RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Modern Family’, ‘Law … 
Hammond On Cannes: Paramount’s ‘Nebraska’ … 
Cannes: J.C. Chandor Sets Next Project ‘A Most … 
Hannibal Classics Sets Cast For Nic Cage Pic … 
Hammond On Cannes: Robert Redford’s Brave New Role … 
Hot Trailer: Jennifer Aniston And Jason Sudeikis’ … 
Warner Bros Tells Space Story, From The Bra Designers Who … 
Brad Pitt’s Plan B Banner Promotes Jeremy Kleiner To … 
Hot Trailer: ‘Don Jon’ 
Billy Crystal-Starring Comedy From Matt Nix & Larry … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Dancing With The Stars’ … 
Hammond On Cannes: A New Day Comes To The Fest As HBO and … 
Cannes: Fleming Reflects And Finds Talented Trio A Breath … 
Hot Trailer: ‘Man Of Steel’ 
Former Digital Domain CEO & Auditors Sued For Fraud By … 
ABC’s ‘Nashville’ Undergoes Production … 
CBS Wins Season & Ties Sweep In Demo; ABC Tops Adults … 
Alki David Agrees To End Name Games With Aereo And Barry … 
Next-Gen Xbox One Unveiled With Content Including … 
Cannes: Weinstein Co Acquires Keanu-Reese Sci-Fi Pic … 
Hot Trailer: ‘The Wolverine’ 
SUNDAY AM UPDATE: Weekend wonders never cease. Friday the Thirteenth weekend proved lucky for a pair of faded stars. Overall box office looks about $140M (about even with last year’s) and had something for everyone — men/women, old/young, romance/bromance, winners/losers/dropouts. It’s so competitive that The Expendables was marketing itself by pitting Sly Stallone against Pretty Woman: “Guys, don’t let Julia Roberts win”. I love the smell of napalm. North American numbers were refined this AM:
1. The Expendables (Lionsgate) NEW [3,270 Theaters]
Friday $13.3M, Saturday $11.8M, Est Sunday $9.8M, Weekend $35M
Even when The Expendables came on tracking, it looked big. And the timing couldn’t have been better what with Lionsgate getting beaten up by Carl Icahn on a daily basis, and Sylvester Stallone needing a fresh hit in his dotage. Kudos to Sly for coming up with such an irresistible concept directing and starring with today’s and yesteryear’s action heroes like Jason Statham, Jet Li, Randy Couture, Mickey Rourke, Dolph Lundgren, Steve Austin, Terry Crews, and even Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger (for nanoseconds in cameos). “Are The Expendables wearing Dependables?” one rival studio exec snarked in an email to me.
Still, it’s the kind of old school camp that the action box office needs — and received a “B+” CinemaScore. The audience was 61% male/39% female, as expected, and 60% over age 25/40% under age 25. Older women were 26%, equal to the percentage of men under 25. Friday’s grosses included a little Thursday midnight money. And Saturday’s fell about 7%. But the weekend fell in line with Hollywood’s big prediction for the pic despite being R-rated and only 2D. But it’s helped by a short running time of only 1 hour, 43 minutes. And maybe that hilarious Comic-Con: ‘The Expendables’ Panel made some difference. The marketing all along was fresh and funny, mostly because Stallone wasn’t afraid to make fun of his image.
2. Eat Pray Love (Sony) NEW [3,082 Theaters]
Friday $8.5M, Saturday $8.1M, Weekend $23.7M
If older males flocked to Sly, then older females embraced Eat Pray Love even with its has-been star Julia Roberts (remember, she couldn’t open Duplicity with co-star Clive Owen) in this music video of a film directed by Glee‘s Ryan Murphy and based on the treacly bestseller by Elizabeth Gilbert. Which is why Paramount was right to pass on what looked like a one-quadrant loser. (Paramount vs Sony On ‘Eat Pray Love’) Really, I hoped women had better taste in movies than this. Exit surveys showed the audience was 72% female with 56% over over 35 and 44% under 35. The pic received a “B” CinemaScore. “At only 37% [positive reviews] on Rotten Tomatoes, they better hurry up and pray that it doesn’t leave their favorite multiplex too fast,’ one rival studio exec emailed me. Make no mistake: the only reason this pic made any opening weekend coin was because of the brilliant job done once again by Sony’s marketing team of Jeff Blake, Marc Weinstock, and this time George Leon and his 72-hour EPL weekend extravaganza on HSN. The studio’s expensive and omnipresent ads and promotions drove box office among women. ”Whether they were in theaters, online, watching television, listening to radio, or shopping in their favorite malls and stores, they saw our campaign,” a Sony exec gushed. Shame on this studio co-run by a female for selling the pic’s self-discovery prattle by pushing women to purchase crap like lotus petal necklaces for Sony royalties.
3. The Other Guys (Sony) Week 2 [3,651 Theaters]
Friday $5.6M, Saturday $6.8M, Weekend $18M (49%), Cume $70.5M
4. Inception (Warner Bros) Week 5 [3,120 Theaters]
Friday $3.4M, Saturday $4.8M, Weekend $11.3M, Cume $248.5M
5. Scott Pilgrim vs The World (Universal) NEW [2,818 Theaters]
Friday $4.5M, Saturday $3.4M, Weekend $10.5M
This odd but innovative movie based on a comic book is yet another greenlight from the fired Mark Shmuger at Universal. He’s the gift that keeps on giving the studio expensive underperformers. Yet the current regime embraced Scott Pilgrim vs The World as a counterprogramming maneuver this weekend even though they knew auteur filmmaker Edgar Wright’s $60M budget (even with location credits) envelope pusher wouldn’t open or earn out. But that’s only because it got great reviews (which younger moviegoers rarely read) and an “A-” CinemaScore. The audience was 64% male/36% female, and 58% under 25 yrs of age/42% 25 yrs and older. Uni tried to hype the genre-bending pic as too cool for the room and claim it didn’t know if Scott Pilgrim would make $5M or $15M this weekend. But the pic will do exactly what Uni execs predicted to me it would: a pittance. “Regardless of the perceived outcome, we are proud of this film. Studios need to continue to offer audiences good and original ideas/films,” Uni said today. ”We do wish a greater number of people went to see the film.”
6. Despicable Me (Universal) Week 6 [2,923 Theaters]
Friday $2.3M, Saturday $2.7M, Weekend $6.7M, Cume $222.9M
7. Step Up 3D (Disney/Summit) Week 2 [2,439 Theaters]
Friday $2.3M, Saturday $2.7M, Weekend $6.6M (-48%), Cume $29.5M
8. Salt (Sony) Week 4 [2,834 Theaters]
Friday $1.9M, Saturday $2.5M, Weekend $6.3M, Cume $103.5M
9. Dinner For Schmucks (DW/Spyglass/Paramount) Week 3 [3,046 Theaters]
Friday $2M, Saturday $2.4M, Weekend $6.3M, Cume $58.8M
10. Cats & Dogs 2: Kitty Galore (Warner Bros) Week 3 [2,728 Theaters]
Friday $1.7M, Saturday $1.6M, Weekend $4M, Cume $35.1M
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
Michael Cera’s and Brandon Routh’s latest bomb. Who’s bright idea was it to put these two doses of box office poison together in one film? Was the master plan to insure the film was dead on arrival?
Actually, Roy, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is a fantastic film. I suggest you see it – it’s a blast!
He didn’t say it was bad, just that it was bombing. Quality is never a sure sign of success, and vice versa.
Look Scott Pilgrim v The World is a love story that has some fantasy to it. I thought acting was great in line with story line. It’s funny movie too. Wow if you watch for what it is and not what you want out of it. You learn about love in its true form. I though it was great and my wife though it was boring. It’s not a chick flick for sure.
@Brian, you miss the point. It doesn’t matter what taste in movies you have or what the plot is…or what actor is doing what. Love sorry this, and true love crap that. It is a STONE COLD FACT Cera and Routh is bleh. Who cares about the story, cause Execs don’t. The movie may be good, it may be ahead of it’s time…it may one day be a cult classic. It still doesn’t disprove that in the here and now…it is box office poison.
That said, I loved it…lol.
Scott Pilgrim is awful. I don’t care about watching Michael Cera doing his Michael Cera awkward love-struck schtick YET AGAIN. I like the guy, but god damn get a new schtick. Second, Scott Pilgrim is not a “love story” so much as an example of a whipped little pathetic douchebag that only a bunch of coke rimmed pathetic bastards who think the key to love is letting a woman walk all over you and presenting yourself as a spineless obedient puppy.
And again… I AM TIRED OF WATCHING THE MICHAEL CERA STOCK CHARACTER. Good god, that’s growing old.
The movie is primarily a love story, but not a chick flick? A love story for guys huh?
No wonder its not doing so good in the theaters.
That’s true but you still want your film to do good in theaters. With those movies it found an audience after the fact but movies didn’t cost that much to make back then.
If we want more movies like this it has to do well in theaters if not studio’s won’t budget these films.
hollywood hates the military, but where do they run to when they need to hit the cash register? War movies! What would you call that
, 2 faced, selling out your ideology if someone pays american $’s. good movies are few!
The Scott Pilgrim trailers didn’t look fun, they reminded one too much of Youth in Revolt. Angry Revolt Cera and Drab Year One Cera just aren’t as winning as earnest adorable SuperBad Cera.
Plus the girl was kinda gross looking; why didn’t they get that girl from Nick and Nora or Emma Stone? The gal has no screen presence.
33yo white female.
I thought it was a lame movie. dragged on for too long. hated that i didn’t know it would push Hinduism so hard and make light of immoral behavior so frequently. wished i would have checked out more reviews first. there were some enjoyable moments here or there. overall a waste of money
re: Eat. Pray. Love.
33yo white female.
I thought it was a lame movie. dragged on for too long. hated that i didn’t know it would push Hinduism so hard and make light of immoral behavior so frequently. wished i would have checked out more reviews first. there were some enjoyable moments here or there. overall a waste of money
What the hell are you talking about? Brandon Routh was hardly even used in the marketing for “Scott Pilgrim” – and anyway, he’s only ever headlined one movie in his career. How in God’s name is he “box office poison”?
Cera’s been hit or miss – hardly box-office poison. “Youth in Revolt” was a bomb, admittedly. “Year One” bombed because it was terrible. “Nick and Norah…” made more than three times its budget. And “Superbad” and “Juno” were both hits. In other words, stop talking out of your ***.
Oh, and it’s “whose,” not “who’s.” Also, “ensure,” not “insure.” Moron.
Was his name above the credits for either Juno or Superbad? I would say that’s not “headlining”. The movies he has headlined have either bombed completely or failed to break out. Unless you want to say Nick and Norah broke out at 30 million. And anyone could make the grammar/spelling mistakes he made. Grammar/spelling is not necessarily a sign of intelligence. But relegating yourself to calling people names instead of just making your point can be.
Will have to agree with AA….Michael Cera is bombing at the box office with leading roles.
And, I am not a Cera hater…I like his acting and his films….heck even wearing a t-shirt from one of his films as I write this. He is the antithesis of the Rob Pattinson, Taylor Lautner, and all those other pretty boy metrosexual wanna-be He-men. It is a shame that Cera cannot get better BO for his films
Having said that…his two big money-makers have been in films where he was overshadowed by another actor…Christopher Mintz-Plasse (McLovin/Fogell) in Superbad….and Ellen Page in Juno….and in the latter one Cera’s Paulie Bleeker was his best work to date, but, still overshadowed by Page’s Juno.
I just hope Cera can find himself roles that are not too far-out that keep box office down. Scott Pilgrim has to be a disappointment for him, Edgar Wright, and everyone involved
What I’d like to see is a movie where Michael Cera isn’t just recycling his “George-Michael” character from Arrested Development.
He seems to have only one character, and plays him over and over and over again.
Hey Chris it sure is easy to be internet “tough” isn’t it?
Calling someone a moron constitutes “tough” in your book? My friend, you have an odd definition of the word. I’m not particularly tough at all, to tell you the truth. But calling out a guy for making two grammatical errors that most of us grew out of by the fourth grade, when he’s the one calling people out for their stupidity – that seems like fair game.
And AA: Being above the credits has nothing to do with it. He clearly was, and was marketed as, one of the two co-leads of “Superbad.” Audiences weren’t paying attention to whether or not someone’s name was above the title when making their collective moviegoing decisions. So yes, he headlined “Superbad,” for all intents and purposes.
As for the rest, I never said “Nick and Norah” was a smash – I simply said it wasn’t a bomb. It was a modest success. I don’t think any studio making a modest movie with a modest $9 million budget expected a $100M return. $31M+ was a nice little haul.
As for “Youth in Revolt” and “Scott Pilgrim,” I would imagine that neither succeeded because they’re higher-concept niche films – not because Michael Cera is “box office poison.” Did he necessarily put many people in the seats by his presence alone? No, but – contrary to popular belief – there are very few actors who can actually do that, especially when it comes to niche material. Adam Sandler has been a huge box-office star for more than a decade, but that didn’t get anyone to go see “Punch-Drunk Love” or “Spanglish.” Matt Damon is box-office gold, but that didn’t stop “Green Zone” or “Brothers Grimm” from bombing. Star power primarily matters when the right package is put together – it doesn’t work on its own. Calling Cera “box-office poison” isn’t any more accurate than calling Aaron Johnson box-office poison just because “Kick-Ass” failed to meet expectations.
If Cera took a lead or co-lead role in a more accessible project – rather than a niche film – it would most likely make more money. Common sense, folks. If they made a sequel to “Superbad” right now with the same cast, it would be a smash – and no, that wouldn’t be because Cera is a huge box-office draw, it would be because people have become attached to the original film and its actors. So it goes both ways. Cera wouldn’t deserve most of the credit just for starring in a hit, nor does he deserve most of the blame for starring in a flop.
What I’m saying is that people – notably “Roy” up there at the top – have a severely distorted view of how star power works. There are certain people who can lift a film by their presence alone – and who, given the right kind of product, will get you a blockbuster – but not very many. The rest are at the mercy of the kind of package they’re a part of, from film to film; maybe they can swing it a little bit one way or the other, but by and large it’s not about their singular ability to attract or repel audiences. “Scott Pilgrim” simply appealed to too limited an audience; as someone else already stated, the passionate fanboy/Comic-Con/cult demographic doesn’t typically translate to serious box-office returns – unless we’re talking about an already lucrative property. In the case of “Scott Pilgrim,” there just wasn’t the appeal, with or without Cera.
and don’t forget the weinstein’s distributed Youth in Revolt. If there’s a box office poison in this industry, it would be those guys.
I completely disagree with Chris and don’t think “moron” is very appropriate in this discussion section. We are all film fans and come hear to speak of movies, no to berate someone on their spelling (I bet you would have been livid if I just wrote “there”).
Additionally, Michael Cera is becoming box office poison. He cannot open a movie on his own, period. The Aaron Johnson comparison is a little silly considering the number of projects he has headlined. Kick ass will ultimately be profitable and is no way near the financial failures that Cera’s films are.
Having said that, I really like Michael Cera. I loved Arrested Development and I think he has a great dry humor. I bet Scott Pilgram is really good as well but I definitely think it was a really foolish green light by Universal.
This movie reportedly cost as much as 80-90 million. Considering Cera’s track record this was a horrible decision!
I completely disagree with Chris and don’t think “moron” is very appropriate in this discussion section. We are all film fans and come hear to speak of movies, no to berate someone on their spelling (I bet you would have been livid if I just wrote “there”).
Additionally, Michael Cera is becoming box office poison. He cannot open a movie on his own, period. The Aaron Johnson comparison is a little silly considering the number of projects he has headlined. Kick ass will ultimately be profitable and is no way near the financial failures that Cera’s films are.
Having said that, I really like Michael Cera. I loved Arrested Development and I think he has a great dry humor. I bet Scott Pilgram is really good as well but I definitely think it was a really foolish green light by Universal.
This movie reportedly cost as much as 80-90 million. Considering Cera’s track record this was a horrible decision!
Well said Film fan.
Chris,
I don’t think “moron” is appropriate in this context. We are all film fans who come to share our opinions, not to berate each other on meaningless spelling errors. It just comes off as small and petty.
And yes, Michael Cera is becoming box office poison. He simply cannot open a movie. I find the Aaron Johnson comparison a little silly considering the amount of movies he has headlined. The financial disappointment of Kick Ass (which is ultimately a profitable endeavor) is nowhere near the disappointments of Cera’s movies.
Having said that, I really like Cera and think he has a great dry wit. I just don’t understand what Universal was thinking green-lighting an 80-90million dollar starring him.
@ Chris – “What I’m saying is that people – notably “Roy” up there at the top – have a severely distorted view of how star power works.”
Right…money. Cera doesn’t produce enough to properly be a “star”, by Exec terms. He proves it time and again. A movie can make a profit and STILL be a bomb since the Exec’s determine how much money it needs to make to be considered a “blockbuster”.
“Blockbusters” make “stars”.
Cera is headed in the other direction.
It’s as simple as that, fan or not. It’s called truth.
Fine. Then you’re not being a tough, Chris. Just really rude.
These are very cogent comments about the business overall, never mind the specific movies. I have no idea how old most of the commenters are. I am 65 and an avid movie goer and sometime film maker.
My problem is few intelligent adult films out there. That is one reason why women flocked to EPL, but as Niki says wish they had more taste. The problem is lack of good product for women ( as well as for us adult men).
But alas the studios could not care less about my demographic although I would go to the movie every weekend if there was something worth seeing, like “The Kids Are All Right” or even “Salt” which I thought was great 2 hr fun. Nothing more or less, just good action well done and not stupid. AND most of all no Paul Greenglass quick up-close jiggling camera shots.
Regarding Brandon Routh being ‘box office poison’….yes, he’s headlined exactly one film prior to Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, and it grossed $400 million at the box office and has a freshness rating of 76% at Rotten Tomatoes. Kind of hard to justify, in any alternate universe, how Routh is either box office poison, or is the reason for ‘Pilgrim’ cratering at the box office. It will take divine intervention for ‘Pilgrim’ to get even 10% of Superman Returns’ gross.
I could sit here all day and type out what a non-movie star Michael Cera is, or how inept the marketing was from Universal, but all I can say is that when I saw the previews I saw a preview that had not one single scene that impressed me upon any level. Not a jaw dropping moment, not a laugh, not an awe-inspiring visual…nothing.Zip. Zilch. Nada. There’s only so much a marketing campaign can do. The trailers are the #1 reason I see a movie…and a distant #2 is referrals. If the trailer doesn’t impression me, there’s a 95% chance I won’t see the movie, and that’s why I’m sitting this one out.
If you decide to pass on Pilgrim based on the trailers, you are making a mistake. I manage a six-plex digital cinema and I QC’d Pilgrim the day prior to it’s release and was skeptical going in. Afterwards I was very pleased we booked it. I don’t care if the prevailing thinking is Cera is becoming BO poison, this movie’s stregnths lie in it’s supporting cast and it’s avant guarde blending of comic book fantasy and linear reality. Kieran Culkin’s character is a joy to watch as are Cera’s band mates, especially Alison Pill’s brooding drummer girl. I also enjoyed the evil ex’s, especially the skater turned movie star. Overall I quite enjoyed this film and when Cera had to grow a pair, he did so and rather convincingly albiet in a comic book fashion. I’d recommend this to my friends as an example of a very good attempt at a fresh look at modern relationships.
how are they sending out the prints? 1.85 flat? the film was shot 2.40 (fight scenes) and 1.85 (dialogue) and was meant to be viewed in different aspect ratios. when i saw the film at the Vista in Los Angeles, it was only in 1.85, but a lot of the text graphics in the fight scenes (particularly the last one) were chopped off at the bottom of the frame. i’m thinking this is a flat 2.40 release print and there are some theaters that may be projecting this incorrectly.
Most of the folks posting here couldn’t care less about whether the film is good or not. It’s all about the opening weekend and the bottom-line.
What a sad sign of the time in that case. No wonder there’s too much successfull shitty movies,tv,and music than ever before.
Totally. It’s sad. And notice how everyone’s actually talking about “Scott Pilgrim” here, not those two movies that are doing “well”.
What’s interesting is, that despite Scott Pilgrim having lower box office results, it’s the only movie of the three that will be talked about for years to come. Everyone under the age of 35 that i’ve talked to who’ve seen it, LOVE it. It’s just a fun/funny/awesome movie. This will be even more important once “Theatrical Box Office” is considered less important financially than on dvd/internet in the future, since younger audiences will pay to watch movies on the internet or whatever becomes of tv/internet merger sometime in the future.
Point is, Scott Pilgrim has legs (even if it’s not evident in theatrical box office), the other two don’t.
Number 1… that movie was not made to boast a huge star. It is all about the comic book… Number 2. It’s whose douchebag, not who’s…
Ah Jorge, you must be friends with Chris, everything from here on out is for your benefit, i be thinks dat theres a really things wrong with peoples who constanlys call peoplees outs on their grammers when typings, it is akin to poeplees refusing the arguments of de oduuer peoples ’cause dey is a diffrnt color or religion. Oh and just for the record if you look douchebag up in the dictionary you will find this defenition- “1. Jorge, 2. Chris, 3. People who try to correct grammer on the internet like they are Jesus Christ, I.E. perfect kids who run thier posts through Microsoft Word before they post.” How’s that basement working out for you? Did mom make you hot pockets?
Scott Pilgrim will probably develop a huge cult following and get a long shelf life. I’m in no rush to see it but it looks enjoyable. Michael Cera and Brandon Routh will do just fine.
Second talking point, The Expendables. This can’t come as a shock. It stars every action star anyone who came of age in the eighties or nineties grew up with, and even the 00′s (The Transporter). Its like The Avengers crossover event for meatheads. Its the Meatheads’ answers to the Fan Boys’ The Avengers and I can’t wait to see it.
the expendables was terrible,I was going to ask for my money back. The film would have been great if it were an hour. Instead everyone got a scene. I finally saw knight and day don’t know where the day came in but it was well worth the admi. Its now one of my fav movies. Whoever did marketing was terrible. The film was nothing like the tral or commer.
You should really go ahead and ask your wife for your balls back, then maybe you can enjoy the Expendables.
I am a woman and you are a pr person because no one should be that passionate about the expendables. ha!
I think the fault lies in the underlying material. The fact is, Edgar Wright chose a virtually unknown indie comicbook to bring to life. The rights to all the major comicbook characters have all been sewn up by now. I mean, when Deadpool and Moon Knight are both put into development, you know you’re scraping from the bottom of the barrel. Scott Pilgrim probably wasn’t worthy of such a risk, since the property has such a small, and specialized, audience.
That being said, I mourn the fact it didn’t do better than it did. I was at the infamous Scott Pilgrim panel at Comic-Con wherein Wright invited a small percentage of the audience to come see the film with he and his cast.
They did everything right to market this picture to its proper demographic. Sadly, that demo embraced this film in every way except at the box office.
Now Hollywood will be loathe to take similar risks, and we are all the poorer for this.
Hollywood had BOFFO success with ‘Wanted,’ and it too, was a “virtually unknown indie comic book,” and they’re DYING to do the sequel, and dying to get Jolie back — they’re not loathe to take risks on indie comics, though they may be loathe to cast Michael Cera in them.
Uh, except for the part where the Wanted movie was barely like the Wanted comic. A few scenes at the beginning, the names, the basic concept of “average Joe has hidden powers,” but that’s about it. At most, it should have been an “inspired by” rather than a “based on.”
But Wanted also had a really easy pitch line: “normal Joe breaks out of mundane life, learns to be a cool assassin,” cue gun fights and sexy women. Not to mention Angelina Jolie and James McAvoy, neither of whom are slouches in the looks or celebrity power department. Just because they’re both based on virtually unknown indie comics does not mean the subject is equally translatable to a mass market.
True, but “Wanted” had a trailer that made fan boys drool, and it attacked it’s subject seriously and had great actors, and Timur had made that eye popping Russian vampire trilogy-win, win, win.
Pilgrim’s trailers were murky and unfocused, and the girl is really annoying in the trailer; he’s fighting 7 evil exes for HER? Bleck. This is another case where the trailer failed to sell the sizzle.
I’m not sure Brandon Routh was ever considered a significant draw…
I’m sure it’s a great movie. I keep hearing about it online. But I still do not know what the HELL it is about. Geek vs. World? Scott Pilgrim vs the world could mean anything. I just see a geek on a poster, I make an assumption which could be wrong, and that’s it. It not clear and UNI did not know how to promote this.
Exactly, the trailer makes it seem like everyone has read Scott Pilgrim, when it’s a tiny title with a little buzz. And worse the trailer made it look over the top campy like a Disney straight to DVD movie. I’m sure Pilgrim will do well on DVD, tho, once more word of mouth gets out.
Expect ‘Expendables’ to be very front-loaded, especially after the trailer that urged men to show up on opening day so that the film would not lose to ‘Eat Pray Love’ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fncp0sQvBM0).
Later estimates may narrow the gap between the two.
That was a fan trailer.
First thoughts, EPL, pretty good for a chick flick. Julia’s best numbers in a while. Fanboy flick, a flop. Stallone flick, pretty good. Better than “A Team”. He’ll be able to keep making more movies as long as his face doesn’t fall onto the floor.
Regarding THE A-TEAM.
Last year TAKEN cost 25 million and made 225 worldwide.
A-TEAM cost 115 million and has made 150 million after 11 weeks in 60 countries.
Joe Carnahan needs to stop blaming the producers and Fox marketing for these numbers. YOU got to write the script and direct with a 115 million dollars. Enough of your vein-popping rants about its failure being because of everyone else but ‘you’.
You did that with Universal over Smokin’ Aces and it’s really getting old.
THE EXPENDABLES is not great, saw it tonight, but way better than The A-Team for a third the budget I think it will do at least north of TAKEN’s totals worldwide.
THE A-TEAM – 76 million domestic
KNIGHT & DAY – 75 million domestic
THE KARATE KID – 175 million domestic
interesting that Kid beats the combination of Team and K&D by 25 million. what happened?
Marketing. And Karate Kid was a 4-quadrant movie where the other two (certainly A-Team) were not. Wake up.
Also, anyone who thinks EXPENDABLES is better than A-TEAM deserves a truly brain-dead film like EXPENDABLES, which made A-TEAM looks like a Charlie Kaufman movie by comparison. Literally the worst acting I have ever seen in a movie, which is only the tip of the crapberg on that one. And I love dumb action movies, including the last Rambo.
Karate Kid 4 quadrant? Yeah uh huh. Women and men flocked to it.
A-Team was meh. 75 million total overseas in 60 countries in 10 weeks?? Yeah, that’s a major crash and burn on that budget!!
Tom Cruise has lost 50% of his audience.
A-Team was a shortlived 80′s cheese fest that people mocked. Then they made a movie of it, and framed it as a snark fest with guns, turning off the audience.
Karate Kid was a world wide sleeper hit, earnest as all get out and the kids who saw it grew up and took their kids to the new Karate Kid.
Earnest > Snark. Use the same equation and it explains why Expendables beat out snarky looking Scott P.
Eat Pray Love not bad! Went to see Expendables. If you love action you will forgive the writers!. Warning!Stallone is just hard to look at. Loved Jet Li!
I didn’t know there was trailer that urged men to see Expendables on the first day! You have to admit if EPL was #1 it would be embarrassing.EPL will eat my 12$ tomorrow!
I have seen a huge amount of advertising for Scott Pilgrim. More than I saw from most of the summer tentpoles like Prince of Persia or Knight and Day. It is far more than one would expect for a $60 million budgeted hipster movie. Universal was clearly playing for more than a niche. Universal did not spend that huge advertising budget to chase a 4th place opening. Whoever committed all those ad dollars is in deep trouble. From the very beginning everyone understood Pilgrim was niche and purposely made that way. It is not a realization that was sprung on Universal last week. So, this tentpole-sized commitment of ad dollars is inexplicable. Someone stuck their neck way, way out, and now it’s about to be lopped off.
Try 90 million. Someone’s getting canned.
Paid Cera 6-7 million for this role. Bad move.
wow, you sure seem to know a lot about the real story about this movie. Are you an entertainment industry insider? Where did you get such incredibly accurate information about how much he was paid?
Michael Cera is definitely overrated. He plays the same role in every movie and has zero charisma. He’ll always have a career on the indie scene, but I really believe that any hope he had for a career as a mainstream leading man ended abruptly with this flop.
But the fact that it’s very much a niche film didn’t help. The comic book is a cheap indie title with a cult following. This movie should have been made for Donnie Darko numbers and reaped the benefits of word of mouth. Instead, they tried to go big budget. The stupid poster is a direct imitation of the book cover and… surprise… no one outside of the comic crowd cared.
Even among comic book fans, Scott Pilgrim divides people. Plenty of comic book fans don’t like it because it is too “hipster”. Even the ones that like Scott Pilgrim were divided because plenty of those felt that Michael Cera was a bad choice for the role.
How did this movie cost so much, given that the FX was low-tech/deliberately cheesy?
Still not convinced it’s the genre that’s too niche ( although Kick Ass bombed as well ). Think it’s Cera in this case. Average ticket buyer hasn’t paid to see him play the same sort of character in the past so not a surprise they aren’t paying to see Pilgrim. If you are going to sink $50M into a movie and marketing you better have a marketable lead. Cera is not that guy. He’s not and never will be a tentpole/box office guy.
Kick-Ass had a budget of 30 million and its worldwide was 96, not counting DVD, TV, etc. Bomb? Not so much.
SP was horrible, and this is coming from someone who loves the comics. And it had nothing to do with Cera.
Like it or not people know what they want to see. It’s great you think Kick Ass and Pilgrim are great films and it will find it’s place BLAH BLAH BLAH ….
And yes there’s many films out there that have done great without box office numbers but there is only a couple of exceptions I don’t know if any of these films will be favorites to millions of people but studio wants numbers if they want to make movies like that.
Pilgrim just looks unappealing simple as that.
You are literally the only person I’ve heard/read/seen dislike the film who “loved the comics.” If you loved the SP comics I don’t see how you could claim the movie was “horrible” – it’s about the best adaptation one could do with the series.
actually, studios only get half of the international gross, so if kickass earned 96 mill worldwide, the studio would only get 48 mill. The other half would go to the theaters…so basically i usually double the budget to see if they made any money
Is it fair to call Kick Ass a bomb? 96 million worldwide on a 30 million production budget. I don’t know about the marketing butto say it’s a bomb like Pilgrim is a little much.
I’m also hearing Scott is actually a good movie but oh well
I should have clarified. I meant Bombed domestically. It needed international sales to scratch out a profit. And it’s not really “fair” to do a numbers game at $96M -$30M = $66M profit. You’re not taking into account marketing costs and disty costs. Just this past week Lionsgate said they spent $73M promoting Killers, Kick Ass and the Tyler Perry flick. The bulk of which went to Killers and Kick Ass. Plus that “no one willing to tell how much the disty deal really was business”. Reports have it anywhere from $15M-$45M. Even at the low end of that disty deal your profit is way less than $66M and that’s before 100s of other people/businesses get their cut. Had Kick Ass made significant money they would have greenlit a sequel faster than Warner Bros greenlit The Hangover 2.
kick ass 2 comes out in 2012.
I really think people need to understand what a financial bomb is. You have to consider how much the film made in relation to how much it cost to produce, advertise, and distribute, period.
If a movie was made for 50 million and made 1 million in the US but 150 million overseas IT IS A SUCCESS.
Yes, I understand that a movie can bomb domestically, but too many write that off as the end of the story. It’s a bit ignorant to ignore the rest of the world. ooo us US centric Americans…
Kick Ass sequel HAS been green lit and is in the conceptual phase. Personally, IDK if domestic grosses are flat, it’s the overall revenue a film generates that should be it’s yardstick. Domestic, foreign and DVD markets are all legitimate revenue streams for title and to paint Pilgrim as a “bomb” after 2 lousy days is a bit premature. Personally I thought Kick Ass was one of the 5 best movies I’ve seen all year and I like Pilgrim very much too. I’d recommend people go see for themselves and ignore the haters and critics posting here. The real critics seemed to like Pilgrim and I can understand why.
Kick Ass is not a bomb. It just sold 1.4M units on its first week excluding pre-orders. It’s topping the weekly hit list in renting titles.
Not to belabour the point but on top of the BO #s people already mentioned, Kick Ass just posted impressive DVD sales and rentals in its first week of release. It wasn’t the huge smash crossover hit that some silly people on message boards claimed it would be, but it was not a bomb. They even have announced a sequel iirc.
Actually, Kick-Ass is a bomb. It cost $50 million to produce and acquire, gawd knows how much in P+A, and probably just broke even theatrically at best. Sure, it might’ve made money on home video, but for all those costs involved, probably not much.
Making some money is not a bomb. Way too many movies lose copious amounts of money for us to be calling ones that appear to end up in the black a bomb. We should reserve that word for the ones that actually deserve it.
Kick Ass’s production budget was $28 million, the P&A budget was $27.5 million bringing the cost of making, marketing and distributing the film $55.5 million. As of Saturday August 14th Kick Ass has generated $48,071,303 domestically, $28,064,354 internationally for a total box office of $76,135,657. That’s a clear 20 million profit not counting DVD sales. It opened as the number one DVD seller with sales of 1.4 million copies in a 5 day period. While the dollars haven’t been published yet, they will easily push Kick Ass over the 100 million mark in revenues generated. Also this week Kick Ass was the top movie download at the iTunes store, Zune and Sony/Playstation and scored the biggest digital weekly performance ever by a Lionsgate title. Anybody calling Kick Ass a “bomb” is living in a fantasyland.
I would not say Kick-Ass bombed….it did not meet all expectations….but surely did not bomb. Its “R” rating definitely will not hurt its DVD sales.
Kick-Ass did roughly the same numbers as “Predators,” and I remember earlier this summer everyone crowing about what a hit “Predators” was and what a genius Rodriguez was for making the film for only 40 million (which is kind of idiotic, given that “Predators” looked like it cost much less than 40 million, and “Kick-Ass” looked like it cost more than 30 million. Looking at “Predators,” where 90% of the film is just people wandering around a jungle, I wondered where all the money went).
Of course, I never really saw much advertising for Predators, so maybe its advertising budget was smaller.
I’ve seen a ton of Pilgrim advertising as well and I’m nowhere near the demo.
The movie had A LOT of advertising about it and A LOT of advance “good buzz”, but i mean really… scenes with old style BOFF KAPOW BOOM Batman type words on the screen???? That trailer was horrible!!! Good movie???? Whatever… i won’t know because i won’t see it.
1. Trailer was horrible
2. Michael Cera is like what… 35 years old playing 18 years old. Not appealing as an actor for me anyway.
3. The source material is like a kids cartoon. Do you guys watch cartoons?? I watch adult swim ie.Venture Bros., Ugly Americans.
Scott pilgrim is what I AVOID!!!!
Michael Cera is 22. That would have taken you 10 seconds to look up on Wikipedia.
Hahahahahahahaha, nice retort. Love it.
Scott Pilgrim wishes he was 18…I mean if you took the average of his actual age and his mental age that’d be near 18 I guess. It’s also not a cartoon although the creator probably wouldn’t mind if someone paid him to get the rights to animate it. Michael Cera is 22 or 21 (I hate doing calendar math…and googling).
But other than all those things where you’re wrong…you’re not so wrong (by that I mean the trailer wasn’t the best IMO).
um last i checked adult swim collaborated with the scott pilgrim film makers to make a short that aired thursday night on adult swim, thus proving how misinformed you are.
Did you manage to avoid when they showed the animated Scott Pilgrim short on Adult Swim, then? Or avoid it streaming off their website? Just curious.
You dislike cartoons yet you watch [AS], a time-share which encourages nostalgia and love of cartoons, by creating cartoons. I bet you also hate people calling anime a cartoon.
How could you watch Venture Bros but not be intrigued by SP? See it, you will enjoy it more than you think.
Serious walking contradiction buddy.
Cartoon Network has morphed from what used to show the classic Hannah-Barbera fair, into creating new stuff geared to the nostalgia of it. Clearly, if you’d read the Scott Pigrim books, you’d know in advance, that it’s a book rooted in Nostalgia. And the Movie takes it even further by adding the audio element to it. It’s most about the nostalgia for early 90s style video games.
But, again, you’re “hipster” enough to watch CN, but also too “hipster” to NOT watch Scott Pilgrim. Which is why most people think Hipsters are the most obnoxious breed on the planet. You hate just to hate because you think being disaffected is cool. Go have some fun for crying out loud! That’s all Scott Pilgrim is about. Sheesh!
I think i’m too old to be a “hipster”. I don’t even know what that means? Someone in their early twenties who has to have the latest fashions or be involved in the latest trends… maybe??
As for Cera’s age… ok my bad. I really thought he was like 26-28. I could have sworn i read that somewhere and i exaggerated. But, i don’t hate for hate’s sake.
People just don’t like Michael Cera. I don’t. And judging by the numbers most people don’t either. No matter what the Cera apologists like to drum up i don’t want to watch an effeminate faced Cera playing the same nerdy, geeky, anxious twit. No one does. Go ahead, keep casting him as the leading man and see where it gets you. The numbers don’t lie.
How are the people at Universal still holding on to their jobs?? They are throwing away money. I think they are by far the worst run studio. wow!
Universal is one of the only studios that are actually trying to make original quality rather than mass market factory films, and you blast them for it? I haven’t seen Scot Pilgram, yet, but the reviews have been very good.
Yes, Fast and Furious 5 looks very original, so did ‘death race’, and ‘hellboy 2′, and ‘Wolfman’ and the 3rd Mummy Movie…and
“Hellboy 2″ shouldn’t be mentioned in a list like that. Great film, very imaginative. You clearly haven’t seen it.
Death Race is a good action flick, just because no one has an English accent and it doesn’t take place in the 1700s doesn’t mean it isn’t worth seeing.
True, at least they don’t focus on primarily making money compared to Fox. At least Universal isn’t the one sucking Friedberg and Seltzer’s dicks. *cough*Vampires Suck*cough*
That doesn’t apply to St Cloud which was so ‘Nicholas Sparks’ and sucked ass and also tanked, and you call them original.
They were banking on Efron shirtless to pull in the change, and that didn’t work…what will they try next? hmm….yeah that’s quite original.
And I just read they are starting principal on Battleship with a $200 million budget.
Just the latest example of TERRIBLE marketing decisions coming out of Universal.
With the except of Despicable Me, their marketing department is 0 for forever.
When does Eddie Egan finally lose his job?
Expendables?! God, America, you have the worst taste. Transformers, GI Joe, just one crappy film after another and you all line up like you’re at McDonalds.
funny how listed two movies that did better overseas.
People can enjoy all the “Awards Season” movies and junk food at the same time you know.
I feel sorry for people who don’t allow themselves some ridiculous fun every once in a while. Movies are an escape from every day life. So don’t blame everyone if they don’t want to be bogged down in sad dramatic gripping and powerful films all the time. Sometimes people want to see giant space robots transforming into cars. Sometimes people want to see 80′s icons get together for one last throwback of a movie.
Doesn’t mean they have poor taste.
Finally, Transformers and GI Joe are two kids movies. They made money because of the power of the teenage buck. Why even compare them to The Expendables which is R rated? Also of the 3, The Expendables is the best choice. Is is perfect? Hell No. Will I remember it a year from now? Vaguely. Did it do the job of taking me away from the day to day hassles of life? It sure did for 2 hours.
Gi Joe and transformers ARE NOT teen movies.
They are built for people my age – 44yo. We grew up on them.
You want to make a movie for teenagers then ben 10 would be a good start.
And the REASON both GI Joe AND transformers II did not do as well as expected is that the people who put these products out did not stay true to the MYTHOLOGY of the series.
We grew up on this stuff, we liked this stuff. And when a director decides to go off reservation with a franchise it leaves an empty space in out stomachs.
Is is so F-ing hard to stay true to the mythology of these products?
I’m confused, how much more money do you expect Transformers to have made? Those movies were huge.
I really don’t mind the changing of the story there, but GI Joe is a joke
Seriously?
GI Joe and Transformers movies are made for today’s youth. Not you. I don’t get how fans of the original can get so bent out of shape about these movies. No one is forcing you to watch them.
I was in the 3rd grade when “Transformers: The Movie” came out. I thought it was the best cartoon movie I have ever seen in my life at the time. Growing up GI Joe was one of my favorite cartoons and toys. But guess what, since the 80′s there have been many different iterations of these characters. So foolishly complaining about the films not following “The Mythology” is hilarious. A lot of the times the “Mythology” has already been disregarded way before the film versions were released. And how can anyone complain about the “Mythology” of GI Joe and Transformers? Cartoons based on toys…
These movies are not made exclusively for you. I know it’s rough to come to the realization that at 44, it’s time to grow up. But everyone has to at one point. These movies are made PG13 to appeal to the widest audience possible. They are not made with you in mind.
You (and I) dislike the “Transformers” and “GI Joe” movies. But I know so many young boys in my family who stop what they are doing to watch these films if they are on TV. And since I have seen MY share of crap as a child, who am I to judge?
Can’t continue to be mad that things from your childhood are re-adapted for new audiences. It just is what it is. And after we are BOTH long gone, they will be rebooted yet again for newer audiences. It’s just how these properties are.
A+ comment, B.
@B: Of the 3 EXPENDABLES is the best. Are you nuts? I’d rather sit in an empty room, tied up in a chair watching paint dry on wall while having Barney pumped on surround sound then to have to watch a 60+ Stallone, 60+ Arnold, 60+ Willis(balding), 60+ Lundgren(who hasn’t had a movie in a decade or more), and every other wannabe action star there ever was in this so very sad looking film, which is more like an excuse for all these washed up, passed their prime 80′s action stars to get together to reclaim there fame. A getaway from reality…i think not, just a major waste of time and money..not to mention, continued degradation of Hollywood. TRANSFORMERS is a billion dollar movie franchise. TRANSFORMERS 2 made more than the first and the third installment will make more than the 2nd…so why don’t haters give it up already. It doesn’t matter how much hate you shell out towards TRANSFORMERS, it’s going to make its money and there’s nothing you or your sorry words and opinions cando to stop it. Grow up people.
@ADIX
Buddy. If you learned to read, you would see in a post RIGHT above this, I defended “Transformers”.
So stop the blind rage. Especially since you don’t have any financial investment in the Transformers franchise and Paramount isn’t cutting you checks.
Also, I am not a child. So I don’t really get excited over “Transformers” or “GI Joe”. I have seen Transformers 1 and 2 (prefer 1) and GI Joe. But I am clearly out of the target demo these movies are for since I am over 25 and under 35. Do I hate them with the fire of ten thousand suns? No. Do I hate Michael Bay? No. Do I get bent all out of shape? Nope. Will I see Transformers 3? Sure. Am I expecting my life to change? No.
I just prefer R rated action over CGI transforming robots from space. It’s a matter of personal taste and in my opinion I would rather see a throwback 80′s action film. People really need to stop with the whole “MY OPINION IS ABSOLUTE” crap and trying to “read” people online. It’s silly. Yeah the movies I am not as over the moon about as you are made money… And? OK then…
Oh and your comment of everyone being 60+ was pretty hilarious. Remember, if you are lucky to live that long, you will ALSO be 60+. And at that age, you can only dream of being in the shape of Sly, Arnie, Willis, Rourke.
Roid enhanced or not, they still have to put in the work at the gym to look like that. And while they have aged since their heyday, aging is something that happens to everyone fortunate to continue living life.
@B
How do you know if i have a financial investment in the TRANSFORMERS franchise or if Paramount is cutting me a check? Have me and you had a cup a coffee and talked shop over the past month or two? No, so don’t presume to know what you don’t know for sure. Guess what B…I’m over 25 under 35 so your demographic argument holds zero weight with me. Here’s a newsflash for you, TRANSFORMERS isn’t a kids movie. As a matter of fact most “kids” living in this generation know little to nothing about TRANSFORMERS. TRANSFORMERS was made for “kids” who grew up during the 80′s who watched the cartoon and played with toy, but those so called “kids” you refer to are now 30, 40 years old. By that rational TRANSFORMERS is actually more of an throwback 80′s action flick than EXPENDABLES being that only people growing in the 80′s can truly benefit from the nostalgia. EXPENDABLES on the other hand is a new action film that stars a bunch of old 80′s action icons making a tremendous fool of themselves for god knows what reason. Do you see the difference here? These are the types of crap movies being regurgitated out of hollywood’s mouth thanx to the likes of B. Oh..when I hit 60+, i will look better than guys and i hope i have sense enough not to make a total fool of myself. Go out with some dignity. Thank you good evening.
Excellent reply…you should be a film critic…like the facts w/o all the B.S.
Big dumb action movies, mcdonald’s, coca cola, these things are popular all over the world.
First KICK-ASS tanked and now SCOTT PILGRIM. Can we please stop making movies for the Comic-Con geeks and start making movies for grown ups again? These films don’t even have ONE quadrant going for them, let alone four.
I never saw Kick-Ass, but I respect Universal for actually trying to making something of quality, rather than the 4 quadrant mindless entertainment you seem to be looking for. You think every movie should be aimed at everyone? That’s sad.
Kick-Ass “quality?” Are you serious?
Pretty sure he was referring to Scott Pilgrim as the quality movie, guy. Feel free to post again correcting your inability to read pretty simple, straightforward sentences.
KICK-ASS cost about $30M and made close to $100M worldwide. I wouldn’t say it tanked.
Shhh, a movie can make money and STILL bomb…don’t tell anyone…
I wouldn’t call Kickass a bomb since I am pretty sure that at worst, they broke even. Scott Pilgrim on the other hand, had a ton of marketing. That said, I enjoyed both films. I never read the Scott Pilgrim comics, but I thought this movie was great. Its a shame because I would rather see more movies that take risks like Scott Pilgrim than more movies like The Expendables.
I also take offense with your whole “Can we please stop making movies for the Comic-Con geeks and start making movies for grown ups again?” comment. What are movies for grown ups? A movie about a woman who takes a year off to travel and find herself? A movie about a bunch of guys that invade another country to overthrow some evil dictator?
Uh, “Kick Ass” did not tank. A $30 million film making $96 million is what’s called a “success”.
actually, no that’s not a success genius. if you were actually working in this business at a higher level than office PA, you’d know that the P & A spend had to be close to $35 million, plus a $30 million production budget = $65 million. now subtract 50% from your $100 million worldwide estimate for the theatres and now you’ve got $50 million in revenue. you’re still negative $15 million. success? hardly. they’ll be lucky if they make $15 million with declining dvd and ancillary revenues. I don’t know any studio head who plans to greenlight a film risking $65 million to make $15 or $20 million…
now stay of this site and go find a job that suit your limited IQ better.
It reportedly sold 1.4 million DVDs in its first week, with half the sales in Blu-ray. How much revenue does that translate to?
Successful DVD sales of a bomb equates to the beginning of a cult classic. Not a successful, “box office” hit.
It bombed…I enjoyed it, but that is where taste comes in…it still bombed.
Regardless of whether it “bombed”(I don’t agree it did, but I seem to have a different definition to everyone else), I was bringing up the question because the guy was making the assumption that DVD revenue would be terrible. I pointed out the actual sales number and was legitimately curious what that translates to for the investors, ie their take from 1.4 million units sold.
Also comments from the studio seem to indicate DVD sales would be the determining factor in whether there would be a sequel. How many “bombs” do you know of that get sequels?
I loved Kick Ass. Rented it from Blockbuster Express and have watched 3 times already. The ONLY complaint I have about Kick Ass *(as well as Hot Tub Time Machine) is the language. What kind of brain dead moron writes a script where the “F” word is used in every single written line of dialogue? It is so classless and offensive and prevents people with any sense of common decency from being able to enjoy a movie or recommend it to anyone they have any respect for. The worst part is that the constant use of foul language such as the “F” word not only adds nothing to the movie, but actually distracts from what could otherwise be enjoyable entertainment. This is one trend I wish someone would put an end to. OR at least release a version without the terrible language.
No. of movies released in previous 10 years with prod budget $25-35mil:
~265
No. of movies released in last 10 years with prod budget $25-35mil that earned less than $96mil worldwide:
~200
Kick Ass is upper-quartile. Try asking your office PA how to use a spreadsheet before you make a bigger idiot of yourself.
The first Twilight movie cost around $37 million. It made over 10 times the budget worldwide and sold 3 million DVD’s on the first day. New Moon did 12 times the budget, sold 4 million DVD’s one weekend, and Eclipse has done ten times the budget already. None of these movies cost any near $100 million. I used the first Twilight because it had a similar budget, but much less TV marketing. Summit Entertainment also makes a crapload off of merchandising and cable/DVR rights. Even though it’s crap, that is the kind of movie a studio wants. Scott Pilgrim, Kickass, and the Watchmen have all flopped. Comic book geeks are a niche audience who almost always have blogs. The buzz seems big on the internet but in reality no one sees these films. Universal gambled this summer and they lost hard. It’s time to restructure
Less than 50% of movies double their budget worldwide.
Less than 25% of movies triple their budget worldwide.
Less than 15% of movies make 5 times their budget worldwide.
Less than 5% of movies make 10 times their budget worldwide.
Would every movie love to be in that top 5%? Sure – you’d be an idiot to say “Yeah, we plan to break even”. Did Kick Ass live up to the SXSW geek hype? No – but if you put $100 in Star Trek and $100 in Kick Ass, you would have got more money back from your Kick Ass investment. It did okay, it was not a flop.
Wow, you mean not every movie does Twilight numbers? Holy crap paul, you may be onto something revolutionary here!
Seriously, if a medium budget movie had to do Twilight numbers in order to be called a success, then only Twilight would ever be called a success and nobody would ever make medium budget movies again. Its absurd to compare Twilight to Kick Ass because in no universe was a rated R violent superhero parody supposed to compete on the same level as the most popular tween girl series in the world today. Of course studios want moneymakers like that, but if they considered every movie that doesn’t make 10x its budget worldwide to be a failure they would drive themselves insane because everything they did they’d have to consider a failure.
Watchmen did over $100 million domestic, mostly because of a monster opening, so saying “nobody” saw this movie is a little bit wrong. Like with Robin Hood, its enormous budget made it a flop, not its raw box office numbers. Kick Ass kept its budget reasonable, so obviously they knew they were playing to a niche, and thats why there will apparently be a sequel. Pilgrim is a flop, as was Jonah Hex. Wanted was a hit, though. It would appear that comic book movies follow the same laws as regular movies–if you have a good combination of having what people want to see with some good marketing, you can have a hit.
I guess what I’m saying is that fundamentally I agree with you, but you need not drag an outlier like Twilight into this to make the point.
Good post Foamy.
The people on here who claim Kick-Ass was a bomb are either clueless about the workings of Hollywood/movie finance or pure haters. A movie that makes 3 times its budget and is the type of fanboy movie that does comparatively well on dvd is of course a success.
Reluctantly accompanied my mother to the first matinee in a 800-seat cinema. It was three-quarters full. This movie is going to do very well this weekend, no matter how terrible it is. The heat around Ryan Murphy is inexplicable to me. Cinematography is weak, costuming is terrible, lighting is odd. How someone can fail to make Bali spectacular is beyond me.
Scott Pilgrim cost 90 million, not 60. Jobs were definitely on the line and that’s why they spent so much in ad and revenue. This should get interesting…Universal did a god awful job of marketing. Wtf with michael cera rocking a guitar? It looked like a poster for bandslam 2.
Michael Cera, ONCE AGAIN playing Michael Cera, in yet ANOTHER Micheal Cera movie.
Not a money spinner.
And meanwhile Dev Patel from the 8 time Oscar winning Slumdog Millionaire gets offers to play cab drivers, terrorists and goofy Indian sidekicks while this guy and others are the leads in one flop after another…
People get on Cera for playing Cera again and again, but with notable exceptions, most actors rarely deviate from their core personality. Not everyone is Johnny Depp. Most actors are playing within 5-10 degrees of the same role everytime.
IMO Johnny Depp plays the same guy most of the time, ie odd guy w/ high cheekbones
That’s silly. Depp really mixes it up.
Yes, by having the Mad Hatter have a Scottish accent when provoked. Look, Depp is a good actor, and has found (or handed) roles that he can expand on. But in reality, Captain Jack, Edward Scissor Hands, Hatter, Crane, Wonka, Sweeney Todd, Raoul Duke, even real life portrayal of Ed Wood. They are ALL sort of the same type of character. Offbeat and eccentric.
Now we as consumers have not yet caught on to this, and he has remained successful. So i hope you were being sarcastic.
I think it’s a little unfair to blame Pilgrim’s poor performance on Brandon Routh, the guy is barely featured in the ads and you wouldn’t know he’s in the film unless you looked up on imdb or something. Now Michael Cera, that’s another story. But Pilgrim is going to become cult film that will be successful in the long term especially once it hits dvd.
Until I read these comments, I had no idea that Brandon Routh was even in the movie. And I’ve seen the trailer dozens of times.
Ditto. Some people will find the most random scapegoats for a movie underperforming sometimes.
you, sir, are out of your fucking mind… this movie will not make a penny in profit… they will be lucky if they recoup the P & A budget…
Scott Pilgrim seems so fascinating. He fights one boyfriend, then another boyfriend, then a girl, then the next boyfriends (twins!) until he goes on to fight … the last boyfriend! I’m shocked that it’s not going to be a hit, there are so many exciting twists and turns to the plot line. And because the characters are all so cartoonish, I take them so seriously. Plus, of course, Michael Cera turns in another wildly original performance as a subtly nuanced character. He’s a chameleon!!
I might see it because of the fairly high rating on rotten tomatoes, and later regret my snarkicism, but Hollywood … not ever comic book needs to be a film.
This is probably the most original film released all year. You will regret your snarkiness.
I have never seen someone mismanage a career as badly as Brandon Routh. After debuting in perhaps the biggest of the superhero star-making roles, he decided to sit back wait for the leading man roles to beat down his door. The first thing any actor learns is to always have your next gig lined up before your current gig is done. Time and again he fails this basic rule. He is like a Vegas gambler. He ignored the small potatoes he got offered while working each gig, because each time, he was convinced that bigger, better offers would come, when his current project debuted to acclaim. Instead, the offers got smaller and smaller as he became less and less relevant.
After four years of this, he finally woke up to recognize the career peril he was in. Hence he has devised his new plan of publicly campaigning for specific roles. Superman is only the most famous of the roles he wants to fans to get him. He wants the fans to agitate to get him a lead in World of Warcraft. He wants the fans to agitate to get him a return appearance on Chuck. He wants fans to agitate to get him a lead in The Walking Dead. He wants fans to agitate to get him a lead on Game of Thrones. Not since the days of Sean Young has any actor so publicly lobbied for fans to bring him roles and to make things happen for him.
Agitate?
Right, because playing Superman did wonders for the careers of George Reeves, Christopher Reeve and Dean Cain. Not sure how you could call it “the biggest of superhero star-making roles” when nobody has ever parlayed being Superman into a career of Hollywood starring roles.
I don’t know you seen like some kind of fan of Brandon since you wrote so much about him. Maybe you know more. Or maybe you just made it up… But i just feel he wasn’t waiting for anythings big. He just wasn’t offering nothing good. Even small good.
One minor point of contention, Brandon Routh actually plays World of Warcraft. I think he is sincere in actually expressing a desire to be part of that film. It would be different if he had no knowledge of the game, and was simply trying to glom onto something he thought would be successful.
And Routh is not “sincere in his desire” to be in the Walking Dead, Chuck, Superman, or Game of Thrones and etc, etc.? Plus how do you know Routh isn’t a big fat liar about his love of the World of Warcraft game? All actors sucking up do that.
I don’t know how he thinks fan petitions are going to deliver him work. His agent is either a genius or will completely destroy him.
There’s a lot more to marketing than how much money you waste. Scott Pilgrim had the worst key art and the worst TV spots imaginable. A one-sheet where you can’t see his face. The bus ad was beyond awful. The trailers were good, but not enough people saw them.
doc: I actually hope SP has good WOM and legs, ‘cus it’s a way better film than people claimed about Kick-Ass. But yeah, you don’t treat an actionc-comedy as a tentpole unless it has genuine cross-over appeal-like, say, Zombieland. Anyway, I’m just wondering why they actually have an advertising campaign for Nanny McPhee 2, when it clearly should be aimed for the DTV market.
saw pilgrim twice, once at comic con once at midnight, loved it and so did the packed midnight audience it sucks that so much of america is just so not open to something different that they pass it off because the trailer dosnt speak to them , btw last i checked its the best reviewed movie this weekend
What do you expect people to do? There is so much out there asking for their money and time, it’s not their fault if SP can’t sell itself properly to them. Has nothing to do with close mindedness.
Disgruntled, please have your Internet disconnected and your computer smashed. That way you don’t embarrass yourself anymore.
I went to see Scott Pilgrim tonight because I had a couple hours to kill while I was waiting for the novacaine to wear off after my dentist appointment.
I was actually expecting to hate the film, but I loved it. That being said, if you’ve never been in a band, played Final Fantasy or had a thing for a girl with blue hair, you probably will loathe the film.
I will probably loathe this film then.. thanks for saving me a few bucks
If you’ve ever had a girlfriend, done anything with your life other than play video games or have an I.Q,. above room temperature you’ll probably hate this movie.
Woo hoo! I’m glad to see Scott Pilgrim tank! The marketing was so over the top obnoxious. I think I’m in the demo for the movie – mid 30′s guy who played the video games being referenced 15 years ago. Who thought guys like me would show up in droves for this? The characters all seem like the sort of people I hate to be around. I read the comics this is based on and they’re also terrible and obnoxious!
Scott Pilgrim is an endlessly inventive and hyper creative bit of filmmaking. But beyond the video game graphics and references is a story packed with metaphor and subtext that will keep the target audience enjoying it long after the marketing efforts, for better or for worse, have worn off. This movie will clean up on DVD, Blu and whatever format comes after that. All the flash is in service of a story and that’s the magic combination.
What the hell he going on in the movie business? Stop making movies based on something ie; adapting. Start making original movies from spec scripts. Let the originals threw. I just don’t get what the fuck is going on here. Flop after flop after flop after flop. Come on. Stop the fucking madness. Executives…if you read this…make your lives worth something. How about bringing a good movie to the audience. Fuck the idea of four Date Nights at one theater. Or Dinner for Schmucks. You Schmucks who keep seeing this shit will keep these fucking movies coming. Stop with the comic book garbage. ENOUGH! I’ve tried to watch Ironman three times now and never make it past minute 41. WHY? It’s boring. These amusement fucking ride “Movies” suck. Avatar was the worst piece of shit I’ve ever seen. Yes, a Disneyland ride but two hours plus of the same shit over and over and over and over and over and over. FUCK!!!!!
Thank you.
You’re right! We executives have been wasting our lives! Might I ask, do you, perchance, have a script we can read? If so, I have a good feeling I can turn it into a hit film that also cures cancer and solves world hunger. Thank god you decided to comment today! The world will be a better place from this moment forward.
Not only was Date Night an original script, but it was a hit. As was Avatar
Hollywood has always adapted other works, and will continue to do so.
You want an honest answer? You’re an idiot. I am sorry to drop this revelation upon you. But it’s true. Firstly, adaptation have been a cornerstone of filmed entertainment for 100+ years. Secondly, “Date Night” and “Avatar” are original scripts. I suspect you hate movies, since you essentially covered the bases of theatrical output with your venomous, ignorant rant.
Date Night was horrible. Thank you. Avatar was not a movie. It should be screened for three minutes before going on a theme park ride at Disneyland. Stop thinking because something was good in book form or a comic book that we want to see it on screen. WE DON’T!!! We won’t to line up to see a movie. Taxi Driver. Close Encounters. Stories, characters. Yes, you will have a hit with comic books here and there. But every movie has to be this shit now? How about making movies in the 15 million range and make a profit. A simple profit. You sir are an idiot.
Thank you.
Adaptation? I thought we were calling them “shameless cheap ripp offs of older movies,” or “flops” as they’re known in accounting. But why quibble, I can’t wait to see the next Gerard Butler/Jennifer Anniston rom com derivative. Yay.
Uh oh, all those screenings for nothing, cast traveling from coast to coast and to Canada for 12 million ow….what happened….fan boy movies don’t appeal to the mainstream
these particular fanboys are too broke to go out and see it and are trying to download it from a torrent site
I am befuddled at the love for movies such as Scott Pilgrim v The World. To me, this movie is every bit as niche as the hood/gang-banger epics (“Juice” from the early 90s comes to mind) that proved too niche to attract a mass audience. Has Hollywood learned nothing from its history? More pointedly, has Hollywood learned that America does NOT love Michael Cera as much as producers and creative types think we do?
His, ahem, “greatest hits”:
“Youth in Revolt” ? A bomb with $16 million at the Box Office
“Paper Heart” ? An uber-bomb with $1 million
“Year One” ? A den of cinematic suckage that was expected to blow up the box office but just blew
at $43 million
“Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist”? This failed to play with America, coming in at $31 million.
Now granted Cera has the mega hits “Juno” and “Superbad” on his resume, but he wasn’t the main draw of those movies, right?
The burning question(s) is whether “Scott Pilgrim v The World” is just a bad idea or a BAD SCRIPT that doomed a good idea? Many of the reviewers keep saying the script is “meh” but that the visuals are awesome.
Well, when I want to see cool visuals with no need for a good story I just go to the Louvre or to SF Moma. The screenplay for this movie — given the plodding introduction of all of the exes Scott Pilgrim must duel with — sounds like an epic fail, clumsy storytelling at its illustrious finest.
Will Hollywood ever, ever learn?
You are are a bunch of OLD people. Scott Pilgrim IS NOT FOR YOU. MTV kids need something to go see at the movies for god’s sake. The movie will absolutely live on in many college age blu-ray shelves. Haters.
ok smarty pants..how come the MTV kids didn’t go see it? hmmm? $13m is a turd floating in a broken toilet bowl
A “hipster” movie appealing to MTV kids? That doesn’t make sense. Step Up and Twilight are more MTV friendly since shitty teen melodrama and shitty teen music make great bedfellows.
I agree with you that SP is not for my generation (age 54), but it is also not today’s generation. SP takes us back about 15 years to the Mario Brothers and elementary gaming software. Those were the days as I watched my son and daughter play them and enjoy them. That said, it is NOT enough to draw them to the theaters now to repeat an experience of childhood.
This is a movie for the geeks/geekettes of a certain age; say mid-30s?
I just don’t know if that will be enough of a draw financially.
mtv kids?
i’m 44
mtv came out when i was in high school
then go spend some money….or do you need to borrow some from an old person?