Set your watches… we’re 24 days away from the start of summer, thanks for Universal’s April 19 release of The Scorpion King.  It’s kind of interesting.  Sony has, it seems to me, taken the pressure off of Universal by grabbing the date previously occupied by The Mummy and The Mummy Returns for Spider-Man. With Hannibal opening with $58 million two Februarys ago and Ice Age starting with $46 million a couple of weekends ago, Universal would not be silly to expect The Rock to deliver at least $50 million in the first round.  But unless they get a real surprise on the up side, they won’t have to worry about comparisons to The Mummy Returns’ $68 million start.  Anything over $46.4 million will be a record for April and will get only good attention.  Plus, when The Scorpion King passes what seems like an inevitable $150 million, it will be fairly very close to profit in real money, before foreign or ancillary dollars are counted.  More good news for Universal. 

On the other hand, if Spider-Man, in The Mummy Returns’ slot, doesn’t kick off at more than TMR’s $68 million, it will be doubted.  That may seem an easy reach to some of you, but a $69 million start would be the fifth highest of all time and the only one not in a holiday slot (Harry Potter opened the weekend before Thanksgiving… but I’m counting it.)  As a point of reference, Episode One opened to “only” $65 million.  On the other hand, Planet of The Apes opened on July 27 to $68.5 million… so anything is possible.  But just to further the comparisons of pain, if Spider-Man opens to $70 million and grosses $210 domestic, it still won’t be in profit.  About $100 million or so overseas will take the film into the black.  Which is fine.  If the film grosses $400 million worldwide and another $200 million in ancillaries, it will make about $175 million in profit.  Of course, if The Scorpion King grosses 25 percent less, it will also make about $175 million in profit.  An interesting summer at the box office…

COMING SOON:  Two major events in the history of film exhibition occurred last week.  IMAX unveiled a new re-mastering system for tradition features to be blown up to IMAX size, not just shown on a really big screen.  And Pacific opened a theater called Arclight (arclightcinemas.com) opened in and around L.A.’s Cinerama Dome, taking the idea of luxury movie going to a new place, above and beyond stadium seating and premium seating houses.  But before I write on either subject, I want to really crunch the numbers.  I have long been arguing that premium movie going opportunities are a key to the future of exhibition.  My vision, however, was always of a fairly high capacity single screen stand-alone house in which no film would run for more than 2 weeks.  The Arclight experience comes with a $14 price tag, which is a number that I think can work.  However, they have a dozen screens and one has to wonder how many people will pay a premium to watch Weekend Five of 40 Days, 40 Nights.  Likewise, the amazing IMAX project.  With fewer than 300 screens in America, many of them attached to museums that have no evening foot traffic, and with less than 400 seats to sell in each theater, how does the $3 million re-mastering cost work out?  Honestly, I’m not really sure yet.  The first IMAX project is Apollo 13, which looks fantastic.  At the press conference, the filmmakers talked about the idea of the oversized version having playdates for 30 years, as some IMAX films have.  But I see the future – and you have to know that IMAX does too – as a single screen $150,000 week (300 seats x $15 x 5 shows a day x 7 days) for movies like Spider-Man and Star Wars or a $100,000 week for mid-range event movies.  But as I wrote… I haven’t worked through the whole thing yet.  Let me know if you have any input on the subject.

OVERLOOKED:  This box office weekend was overshadowed by Oscar, but it was pretty significant nonetheless.  Blade II became the sixth off-season film of all time to open with over $30 million, despite the distraction of Oscar on Sunday evening, which started here in L.A. in the early afternoon.  Equally big a story was the 35 percent drop by Ice Age in weekend two, which is actually quite impressive, considering Oscar and a generally lackluster response to the film by critics and some audiences.  And E.T.’s $14 million start is also pretty impressive.  September 11 kind of slowed Universal’s promotion team when it came to selling the film, as major event screenings turned into one event screening.  But a $50 million gross for a 20 year old film… and I think that the film will be leggy, if not showy… is pretty damned good in this climate. 

ANIMATED:  CBS MarketWatch’s Russ Britt did a terrific story summing up the status of the animation business these days.  Well worth the click.  Unmentioned in the piece, which focuses heavily on 2D vs. 3D animation, is DreamWork’s Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron, which was promoted by the studio at ShoWest and again last Wednesday night in Hollywood.  Oy.  It’s funny how a huge success like Shrek can create problems.  The idea of Disney animation falling back really came out of The Lion King being such a phenom and grossing over $300 million domestic, which no other animated film had done before or has done since.  When Pocahontas did “only” $142 million domestic, it was seen as a problem film.  When Toy Story did $190 million domestic six months later, Pixar was given the lion’s share (pardon the pun) of credit.  And still, people ask whether Disney is Disney without Pixar… unfairly. 

Shrek is DreamWorks’ The Lion King.  Last year, the studio came to ShoWest with Shrek ears, special popcorn tubs and soda cups, and an enormous amount of enthusiasm.  They also showed us the whole film.  The summer preview event that featured Spirit offered free-flowing alcohol, Wolfgang Puck hors d’ouevres, a live performance by Bryan Adams and Hans Zimmer… and a few film clips.  They know.  And now, we know.  I’m going to lay off this film now and wait to see the whole thing, but DreamWorks will have to recover from their success, at least in perception, for a long while to come. 

BLOODY AWFUL:  As much as there was a celebration of diversity at this year’s Oscars (grossly overstated, if you ask me), there was some concern at the Independent Spirit Awards that there was a lack of diversity amongst both the nominees and winners (also probably overstated).  But to show that American movie financiers are not the only scum in the pond, Britain's minister for tourism, film and broadcasting, Kim Howells, is pushing for the limited public finding in the U.K. for “esoteric” films to be limited further, in favor of more commercial product.  Howell’s told London's Independent, "There is a fine balance to be struck. We need to give young talent a leg up -- I am entirely in favor of  that -- but we have also got a duty to ensure that there are good financial returns to the investments that we are putting in."  Ironically, the U.K. film lottery system has been criticized in the past for giving too much to highly commercial filmmakers like Ridley and Tony Scott and their production companies.  No more.  Of course, it is hard to take the guy seriously – if it weren’t for his very powerful job – when he told the paper that, “…movies have a long and steady history. They are a damn good investment."  Here’s a guy who should have had a job at Enron.

MERGERMANIA CONTINUES:  An interesting piece on the further consolidation of the world of cable in the New York Times.  If you don’t have your free registration, it’s time to sign on.  If so, click here now.

READERS OF THE DAY:  An Old Friend writes:  “Woody Allen was easily the high point, though during the build-up, I kept  thinking they were talking about someone else as I never figured the Woodster would show up.  Wonderful to see him there and he should host every year from now on - even via satellite.

When Halle Berry thanked Joel Silver, I thought that was the most rockin' thank you of the night.  If Joel lives to win a Thalberg, I hope he thanks Joel Silver, too.

The constant reaction shots to Ron Howard were as much of a subtle "tell" as to who would win Best Director as all the on-stage Jack Nicholson jokes were when he won for "As Good As It Gets."

Ian McKellen having to come on and introduce Cirque de Soleil after losing to Broadbent sucked arse.

The reaction shot of John Williams forcing himself to smile and clap when Howard Shore won was hilarious.

The fact that instead of forced smiles and bullshit, the animators chose to animate "loser" Jimmy Neutron looking glum and having a "fake holographic hand-clapper" and then Mike and Sully spoofing the fake-smile routine was an over-looked classic bit o' humor for the show.  I'd love to see what the Dreamworks guys did in case "Shrek" lost - if anything at all.

"Black Hawk Down" winning two Oscars that should've been "Lord of the Rings" wins was pathetic.

And perhaps "For The Birds" win will encourage studios to pair their animated features with ambitious animated short films when they release them in studios to get them out and seen by the most people.  Nah, probably not.”

And this from a student at Ole Miss.  “Normally, I hide all identity, but I love that some kid in the deep south is not only enough nutty enough to be reading me, but that he is so passionate about such a specific subject.  It give me hope.  Here’s his note:  “As much as I disliked a lot of other choices the Academy made, for some inexplicable reason this is the one that rankled me the most.  Does anyone have any idea how good Monsters Inc.'s Gary Rydstrom actually is?  Consider that he worked on a film that had *no natural sound*--everything you hear in that movie that isn't dialogue, he created.  What's more, a film like Pearl Harbor has known referents and expectations.  People know, or think they know, what a bomb dropping sounds like.  Rydstrom's job, on the other hand, was to create effects that sounded so right that they made a completely unnatural (or supernatural, I guess) world feel real.  He pulled it off masterfully, as he has done with every single Pixar film to this point, and I'm dismayed that he was beaten out by a bunch of loud explosions.”

From The Land Of Hors comes:  “Was it my imagination or did Whoopi diss Robert Redford?  I'm not sure if I am interpreting her jokes right, but it seemed she was making a point that he didn't offer much to black viewers...

Wow, Julia Roberts presenting the Best Actor Oscar was pretty much all about Julia...she brought up her experience winning the year before several times and managed to glue her self to Denzel going back stage...pretty much made sure she had a slice of his moment!

While I think Halle's speech was very genuine, I was a little put off by how she stressed the magnitude of this win.  Sweetie, let other people say those things for you!  While she seemed humbled by it in some respects, she also seems to think she has broken down the doors for an entire race of people.  Ask Sidney Poitier about the long-lasting implications of a single trophy...I was much more impressed by Denzel not voicing a belief that the world (or at least Hollywood) is suddenly a different place.

What was with the Sidney Poitier tribute?  I loved him as an actor, his films resonate with me, and I am white!  But for some reason white Hollywood was not included in the tribute?  For an evening that should have rejoiced in the inclusion of African Americans, I felt that instead it was more polarizing than ever.

Woody Allen was an absolute highlight, but was it me, or did the NY montage fall a little flat?  I don't know if Nora just isn't good at editing, but I am a sucker for video clips and cheap emotional gimmicks, but it didn't choke me up or make me fall in love with movies or NYC, and I am easy about both of those things anyway!

What was Gwyneth thinking?  How can boobs that small still sag?

Loved the clips of various people talking about their favorite films – now that worked for me!”

E ME:  You know, I have been accused of spending too many column inches of THB writing about breasts and their place(s) in the business, but the most written about thing at this year’s Oscars by you guys and gals was… Gwynnie’s boobs.  It’s funny, but they didn’t stick out to me (ha ha), however I did notice that at Oscar and at the Independent Spirit Awards that the selling of boobs seems to out as a Hollywood trend.  Not only wasn’t a lot of cleavage on show, which has been the norm for a while for the busty and the less generously endowed, but even actresses like Heather Graham and Christina Ricci seem to have, a) dropped a LOT of weight and b) de-emphasized the boobs to the point of hiding them.  Is there a new trend coming?  Are tiny tops and bra straps on their way out?  You tell me.