Comments (26)

• Have you seen Tom’s new film? It’s a very brave and bold move for him to make this the first release from UA under his leadership. It is not simply a commercial film whose purpose is to make money. It’s making a statement. A much-needed statement. And that should be taken into consideration when analyzing the boxoffice. People go to the other Top 10 films for entertainment. Lions is about more than just entertainment. It asks the audience to be active rather than just being passive viewers. Some people are up to the challenge while others are not.

  Comment by Sebastian — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 12:34pm PST  Reply to this post

• a wise decision, nikki

  for all the dissenting industry opinions here, this site basically remained civil, sane and informative .. that says something positive about hollywood

  when the mob of lunatics spewed forth from drudge’s site, it diminished your site

  Comment by writersrights — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 1:15pm PST  Reply to this post

• I’m a little surprised at the underperformance of Fred Claus. It’ll have legs, to be sure, but only if it can hold on through Thanksgiving, and there’s more Christmas product coming to possibly push it out of the way.

  Usually these holiday films are critic-proof. Thinking maybe they put it out a smidge too early?

  Comment by thinkinghardaboutfilm — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 1:28pm PST  Reply to this post

• (Nikki – I’m a Director who will soon be a member of the DGA)

  writersrights,

  The story recently has been about Lions for Lambs and other anti-war films getting massacred at the box-office. In light of this, it is certainly not unreasonable for people to give their opinion as to why these films have been failing to find an audience.

  Many in Hollywood are blaming the War on Terror subject matter for the utter failure of these big star-driven political films, as if the subject is so sore that audiences can’t be dragged in to watch a movie about it. But that doesn’t really wash…

  The Kingdom was a Middle East-set film very much about the War on Terror, but it was a “let’s kick terrorist butt” movie and was fairly neutral in terms of its politics – neither overtly for or against American policy. Even it veered a bit left in its coda, though, when it tried to play the silly equivalence card by comparing our CIA to terrorists, but overall it was fairly apolitical. It was also a pretty mediocre film.

  But this mediocre film that doesn’t feature any proven box-office draws(sorry Jamie Foxx) has made about $72 million worldwide so far, while FOUR leftist War on Terror movies – A Mighty Heart, In the Valley of Elah, Rendition and now Lions for Lambs – have so far made a combined total of only about $42.5 million.

  It’s not the subject matter, it’s the overt, preachy leftist politics that nobody wants to see. Hollywood sticks its finger in the eye of half of its potential audience, and they wonder why the films suffer at the box-office?

  You may disagree with this assessment, but I hardly think you can assign it the unreasonable ravings of a “mob of lunatics”. It’s a perfectly legitimate point of view supported by the facts on the ground, and there’s nothing wrong with pointing it out when discussing why these War on Terror films have done so badly.

  If you don’t like this point of view, by all means argue it. Let’s discuss the matter like adults. Isn’t that what a discussion board is for, after all? It diminishes your point of view in my opinion, though, if rather than responding in good faith to a reasonable argument about the subject at hand, you instead call for and/or cheer the elimination from the board of those who disagree with you.

  Echo-chamber indeed. And that’s a big reason why Hollywood is coming off the rails so spectacularly with these big, “prestige” star-driven duds.

  Comment by BC — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 1:51pm PST  Reply to this post

• Question: Could Vince Vaughn be the problem with Fred Claus? Could parents be concerned about what they might be exposing their kids to, considering the raunchy nature of his previous work? Is it more an issue of casting than timing?

  Comment by Joe — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 1:55pm PST  Reply to this post

• Christmas films are like real estate; sure you might get lucky and make some short-term cash, but it’s really all about the long-term (when your film plays on TV 5 times a night for Novembers and Decembers ad infinitum). However in the case of Fred Claus, just don’t think a PG Vaughn-com works. Vince excels at playing loud-mouth know-it-all jerks. He doesn’t do warm n’ fuzzy like Will Farrell. Plus he’s got pedarist eyes, and Giamatti ain’t exactly the opposite of creepy. Had they done this as a Bad Santa-esque PG13/R dark holiday com it might’ve worked.

  Comment by spacezombie — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 1:58pm PST  Reply to this post

• Yes, you can hear various distribution execs and agents yammer on about how Fred Claus might end ultimatley performing because of the slow burn factor, but at heart, Fred Claus failed as a film because it didn’t know what it wanted to be.

  First, from a marketing standpoint, they tried to market this to kids and preteens – but none of them know or care who Vince Vaughn is – and they tried to market it to adults – who know all too well who Vince Vaughn is.

  Second, the film suffered from an embarrassment of riches with its cast, and simply forgot to use them. There is an 7-minute long scene at Brothers Anonymous that comes completely out of nowhere, for instance. Yet they barely let several of their talented actors – Rachel Weisz, Elizabeth Banks, Kathy Bates immediately come to mind – do anything of note. The net result is a dope like Stephen Baldwin gets more screen time than half the talent they already had in the first place.

  Third, Vince Vaughn got caught trying to fight in a phone booth. When he’s in his element, there are few people funnier. But Vince Vaughn doing emotional arcs, staring forlorn off into space, and speaking with a quivering voice as Santa was almost uncomfortable watch.

  The script for this film was actually quite good. And it was MUCH funnier and more PG-13 on paper than what made it to screen. The studio, director, and star (and make no mistake, Vaughn was probably calling a lot of shots in how this film was cut togheter) made their choices for the final cut, and unfortunately they missed on this one.

  Oh well. Dobkin and Vaughn are talented guys and they’ll bounc back next time.

  Comment by waryobserver — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 2:01pm PST  Reply to this post

• I just can’t believe the legs on The Game Plan. It bodes well, I guess, for a similar project I’m working on currently.

  I thought that if it wasn’t “a football player and a baby” it would have legs.

  Fred Claus has gotten terrible reviews and when I watched the making of this weekend I could see why. Vince was just playing Vince. Most of the dialogue was crappy and what is up with the midgets with huge peoples’ faces?

  It seemed like a commercial for bad acting. Just kidding. Bad acting isn’t that bad. Kidding again.

  Comment by Christian Howell — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 2:02pm PST  Reply to this post

• I don’t know how anyone is surprised at an underperformance from Warners. Isn’t that turning into fait accompli? Bash Fox and Sony all you want, but do you think Rothman or Pascal would ever let:

  A. That campaign
  B. That script

  happen?

  Comment by LostinLosAngeles — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 2:07pm PST  Reply to this post

• Nikki I’m afraid you were a bit naive. The very thrust of the article on this weekend’s BO was that political movies don’t sell tickets. How could you expect comments to NOT turn political when that was the basis of the original post?
  I think if the post had been about say how Lindsey Lohan’s latest flick bombed, the conversation would have been about her. The fact that some people came over from the link on Drudge has very little to do with it in my opinion.
  Glad you didn’t kill all the comments though, it has made your site much more enjoyable and ensures repeat visits.

  Comment by ItWasAppropriate — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 2:31pm PST  Reply to this post

• I walked out of Fred Clause after 30 minutes. A profoundly bad movie. I don’t think it will be around for more than two more weeks.

  Comment by DA in LA — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 2:45pm PST  Reply to this post

• @ Sebastian -

  Lions for Lambs — whatever artistic merits it may or may not have — was a horrible business decision. This is why actors should act and not run studios. “Prestige” projects such as this are notorious money losers — especially when they’re not being driven by a strong creative force (which Redford has never been).

  As valuable and talented as he may be as an actor, Cruise is going to cost his UA investors an obscene amount of money.

  Comment by colinsmith — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 2:50pm PST  Reply to this post

• A very large part of “knowing and liking the film biz” should be appreciating the well known history that during times of conflict the paying public would rather see – and spends far more money on – lighter, less serious fair. So, no matter what side of the hyperbole you walk on, if you work for (or own) “Mega Studio” and you greenlight a war movie to be made and released during a time of war, you are living proof of the old adage that those that don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.

  Comment by Anonymous — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 2:54pm PST  Reply to this post

• The under-reported aspect of the weekend box office is that Tom Cruise and Vince Vaughn and Robert Redford and Meryl Streep didn’t get to promote their movies on the late-night shows.

  The top two movies were movies from last week… which had the benefit of late night television.

  More than 10 million people a night watch those shows. And they need to see Vince Vaughn talking to Jay Leno to remind them… “Hey, I like that guy. Perhaps I’ll go see this new movie he’s talking about.”

  We writers oughta be mentioning this a bit more. It smells like leverage to me.

  Comment by Adam — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 3:14pm PST  Reply to this post

• i love how ADAM above is taking “credit” as a writer for bad box office — ‘they couldn’t promote their films on leno! we shut down the promotional machine’

  you’ll never see a writer take “credit” for the fact that maybe, FRED CLAUS is just a horrible script. but guess what, even if the film loses 30 million dollars the writer will still make residuals. that’s fair.

  Comment by runyon — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 3:29pm PST  Reply to this post

• Colin-

  The jury is still out on whether Lions will be profitable. Let’s see if it has legs. But regardless, Tom certainly does know how to mint money. There will be plenty of opportunities for him to act in blockbuster movies for UA in the future. I stand by my position that this was a bold first film from UA that will help to define that studio as a trendsetter, rather than a factory for fluff.

  -Sebastian

  Comment by Sebastian — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 3:41pm PST  Reply to this post

• Runyon –

  You’re right – I wouldn’t know if Fred Claus is a horrible script. Ditto “Lions for Lambs.” And sure, I’ll take “credit” for the fact that bad scripts can result in failed movies. The rest of the bile you’re throwing around… this isn’t the thread for it.

  I’ll say this, though – bad reviews don’t generally kill a Christmas movie. And Tom Cruise hasn’t opened a movie at any number other than “1″ since before “A Few Good Men.”

  I know, there are extenuating circumstances – especially since both movies had very negative buzz. But the nastiness aside, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that late-night television is a big part of the movie promotional machine, and that the lack of it might have had some impact on this week’s box office.

  Comment by Adam — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 4:32pm PST  Reply to this post

• Obviously, it is still early to call FRED CLAUS either a success or a failure. I think after next weekend’s figures come in, we’ll have a much better idea of what kind of legs it’ll have and how many screens it’ll keep. And clearly, there are a variety of reasons why it’s underperforming, including: lack of promotion on latenight television shows and the mixed-message marketing from Warners (which is probably the worst studio to make a movie fore other than New Line).

  But I think one other party that has to be blamed for what looks like a debacle is the agency behind its packaging: CAA. This film represents yet one more example of what happens when you have an agency that railroads in all of its stars (which they have to do, in order to keep all of their clients happy and working). Paul Giamatti, Rachel Weisz and David Dobkin are all CAA elements and look what they did. They stuck Dobkin in a PG film, which isn’t his strength (witness SHANGHAI KNIGHTS, another failure). They under-utilized Oscar-winner Weisz again in a completely thankless role, thereby marginalizing her future commercial prospects. And Paul Giamatti? Anyone remember how much heat he had just a couple of years ago after SIDEWAYS? Then they follow that performance up with forgettable roles in the M Night bomb – LADY IN THE WATER, the bomb SHOOT EM UP, a completely forgettable role in NANNY DIARIES and now this?! His star has dropped and his stock has dropped. But hey, that’s CAA’s packaging department for you…use all your talent while they’re hot, take them for 10% by putting them in roles and projects that they’re not right for…kill their careers…

  And now Dobkin is stuck in a first-look deal at Warners. That was a smart moove…and his first project is going to be THE FLASH, which – as anyone knows – is not the most charismatic of comic book heroes, nor does he have the global following of the icons like SUPERMAN, SPIDERMAN or BATMAN…his career is done.

  Comment by agentyungbuck — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 4:48pm PST  Reply to this post

• No one has mentioned how well Dan in Real Life continues to do in the face of the “blockbuster” competition. Clearly, there is an audience for an adult romantic comedy. Adult in this case does not mean sex, drugs, and rock and roll. The audience at the screening I attended laughed throughout. It really struck a chord.

  Comment by mbl — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 6:15pm PST  Reply to this post

• Lions for Lambs is the one thing a successful movie can never be — boring. I love political thrillers, but I could barely keep my eyes open through 88 minutes of pedantic dialog and an entirely predictable plot. That’s a prescription for failure no matter what the subject matter.

  Comment by yetanotherwriter — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 6:23pm PST  Reply to this post

• When I first heard about Fred Claus, I assumed that it was going to be a dark comedy, ala Bad Santa, with Vince doing his Wedding Crashers bit. I was very disappointed that this was mild kiddie fare and remember thinking to myself “what were they thinking?” Who wants to see Paul Giamatti in a fat suit throwing snowballs at Vince Vaughn? Not much of the paying public obviously. I predict this movie will not have legs and will fade away, anyone remember the “classic” Jingle All The Way with Arnold and Simbad? Didn’t think so….

  Comment by FredWho? — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 6:41pm PST  Reply to this post

• BC,

  If you bothered to read my comment instead of getting kneejerk defensive, it stated that dissenting opinions are welcome when they are expressed in a sane, civil discourse which that angry mob did not.

  If one’s opinion is that the war is disastrous and based on lies, they converge upon one screaming that you “hate America” “want the U.S. to lose the war” “don’t support the troops” and other such absurdities that as Meryl Streep said aren’t even worthy of reply.

  They rant tiresomely about leftist Hollywood as if the mere fact that one thinks critically and questioningly about this administration and life in America the last 8 years automatically makes one lumps one as leftist and unpatriotic.

  It is impossible to have a healthy discussion with so much spraying venom and twisting of words and facts.

  The point was there is generally healthy discussion on this blog but it sticks to the point and is respectful.
  So don’t lecture me and next time read what someone says before going off as I’m quite sure you will do yet again. The end.

  Comment by writersrights — Monday November 12, 2007 @ 7:36pm PST  Reply to this post

• Bad films have bad boxoffice. It is that simple. Films must entertain people. Those that do not ALWAYS fail.
  When will those in decisions making positions get it.
  Vince Vaugn fans who like his edginess will see it toned down too much to enjoy him and he is over the edge enough for the kids not to ‘get it’…

  The picture is really a dog….and the reviews are right. just really bad film making. The legs of Santa Clause/Elf movies will NOT be there for Fred.

  and Tom Cruise…..? Both his film choices are disasters. Anyone in the exhibition business could have told you that. Lambs and Valkyries both bombs. Can’t imagine why these were ever greenlighted.

  As much as one would want to defend the artistry of film making. Films, stories and actors need to entertain the ticket buyer. When stars go out of their accepted genre by their fans, disaster is inevitable.
  Whether it is Tom Cruise or Vince Vaughn. Quite frankly, Tom Cruise doesn’t even have a genre or accepted role in the public any more.

  Comment by genedo — Tuesday November 13, 2007 @ 4:49am PST  Reply to this post

• Agentyungbuck,

  Paul Giamatti has never been repped by CAA; it’s Endeavor that handles him.

  Doh!

  Comment by Dixon Steele — Tuesday November 13, 2007 @ 5:08am PST  Reply to this post

• No comments from anyone on how profoundly BAD “Bee Movie” is? I sat there stonefaced for the longest 90 minutes of my life, but not even my 7 year old could fine one thing remotely amusing.

  The movie-going public is not only clamoring for more quality romantic comedies such as “Dan in Real Life.” They are also crying out for more movies where you can take the entire family.

  I dunno — I guess I have high hopes for Thanksgiving weekend, when there will be “August Rush” and “Enchanted.”

  Comment by Ano — Tuesday November 13, 2007 @ 2:32pm PST  Reply to this post

• Hi! Nice site!

  Comment by jack — Thursday November 15, 2007 @ 10:45am PST  Reply to this post