ROTTEN TOMATOES: Box Office Guru Wrapup: Angels Floats to a #1 Debut Comments

Box Office Guru Wrapup: Angels Floats to a #1 Debut

by Gitesh Pandya | May 17, 2009

Summary

This weekend Tom Hanks and director Ron Howard reteamed for their second Robert Langdon adventure Angels & Demons and reached number one with an opening that was respectable, but not spectacular. More impressive was the remarkable second weekend hold that the sci-fi actioner Star Trek enjoyed close behind in the runnerup spot. A mere $5M separated the two films even though Trek has been in theaters a week longer. With only one new opener, most holdovers saw relatively low declines as for the first time since early February, no film in the top ten dropped by more than 50%. Taking over the top spot this weekend, Angels & Demons debuted with an estimated $48M from 3,527 theaters for a solid $13,609 average per location. Back to Article

(1-78 of 78 posts) | Reply

Seth T. writes:
on May 17 2009 07:02 PM

im really glad star trek is doing this good, great movies deserve to take in lots of money, like the dark knight

(Reply to this)

ledawg1138 writes:
on May 17 2009 07:06 PM

Turns out the first entry being mediocre means nothing. At least "Trek" is pulling the dough. Next week, the box-office will have SALVATION!

(Reply to this)

MountRussmore writes:
on May 17 2009 07:11 PM

I bet even when you go on job interviews, you somehow manage to get a "Dark Knight" reference in.....

(Reply to this)

Duckett H. writes:
on May 17 2009 07:16 PM

I can't wait for Terminator Salvation.

(Reply to this)

BatsInTheBelfry writes:
on May 17 2009 07:16 PM

Trek definitely had some problems, like a lot of extremely coincidental things happening, a weak villain and forgetting the whole point of Star Trek and making it more of a Star Wars movie, but it was fun to watch. Movies that are fun to watch will always do well. Hopefully the sequel will improve on it and still be fun.

(Reply to this)

screwhead100 writes:
on May 17 2009 07:18 PM

terminator salvation is goin to break pirates 3's memorial day weekend record.....just watch .....

(Reply to this)

ledawg1138 writes:
on May 17 2009 07:20 PM

In reply to this comment (#2482330)
A weak villain? No, an under used villain! And what do you mean "extremely coincidental"?

(Reply to this)

BobaFettBntyHntr writes:
on May 17 2009 07:22 PM

RE: Trek, the villain was lame, definitely need a stronger villain!

(Reply to this)

Seth T. writes:
on May 17 2009 07:28 PM

In reply to this comment (#2482330)
honestly, i didnt think ANYTHING was wrong with star trek it was truly AMAZING, course ive never seen any other star trek movies or shows

(Reply to this)

Mike B. writes:
on May 17 2009 07:37 PM

I am glad to see that Trek is on route to outgross Wolverine domestically. Will it outdo Wolverine on worldwide gross, I wonder?

(Reply to this)

screwhead100 writes:
on May 17 2009 07:42 PM

mike B, you should be wondering how much terminator is goin to blow both of those out of the water.....it is by far the most anticipated movie in may.......

(Reply to this)

Chris B. writes:
on May 17 2009 07:57 PM

glad to see star trek holding up so well. BRING ON THE SALVATION!?!?!?!

(Reply to this)

Mr. Bo Ziffer writes:
on May 17 2009 08:12 PM

Didn't expect Angels and Demons to get the top spot, but I'm glad Star Trek is still making good money. Cannot wait for Terminator: Salvation. Let's see if McG can show Michael Bay how a real action movie gets made.

(Reply to this)

toats m. writes:
on May 17 2009 08:13 PM

i came across a theory today. when movies get bad reviews, it doesn't technically mean its a bad movie, it just makes you less interested in it and has you thinking to yourself that its going to be a bad movie a friend told me that today. i think he may be right.

(Reply to this)

King Thor writes:
on May 17 2009 08:17 PM

Was really impressed with Star Trek, thought it was awesome, great movie all around. Nero was not a weak villain, I agree he was underused. Thank god for no corny *** generic hand to hand showdown between good and evil. Big ups to JJ for pullin through.

Saw Wrath of Kahn the other day, thought it was alright.

CAN'T WAIT FOR TERMINATOR SALVATION!!!!

(Reply to this)

GreenBastard writes:
on May 17 2009 08:21 PM

Star Trek is so fricking good. It deserves every dollar it gets. I can't wait for more.
I'm trying not to get to excited over Salvation to avoid a let down. It'll be interesting to see if it out does Star Trek. It's raised the bar big time this year.

(Reply to this)

willywonkanobi writes:
on May 17 2009 08:35 PM

In reply to this comment (#2482433)
I feel the exact same way. I am still worried about McG. I went from not liking him at all, to really liking him, and now I am on the fence because he blabbed about his sequel idea, and it totally sucks.

Here is hoping he didn't have any ideas like that in this movie.

(Reply to this)

David A. writes:
on May 17 2009 09:19 PM

Terminator Salvation will do well next week. That's not really surprising with the "if they're not blowing **** up, I'm not gonna see it" mindset of today's audiences. But it will let down those of us who expect a little more from our popcorn movies. What is it that I expect? A decent story comes to mind. Bay is at least honest about what he does.

But anyway, what other movie are coming out this summer that'd be worth a viewing? Only movies I could think of were Avatar, Harry Potter (probably highest grossing of the year) and Drag Me to Hell. Though, I feel like I'm missing some.

(Reply to this)

Superzone writes:
on May 17 2009 09:43 PM

So glad that Star Trek is doing awesome at the box office. That movie was f**king awesome and deserves to rake in tons of money!

(Reply to this)

Chris B. writes:
on May 17 2009 09:51 PM

just to let you know Avatar isn't coming out this summer.

(Reply to this)

NTROST writes:
on May 17 2009 09:59 PM

In reply to this comment (#2482498)
@David A.
About movies worth seeing? for one, Avatar is not a summer film. Two, you left out alot of summer films that will be worth seeing somewhere done the line such as "Public Enemies" (the dark horse), "Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen", "The Hurt Locker", "Moon", "The Taking Of The Pelham 1 2 3" (has a challenge against the original), "Inglorious Basterds", "District 9", "G.I. Joe: Rise Of Corba", & so on (I could have named films all day...They're are alot of films but again it comes to how partial or impartial you are on films. Personally, I'm exceedingly impartial (I have DVD/Blu-Ray collection of well over 1000 plus films that range from 1900 to present day) & I'll end up seeing every film maybe not in theatres but on DVD/Blu-Ray because I rent all the new films every week.

(Reply to this)

Bob S. writes:
on May 17 2009 10:02 PM

In reply to this comment (#2482498)
Yeah, I'm one of the ones that wants more from a popcorn movie than a few explosions. McG is a pretty pedestrian director, and cut from the same cloth as Michael Bay (music videos vs. commercials). I had really high hopes for TERMINATOR: SALVATION that have actually declined after watching a lot of the clips and extended trailers online. It looks like the character development isn't going to be great, and it doesn't look like it'll live up to the first two movies even if it surpasses the third.

(Reply to this)

HectorMoran91 writes:
on May 17 2009 10:06 PM

Say what you want, I enjoyed Angels and Demons for what it was, and I hated the Da Vinci Code, that movies was ****.
By the way am I the only one hoping Star Trek pulls in more than 300 million domestically?

(Reply to this)

NTROST writes:
on May 17 2009 10:09 PM

correction "...films all day)..."

Also, glad to see Ron Howard & Tom Hank's "Angels & Demons" doing well as it was an adequatly moderate film (C ) which should greenlight a third film "The Lost Symbol" which Tom Hanks & Ron Howard have already stated they will do if the third one is greenlighted but with the B.O. numbers domestically & internationally doing well, it will pretty much be approved by Columbia Picture for the go-ahead for the third film.

Also, proud to see J.J. Abrams & crew's "Star Trek" continuing to do well. That was a superb film (A-) and that sequel will probably be out sometime in 2011 from it is being said around Paramount.

(Reply to this)

NTROST writes:
on May 17 2009 10:15 PM

In reply to this comment (#2482573)
@HectorMoran91
"The Da Vinci Code" was ****? a little harsh there dude. **** would be something like "House Of The Dead", "Alone In The Dark", "Ishtar", "Howard The Duck" & such. "The Da Vinci Code" was a mediocre film (C).

(Reply to this)

Bob S. writes:
on May 18 2009 02:24 AM

In reply to this comment (#2482573)
Probably not the only one hoping (Paramount execs are right there with you :P), but for a domestic take of $300M, it would have almost HAD to do at least $50 mil this weekend. However, the dailies have been incredibly strong for this movie, and I see it having incredible legs and finishing in the $260-275 million range. That would require a multiplier 3.6-3.8 range, so that's a pretty tall order. The one thing that the movie does have going for it is that only 35% of the audience was under 25 during its opening weekend, and that means that the under 25 demographic was still untapped as of last weekend. That it still made 72.5 M over the three-day, and 76.5M over the 3.5 day period, is nothing short of incredible. However, that demographic will likely watch the movie based on the incredible word of mouth that the movie is getting, and the fact that it is generating a lot of buzz amongst females as well means that the movie still has some potential to continue surprising at the box office.

The movie is a hit no matter which way you slice it, $300 mil or no.

(Reply to this)

Bob S. writes:
on May 18 2009 03:07 AM

In reply to this comment (#2482574)
@NTROST: I respect your love of movies quite a bit, and as someone who also watches most major US releases, foreign films, and old movies, I find it puzzling why you are pleased to see - in your own words, "an adequatly moderate film (C)" - get a sequel. Like you, I watch my share of serviceable and bad movies. That doesn't mean I want to see more of them. I want good film making, regardless of the genre, and I want sequels to *good* movies. I don't want to see mediocrity rewarded. Much as I like Tom Hanks, I would rather have seen this movie disappoint if it is indeed C-level work (I'll add it to my rental queue; doesn't seem worthy of a theatrical experience). Just curious as to why you want to see a marginal movie succeed...

(Reply to this)

FURY.UK writes:
on May 18 2009 04:59 AM

"Autobots roll out" :-)

(Reply to this)

David A. writes:
on May 18 2009 05:19 AM

@ NTROST

Ah, Avatar comes out in December. That's excellent. Now I have something else to look forward to other than Sherlock Holmes and The Wolf Man.

As far as your list goes, IG is the only one that's of interest to me. Public Enemies has me on the fence due to the way it looks and Mann's previous outing. Miami Vice really left a bad taste in my mouth. The rest of the movies on that list are possible renters. But I knew I missed some movies.

@ Bob S.

The trailers really do not help its cause. Anton Yelchin as Kyle is another big *** red flag. He's the only part of Star Trek that I didn't like. Really, it's going to be an embarrassment unless you expect nothing from the movie.

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on May 18 2009 06:16 AM

Saw Angels and Demons- very slick adaptation of the book, for which I give them much credit-- Especially since they shoved 'DaVinci' up their collective @ss. I'm also glad Trek is doing well. I wasn't in love with it, but it was certainly good and none of these movies can beat 'Wolverine' ENOUGH to suit me; that movie actually makes me angry, it was so pathetically bad. I actively dislike Hugh Jackman, now.

I read an article about McG and I gotta admit, I begrudgingly respect him a little more, the more I know about how hard he worked on this film. I don't have nearly as much anticipation for it as I did, even for T3, but I'm definitely going to see it.

(Reply to this)

TheCaptain of TeamLoyalty writes:
on May 18 2009 07:30 AM

I still dont understand how people can be so excited about Terminator, it has nothing going for it. The last installment was crap, the TV show was a joke, it has one of the worst directors of all time, it continues to ruin the legacy of the first two movies and effectively cause them to retconned out, it stars the biggest jackass in hollywood, etc. It just looks like a joke.

(Reply to this)

nogard46 writes:
on May 18 2009 08:50 AM

crap I've already seen Trek 3 times, I can't let that be my top fav summer movie, even though yes it was darn good, so this means I have to see Transformers Revenge of the Fallen opening June 24, probably 4-5 times!!!!

(Reply to this)

ZigBallistic writes:
on May 18 2009 08:54 AM

People are excited about Terminator because of Bale, he is like the white Will Smith, we can probably expect him to be in a blockbuster every summer now and maybe even convert to Scientology. Even if the movie is crap, it will have a decent opening weekend just because of him.

I am hoping it is not crap tho cause I am going to see it this weekend myself.

As for Star Trek, I hope it continues to do well just cause it is a great sci fi action flick and we need more good sci fi movies. I know I told everyone I have talked to about it to go and watch it.

(Reply to this)

nogard46 writes:
on May 18 2009 09:06 AM

In reply to this comment (#2483045)
that cracked me up! So is there a white Obama? Over rated, hasn't accomplished squat except being the first black prez, (well I'm not sure how that helps me or the country) and everyone in the leftist media has a shamlessly obvious and ridiculous school girl crush on and just swoon when his name is even mentioned?

(Reply to this)

BUCK69 writes:
on May 18 2009 09:13 AM

I have some intrepidation about T:S too, but I'll try to remain optimistic. Are there any reviews any where? If not, why not? Even in T:S crashes and burns, Bale has Public Enemies, which looks like it can't loose.

(Reply to this)

TheCaptain of TeamLoyalty writes:
on May 18 2009 09:22 AM

Public Enemies looks like a movie that Bale should be PROUD to be in, unlike Terminator.

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on May 18 2009 09:25 AM

In reply to this comment (#2483106)
Oh, *good*. We're finally injecting politics into this conversation. THAT will be useful. I can't wait for someone to make a reasoned, unbiased response to this.

STAY FOCUSED ON THE D@MN CONVERSATION. OBAMA DIDN'T RELEASE A MOVIE THIS WEEKEND, SO HE DOESN'T GET AIRTIME.

(Reply to this)

opTIMus Nerd writes:
on May 18 2009 10:07 AM

As a lapsed Star Trek fan I was REALLY impressed with the new Trek. I agree the villain was a little under-utilized/weak/inconsistent but he was more of a foil then an important plot point. The flick was really tight, well paced and a helluva a lot of fun to watch! It would be neat if Terminator was as enjoyable but we will just have to see at this point.

(Reply to this)

ledawg1138 writes:
on May 18 2009 10:20 AM

So, am I the only one who liked T3? Everytime it's brought up, it's never flattering. 7/10 for me, it's okay. 10/10 for the first two.

(Reply to this)

TheIceGhost writes:
on May 18 2009 10:43 AM

I liked T3... I liked Stahl as John Conner too and kinda wish he was Conner in SALVATION instead of Bale. Bale would have made a better #2 in this flick, I think, but whatever, I'll see it.

Let's see, I'm looking forward to: Salvation, UP (where's the Pixar love, kids? Don't you remember how FANTASTIC Pixar is? :) ), Brothers Bloom, maybe Drag Me to Hell (depends on reviews), Transformers, Half Blood Prince, Funny People, maybe Inglorious Bastard... Final Destination in 3D could be HILAAARIOUS...

Of course, my *most* anticipated movie coming down the tracks won't be out until October, a little creature infested romp called WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE! *fistpump*

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on May 18 2009 11:32 AM

In reply to this comment (#2482498)
David A: Avatar doesn't come out this summer, it'll be out in winter. And, how do you know Terminator Salvation will let down people looking for a decent story? Have you seen it? From everything I've heard and read it sounds like it has a very good story, with big ideas. I'm looking forward to it, don't knock a movie till you've seen it.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on May 18 2009 11:43 AM

In reply to this comment (#2482861)
Once again, here's Captain of Team Loyalty who loves to be the pot calling the kettle black. He's the one who was telling people not to bash Wolverine before it came out because they haven't seen it, and now he's doing that to Terminator. Awesome!

(Reply to this)

ledawg1138 writes:
on May 18 2009 11:48 AM

In reply to this comment (#2483232)
Don't forget "Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus"!...I'm kidding. If it's half as bad as "Transmorphers" or "Snakes on a Train", it's the worst movie of the year. (No, not "Transformers" or "Snakes on a Plane". You read correctly.)

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on May 18 2009 11:48 AM

In reply to this comment (#2483212)
I enjoyed T3 as a big dumb movie, but I can't say it was anything special, just fun. It had some big ideas, but it feels like Mostow really didn't know what to do with them. Should have been better, but, like X3, it's a movie that I can watch while I'm doing something else and need mindless background noise.

(Reply to this)

Bob S. writes:
on May 18 2009 12:05 PM

In reply to this comment (#2483115)
@BUCK69: I believe Warner Brothers has an embargo in effect on reviews, meaning that most media outlets will not release their review until a few days before the picture opens. That could mean that they're afraid of negative buzz, or it could mean that the embargo date is early this week and we'll start seeing some.

There were a couple of early reviews that surfaced on sites like Aint It Cool News from people that watched test screenings. The basic consensus was that it was a solid action movie, better than T3, but did not have the same appeal of the first two. Another reviewer remarked that the first 5 minutes and the last 5 minutes were terrible (and based on the spoilers revealed by the reviewer, I'm inclined to agree, but will wait to see it on screen to judge how well it works in the context of the story), making poor bookends to an otherwise okay movie. The novelization is apparently out already, and everyone I know that has read it says it's really, really good. Haven't picked it up myself, but my enthusiasm level has definitely gone down a bit.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on May 18 2009 12:09 PM

By the way, wasn't Star Trek made for $140 million, if so it's already made it's cost back in reciepts in just 2 weeks. That's damn good! Wolverine still has a little ways to go before it can say that. It would have made it's money back by now if it was a better made movie, but oh well. Here's hoping that Terminator Salvation is good!

(Reply to this)

Bob S. writes:
on May 18 2009 01:20 PM

Whitey, Captain of Team Loyalty is officially the Village Idiot of RT. Of course he's going to be a hypocrite and spout nonsense - that's what village idiots do.

I completely agree about T3, and while Mostow was a competent director, he seemed to renege on the premise of Cameron's T2 (there is no fate) without doing it in a particularly clever way. I think I would have had more respect for T3 if it had addressed the fate vs. no fate in a more cogent manner instead of just aping the cues from T2 with very little originality added.

STAR TREK is a tremendous hit regardless, but WOLVERINE, in spite of what Fox says, is going to be seen as a disappointment. They thought they had cause to celebrate after the OW, but it has shown terrible drops since then and now looks like it will not cross $200M domestic. The price tag I have heard is between $130-150M (probably closer to the latter number when advertising costs are considered), and it will be a profitable film for Fox, but they're going to be hurting when compared to studios like Paramount (which will have ST, TF2:ROTF, GI JOE, which could easily do over $600 million combined) and WB (which will have TERMINATOR and that little box office juggernaut called HARRY POTTER, again with $600M potential combined). Add to that the likely tepid reception that WOLVERINE will get on DVD (again, when compared to other tentpole films that people will be dying to own like TRANSFORMERS and STAR TREK), and Fox is definitely getting the short end of the stick.

(Reply to this)

TheCaptain of TeamLoyalty writes:
on May 18 2009 01:47 PM

Oh yeah i forgot the village fa.ggot Bob S has to attack Wolverine again like he does in every post. It is okay because he thinks that i am the village idiot which would make him the village retard because all i do is prove him wrong.

So Whitey if i am a hypocrite that makes you a hypocrite too. It is okay to attack Wolverine yet you cannot attack Terminator? Well lets look at the reviews so far, i guess sheep like Bob and Buck, the fa.ggot lovers of the RT community are not going to see it because it looks like it might be rotten.

P.S. What is nonsense is when a person says that the only reason why a movie has a drop of 70% is because of bad word of mouth, which is what the village retard Bob S. said.

(Reply to this)

TheCaptain of TeamLoyalty writes:
on May 18 2009 01:48 PM

And like before...YOU HAVE BEEN OWNED B.ITCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Reply to this)

TheCaptain of TeamLoyalty writes:
on May 18 2009 01:50 PM

You know what i love is when a person acts like they are this mature and serious film lover yet he is the first person to attack people and he has the most irrational hatred towards a company, Fox.

Do you see Harry Potter fans have an irrational hatred towards WB for ruining the Harry Potter films? No because we are not insane.

Like i said before, Bob S, the village fa.g is the BIGGEST HYPOCRITE OF ALL TIME.

(Reply to this)

TheCaptain of TeamLoyalty writes:
on May 18 2009 01:55 PM

P.S. Whitey, Wolverine has grossed near 300 million worldwide so it made its money back.

(Reply to this)

Bob S. writes:
on May 18 2009 02:34 PM

Well, this discussion seems to have been hijacked by the Village Idiot. He appears to be clinging to his homophobic slurs and name calling, obviously because he has nothing of substance to back what he says. I find it hilarious that he attacks people that were on his side of the argument re: WOLVERINE, showing that he really has no friends in the world and is a pathetic loner who has to go on the internet to make himself feel like he is actually superior to anyone. Apparently stating the facts is "attacking" WOLVERINE, but I expect nothing less from an idiot that doesn't understand box office take and has no idea how foreign grosses work and doesn't understand multipliers. *sigh* That there are such idiots in the world...

My guess is that he is actually a closeted homosexual and lusts for Hugh Jackman's naked scenes in WOLVERINE. Anything that anyone says against this movie drives him into furious anger. He is also terribly ashamed of his sexuality and therefore finds the need to accuse everyone else of being a "f.aggot." It's okay, dude - no one holds it against you for being gay.

(Reply to this)

NTROST writes:
on May 18 2009 02:51 PM

In reply to this comment (#2482629)
@Bob S.

Bob let me first correct you on something. One, an adequatly moderate film is a "C " not a "C". If I put a "C" then my bad but I thought I put a "C " (I'll have to check.).

Now, let me explain -- to me an adequatly moderate film doesn't mean it's not worthy (by no means). The option is still available for improvement especially if the film is a "C " by many standards that's above average score. While "The Da Vinci Code" was mediocre "C", "Angels & Demons" was adequatly moderate "C " like I said which is an improvement. Now some will say "The Da Vinci Code" didn't deserve a sequel? well, to me that's hard to say. For one, "Angels & Demons" is somewhat of a stand alone film (as well as the book) same goes for "The Da Vinci Code". The only thing that keeps them together & makes it a franchise is the character Robert Langdon which Tom Hanks has made his own & to be frank, if Hanks left & didn't do the third (which he is doing) it would have a disconnection from the other two. It's like the Bond franchise in that matter as I don't connect all the Bond films as whole but more so as individual franchises meaning like the Sean Connery's Bond franchise, Daniel Craig's Bond franchise & so forth but back to the subject. Let's be honest here, Dan Brown's novels don't transmit smoothly from book to film whether they are faithfully adapted to almost to its entirety like "The Da Vinci Code" or they are adapted moderately like "Angels & Demons". I think they just need to find the right mixture & they will be able to do that with "The Lost Symbol". Let me give you my consensus on "The Da Vinci Code":

Director Ron Howard brings the adaption of Dan Brown's best-selling novel to the silver screen with a first-rate and eminent cast but evidently it brought a mix bag of results. The film is a controversial and even heretical and theological religious detective story that is involving, suspenseful, intriguing, engrossing and has some startling revelations and some occasional thrills as the book but Ron Howard%u2019s faithful adaption of Dan Brown%u2019s best-selling novel somehow also comes off as tedious, dreary, bloated, overlong and underwhelming in the experience. The film doesn't seem to have transmitted the total pulp absorbing jigsaw enigmatic excitement that the author's storytelling generated in the novel. This is a mediocre film that is an acceptable simulacrum of the novel that that runs its faithful conventional motional structure but that transpires us with mixed results as it comes to its execution of the scriptural configuration and its pacing. Maybe if Ron Howard did some transmogrifications in his course of his usual narrative obstructions, we could have had different results with something more of a phenomenal cryptic revelation thriller then just a faithful intrigue of some occasional thrills of a compelling but also underwhelming proclamation.

Now if you read my consensus? Director Ron Howard did configure is course of his usual narrative obstructions with "Angels & Demons". Howard took out the greater portions of dreary, bloated & underwhelming aspects from "Angels & Demons" which were three of the negative aspects from "The Da Vinci Code". While you do have your tedious moments in "Angels & Demons" (especially the first 20 minutes) & as well, it is a bit prolonged...it's an admirable amelioration or reformation from it's predecessor as is the scriptural structure & pacing in this follow-up. Personally, I think it is worthy of another follow-up especially that the "franchise" has fairly improved upon it's first take and of course, if the main parts such as Tom Hanks (especially) & Ron Howard stay on board then why not.

(Reply to this)

NTROST writes:
on May 18 2009 02:53 PM

correction: I meant "C plus" for adequatly moderate

I guess the plus symbol doesn't work on these boards. Odd!

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on May 18 2009 03:55 PM

In reply to this comment (#2483572)
Actually, Captain, once again you twist words to try to make a point while not looking at all the facts. I never attacked Wolverine prior to it's release, and I have stated after that while I like it I do not think it is a good film. So that does not make me a hypocrite, it makes me someone who comments on what I have seen. Pay attention! You, on the other hand, are attacking T:S prior to it's release while you were telling others not to attack Wolverine because they hadn't seen the finished product yet. That makes you a hypocrite.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on May 18 2009 04:01 PM

In reply to this comment (#2483632)
Oh yeah, Bob S., I thought I heard Wolverine was made for $160 mil before marketting and all that. I could be wrong though.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on May 18 2009 04:05 PM

In reply to this comment (#2483585)
P.S.-Captain, I'm not looking at worldwide grosses because of the amount of money that goes into producing the film for international markets (dubbing everything which requires voice actors, new scripts, changes in the whole marketting campaign, etc) as well as the fact that that's typically handled by a different distributor than here in the states.

(Reply to this)

TheCaptain of TeamLoyalty writes:
on May 18 2009 04:14 PM

See whitey that is all i wanted was why you left out the worldwide box office. But of course the hypocrite, the village fa.ggot who does not understand what he is talking about had to run his anti-fox hate filled mouth to be proven wrong once again.

I was saying that i did not understand why people are excited for the movie, i did not say that it is CRAP, i said that in my opinion it has nothing going for it.

P.S. Stating facts is like saying that Wolverine has made back its budget, not stating facts but opinions is saying that Wolverine is going to be a disappointment.

P.P.S. NTROST, you do not have to defend yourself to the village fa.ggot, he has no understanding of movies and will attack your taste in movies if you do not agree with him.

(Reply to this)

Bob S. writes:
on May 18 2009 06:23 PM

@NTROST:
Well that makes a little more sense; I'll admit that I was confused when all I could see was the C and not the C plus. I figured you'd have an educated opinion that you could coherently express, and I appreciate your insights. Are you new here? It's nice to have you, if so, and welcome. As for TheCaptain of TeamLoyalty, what can be said? I hope you didnt think that I was attacking you and that you had to "defend" yourself - like I said, I just wanted some clarification as to why you felt like an adequate movie should have a sequel. You've made that clear, and thanks for doing so. TheCap is juvenile, makes incoherent posts, attacks anyone that disagrees with him with name calling, and uses homophobic slurs with abandon (as you can see for yourself). As for his taste in film, he loves WOLVERINE, FANTASTIC FOUR, and thinks MARLEY AND ME is a "great" movie, while he thinks THE DARK KNIGHT was crap and hates people for liking it. I reserve the word "great" for movies like THE GODFATHER, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, SCHINDLER'S LIST, THE SEVEN SAMURAI, NORTH BY NORTHWEST, and so on. You're free to assume what you will about my understanding of movies, box office, and so on, but I'll let my posts speak for themselves. For what it's worth, I have no problem with people disagreeing with my opinion, and appreciate intelligent, back-and-forth discussion of a film's merits and shortcomings. I've had a lot of good discussions with people here, and even when I've disagreed with the civil ones, I think we've both come away with a greater understanding and appreciation for the other's viewpoint. That sort of thing is impossible with TheCaptain, unfortunately. But his posts speak for themselves as well.

@Whitey: I looked into it a bit further - it looks like it was $150 million before marketing. Either way, the studio gets to keep only 55% of the ticket grosses during the first few weeks (theater gets 45%), and in progressive weeks, the studio gets less and less of a share of the gross. Estimates on how much the studio gets from foreign grosses varies, but I've heard figures as low as 15%. Previously, studios would do rolling releases, releasing a movie first in the US, and if it was a hit, bargaining for the best possible opening date in a foreign territory, and repeating the process in subsequent territories. Movies used to have 8-month runs over the course of the initial release and until the final closing, but with the increase in piracy, studios now go for a day and date release worldwide in a lot of cases, or at least pack them closely together. Although worldwide grosses are up, the actual portion that gets to the studio nowadays is pretty diluted. That means that WOLVERINE will recoup its budget, but the NET PROFIT for the studio - after all the expenses are paid - will leave them with a relatively paltry sum, and definitely less than they were expecting.

(Reply to this)

ColinTheCimmerian writes:
on May 18 2009 07:05 PM

ledawg, I liked T3 well enough. Not in the same league as Cameron's films, but a good movie in its own right. I thought it had some really good action scenes, some of which were quite innovative too. And while I'll agree that it contradicted some of the ideas of T2, I've always felt T2 largely contradicted the ideas of T1, so I let that slide. I actually liked the way in which it found a way to continue the franchise without completely messing things up. Plus it was just awesome to see Schwarzenegger as the terminator again, which arguably was the entire point of the movie. My major problems with it were the casting of Nick Stahl (nothing against him personally, but I really didn't like him in the role), and the really tasteless comic relief. I'm not entirely opposed to the presence of humour in the Terminator movies (Cameron himself tried to inject some at times in both movies, and I thought he was successful in doing so), but the pink starry sunglasses and 'talk to the hand' bit, among others, weren't GOOD comic relief; they were just dumb and distracting.

Regarding T4, I'm still cautiously optimistic. I've never had much faith in McG at any time, no matter what he's said, but the involvement of Bale, Worthingon, Howard, Nolan, Winston, and others did encourage me, as did some of the early footage. I haven't watched any of the more recent extended clips and trailers and whatnot out of fear of spoilers, so I won't comment on those, but a major red flag went up when I read about McG's ideas for the sequel, which were, in my opinion, absolutely atrocious, and really made me worry about what kind of ideas he's managed to shove into Salvation. The current tomatometer rating of 14% after 7 reviews doesn't make me feel any better about it, but we'll see later this week.

Regarding Angels & Demons, I'm glad to see it in first place for the weekend; it wasn't a great movie, but it was good, and was definitely an improvement on DaVinci Code. It was well crafted, though Hanks was wasted; the role he plays doesn't ask for much and Hanks has much to give. I did like the supporting cast, most notably McGregor, Skarsgard and Mueller-Stahl were all effective. I actually felt like it improved on the book in some ways, mainly by removing or toning down some of the more preposterous action-hero scenes Langdon was involved with in the book. The character actually behaves a bit more like a typical academic in the movie.

Also nice to see Star Trek showing good legs. It was a very good movie and deserves to be successful. Likewise, I thought Wolverine was a massive missed opportunity and am glad to see it experiencing a relatively disappointing run. With any luck we'll see a Star Trek sequel and Fox will abandon their X-men franchise and let Marvel take over.

(Reply to this)

Bob S. writes:
on May 18 2009 07:24 PM

In reply to this comment (#2484333)
@ColintheCimmerian: You're right that TERMINATOR 3 had its redeeming moments, and there's no question in my mind that playing the Terminator is the role that Schwarzenegger was born for. He plays a robot oh-so-convincingly. Your observations about the comic relief (good and bad) are spot on. I do think Mostow is a good action director and handled the action scenes very well, but I think the script sold short some of his innovations; replacing the semi truck with the crane, for example, is virtually pantomiming the predecessor. Stahl also didn't seem like a logical continuation of Eddie Furlong's portrayal.

I can't fault you for not watching those T4 clips for fear of spoilers, but I watched them because I wanted to get a feel for what McG was doing. I can't say I have any degree of trust in him at all, and unfortunately, those clips really dragged my hopes down. While we're on the topic of contradicting what comes before, McG's idea that the machines figure out how to send machines back in time (sans flesh) is quite possibly the worst. I really, really hope that doesn't come to fruition.

Also really glad that TREK is getting the box office it deserves (or even getting slightly short-changed). Can't thank Abrams enough for rebooting an otherwise dead franchise so successfully and with such wide appeal.

(Reply to this)

TheCaptain of TeamLoyalty writes:
on May 18 2009 07:40 PM

colin do you actually think think that Marvel is going to get back the rights to Xmen? I think it is going to be a LONG time before that ever happens.

(Reply to this)

ColinTheCimmerian writes:
on May 18 2009 09:16 PM

@Bob S: Regarding Trek, I'm actually one of the people who really thought the reboot was a bad idea initially, and I would have liked to see the Next Generation movie series continue, despite the overall mediocrity of the existing entries. And although I'm still sad to see the TNG film franchise now undeniably ended, I have to admit Abrams did do an excellent job. I don't necessarily think a reboot was required, but if they had to do it, at least it was done right. And from a business standpoint, it was undeniably a good idea by Paramount.

@Captain: I do agree with you, if Marvel ever gets the rights back, it won't be for a very very long time. I didn't really intend to suggest it was going to happen soon; my statement was really just an expression of wishful thinking. I actually loved (for the most part, it was never going to be perfect) Fox's first two X-men films, and I had high hopes for the third until Singer left. But since then I definitely think their franchise has taken a turn for the worst. I know you at least somewhat like Wolverine, and I can respect that, but it really did disappoint me greatly, as did X3, so the sooner Fox lets the series go, the happier I'll be. I am very passionate about the property. But realistically, yeah, it's not happening for a long time. I do think Fox will be disappointed with Wolverine's performance, and I do think the series will continue to decline in terms of revenue, but no doubt it's still profitable, and with Fox hurting for tentpole-type franchises right now, they can't afford to let anything even remotely profitable go.

(Reply to this)

TheCaptain of TeamLoyalty writes:
on May 18 2009 09:20 PM

didnt fox do night at the museum 2? I can see kids wanting to see that

(Reply to this)

Bob S. writes:
on May 19 2009 12:02 AM

In reply to this comment (#2484664)
@ColinTheCimmerian:
I wasn't even remotely excited about it until I saw the first trailer (not the teaser), and the second trailer was what got me to stratospheric excitement (that music, Two Steps from Hell - "Freedom Fighters," was awesome). I gave up hope of the TNG cast getting another movie after NEMESIS, which had such a finality to it. It was a shame, because I really liked the TNG cast and they had their best effort, IMO, in their first solo movie (FIRST CONTACT).

I've been hoping Marvel would get the rights to X-Men back ever since Ratner directed that travesty X3. Fox's current state makes them want to create as many spinoffs as possible, regardless of quality, so that they can retain the rights, which they'll milk as long as they possibly can. They're also revisiting their old library of films, with anticipated remakes/reboots of the Predator films (under Robert Rodriguez - bleh) and the Aliens franchise. More classics to pillage, I guess...

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on May 19 2009 06:40 AM

In reply to this comment (#2484785)
'been following (most of) your discussion with Colin, here, and I thought you guys were covering some pretty esoteric ground for this website--with the amusing, staccato 'punctuation' by CapToiletry. My complements.
I wanted to comment on what I've decided has been nagging me about T3, which you hit on; Nick Stahl's John Connor. NOT charismatic, NOT commanding. Kind of whiney, actually. I hate to admit it, but even visually; they did a 'future shot' where they show the grizzled, 'older' Stahl as the John Connor he is destined to become, and I honestly suppressed laughter-- he looked about as hardcore as a cabbage-patch kid.
Re: Angels and Demons-
I enjoyed the book, though I allow that since I read it on vacation (in Aruba with the girlfriend) I was feeling pretty *charitable*. I also really enjoyed the movie because I thought the screen writer did an excellent job of paring down a lot of things (I think) you mentioned that were redundant or tedious. >>>BOOK SPOILER

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on May 19 2009 10:24 AM

wow. Way to cut off my post, RT. Note to self and all others: don't use the 'less than' sign.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on May 19 2009 10:33 AM

In reply to this comment (#2484785)
Bob S.: What's wrong with Robert Rodriguez? I can't think of a single "adult" film of his that I haven't liked. (I haven't watched any of his kid films, or the teen "horror" The Faculty.) I even place Sin City in my top 10 favorite movies. I think he could do a good job with Predator.

Btw, thanks for explaining BO break down for me. I don't generally pay too much attention to how that's broken down, I always prefer to get in the mind of the directors and writers rather than digging into the financial aspect of things.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on May 19 2009 10:36 AM

In reply to this comment (#2485134)
I have to kind of agree with you there Tombstonelawdog, which kills me because I do like Nick Stahl (especially after his turn in Carnivale), unfortunately he was completely wrong for the part of John Connor.

(Reply to this)

Bob S. writes:
on May 19 2009 02:58 PM

@TombstoneLawDog: My main problem with T3 (timeline alteration aside) is that it's ultimately quite forgettable. The first two movies in the franchise are indelibly imprinted on me, while I have only vague recollections of the third movie. I can sort of imagine how the story came together. "How can we up the T-1000? Well, let's make it a female! And, uh, she can control machines! Now, we've got a truck chase scene, a scene where Arnold has all sorts of guns and shoots up cops, chase on the streets in TERMINATOR 2...let's just rehash that for this one! Can't miss!" I should point out that while I hated Nick Stahl's portrayal of John Connor (I'll take raspy-voice Bale over that any day), that's not to say he's a bad actor. I thought he was great as the Yellow B@stard in SIN CITY, which brings me full circle to...

@Whitey: Yeah, I hated THE FACULTY. But I also didn't really care much for EL MARIACHI, DESPERADO (except the infamous Salma Hayek scene, of course), FROM DUSK TILL DAWN (generally not a fan of that sort of cinema), SPY KIDS 2/3D (the first one is not cringe-worthy, though not the greatest family movie either), THE ADVENTURES OF SHARKBOY AND LAVAGIRL, or PLANET TERROR. Taking a look at that body of work - not just his adult fare - I can't say that I am a fan of his work. SIN CITY is the only one of his movies that I really like (though I don't hold it in the esteem that you do). It was slick, stylish, had some great stories (and really, the style and story credits go to Frank Miller moreso than Rodriguez), and was a really fun time at the movies. Rodriguez's treatment for PREDATORS took the Dutch character and put him on a planet of predators, which to me completely misses what was so great about the original movie (the less said about PREDATOR 2 the better). I think he plans on heading in that direction again, and if so, he's venturing too close to AVP territory for my liking.

About the box office stuff, I'm a movie nut, what can I say? I love all aspects of movies, and I read BoxOfficeMojo, TheNumbers, BoxOfficeProphets, and BoxOfficeGuru with some regularity, as well as all the other major movie sites :). I am also a CGI nut :P.

PS - Tombstone, man I feel your pain. As much as I love RT, I have so many problems with the site loading and posting in general...lots of "Request Timeout," "Bad Request," and sometimes the pages load with a white background and none of the graphics visible.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on May 19 2009 03:55 PM

In reply to this comment (#2485953)
See I actually loved Desperado, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, Planet Terror (I seem to be one of the few here who loved the whole Grindhouse experience), and From Dusk Till Dawn (which really owes more to Tarantino than Rodriguez since it was Tarantino's script and Rodriguez was trying to "channel" Tarantino for the direction). Another reason I love Rodriguez is his loyalty (he quit the DGA to give Miller a director's credit) and his hands on approach (writing his own scores, editing everything, using his house for his studio, sound mixing, etc.), and that he favors practical effects over CGI (which seems to have become a crutch as of late causing a lot of filmmakers to become lazy in my opinion). I respect him as a full on auteur, and I have fun at every one of his movies even if they don't have the depth I enjoy from a lot of other films. I trust what he could do with the Predator franchise.

Yeah, I'm not big on anything financial. I know enough to tell me if a movie I like is doing really good or not, but I don't really care about the breakdown. I'm a storyteller, so that's all I really pay attention to.

(Reply to this)

Bob S. writes:
on May 19 2009 04:56 PM

In reply to this comment (#2486066)
There is a lot to appreciate about Rodriguez, but I find the micromanagement he does more of an egomaniac move than a true auteur move. Sure he writes his own scores, but is he *really* the best person to do it? I don't care that he wrote his own score for a movie. I care if it's good or not, and it would almost assuredly be better if a truly talented composer wrote it. Troublemaker Studios, to me, is more of an ego-driven thing than it is a revolutionary approach to cinema, but Rodriguez is, and has been, pretty driven at painting it as the latter rather than the former. His loyalty to Miller is admirable, but then again, he owed most of SIN CITY to Miller in the first place.

(Reply to this)

Bob S. writes:
on May 19 2009 05:33 PM

Oh, and I love practical effects. I don't think CGI is at a level where it can, in many cases, be considered 100% real to the naked eye, and it does get so overused in places where it doesn't need to be. In the future, we'll have convincing CG and it will be cheap enough that it will pervade effects moreso than it does today, especially burgeoning technologies such as motion capture. I really can't wait for AVATAR, because everyone that has seen clips of that has been blown away, and seeing little snippets of it was enough to convince Peter Jackson and Steven Spielberg that their TINTIN movies would have to be done that way.

(Reply to this)

TheCaptain of TeamLoyalty writes:
on May 19 2009 06:50 PM

After finally seeing Angels and Demons it sucks that they kept hinting at Da Vinci Code even though Angels took place before Da Vinci Code

(Reply to this)

ColinTheCimmerian writes:
on May 19 2009 08:40 PM

In reply to this comment (#2485134)
tombstone, I felt the exact same way when I saw the scene with Stahl as 'future John'. He isn't a bad actor, he was just horribly miscast, and just couldn't nail down the character right at all. Now that I think about it more, I think that was the major downfall of T3: an underwhelming and unimpressive John Connor, no Sarah Connor at all, the pretty much useless Kate Brewster character, and a Terminator; in short, a total lack of strong protagonists. I thought the terminator in T2 made a great protagonist, it saw a lot of character development as the movie progressed. The T2 terminator almost did seem human at times, and by the end it becomes quite the heroic character, whereas I feel like the terminator in T3 never really evolved beyond simply being a machine that had been reprogrammed. There certainly wasn't the same chemistry between John and the machine, and as a result it was difficult to become attached in any way to either of them.

(Reply to this)

ColinTheCimmerian writes:
on May 19 2009 08:48 PM

In reply to this comment (#2486363)
Yeah that kind of irked me too, but I figure it just made more sense for the writers to tweak the timeline a bit to make Angels come second chronologically in the movies, rather than risk confusing audiences by trying to explain why they made the second book first and the first book second. The order in which the two stories occur has so little bearing on the plots, it was logical to just take the easy way out.

(Reply to this)

TheCaptain of TeamLoyalty writes:
on May 20 2009 08:39 AM

But they kinda do, would their be that many catholics after the events of the da vinci code? Probably not

(Reply to this)

erik c. writes:
on May 22 2009 04:36 AM

In reply to this comment (#2482281)
thats what you think.
Terminator Salvation ( and im an old school Term fan) has already gotten too much bad word of mouth.
its really not a good film. expect a good opening weekend, but once word of mouth spreads this thing will drop like a stone. youll see.
its a damn safe bet that star trek will end up being the best film of the summer until the bland Harry potter 6 releases.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Angels & Demons

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links