January 31, 2003

I don’t remember this slow a news week in a long, long time. 

It’s funny, since there is so much going on in the highest corporate offices.  But these are not really industry stories. 

The box office attempts to jump-start itself today with The Recruit, Biker Boyz and Final Destination 2…. wake me when I give a damn.  (The irony here is that The Recruit is getting a better response from some critics than anyone expected and Biker Boyz might be something… if not, why are Laurence Fishburne and Orlando Jones slumming? 

I fully expect Gangs of New York to report some minimal drop, despite losing 22 percent of its screens.  And Chicago will have another rising week… after all, they added 7 theaters. 

While Universal tips a toe in the water with The Guru on just 62 screens, this continues to be the theme with all the Oscar movies other than Gangs and Rings.  There are two ways to look at this now.  1. They are waiting for the Oscar nominations to support an expansion.  2. They are deciding whether to spend the money to expand some really strong movies that may or may not be serious box office players.  Next week, Chicago will finally expand to about 1600 screens, although that is far more conservative than originally planned… and two weeks later than planned.  What does that mean?  Good question.  It could be that tracking suggests that the numbers outside of urban centers will not be great and that the image of the film as a real phenomenon is at risk.  Or… they could just be waiting for nominations to help launch the film. 

Antwone Fisher had opened widest and lost just under a quarter of their screens this weekend to end up on 679 screens.  The Hours and The Pianist are both hovering around the 500-screen mark.  And Adaptation neared 600 before slowing its roll. 

Next weekend, three blondes and an Asian collide!

Anyway…

McG is making a movie based on Hot Wheels toy cars.  (Provide Your Own Joke Here.)

What more is there to say?  A 1pm pst on-air rumble with Michael Medved on his radio show… the Daredevil junket… maybe I’ll get a haircut….

Have a good weekend.

READER OF THE DAY:  You would be amazed at the amount of mail I got defending Jennifer Garner from my “attack” which really wasn’t much of an attack.  Unlike many e-mailers, I don’t think that Gretchen Mol is some untalented hacktress.  The comparison was based on the hype outweighing the actual degree of success.  And no matter what the reviews for Alias are, it is not a successful television show and she is not a money star.  Nonetheless, let’s give the boys their due.  And yes, every single pro-Jenn letter was from a guy.  Hmmm…

NOT THE MICROSOFT GUY writes:  “But you really have it coming when you call Jennifer Garner "Gretchen Mol 2003/2004."  How on earth can you say that?  Because of ratings for a show that has an idiot syndrome following it? 

Alias, to damn near every important tv critic, is a good show.  It doesn’t pull down the numbers because of the idiot syndrome people have that if you missed one show, you missed EVERYTHING! JJ Abrams makes sure to put infront of a show a prologue that briefly explains what happened in previous weeks.  The ratings might be slipping but the show has enough critical praise, enough ratings, and is cheap enough to get it to a third season.  The show is unique on a network of utterly bland television.

The show aside, Mol doesn't have the talent, the appeal, or the charisma that Garner has.  Not to mention the ability to be a possible viable female action hero.  No one, not Halle Berry and her crappy Jinx character, or any other female star has that ability to be a female superhero people could ACTUALLY care to see.  She has "it" and it wont fade away anytime soon.  To call Jennifer Garner another Gretchen Mol is to make, by far, an incredibly daft statement that holds no weight in reality.

Who do you think people are going to see Daredevil for?  Ben Affleck? 

Give her a chance, before you throw her under the bus.  Thanks for reading and have a nice day.”

FOXY MAC writes:  “OK, you can't go tossing out the Gretchen Mol label like that.  Garner is far, far more talented than Mol (and for my money easier on the eyes).  When Mol was on the cover on Vanity Fair, what were her major credits?  Supporting parts in Rounders and Celebrity, right?  Garner has been the lead in a TV show for two seasons, supporting parts in several films, is getting her first major part in 13 Going On 30 (and even though it's a comedy, we'll get to see her real chops going up against Ruffalo), and Fox's promotion for Daredevil seems to be favoring her over Affleck.  She's the one reflected in the moon, not him.

Not to mention Mol was how old when the cover broke?  24, 25?  Garner is a seasoned 30 who has been around; she's going to be a long-term player.  Plus, despite the massive amount of coverage she receives, how many covers do you see her on?  Very few.  It's usually the 1-2 page spread in a Vanity Fair or Esquire. 

It's her unfortunate luck that Alias can't find a big enough audience.  It's a great show that has richly rewarded those who stuck with it from the beginning, though admittedly has been tough for those trying to join in late.  Not to mention the lousy time slot it has.  But you can't damn  her for the failure of that show -- put any other actress in that part, and the show doesn't even make it past season 1.

Alias' lack of success should not be considered indicative of Garner's potential.  Even Julianne Moore started on Another World -- everyone's got to start somewhere.  Right?”

REM SLEEP writes:  “Right, you're probably gonna make fun of me for this, but I love Alias.  For that matter, so does my girlfriend.  Never miss an episode, unless it's right after the Superbowl and I've been drinking mimosas since noon.

I think it's silly, trashy fun that makes no secret out of the fact that its plots are based mostly around what kind of revealing disguise Garner will have to wear.  Spies are neat!  Who cares?

You're right about the indie thing - that's true for a hell of a lot of actors (Hey Paul Walker!  Heath Ledger called!  He wants his imaginary career back!) - but Garner's definitely got a lot of goodwill coming her way; I think the general perception among both powerful people who matter and...and...and myself is that she's got it.

If Daredevil doesn't sink her, that is.  Has anyone come out and said yet that Daredevil is obviously gonna suck?  And so will Hulk?  And interest in X2 just isn't as high as its studio thinks it is?  This will be the year that the comic book movie fad is reined in a little - not completely, but a little.  And I say that as a guy who digs movies about superheroes.

The main effect will probably be to hurt movies like Fantastic Four and Ghost Rider.  Spiderman's all set for a couple more, and Superman – in whatever cataclysmically lame form they finally settle on - will still go, but the more obscure franchises might be backed off from.”

THE UNIT writes:  ‘Why so cold on Jennifer Garner?  Sure, ABC used T&A to sell "Alias" after the Super Bowl (I'm sure it wasn't Jennifer's idea)..  I like "Alias" (and that episode was particularly good), but it's not exactly PBS Frontline, so it isn't that far-fetched, especially in today's Reality TV climate -- to appeal to guys in the most obvious way – just as most beer commercials do.

In your attack on the low post-Bowl ratings for "Alias," why didn't you mention that the show came on at 11:00 P.M. Eastern time?.  OF COURSE the ratings were low.  After screaming, drinking beer and eating ice cream for 4-5 hours, most people probably fell asleep, no matter what the heck was on after the game.  I mean, the next day was school/work day.  11:00 P.M.  Think about that.

Also, I think your comparison with Gretchen Mol is a little premature. How did you arrive at that?”

THE SOUP MASTER writes:  “The promos are horrible, yes.  But have you watched the show?  It's preposterous, of course, but no more so than any James Bond movie.  And it has actual characters in it, relationships for the viewer to care about- the Super Bowl episode was absolutely riveting, and not due to lingerie, but because of the way that J.J. Abrams has cultivated its story lines and rewarded regular viewers (2 things that will probably get it cancelled).  As for Ms. Garner, I can't quite see her as a dramatic actress (though she could prove me wrong), but I don't think it's fair to drag her down with the hype; was Gretchen Mol in anything worthwhile, ever?  'Rounders', 'The 13th Floor', the obligatory Woody Allen it-girl casting??  'Alias' isn't highbrow, but it's terrific entertainment- even if ABC insists, in desperation, on making it look trashy.  Jennifer Garner is certainly beautiful, but she also has a real sweetness that isn't manufactured, one that surfaces on the show and is regularly on display elsewhere- did you see her interviewed on the sidelines in San Diego?  Refreshingly free of pretense.  The only way that 'Alias' might be considered, as you put it, a "train wreck" is because it hasn't garnered (cough) the ratings they so clearly wish it would.  I know it's TV and I'm not suggesting that you make it a part of your schedule, but please don't malign it based solely on the way it is sold- usually you're very good about not confusing the dressing with the contents.”

THE GT writes:  “Your Gretchen Mol-Jennifer Garner analogy was freakin' right on.  Have you seen Alias? Terrific show, but the backstory/mythology makes X-files look like Suess. Maybe with last week's "restart"...who knows...

Sunday Night is NOT the night for it though...

Seen Daredevil yet? A major superhero studio release...in February? something doesn't feel right about that…”

E ME:  Has anything happened?