July 27, 2004

The speed with which money is being earned at the movies continues to increase this summer. Looking at the surprising start of The Bourne Supremacy and anticipating $100 million within the first two weeks of release, it occurred to me how many of these films there have been lately and how many have failed to continue to live in the stratosphere. All in all, there have been 44 such titles in the last 5 years… 45 if you assume I, Robot and 46 with Bourne…

And if you aren't a Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, The Grinch, a CG Monster, Bond, Tom Hanks, Hannibal Lechter or Christ, you've never achieved the feat outside of the summer season.

The power of the summer is real. With seven or eight every summer, it is no longer quite the special occasion it once was. But for it to happen outside of the summer months requires a special occasion indeed.

$200 million in two weeks or less has only been done 9 times, every occurrence in the last 5 years. Only the last two Rings film managed the feat outside of the summer season.

$300 in three weeks has only been done twice, both this summer (Shrek 2 and Spider-Man 2).

$400 million domestic has only been achieved four times in first run in all of movie history… by Titanic, Spider-Man, The Phantom Menace and Shrek 2. Interestingly, all but one of the films made it in just under 10 weekends. The fourth, Shrek 2, did it in six weekends, plus a Wednesday opening and 3 more days after Weekend Six.

What is a little off-putting is that Spider-Man 2, which along with Shrek 2 is one of the only films to do $300 million in three weekends, may actually fall short of $400 million. While this is no tragedy for Sony, it reminds us that a few axioms remain true. 1) May is still the best month to open in if you want to play in the rarified air. (Titanic remains the only $400 million domestic money maker to open out of May.) 2) It's not the date, it's the movie. (Spider-Man 2 proved that it could open anywhere at any time… but the difference between $375 million and $425 million may well be its release date.) 3) Reviews do not make the film in the big money world. (Spider-Man 2 got the most even positive reviews of the summer while Shrek 2 was a significant disappointment for some… but Spidey will still be #2)

Bourne, while not moving nearly as fast as Spider-Man 2 or Shrek 2, is also in somewhat uncharted territory. There has never been an opening this good for such a mature, smart action movie. It will be very interesting how it gets supported as the summer progresses. A movie like that tends to play leggier as the adult crowd moves in. But with such a big launch, it is hard to know.

What I do know is that in the twelve weekends of this summer, eight films have opened with more that $50 million. Last summer, that number was six. On the flip side, the number of (current and projectable) $100 million grossers released by this date is off by 2, to ten from twelve last year in the same portion of the summer. Perhaps that is because in the $40 million - $50 million opening range, there were three titles last year (all reaching $100 million) to only one this year. Scarily, the lesson may be that giving Shrek 2, Harry Potter 3 and Spider-Man 2 an extra week's room may have been unnecessary.

SPEAKING OF BOURNE: I got a note from Frank Marshall and then another one this week from a family member of one of the movie's crew to let me know that Paul Greengrass was not alone in responsibility for the Bourne Supremacy's astounding car chase sequence.

It seems that Dan Bradley, the film's second unit director and his 2nd unit stunt coordinator Darrin Prescott were mostly responsible for shooting the 10 weeks in Moscow to get the sequence done. The win for this film goes to them and to Greengrass and to Frank Marshall and Stacey Snider and Marc Shmuger and everyone at Universal. And, unlike other films, the entire family wants all the contributors to share in the credit. Huzzah!

READER OF THE DAY: NOT SMITHERS' BOSS writes: "A comment like "it's been years since a movie has been as emotionally involving as my favorite videogame" says far more about the e-mail writer than the state of the movie art or industry. What, all of a sudden, movies aren't good anymore? Or, rather, is it that a whole generation of frankly unintellectual-leaning young men have taken over this culture and forcibly insisted that "passive" (and I don't agree with that one, Dave) film-watching doesn't do it anymore when a joystick (how old am I?) can get you "in the game"? In other words (and in my pointed opinion), these young mega-geeks no longer can sit still and allow someone ELSE (re: the film artist) impart art or P.O.V. onto them - they HAVE to be in control of the lead character. Problem is, video games are functional far more than they are artful - they allow for only one mode of outcome: "You won!" or "You kick ass!". They court only aggresive button-pushing, rarely any kind of dangerous introspection. Even pop art like "The Bourne Supremacy" courts far more interesting personal emotion in the viewer than the most sophisticated video game, which exists only to supply the player with a virtual adventure.

I do believe video games are sort of at the heart of a cancer that's eating away at this culture, turning every popular art form into a pure service industry. And to answer the inevitable question, I'm 31 years old. And if that's "too old," what does THAT say about this culture?"

E ME: Well?