March 5, 2004

I’m predicting a very exciting Oscar show on Sunday night…

Oh.

Wrong week.

The Passion of The Christ has gone from being a hot political debate to being a hit topic of box office conversation. And this weekend is unlikely to be any clearer going in than the last one was.

There are a lot of ways at going at this thing. The closest recent box office analogy is Lord of the Rings: Return of The King. The Passion was off 16% of ROTK’s first weekday run, which if transposed to a second weekend would put this weekend of The Passion at $43 million. On the other hand, if The Passion was off the same 30% in its second weekend that ROTK was, it would gross $59 million this weekend. So, what’s $16 million in second weekend box office between friends?

Well… most of the opening weekend take of Starsky & Hutch.

It will be interesting, as most box office prognosticators have Starsky, Hutch & Hildago managing at least $17 million each, which would be a pretty impressive March weekend, even though last year on this week the surprise smash Bringing Down The House and Tears of the Sun, both newcomers, combined to bring in $48 million in the top two spots. But still, if you add up The Passion, S&H and Hildago and you’re probably looking at well over $80 million for the top three films, which will be the best weekend in March history, beating the Ice Age/Resident Evil/Showtime weekend of 2002 that grossed $79 million.

By the way, last weekend’s $105 million Top Three 3-day showing is, I believe, the record holding off-season weekend of all time.

Meanwhile…

Disney & The Christ continue to share the buzz spotlight, even though there really isn’t much more left to say.

Today, the Los Angeles Times ran a front page story headlined “Disney Under Growing Pressure,” while running much more moderately toned stories in the Business section, pointing out that the stock is still going up and that even investors who withheld their votes from Eisner are not going to sell their stock, even if they are pissed off about the George Mitchell bait-n-switch. Eisner was doing interviews with both the Los Angeles and New York Times and managed to avoid anything coming close to being a tough question, at least in light of the last few days. Comcast shows no signs of increasing their bid to more than $30. So things should quiet down next week, as the Roy & Stan show starts to bore even the media. If the boys are as smart as they think, they will release their list of 10 potential C.E.O.s who would be better than Eisner, let the media weed out the 5 of them that are not remotely possible and let the other 5 simmer as contenders in a kind of mock primary. That’ll keep the media focused for another few months.

Just Wondering: The TV ads for the Video/DVD release of Duplex announce, “From director Danny DeVito and writer Larry Doyle.” Is that a contractual obligation or punishment?

I would write something about Starsky & Hutch if I thought for a second that it mattered. The movie is a mediocrity. Or as they say in Earl Dittman’s house (without the smirk), “If you liked Zoolander, you’ll really like Starsky & Hutch.” Todd Phillips is in the class of “hot” directors out there who really don’t know how to direct a film, but who do have really good taste in talent and ideas. A strong director would take the funny performances by Stiller, Wilson and Dogg and turn them into more than the sum of their parts. But Mr. Phillips just isn’t that skilled. That said, Stiller, Wilson and Dogg can hold the attention of an audience and get off a half-dozen good laughs in 90 minutes. If you want more than that from your comedy, you are shizzle out of luck.

A great injustice – not quite as bad as Tommy Chong’s insane incarceration – has been done to Sandra Tsing Loh in Los Angeles. But in shocking form, it is not the right wing types who pushed her out, but a quick-on-the-trigger leftie station manager, Ruth Seymour. Cathy Seipp covers the story thoroughly in City Beat and though it is not a movie story, if you are worried about freedom of speech, it is worth a read.

Okay… I’m done. Have a great weekend. My batteries are almost recharged after the Oscar season’s end. Next week, I’ll spill the beans on some fun sit-downs that I’ve done in the last couple of weeks and hopefully, there will be some actual news in the business to discuss that doesn’t involve a nipple, a mouse ear or a nail.

READER OF THE DAY: OHIO JAMM writes: “An interesting issue has just arisen for me in the last few minutes, as I read yet another post-Oscar piece that mentions as a foregone conclusion how insufferably long the Oscar telecast is. And the issue is this: so many people watch the Oscars every year (this year, reportedly 43.5 million), and then once it’s over, they turn around and denigrate the whole enterprise. Maybe I have a greater love for film than the average TV columnist or ratings analyst, and in fact I’m almost sure that I do. (So, in turn, maybe I would get a kick out of writing a long piece talking about how bored I was when I tuned into the Nielsen Academy Awards, were it ever to exist.) Or maybe I’m just too innocent and naïve to feel that anyone with a real vested interest in movies and the show would be willing to sit through the entire show without complaining. Whatever the case, it seems to happen every year, and has become a common joke that is not now, nor ever really was, very funny—the Academy Awards broadcast is long, and we brave souls must sit through it.

Interesting thing, though—there is no requirement stating that we MUST watch the Oscars, and certainly no law saying we have to tune in from start to finish. This is a choice we all make, and evidently a choice 43.5 million people did make (that .5 person interests me…is he/she really cut in half, or was the person watching two televisions at once?). So why turn around and bash the show? Do people want to temper their fascination with Hollywood stars and the glitz of the evening in general by turning the tables and making it seem like they were taken hostage and forced at gunpoint to watch the entire broadcast (and Harvey only would have done this had “Cold Mountain” been nominated for Best Picture, so we can’t blame this one on him)? The hypocrisy of this idea strikes me now more than ever. Why would people force themselves to sit through the long ceremony just so they can sling mud its way in a later article? Why not change the channel, put in a movie, or for goodness sakes, maybe get out of the house and do something fun if you don’t want to watch? Why, why, why???

Because for those three-and-a-half hours, there is no more fascinating and compelling TV for most people than the Oscars. And they tune in because they want to. And they don’t tune out because they don’t want to. But I was fine with watching the whole show without complaining then or now. That is probably because I, like you, got attached to several nominees. I didn’t have the privilege to hang out with any of them, mind you, but got attached nonetheless. And my heart was beating as the best actor envelope was opened, and I wasn’t sure which of the three performances that I love, by which of the three actors I love, would win. I wasn’t sure which of the three people I would be incredibly happy for, and which two of the three I would have to be so bummed about. And that was at the 3:30 mark right there. And that was only one interesting thing to carry me through.

As naïve as my feelings and ideas might be, I am as much a realist as anyone else. I understand the show is long. And I laugh as much as the next guy when Billy Crystal comes out right from the beginning and says, “I’ll be your master and commander for this evening…and most of tomorrow.” But therein lies the difference between laughing with the show and laughing at it. Or more to the point, deciding to hang tight and run with the show, or wait for it at the finish line ready to pelt it with eggs.

But I am in love with movies, and am probably biased. So I concede that perhaps those that don’t care as much, those without the kind of vested interest I bring to the proceedings, are more likely to expound on the lengthy, drawn-out nature of the Oscar show. And that is their privilege. I just wish they wouldn’t consider it their right.

(I use several of the “Oscar is boring” articles as sources, but chiefly I speak out against the Washington Post piece by Lisa de Moraes. Her purpose is supposed to be reporting a slight error in that 43.5 ratings number, but she takes liberty to talk about the show, using phrases like “slogged through,” “bitter end,” “bled over into Monday.” And then this interesting sentence… “And, you have to admit, even 43 million viewers would be an incredible accomplishment for a four-hour broadcast that was monopolized by a fat, rumpled, dreary little man -- given that most people watch the Academy Awards to spend quality time gazing on beautiful, slender, glamorous and, at least superficially, interesting movie stars.” Oh, and then… “You want to show the film academy how honored you really are, Mr. Jackson? Try running a comb through your hair.” She was obviously a “Mystic River” fan. I mean, come on, I’m a “Mystic River” fan too, but I still have the love for “LOTR” and its incredible maker. But thank you so much for posting that link on MCN. I’m sure you read it and were as amused/appalled as I, and I appreciate your sharing it. Otherwise I might have gone about the rest of my life without knowing what kind of journalistic integrity Lisa de Moraes has.)”

E ME: Journalistic integrity? Is that what they are calling those these days?