This is topic Your choice of five films this year. in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=001114

---

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 04-14-2004, 02:55 AM:
 
Well, this is not about guessing the range of grosses for any particular film. Nor is this about agreeing with any estimate for a film.

The theatrical grosses just last year breached the 9 billion mark and it remains to see how this year fares – whether 2004 will establish a lead over 2003 in terms of total grosses considering that there is an increase in the number of films releasing this year and also that there is much increase in the average price of admission this year.

So, let us gauge what expectations exhibitors in these forums have for what lies ahead – please state

a) Your choice of five films that will release between this day and Dec.31,2004 that

b) will individually gross not less than 150 Million and

c) the combined grosses for the five films you so list shall not be less than 1 billion

d) no need to predict grosses for each film you list – just that you prepare a list means you predict no more than b) and c) together. You may always go ahead and state your estimates individually for each film you list

e) exclude all films that are currently in limited release but are scheduled to or could widen later

f) no requirement that whether for b) or c) above, the gross for one or more films you list should accrue not beyond 2004

g) exclude all films that have no tentative release dates specified though the month of release could be closely expected – like for AVIATOR whose release date is not known though Nov,2004 is expected to be it.

Here is my list (in no particular order of expected individual gross taking) :

a) Troy

b) Spider-Man 2

c) The Village

d) Alexander

e) The Polar Express

You see, if you were hesitant to participate in earlier discussions on grosses, you may wish to note there is greater flexibility here. Many people could give their lists and several among them could be right. After all, I think it is not very important that one be very right – it is important, however, not to care whether you could be right.
 

---

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 04-14-2004, 09:40 AM:
 
No disrespect here, but I learned a long time ago that what I often thought would be a great release fell flat on it's face, and vice versa.

I've come to believe that maybe the old method of throwing darts works best.

Pass on this one and leave it to others with a crystal ball that is not as cloudy as mine.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-14-2004, 12:47 PM:
 
When I get time, I'll post a list of five randomly selected movies. Then at the end of the year, I'll edit the list to reflect the top five moneymakers in order, and I'll look like a frickin' genius!

But before I do that, I'll go out on a limb and say that any such list that doesn't include the upcoming Harry Potter and Shrek movies is uhh, probably not going to be very accurate.

[ 04-15-2004, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Mike Blakesley ]
 

---

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 04-15-2004, 02:39 AM:
 
The flexibility I speak of is precisely this – you do not have to merely go with what everybody else thinks will do well. For you are not asked to list the biggest five earners of the year. You may list 5 films that, when the year closes, may even become the five that have no place in the top 5 films of the year. Individually, each film that you list will need to gross not less than 150 million. That means, if one film in your list earns a lot while the rest merely cross 150 million each, you could see you have guessed it all right.

REMEMBER AGAIN – YOU ARE NOT TO STATE THE FIVE BIGGEST EARNERS OF THE YEAR HENCE.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-15-2004, 01:22 PM:
 
I agree with John that it is pretty tough to pick the winners. I've watched Premiere Magazine do it with their Summer Movie issue and seen lots of their bit hit predictions turn up dead wrong.

I don't have a current issue of Box Office Magazine laying around so I cannot see what the entire release schedule looks like for the rest of the year. But here are five films I think may do pretty well.

1. "The Incredibles" Pixar/Disney - November
Pixar is pretty dependable on creating great movies and I've been looking forward to this film ever since seeing the teaser last year (on "Finding Nemo"). I'm not sure I want to go out on a limb and predict this one will be the year's box office champ. And that's only because I don't want to jinx it.

2. "Spiderman 2" Sony - June
This has the potential of being better (a lot better hopefully) than the first one. The trailer certainly makes it look promising.

3. "Harry Potter & The Prisoner of Azkaban" WB - June
No brainer. This one has a huge built-in market.

4. "Shrek 2" Dreamworks/PDI - May
This sequel will really have to suck badly to not cross the $150 million mark.

5. "Troy" WB - May
I'm pretty sure this movie will at least make $150 million. Wolfgang Petersen is an excellent filmmaker and this show has a formidable cast. The only obstacle really is how well Petersen and screenwriter David Benioff will adapt the Homer epic to the screen.

-------

This could be one possibly for a different thread. But does anyone reading this have any suspicions on what will be box office duds in 2004? Here a few of my hunches.

"The Day After Tomorrow"
Sure, there will be some great visuals. But I have a nasty feeling the show is going to suck anyway.

"I, Robot"
I really want this movie to be great especially since Alex Proyas ("Dark City" and "The Crow") directed it. But the trailer has me thinking it will just suck ass instead. Issac Asimov's classic science fiction story should not be window dressing for a Will Smith comedy star vehicle.

"Alien versus Predator"
The whole thing sounds pretty stupid. I predict fans will just prefer to stick to playing the videogame.

"Garfield"
Something is just lost in translation with making Garfield a 3D cgi character with realistic fur. I don't buy it. Not sure other customers will either.

"King Arthur"
Just a guess. Who knows? It could be a great flick. Antoine Fuqua did a great job with "Training Day" but there's a chance he may be well out of his element directing a medieval big budget picture largely cast with not very well known European actors.
 

---

Posted by Kyle McEachern (Member # 2250) on 04-15-2004, 01:44 PM:
 
If Alien vs. Predator flops, I can only see it happening as a result of incomprehensibly bad filmmaking. Every time I'm talking to people about upcoming movies, one of them invariably mentions AvP, and at least one other person makes a comment like 'I've been waiting for this movie for 10 years'...even if it's a horrific and terrible excuse for a movie, it's going to have major first and second week pulls, simply because nearly everybody I know between the ages of 18 and 28 has been waiting for it since the first AvP videogame came out.

Plus, I don't think any of them really expect a great film...they just want to see the two beat each other up for 90 minutes, which is what I'm sure they'll get.

King Arthur is a toss-up for me, but bringing in Keira Knightley to play Guinevere was a smart move, because she's become incredibly popular since Bend it Like Beckham and Pirates of the Caribbean. The trailers have, thus far, been promising, but I agree that Antoine Fuqua might be in over his head. If people see the trailer as just a fantasy-ish movie, it probably won't work out, but adding in the major battle scenes should give it some draw if it's marketed right, and from then it's up to word of mouth.

Day After Tomorrow, I, Robot, and Garfield I agree with you though. Those all made me cringe while watching the trailer.
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 04-15-2004, 02:00 PM:
 
I am not going to do the rest of the year picks but here is what I think will be the possable summer hits. Not taking any bets on it though.

1, Spiderman 2
2, Harry Potter 3
3, Shrek 2
4, I, Robot
5, The Day After Tomorrow
6, The Bourne Supremecy
7, The Stepford Wives
8, Garfield
9, Van Helsing
10, Troy

The Following I think have the potential to do over $150 million but probably will do less.

1, Sky Captain
2, Around the world in 80 Days
3, King Arthur
4, The Village
5, Alien Vs. Predator
6, The Manchurian Candidate
7, Chronicles of Riddick
8, Anchorman
9, Raising Helen
10, The Princess Diaries 2

The following will probably flop or not make it over or close to $150 Million.

1, Soul Plane
2, Mindhunters
3, Dodgeball
4, Thunderbirds
5, The Exorcist: the Beginning

The following may be sleepers.
1, The Notebook
2, Two Brothers
3, A Cinderella Story

The Following is just one big huge question mark.
Catwoman
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 04-15-2004, 02:08 PM:
 
I think Darryls top 5 is right on the money. I think Chronicles of Riddick should be in top 10 instead of Stepford Wives. But thats just me. But unlike Darryl, I'll bet on it. I bet Brad a Film-Tech shirt that these are right. The top 5 that is. If I lose, he can have my old Cinemark neon bowtie.
 

---

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 04-15-2004, 03:46 PM:
 
I, Robot is apparently not even true to the book. It takes the rules from the book and the title. Everything else is new material.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-15-2004, 05:32 PM:
 

quote:

---

If Alien vs. Predator flops, I can only see it happening as a result of incomprehensibly bad filmmaking.

---

"Alien3" and "Alien Ressurection" both featured tons and tons of bad filmmaking. And that's in spite of both installments having pretty inventive directors. "Alien3" was one of the most poorly paced movies I think I've ever seen, and David Fincher has spent the better part of a decade trying to live down that one and rebuild his reputation with movies like "Seven," "The Game" and "Fight Club." French Director, Jean-Pierre Jeunet made the strange and original "Cité des Enfants Perdus/City of Lost Children" (along with "Delicatessen"). But "Alien Ressurection" just had some outright embarassingly bad moments in it. The show was even worse than "Alien3".

I chalk up this bad tradition on the "Alien" series to creative meddling from both the studio brass and stars. They hire an inventive director only to tie his hands on the project. Those guys probably say, "make our stupid, shitty ideas come out good, director-for-hire-guy."

With those conditions set, I expect "Alien Vs. Predator" to be pretty much a dud. It might grab a younger adult audience for a week or two, but I strongly doubt it will cross the $100 million mark or even come close to it.
 

---

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 04-15-2004, 07:26 PM:
 
I'd like to see 'um all do 100 million. Then they could send ALL of us to Show West next year.
 

---

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 04-29-2004, 02:19 AM:
 
My prediction for B.O. disappointments this year.

1. The Day After Tomorrow

2. Alien V Predator

3. King Arthur

4. Harry Potter And The Prisoner of Azbakan

5. Shrek 2

6. Garfield

7. I,Robot

8. Skycaptain And The World of Tomorrow

9. Around the World in 80 days

10.Van Helsing.

I mean, most of these films will have to struggle to make it past 100 million. Most will not make it at all. The few which do will be very glad to have breached that mark and will give up quickly after that.

1. The Day After Tomorrow.
This movie looks like it will do more business outside the US and the Canada. Releasing in a record number of countries on the same day as the US, it is being heavily promoted in many parts of Asia and what could hurt this film's business in the US could be its weak scientific base. I dont predict record business even for Asia. While the special effects are somewhat dazzling, they dont seem to be occuring in a realistic context at all - not even in a make believe way. Roland Emmerich will need another film to prove he is a successful director or that he once was. And Fox will need a different film to break their B.O. drought.

2. Alien V Predator.
Not even very young children seem to be able to take this joke of a movie seriously. This one will seriously challenge The Alamo and will, most likely, beat it to the billing for the 'biggest mistake of 2004 or beyond'.

3. King Arthur.
This film seems like it is one more addition to the slate of period films hitting the screens this summer. Looks like a excellent recyling of great sequences from successful films, I guess few people will see any need to watch this hotpotch. The director of 'Training Day' making this 'period' film appears like a bad orientation or turn. I mean, what is the connection between 'Training Day' and 'King Arthur' ? And the 'Jerry Bruckheimer' tag will probably do no good to this film - except perhaps a wide release. And a quick recall from theatres after that.

4. Harry Potter And the Prisoner of Azbakan.
There was a significant dip for Part 2 in relation to Part 1. I think Part 3 will preserve and hasten this tradition. There is no safe formula really these days - however, people at Warner Bros. seem to seriously believe they will always have one.Like everyone else before them, they too will be woken up from this fantasy they carefully nourish. Also this Summer, Kids dont have to try hard to stay away from this film. There are plenty other films for them and time will tell this.

5. Shrek 2
Did Shrek 1 leave that room for a sequel ? I guess not. I think the characters created with this film are not enduring really. To force that endurance is going to spoil the fun and I think this is precisely the fate that awaits this sequel. Will disappoint.

6. Garfield.
Could this be the film you never need see ?
Probably yes. A bad idea and a movie, whose time once came and is now all gone. Will terribly disappoint. And Paramount Pictures will realise this mostly before it becomes all too obvious to them.

7. I, Robot.
Promotions are good in that the trailers tell you everything about this film. And the trailers tell you clearly that this is a bad film. Nobody will buy this idea of a 'killer Robot' for a comedy film. There is no exotic element here unlike the 'Men in Black' series. And the special effects are hardly inviting. But of all things, why did they present in the trailers, the scene of a Robot winking its eye mischievously ?

8. Skycaptain and the World of Tomorrow.
Now, what is this film about ? I did not understand anything from the trailers and the trailers show this film is just an excuse/pretext to spend some dollars on a FX project.

9. Around the world in 80 days.
Jackie Chan, you are getting older and every new stunt of yours, people in the western world are forced to view with the kind of concern they would apply for viewing an elderly person's adventures and in doing so, all spontaniety is lost in how you are seen. This factor will hurt this film.

10. Van Helsing.
A sheer nonsense. These kind films have always been. Only that few films really preserved the deceitful tradition of making you feel there is something really in such films. Van Helsing will not be one of them. In fact, if people are waiting for the realisation that they have been watching trash all along and expecting more of it, this film could just be the flick that will deliver this sacred realiastion to the masses.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 04-29-2004, 06:42 AM:
 

quote: Kamakshipalya Dhananjay

---

B.O. disappointments this year.

---

1. The Day After Tomorrow--WRONG.

4. Harry Potter And The Prisoner of Azbakan--WRONG.

5. Shrek 2--DEFINITELY WRONG.

7. I,Robot--WRONG.

10.Van Helsing.--MAYBE, BUT MOST LIKELY WRONG.


 

---

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 04-29-2004, 08:27 AM:
 

quote: Kamakshipalya Dhananjay

---

Nobody will buy this idea of a 'killer Robot' for a comedy film

---

quote:

---

Van Helsing
How Allen Daviau, ASC Created a Fantasy Look
Get ready for a breathtaking journey to the past. The year is 1898, and Dr. Abraham Van Helsing is in Transylvania in Eastern Europe, determined to find and defeat Count Dracula. It’s not an uncommon theme.

More than 200 motion pictures in almost a dozen languages have featured Dracula in their titles during the relatively short history of film. Many other movies have focused on Frankenstein, Wolf Man and Hyde. All of those scary fictional characters, their minions and adversaries have roles in Van Helsing.

“My first impressions when I read the script were that it’s a homage to the Universal Studios horror films of the 1960s, and a huge opportunity to entertain and involve the audience in a compelling adventure,” says Allen Daviau, ASC.

His connection to Van Helsing began with a phone call from executive producer Sam Mercer. They had met when Daviau lensed Congo in 1995. Van Helsing was a different type of story for the cinematographer who has earned Oscar nominations for E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, The Color Purple, Empire of the Sun, Avalon and Bugsy, in addition to rendering images for such memorable films as The Falcon and the Snowman and Fearless.

Mercer outlined the story and asked Daviau if he was interested in reading the script and meeting with the film’s director Stephen Sommers. Daviau explains that he was a childhood fan of the genre. He saw most of Universal’s 1960s monster films more than once, and can still recite the stories, describe the moods, and comment on the “tremendous” performances.

He met Sommers and producer Bob Ducsay on the same day. Sommers has written and directed such thrillers as The Scorpion King, The Mummy and The Mummy Returns. Ducsay edited three of the director’s previous films.

Kidding with the genre
In the early Dracula movies, Van Helsing was an older, professorial scientist who was determined to bring Dracula down. In Sommers’ screenplay, Van Helsing is a younger man hired by the Vatican. He is accompanied by a monk who is a scientific whiz. Van Helsing meets Dr. Frankenstein, his hapless servant Igor and the monster they created. He also confronts the Wolf Man, and battles with Hyde in the belfry and on the street in front of the church at Notre Dame. Anna Valerious is also at the hub of the story. Her family spawned Dracula 400 years ago, and none of them can pass through the gates of heaven while the vampire is alive and claiming victims. Dracula and three of the vampire’s beautiful brides come onto the scene a little later.

“There’s a joy in Steve’s writing,” Daviau says. “He doesn’t mind kidding with the genre, but there is also tremendous depth in the characters. They are people you can understand and that helps to sweep the audience into the story.”

During pre-production they viewed a number of the older Dracula, Frankenstein, etc. films, including some of the more obscure ones that Daviau had never seen before. He also referenced his own laser disk collection and found inspiration in the original Dracula, photographed by Karl Freund in 1931.

They made an early decision to be true to the story and the mood. They decided the script called for an almost monochrome look with night and interior lighting mainly motivated by torches, oil lamps and sometimes colder, blue moonlight. There are occasional splashes of color in scenes like a costume ball for vampires.

“Allan Cameron (production designer) and I suggested composing Van Helsing in Academy widescreen ratio 1.85:1 with faster spherical lenses,” Daviau says. “It’s a homage to 1930s movies with vertical castles and towers. There are also scenes with people flying. Vertical space gave us more freedom to tell the story. We shot a few tests, showed them to Stephen (Sommers) and he agreed.”

During Daviau’s first meeting with Ducsay, they discussed the possibility of finishing the film in a digital intermediate process, which would enable the cinematographer to put final painterly touches on an almost monotone look. He shot a test that was scanned and converted to digital files at EFILM in Los Angeles. Daviau timed the film, and experimented with the look in collaboration with digital intermediate colorist Steven Scott.

Additional testing was done in conjunction with Industrial Light & Magic Co., which ultimately provided many visual effects shots, including wire removal and seamless compositing of blue screen elements with the flying vampire’s brides.

Torchlight
“Kodak introduced the VISION2 (500T 5218) film while we were in pre-production,” Daviau says. “I shot a test, and decided it had the right characteristics for a digital intermediate process, including an extended contrast range and minimal grain.”

They scouted locations in Prague and found architecture, including castles, high walls, streets and interior settings in an old cathedral that were right for the look and mood of the film. While scouting, Daviau realized how important having the right torchlight was going to be in very large interiors. His gaffer, Larry Wallace, took charge of that situation by assembling some experts who helped design a torchlight with a dimmer control and built-in flicker circuit. They used standard light bulbs that were dipped in orange dye that acted like a CTO filter.

The torchlight was designed to operate with the 220 volt, 50 cycles electrical system used in Europe, for torch lit scenes in Anna Valerious’ castle and several other locations. Daviau also combined the lamps with real torches with flames in many scenes.

Sommers cast Hugh Jackson as Van Helsing, Kate Beckinsale as Anna Valerious, Richard Roxburgh, a Shakespearian actor from Australia, as Dracula, Shuler Hensley as Frankenstein, Will Kemp as the Wolf Man, supported by a talented ensemble cast. Daviau shot costume and make-up tests with the main cast before leaving for Prague.

“Most of the costumes are black, brown and dark grey, because those were the colors used in that time and place,” Daviau says. “Gabriella Pescucci, the costume designer was fabulous. She designed a dark brown leather coat for Van Helsing. It had a luminous glow that is visible in very contrasty scenes. We had most characters dressed in black in most scenes. The 5218 (film) has an incredible contrast range that really helped in those situations.”

Daviau consulted with cinematographer Dean Semler, ASC, ACS, who had filmed XXX in Prague, about locations and for advice on augmenting his American camera crew.

“Dean had good things to say about Barrandov Studios and the lab they operate, which provided great film dailies and a screening room,” he says. “We built a few sets in the studio, including a cave with various shafts leading to the outside and some castle interiors that were not shot on location.”

About half of the film was shot in and around Prague, and the rest on sets in Los Angeles. Daviau notes that at the beginning of spring, they worked with assistant director Artist Robinson to schedule shooting at dusk and dawn when the sun was low on the horizon.

“Near the end of our time in the Czech Republic, we were shooting in a Transylvanian village that Allan (Cameron) designed outside of Prague,” Daviau recalls. “We used a Cablecam for an exciting scene where the three brides of Dracula shock everybody by attacking in daytime. They were flying around, snatching people off the ground and biting their necks. We pre-visualized those shots and flew the Cablecam with tremendous whirls and twirls and barrel rolls. It required quite a rig.”



Dramatic
A dramatic Cablecam point-of-view shot shows the audience a scene from the perspective of one of Dracula’s brides as she flies into the village from the next town. The shot begins high on a hill. She plunges into the village, weaving to avoid buildings, while chasing Van Helsing across the square towards the church. In another shot, Van Helsing fires an arrow and the Cablecam tracks with it to its destination. Key grip Jim Shelton also employed 30 and 50 foot Technocranes for additional dynamic camera moves. The basic Panavision package used by operators Paul Babin and Tom Connole included Panaflex Platinum and XL cameras and an ARRI 435 mainly for ramping slow-motion shots, and a complete set of Primo prime and zoom lenses. The second unit led by cinematographer Josh Bleibtreu carried a similar camera package.

“The vampire’s costume ball was staged in a former cathedral,” he says. “It was absolutely fantastic, but there were priceless 400- to 600-year-old paintings in the small lofts and altars that we used for lighting positions, so we had to be very careful. Allan Cameron dressed it to resemble a great ballroom in a castle. He gave us places to hide lamps, including torchlights with flicker circuits that kept the light in subtle motion.”

They viewed film dailies every day. Daviau explains that it gave everyone a much better idea of how visual nuances worked when a film print was magnified and projected on a big screen. Ducsay also watched every foot of dailies. Daviau notes that there are many ways that a video transfer can miss the mark, particularly when you’re shooting at low light levels and shadow details are important.

They shot big interior scenes on stages at the old Hughes aircraft construction plant where the Spruce Goose was built near Los Angeles, including about two weeks of bluescreen shots for visual effects sequences of Dracula’s brides flying. They also filmed interior scenes that were supposed to be in Dracula’s palace on a big exterior lot at an old McDonnell Douglas plant in nearby Downey, California.

“We had torches and fire fixtures that provided flame sources,” Daviau recalls. “There was a huge bridge nearby that we used as a platform for some big Bebee lights. I’m a big believer in the big light theory, because that puts the law of Inverse Square on your side. When you have big lamps far away, there is a consistency in lighting throughout the scene that looks and feels believable without unexplained shadows. It’s an old fashioned way of lighting that worked for Van Helsing because the new stock enabled us to use real flames in conjunction with the cold moonlight.”

Daviau tried to avoid shooting wider open than T2.8, because he believes that’s where the lenses work best, especially when there are actors moving around. On some big night exteriors, he opened up to T2.0. The cinematographer used very little filtration or diffusion. Daviau says he had that flexibility, because he knew it would be relatively easy to fine-tune the images while he was timing at EFILM.

“I believe Steve Sommers has succeeded in creating a story that will scare the audience and make them laugh at the same time, and that isn’t easy to do,” he concludes.

---

quote: Kamakshipalya Dhananjay

---

10. Van Helsing.
A sheer nonsense. These kind films have always been. Only that few films really preserved the deceitful tradition of making you feel there is something really in such films. Van Helsing will not be one of them. In fact, if people are waiting for the realisation that they have been watching trash all along and expecting more of it, this film could just be the flick that will deliver this sacred realiastion to the masses.

---

quote: Ron Lacheur

---

I've never really understood the importance of a big opening weekend and movies not making back what they produced.

---

quote: Kamakshipalya Dhananjay

---

So, I still maintain it is going to find it difficult to breach that 100 million mark.

---

quote: Richard Greco

---

the US estimates are 54.6 million. Adding to that the 53 million dollars overseas and you've got yourself 107.6 million dollars on opening weekend worldwide.

---

What am I missing here, besides production cost, which was not discussed or even mentioned in your predictions for the top 10 disappointments.
 

---

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 05-12-2004, 12:55 AM:
 
Well, my prediction is only for North American Tally. So, I maintain still that Van Helsing will not breach the 100 million mark for North America. This was billed to be the first big disappointment of the Summer. So is it.

After the Monday numbers, anybody here not convinced yet that VAN HELSING will not climb the 100 million mark ?
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 05-12-2004, 05:58 AM:
 
I didn't realize that you were only counting North American box office amounts. I guess if you dont mention it in you original post you can always add it later so that way you are never wrong.
 

---

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 05-12-2004, 08:52 AM:
 
Well, I dont have to do that. I could plainly admit I was wrong. And I did go wrong, twice.

Once with PASSION - final tally short of 400 million.
Then with ETERNAL.. - current tally far short of 100 million. Though, I am pleased to tell you this film, ETERNAL.. is quite behaving like how a blockbuster does in its final days.

And I dont know much about European exhibition scenario yet. So, I am always reffering only to North American grosses.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 05-12-2004, 09:03 AM:
 
Okay, now I understand. I just figured box office numbers were box office numbers, regardless of where in the world the movie is showing. Its not like foreign box office revenues go to a different movie company or something, they all go to the same place. Their money is just as acceptable as ours when it comes to movie companies.
 

---

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 05-13-2004, 11:42 PM:
 
So, I am going to scratch off VAN HELSING from the list. It has disappointed. And next disappointment is -

May.19 - SHREK 2.

However, this discussion started off as 'choice of 5 films' and my first choice in that list is :

May.14 - TROY. Essentially, I predicted not less than 150 million dollars in its entire run in North America. I stand by that prediction.

However, I dont know yet whether to expect this film to deliver the 200 million or so that the 'choice list' seeks.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 05-14-2004, 06:00 AM:
 
Good luck with your predictions.
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 05-14-2004, 10:49 AM:
 
Here is one thing to consider now when it comes to the summer films. Looks like more film companies are agreeing to agragated distribution deals with exhibitors. Look for a lot of prints to be in theaters on the first week of release. In some cases as many as 8 screens for large megaplex. Movies will probably break box office records on openings before bad word of mouth gets out and kills the business. I look for Shrek 2 to possably break some records this next week. Just because there is going to be so many screens playing the movie.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-15-2004, 01:55 PM:
 
Here are a couple of excerpts from the IME report on the "disappointing" Shrek 2:

...just plain fun from start to finish...

...should be a smash with all audiences...

...(expect) great word-of-mouth, and steady business throughout the summer season....

...the rare sequel that improves upon the original...

Doesn't sound too disappointing. IME predicts $300 million plus.
 

---

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 05-16-2004, 08:43 AM:
 
You gotta see though Mike, that KD has NO idea how box office business works in North America.I think that 90 % of his dissapointment list is wrong.
 

---

Posted by Tim Lockridge (Member # 1346) on 05-16-2004, 03:23 PM:
 
Looks like the opening weekend estimates for Troy place it at approx 46 million... which, while not bad for an R-rated 3hr long film, finds it somewhat off pace for a 200mil North America gross (and prob the 150mil predicted in this thread).

On another note, pre-release hype for Shrek 2 in my area is running pretty high.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-16-2004, 04:32 PM:
 
Does anyone else wish Hollywood would stop counting dollars and start counting actual tickets sold?
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-16-2004, 05:03 PM:
 
Unfortunately that will never happen since "Hollywood" is ass-kissing their "bosses". It's the New York (read: Wall Street) "people" that dictate it be $$$ so they can "guide" their flock. What a bunch of crap!

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 05-20-2004, 08:17 AM:
 

quote: Jeremy Fuentes was the last to post

---

So, I still maintain it is going to find it difficult to breach that 100 million mark.

---

Hrmmmm. According to boxofficemojo.com, Van Helsing is @ 87.8 million....

DUDE, are you just counting opening weekends? This movie made 87.8 mil in 12 days and is still selling very well at my theatre. Enough with the lame predictions. I can't wait to rub it in when Shrek 2 gets close to 100 mil on opening weekend!
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-20-2004, 11:07 AM:
 
"Van Helsing" may cross the $100 million mark in North America, but will not get very far past it. In its 2nd weekend, sales dropped off 60%.

Considering ticket price inflation, it is NOT impressive at all for a movie to gross $100 million. And with the cost of production, marketing, etc., it is easy for a major release to gross $100 million and still be a financial failure. This is certainly what I expect to see happen with "Troy."

Movie gross reports are stupid anyway. With ticket prices varying from $7 to $12 (or higher), it doesn't take a whole lot of attendance for a movie to hit the $100 million or even $200 million mark. For a movie to be a qualified hit, I think it should have to sell 25 million tickets in North America. If it can get to the 50 million mark, then it can be called a blockbuster. Of course, "Titanic" is probably the only recent release that hits that 50 million level.

Movie studios like reporting a movie's earnings in dollars for a variety of reasons. One of the biggest reasons is how ticket price inflation will create new "all time box office champs" every few years. "Spiderman" was a mediocre movie at best, yet made over $400 million in North America.

If the movie studios actually counted tickets sold and reported that, "Gone With the Wind" would still be the all time box office champ. The studios would really have to bust their ass to get people into the movie theaters. At this point, I have doubts if they really care. They seem more concerned with the DVD release. At least in home video sales, I'm pretty sure they count actual units sold to determine sales leaders.
 

---

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 05-23-2004, 10:35 AM:
 
Van Helsing will cross that 100 million but the question would be how much more than that will it mop up ?

Agreed, I predicted that Van Helsing will find it difficult to cross a 100 million. I was wrong. But still, is it going to hold steady ? Not at all.

As for Troy, it is not clear still whether it will cross the 150 million I predicted. I dont know now whether it will. If it does, I can be glad that I got the first one of "choice of five films" right.

As for Shrek 2, I was wrong, completely. This one looks to make 90+ million in its first five days. However, though I was wrong here, I guess I could say Shrek 2 is not going to be impressive beyond the opening weekend. Monday numbers will prove that the mad rush for the weekend simply exhausted the demographic that this movie targets.

As for Day After Tomorrow, I will maintain my initial prediction - a doubtful 100 million, but if a 100 million is crossed, it will give up soon after that.

Please remember, the "disappointing list" meant that the films in that will find it difficult to cross the 100 million and if they do however, they would not wander very far from that mark.
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 05-23-2004, 10:50 AM:
 
Shrek 2 estimated 92 million in 4 days and counting.
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 05-23-2004, 01:24 PM:
 
Shrek 2 (Sun. Estimates)

$104,300,000 (Fri - Sun)

$125,300,000 (Wed - sun)
 

---

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 05-24-2004, 12:37 AM:
 
Looks like Shrek 2's records are sort of one off. Even Dreamworks execs have admitted to being baffled by what they just saw. In any case, I personally feel that these figures seem to be rather fortitudinal though they are real money.
The audience act in unfathomable ways at times or part of the time. We just saw it.
 

---

Posted by Tim Lockridge (Member # 1346) on 05-24-2004, 01:27 AM:
 
Daryl S said, "I look for Shrek 2 to possably break some records this next week."

Mike B said, "Doesn't sound too disappointing. IME predicts $300 million plus."

Ian P said, "But I'm betting the Shrek 2 will work in the box office."

Brad A said, "In this part of the world, Shrek 2 & Harry P will rule."

Baffled indeed. No one saw this coming.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-24-2004, 01:20 PM:
 
Shrek 2's success isn't surprising in the least.

- Everyone who saw the first one loved it (except Brad, who merely liked it), and it got rave reviews.

- People who didn't see SHREK 1 in the theatre, bought the video for their kids and wound up loving the movie on video, further priming the pump.

- The sequel got good reviews, including many saying it is better than the first film, cementing the want-to-see.

Furthermore, the movie has been getting great word of mouth and, as we all know, has a scene buried in the end credits that delivers one of the biggest laughs of the movie. Once all the "early departure" people hear from their friends about that scene, many of them will want to see the movie again. I look for a small drop next weekend.
 

---

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 05-25-2004, 07:01 AM:
 
Looks like you are wrong again KD. Anymore "disappointments" you wish to estimate on?

Here is the story

quote:

---

'Shrek 2' Lands Far, Far Ahead of Summer Pack
by Brandon Gray
May 24, 2004



HOLLYWOOD (Box Office Mojo) – A fractured fairy tale broke records as it mended a heretofore soft summer.

The widest release ever yielded the biggest single day gross ever, the highest bow ever for an animated movie (topping Finding Nemo's $70.3 million), the second best weekend ever (behind only Spider-Man's $114.8 million) and the first uber-opening of the summer.

The $70 million Shrek 2 raked in a whopping $108.0 million over the weekend at 4,163 theaters, bringing its five-day haul to $129.0 million since debuting Wednesday -- the third biggest 5-day bow ever. It beat DreamWorks' $104.3 million estimate by $3.7 million, thanks to a stronger than expected Sunday.

"This was well beyond any expectations," DreamWorks head of distribution Jim Tharp told Box Office Mojo, though he added that public awareness of the picture was already up 92% four weeks prior to the release. "Opening on a Wednesday, word-of-mouth was that this was not a cheater, and a great follow-up to first movie," he noted.

DreamWorks' exit polling indicated that 60% of moviegoers were families -- the first Shrek, like most animated movies, was 80% family out-of-the-gate and then fell to 60% in later weeks -- suggesting a broadening of the audience since the original. Among families, 60% were mothers and 40% were dads, while 55% were girls and 45% were boys. Among non-families, it was a 50/50 split between males and females and those over and under the age of 25. Moviegoers loved the picture overall as 81% rated it "excellent" and 11% "very good." Over 70% said they would see the movie again.

Breaking the weekend down, Shrek 2 devoured $28.3 million on Friday. It then jumped 58% on Saturday to an astonishing $44.8 million, topping Spider-Man's $43.6 million Saturday as the largest single day gross of all time. In other words, its Saturday alone topped the first Shrek's entire $42.3 million opening weekend. On Sunday morning, DreamWorks projected Shrek 2 to fall 31% to $31.1 million on Sunday, but that turned out to be conservative as it ended up easing just 22% to $34.9 million -- more in line with the first Shrek and Finding Nemo which fell 24% and 21% respectively for their Sunday drops.

Prior to the weekend, Shrek 2 was already a record-breaker when DreamWorks announced it broke the 4,000-theater milestone with its 4,163 count, topping Spider-Man's 3,876 fourth weekend count as the widest release ever. Shrek 2 was simply following in the footsteps of its predecessor, which reached a then record 3,715 in its fourth weekend. To put its theater count into further perspective, according to the National Organization of Theaters Owners, there are 5,659 indoor theaters in the country (and 35,139 screens). DreamWorks will not disclose how many screens the movie is playing on.

"It's a well known movie and we needed to get out in from of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban," Tharp explained the bold release pattern.

Shrek 2 is now well-positioned to become the #1 movie of the summer, just as its predecessor reigned over summer 2001 with its $267.7 million haul. For the past five years straight, the title-holder was spawned in May -- The Phantom Menace in 1999, Mission Impossible 2 in 2000, Shrek in 2001, Spider-Man in 2002 and Finding Nemo last year. Going into the season, common wisdom had Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban and Spider-Man 2 as the movies to beat for the crown, but 'Shrek 2' is on a $330 million plus trajectory – the rosy end of Harry and Spidey prognostications.

When Shrek 2 garnered $11.8 million on Wednesday, DreamWorks was heralding the dubious milestone of "biggest mid-week opening for an animated movie," topping Pokemon: The First Movie's $10.1 million. Turns out, only two days later, they would find such groping for records would be unnecessary.

Though Shrek 2 was huge on Wednesday and Thursday, grossing $20.9

---

quote: Kamakshipalya Dhananjay

---

Shrek 2 could neither be wholesome nor is there any dignity in it. It may earn money like it has but it definitely wont earn any reputation for its studio.

---

I thought that was what this thread was about, how much money a movie was going to make. Not whether or not the movie is wholesome or has dignity, or if it will earn a reputation for the studio.

Edit: I realized I said that I wasnt going to argue/discuss movie grosses with you anymore, but you just cant seem to totally admit to being wrong. You say that you are wrong, but then you say the movie will still drop in business. Of course it will. Unless the population somehow doubles or triples in the next week, then obviously sales will drop. Everyone has already seen it.
 

---

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 05-26-2004, 08:00 AM:
 
GOD!!!!

Enough KD.

I really am glad you aren't working at my theatre. You would get run out of there. I really hope I never meet you. Never have I heard such STUPID comments in my life. Get over yourself. It's beginning to get laughable. You are a JOKE.

You aren't playing fair on your comments. Just like Jeremy said, you change the rules to suit you. You are a very conniving person and I feel sorry for those that know you in person. It annoys me to no end when people get so stuck on one idea that they can't admit they were wrong.

YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A lot of people on this site tried being nice to you with no avail. You are making enemies here, not friends.

OMG GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rant off......

Sorry the rest of you had to see that.
 

---

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 05-27-2004, 12:31 PM:
 
Oh ! Well, I think these forums provide a wonderful opportunity to exert or express oneself and I cant wait to tell some here that they are doing fine !

I also dont quite understand what this "admit" thing means ? Is it some ritual or a ceremony some here expect ? I would think anyone who expects to be told that "I am wrong" quite separately from what has already been said must be reading things that dont appear in this thread or altogether missing whats plainly visible. Please read what has been said and if you think you are not convinced yet whether I have delivered all of what you wanted, I might have to tell you, please relinquish that wish. It will not be fulfilled.

Actually, I cannot help but "admit" many lines laden above seem very spurious.

OK, waiting for the TDAT's numbers now. Any leads ?
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-27-2004, 02:26 PM:
 

quote: Kamakshipalya Dhananjay

---

Dreamworks is nowhere close to Disney and it has a very long way to go before people come to expect what they do for Disney's fare - wholesome entertainment, dignity of characters and above all, fewer cheap thrills and gimmicks and importantly, an eye away from your wallet.

---

quote: Kamakshipalya Dhananjay

---

Anyway, I hate somewhat, after all the war-mongering here, to admit that the most basic premise of my prediction - that of the Summer Boxoffice remaining near 2003 levels - is almost cracking. With this, I cannot sustain my predictions. I will not. I could not imagine that the Memorial Day Weekend could throw up two films near the 100 million mark. I was wrong. With Shrek-2 and TDAT. At this rate, I am not sure what to give Harry Potter-3.

If Troy makes 150 million, I would be right on my "choice of 5 films". That Van Helsing looks unlikely to cross 120 million, my prediction that it will specifically fall short of 100 million ....

---

quote: Kamakshipalya Dhananjay

---

My prediction for B.O. disappointments this year.

1. The Day After Tomorrow

2. Alien V Predator

3. King Arthur

4. Harry Potter And The Prisoner of Azbakan

5. Shrek 2

6. Garfield

7. I,Robot

8. Skycaptain And The World of Tomorrow

9. Around the World in 80 days

10.Van Helsing.

---

Just thought I'd give a little update on grosses here.
Match the number up with the proper film.

1)$128,478,844....This did have a 60% dropoff this week so it wont have much more than this.

2)Not Released Yet

3)Not Released Yet

4)$93,687,367.....In 3 days....DAMN...That's all I have to say about that....

5)$314,523,202.....hmmmmm.....moe money than the sequel....that's in 3 weeks mind you....really BIG disappointment there....

6-9) Not Released Yet

10)$114,601,155.....This did break 100 million, but the momentum isnt there anymore with this...

So, concluding....

4 out of 10 guesses are wrong....The others aren't released yet

I myself think Garfield will easily make 100million in 2-3 weeks. It has the kids and the adults interest. You do realize I have a BIG 8 foot tall inflatable cat in the lobby here. Kids like that thing alot.

I got to go to school now....
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-08-2004, 01:52 PM:
 
I will admit that I could be wrong about Garfield. While I still feel the movie will suck, it could do very well. The trailer is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen, but at the end when Garfield says "I'm walkin' the dog" everyone cracks up including the adults. So who knows?
 

---

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 06-25-2004, 09:53 PM:
 
ok,

Garfield is not going to make it like I thought.

Current revenue for this film is: $48,770,278

So, KD actually got 1 right!!!!!

Now, can he make it 2?

I thought Around The World In 80 Days was going to bomb.

Sure enough KD did too!!

Current revenue for ATWI80D is: $15.1 million

I'm amazed!

Congratulations on getting 2 correct!!!
 

---

Posted by Nate Lehrke (Member # 1460) on 06-25-2004, 11:47 PM:
 
Anyone know what Around the World cost to make?
 

---

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 06-26-2004, 08:13 AM:
 
Around the World cost 110 million to make
 

---

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 07-19-2004, 06:34 AM:
 
Although it's been a while sine we've seen KD, here's an update on his "predictions" for flops

quote: Richard Greco was the last to post

---

My prediction for B.O. disappointments this year.

1. The Day After Tomorrow

2. Alien V Predator

3. King Arthur

4. Harry Potter And The Prisoner of Azbakan

5. Shrek 2

6. Garfield

7. I,Robot

8. Skycaptain And The World of Tomorrow

9. Around the World in 80 days

10.Van Helsing.

---

quote:

---

since KD isn't around anymore

---

Did he get banned or have I missed something?
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 07-19-2004, 07:51 AM:
 
He's on the DVD forums out there, discussing the grosses for the Passion of Christ on DVD. He guesses eleventeen billion for the U.S. only.
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 07-19-2004, 01:40 PM:
 
Jeremy, I knew you were joking. But with KD, who knows, so I actually went and checked the forums to confirm that you were joking about the predictions for the Passion DVD.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 07-19-2004, 01:50 PM:
 
Thanks for the confirmation.
 

---