2008 at the Box Office (1 Viewer)

[James_Kiang]

I noticed Terry has The Ruins listed as an April release. I enjoyed the book, but has production actually started on this one? I would think it would have to be shooting (and probably almost done) for it to make that date.

 

[TerryRL]

"The Ruins" is currently in post-production. Shooting wrapped recently in Australia. The film should have very little difficulty in making its release date.

 

[Brian Sheffield]

Summer '08 looks much weaker than Summer '07.

I think box office will be down, and if the various strikes aren't resolved quickly, '09 will be a wasteland.

 

[James_Kiang]

Hmmm, just checked out the IMDB entry for The Ruins. Not familiar with the director and the cast is a bit younger than I figured. I'll have to see some trailers but just because I enjoyed the book I am leaning towards seeing the movie. I doubt this has major expectations on it though.

 

[TerryRL]

DreamWorks/Paramount made "The Ruins" REALLY on the cheap and are expecting it to be a profitable venture for them and spawn at least one sequel.

As for the '08 summer schedule, I initially also thought that it didn't look nearly as strong as what '07 had to offer, but I really think that next summer could end up surprising a lot of people. There's a lot of potentially great projects there.

 

[Greg Krewet]

What is the expectations of the Spiderwick Chronicles?
Best
Greg

 

[TerryRL]

With a budget of only about $30 million, Paramount is expecting (actually hoping for) a domestic haul of more than $50 million for "The Spiderwick Chronicles". Everyone involved would be ecstatic if the movie pulled in numbers similar to that of "The Bridge of Terabithia" ($82.3 million), which also had a February release.

Both films are also based on very popular children's books. Basically, Paramount is hoping the success of 'Terabithia' (which was released by Disney) isn't a fluke and that moviegoers are going to be more than willing to boost 'Spiderwick' to the same sort of box office success.

 

[TerryRL]

"Angels & Demons" has become the first major '08 "strike casualty" as it has been pushed from its December release to a launch in May '09. The film is the sequel to the box office smash "The Da Vinci Code" ($217.5 million domestically/$758.2 million worldwide). After inking very lucrative deals, star Tom Hanks and director Ron Howard will both return for the sequel

 

[TerryRL]

The release schedule has been updated.

'08 lost another highly anticipated feature as WB's "Where the Wild Things Are" has moved to a yet to be determined 2009 release date.

Also of note, UA's "Valkyrie" has moved out of the summer '08 season and will now launch in October.

 

[Les Samuel]

Indiana Jones 4: $450 million
Iron Man: $135 million (This will fall well below expectations)
Cloverfield: $125 million
The Dark Knight: $225 million ( I don't think I'll even watch this)
The Incredible Hulk: $175 million
Harry Potter: $275 million
Chronicles of Narnia - Prince Caspian: $200 million
The Mummy 3: $125 million (This will fall well below expectations)

 

[TerryRL]

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]

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]

N/M

 

[Colin Jacobson]

$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]

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]

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]

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

 

[TerryRL]

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]

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]

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