The biggest surprise of this weekend was not Signs’ estimated $60.3 million start, but rather The Master of Disguises’ $13 million, despite unilaterally hideous reviews.   I’m not saying critics mean much when it comes to opening weekends, but when opinion is this unanimous…

Signs’ opening is obviously reason for Disney to celebrate.  But let’s maintain a little perspective.  This is the ninth best opening of the last sixteen months.  Unbreakable’s 2000 opening of $30.3 million turned out to be the ninth best opening of that entire year.  And that film grossed just over three times opening when all was said and done.  Which is to say that I do think that Disney will end up with around three times this weekend’s opening, even though the trend is down on opening multipliers (as our friends at boxofficeprophets.com would call them). 

Of the ten previous members of the $60 million opening club (assuming that Signs stays in), only one film will have ever failed to reach $200 million domestic – Planet of the Apes.  On the other hand, only one managed to reach four times opening – The Phantom Menace, which did better than six times its opening domestically. 

If Signs slips into the $50 million and over opening club, which now has 24 members (13 of which joined in the last two years), there are five films that did four times opening… none since The Grinch in 2000 and the rest going further back into history, with Phantom Menace and Toy Story 2 in 1999, Men in Black in 1997 and Independence Day in 1996.

Unlike three of the other four already released films that will near or pass the $200 million this summer, Signs was made for under $100 million, which means that the film will be hugely profitable for Disney, M. Night Shyamalan and Mel Gibson.  Spider-Man will still be this summer’s runaway profit-making machine, but Signs and Clones and Austin Powers are all going to generate serious profits.

Back to Master of Disguise – Columbia and Revolution’s marketing teams deserve a big smooch on their collective butt cheeks from the production side on this one.   The film seems likely to gross $30 million or more in theatrical distribution, which is astounding, when you look the reviews for this one.  That means bigger dollars than expected in ancillary markets as well.  And who knows?  Dana Carvey might become the new Jerry Lewis of France.  The marketing and publicity team went right at their audience… they were very open about segmenting the market for this film and telling everyone that it was a kid’s movie.  Dana Carvey opened every interview that I saw by saying that in plain language.  And it worked better than anyone should have expected. 

Assuming the estimate holds up, Master of Disguise will have opened better than this year’s kids crop of The Country Bears, The Powerpuff Girls, Hey Arnold, Eight Legged Freaks, The Croc Hunter, Like Mike, Big Fat Liar or Return to Neverland and disappointingly close to the opening numbers for the revival of E.T. and Sony’s own Stuart Little 2.  

Meanwhile, Paramount should be very happy with the estimated $7.5 million opening of Martin Lawrence’s concert film, Runteldat.  Sure, two summers ago, The Original Kings of Comedy opened to $11.1 million on the way to over $38 million.  But there were four performers who were ready to break out – two with sitcoms and two on the verge of special broad audience careers – all drawing different parts of the audience.  More importantly, the only new competition was The Cell and its $17.5 million start.  If the film does $20 million domestic, you’re looking at eight-digit profits on a risk investment of under $5 million.  It may not be mega-dollars, but you can be sure that there will be another concert movie on Paramount’s schedule on the first or second weekend of next August.

CHEAP SHOT:  In Sunday’s Reuters box office wrap by Dean Goodman, the reporter points out that overall receipts are down for the third straight weekend, then points the finger, saying, “Duds such as Stuart Little 2, K-19: The Widowmaker and The Country Bears, as well as the disappointing Road to Perdition kept audiences away.”

As a longtime reader, The Master of Old Breasts, wrote, there is something deeply disturbing about Perdition being in the same paragraph as that group of films, much less  the same sentence, even if he separates them somewhat. 

First, there is a real lack of research about last year’s line-up.  Start at the top with Rush Hour 2, which outgrossed Signs by over $7 million.  Much of that is made up by Goldmember, which did an estimated $4.9 million better than Planet of the Apes, both in their second weekends.  But the two new films not on top last year (The Princess Diaries and Original Sin) did $8.8 million more than this year’s equivalent duo (The Master of Disguise and Runteldat).  So up near the top of the charts, last year was about $10.9 million ahead of this year before we get around to running down “duds” or “disappointments.”

The biggest fourth weekend film last year in the first weekend of August was the sleeper hit, Legally Blonde with $5.9 million.  The supposedly disappointing Road to Perdition did an estimated $6.6 million in its fourth weekend.  Funny how perspective works. 

Then there is the argument for Road to Perdition on principle alone.  Though DreamWorks was clearly high on the film, $100 million was always a reach (at least, without and Oscar run) for this dark tale.  I wrote about opening weekend:

“No one really won.  No one really lost.  If there was a winner, it was Road to Perdition, which estimated a $22 million start… but we won’t really know whether the film is going to be the first movie leggy enough to get to $100 million after a sub-$30 million start this year… and that’s where the win is… at least $80 million domestic.”

There now is a first movie… and only movie… to hit $100 million domestic after a sub-$30 million start this year.  The Bourne Identity pulled it off after a $27.1 million start.  Perdition is unlikely do it without an Oscar run.  And the only real summer candidate left is Blue Crush.  But I would look at that film in the reflection of the sleeper, Bring It On, which opened to $17.4 million and brought in just under $70 million total.  My early take on Blue Crush is an opening of about $23 million – which is a big win - and a total just over $80 million.

But back to Perdition… in the next few weeks, Perdition will be duking it out with Panic Room for the title of Current Highest Grossing R-Rated Domestic Release.  Of course, come October, we can count on Red Dragon putting both films in its R-rated dust.  But that’s not the point.  It’s not fair to beat Perdition down on box office because it’s been hyped as an Oscar film.  While Lord of the Rings and A Beautiful Mind were both $100 million-plus Oscar movies last year, Moulin Rouge did only $57.4 million, Gosford Park did only $41.3 million and In The Bedroom did only $35.9 million.  Perdition is in a fine position financially… has probably done more business than it would have in a crowded fall or even a quiet spring… and its Oscar prospect are now hanging on how the fall/holiday films shake out.

ABOUT THE FALL:  I promised a Fall Preview on Friday and then on Friday, I promised it on Saturday.  The truth is, I sent the preview package out to the studios on Friday afternoon and some corrections and comments came in that afternoon… enough to make me want to wait until today to finalize the piece, so that everyone who wanted to chime in had a chance to chime in.  My webmistress has done a wonderful job laying the 4000-word-plus piece out, so I am excited.  But we’ll all just have to wait until tomorrow.  Thanks for understanding.

MOVIE IRREGULARS:  The Sunday New York Times offered up two non-movie-staff stories about which I had very mixed feelings.  First, there was Op-Ed columnist Maureen Down taking the Swipe Of The Week at Full Frontal.  But it’s more than that.  It’s an attack on the entire indie business, taking easy and long agreed upon swipes at the commercialization of what was once about art.  But it fails, as so many do, to understand or appreciate the many, many filmmakers out there who are still reaching for more.

Dowd’s friend, Leon Wieseltier, might toss off: “Like everything that sizzles, the indie ideology is just another theory of marketing. Integrity as a brand. Aesthetically, it's a load of bad faith: the simplicity of the complex, the homeliness of the glamorous, the modesty of the immodest, the insouciance of the careerist. Sometimes small is as awful as big.”

Notice how he throws in that “sometimes” at the end, as a defense against being accused of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  Sorry… that’s not okay with this hack, who spends every day of his life paying attention to both sides of “sometime.” 

While I agree with Dowd’s dismissal of Tadpole as “a pale version of Rushmore, a pale version of The Graduate,” only a media victim would blame the filmmaker for Miramax hyping the idea that “tadpoling” was in vogue.

And it’s way to easy to attack movie stars (or directors, for that matter) for dipping their toes into something different with the argument that they are just hoping on a trend.  Please look at Brad Pitt’s career.  He did Kalifornia after he did A River Runs Through It.  He did Twelve Monkeys after Interview with the Vampire and Legends of the Fall.  He did Snatch after Fight Club and Full Frontal after Ocean’s Eleven.  Whatever you feel about Brad Pitt as an actor, there is only one answer to those who would deride him for the range of his work, regardless of the size of his paychecks… “Fuck Off!”

Then the smug definer of other people’s choices says, “Well, there are always exceptions to the rule.” 

Yes.

That’s why you should fuck off.

Any moron can guess that everything will be bad and be right 90 percent of the time or more.  Any moron can throw away all of the indie world as pretentious posers and be right 80 percent of the time.  And any moron can look at the production notes on a film and take them out of context to attack the filmmaker instead of keeping it in context.

Yet… there is a lot of what Dowd writes that I agree with.  And there’s the rub. 

Also on Sunday, Times movie beat reporter Rick Lyman joined the “new wave of heroes” fray with a story – again, sometimes dead-on, sometimes grossly over-reaching – about Vin Diesel and others. 

Tom Rothman clarifies the situation with precision.  “It's true that there is an older generation of action stars,” he tells Lyman, “But it's just part of the evolution that's always there in the movie business. Every new generation gets their own screen personalities and, without a doubt, we are in the midst of one of these transition periods.”

Perhaps the is an argument to be made that The Rock or Vin Diesel might have found some resistance to their ascent in the past.  The careers of Richard Roundtree, Jimmy Smits, Riccardo Montalban, Jim Brown, Will Smith and others suggest otherwise.  But, okay.

Revolutions Studio’s Todd Garner has an interest in promoting Vin Diesel and the “he’s happening because he’s multi-cultural” is a good selling point.  But it’s a load of horse manure.  Vin Diesel is becoming what he is becoming because of that body, that voice and that laconic attitude.  He’s not that far different than a young Burt Reynolds, though big muscles weren’t in fashion back then.  Fifteen years ago, a blonde-haired, blue-eyed balding wrestler was a hot movie commodity.  Hulk Hogan was a personality and he wasn’t hot because people needed more beach boys.  Beach boys were hot because Hulk Hogan was a personality. 

I will argue this to the end… movie stars become movie stars because audiences connect with the person.  You never know who is going to take off, though the best people in the business can feel that star presence before the audience catches on.  Directors and casting directors supported Sandra Bullock for a long time, knowing that eventually she would break through.  And she did. 

Vin Diesel was not the best actor in Saving Private Ryan.  But even though he dropped out of the movie early, his star power shone brightest amongst the young male stars on Spielberg’s canvas.  

People told me when Ben Affleck turned up in Kevin Smith’s Chasing Amy that he had that quality that would get him where he is today.  I saw it… a little… not this much.  But they were right.

The point is, magic is magic.  If the actor is magic and the movie doesn’t slow him or her down, they will emerge.  And no matter how great an actor Tobey Maguire is – and I would have had him Oscar nominated for Wonder Boys – he may not ever be an eight figure box office opener in anything but Spider-Man. 

Of course, then Lyman makes great points about the idea that the way effects are done is now allowing less physical actors to play action heroes.  Really interesting, smart stuff.  (Read it all here)

Finally, there is occasional times contributor Neal Gabler, a.k.a Hollywood’s Youngest Old Curmudgeon.  I can’t defend Adam Sandler’s Mr. Deeds.  It is a piece of crap.  But suggesting that the entire business of film is corrupt an worthless by comparing Mr. Deeds to the classic Capra film that it was based on, Mr. Deeds Goes To Town, is a grotesque overreach. 

I hate this stuff.  Guys like Gabler talking big about “the illusion of entertainment.”  And of course, putting all on teenagers, who need to be protected by men who understand what is really good and really important.  Idiotic.  And old man’s argument.  “Remember the good old days!!!”

This might be a great moment to read this article.

Okay… done?

To get into the minutiae of this comic or that show is to avoid the stupidity of this theory that Gabler is espousing.  But anyone who has ever really connected with an audience knows that there is a difference between moments of familiarity and moments of connection.

When I was but a child, I worked at Saturday Night Live.  Every week, there were laughs of familiarity - laughs that came simply because people were in that audience on a Saturday night and they were stoked and ready to guffaw – and there were laughs that really connected. 

At 19 years old, I didn’t really know the difference.   If there was a sketch that I didn’t think was “worthy” at the table reading, I was sure that the audience was made up of rubes when they laughed at it on Saturday night.  But that was my ego in play, not reality. 

I listen better now.  Those of you who write in add to my ability to see beyond my own ego.  But it’s not always easy.  And the difference is not what I think about the comedy or the drama or anything else.  The difference is real and profound.  You can feel the work connecting in that real way in any room where it’s happening.  And when I feel that and it’s not connecting for me, I feel the need to examine my disconnect, not to find a reason to blame the audience or the filmmaker for tricking everyone who is not as smart as me. 

That doesn’t mean that I don’t have the right not to connect.  Nor does it prevent me from worrying about people who think that Mr. Deeds is anything better than a lame distraction.  I never felt that moment of connection in Mr. Deeds.  But I sure felt it in Signs.  And I felt it in Men in Black II a couple of times.  And I even felt it for a second or two of K-19. 

All forms of popular art run in cycles.  We are just coming out of a period in which everything was irony.  A good scene had to anticipate the audience’s anticipation and then had to spin it in a way that would, after years of being fed “classic” scenes, still surprise.  This has exhausted many forms of the communicative arts. 

But what Gabler misunderstands is that drama – which can be comic – has always connected with audiences by walking a difficult line between surprise and familiarity.  That’s the reason why great films can be viewed over and over and over again.  Once we have a seen a film, in most cases we know all the “codes.”  But still, we can connect.  And it’s not because we are lazy and it’s not because we’ve been brainwashed.

Example – You are at a Chinese restaurant.  When the meal is over, they serve orange slices.  Being the Godfather fan you are, you eat your orange and place the peel over your teeth and start moaning. 

The adults at the table are reading the code that Neal Gabler is so worried about and laughing at the “reminder.”  But the kids at the table are laughing at a guy who is moaning with an orange peel in his mouth.  They are laughing hard.  The young teen at the table is rolling his/her eyes.  This too is a sincere reaction. 

Now, there may be a kid who is laughing because the adults are laughing, just as children will run a joke that they have been a part of into the ground because the adults laugh.  That seems to be what Neal Gabler is worried about… and expanding the concept to an entire culture. 

Like most snake oil salesmen, he and those of us he is addressing are above being sucked into this nightmare.  We are bigger than the joke being perpetrated.  But those poor kids… those poor kids…

Codes instead of content are as old as the most primitive theater.  And because someone put a name to it and Neal Gabler wrote about it in the New York Times, we are supposed to shriek in horror?  Adults are the people who respond to codes instead of content.  If you take a wheezing sitcom in its final years and play that show to someone who hasn’t seen it, they probably won’t bite.  But those viewers who have ridden out the life of the show have a real relationship with the characters and are willing to work through the less funny days and encourage the show with their viewership.  Kids will change the channel on a less-than-great episode of a cartoon that they love.  Given choice, kids will choose.  We adults are far more sedentary. 

Have you ever watched TV or a movie with a kid?  They know what they think is funny, moving, touching, scary.  And they have no fear about feeling whatever the work makes them feel. 

Anyway… let me know what you think?  Should I be locking up the kids with tapes of Bullwinkle because Spongebob Squarepants isn’t really engaging them… they just been brainwashed?

E ME:  I am glad that these conversations come up… I just wish that the goal wasn’t intellectual simplicity instead of honesty about the idea that these are the questions that challenge our future and that none of us has the definitive answer.  Not even Mr. THB Big Mouth.  What do you think?