2006 at the Box Office (1 Viewer)

[Shawn_KE]

This wasn't a very good movie and I sure would like to know what 14 million was spent on. There were really no special fx to speak of and it mostly takes place in one house. All the scare scenes were mainly sounds.

 

[Sean Laughter]

Nathan, are you Cruise's publicist or something? Seriously? While I don't see this has the huge, career-ending disaster that some do, I still can't see it as anything but reaction to his behavior the past year in combination with the staleness of the franchise itself.

You speak of "what if MI3 had an interesting concept?", well IMO the fact that these films have always been star vehicles for Cruise, who must be "cool" in these films, is what's keeping them from getting anymore interesting than they have been.

As was said previously, since the last one we've had Bourne, Batman Begins, etc. These movies need something more than just being a vehicle to get Cruise in some slick action sequences for them to be interesting again and that's all there is to it.

I don't doubt Poseidon's ability to beat MI:3 next weekend, I have a ton of friends waiting to see that who haven't batted an eye at MI:3. I thought people would be turned off to the Poseidon concept by the horrid made-for-tv version just a few months ago, but apparently the trailers have done their jobs and alot of people are wanting to see it - particularly people I know who are fans of the original. That seems somewhat odd, particularly since alot of these same people tend to dislike remakes as a rule, yet they're excited for this one.

 

[Nathan V]

Shawn, probably film stock and actors.

Says Rob:

"they've run circles around Ethan Hunt in the enthusiams department. Standards have been raised, and attentions have been shifted....[MI3 is] a follow-up to two movies that were never anything really special."

EXACTLY.

Regards,
Nathan

 

[Tino]

No chance. MI:III will probably drop about 60% next week to about $20 million.

Poseidon I predict will open with more than $40 million.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

No way it beats Poseidon. And no way Poseidon beats Da Vinci in Poseidon's week 2. And no way Da Vinci beats X3.

With that said, it's the only May film I had any interest in. Even with Kurt Russell, I have no interest in Poseidon. I read the Da Vinci code. It had a great hook, but was otherwise rather dull with a poor ending. No need to see Ron Howard adapt that. And X3 looks like a complete trainwreck. I grew up on X-Men, truly liked the first two...and I can't muster up the enthusiasm to care one whit about X3. But I will be interested in their respective box offices. Part of the fun.

I am a bit surprised at the $48M, but the next few weeks might show azomw cause. If all the films are down a bit, then there you go. If it only seems to be MI3, then maybe it's a little Cruise issue. I'm curious about that.

But not curious enough to hit the theaters the rest of the month

 

[DavidPla]

"Begins" had the BEST multiplier out of all the films only next to the original.

 

[TerryRL]

"Batman"
$40.4 million opening = 16% of total gross ($251.1 million)

"Batman Returns"
$45.6 million opening = 28% of total gross ($162.8 million)

"Batman Forever"
$52.7 million opening = 28% of total gross ($184.0 million)

"Batman & Robin"
$42.8 million opening = 40% of total gross ($107.3 million)

"Batman Begins"
$48.7 million opening = 23% of total gross ($205.3 million)

 

[David Williams]

I wouldn't pay to see him in anything and I haven't seen a single one of his films since he half-strangled that poor guy in front of his kid. It wouldn't matter if Crowe or Cruise was the next Olivier, it's still entertainment not rocket science and I don't choose to spend my hard-earned dollars on people I detest. Maybe if enough people do that they will get the message and clean up their acts before they relegate themselves to obscurity.

 

[EricW]

if you only want to watch director's and actor's works that have 'clean' records, you won't be watching a whole lot of movies
then you have to seperate what's been alleged and what's been proven. what about Alec Baldwin, who's an accused wife-beater? or Jamie Foxx, and that incident at a casino where he had to be dragged out for beating up security? or Johnny Depp? Jude Law?

 

[Brent M]

It never ceases to amaze me how some people can't separate a movie star's personal life from the roles they play onscreen. Who cares how crazy Tom Cruise is in real life if the movies he makes are worth watching? I'm not going to skip MI:3 just like I didn't pass on War of the Worlds, Collateral or The Last Samurai just because of his real life antics. Learn to differentiate reality from fiction.

 

[EricW]

i agree with that to a point - but to this day i still can't bring myself to listen to a Michael Jackson song.

 

[Joe D]

I thought the Da Vinci Code had a great trailer until the words,

"Directed by Ron Howard"

came up. But I'm sure it will make a lot of money due to the built in audience and Tom Hanks.

 

[Nathan V]

I just can't see Poseidon doing huge numbers. I think it'll appeal broadly to teenagers, but I can't see it absolutely dominating the competition, even for its opening week. Maybe I'm letting my personal bias against the film get in my way of judging its BO value. One thing's for sure, both these films will sink once week 3 starts.

Regards,
Nathan V

 

[Andy Sheets]

The thing with Cruise, though, is that if he's just being a nut or a dirtbag in his private life, that's one thing. But when he goes on national tv and starts telling people that psychology and medications are rubbish, that's crossing a line where he's arguably spreading a harmful ideology and I can't really blame people for not wanting to support his films after that.

 

[James@R]

But a musician's output is far more personal, whereas an actor is simply playing a role.

Anyway, I really don't see what the big deal with Cruise is- aside from people just being tired of hearing about him. Unlike O.J. or MJ, he's only guilty of being goofy and opinionated- which pretty much sums up everyone I know. His criticism of psychiatry was treated as heresy, yet people have knocked it for years. Hey, Frasier Crane made a career out of it!

It seems Cruise's real problem may be with the press. Didn't we hear similar tales when the Cruise-Spielberg Minority Report opened with only $35 million? Then there were last year's stories of how poor War of the Worlds secretly was, and that it would be a massive flop. (And no, I'm not a huge Cruise fan, I just remember the stories surrounding both films.)

Next weekend will prove interesting, as it is likely that Poseidon could underperform as well. If that happens, people will really have a field day predicting the demise of the entire summer season.

 

[Tim Glover]

Chuck M said:
"I don't think his psychology comments made a dent...it was his comments on PPD, as MikeRS already alluded to. My wife had a mile case of PPD, and she ****ing lost it when he said that. All women have had friends with PPD. He blasted himself with that.

I still consider Tom Cruise the biggest movie star in the world. And MI3 will be fine, even if it opens a little soft. And if you skip Cruise movies, you usually miss some quality material. He picks good scripts and directors. "

I agree. I always thought Cruise picked good roles and directors etc...but he has gone a bit goofy on us. He's been a star that women have liked and one that men have found to be cool. I hope he settles his image a bit.

FWIW, I liked MI-3. Great action, but wanted a tad more real story. Almost too much action. Still, I think it will be fine with $$.

 

[Rakesh.S]

da vinci code will eat all the other munchkins alive.

 

[David Williams]

I care. I choose not to give tacit approval to his behavior with my entertainment dollar. I'll either wait until I can see it during it's second run or not at all (in Crowe's case).

 

[Brent M]

To each their own. As was said here, if you based your entertainment habits on stars with squeaky clean records, you wouldn't be watching many movies/TV shows, listening to much music or rooting for professional sports teams.

 

[Nathan V]

Sean,

My long post was an effort to make people realize that Cruise is not the sole factor for the low opening. You summed it up very nicely with "These movies need something more than just being a vehicle to get Cruise in some slick action sequences for them to be interesting again."

And no, I'm not his publicist, but I do think his ideas and vision for what a good film is are excellent. The man knows a good director when he sees one (Kubrick, Mann, Scorsese, Spielberg, Crowe, PTAnderson, list goes on). How he thinks about and approaches his art is what matters. A similar discussion arose several years ago on these boards, where somebody was effectively saying Tarantino's movies don't deserve respect or money because Tarantino 'lives fast' and smokes pot. To me, this inability to seperate what matters with regard to the individual's art and what doesn't is surprising. I saw Syriana not because George Clooney drives an eco-friendly car, but because he's a good actor. I didn't pay to see The Aviator because Leo DiCaprio started a relief fund for Africa. By the same token, I'm definitely not going to deprive myself of the chance to see MI3 because Cruise speaks his mind. What I'm trying to say is, 'the deciding factor in judging an artist should be his art.' As my friend succinctly puts it, "he's a complete f*ckin' loon, but his movies f*ckin' rock."

Regards,
Nathan

P.S. David- check out some of Russell Crowe's films on dvd- that way, none of your money goes to Crowe or the filmmakers.