Rise of the Silver Surfer BOX OFFICE Discussion

[wobbly]

Looks like only 10.19% predicted this movies box office correctly. There's a possibility this won't get past $130 million.

It will be in the theatres for another few weeks yet so I figure it will get more than the 12 million it needs to break 130 in that time (school holidays and all that)

The 3.70% who went for between 130-140 are looking good atm though.

 

[Iron Maiden]

I think that there is a lot of merit in what X-Maniac says and the need to change the target audience. They should not completely gut the family feel of how the characters interact and some occasional humor is appropriate. But I think after 2 outings now Tim Story should be replaced with a director with expericence in drama. He showed improvement in ROTSS but not enough. The street scenes in China would have been much better if handled by someone who really could have gotten more emotion of of Sue's situation. I keep thinking back to "Wrath of Khan" and how devasted the audience was with the final scenes with Spock and Kirk. And get a writer who knows sci fi.... at least they're going with JMS for a Silver Surfer treament. You don't have to be an Einstein to pull off the kind of pseudo science the Star Trek franchise has been using for decades but the FF should be about ideas and exploring realms like the Great Refuge, Atlantis, the Negative Zone and yes, even a trip to Latveria like in FF 84 -87.

ROTSS was a step in the right direction but they need someone with cajones to push for better screenwriting to take it this franchise where it needs to go now.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

As much as what you're all saying is true, I seriously doubt FOX has the balls to do that though. They will wipe their hands of this franchise just like the others they've hacked to death.

I do believe that one thing is clear from FOX's film releases over the last few years: They are only concerned with profit. They are not concerned with putting out memorable films of any genre--but especially in the action/fantasy category.

 

[Hunter Rider]

As much as what you're all saying is true, I seriously doubt FOX has the balls to do that though. They will wipe their hands of this franchise just like the others they've hacked to death.

I do believe that one thing is clear from FOX's film releases over the last few years: They are only concerned with profit. They are not concerned with putting out memorable films of any genre--but especially in the action/fantasy category.

I would agree to a point but having seen DH4 yesterday it was aweesome and a Fox movie,the fan and critical reviews seem to bear this out,perhaps Bruce Willis being a producer kept it safe.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

I would agree to a point but having seen DH4 yesterday it was aweesome and a Fox movie,the fan and critical reviews seem to bear this out,perhaps Bruce Willis being a producer kept it safe.

Okay.

But do you believe Fox actually set out to make a good movie, or do you think it was by chance? See, I'm of the opinion that whenever that studio puts out a decent film now it's because they've gotten lucky.

Take X2 for example: Don't think for a moment that it was FOX putting all this effort into making that movie the top-notch quality it was: The sole credit for X2's greatness goes to Bryan Singer--and the healthy budget he was given to work with. All FOX did was market it to death (because if they're good for anything, they are excellent at promotion). However, once again the studio got lucky, and this is evidenced by the fact that if you take Bryan out of the equation, and put in someone like Brett Ratner--you end up with utter crap...even with the exact same producers and cast. FOX knew X3 would turn big profit, so they just threw in a gamble and sat back and watched. They. Don't. Care.

Simply put, FOX gets lucky...and that's why their critical success is so hit-and-miss. They don't PLAN to make good films...they throw money at something and expect it to throw money back. If it doesn't, they drop it like a bad habit and move on to ruin something else.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Unfortunately, I don't think Fox sees this as a long-term investment and property that they will be profitting from 20 years from now.

If they did, they might invest to do the things we would like, but I think we have to face a harsh reality. The bean counters at Fox will see the latest film as an underperformer not because it made too little money but because it cost too much.

I hope I'm wrong, but I expect them to make one more film, make it as cheaply as possible and rake in the roughly 200 million worldwide box-office (+DVD) they can expect even from a lousy film.

Hopefully then Marvel will take over and we may eventually get the film we want. . . but I've already written off the next film in my mind.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Okay.

But do you believe Fox actually set out to make a good movie, or do you think it was by chance? See, I'm of the opinion that whenever that studio puts out a decent film now it's because they've gotten lucky.

Take X2 for example: Don't think for a moment that it was FOX putting all this effort into making that movie the top-notch quality it was: The sole credit for X2's greatness goes to Bryan Singer--and the healthy budget he was given to work with. All FOX did was market it to death (because if they're good for anything, they are excellent at promotion). However, once again the studio got lucky, and this is evidenced by the fact that if you take Bryan out of the equation, and put in someone like Brett Ratner--you end up with utter crap...even with the exact same producers and cast. FOX knew X3 would turn big profit, so they just threw in a gamble and sat back and watched. They. Don't. Care.

Simply put, FOX gets lucky...and that's why their critical success is so hit-and-miss. They don't PLAN to make good films...they throw money at something and expect it to throw money back. If it doesn't, they drop it like a bad habit and move on to ruin something else.

No i agree with you,i think the examples we both mentioned are exceptions to the rule where an actor/director has enough stroke to get things done,With FF2 i feel that Tim upped his game but the execs didn't back it with the money/Time needed

 

[GL's Light]

Fox under Tom Rothman's regime has mostly churned out unchallenging middlebrow films. They treat the production of films like McDonald's treats the production of Big Macs. There have been a few films under Rothman that have turned out to be really good, but all were in cases where there was a director, star or producer with enough clout to ensure some quality.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Okay.

But do you believe Fox actually set out to make a good movie, or do you think it was by chance? See, I'm of the opinion that whenever that studio puts out a decent film now it's because they've gotten lucky.

Take X2 for example: Don't think for a moment that it was FOX putting all this effort into making that movie the top-notch quality it was: The sole credit for X2's greatness goes to Bryan Singer--and the healthy budget he was given to work with. All FOX did was market it to death (because if they're good for anything, they are excellent at promotion). However, once again the studio got lucky, and this is evidenced by the fact that if you take Bryan out of the equation, and put in someone like Brett Ratner--you end up with utter crap...even with the exact same producers and cast. FOX knew X3 would turn big profit, so they just threw in a gamble and sat back and watched. They. Don't. Care.

Simply put, FOX gets lucky...and that's why their critical success is so hit-and-miss. They don't PLAN to make good films...they throw money at something and expect it to throw money back. If it doesn't, they drop it like a bad habit and move on to ruin something else.

This is what i have been saying for a few years now, I think when it comes to X1 and X2, Fox got extremely lucky when both were good and successful, but just look at AvP, X3, FF1 and FF2, Elektra, Eragon, and the theatricla cut of Daredevil to see that they dont care about quality or making a memorable movie, just money.

 

[Kelly]

And yet sooooooo many of us gave this movie a B+........


I'm totally agreeing with what is being said......I think that Fox Movies, needs to learn how to respect its products......Fox TV use to not do that, and it shot them in the foot a few times, and they learned.....

But its strange I guess to read B+ reviews in one thread......and its compared to Elektra in another.....lol


I can only assume that what we are talking about is what Fox needs to do to take it from a B+ movie to an A- movie....


or


I can assume that as long as it had a 63%+ rating at RT, and the hope of a great BO it was a B+ movie, and as soon as the RT rating began to fall, and the BO looked disappointing, it went to a C movie.....


either way.....................I hate assuming.....

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

I can only assume that what we are talking about is what Fox needs to do to take it from a B+ movie to an A- movie....

Exactly right. It's like they want to get something for nothing. They should take a cue from Columbia/Sony with Spider-Man: If you invest quality, you will get major dividends. It's like FOX doesn't WANT $895M worldwide box office returns...they are content with $133M or whatever.

 

[Kelly]

It would be interesting to see what would have happened had the RT rating stayed high, and we got the BO we were thinking.....or just one or the other happening.....hmmmmmmmmmmmm....

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

And yet sooooooo many of us gave this movie a B+........


I'm totally agreeing with what is being said......I think that Fox Movies, needs to learn how to respect its products......Fox TV use to not do that, and it shot them in the foot a few times, and they learned.....

But its strange I guess to read B+ reviews in one thread......and its compared to Elektra in another.....lol


I can only assume that what we are talking about is what Fox needs to do to take it from a B+ movie to an A- movie....


or


I can assume that as long as it had a 63%+ rating at RT, and the hope of a great BO it was a B+ movie, and as soon as the RT rating began to fall, and the BO looked disappointing, it went to a C movie.....


either way.....................I hate assuming.....

First time i saw the movie i gave it a 6/10, i enjoyed it, but its not enough considering they had the best material out there to take from. I wasnt comparing this movie to Elektra BTW, FF2 is a much better movie, but i was saying all Fox movies seem to have the same flaws.

Exactly right. It's like they want to get something for nothing. They should take a cue from Columbia/Sony with Spider-Man: If you invest quality, you will get major dividends. It's like FOX doesn't WANT $895M worldwide box office returns...they are content with $133M or whatever.

Exactly LS, if they actually made an effort to make a good movie, they could make Spiderman numbers. I know X3 made money, but i honestly believe, had they made the movie to even half of its potential, it would have made Spidey numbers. IMO the ONLY reason X3 made money, was because of X1 and moreso X2.

 

[Hunter Rider]

It would be interesting to see what would have happened had the RT rating stayed high, and we got the BO we were thinking.....or just one or the other happening.....hmmmmmmmmmmmm....

For me no,i would still give the movie a B+ and still think all the things i enjoyed in it were well done and still feel the weakness was in the spectacle side,especially with the finale that screamed "we have run out of budget and time"

 

[GL's Light]

SBD estimates for Thursday:

1. Transformers - $ 19.335 mil ($ 84.921 mil)
2. Ratatouille - $ 7.89 mil ($ 80.608 mil)
3. Die Hard 4 - $ 3.61 mil ($ 66.835 mil)
4. License to Wed - $ 2.205 mil ($ 7.36 mil)
5. Evan Almighty - $ 2.08 mil ($ 70.015 mil)
6. 1408 - $ 1.515 mil ($ 46.751 mil)
7. Knocked Up - $ 1.1 mil ($ 126.97 mil)
8. FF 2 - $ 0.99 mil ($ 119.552 mil)

 

[Tony Stark]

Okay.

But do you believe Fox actually set out to make a good movie, or do you think it was by chance? See, I'm of the opinion that whenever that studio puts out a decent film now it's because they've gotten lucky.

Take X2 for example: Don't think for a moment that it was FOX putting all this effort into making that movie the top-notch quality it was: The sole credit for X2's greatness goes to Bryan Singer--and the healthy budget he was given to work with. All FOX did was market it to death (because if they're good for anything, they are excellent at promotion). However, once again the studio got lucky, and this is evidenced by the fact that if you take Bryan out of the equation, and put in someone like Brett Ratner--you end up with utter crap...even with the exact same producers and cast. FOX knew X3 would turn big profit, so they just threw in a gamble and sat back and watched. They. Don't. Care.

Simply put, FOX gets lucky...and that's why their critical success is so hit-and-miss. They don't PLAN to make good films...they throw money at something and expect it to throw money back. If it doesn't, they drop it like a bad habit and move on to ruin something else.

But they certainly know they are losing out. Fox by far is dead last in studio intake. Heck even with a film like Titanic they were so pissed at James Cameron for delaying the project they sold the international distribution rights to Paramount. They only let Cameron finish the project because he forfeit his salary.

Like I said, even if we feel this film was a dissapointment, it's going to be Fox's largest grossing film of the year.

I would not be suprised if Fox eventually got out of the film industry all together. Their television and media outlets are far more profitable than their movie division.

Studios can turn it around though. Columbia pictures was pretty much dead from about 1988 until 1997 when Men in Black came out. Now with the backing from Sony they've had a string of success, mostly backing on the Spider-man films.

 

[Tony Stark]

Exactly right. It's like they want to get something for nothing. They should take a cue from Columbia/Sony with Spider-Man: If you invest quality, you will get major dividends. It's like FOX doesn't WANT $895M worldwide box office returns...they are content with $133M or whatever.

That's a little unfair though considering it's Spider-man. I mean Warner can't even get those numbers for Batman or Superman.

Spider-man is the no. 1 comic book icon right now, bar none.

What I did want to see was X-men type success. The first movie did X1 type numbers, so I was hoping FF2 would follow suit and do similar business to X2.

 

[GL's Light]

But they certainly know they are losing out. Fox by far is dead last in studio intake.

No, Fox's business strategy has been working for them, at least in the short term. While it may hurt the long-term potential of their franchises, their cost consciousness and focus on selling films to younger demographics has earned them commercial success. They were third amongst the studios in 2006 in terms of market share, and second in 2005. Universal and Paramount have been the two studios in the most trouble, although Viacom went out and bought a massive blood infusion for Paramount by acquiring DreamWorks.

Like I said, even if we feel this film was a dissapointment, it's going to be Fox's largest grossing film of the year.

Die Hard 4 may well be their highest grossing film this year in worldwide box office.

I would not be suprised if Fox eventually got out of the film industry all together. Their television and media outlets are far more profitable than their movie division.

Television is more profitable for all of the studios, but a film division is a key asset for a multinational entertainment corporation, and since Fox's film division is doing well, it's not going anywhere.

 

[Agent 194]

GL's Light,

You are very knowledgable and articulate on the inner workings here. You also display a pretty sophisticated understanding of the business. Are you in the business?

I think of these movies in this way...something I call the Howard Sprague effect.

Making a comic book movie is based on what I call the Howard Sprague effect. Since the comic book world doesn't exist it's all purely conceptual. And everyone's concept is just a little bit different. The question is does everyone's concept have substance or are they just , not very well thought out nice intentions, wishful thinking, all with a shiny empty package?

Howard Sprague was the county clerk on The Andy Griffith show. You may remember him - tall, nerdy, mustache,--he was Andy and Goober's bowling partner.

Howard had a dream of going to a little island and hanging out with the locals on the beach and building ships in a bottle the rest of his days. He quit his job as county clerk headed to this island and met up with the only shop owner/merchant (a young Harry Dean Stanton) on the beach. He met the locals and soon learned that living on the beach, building ships in a bottle and having tons of time to think and do nothing else wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

Hence the Howard Sprague effect: A lot of people are getting into the comic book movie business without thinking through what really makes the characters work and discovering that eating coconuts and building ship in bottles isn't enough. I wish all the creative people would get together with the same concept and translate it as well as the first two X movies were done.

 

[Tony Stark]

No, Fox's business strategy has been working for them, at least in the short term. While it may hurt the long-term potential of their franchises, their cost consciousness and focus on selling films to younger demographics has earned them commercial success. They were third amongst the studios in 2006 in terms of market share, and second in 2005. Universal and Paramount have been the two studios in the most trouble, although Viacom went out and bought a massive blood infusion for Paramount by acquiring DreamWorks.

True, but Paramount is a good example of what Fox is trying to do now. Paramount in the 80's was about as good of a studio as there was, with Top Gun, Indiana Jones and the Star Trek franchise. In the 90's they very much did the same thing Fox is doing now and drove themselves into obsolensence. With Dreamworks they certainly have improved their lots, and Transformers is probably going to be one of the highest grossing films of the year.

Die Hard 4 may well be their highest grossing film this year in worldwide box office.

Very doubtful, I realize Die Hard has yet to open in some major foreign markets, but it's just not going to happen. FF4 will probably be 300 million world wide. Die Hard will probably be in the 250 million range. and less than 100 million domestically.

Television is more profitable for all of the studios, but a film division is a key asset for a multinational entertainment corporation, and since Fox's film division is doing well, it's not going anywhere.

True, but you look at all the trouble Time/Warner has had over the years, you can't rule out a split. As long as the film devision is profitable, yes they'll keep it. When you see a time when the other divisions of Fox are covering for losses in the film division, a spin off would not be out of the question.

 

[GL's Light]

GL's Light,

You are very knowledgable and articulate on the inner workings here. You also display a pretty sophisticated understanding of the business. Are you in the business?

I'm not in the business, no. I'm just an interested observer who reads up on the subject a lot.

Your Howard Sprague theory is an interesting way of laying out the condition of the comic book genre. Nicely stated. Ultimately, both fandom and the studios have something to learn here. Fandom needs to understand that comic book adaptations usually have to change certain elements to make the material work in cinematic form (some fans understand this, but it seems that many don't); the studios need to understand how much potential they're wasting (both creatively and commercially) by not forming a better understanding of the source material and matching it with filmmakers who can adapt it into classic cinema.

 

[GL's Light]

Very doubtful, I realize Die Hard has yet to open in some major foreign markets, but it's just not going to happen. FF4 will probably be 300 million world wide. Die Hard will probably be in the 250 million range. and less than 100 million domestically.

I think Die Hard 4 will hold up well enough to go over $ 100 mil domestic, and that it'll do very well internationally (Die Hard With a Vengeance did $ 100 mil domestic and $ 361 mil worldwide, and I think Die Hard 4 could do something similar). But who knows? We'll see.

True, but you look at all the trouble Time/Warner has had over the years, you can't rule out a split. As long as the film devision is profitable, yes they'll keep it. When you see a time when the other divisions of Fox are covering for losses in the film division, a spin off would not be out of the question.

There could be some kind of split like the Viacom one, where CBS and Paramount Pictures are now separate stock entities, but I'm sure Newscorp will maintain a film division in some form.

 

[Milkman95]

Been lurking around too long - Very good discussion here, and I agree with Cal for the most part concerning FF2 - it was another "just go through the motions" with this one and the money will automatically churn in. Well, audiences wised up this time around and dropped FF2 almost immediately.

DH4 had Wiseman as director and Bruce as a producer, that's why it's good.

Transformers will have LEGS, I guarantee it - it's that damn good.

Congrats to Carp for taking his signature away after FF2 dropped like a lead balloon. Nice one my friend, you certainly didn't disappoint in the hypocrisy and biased department.

 

[Kelly]

Been lurking around too long - Very good discussion here, and I agree with Cal for the most part concerning FF2 - it was another "just go through the motions" with this one and the money will automatically churn in. Well, audiences wised up this time around and dropped FF2 almost immediately.

DH4 had Wiseman as director and Bruce as a producer, that's why it's good.

Transformers will have LEGS, I guarantee it - it's that damn good.

Congrats to Carp for taking his signature away after FF2 dropped like a lead balloon. Nice one my friend, you certainly didn't disappoint in the hypocrisy and biased department.

He didn't take his "profile privileges" away.....

 

[Carp Man]

Been lurking around too long - Very good discussion here, and I agree with Cal for the most part concerning FF2 - it was another "just go through the motions" with this one and the money will automatically churn in. Well, audiences wised up this time around and dropped FF2 almost immediately.

DH4 had Wiseman as director and Bruce as a producer, that's why it's good.

Transformers will have LEGS, I guarantee it - it's that damn good.

Congrats to Carp for taking his signature away after FF2 dropped like a lead balloon. Nice one my friend, you certainly didn't disappoint in the hypocrisy and biased department.

Please Milk, go back to sleep. Read my post concering TF. Fat chance. HP will dismantle the robots. Enjoy it while it lasts. I did not see hide nor hair of you opening weekend ? Now you come out of the closet. Amazing. Go back to the batcave, and wait for 08. In the meantime, I will continue to enjoy. I feel so sorry for the other side. Brings tears to my eyes. What ? Carp Man tears for the other side ? Say it ain't so. It ain't so. Ever see a fish cry ?