BBC Confirms ‘Doctor Who’ Season 8 
‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ $22M Friday For Lower … 
Finally, Cannes Dealing! Radius-TWC Nabs Director’s … 
Hammond On Cannes: Wet Fest’s Official Competition … 
‘Vampire Academy’ Adds ‘Modern … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Shark Tank’ Finale Up, … 
Cannes: Worldview Options Andrew Dominik’s Marilyn … 
UPFRONTS 2013: The Overachievers 
‘Mike & Molly’ Creator Mark Roberts To … 
Carey Mulligan, Matthias Schoenaerts Set For … 
Hammond On Cannes: Weinstein Brings Out Stars For 2013 … 
Cannes: Fake Gunshots Interrupt Canal Plus Live Broadcast … 
‘The Great Gatsby’ Starts With $5.4M … 
Cannes: Music Box Snags Competition’s ‘Michael … 
UPDATE: Amazon Studios Begins Pilot Pickups; … 
Bruce Rosenblum Bids Classy Goodbye 
RATINGS RAT RACE UPDATE: ‘American Idol’ Hits … 
UPDATE: ‘Iron Man 3′ Box Office Crosses $1B … 
Upfront Market: Will Auto Makers Subsidize TV … 
Cannes: Thief Makes Off With $1M+ In Chopard Jewelry Meant … 
‘Scandal’ Finale On Small Screen And Onstage At … 
SUNDAY AM: With film critic associations announcing their best-of lists, SAG nominations due on Monday, and Golden Globe nominations to be announced Tuesday morning, there’s still no concensus as to the winners. Which is why the grosses for each box office weekend until the end of the year become increasingly important to the awards process. Yes, size does matter.
Hollywood didn’t expect Spyglass/Revelations/Malpaso/Mace Neufeld/Warner Bros’ Invictus to do more than $10M-$15M at the box office from 2,125 plays because its marketing had all the lure of a history lesson. “I don’t feel any real heat on it like other Clint Eastwood films,” one rival studio exec. Flat tracking showed zero interest from young females, moderate interest from older females, but decent interest and choice with males who generally flock to Eastwood efforts. Though the story is inspirational (“audiences leave surprised and inspired,” one WB exec noted), the studio knew that ideological perceptions might deter filmgoers even though Clint’s direction and Morgan Freeman’s/Matt Damon’s acting are as usual superb. 
Nor was selling it as a feel-good sports story an option at least in the U.S. because it’s about rugby and the 1995 World Cup Championship. But that may help the pic overseas. All in all, Friday’s $2.9M opening and Saturday’s $3.6M and the weekend’s $9M were on the low end of what was expected. (Clint’s Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby both did $10M openings and each went on to earn around $100M respectively.) CinemaScore was an A- with 47% of the audience over age 50 rating the film an A. ”I’m not in a panic at all wish. I wish it were a little stronger out of the gate,” one WB exec told me. “But it’ll be a slow burn. It’ll have great word of mouth and long legs through the holidays.”
Disney’s The Princess And The Frog with its fresh black take on the stale lily-white royal romance stories force-fed to children was expected to shoot past $30M this weekend since there’s nothing new for kids in theaters. Reviews have been glowing, and it was just named the #1 pic of the year by Time Magazine. (Is that newsosaur even still relevant?) The expansion into 3,434 venues follows exclusive 2-week runs with higher ticket sales because of an extra “Disney Experience” to sold-out audiences of all ages in just two theaters in NY and LA that grossed $3.6+M. (Whew!) Now, add Friday’s take of $7.1M and Saturday’s of $10.6M for a $25M weekend — about expected for hand-drawn 2-D animation these days with an A via CinemaScore. Disney said it was the biggest opening for an animated film released in December. Princess has two weeks before Fox’s Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel opens on Christmas Day. Overseas, Princess will roll out overseas: it opened day-and-date in just a few markets, including Germany and Mexico.
The specialty box office keeps unrolling awards-touted titles in limited runs. Peter Jackson’s The Lovely Bones from DreamWorks/Paramount debuting in three dates in New York and LA made $116K. The biggest hurdle facing its marketing is convincing audiences it’s not as grim as the Alice Sebold novel about a young girl who is brutally slain by a serial killer. Low grosses could hurt its Academy Awards chances.
The Weinstein Company’s A Single Man opened in nine theaters in a few markets including New York and LA for $216K and a per screen average of $24K. Adapted from Christopher Isherwood’s book and starring Colin Firth and Julianne Moore, this is the pic that Harvey Weinstein promised fashion designer-turned-film director Tom Ford to deliver an Oscar. (That’s how Harv would get all those hot movie stars and directors for puny money, and indeed The Weinstein Company only paid $2 million for the U.S. rights. Even with massive publicity for a small movie, Hollywood thinks its upside is only $10M gross at the U.S. box office and no more.
Finally, Paramount is pointing out its George Clooney starrer and Oscar hopeful Up In The Air expanded into 72 screens this weekend for a $2.5M weekend and per screen average of $34K. (Its Friday per screen was better than two of last year’s big films: Gran Torino‘s $27K when it expanded to 84 screens on December 26th, and Slumdog Millionare‘s $18K when it hit 78 screens on December 5th.) Its cume should be $4M after Sunday.
Top 10 After Friday:
1. Princess & The Frog (Disney) [3,434 runs] Wkd $25M, Cume $27.8M (3 weeks)
2. The Blind Side (Warner Bros) [3,388] Wkd $15.4M, Cume $150.2M (4)
3. Invictus (Warner Bros) NEW [2,125 runs] Wkd $9M (NEW)
4. New Moon (Summit) [3,635 runs] Wkd $8M, Cume $267.4M (4)
5. A Christmas Carol (Disney) [2,402 runs] Wkd $6.8M, Cume $124.4M (6)
6. Brothers (Lionsgate) [2,088 runs] Wkd $5M (-48%), Cume $17.4M (2)
7. 2012 (Sony) [2,838 runs] Wkd $4.4M, Cume $155.3M (5)
8. Old Dogs (Disney) [3,090 runs] Wkd $4.3M, Cume $39.9M (3)
9. Armored (Sony) [1,919 runs] Wkd $3.5M (-46%), Cume $11.7M (2)
10. Ninja Assassins (WB) [2,100 runs] Wkd $2.7M, Cume $34.3M (3)
—
Limited
Up In The Air (Paramount) [72 runs] Wkd $2.5M, Cume $416M (2)
A Single Man (Weinstein) [9 runs] Wkd $216K (NEW)
Lovely Bones (Paramount) [3 runs] Wkd $116K (NEW)
Precious (Lionsgate) [664 runs] Wkd $1.2M, Cume $38.2M (6)
Fantastic Mr Fox (Fox) [1,268 runs] $1.4M, Cume $16.2M (5)
The Road (Weinstein) Fri $147K [135 runs] Cume $3.6M (3)
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
Wow, if these numbers hold up, not a great start for P&tF.
If 7.5 is true for friday, it could still get a significant bump for sat and sunday and make over 30. I have a hunch this is gonna play to the toddler set. Still, not the numbers they need to make a profitable business out of hand drawn 2-D animation. It will be interesting to see what tough guy iger does to the team that is supposedly beginning work on the next 2-d, the Snow Queen.
Finally saw the blind side. Doesn’t anyone else find it a bit racist? I am having a difficult time articulating exactly what about it doesn’t feel right, but it doesn’t. But with grosses like this, clearly I am wrong!
Why would it be racist? Those are all real people.
I suppose some of the discomfort about the Blind Side was expressed best by Ryan Adams on Awards Daily. He basically said that it was uncomfortable watching a biopic about an African-American who overcame incredible obstacles where said African-American who did said overcoming was shoved aside in his own life story so the movie could focus on the heroic white angel loudly flapping her wings.
The real life Michael Oher is a well-spoken and sensitive guy, MILES removed from the barely sentient man-child the movie portrayed him as being.
While Michael Oher is, and was, sensitive, he was by no means “well spoken” according to the book as well as interviews conducted with his teachers and friends from the time period of the movie. In fact, the only criticism I’ve read regarding Michael from those that knew him was that the Michael in the film was practically a chatterbox in comparison to the real Michael.
As for the label of “racist” though everyone is entitled to label however they see fit, it seems to me that another film could be made from a true story about a heroic pair of white parents who took in an African American kid whose father had abandoned him and who had a mother unfit to care for him. This kindly white couple enrolled him in a tony private school, encouraged him to play sports (basketball) and he went on to excel in school and make something of himself.
His name is President Barack Obama and many of the posters here (as well as a few idiotic critics) might view this film as “racist.”
Get a life.
Thank you, something about it was a little off. Good movie but not quite up to all the hype. “…difficult time articulating exactly what about it doesn’t feel right, but it doesn’t.” However, it is Sandra Bullock’s best work since “Speed”. I think she an Oscar nomination.
Yeah I’d agree wait till after Saturday to pass judgement for P&tF
“Finally saw the blind side. Doesn’t anyone else find it a bit racist? I am having a difficult time articulating exactly what about it doesn’t feel right, but it doesn’t. But with grosses like this, clearly I am wrong!”
People I know who live elsewhere in the U.S. like it. I have no interest in seeing it–but have a theory that it flatters conservative Christians who want to do good deeds and think there’s no moral contradiction in driving big gas-guzzling SUVs and living in large, expensive houses.
Yeah, God forbid they should actually, you know, give a poor kid a chance. If you have an SUV, you fail at life, no matter how many people you’ve helped.
How about getting our priorities straight for a change?
You mean like virtually all Hollywood celebs do? But do carry on with your fascinating theory about how conservative Christians live, perhaps some of your best friends are…
@Waiting for the collapse
It is hard to take White liberal Hollywood seriously in terms of “eco-friendliness” and “personal restraint” when they crisscross America’s skies on fuel-guzzling, plush PRIVATE JETS. (And these “geniuses” wonder why most Americans don’t buy their “more carbon dioxide = human killing global warming” alarmism.)
Give me a truly compassionate, SUV driving White conservative over the self-absorbed White liberal hypocrites of Hollywood any day of the week.
“…it flatters conservative Christians who want to do good deeds and think there’s no moral contradiction in driving big gas-guzzling SUVs and living in large, expensive houses.”
You mean like Al Gore, Thomas Friedman (have you SEEN his house? It looks like freakin’ Versailles), any Hollywood A-list celeb, the list goes on…..
They don’t call them limosine liberals for nothing. Oh wait, I think the term is “Gulfstream Liberals” now! And they’re all busy flying their private jets over to Copenhagen to get a little of that “Climate change” caviar!
But it’s A-OK because at least they’re not conservative Christians. LOL!
Is there any way to track the most front-loaded films of all-time? 2009 has got to be setting a record: New Moon, Watchmen, Friday the 13th, Year One, Wolverine… lots of alarming declines this year. On the other hand, Blind Side and Christmas Carol already have x4 multipliers!
It depends on what your definition of “front-loaded” is… For example, if you define one such film as making less than 3 times of its opening week gross, 2009 is kinda on par with ’08 and ’07: 8 movies grossing over 100M in 2009 fall in this catagory, while there were 9 in ’08 and 8 in ’07. I think it’s just the norm these days.
Yes, that is a good point and I think it is the year where fanboys rushed out to see things but at the same time, no, I think that this is the year of WORD-OF-MOUTH. PRECIOUS, BLIND SIDE, STAR TREK, PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, TAKEN, GRAN TORINO, THE HANGOVER, THE PROPOSAL, I LOVE YOU MAN, even HARRY POTTER 6 (which had a big front-loaded friday before cooling down but still doing good week after week), all were word-of-mouth hits that did WAY beyond their expected potential. People don’t want to waste their money on shitty films like YEAR ONE and FRIDAY THE 13th and WOLVERINE. While WATCHMEN was OK it was, like I said earlier, all fanboys that came and no one beyond. People are into opening day showings now more than ever for one reason or the other too. But word-of-mouth really helped all these films. It will be interesting to see how this trend continues with all of the Oscar films opening up.
How was Star Trek not front loaded? It petered out pretty quick and is now considered a slight disappointment after opening stronger than expected on opening weekend.
Also, Precious isn’t exactly a WOM hit either. It opened at high end high priced theaters in big cities based on the huge hype behind it, and now Lionsgate may not even go wide with it since it petered out quickly after going to 600 theaters and will barely squeeze past 40 mil. Not terrible, but certainly not the the potential cash cow Liosgate execs were predicting last spring. Bottom line it’s performing like one of the lesser Medea films and they don’t have to spend on an Oscar campaign for a Medea flick.
Just saw the Blind Side and it is a good movie. Here’s hoping for it to go all the way to 200M
is it okay to say i didn’t like up in the air?
How dare you not like a Clooney movie, JK. Don’t worry, most of America wont watch this. Only the critics like this stuff. Lets just say I will wait for the DVD or TV to watch this movie.
Jerry, only the critics and people who love great cinema like Up in the air. People like you should stick to transformers 5 and Saw 13 or whatever mindless blockbuster is in theaters now.
I have to say I was not blown away by Up in the Air. George could sit reading a knitting catalogue and he’d be fabulous, but the third act got mushy and the conclusion was foregone. Not so much.
“Finally saw the blind side. Doesn’t anyone else find it a bit racist? ”
It’s a TRUE STORY. If we applied your point of view then we’d still be segregated if this story “doesn’t make you feel right.”
Pathetic.
What kind of argument is this? So what if BLIND SIDE is based on a true story? That doesn’t immunize it to charges of racism. It’s a Hollywood MOVIE. Sandra Bullock is an ACTRESS reading from a SCRIPT. It’s entirely possible for source material to become contaminated and deformed by the Hollywood development process, regardless of intent. I haven’t seen The Blind Side so I can’t comment on this particular case, though the trailer did make me want to puke; while maybe not racist, it looks completely condescending to African Americans, and yes, meant to pad the ignorant egos of latent white racists–including the white filmmakers and executives who churned it out. But for all I know, that was just the trailer and the actual film is not as dumbed down as it looks…though somehow I doubt it.
While THE BLIND SIDE may not be perfect. It is not racist, and the people who made it are not either. In fact, and I think facts still matter, one of the senior producers and financiers is African-American. The most amazing thing about a lot of the people who write negative things about the film is that they themselves revealing their own prejudices. Michael Oher was not dumbed down for the purpose of the film and indeed if you see the movie, with a helping hand he was able to help himself. At the end of the day, maybe people like you would rather the white family just keep on going down the road and not stop to take in someone less fortunate. However, as “sick” as it may have made you, that is what happened – no matter how non-stereotypical it may have been.
@Broderick Johnson
I’m beginning to wonder if all the White people branding “Blind Side” as “racist” are secretly wracked with guilt. I bet at least half of the movie’s White critics wouldn’t acknowledge a poor Black guy on the street much less adopt him into their family.
Who’s the real racist, again?
I keep hearing this defense– that it’s a true story, but that doesn’t mean it was executed in a truthful way that treated all the characters three dimensionally, only that it was *based* on a true story. I admit I haven’t seen it, and I’ll be curious to see it and come to my own conclusions, but “mde” is not alone in this assessment– I have read some reviews by people who felt the same way.
Are you people that stupid? So what if it is a true story? True stories can’t be racist? You people don’t think more racism happens in real life than in the movies. Racism is a fact of life in America. Deal with it.
I think the point is that it’s based on the true story of a white family taking an African-American into their home, giving up part of their lives to help him and making him a part of their family. If doing that is somehow racist, then I think we need to redefine racism.
The movie may be a poor adaptation and glorify the white family. But I don’t see how any movie that encourages people to help others regardless of race can be considered racist.
@schnipple
Let’s see. In your world:
White people who directly help desperately poor Black guy? “Racist.”
White people who express pity about the Black guy, but never lend a hand? “Tolerant.”
Personally, I’d prefer more White “racists” (read: compassionate, generous people) in the world to the White “tolerant folk” (read: heartless, self-absorbed bastards).
Unfortunately for Invictus, the inspirational sports movie space right now is already being filled with The Blind Side which has more female appeal.
Disney movies are “force-fed” to children?? Um, with all due respect, were you ever a child?
It’s the kids who drag their parents to see them, not the other way around.
Princess and the Frog will not be as successful as the “lily White romance stories” because … tada … America is mostly White nation. The consumer base for “romance stories” is in fact, lily White. Whites make up 76-80% of the population according to the US Census Bureau, and Blacks are only 12.5-12.8%. Thus, right off the bat, you are excluding most of the potential audience. No wonder this is not “Enchanted.”
Diversity has its costs: lower profit. In everything from TV advertising (which over-represents Middle Class Blacks by a factor of around 16) to movies like this. This is just human nature — people like to see stories about characters who look like idealized (thinner, smarter, better looking, more intelligent, more confident) versions of themselves.
Disney wasted a lot of money on this.
As for Invictus, Freeman’s messy personal life make the film a joke. Since “Street Smart” (where he played a brutal thug/pimp), Freeman has made a living playing the “voice of conscience” and it is just too jarring with his plans to marry his Grand-daughter. Moreover, we all know what South Africa became after the end of Apartheid — an even bigger mess where Whites were predictably ethnically cleansed and a landscape minus aliens from outer space that looks like “District 9.” No, we can’t all get along. Inevitably we bind to “greatly extended family” or those closest to our DNA, it is part of what makes us great but flawed primates.
How sad Hollywood cannot make another Die Hard or Lethal Weapon, a holiday-set action movie with traditional values.
Then why are Tyler Perry’s films *shudder* so successful? And I doubt most filmgoers know about Freeman’s ‘messy life.’
You prefer South Africa before Apartheid, do you?
Majority, then why did Obama become president? You sound very bitter.
wow, that’s one cynical post. I applaud Disney for their choice to make this film because sometimes it shouldn’t be just about the money. Besides, financially speaking they will be just fine at the end of the day when they clean up with toy sales and related products. The Princess and the Frog Barbie doll has been sold out for a couple of weeks– I know because I tried to buy one for my niece who wants it for christmas. With the exception of Pixar movies, Disney cartoons are merely huge commercials for al of their products.
@whiskey
The gal is his step-granddaughter. And unless a person is an avid reader of the gossip blogs, he/she wouldn’t even know this. I doubt it will have any effect on the box office.
A movie that has a black protagonist excludes all white people?? I guess you only feel comfortable watching movies with people who are just like yourself. Now you know what black people feel like watching wall to wall white people! Please get over your racist thinking.
Sigh. This is exactly what happens when people who read the Drudge Report link to a website. Whiskey, where to begin with your post. I suppose it would go without saying that it seems curious that a film with a black protagonist appears to make you…well..angry? I suppose at least you spared us all the the predictable “I judge by the content of character” jive, which is the typical conservative’s cowardly way of trying to rationalize their barely disguised bigotry on web posts just like yours..
As for your blast on Invictus, you do understand Whiskey that viewing the end of apartheid as somehow being a BAD THING does little to convince people that you aren’t a bigoted piece of trash. Good thing you concluded that part of your “analysis” of film marketing with the bizarre assertion that people “bind to greatly extended family or those closest to our DNA”. Those were YOUR words, whiskey. Tell me, do you consider black people to be a member of the human species? If you do, then I would hope you would reflect at how disturbing your little DNA comment was, chief.
By the by, demographics studies indicate that in the next generation, white people will be something like 50% of the country or less. Can’t help but wonder if that little factoid actually makes you angry, although you’d neeeeeeeeeeeeeeever say on a web post that you were a bigot.
Nikki, this is what happens when you pal around with Matt Drudge to boost your page hit count.
He did have one good point, SA has become a shithole and white liberals largely fall in the “don’t care, moved on” camp. At least District 9 alluded to the problem–even though that part of the movie went over the head of clueless liberals, who laughably interpreted the movie as an apartheid allegory.
I guess it goes to show that in the race to be dumb and uncaring, liberals can give anyone else a run for their money.
Whiskey, one more thing:
If white people are literally that turned off by movies that don’t prominently feature white people, then how exactly do you explain Slumdog Millionaire’s $140 million box office last year. Not a single caucasian actor in a major or minor role in that film. Not a one. By your “logic”, Fox Searchlight sure wasted their money on that one.
Actually if you are accurate about the term all the actors in “Slumdog” are in fact caucasian – they are just not white caucasian. This does’t alter my agreement with your basic point.
Whiskey, I feel so sorry for you.
Your continued attempt to justify your racism w/ statistics & your specious reasoning behind them only proves your obsolescence.
The 50′s are long over.
So are you.
Why all the harping? Anyone who reads this site knows “Whiskey” is a bigot.
“How sad Hollywood cannot make another Die Hard or Lethal Weapon, a holiday-set action movie with traditional values.”
how exactly are those bastions of “traditional values”?
saying a movie can’t or won’t make money because one of the characters is black is not only racist, but also illogical. there are a lot of reasons for a film to fail commercially that don’t involve race, too, ya know.
i’m embarrassed to share a skin tone with you.
Actually, Nelson and Winnie Mandela’s personal lives were pretty warped especially compared to the relatively “minor” indiscretions of a Morgan Freeman.
Whiskey…
Why don’t you just hope on that next Space Shuttle expedition and just leave this earth? Find your own planet in the Solar System and live there. Be the first human to occupy Mars, or break the ice on Pluto. Or maybe enjoy the heat on Mercury/Crematoria. I really think you will be much happier, because what is coming in the next 10-20 years will just give you a cardiac!
whisky, the ignorant racist is at it again. First, lets look at your facts. Whites are not 76-80% of the population. If Blacks are 12.5% (more like 13% actually) and Hispanics are 15.1% that puts whites at less than your lowest estimate right there, without even factoring in Asians which would put whites under 70%. Check the Census from 2008, below.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/011910.html
Quit trying to quote phony statistics to try to legitimize your racism.
As for your claim that it is human nature to only want want to see your own race in movies, that is about the shallowest, most assine statement I’ve ever heard. If that were the case then Kurosawa and John Woo would be unknown in America. If you’re trying to say that white Americans are self-centered, closed minded bigots, then go ahead and say it but I resent it! Being human doesn’t preclude you from watching a movie about people of another race. Non-whites seem to be able to do it. Is it beyond the decency of whites to do it? Is it so distasteful to whites that they refuse to do it? I don’t think so. If so, what does that say about white people?
Why do racist swine like whisky try to legitimize their malignant hatred by saying it’s normal? Is it because you don’t have the character to face the truth about yourself, whisky? That you’re a hate-filled racist who gets resentful and knee-knocking, pants-wetting threatened by seeing other races (particularly Blacks) given attention and having their humanity acknowledged. Your nature is not human, whisky, it’s sick and pathetic and has poisoned our society for generations. Stop trying to claim your evil as normal. It’s abnormal and should be fought against.
And stop being an apologist for racist behavior. Your attempts to rationalize racism by quoting inaccurate statistics come off as contemptible and desperate. You want to sound reasoned and logical but you just sound like a fool. Piss off, whisky, really, piss off.
Yes, TIME is still relevant. For your information.
Just Asking: It is perfectly Ok to say you didn’t like “Up in the Air.” I hated it. Way too mannered and self conscious. Anna Kendrick has a terrible voice and gave bad line readings. Clooney was so-so, and rather distant.
The movie was trying to give a deep message and just came across as stoopid. Wouldn’t recommend it to anyone.
This is a prime example of Hollywood overhyping mediocre material to the max.
Whats with the Clooney hype? I can’t believe this actor has so much influence on producers. Is he really a box office draw? The only money maker he was in was the Oceans series, at least that I know of, and whats with the movies he makes, it seems like his movies are always critically acclaimed and Oscar nominated. If his movies are so great then wheres the audience? I don’t get it.
Jerry, since when do great movies always produce huge box office results ? Clooney’s Oscar baity films do not have mass appeal, they are made for critics and people within the film business.
I really can’t figure out why Disney’s Feature Animation films can’t do better. Granted, Chicken Little was a terrible movie and Meet the Robinsons was just plain uninteresting. But I thought Bolt was better than most Pixar films. Princess and the Frog isn’t that great (They never established why I should care about Naveen), but I don’t see why it can’t do as well as, say, Madagascar.
Invictus has two major marketing problems.
First, the title is very bad. Almost nobody knows it is Latin for undefeated.
Second, the trailer (as well as even positive reviews) indicates there is no conflict between the characters to drive the plot forward until the final game sequence. A basic screenwriting failure. Kumbaya does not mean box office. And the lack of conflict, special effects, sex appeal, or humor means it will do poorly worldwide too.
Third: it reeks. It is boring, pathetic hack work. May be based on a true story but there is nothing realistic or honest about it.
Up in the Air, also not as good as everyone claims.
Invictus reeks, regardless of anyone’s color. It is boring, pathetic hack work. May be based on a true story but there is nothing realistic or honest about it. Fake and contrived, just like Up in the Air, also not as good as everyone claims.
Boring for people who need explosions to keep their attention on a film. Up in the air and Invictus are both great films that will get Oscar noms for best picture. You not liking such great works of art shows your own bad taste. Hack work ? Eastwood, Damon, Freeman, hardly hacks. Fake and contrived ? Sweetheart the movie is based on true events.
I loved the new take on the princess & frog fairly tale but nikki your comment “Disney’s The Princess And The Frog with its fresh black take on the stale lily-white royal romance stories force-fed to children” is really sad & pathetic. You act as if it forced on “white” children in order to discriminate against people who are “black.” reading history backwards arent we?
I mean this fairly tale is hundreds of years old, from europe where slavery was non-exist. everyone in europe was “white” back then so of course it was “lily-white” . ya know?
however, if yu also mean fairly tales were “lily white” in the old day then you have never read the original brothers grimm fairy tales. in fact its disney who made most of the fairy tales “lily-white” but the originals are quite “dark.”
again, fairly disappointed to see you racial interpretation of a simple children’s folk tale.
relax nikki and dont take movies so literal. This movie was about more than the just the color of the character’s skin.
oy vey….
Nikki, I work at Disney World, primarily in the Magic Kingdom. In both of the “Bibbidi Bobbidi Boutiques” (one at the Magic Kingdom, one in Downtown Disney), in which girls get makeovers as their favorite princess, Tiana makeovers are WAY outperforming any of the classic princesses… and with white girls too. The meet and greet crowd to meet and have pictures taken with Tiana and Naveen… I’d say 2 out of 3 are not black. P&F merch is flying off the shelves, from the stuffed frogs to Tiana dresses… and again, not just to black people.
Wake up, Nikki. This is America 2009. Racism exists, but we’re not segregated anymore. White people like things with black people in them too. I’m white and I voted for Obama and so did many others, obviously (not primarily on skin color reasons). My white mom, grandmother, and aunt are all hardcore Oprah devotees. White people love the Madea movies too.
This movie will probably do well for a while, even better with overseas numbers. The merch is doing fantastic. Theme park tie-ins here have exceeded all expected popularity. This little movie with black people in it will continue to do well with white people, black people, and other types of people.
The most important thing to remember Nikki: most kids don’t care about race. It’s a kids movie. It has cartoon frogs and a fat funny alligator in it. They don’t care if it’s a white blonde princess or a black princess. They just want to see it and enjoy it. Stop trying to make it into more than it is!
To be fair, that should be pointed less at Nikki and more at other commenters.
(Mercifully) Shorter Whiskey: “Because I’m racist and ignorant, I firmly believe whites are too xenophobic and dumb to really relate to movies about black characters. So, that means no one should ever try making movies that don’t always reflect a “white middle-aged man’s POV” because that’s the only POV I, in my severely limited wisdom, think that whites can deal with. The fact that I am insulting my race and gender goes completely over my head…but when you are an idiot, it’s hard to think of everything.”
Saw “Princess” and liked it, but felt like it wasn’t quite at the level of “Beauty and the Beast” or “Alladin.” There was definitely a sense of freshness about it that I liked, the characters were memorable and the musical numbers were good too, but the love story just wasn’t convincing. It didn’t have that carpet-ride moment.
Ps: Whiskey: having a movie “starring” black characters doesn’t exclude the white audience. It only excludes those white audience members who refuse to see a movie solely because it stars black characters. Apparently, you are in that demographic.
What does everyone think of A Christmas Carol? In one sense it is a dissapointment given the $200 million budget. However, it has had great legs, already grossing nearly 4 times its opening weekend. I’m torn on how to view this movies box office run.
As an Eastwood fan, I had high expectations and other then Morgan Freeman’s performance, Invictus was a huge letdown. Slow at parts especially in the middle. The Cinema Scores should have been around a B. Not at that interesting and not as good as Million Dollar Baby, Iwo Jima, and especially, Gran Torino.
Absolutely agreed. Freeman gets lost in the second half in favor of all the rugby. Sure, it’s true, but there had to be other factors which helped him unite South Africa. And what about the other problems the country was facing, like the economy, poverty and pollution? Invictus is very narrow minded to its great detriment.
Thanks to those who actually read my post about Blind. I didn’t say it WAS racist, I wondered aloud if it was and that it just didn’t sit well with me for some reason. Upon further thought I think I figured out why it bugged me.
I think the problem is that the movie had no real stakes. Everything was very one-dimensional. The ghetto is bad. Michael is good. White people eat salads and stereotype black people at fancy country clubs. Sassy southern women wear the pants in the family. It feels like a throwback when we know that reality is far more complex. If life really was as simple as this movie depicts, everyone should adopt an overlooked black kid and racism, poverty, and neglected children would cease to exist. In the end, to me, this movie simply lacked realism and complex issues. None of the characters really had to “get over” anything. To sacrifice anything. To learn anything. Bottom line, white people all aren’t so bad, and black people all aren’t so scary? Isn’t that the message here? What did Michael really teach sandra bullock? I didn’t really get it when she said (non spoiler since it’s in the trailer) that he is teaching “me”. What did she learn? That not all black kids want to rape white girls? That not all poor kids have beds? I guess her journey is what didn’t impress me. What was she giving up by walking out on her friends? By bringing a black kid into her home? AND I found the depiction of Michael to be very simplistic. I think he has ten lines in the whole movie. I usually love this type of movie, and just found it thoroughly underwhelming. And like I said in my earlier post, I am not saying it’s a bad movie–clearly it speaks to a lot of people by its phenomenal grosses–its not just for me.
What is really sad, is the trashy way people react to criticism. Name-calling and all that. It’s just not a very intelligent way to react to someone’s comment.
But this is hollywood. I should have learned by now not to expect more.
“The ghetto is bad” – It’s not?
“Michael is good” – He’s a real person, why not ask him if he’s good?
“White people eat salads and stereotype black people at fancy country clubs” – They don’t?
“Sassy southern women wear the pants in the family.” – Okay, this is something of a stereotype, but there’s truth in it.
It seems like you have a problem primarily with a negative judgment on ghetto life. How about you ask Spike Lee about what he thinks of ghetto life? Hint: He made “Boyz in the Hood.”
You’re an idiot. & a racist.
Spike Lee did not make “Boyz In The Hood”.
John Singleton wrote & directed that film.
But they all look alike, right?
As for your other assertions, get out of your mother’s basement & try to experience life. It should dispel your other obvious bigotries as well.
John sigleton made Boyz, genius.
Undercut wrote
[It seems like you have a problem primarily with a negative judgment on ghetto life. How about you ask Spike Lee about what he thinks of ghetto life? Hint: He made “Boyz in the Hood.”]
Actually, John Singleton directed “Boyz ‘n’ the Hood.” The only thing he has in common with Spike Lee is skin color.
LOL. Spike Lee didn’t make “Boyz in the Hood.” Perhaps you’re thinking of “Do the Right Thing.” IMDB is your friend. Use it.
Your analysis seems pretty similar to Owen Gleiberman’s of Entertainment Weekly. He felt Michael was too one dimensional and not given enough to do to really contribute to the film. Ås far as your assertion goes that the name-calling on this site is somehow due to the fact that “this is hollywood”, I have to take issue with that, as there have been several posters here on this hollywood industry site arguing for your point of view in a very professional manner
Very well stated take on the movie. Sums up alot of my ambivalence towards it. Too many movies don’t seek to challenge or show real challenges at all. They just tell us that we (and the characters) are wonderful people just the way we are. It’s phony conflict and phony drama, and in this case phony uplift. Kudos to Bullock though for breaking out of the All About Steve disaster.
Your problem is that you’re thinking about it too deeply. This movie isn’t supposed to solve all the world’s deep questions about race, it’s supposed to be a couple hours of entertainment.
No need to wonder about Xmas Carol’s run.
It is considered a disappointment and will lose money for Disney this quarter. Not a disaster, but losing money is losing money.
It says it’s production budget is $200 million, it has already grossed $242 million worldwide. How is that losing money?
Now I watched the Blindside. I never saw racism in this story at all. The word never crossed my mind. By the way I interpeted more of a sports story than anything. Racism? Give me a break. Even the Disney cartoon trailor of the princess and the frog I didn’t see racism in that one either. I live in the south by the way and a lot of us Southners have moved on.
Ah, but if only you’d move on to spelling, grammar and punctuation, Chuck!
“lilywhiteroyal romances forced down children’s throats.”
Disney really hasn’t produced a 2D “lily white story of royal romance” since 1991, and that was an adaptation of previous work that’s been around for years, and never made into an animated feature.
If memory serves, the few 2D Disney “hits” of the last two decades involved Lions, Asian people, Native Americans, a Middle Eastern princess, and an adaptation of Tarzan. Not entirely sure how something (2D lily white royal romances) could grow “stale” if it hasn’t really been around since 1991.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s fantastic to see African-American characters in a 2-D Disney romance film, but let’s not get *too* crazy.
BTW, we sure could use a fresh take on those beach party movies of the 50s! I’m tired of having that genre shoved down my throat. It’s grown stale.
And don’t forget the little Hawaian girl in Lilo & Stitch. Disney has really gone out of its way to be diverse.
Terrific post Wow. Couldn’t agree more.
BTW in this whole discussion of racism, it never ceases to amaze me how the people who decry it are the first ones to bring it up in any circumstance when it’s not always applicable.
Maybe moviegoers got their fix of movies fromt he record-breaking Thanksgiving weekend, because things are pretty uneventful this weekend yet again.
1. THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG – A solid opening for a 2D film that no one quite knew how it would perform. I thought it would have broke $30M though which it still might if Sunday plays well. I think this is skewing very young which will hurt its overall potential on weekdays but with XMAS coming up it might still hit $100M but $90M seems more realistic now.
2. BLIND SIDE – I think this is certain that this will break $200M. WB is still adding on more theaters to add to the arsenal so it will still be in plenty come XMAS (can’t say the same for NEW MOON which will result in lower receipts).
3. INVICTUS – Blind Side stole this film’s little thunder it had. No matter how you look at it, this is a weak gross and I doubt the multiplier will be as high as Eastwood’s other films. The title is poor since no one knows what it means and while the film is good, the lack of conflict makes it a bit dull at parts so it never is truly great. The main problem is that this story is not really cinematic.
4. New Moon – With it’s best hold yet it still seems as if it will dip more than 50% which does nto say much. The gross is still phenomenal though but I still don’t see this cracking any more than $300M at the rate this is going.
5. A XMAS CAROL – Good hold which it needs, but this seems like its last hurrah before Avatar next week. 2D playdates are not playing very well for this film so it will be interesting how it olds. XMAS day it might get a boost, but I don’t know if it is enough to pass the gross of POLAR EXPRESS.
6. Brothers – The lack of buzz is really killing this movies box office. Should pass $30M at least.
7. Old Dogs – This film’s still around???
8. 2012 -It will be interesting to see how this holds against AVATAR next weekend, but it should still crack $165M as long as it retains some screens.
9. ARMORED – Typical drop.
10. NINJA ASSASSIN – Hit the nail on the head with the HITMAN comparison.
NOTABLE outside of top 10
-UP IN THE AIR- Great results with the expansion and might hit the top 10 with some luck if NINJA has a low bump Saturday and high drop Sunday.
- A SINGLE MAN – Good numbers considering the buzz around the film and most people not knowing uflyl what it’s about. However, I do not see this expanding well at all beyond limited release.
- LOVELY BONES – While a $40K PTA is nothing to scoff at, the poor reviews hindered its potentital. With its big name cast and well-known plot from the bestselling book should have resulted in a PTA closer to $60K. This will do the best expanding out of all of the Oscar films, but its gross may be capped now.
-PRECIOUS – The momentum is losing quick and XMAS is a poor time to expand. LGF can cut the new TV ads to seem bright and cheery, but people know what this film is about now and it is not the typical XMAS movie because its so depressing.
-THE ROAD – So is TWC not expanding this thing anymore? Right now it seems DOA with these grosses, even in limited, a 50% drop is a big deal.
The problem Princess/Frog had to overcome was not 2D, or skin color of the main character.
The problem was Disney made a “princess” movie that has NO appeal to boys or men. If they did this with a 50M budget, then ok. But no – they have to drop the usual 150M on what is at best a 2 quandrant pic…and then release it 2 weeks after Thanksgiving, instead of on or before TG.
They should have made a 4 quad type pic, a la Lion King, Aladdin, etc…
“Astro Boy” should have gotten such a weekend. It was far better than this paint-by-numbers Disney schlock. “Frog” was strictly formulaic, and not even GOOD formulaic. Snow White this isn’t (the Dwarfs beat the alligator and firefly by a mile)- it’s not even Sleeping Beauty (there are no moments of stunning animation, and Dr. Facilier is no Maleficent, particularly in dragon form). At least “Astro Boy” make you shed a tear and care about the hero, and the script was better as well. It’s the kind of movie Disney USED to make. Too bad other people are making Disney movies better than Disney does now.
Invictus, while well intentioned, doesn’t begin to stack up to Eastwood’s best films. Freeman and Damon are both so good, I
can’t imagine anyone else in their roles. Still, the story is
told in a pedestrian fashion. And would it have killed the
screenwriter to give the audience a decent explanation of the
rules for Rugby? Invictus is a nice little HBO film, masquerading
as an Oscar contender. I’d be stunned if the film crossed the $75
million mark in domestic BO.