July 6, 2004

Boy, is there nothing to write about today!

Of course, Sony deserves a deep bow for opening Spider-Man 2 as well as they did. I have been wrong about the box office potential of this film for months… so it goes. Of course, we all knew it was going to be a hit, but an opening week that will likely surpass the previous best ever (Matrix Reloaded) by 20% or more is as significant a leap in box office as the first Spider-Man passing the $100 million 3-day for the first time. And only Shrek 2 has matched that feat… until now.

In my weekly 15 Weeks of Summer at MCN, I am eternally weighing both the events of the summer season and the perception of the same. So it has been rather headspinning to wallow in the mess of three New York Times stories about the box office in the last two days. What has been shocking about all three stories is that they fail to show any interest in research, particularly in their leads and headlines, which are belied not only by the truth, but are called into question within the bodies of the stories themselves. One has to wonder whether the paper, which seems interested in shopping for writers and editors only in the very small, very inbred pool of other Pulitzer contending papers, is so desperate to regain credibility that they are reaffirming their importance by looking for "new" angles on stories just to make the point.

But the biggest sin this weekend is that some writers don't seem to be bothering to read what was just published by other writers. How else can on explain Sharon Waxman tagging Troy as having "not performed up to expectations," when colleague Laura Holson was writing about the critical importance of the international market just yesterday. Of course, Holson's suggestion that the internationalism of the Troy cast had anything to do with the film's international success was absurd as well. But the fact of the matter is that Troy more than doubled its domestic performance overseas and has already generated more income than previous $200 million summer grossing domestic hits, The Mummy Returns, Signs and X-Men 2. There was a time when I didn't think that Troy was going to make anywhere near this kind of money. But the writing was on the wall weeks ago… so why is The New York Times still inaccurately reporting the news?

On the flip side, Harry Potter & The Prisoner of Akaban is running behind the first film and, while it has passed the second film for the moment, it may still not match that film domestically in the end, despite the best reviews of the series. Overseas box office is even further behind despite a very wide international opening, though it may catch up at some point. Potter 3 is a hit, surely. But it has to be seen as a bit of a disappointment in light of the huge success of Shrek 2 and Spider-Man 2.

Which brings me back around to the false premise of the box office headline in the NY Times on Monday morning: "'Spider-Man' Gives the Summer One of Its Few Box Office Hits." Keep in mind that we a just passed half-way through the summer, but through the entirety of last summer, there were a total of four films that grossed more than $450 million worldwide (in order; Finding Nemo, The Matrix Reloaded, Pirates of the Caribbean, Bruce Almighty). Assuming Spider-Man 2 makes the cut, we are already at five such films this year.

Moreover, Shrek 2 is already ahead of last summer's top fish, Finding Nemo, not by a few million, but by 20% in the domestic market. (Shrek 2 has barely started its international run, so worldwide comparisons to Finding Nemo, which did 61% of its box office business overseas, are impossible right now.)

Plus, The Day After Tomorrow is closing in on a stunning $500 million worldwide, despite being one of the worst movies of this year… or any other.

Using the $100 million mark as a standard, this year's seven films in release by this date that have or will pass $100 million (eight, if Fahrenheit 9/11 can make it) versus ten such titles last year is a step backwards. But that one stat hardly suggests that there have been few hits. The failure of Riddick and Van Helsing (currently at $261 million worldwide) is a story. But so are the surprising (relative) successes of Dodgeball, Garfield and The Stepford Wives.

Perspective matters… well, at some outlets.

And as if to prove its indie and liberal credentials, the approximate three million people who saw Fahrenheit 9/11 over four days this weekend are called "huge audiences." Worse… and actually factually inaccurate…. is the report that the film dropped only 12 percent from its opening weekend. The estimated 12 percent drop is based on four days this weekend versus three last weekend. Head-to-head the 3-day weekend dropped an estimated 31% and over 4 days the drop is an estimated 28%.

On another indie note, The Clearing was given acclaim for its $10,910 per screen opening on 56 screens, while MGM's De-Lovely and WIP's Before Sunset both had better per-screens. Why weren't they mentioned?

Interestingly, also unmentioned was Disney's poor showing with America's Heart & Soul on 98 screens, pulling in just an estimated 1760 per screen. For the Disney-bashing Times, it was an interesting oversight… perhaps they are planning a full-blown feature.

Finally, there is the silly suggestion that the quality of Spider-Man 2 is responsible for their massive opening. As always, that is ridiculous. Opening weekend belongs to the marketing department and while it may be a lovely way for the New York Times to acquire brownie points with the powers that be at Columbia, and as fair as it is for the Columbia team to feel really good this morning, no one who is paying attention will expect a similar argument to be published for a film that is not as well liked by the NYT editors.

Of course, this has been a lot of column inches to waste on analyzing someone else's weekend box office wrap-up. And frankly, I am already boring myself by paying attention to others who aren't paying attention, no matter how powerful. But these off-base headlines are a serious problem. Others will assign stories based on them and the false mythology will continue. The arrogance of the Times seems to more and more be leading not only to an Entertainment Weekly "three is a trend" mindset, but worse, to a "two is a trend and we're going to argue a bigger trend even if there is no reportable proof." Or perhaps we'll get a correction explaining why Ewan McGregor, Hugh Grant, Penelope Cruz, Stellan Skarsgaard, Sam Neill and others are still small time players at the box office (as opposed to Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt) and why Fog of War didn't gross $10 million, much less $20 million.

Michael Cieply has his work cut out for him.

READER OF THE DAY: THE SARCOPHAGUS writes: 'I've read your review of Spider-Man 2 three times now (once before seeing the film and twice after) and I still don't get how you can compare it unfavorably to Superman 2.

Both heroes give up their powers in the sequels. But Spider-Man (who chucked his costume in every third issue of the comic anyway) just tries to walk away. Superman, conveniently, has a booth in his Fortress of Solitude that erases his powers. Spidey really can't give it up, he is what he is.

While Dr. Octopus' participation seems a bit superfluous, the inclusion of Lex Luthor in Superman 2 makes no sense at all. The three Kryptonian villains serve as a challenge, but Gene Hackman and Valerie Perrine unnecessarily complicate things. Not to mention the choppiness of their scenes, probably due to the split during shooting. Luthor and Otis should have watched from jail.

As for the separate finale's, Spider-Man 2 gives us the next step in the hero's life, letting others know his secret. In Superman 2, we get a contrived, silly switcheroo straight out of the Superfriends. Cue John Williams' score. The End.

The sensitive topics in Spider-Man 2 (Peter and Aunt May, Peter and Harry, Peter and MJ) seem natural. Superman 2, again possibly due to the switch in directors, comes off as saccharin and forced. Lois and Clark's "working" honeymoon in Niagara Falls, Clark with no powers getting his ass kicked in the diner just seem like movie set-ups, designed to pull on all the necessary strings.

I've always felt Superman 2 was half a great movie (I'll give Dick Donner credit for the good half). I respect your opinions and can see you clearly prefer it to Spider-Man 2. But I think the latter is better on every level; story, special effects and emotional content.

Just one man's opinion."

E ME: How was your spider sense this weekend?