Weinsteins Want Miramax Name Back 
'Saw 3D' vs 'Paranormal Activity 2' Battle … 
TV TUG OF WAR: It's Ellen vs Simon, And … 
Robert De Niro Returns To CAA From WME; Jane … 
Fox Wins Studio War For Robert Rodriguez' … 
Weinstein Co Gets "New Lease On Life"? 
Nicole Kidman Hires Angelina's Manager 
So What Are The Hot Films At Sundance? 
Huge $70M Settlement In TV Writers Age … 
TOLDJA! Momoa Chosen 'Conan' Barbarian 
Oscar Campaign Badmouthing Has Begun! 
SATURDAY PM/SUNDAY AM: The big story this weekend is the pre-Halloween box office -- the horror, the horror of it all -- and how Saw VI, which has been a disgusting but reliably performing franchise over the years for Lionsgate, was decimated Friday and Saturday by even lower budget Paranormal Activity -- despite the Paramount phenom playing in 1,100+ less theaters during its 5th week of release. Twisted Pictures' Saw has always opened as the #1 horror flick since its sequel, and above $30M for installments II-V, but not this sixquel. It debuted #2 with only $6.9 million Friday but sources tell me it went down -30% to #3 with just $4.7 million Saturday and an estimated $3M for Sunday from 3,036 theaters. It finished the weekend #2 with an underperforming $14.8M. I'm thrilled that it fell apart, finally, since it's "Hard R"-rated for torture porn. (While I support a filmmaker's creative freedom, I do hold responsible those moguls who make money distributing crap like this pic.) "Perhaps they should have made this one in 3-D instead of the next one. Oh please, tell me there won't be a next one. Please," a rival studio exec emailed me. Believe me when I say that torture porn flicks embarrass the industry which has been moving away from that and towards PG-13 fright fare.
On the other hand, Paramount's Paranormal Activity received its "R" rating for language. The pic scored $7.5M Friday and is looking to be close to $8.6 million for Saturday and a weekend of $22 million. The cume should zoom to $62.4M. I can report that, as it expands for next Halloween weekend, the studio is starting to think the thriller has a shot at $100M. Which would make this the most profitable pic in modern Paramount history. After all, the project was acquired for a mere $300K, and the studio spent under $10M total on prints and advertising, "so this will be the best return Paramount has ever had," an insider tells me. Amazing, since Paramount had been playing the movie mostly at midnight shows and in just a 100 or so dates. Then again, the hype has been so successful -- right down to the claim that Steven Spielberg screened it and returned it in a trash bag.
Spike Jonze's adaptation of Maurice Sendak's beloved children's book Where The Wild Things Are did $4.3M Friday, or a disappointing -65% from its "Spikers"-inflated opening a week ago. But Warner Bros hoped for and received a nice Saturday bump of $6.5M to bring the weekend to $14.4M for a -56% drop from last Fri-Sat-Sun. The studio now predicts the pic won't get past $100M, difficult since the original budget of $85M ballooned past $100M because of the pic's delay in post-production. At first, the film was financed 50% by Village Roadshow, and 25% each by Legendary Pictures and Warner Bros, which also received its distribution fee and made back its P&A costs. But Warner Bros, on its own, opted to kick in moolah for reshoots and additional costs because Jonze's first cut was so unacceptable.
With a production budget of $65M, Astro Boy is a wipeout. It debuted to only $1.8M Friday and $7M weekend from 3,014 venues, so it's a big disaster for Imagi Studios. (Summit Entertainment is only the distributor so collects its fee.) The toon has been sold almost around the globe, but I'm hearing that the classic Japanese Manga character isn't faring any better in territories there.
Relativity/Universal's PG-13 Cirque Du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant directed by Paul Weitz is based on the UK series of books. But it never got out of the gate, opening only #8 with $2.2M Friday and a $6.3M weekend from 2,754 dates in North America -- or about half as much as the moviemakers dared hope. Despite a cult following among tweens and teens, this vampire tale didn't catch lightning in a bottle like the Twilight Saga. I hear the production budget was a modest $40M, but even that doesn't matter with such low grosses.
Fox Searchlight's Amelia, in the words of one exec, "couldn't break away from the Bio channel" with $4M from 818 runs and a mediocre per screen average.
Overall, it looks to be a $121M weekend but slightly down from last year, -9.3%, when High School Musical 3 opened to $42M and Saw V was $30M.
1. Paranormal Activity (Par) Week 5 [1,945 Runs] Wkd $22M, Cume $62.4M
2. Saw VI (Lionsgate) NEW [3,036] Wkd $15.5M
3. Wild Things (WB) Week 2 [3,735] Wkd $14.8M (-54%)
4. Law Abiding (Over) Week 2 [2,890] Wkd $12.7M (-40%), Cume $40.3M
5. Couples Retreat (Uni) Week 3 [3,074] Wkd $11M, Cume $78.2M
6. Astro Boy (Imagi/Summit) NEW [3,014] Wkd $7M
7. The Stepfather (Sony) Week 2 [2,734] Wkd $6.5M, Cume $20.3M
8. Vampire's Assistant (Relativity/Uni) NEW [2,754] Wkd $6.3M
9. Cloudy/Meatballs (Sony) Week 6 [2,741] Wkd $5.6M, Cume $115.2M
10. Zombieland (Sony) Week 4 [2,447] Wkd $4.3M, Cume $67.3M
Loading ...
Caught PA last nite and boy-oh-boy, it was scary tho for a fiction. Kudos should be directed at the actors for making it all so believable
Glad it rule the Friday B.O. Here’s betting it will be the No 1 movie this weekend. That said, 100M is achievable for this small movie
I figure PA will go up more than that this weekend. But I am not shocked by the huge decline in the Saw series, all it took was a GOOD horror film to dethrone the atrocity of that vile series. Here’s hoping they put the kibosh on Saw VII in 3-D!
Can’t SUMMIT open anything that isn’t a Twilight movie? I saw Astro Boy (was dragged to) and it was a hell of a lot better than the trailers. In fact, it was pretty damn good. Heads should roll.
Uh, Summit also made Knowing. That’s the other BO hit of theirs.
The only thing Summit is losing out on are the U.S. distribution fees for “Astro Boy.” Imagi is the true loser, that’s $65M they’re never going to get back.
Maybe Imagi should’ve picked Warner Brothers to distribute “Astro Boy” instead of Summit. At least their TMNT revival broke even and then some two years ago.
Yeah, I’m astonished by Astro Boy’s performance. It’s a really good movie – better than Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs. And a HELL of a lot better than that dismal snoozefest Wild Things. Maybe Astro will do better on Sat and Sun; it deserves to.
Cheryl=Summit employee. Don’t be so simple-minded, Wild Things will be considered an underappreciated classic in the years to come and will make its money back and then some as people revisit it at home, etc. It’s a beautifully made film.
Wild Things will fade from people collective memories, only leaving behind the slight stench of mediocrity and dullness.
SAW 6 will make more than 20 Million dollars this weekend and will double its budget in the first weekend. By the time it leaves theaters it will make about 45 Million dollars domestically and around 80 Million dollars worldwide and SAW 7 in 3D will for sure happen.
Don’t forget PA isn’t the only movie that was made for cheap. Although SAW 6 was made for far more when comparing the 2 films SAW still has a very very low budget.
Saw VI may not be a masterpiece, but it’s the first decent movie in the franchise since the third film. In fact, it’s probably the the third-best of the series thus far, and the critics agree: 43% on RT may not seem like much, but when you consider the fact that Saw V earned only 15%, you know the filmmakers have done something right. Firing David Hackl was the first step.
It’s too bad it couldn’t coexist with Paranormal Activity in the marketplace, but I don’t think that’s the entire reason why it’s failing. I think people just got really turned-off after Saw V, which was by far the weakest film in the series, the first truly boring Saw movie. There’s a slim, slim hope for Saw VI to actually hold up better once word gets out that this is no Saw V, but I doubt it.
Oh well. When future analysts look back and wonder what undid the Saw franchise, remember Saw V.
I think you’ve hit it on the head, DK. Saw V was abysmal, whereas Saw VI has the franchise back on track. I enjoyed VI enough to see it twice this weekend. Yeah. You read that right. Twice. Totally worth it.
Nikki, you’re one of my favorite people, but quit with the grandstanding. I’m not a Saw fan personally, but the phrase torture porn is a misnomer and using it is insulting to the droves of people who flock to see these pics year after year. ‘Porn’ implies that the viewers are watching for sexual gratification, while the Saw series is clearly a HORROR series. People see these films to be horrified by the images depicted. How exactly is that porn?
I’m horrified by porn. So how is that different?
The intent of porn isn’t to horrify, it’s to please. Porn may be horrifying to some, but that doesn’t make it horror, it’s still porn. Hard R horror films are supposed to be (and are for the majority of viewers) disturbing and hard to watch, which is close to the opposite of the intended effect of porn. Again, calling these movies torture porn is one of the most insulting things I can think of to anyone who’s seen even one of them. And considering the Saw series was already the highest grossing horror franchise of all time (in unadjusted dollars) before this installment, that’s a helluva lot of insulted moviegoers.
As I understand it, it’s not called “torture porn” because anybody’s getting sexual gratification. It’s called torture porn because the gore/torture scenes in the movie are explicit, over-the-top, voyeuristic, and are the main reason the movie exists. Just like sex scenes in pornos.
Fair enough. I appreciate the sane, rational response, and I have to say I agree with your assessment. I should maybe clarify something, I don’t think Nikki calling it torture porn means she believes everyone who saw the movie was getting sexual gratification. I do however think it’s a poor phrase to use, as it can lead to the incredibly nasty kinds of perceptions demonstrated so well by “Lena” a couple posts below this one (and one can only hope she wasn’t being entirely serious). If it’s a bad movie, it’s a bad movie, no need to label it something that makes people who didn’t see it feel morally superior to those who did.
Lena’s post is incoherent at best. However, torture porn is a pretty good label for the Saw movies even if using that phrase results in a “lot of insulted movie goers.” Just because a lot of people are up for it, doesn’t mean it’s a good thing for the overall culture or even for those individuals who go see it.
The phrase “torture porn” has nothing to do with sexual gratification. It means the movie appeals to base human instincts and audiences are stimulated (not in a sexual way) by graphic depictions of violence.
The whole series is silly. The filmmakers include some absurd “message” they try bashing down your throat in between the disgusting gore so you can justify watching this shit by convincing yourself its some deep film. It’s not. These films are an embarrassment to Hollywood and to whoever pays to see this crap.
I think it fits perfect. Torture porn. That what it is. So you should call it torture porn. Torture porn, Yeah, you are watching torture porn. You like torture porn. You are a torture porn watcher. Why so shy? Anyway, don’t forget the big upside being a torture porn regular watcher, liking to watch torture porn. Next time an Al Quaida commander decapitate an american prisoner again, you will not be horrified. More you will tell us, how superbad the acting was, and that your favorite torture porn, SAW I-VI was so much better. And btw waterboarding cannot be torture. Because there are so many better ways to torture. That you know, because you like torture porn.
don’t even joke about soldiers getting killed, when you’re talking about stupid movies. that reflects very badly on your character.
As a fan of the “Saw” films, I was disappointed that most of the audience fled after the abysmal part V when the new installment actually delivers, and has a much appreciated, if rather blatantly obvious pro-healthcare reform message amidst the gore. Some people just can’t see past the violence to appreciate the often times sly philosophical themes in the films, and denounce it as mere “torture porn” in their laziness.
“Believe me when I say that torture porn flicks embarrass the industry”
No, nothing can embarass the industry until it flops.
I fail to see how an $18 million opening is SUCH a disaster. While I recognize the others opened from 30-33 (aside from the 18 mil of #1), it’s still made on a budget of around 10-11 million, will still sell incredibly well on DVD/Blu and will have solid future value in Saw collector sets (ala Nightmare on Elm Street) when the series wraps up – which will be, according to wikipedia, after 8 of them. Oh yeah, they’ve also always doubled there domestic gross when factoring in the worldwide. Seems like a nice little profit to me, even after factoring in advertising, prints, etc…
To anon: Summit has opened one other movie: Knowing. I don’t think anyone saw that movie bringing in $80/$182+ million (domestic/worldwide) total after that trailer. And they’ve done a decent job nurturing Hurt Locker into a serious awards contender.
Let’s not forget the terrible opening by Astro Boy and what must spell doom for IMAGI.
What I don’t get is why anybody thought Astro Boy would do well. Especially not good enough to justify a $65 million production budget. I mean, seriously, even Imagi’s TMNT only made $50 million domestically, and the Ninja Turtles are absurdly more popular than frickin Astro Boy.
Astro Boy is Speed Racer all over again, and what the Green Hornet will be in a year or so – the main point being, these properties weren’t even popular when they were new. So why would they be popular as remakes?
SAW VI prbly cost around $10 million, so it’s still all profit for Lionsgate. They’re weeping in their champagne.
I wouldn’t be so sure about “Saw VI.” I hate the franchise myself, but Lionsgate only spends around $10M on each pic (and each pic has grossed $68M each on average, counting the $80M+ gross for the first two sequels). If it makes $40-$50M in its entire run, then I have to say Lionsgate is subjecting us to Saw VII in 3-D next October.
Even if “Saw VI” drops off big time next weekend, Lionsgate is already in the black. Both Paramount and Lionsgate are laughing their way to the bank this week.
Spielberg was scared when watched this… I was scared. It will go up and up, as every time more and more people get interested in it.
The drop in “Where the Wild Things Are” is predictable, since Maurice Sendak’s book was never really “beloved” by children. Through the years it was always purchased by arty, bohemian aunts and uncles as a hapless gift, and was left to get kicked under the bed by kids who prefer cuter and more colorful things. It was a dark book with ugly, scratchy drawings of hideous characters. Making an expensive movie of it for children was a huge mistake.
I have no hippie relatives. I had no one telling me that this book was “hip” or “deep”. I loved the drawings and empathized with Max. It was my favorite book, along with “The Very Hungry Caterpillar”.
LOL. I grew up in an apple-pie small-town with no “bohemian aunts” in sight and I loved the book when I was little. And so did pretty much everybody I knew. It was always out in the school library (that’s the one that only kids go to, no “arty uncles”) and they had a bunch of copies, too. And one of the major audiences for the movie has been twenty-somethings who grew up with it.
I admire the balls of someone trying, in such an audacious manner, to rewrite history though. Nice try.
yes, you have to love these internet mandarins who throw down and describe everybody’s life experiences and childhood details, with the usual brainwashed blue/red, right/left overtones. Brainwashed much?
I lived in a hick dump and liked the not kidding around illustrations of WTWTA, though I preferred In The Night Kitchen.
Where The Wild Things Are the film, will over time, I think , become The Big Lebowski of children’s films..
The rapidly dwindling box office receipts speak volumes of how much this overrated book and its grotesque characters are “beloved” by children. Maybe parents who dragged their kids to this told them they were gonna see “ice Age.”
Where the Wild Things Are is/was plenty popular as a 15-page picture book. The problem with the movie is that as at 1 hour 40 minutes it isn’t wildly particular to children’s tastes, not being colorful/flashy/fast-paced. I suspect it’s not so much that kids were chomping at the bit to go so much as it was their parents who were willing to take them.
It’s because the MOVIE is not for kids. Nor it appears to have been marketed for kids.
From what I gather it’s primarily the adults that READ this book that are seeing/enjoying the movie–that in itself is pretty remarkable, as movies based on books, mostly dissapoint.
I’m reading online that it was 48 pages long?
Exactly. Studios have been known to market movies dishonestly, but that was not the case with this film. It was clear from the trailer that it was more for adults and mature kids.
The truth is somewhere between your depictions, Michael & zangadoo.
I became interested in the book as an older child, probably babysitting. I like a lot of other Maurice Sendak. I never loved the Wild Things, but I appreciated it. I feel the same ‘meh’ way about the movie…appreciate where it’s coming from but know it’s not for me, but hey, if every movie was made for everybody what kind of hell would that be.
I definitely understand cheering for its failure somewhat, tho…the filmmaker and primary audience come off as an awfully, unjustifiably, smug bunch.
So, does this mean Lionsgate will finally put an end to the “Saw” series? One can only hope…
In what Universe is a 40 mil budget modest when the movie open to 6.5 mil? It’ll be lucky to top off at 20/25. Even with ancillaries, it’ll be a serious loss for the studio. Who keeps letting Paul Weitz direct movies?
What’s sad is he’ll ride the coattails of an already successful franchise – like his brother – and continue to get jobs.
At least Astroboy has a chance to do really good business overseas. It was never an American property anyway.
Regret to inform Astro Boy has open #10 in Japan and disappeared the second week. Austra
Regret to inform that Japan, the Astro Boy market that had the best chance was a disaster opening in the # 10 slot and disapppeared the second week. Australia was a similar bust. Only now remains Europe to generate any revenue.
see vampire’s assistant? unless helgeland turned in a flawless script i can’t imagine how that would be close to watchable after those trailers?
what an acquire by par.
we gotta do this more, word-of-mouth advertising, ain’t no need to spend so much to market a movie, shift a chunk of that money on the 4th floor to acquisitions and story dept, ya heard?
nevertheless..
the bbq last night for the marketing dept was bumpin’ , and well deserved.
thanks for the shirts and burgers, ima microwave them on monday when BO comes out in the trades.
If you don’t like these films, don’t watch them. As for me and millions of others, we will continue to see them because we enjoy them.
And there is at least two more Saw films scheduled. You’d think by now, you all complainers would be use to it.
You know what? I hate comedies, can’t stand the damn boring shit. I hope they stop making those. Less un-funny shit like Couples Retreat and more films like Hostel and Saw.
Good to see the SAW series finally fading away as it should have YEARS ago.
Utter garbage that represents modern moviemaking at its worst…
While I support a filmmaker’s creative freedom, I do hold responsible those moguls who make money distributing crap like this pic….
Believe me when I say that torture porn flicks embarrass the industry….”
Please, get some psychological help. In your mind you have somehow separated the “filmmaker” (pretentious, that) from the “mogul.” They are the same. It’s the same sick, evil, incestuous industry.
And your phony slap at “torure porn flicks” belies what you know to be true: both the “filmmaker” and the “mogul” are disappointed only that they can’t make their porn more graphic, more evil, more ugly.
The “industry” is far past being embarrassed. It’s already disgusting.
Such a dark post, Koblog… and hilarious!
But is Saw VI really the biggest example of how ugly the industry is? Is this the worst they have to offer us? What about next week’s release, I Spit On Your Grave… uh, I mean… This Is It, created solely for the purpose of exploiting and prostituting a dead man? Which is worse: A fictional character crying and begging for help before they are stabbed in the brain, or a real-life person being trampeled and plastered to fill someone else’s wallet?
It’s hard to blame Saw for anything when these films are drops in the bucket, never to become one of the 300 highest-grossing films of all-time, unadjusted for ticket price inflation. What about New Moon, which is sure to be even more brain-numbing and thematically-incoherent and dramatically-incompetent than its predecessor, yet will probably rake in $100 million opening weekend? I find that a bit more disturbing than the fact that Saw grossed $7 million yesterday.
The only people who paid to see Wild Things this weekend were the teenagers who saw the merchandise at Hot Topic, pretended they read the book every day as a kid, and therefore NEEDED to see it to fit in with the rest of the flock, but were unfortunately grounded last weekend after the middle-school principal called and said their son Renegade has been suspended for talking about suicide in his Guitar I class, which he has been failing ever since he learned the first four seconds of “The Great Escape.”
Every movie on the marquee this weekend is dumbing down society, and the good movies are rejected by the average moviegoers’ weak mentality and stomach. Catch a showing of Paranormal Activity and see how many people hate the movie because they didn’t show the ghosts.
EVERYTHING about the industry is poison, and picking Saw as the scapegoat is over-the-top and incorrect. But if you must smile as the series falls, don’t get too comfortable: Before long, there will be another horror series to pick on. Meanwhile, The Reader is nominated for an Academy Award and Fox considers remaking Funny People.
And to think I wrote this entire post without a single Transformers reference.
“Paranormal Activity” was a solid little film. Scary? No. Scariest Ever? Hell No. But it was a decent flick that build up a lot of tension and suspense, yet lost me completely with that non-shocking, CGI enhanced bullshit ending.
Had they stuck with the original ending, it would have probably disturbed me the way the really lame ending they ended up with is scaring those same lame “Hot Topic” teenagers you described above.
I don’t think people who hate “Paranormal Activity”, hate it for the lack of ghosts. I think people who dislike it, dislike it because it’s all build up with a bullshit ending.
Also, the Ouija Board scene and the picture in the attic are two scenes where I called “Shenanigans!” and took away some of the realistic vibe of the film.
Finally if anyone wants to say I am hating PA because I am a “Saw” fan. I hate the “Saw” films. Haven’t seen a “Saw” film since part 3, and never liked any of them.
[SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT!]No one hated Paranormal Activity because they didn’t show the ghost;I personally hated it because it was suspenseful for the first thirty minutes or so, then the filmmaker started to throw in bullshit like the ghost whisperer, who refer the couple to the Demon whisperer.Also, bruno hit the nail on the head with the Ouija Board, it was silly and amateur hour; I was waiting for the couple to pull out a Ion detectors and Dowsing Rods to have a ridiculous cliche trifecta after that one.The boyfriend demeanor also iffy.For a guy who thought the whole ghost thing was bullshit, he changed into a ghost hunter pretty fast.From taking it as a joke one day to less than a week later reading a book on ancient demons and wanting to take the demon head on.All in All, this movie was never going to
scare anyone who wasn’t superstitious or a complete wuss, but it showed promise of being a decent suspense film, but failed because of some lame plot devices and a awful ending.Paranormal Activity is the classic case of hype over quality.
As for Saw, I never liked any of them.I enjoy horror films, but the Saw series was never horrifying.Saw movies are and always will be boring trash marketed to young jerk off who live out their fantasy of being the boogyman through the jigsaw character; when in reality, they are closer to the Power Puff Girls.
Except Saw IV, V, and VI are all LESS bloody than III.
Hostel was torture porn. You’re calling the SAW franchise torture porn?! What part of SAW is porn? If I remember right, there has only been 1 topless women in the first 5 movies! Don’t generalize all the recent horror greatness with a term that one movie got slapped with around 4 years ago. Let us horror fans have our moment, ok? We just took the top 2 spots at the box office with a steady franchise and a movie that we demanded (via eventful) go nationwide over the last month.
…I will be watching SAW 6 later today and viewing Paranormal Activity at the first available opportunity. Oh, and according to the horror community (http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/film/1831) SAW VI is a success.
I’m also hoping that the Cirque Du Freak: Vampire’s Assistant spawns something on par with Twilight. And by that I mean a movie series based on a book series about vampires-hopefully having nothing to do with a love story.
Re. Saw, you’ve got to be at least somewhat impressed that a film can reach the SIXTH installment in a series and STILL open to $18M. I’m not planning on seeing it – not because it’s “torture porn” (and come on, why are you insulting porn, which is a great thing), but because I just feel like the story ran its course about 3 installments ago. Didn’t the guy die like 3 films ago? Then how are there still all these killings? He set ALL of this up in advance?! Really?!
Apparently he had assistants who took over his work for him after he died.
With how little these awful Saw movies cost to make, this new one sadly made enough to justify another. The series won’t be officially dead and buried where it belongs until one of them opens outside the top 10 with a gross in the thousands.
I get so tired of Nikki’s moralizing and damnation of the horror genre, celebrating any horror film’s failure and decrying every film’s success. Face it Nikki, these films will never go away, and while you can’t see the art in them, the audience obviously does.
The real story this weekend is that half of the top ten films are horror genre related, and only one of them, The Vampire’s Assistant, is going to lose money. Saw VI will be in profit in its first week, and Paranormal Activity is a full fledged phenomenon. The Stepfather will more than double the take of the last failed remake, Sorority Row, and Zombieland recently became the highest grossing zombie film ever. And another slasher film which Nikki incorrectly labeled a bomb, Halloween II, is getting a rerelease on over 1000 screens next weekend. Horror is huge right now, and its the R rated titles that are leading the charge, not the PG-13 titles.
I’m still trying to find a reason to like PG13 fright films. I think the last non-R genre pic that I found satisfying was JAWS.
Val, you can’t ‘bury’ Jigsaw. He’ll never be dead.
The fact that adults get wound up about this is comical. The grannies at the mpaa let it go; 99% of people that complain here Haven’t Seen Any of These Movies.
Truth be told, you’re reacting to Marketing alone.
Jigsaw is Jason is Freddy… So f’in what. Let the people watch what they want.
Amen. Can you imagine the cheering that would’ve gone on if they had blogs when the sixth Friday the 13th movie opened?
Saw VI was actually a really good movie. The new direction in the series is really helping the quality. I’m not so sure about 3D though. I’m a horror fan and I can stomach gore movies, but the concept of this kind of viciousness (and not kind of campy like MY BLOODY VALENTINE or FINAL DESTINATION) being brought up close to me is not appealing.
I’ve heard considerably more than $40m for Cirque de Freak, but it’s not like $40m production before P&A would be good news here anyway. It’s losing large money and it’s a material miss for Universal. Hopefully they didn’t pay too much for the franchise rights.
Bad movies are of course not reflected in the opening weekend but this isn’t going to do well for not having an actual clean plot structure or ending. Seriously, don’t greenlight things that wouldn’t get through the intern’s pass pile if they were original screenplays.
As far as Astro Boy – Summit is New Line all over again. Make money with one thing that they have little to do with, piss it away on a gazillion other bad decisions that demonstrate severe lack of competence. They really better hope that the Twilight train is still rolling because I’ve seen nothing to indicate they can do anything else.
Wild Things’ plummet is unfortunate but hardly unexpected. Even the biggest champions of the film should’ve realized that it was going to go over like a lead balloon with audiences who aren’t accustomed to children narratives that don’t pander to the lowest common denominator. I know it’s not the style of the author or the readers of this blog to look past the hard monetary figures, but this might be a rare instance where we should come together and salute a studio that took the high(brow) road on a literary adaptation of a property beloved by kids instead of bastardizing its essence for the sake of bigger box office bucks. It’s a unique film that will be revisited for decades to come, which wouldn’t have been the case if Warner Bros. went with a yes-man hack with no vision to make sure the apple cart stayed upright instead of Spike Jonze. If you have a cursory familiarity with the history of the source material, you should realize it’s a fitting development that a faithful cinematic adaptation polarized audiences and underperformed financially. Much like the book, I have a feeling the film is something that will go on to be rediscovered.
Come ON. That movie is not a narrative for children!! It’s for childish, narcissistic adults!
It was a misguided adaptation at best, though beautifully rendered…with extra points for that the source material was a fair amount shallower than the film was attempting to portray it.
There are many darker, beautiful films for children that are easy to return to repeatedly. I don’t think this is going to be one of them. It’s no Dark Crystal. It’s not even a Labyrinth.
After the disaster that is Vampire’s Assistant, I guess Catherine Hardwicke now looks like a genius. She made a miracle out of a 35M vampire movie also loved by tweens.
The trailers for Vampires Assistant and indeed the whole concept was flawed. It was not enough hunky sparkly vampires to attract tweens and their moms, and was absolutely repellent to boys/men.
Boys/men want to BE the hero (by killing the monster) not become the useless appendage of the monster. No one wants to be Renfield and eat bugs. So that was a stupid idea in the first place.
More evidence that Hollywood is too remote, elitist, feminized, and unable to come up with a good horror-adventure movie like “the Mummy” where simple formula of the guy saves the day and gets the girl equals box office success rules. At least half of success is saying no to stupid ideas.
The funniest part of the Saw films are the scripts. They’re usually very short- 60-70 pages of inept writing, dialogue & structure… when there is a ‘TRAP’ it simply reads ‘INSERT TRAP’ and the production designer, producers and director devise a scheme that typically makes no sense and has a shitload of gore.
Hoffman turns in his grave at where this mess of a franchise has gone. Burg & Koules continue to treat Hoffman’s widow with very little respect and shun her every moment of the day. Hoffman built Twisted you douchebags. Heed the words of Jigsaw, respect the effin dead.
I actually HAVE the scripts to most of the Saw films and you’re wrong. Saw IV was 114 pages and Saw V was 108. They have full trap descriptions. I won’t seen the Saw VI script until Monday.
They have full trap descriptions. Perhaps the first draft doesn’t have all the traps, but doesn’t that go completely against your point? I mean, if they just write a script with no traps and then add traps later, doesn’t that mean that the traps are less important that the plot?
I mean, we’ve all see what a movie literally written around the action scenes looks like; it was called Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Say what you will, but Saw VI was clearly paying off set ups from earlier films in ways that were clearly pre-planned and not haphazard.
Considering that I’m not seeing any of that B.O. money, I’m pleased that PA is beating out SAW VI. To be sure, PA is somewhat overhyped, failing as it does to match the effectiveness of its obvious inspiration, THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT. But it does have a few solid creepy moments.
SAW VI, though…what can you say about a film that’s being “hyped” by horror fans as “not as bad as SAW V”? I’m not sure that’s even an accurate assessment. SAW V was lousy but at least had a nifty and suspenseful escape-from-drowning sequence, which is featured on its DVD/Blu-Ray cover if any SAW virgins out there wanna know what I’m talking about. SAW VI, obviously running on empty, just seems like recycled bits from earlier films in the series. If they insist on cranking out more of these things, they might as well start replacing the writers as well as the directors. I’m not sure what Project Greenlight wonderkids Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton are contributing that warrants their continued involvement.
Cirqu du freak books are quirky and will not appeal to mass movie goers(especially teenagers) like the Twilight series.
Dewey Cox as a vampire? That wasn’t a success? Shocking.
Summit should be worried the mere existence of that film will hurt the box office of NEW MOON.
Dewey Cox as a vampire will not stop my tween sister and her friends from seeing the movie three times before Thanksgiving.
Can anyone explain to me exactly what does it mean when it was reported that ‘Paranormal Activity project was acquired for a mere $300K’?
Does this mean that the film maker was only paid $300K from Paramount and nothing else after the success of the movie?
Or that, the film makers will earn a back-end profit after all is said and done in the theaters?
I would like to think it is the latter, after all, it was his movie, so he should be handsomely reward for his brilliant production
Anyone?
Depends entirely on the way the deal was structured. Paramount of course would want “acquired for $300K” to mean just that – up front money only. I suppose they could give back-end to a newbie with a micro-budget project, but c’mon. This is the town where My Big Fat Greek Wedding lost money on the books so no profit participation was paid out.
Even if that is the case, he put in $15K, got back $300K and got a deal for his next project. No tears here.
From what I hear, the director and producer split 50% of the profits. The source was someone high up at Paramount. Given that the marketing thus far is $10mm all in, they should each clear $20mm.
And good for them – it’s a smartly executed movie that NO ONE wanted when first presented. They stuck with it, believed in it, and should reap the reward.
I saw it three years ago and dug it (not revisionist history, either!). I wish I’d had the chance to get involved.
Just keep repeating: It’s only a movie.. it’s only a movie.. it’s only a movie… Then maybe you won’t get so bent out of shape about it.
Holllywood lifers mindlessly trash the “Saw” movies without ever seeing them; it’s intellectually lazy and a way to quell their guilt over foisting the inoffensive, idea-free mush that survives the torturous game of studio development. Not one in a hundred of the glitterati who badmouth the “Saw” sequels has seen one of them all the way through. Fair enough — but I have higher expectations of my favorite journalist than to denigrate the latest entry sight unseen. It has more substance and craft than the torture-porn label suggests. You call it “crap” — have you seen it? Or are you just parroting Hollywood insiders?
Man, people really take the term “torture porn” literally. I don’t like it, but the term is simply implying that is as exploitative of horror movie torture/bloodletting as regular porn is of sex. It doesn’t mean that it necessarily has any actual sex or nudity in it, just that people go to get their “torture”-loving rocks off at the sight of some violent death sequences.
That said, like any Saw fan would tell you, I go to see how the plot develops. It’s like a crappy cop show, just with splatter. People are always derisive of this kind of statement, as if I have to have some sort of high-minded attitude to claim the Saw films have a plot to follow, but usually those are the people who didn’t bother to see the film and don’t like that kind of movie anyway. It’s okay not to like the Saw franchise, but you don’t need to go and decry it as some sort of bane on humanity just because your cinematic sensibilities are different from mine, especially since you haven’t gotten into it and never would, even under the best, most unbiased circumstances.
I also think it’s ridiculous to imply that it’s good that horror is moving in a PG-13 direction. I’m not saying that everything has to be a Saw or a Hostel, or that everything should push the gore envelope farther than the last, but bloodletting is part of the territory. The original A Nightmare on Elm Street is pretty bloody, but it’s a pretty classic genre picture, and the idea that PG-13 is better would stomp all over several of its greatest, creepiest scenes (like Amanda Wyss getting lifted out of the bed and dragged up the wall or Johnny Depp getting sucked into his bed). I admit, some of these movies that have come out in the last few years probably are torture porn, but you can’t just ball everything up into a category because you don’t like it without examining it. Films like Hostel were made by auteurs trying to create something compelling and interesting, which is the right idea even if some people can’t stomach it, and series like Saw are too over-the-top, really, to worry about (I mean, come on, someone gets melted in the latest one!). It’s PG-13 films like the Prom Night and Stepfather remakes, which are artistically empty, financially motivated and poorly made that deserve to get canned.
Lastly, it’s ridiculous that anyone not interested would be so burdened by the Saw movies anyway. It’s like the inverse of having your cake and eating it too: you don’t like it, so nobody should have it. Did anyone see the movie’s most recent theatrical trailer? It was only 50 seconds long! The films are playing to the faithful, and the faithful alone, so in the age of TiVo, can’t you just ignore it?
“It’s PG-13 films like the Prom Night and Stepfather remakes, which are artistically empty, financially motivated and poorly made that deserve to get canned.”
That describes a SAW film perfectly.
Tyler, you’re not ready for this level of discussion.
That’s your opinion. My opinion is that the series is motivated by producers trying to appeal specifically to their fans by creating a story that is interesting to them. Just because it’s not interesting to you doesn’t mean it isn’t interesting to us. (And I’m talking about pure plot — I’d watch a Saw movie with no traps in it or the traps edited out if the series’ story moved forward.) Now, obviously, I don’t know who you are, but based on your tone, I’m going to guess you haven’t watched all six Saw films, and even then, you’d still have to be the intended audience before I put stock in your opinion. One of the things I was saying in the original post you were quoting that’s very important: why should I care what someone who hates 90% of horror movies thinks of Saw? Even if it wasn’t as shambling and low-rent as it is — something I’m perfectly willing to admit — someone who hates horror films in general still wouldn’t give it a fair chance.
Aside from that, I’m not saying that Koules and Burg don’t want to make money. I’m sure they do. That said, I’m certainly more positive that the producers working on Prom Night didn’t consider the opinions of a single fan of the original. Lionsgate may greenlight them on a “financially motivated” level, but reading interviews with Koules and Burg, I feel like they also think it’s good business to indulge the Saw-lovers and give them the kinds of plots they like, which people will say are confusing and stupid, but again, it comes back to them not being fans of the series.
I think you’re the one insisting on snark over rational discussion, Ryan. The Saw films aren’t my cup of tea by any means – I prefer movies that don’t operate as one endless loop of flashbacks/backwards continuity in lieu of story development and prefer horror films with protagonists I empathize with in order to accenturate the vicarious thrill of being scared (i.e., Clarice in Silence of the Lambs, the wife in Parnormal Activity, even the lead in Drag Me To Hell or House of the Devil). However, to act like there’s no validity to the fact that these 80s remakes are without merit is to hide ones head in the sand. These PG-13 abominations lack EVERYTHING a good horror movie is supposed to have and do more to devalue the genre as a whole than any gorefest could ever do. I’m not talking about the truly scary/fun ones like The Ring or The Grudge, either — just these worthless crapfests like When A Stranger Calls, Prom Night and The Stepfather that are poorly cast and badly scripted to the point of being truly thrill-free and manufactured to appeal to young females yet ultimately manage to satisfy no one at all.
And yes, the Hostel films are far more descriptive of the overused “T-P” descriptor than the Saw films, seeing as how their very plots clearly draw the connection to torture=sexual release. The first Hostel was genuinely suspenseful at times, but the second one has such a disgustingly sexualized sequence in it involving Heather Matarazzo’s character that’s clearly meant to excite the sadists in the audience that it ruined the entire movie for me.
How can somebody returning anything in a “trash bag” be equated to it being scary? Wouldn’t the more logical assumption be to think the sender thought it was “trash”?
…or worse, dog poop. at least thats what i see alot of dog owner’s use when walking & picking up after their dogs. just sayin.
…might as well take the idea and run with it…
…personally I am waiting for House of the Devil. but if folks are enjoying PA more power to them. I always enjoy when someone bucks the system & fans respond to it.
so far this fall I have seen the following with the corresponding scores:
zombieland 9.5
law abiding citizen 8.5 (professional reviewers have no clue. check out what fans say on this one)
vampires assistant 7.5 (premise is great and execution was nicely done. no twilight but it wasnt selling itself to be)
may check out wild things. always liked the book.
would have liked to have seen pandorum but it was here and gone too soon.
I’m a huge horror movie fan – I’m pretty much there for any new horror openings and caught My Bloody Valentine, Friday 13th, Drag Me To Hell, etc when they opened this year (and what an over-rated pile of crap Drag was)
But I do draw the line at the Saw movies. I caught the first two and just found them so grubby, nasty and sadistic – and it’s a real shame the genre has moved in this direction (The Hills Have Eyes and Last House on the Left apply the same ethos). I agree with the phrase torture porn.
I’m glad the series is running out of steam – though I suspect they’ll still reach Saw 10.
It takes no film making skill to watch someone slowly and sadistically die…
@ Bigheaded Ryan:
Saw is motivated by money? Really? Fascinating. Here’s a better question: What isn’t?
Watchmen is the greatest example of Hollywood udder-sucking: That film was praised by fanboys for staying faithful to the plot of the original comic, but it was not faithful at all to the themes of the comic. What that leaves us is a shallow, empty film designed to squeeze money out of a (in some way) popular product in a time when comic book movies are all the rage.
Watchmen, which I still enjoyed solely because I loved the comic, is cinematic prostiution at its finest. And sure, Saw is made for money: The plot is absolute crap, based on ridiculous logic that makes up the rules as it goes along, and yes, it HAS become about the traps.
But let’s blame Saw when Paramount has no problem exploiting the producers of Paranormal: Some upper middle-class people make $100,000 a year, so does $300,000 sound fair when Paramount will likely walk away with as much as $80 million when all is said and done? $300,000 wouldn’t buy lunch for the executive lounge.
You have to realize that spending money to see Paranormal is not supporting the little movie that could: It’s supporting the studio that owns a little movie.
“Amelia” – another bomb from Fox Searchlight. (after “Whip It”)
Now that Rice is gone, we can see where the talent was. So typical of a studio head to hire an untalented subordinate. Don’t know who it is but I bet it’s a woman.
Nikki….The Vampire’s Assistant cost double what you are reporting here. Someone over at U. is giving you bad dope.
Paranomral Activity is a perfect example of the fact that younger movie-goers are looking for something special and exciting. But instead of giving them great films we pawn off a YouTube Video with fake “buzz” and marketing.
Make no mistake, studios would like nothing better than to take shitty, half-assed movies like PA and “market” them to success. They already have to some extent in TV.
That said, Paranormal Activity is not a film, it’s an amateur video with terrible acting, pacing and a wisp of a story. Astro Boy is a fun sweet and satisfying movie that is even better than the old series (my audience applauded at end) and Vampire’s Assistant is an average film hurt by bad casting and a story that tried to service too many themes.
I refuse to see any SAW films none have been good since the first one. This Halloween, I may go back to see the superior Zombieland or if I can find it see the already cult classic Trick R Treat
SAW VI is trash. Pure trash. Do you smell it? Why try to defend it?
The Vampire’s Assistant cost north of $70 million and I know that for a fact. If Universal is telling you that’s it’s 40, they are trying to hide the fact that it’s a huge disaster. It probably won’t make 20 mil.
The end of SAW…THERE IS A GOD!
here here.
weitz it a loser
Paranormal Activity = Blair Witch = Suck
Nikki, the real story this week is that Hollywood should have the confidence to open a horror movie against the “Saw” franchise. I love scary movies this time of year but boycotted the “Saw” movies years ago. Hollywood, take note.
And why all the hate for “Where the Wild Things Are?” It was a flawless adaptation and maybe slow for five minutes. I almost interpret its so-so box office as a compliment. The “Mall Cop” and “Transformers 2″ loving public hated it.
But the real story next week will be “This Is It.” I am shocked at how many friends and co-workers want to see that movie.
Paranormal Activity is an independently financed film that purports to depict an actual amateur chronicling of demonic-domestic infestation. Did the haters of this film actually walk into it expecting Scorsese-caliber cinematography and acting from the Daniel Day-Lewis school of frothiness? “It looks like a youtube video.” Well, yeah, it was supposed to have been filmed by a guy who bought a video camera to chronicle the supernatural shenanigans that were plaguing him and his chick. If you’re going to discredit the film on the basis of sub-par production values, you only reveal yourself to be a petty blogger bellyacher who lives to undermine the enthusiasm for films that catch on through grass-roots channels. The film’s power is derived from a presentation that keeps it tethered to reality. You crybabies can whine all you want about this power doesn’t exist because the film’s popularity spreading like wildfire is proof positive that you’re wrong. If it were as bad as you people claim it never would’ve emerged from the horror festival circuit to become a global sensation. Thankfully the backlash against the film has been limited to a vocal fringe minority of cyber-losers who just want to look hip and edgy by rejecting the new big thing in pop culture. You could walk into any showing of this film in the country right now and monitor a packed audience reveling in the experience of being freaked out on a level rarely seen in a day and age where mtv editing techniques are the go-to technique to elicit fear.
how can you call other people crybabies and whiners after posting this ridiculous sob…PA is called a YouTube video because it meanders like some amateur YouTube production and has no third act (at least the original ending preserved tone, the Spielberg-drafted ending that made it into theaters is on par with the funniest scenes in The Room). It’s Blair Witch meets Web 2.0, maybe you’re too young and excitable to realize it’s been done before.
Do the young Australian guys who made the first Saw film still get a percentage of the later ones?
VAMPIRE’S ASSISTANT was actually really fun and entertaining. Every kid who reviewed it for us (KidsPickFlicks.com) liked it (and the “quirky” humor) but then again, they were all younger than the target demo. Seems like poor marketing … it generated no buzz. Too bad, it would have made a wonderful franchise.
Well to see PA blow away SawVI was something. I believe viewers are getting tired of the saw cliches. It’s becoming predicatble slasher and who knows Saw could go away as would the orginal Freddy Kreuger,Friday 13 series did back in the eighties. The reason PA is doing so well I believe becouse of the demand it link u can demand to see this film in your local theatre. By the way close to a hundred filmgoers have demanded PA locally to open here.
I believe the Vampire Assissant didn’t so well becouse of it poor marketing. Now I do plan to see New Moon when it comes out. But novelist wise The Vampire Asssiassant is closer to Anne Rice in its storytelling style.
Thanks to the movie the Vampire Assissant,I’ll be reading Darren Shen’s creation in the first three or four novels together in one book. I like Salma Hayek and John C.Reilly. The studio should put Salma out there to promo.