Box Office of Broken Dreams…

It does feel kind of silly, thinking about an estimated $46 million opening as disappointing.  But this is where the game is played these days.  This weekend’s opening of XXX, in my mind’s eye the second most hyped movie of Summer 2002 (after Spider-Man), is not just about the profit and loss on this film.  It’s fair to say that unless the pond for this film is a lot shallower than expected, it will be in profit before home video/DVD.  But this stone may only get one good skip over the surface.

They are making Charlie’s Angels 2 as I write.  The first film comes to mind because it opened to a then-massive $40.1 million.  It is still the eighth best non-summer opening of all time.  But the film went on to do “only” $125.3 million domestic and about the same overseas.  Given the expense of the film, that meant that it remained in the red until ancillary releases, where the film was a big home video/DVD success.   Sony has shown a willingness, unlike any other studio, to make sequels based on pictures with these kinds of middling financial specs without cutting the budgets significantly. 

I suggested, back when the Angels sequel talk began, that this sequel would never be made, unless the studio got new, cheaper Angels and continued the franchise in the $60 million - $70 million budget range.  I was wrong.  Cameron Diaz got her first $20 million payday for the sequel, while the studio cut back on costs (and hassles) by exchanging Bill Murray for Bernie Mac.  My guess is… and it is a guess… that Drew Barrymore, also a producer of the film, is working for almost nothing upfront and taking more on back end so that the production budget could be held in some kind of check.  If that is the case, it would make the above-line-costs about the same as in the original and if the film comes in on budget this time, the overall production cost could be cut by as much as $15 million.   That would be good.  Even so, the bet is that Charlie’s Angels will enjoy the growing phenomenon of Rising Sequel Syndrome. 

The traditional sequel model was that each sequel dropped 20 percent.  Recent franchises like The Mummy, Austin Powers, the Hannibal Lecter films, Toy Story and Rush Hour have gone against that tradition. 

That was the thinking, seems to me, behind Stuart Little 2.  And I have to say, hindsight may be 20/20, but it’s often unfair.  Based on its success in drawing an audience, I too would have been anxious to greenlight a Stuart Little 2.  A kids movie that can draw $140 million domestic is a valuable franchise.  But to me, the $130 million price tag for the sequel was just too high, whether before or after soft box office results for the film.  At $70 million, I would have been heralding it as a sensational idea.

Back to XXX… a $46 million start probably means a domestic total of about $150 million… although there has still been no film this summer that has hit $150 million after opening at less than $54 million. 

Here’s an odd stat in a year of big openings.  XXX is only the second film all year to open in the 40 millions.  Ice Age is the other one and it did get to $176 million.  So, XXX could also have a unique slot amongst the summer numbers.

Anyway, $150 million domestic… let’s say $200 million in the rest of the world.  That would put the film well into profit before ancillaries.  But what about the sequel?   Tag another $30 million onto that budget and consider the option of a 20 percent drop in box office and suddenly, you have a movie that makes no money before ancillaries… and there is still the risk that it turns out to be Speed 2. 

Personally, I think XXX does have the potential to be bigger in the future.  The idea is so “money,” that better execution on all levels can make the hype this summer into a reality in future summers.  But that is the irony of this weekend’s opening numbers… it’s not that this film doesn’t deserve to be seen as a hit or that the future isn’t bright… it’s that a $46 million opening means that it’s no longer a slam dunk.

AND THOSE KIDS:  Meanwhile at Rancho Rodriguez, Spy Kids 2: Island of Lost Dreams estimated a $17 million opening.  Last year, the original was the most surprisingly leggy movies of the year.  It was in a heated battle with Dr, Dolittle 2 for the title of most successful domestic run by a film opening under $38 million.  Spy Kids started with $26.5 million in the spring while DD2 opened with $25 million mid-summer.  (Given the state of reporting, I’ll just leave that battle in the “too close to call” category.) 

In any case, I’m sure that the good folks at Miramax were hoping that Spy Kids would benefit from Rising Sequel Syndrome.  After all, it was an unknown quantity that became a smash… like Austin Powers, the sequel could hit the jackpot on opening weekend. 

Sorry.

I gotta tell you... I am surprised.  Not only didn’t this opening weekend trump the original, it was off by an estimated 36 percent.  Of course, it didn’t help that Signs and XXX ate over $75 million box office dollars.  But it’s still a little shocking to me.  The obvious analogy here is to Stuart Little 2… but SL2 opened about the same as the original and is suffering in the legs department from skewing younger this time out.  Perhaps the answer on Spy Kids 2 is premature exhibition… perhaps it came too quickly, right on the heels of the original’s video/DVD release. 

The good news is, Spy Kids 2 will still make a lot of money for everyone involved.  Because Rodriguez shot on digital and kept the budget under $40 million, the film will be in profit in worldwide release, even if the film does only $50 million here at home. 

THE OTHERS:  Look for Signs and Goldmember to become the third and fourth biggest movies of 2002 as summer ends, though it will take some milking for either film to pass the $200 million mark domestically.  

Blood Work’s estimated $7.2 million start is as retro as Eastwood’s work on this film and sadly, as anemic.  Last summer, Eastwood’s Space Cowboys opened to $18.1 million.  1997’s Absolute Power opened to $16.8 million.  And in between, True Crime started with $5.3 million.  Trend anyone?  The films that opened in the teens each featured Clint and some additional big names.  The single digit duds featured Clint, Clint and only Clint.  So what to make of Mystic River, Eastwood’s 2003 offering, starring Sean Penn, Kevin Bacon, Laurence Fishburne, Laura Linney, Marcia Gay Harden and Tim Robbins?  The last time Eastwood worked with great actors and stayed behind the camera was Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil.  $5.2 million opening.  Let’s all hope for a better movie from and better box office for The Squintmaster General.

Looks like Road to Perdition will walk away from the table with around $90 million domestic.  But look for DreamWorks to work as hard as ever to make this a major Oscar contender.  Would it be cynical of me to think that Perdition moved to summer because the studio knew that it wouldn’t make any more money in the fall AND that they realized that they couldn’t use the DVD-release-as-Oscar-campaign strategy that worked so well for Gladiator if they brought the movie out in the fall? 

My Big Fat Greek Wedding continues to be the indie story of 2002.  It surely deserves as many column inches as writers spent attacking Steven Soderbergh in the mainstream media, no?  Of course not.  It is a film for regular people, not critics.  It looks like it may get to $60 million (or more), more than triple the next biggest indie releases, Super Troopers (Fox Searchlight, $18.5 million) and Y Tu Mama Tambien (IFC, $13.6 million and still playing).  The media will only nod begrudgingly, even if this film ends up more than doubling the box office for the deservedly beloved Memento.  The director, Joel Zwick, has been behind the camera for over 28 years, albeit primarily on TV.  His first feature was the disastrous Second Sight.  MBFGW is turning out to be the best 60^th birthday present ever.  It will be interesting to see whether a studio – WB would normally be expected to be the one – gives the guy a mid-budget comedy to direct next.  People often scream ageism in Hollywood… Joel Zwick will be a strong piece of evidence if the offers don’t come.  

LINE OF THE WEEK: “XXX is a film of Wagnerian scale — Robert Wagnerian scale, that is.”   Who said it?

HACK:  Change is a funny thing.  Joe Eszterhas has changed.  Sadly, he had to lose much of his larynx in order to make that change.  In an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Eszterhas tells the story of his smoking-related cancer.  He describes his defense of smoking, before the cancer, as “militant.”  And indeed, it would seem that Eszterhas was militant about pretty much everything.  Most famous was his battle of wills with Mike Ovitz and as soon as Nikki Finke can connect Ovitz to Esterhaz’ cancer…

Anyway… I never know quite how to react when people “change” after the dog bites.  I despise the old saw that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.  I would argue that the person was never a true liberal and certainly can’t be counted as a true conservative.  Morality and ideology cannot be based on the ebb and flow of our personal joys and anguishes or they are nothing but high-minded mirrors of our own egos.  That’s not to say that people can’t change. But I would be far more moved by Esterhaz if his unfortunate experience caused him to reconsider his view of women rather than his view of his own sad affliction.  I am very sorry for this man’s pain.  But I tend to take your pledge of fidelity less seriously if you only stop cheating on your wife because the last woman you picked in a bar gave you Herpes.

His story is here.

MY BOSS WENT TO NEW JERSEY TO MAKE A MOVIE WITH J-LO AND AFFLECK AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS LOUSY COLUMN:  Jocular Jeffrey Wells is in the shitter… but I mean that in a good way.  This Friday, his last column for Reel.com will arrive and after a couple of weeks rest, he will start his new life on FilmAnus.com, better known as MoviePoopShoot.com.  Aside from new business cards, little will change for Jeff.  He’ll still be writing twice a week.  He will still be the king of fast-breaking belts, doing triple time on double chins and taking 99 Cent Store shots at any director who doesn’t please him.   He’ll also be fighting for indie films and filmmakers, asking questions that the rest of us might be embarrassed to admit we thought of and battling injustice wherever sees it.  Good luck, Jeffrey.   I’ll keep the web warm for you.

IDEA:  I’ve been playing with doing a series of columns in the voice of other columnists.  Wells and Knowles are the obvious, easy calls.  But who else would you like to see recreated in a THB Guest Star spot?

IT’S A SMALL-ER WORLD?:  There are rumblings in Orlando about a potential purchase of Universal’s theme park business by Disney.  Seem bizarre?  Well, if you want to see the Spider-Man show or Shrek Live!, you don’t go to the Sony lot or the DreamWorks village… you go to Universal.  While it would seem that Universal Orlando would be a redundant addition to the Disney family, Universal Hollywood would be a perfect fit. 

The simple fact is that Universal Hollywood and their admission-free CityWalk could give Disney the kind of presence in Los Angeles that simply can’t come from their theme park base in Anaheim.  The ability to promote the company’s product, from movies to theme parks to ABC TV, in a popular location in the nation’s second biggest market is a great motivator.

Of course, the illogic of it all is that the Universal studio tour is the studio lot.  And I don’t expect that Vivendi would be selling that right now. 

On the other hand, maybe this is all just Orlando buzz and Vivendi hasn’t been making overtures about the L.A. set-up.  If that’s the case, I’d say, “Run!”  Disney is already overbuilt in Orlando and adding one more attraction would never generate enough of a bump in ticket prices or merchandise purchases to make it worthwhile.

The story is here.

I THINK HE’S GOT IT:  Marshall Sella does a terrific profile of Steve Coogan, star of 24 Hour Party People, a quality UA release that came out on the coasts this weekend.  (Forgot to review it… ooops.)  I sometimes wonder whether the kind of adulation that Sella gives up to Coogan is good or bad for the subject… it’s hard to live up to all that love.  But this is an excellent read on a guy whose face you will probably be getting to know in the near future.  The story is here.

ANSWER:  Elvis Mitchell, in his delightful NY Times review.

READER OF THE DAY:  Captain Carolina writes:  “I gotta tell you.. I keep waiting on this coverage your supposed to give on 'Signs' and the mixed reactions it's getting from your readers. My wife, friends and I found it to be the most enjoyable movie experience of the summer, a dramatic thrill ride with strong performances, beautiful cinematography and a real sense of wonder. An expertly orchestrated, cannily crafted popcorn movie. All this despite the obvious plot-holes! I'm curious as to what you and your other readers have to say. Where's the coverage you've been promising all week?”

DAVID RESPONDS:  Okay already!!!!

THERE WILL BE SPOILERS EVERYWHERE!!!  IF YOU DON’T WANT TO KNOW TOO MUCH ABOUT SIGNS, STOP READING NOW!!!

If you want to E Me, link from here.

HERE WE GO!!!!

DANDY DANNY writes: “My girlfriend, aunt, cousin, myself and 90% of the audience we saw the movie with last night had the same reaction to 'Signs' - THE FILM WAS AN ATROCITY!!! I will never see another film this SELLOUT M. Night puts out. The next Spielberg??? Are the critics out of their minds??? Based on what body of work??? 'The Sixth Sense' was an OK thriller that was saved from mediocrity by an inventive ending.  I never thought much of 'Unbreakable'. While it might have been an interesting concept, the film was too pretentious (with scenes running on end WAY after making their point -

husband and wife's restaurant scene is a perfect example) and ultimately insignificant in the end. With 'Signs' M. Night has finally let the cat out of the bag - he's a one trick pony. A nifty twist is all he can come up with. The rest he just steals (borrows is too flattening a word for this jackass) from movies any ten minutes of which are brilliance compared to this mess as a whole.

With the exception of the hilarious Phoenix, the characters are window dressing and have no semblance to real life. The dialogue is weak and sometimes just silly. Mel's son tells him "I hate you!' during the dibner scene. Why? This boy seems perceptive enough (judging by his alert behavior thought the film) to realize that Gibson couldn't be blamed for his wife's unfortunate accident, since he wasn't even there when it happened. Even if the kid feels that Gibson didn't do enough to save his mother this line of dialogue is used simply for emotional effect because it is never referred to again. Some of the suspense is nicely handled while the rest is simply recycled from Spielberg's films. The ending should be enough to prove to people that the director is an idiot and has no balls. Phoenix going Ty Cobb on ET is unintentional funny and not the least bit exciting, not to mention brutish and uninspired.

Shyamalan's ego is so huge (he has to have his name in giant letters in the opening AND closing titles as well as a character part he doesn't have the acting chops to play) that in the next movie I'm sure he'll be playing every part himself.

I hated this piece of shit.”

WITHOUT ERLAND writes:  “First off I wanted to say that I think this is Shyamalan's best movie of the 3.  The Sixth Sense was good, but I never thought all that highly of it because it was just a 2 hour build up for a 5 minute ending.  Unbreakable was OK but was very slow in getting going.  Mind you I did like both, but Signs was great I thought... clearly his best work yet.

I guess I should start with what I thought was great.  As I left the theater with my friend we both said it was the scariest movie we had seen in years.. a lot of which has to do with aliens which are always scary.  But what was great was how as the day turned into night we as audience members dreaded it just as much as the people in the movie.  The build up was great.  Pacing wise the movie is fantastic.  Good humor, it flows, well written.  There was the perfect amount of scares and jumps so that you don't become numb to it.  I also thought the ending was a good payoff even though you KNEW there was one last alien in the house and that it was the one with a few missing fingers.  I also had the feeling about the kid and asthma that he wouldn't be able to get the toxin inhaled. 

But here were some problems/areas I thought it could have improved. 1) The ending just kind of happens.  All of the sudden the radio is on and they have left.  There was so much time building up I would have liked to see another tv news cast with reactions and scenes from various places around the world.  2) Why were their no other crop signs in the U.S., and why wasn't the one on Gibson's farm reported.  You would think SOMEONE who have reported it being so close to Philly.  3)  Maybe it's the morbid side of me but i really wanted to see that bird hit the spacecraft.  4) Going on that last one I think that was a REALLY cool idea about how the crafts were invisible during the day.  Had the movie expanded on that a little there could have been some seriously spooky elements added I believe.  5) This one probably bothered me the most.  When Mel and the kids are reading that Alien book and they see the picture that resembles their house and the 3 graves outside.  I was hoping for more of a payoff with that.  Maybe like his house was the center of something.  That could have maybe even been a reason why his was the only crop circles we saw in the U.S.  Like the aliens had landed there before or something.

Overall I THOROUGHLY enjoyed this movie and would highly recommend it.  In the grand scheme of everything the problems/complaints really were minor I think and they didn't really detract from the great experience I had watching it.”

SON OF HELEN writes:  “Did Shyamalan just get bored at the end of Signs or what?  Up until the very last bit where they fight the alien off with a baseball bat and a glass of water, I was loving the movie.  It was suspenseful, intense and creepy.  The entire sequence in which they're trapped in the boarded up house still gives me the creeps thinking about it.  That is truly effective cinema, and I was completely along for the ride.  The setup leading up to that part was also well paced (I really admire Shyamalan's ability to build up to real suspense).

And then... there's that final show-down.  Which was completely and total nonsense.  I'm mostly pissed because Shyamalan apparently decided to make aliens into some general monster type creature, which is a real shame.  So you mean to tell me that alien creatures, who have mastered inter-stellar travel, came hundreds of light years to... do what, exactly?  Beat up on people?  And that these same aliens are confounded by some freaking boards?  So they could build spaceships but not saws?  And if water (made of two incredibly abundant elements) is FATAL to them, why the hell did they land on a planet which is 75% water?  At the very least, they could've brought some raincoats.

I was also a bit disappointed with the design of the creatures: how did they design space ships without the aid of any apparent opposable appendages?  A bunch of claws may look creepy, but they're not too hot when you're installing circuitry.  I really get the feeling that Shyamalan just wanted some creepy monster and decided to go with aliens.  I really expected more from him.

I was also a bit disturbed by how plain the ending actually was.  There were all sorts of weird, creepy things before: the daughter's apparent premonitions, seeing the book with the picture of their house (and three burned corpses lying on the ground)... These were just atmosphere?  Gah.  Anyway, I'm just going to try and forget the last 10 minutes.  I loved it up until then.”

MARKY MARK writes:  “I'll leave the analysis of all the holes in "Signs" to others.

(Thought it was stupid, tedious, boring and pretentious...) Shyamalan would be great writing 30 minute episodes for "The Twilight Zone" since his movies would be much

improved if reduced to that length. It just seems in his movies he has some point he wants to make and sense be damned in his efforts to make it.

Anyway, the reason for writing is the comment by Len Klady that it was a non-working farm.  Having grown up on a working farm I can tell you that much, if not most, corn grown is for livestock feed and not humans.  This corn has to dry out (stalks turn brown) before harvest; so there's little farming to be done at the point shown in the movie.”

NOT MICHELLE writes:  “I have noticed that Shyamalan does have a shot he returns to again and again (or at least in three films).  In "Signs" we see the main action reflected on a blank television screen.  I know he does this at least once in "Signs", if not twice or more.  In "Unbreakable" a scene with the young Elijah and his mother is viewed in the reflection on a blank television screen.  I don't remember if this exact shot is used in "The Sixth Sense", but I recall a close-up of a doorknob that shows a reflection of the action in the room.  All of these shots add slight visual distortion to the scenes due to the curvature of the surfaces.  I can't say whether he's repeating this to comment on what we see or if he simply likes the shot, but the set-ups are there in all three films.  I don't remember if he did this in Wide Awake.

To give you and your readers points of reference, the doorknob shot in "The Sixth Sense" can be found on the DVD 5:03 into chapter 15.  It only lasts ten seconds or so and is basically just Haley Joel Osment reaching for the doorknob.  It doesn't really have any similarity to the "Unbreakable" and "Signs" shots.

In "Unbreakable" the shot starts at the beginning of chapter 6 on the DVD and lasts for 2:05.  It starts on a close-up of the young Elijah reflected in the television and then zooms out and holds on the shot as we see a conversation between him and his mother.  I had just watched "Unbreakable" again this past weekend, which is what made the similar shot in "Signs" stand out.  (You know the point.  It's near the end of the film when the family has left the basement and think they are safe.  We first see the alien holding Gibson's son in the TV's reflection.  Shyamalan doesn't hold it nearly as long as he does in "Unbreakable", but I swear he used the same shot earlier in "Signs" too.)

Shyamalan also plays with showing us reflections rather than a standard medium or wide shot in other spots.  The first shot of "Unbreakable" shows the action playing out in a mirror.  Later we see Samuel L. Jackson and a customer framed to the side of a piece of comic book art, this time reflected in the glass case.  A quick scan through "The Sixth Sense" found parts of Willis' opening conversation with Olivia Williams shown reflected in a plaque.”

THE CURSE OF THE SHYAMALAN CLASS writes:  “When the credits rolled, I kept asking myself what the twist was.  I couldn't have missed it.  After introspective discussion, I couldn't believe it was something as mundane as our protagonist's dead wife telling him "to see" and to tell his brother to "swing away."  It was a reveal, but in no way was it a twist.

M. Night gets $12 million to make a movie purely on the fumes of THE SIXTH SENSE, a level he probably cannot reach for a long time given his two past movies.  So let's all dump the notion that M. Night is a great writer and take him for what he is: a director that is in desperate need of a script that can meet the standards of his direction.”

TOGA TOGA TOGA writes:  “Here's the deal. My theory to make the movie work out alright is that the daughter keeps calling the water contaminated. Ok. So she has a tic right?  Wrong. She also has visions. "I dreamed this" she says later in the plot.  She is calling the water contaminated because it is holy. The little girl has some divine connection. Who knows a future saint? Remember the only water that touches the alien is the water from her glasses. Perhaps she has the power to bless the water herself? Who knows. This seems the most plausible. They said an "ancient Suni" ritual or something to that effect. Hopefully they had blessed the water? Let us hope. This fits within the archetype of the movie. However if its "just water" then Shyamalan fucked up big time. And coming from Iowa, the ending is just ridiculous.”

DAVID SCHUMANN says:  “Link to my column, damn you!!!” 

DAVID REPLIES:  He didn’t really say that.  But you can read Schu’s opinion of Signs by clicking here.  Then, scroll down past the girls in bikinis.

BENSON & HODGES writes:  “I saw Signs. I thought it was more interesting than good. Kind of an exercise in technique, as if it were a film school assignment. "Make a movie about an alien invasion, but don't show the alien until the climax, and film ninety percent on one set." I did notice that no one seems to be working on the farm, but to me the worse problem is the aliens' achilles heel--water. This is worse than the end of War of the Worlds, when the Martians got wiped out by bacteria. A superior race comes light years to take over our planet, a planet that is 70% water, mind you, and they don't realize they can't stand H20? A good rainfall would have done them in. And notice that in the radio broadcast in the background, it was in the Middle East that the alien's weakness was first noticed. Is that some kind of joke, that it was in the desert that the alien's first got hosed by water and started sizzling? Just doesn't add up.”

DASH writes:  ‘I understand that M Night did not want an effects filled film but hey! these aliens come from light years away. they have spacecraft and possibly intelligence way above ours to accomplish such a feat.

why does the creature stand in the middle of the room waiting to be hit? why does it have no weapons when going into a potentially hostile area. of course that would spoil the trite morality tale trajectory of the movie. 

Why, oh why, is everything filmed with the actors front and centre of the screen. The composition is dull, dull dull.

And surely Mel is almost old enough to be Joaquin's grandfather rather than brother.

I could go on and on, but what's the point.”

E ME:  Just do it.