the info.
Here's a DVD question, with Pirates 2 dominating both the box office and DVD sales charts, do you think that Pirates 3 will pull off the same feat for '07? Or will "Shrek the Third" prove too tough to overcome?
Pirates had four years of pent up demand. A lot of people don't even yet know a sequel is coming in may and not in two years (I'm sure the Superbowl will change that) Shrek and Spidey will be benefitting from more demand. I think Shrek will vary the most from the gross of its number two performer. I'd say Spidey will take the year's box office Crown but Pirates will be number two, Shrek in third and Harry Potter in fourth. Pirates and Spidey will benefit from a finish the trilogy boost while Shrek may lose a little money from sequelitis (which means it doesn't have the sort of 'completed' arc that Spidey and Pirates will benefit from and that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows will benefit from in 2009 or 2010.
I suspect Blades of Glory will be the first real big hit of 2007. Will Ferrell is box office gold when he does a traditional comedy these days.
And people say that Hollywood has run out of ideas.