This is topic Indiana Jones; Let's predict the first weekend gross 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=002046
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-19-2008, 11:51 AM:
It's probably the most anticipated movie of the year (or maybe the decade, so far). What's your guess for the opening weekend gross (Thurs - Sun)?
Keep in mind that while many films opened higher than "expert" predictions, some (Speed Racer and Narnia) have opened lower. With that in mind, predict away!
My guess is $110M for the 4 days.
Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 05-19-2008, 12:10 PM:
I'll offer a pessimistic 98 million for the 4 days, and I hope I'm wrong. I just think the economy is going to be a factor.
Then again, maybe folks will spend some of that rebate on a movie this weekend.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-19-2008, 12:17 PM:
$87M, which will be a disappointment to Paramount.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-19-2008, 12:20 PM:
I'll say 102 milion and change.....
Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 05-19-2008, 12:33 PM:
Thursday - Sunday?
$107 million (including midnight shows)
Posted by Ben Goodman (Member # 4770) on 05-19-2008, 12:53 PM:
$150 mil. I think it's gonna break records-- Pirates did $140 mil last year over the same weekend and Indy is a bigger deal, if you ask me. While the economy is rough, baby boomers will want to see this movie and will want to bring their kids. That's money right there.
Posted by Rene Ferron (Member # 4674) on 05-19-2008, 12:59 PM:
I would say 122 Mil.
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-19-2008, 01:25 PM:
For Thurs - Sun I predict $150M.
I figure Iron Man did $100M and that was a "normal" weekend and it didn't have nearly the anticipation. IJ opens on Thursday (plus wed night midnight show). Then since it's memorial day sunday night should hold up better with most people out of school/work the next day.
I would not be shocked to see a $180M+ 5 day (Thurs - Mon).
I think Narnia was hurt by the fact that there was not much awareness for the book series beyond "The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe". Also, releasing a big budget kids movie when the kids are still in school was probably a mistake. The first one was in December during the holiday breaks.
Posted by Ramin Hashemi (Member # 2694) on 05-19-2008, 02:55 PM:
$128,648,340.25 ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 05-19-2008, 03:45 PM:
$135,000,000.50 ![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 05-19-2008, 03:46 PM:
Well, considering the relatively poor ad campaign (no full length trailer until a month ago, crappy commercials) and the fact that most people who saw the previous ones in theaters need to use walkers to get into the theaters, including Harrison Ford (The Last Crusade is as old as me!), I'm going to say $93mil.
I hope I'm wrong, but the movie looks really awful too, and since I won't have a chance to screen it beforehand, I may very well skip on it. I love Indiana Jones as much as anyone, but this probably isn't a real Indy movie.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-19-2008, 03:49 PM:
What Galen said. The trailers etc. that I've seen have looked ominously (and strangely) bad. Decrepit, like HFord. I know they're deliberately going for old-school with it but damn, it just reeks of bad to me. I hope I'm wrong.
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-19-2008, 04:45 PM:
quote:
the fact that most people who saw the previous ones in theaters need to use walkers to get into the theaters,
Young whipper snappers!
(Slaps him with his walker)
Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 05-19-2008, 09:40 PM:
Thurs through Sun = 130 mil.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-19-2008, 09:58 PM:
My guess is $99 million.
And I think I'm being generous with that figure. Perhaps enough old school fans of the saga will turn out to help the movie cross the $100 million mark for opening weekend. I don't think Shia LeBeouf is going to be enough of a draw to get a big turnout of younger crowds.
I'm a big fan of the original Indy trilogy. Spent some of Sunday watching Raiders in very compressed HD on SciFi, and can't wait for it to be released on Blu-ray (where it will look a lot better). Even with that said, I had a "WTF?" kind of reaction when I heard they were actually making a fourth Indy movie. The footage of Harrison Ford has him looking like he's tired or just has a "blah" kind of day happening.
I have to agree with others the trailers don't look very exciting. Just very conventional and too serious actually. Record setting crowds probably turned out for the Star Wars prequels due to the high quotient of visual effects eye candy thrown on the screen. This Indy installment doesn't have quite so much of that. However, Cate Blanchett with a dominatrix bob-cut hair style is kind of kinky.
One positive thing: the movie is currently holding a 81% rating at Rotten Tomatoes based on 57 reviews. The site has already awarded the movie the "Certified Fresh" rating. We'll see how that percentage holds up with 100 or 150 reviews tallied.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-19-2008, 10:15 PM:
Roger Moore of the Orlando Sentinel gives the movie four stars out of five.
Read the review
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-19-2008, 10:25 PM:
I stopped reading it about 1/3 of the way through...he was telling me too much of the story.
Here's a story on how the story got to be this story.
------------------------------------------------------
Link
RAIDERS OF THE LOST STORY ARC
By REED TUCKER
May 18, 2008 --
Hollywood's best dreamed up dozens of new plots for Indy. Few survived in 'The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull'
LIKE Harrison Ford, you could grow old waiting for the next "Indiana Jones." The last time an installment of the franchise was in theaters, a guy with a mullet named Richard Marx ruled the charts, George W. Bush was merely ruining the Texas Rangers and the only place to see Lindsay Lohan naked was on the diaper-changing table. Now, 19 years after the whip-cracking adventurer literally rode off into the sunset in the last frame of "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" - two decades filled with false starts, teases and a rainforest's worth of scrapped scripts - "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" finally arrives Thursday. For long-suffering fans, it'll be like spotting a Yeti.
But the movie is very real, and today audiences at the Cannes Film Festival are getting a first look. Can it possibly live up to the expectations set by the first three movies? Writer-producer George Lucas doesn't think so.
"I know the critics are going to hate it. They already hate it. So there's nothing we can do about that," Lucas told Vanity Fair. "The fans are all upset. They're always going to be upset. They write their own movie, and then, if you don't do their movie, they get upset about it."
The reason it's taken so long to get Indy back on-screen is that three Hollywood heavyweights - Lucas, Ford and director Steven Spielberg - have had a devil of a time agreeing on a story and script, despite stabs by some of the biggest names in Hollywood. This graveyard is littered with more bones than that cave at the beginning of "Raiders of the Lost Ark."
From spaceships to magic peaches, ideas came and went. But nothing gained traction until David Koepp pennned a script based on a story by Lucas and Jeff Nathanson. The action begins in 1957 and has Indy, former flame Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen) and young sidekick Mutt (Shia LaBeouf) racing to beat Russian agents to a mystical artifact.
Sounds promising. But what about those other ideas? Let's take a look at what almost was with Indiana Jones IV.
INDIANA JONES AND THE
MONKEY KING
In the mid-1980s, Chris Columbus (writer of "The Goonies" and director of the first two "Harry Potter" films) wrote a script - alternatively called "Indiana Jones and the Garden of Life" - that had Indy searching Africa for the garden of a legendary Chinese monkey king, in which immortality-granting peaches grew. The script was reportedly later reconsidered for Indy 4. A purported draft leaked online, dated 1995, contains sequences bordering on the ridiculous, including one in which Jones chases a tank while riding a rhino, and another in which a pygmy army is assembled to battle Nazis.
The script was abandoned. "It was upbeat and full of the same nostalgia that we tapped into in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark,' so in that sense Chris was right on the money," Spielberg told theraider.net. "But I don't think any of us wanted to go to Africa for four months and try to get Indy to ride a rhinoceros in a multi-vehicular chase."
INDIANA JONES AND THE SAUCER MEN FROM MARS
In 1993, while working on an episode of TV's "The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles," Lucas hit upon a notion for the fourth movie.
"What it is that made it perfect was the fact that Harrison would be 20 years older," Lucas told Vanity Fair. "So that put it in the mid-'50s. So instead of doing a '30s Republic serial [like the first three films], we're doing a B science-fiction movie from the '50s. The ones I'm talking about are, like, 'The Creature From the Black Lagoon,' 'The Blob,' 'The Thing.' "
Both Spielberg and Ford were lukewarm on the direction, but Lucas insisted it was either his idea or nothing. He hired writer Jeb Stuart ("Die Hard") to begin working on a story.
"I wanted to be a part of that legacy, and I went out and saw George at Skywalker Ranch, and we hammered out the story," Stuart tells The Post. "He had a pretty good idea, but not a whole lot of details. We spent two weeks together, and then we went around the country trying to pitch it to Steve in Long Island, then out to Wyoming and pitched to Harrison."
The story involved aliens, a trip to Area 51, and, in a big shocker, Indy getting hitched to a fellow archaeologist. Stuart, though, is mum on the title, which was rumored to have been "Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars."
Even after multiple rewrites, this script, too, was ultimately rejected. Ford reportedly said, "No way am I being in a Steve Spielberg movie like that." Stuart blames himself. "I just don't think I nailed it," he says. "It was one of the best pieces I ever did, but that doesn't mean anything. Look, between Steven and Harrison and George, there are a lot of 900-pound gorillas, and to make a movie like that everyone has to be onboard behind the script. That group wasn't."
Despite the failure to win agreement from Spielberg and Ford, Lucas continued to push on with his sci-fi idea. The late Jeffrey Boam, who wrote "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade," also took a run at a UFO-heavy script. "Finally," Lucas said, "we got to a point where everybody said, 'Look, we're not doing that movie.' And I said, 'Well, look, I can't think of another [idea]."
INDIANA JONES AND THE prodigal brother
By 2000, word came that yet another writer had been hired: twist-ending specialist M. Night Shyamalan. "Steven Spielberg told me he had seen 'The Sixth Sense' three times," Shyamalan told the Chicago Sun-Times.
A year later, he too was out. No script was reportedly ever produced. "[It] didn't work out with everybody," Shyamalan told Cinescape. "It's a tricky, tricky thing to get four of us together at the same time on the same page."
Shortly thereafter, more names were attached, including Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana") and Tom Stoppard ("Shakespeare in Love"), though no deals were announced. The Internet began buzzing with plot descriptions of what tipsters guaranteed was the next Jones adventure, including a search for Excalibur, a journey to Atlantis and a battle against H. P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu monster. All turned out to be bunk.
With Harrison Ford getting older and all three principals getting more frustrated, "Young Indiana Jones" and "The Shawshank Redemption" writer Frank Darabont was tapped in 2002. He eventually produced a script set in the 1950s, with Jones being hunted by latter-day Nazis. Spielberg and Ford loved the work, but Lucas was adamant that "this was not the story he wanted to tell at this point in the Indiana Jones saga," according to Spielberg. Rumor has it that Lucas was unhappy with a subplot involving Indy's brother.
In 2004, that script, too, was abandoned, souring Darabont's relationship with Lucas, perhaps forever. "It showed me how badly things can go," Darabont told MTV. "I spent a year of very determined effort on something I was very excited about, working very closely with Steven Spielberg and coming up with a result that I and he felt was terrific. Then the whole thing goes down in flames because George doesn't like the script."
Darabont declined to comment further.
INDIANA JONES AND THE FINAL DRAFT
In late 2004, Jeff Nathanson was hired to start fresh, working on a story with Lucas.
"They were realizing after so many years that things had changed, and they realized that this would be the last Indy film with this core group of George, Steven and Harrison," Nathanson tells The Post. "And in some ways, I think the [previous scripts] never really addressed the magnitude of that."
It was at this point that Mutt, the young sidekick, was created and the crystal skull was cemented as the object of Indy's search.
Nathanson says working on such an iconic character was a surprisingly loose experience. "They had been trying for so long, and it wasn't happening, so I didn't feel all that much pressure," he says. "Worst-case scenario, I was another writer who was part of the process. It's really just approached from a sense of fun.
"I did most of my work with George up at Skywalker Ranch. You're sitting in a room working with him, and there's the whip and hat sitting in a case next to you. It takes a while to get used to that. Once you adjust to that, it becomes about figuring out the pieces of the puzzle and making it work," he says.
Once Lucas and Nathanson had the outline in place, frequent Spielberg collaborator Koepp ("Jurassic Park") was handed all the previous work and asked to make sense of it.
"I liken it to remodeling a house from the inside," Koepp tells The Post. "You know how contractors will say, 'Well, it's much easier to tear it down.' And you'll say, 'No, no! We just need cabinets.' That was how I felt, because it had been 15 years of development and none of the people who worked on it were dumb."
He saved Darabont's notion of bringing Marion back, preserved a desert chase Stuart had imagined, and fleshed out Mutt and the mythology of crystal skulls.
"My feeling early on was that there were too many good ideas over the years. It had to be focused a little bit," Koepp says. "It was really hard, one of the hardest [scripts], because there are some very opinionated people to please. I kind of went in - maybe it's heresy - saying it will never be as good as 'Raiders,' because that was the first one. Let's get that out of the way and try to make a good movie."
And as for the heavy sci-fi influence that was evident in Stuart and Boam's scripts? Koepp says "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" has its share. "This movie reflects the spirit of B-movies in 1957," he says. "I can't give anything away, but don't go in not expecting any [sci-fi], because it's there."
And what about Stuart's idea that Indy ought to get married? After all, former fling Marion is back, and he's roaming with a kid who shares at least his sense of adventure. Koepp suddenly falls silent when asked about nuptials.
Now it just remains to be seen whether all this work will pay off. Will audiences embrace the latest adventure, or will fans who've been waiting 19 years stumble out of the theater dissatisfied?
Stuart, who's read the final script, is optimistic. "It's great - it's a solid script," he says. "You stand on the shoulders of the writers that went before. You've got ['Raiders' writer] Larry Kasdan and Jeff Boam and all these great guys that have created the lineage of this story. It's not going to disappoint."
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-19-2008, 11:54 PM:
Don't forget that the grosses will be tallied for Thursday-Monday since it is Memorial Day. $142,674.96
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 05-19-2008, 11:55 PM:
Here's my thinking. Spider-Man 3 opened with a 3 day gross of $151 million the first weekend of May 2007. For Memorial Day weekend, Pirates of the Caribbean 3 had a 4 day gross of $139 million. In 2004, Spider-Man 2 opened on a long 4th of July weekend and had a 6 day gross of $180 million.
Given the popularity of the Indiana Jones franchise and the near 100% awareness, I'm going to put the 5 day gross (Thur-Mon) at $170-$180 million.
Posted by Shane Cooper (Member # 2510) on 05-20-2008, 12:01 AM:
Thursday-Sunday: $124,000,000
Thursday-Monday: $156,000,000
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-20-2008, 12:17 AM:
The big question is, is it going to pull in the teens and kids?
All of my staff is excited to see it, but little kids are clueless.
Posted by Phil Blake (Member # 2012) on 05-20-2008, 01:38 AM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
The big question is, is it going to pull in the teens and kids?
I am not so confident , the hype is building over here but I am also hearing comments from or 10 to 24 year olds that they are not all that interested in watching an old man fumble about. Its not cool.
Given that 10 to 24 year olds make 90% of our patrons this could be a worry.
I would predict a much lower $60 million . One thing to look forward to is that it is in fact a great movie and word will get out and maybe week 2 is huge and that will give it legs.
It would be nice for all if it did open to 120 mill , I guess we will know in a few days ..............
[ 05-20-2008, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: Phil Blake ]
Posted by Jaime Tuzzio (Member # 4760) on 05-20-2008, 06:36 AM:
quote: Justin Hamaker
Given the popularity of the Indiana Jones franchise and the near 100% awareness...
We put up the same Indiana Jones lobby decor everyone else seems to have received about two months ago. Even as recent as last week I overheard patrons walking in saying, "Hey look, they're making another Indiana Jones movie! I wonder if Harrison Ford is going to be in it."
100% Awareness: Episode 1? Yep. Two Towers & Return of the King? Absolutely. Harry Potter [pick a number]? Duh! Indy 4? Not so much.
I'm not saying it won't do well; it'll pull in huge numbers to be sure. I just don't think that everyone is aware that it's out there.
Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 05-20-2008, 07:57 AM:
Supposed to be a relatively nice Memorial Day weekend for most of the country. For the five days (Thurs - Mon) I would therefore guess 125 Million.
Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 05-20-2008, 09:38 PM:
I don't understand how you think that this movie doesn't have 100% awareness? This movie's everywhere, and has been everywhere for the past month. You go into a grocery store and you're going to see INDY everywhere. Cereal boxes, soda boxes, candy bags. EVERYWHERE! I look for this to make 114 mil Fri-Sun and 150 mil for Wed midnight-Monday
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-20-2008, 10:58 PM:
Come on now...there is no such thing as 100% awareness. Even a mega-brand name like Coca Cola only claims something like 90% awareness.
We have the Indy poster in our lobby and on a daily basis, people walk by it saying "Oh look, there's another Indiana Jones coming."
Or sometimes they ask, "Is this a NEW Indiana Jones?" (I guess that since we've played classic movies at times, some people think this might be a repeat of one of the old films.)
Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 05-21-2008, 12:21 AM:
I agree with Mike, I guess I should of said that there are more people out there that know this movie is coming out then the ones that do. This movie will not fail because people don't know its there, it will fail because of bad word of mouth.(if thats the case) Not lack of advertisements.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-21-2008, 01:23 AM:
I'm sorry to sound harsh, but I think someone has to either be just plain dense or was living in the woods for the past year doing survivalist stuff not to know about this new Indy installment.
So that makes me wonder if anyone doing a "wow, I'm surprised they're making another Indiana Jones movie" reaction to a lobby standee is merely putting on some sort of silly act.
Everybody knows about the movie. The key question is whether enough people give a shit about it. I'm guessing certain age groups will not.
Posted by Joseph Pandolfi (Member # 223) on 05-21-2008, 09:03 AM:
I will say $108 million going from midnight Wednesday thru Sunday.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-21-2008, 11:11 AM:
OK, just to show I will admit when I've made a mistake ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I'm revising my weekend gross estimate upward, based on mostly-positive reviews at rottentomatoes.com. I now say $140M for Thursday thru Sunday. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I just pulled that number out of my ass but it's going to be plenty big.
I am a little dismayed to read that there's a lot of obvious CG in it though. ![[thumbsdown]](graemlins/thumbsdown.gif)
Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 05-21-2008, 12:10 PM:
I think it will be big. Lots of awareness just from being attached to Iron Man. And have you guys had the new Indy Double Whopper at Burger King???? $175 Million for Thu-Mon.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-21-2008, 01:01 PM:
Plus the kids are in fact getting introduced to Indy through having Lego figures/sets for it and Indy was placed in some Lego video game before that. At least that's something that was covered on NPR when I was heading to school
Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 05-22-2008, 11:16 PM:
quote: Joe Tommassello
And have you guys had the new Indy Double Whopper at Burger King????
I was in Burger King this morning and saw a promotional poster with the King dressed up as Indy.
It was about as disturbing as anything I have ever seen.
$110,000,000 through Memorial Day.
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 05-23-2008, 09:49 AM:
$110,000,001 ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 05-23-2008, 03:51 PM:
According to Box Office Mojo (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/), Indy grossed $25 million on Thursday. I think that safely puts it in the $130-$150 million range for the 5 day opening (Thursday-Monday).
Posted by Ben Goodman (Member # 4770) on 05-24-2008, 12:07 AM:
Yeah, this is going to be a big movie for families and adults over 30. The teen appeal is pretty average-- still, over the five-day weekend I still think it will garner at least $130 mil and it has a good shot of beating the $140 mil Pirates 3 last year.
It also helps that the crowds coming in to this movie are the same crowds that will hit the concession stand and hit it hard. Box office numbers are good to know, but this movie is a theatre goldmine. Probably still won't make as much money in the stand as Wall-E, though...
Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 05-24-2008, 12:22 AM:
Ben, it is unfair to compare Indy to Wall-E. Wall-E very well be the greatest movie ever, if the V2 trailer is any indication.
While my original estimate of $93m seems pessimistic, I'm gonna stick to my guns here and say it will be less than $100m through Sunday. I mean, it is one thing for critics to say a movie is good or bad, but when your friends tell you how much a movie sucks, you think twice. Next weekend is going to see a huge drop after everyone hears how awful this thing is.
Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 05-24-2008, 07:58 AM:
I really think this movie is word of mouth proof. People still want to see Indy on the BIG SCREEN, most people just want there kids to see it on the big screen.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-24-2008, 10:20 AM:
quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
Next weekend is going to see a huge drop after everyone hears how awful this thing is.
Apparently many people (and a lot of critics) think it's good, so word of mouth might not be as bad as you think.
Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 05-24-2008, 10:59 AM:
$1.
AJG
Posted by Louis Belloisy (Member # 3836) on 05-24-2008, 11:01 AM:
We have it on 5 screens and based on our receipts and the grumblings on the exit polls, I say no more than 97 million from Thursday to and including Monday.
So far, its a flop. Our teen staff all hated it, and wondered why they cast an old man in the lead, their quote not mine. Although deep down, i think the same.
Too long, too boring, kept looking at my watch.
I hope i am wrong, our little theaters are hurting, attendance is down severely, due to the crappy films.
louis
Posted by Shane Cooper (Member # 2510) on 05-24-2008, 01:08 PM:
According to Box Office Mojo, Indiana Jones added another $31 million on Friday. This brings the 2-day estimate to $56,041,000.
Based on the estimates, I think this will put it in the $120-$130 range for the 5-day.
Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 05-24-2008, 01:51 PM:
Well, I had to interlock twice last night, but everyone I talked to pretty much hated it, and the parts I've seen killed me inside. If people want to see Indy on the big screen, I would love to do a series of classics and cult movies, but the idea has been shot down by our corporate office at least once when proposed by my GM. People want to see Raiders on the big screen, and dammit, so do I, but the only way that is going to happen is if Lucas does a CGI hack like Star Wars, and that way lies madness.
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 05-24-2008, 06:26 PM:
It looks like Paramount has a lot of confidence in word of mouth advertising and the hype the new Indiana Jones has had ever since it went into production that there are no display ads in our local newspapers when it was released last Thursday. I was very disappointed to hear about the negative reactions from many people who have already seen it. I rarely see most movies in theatres anymore but I am planning to watch this film on the big screen but will wait until next weekend. With the exception of RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, I have seen the other two in 70mm at Honolulu's long defunct Cinerama and the Waikiki Twin Theatres and wish the large film format and those wonderful theatres were still around to view the new Indiana Jones film.
-Claude
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 05-24-2008, 06:37 PM:
Galen
Unless Paramount has made some new prints of Raiders, the ones that are out there are in terrible shape. We played it about 8 years ago and it took me about 4 hours to build up the print because it has torn perfs through the entire print. But I will say the print left in better condition that it arrived.
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-24-2008, 07:04 PM:
I think Paramount actually has made new prints of RAIDERS since then. The last time I saw it theatrically was about 4 years ago. The print itself seemed to be in fine shape, although it looked like it had gone through a few too many generations. The image quality was less than stellar.
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-24-2008, 07:27 PM:
There was talk of the premiere at Cannes being in 70mm...was that true?
Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 05-24-2008, 09:45 PM:
Paramount sent a notice to theatre owners in December 2005 that they had just made new prints for several of their classics including "Raiders" and "White Christmas" among others.
Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 05-24-2008, 10:06 PM:
Raiders of the Lost Ark is playing in Birmingham Alabama on July 26 & 27 at the Alabama Theatre.
I hope they are using 35mm and not DVDs... But they are also showing a bunch of classic Disney animated features that I thought were not available on 35mm at all.
Does anyone know more?
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-25-2008, 12:59 AM:
I would bet they are using DVDs. There's no way Disney would let that many of their classic films out for 2-day matinee engagements.
Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 05-25-2008, 08:27 AM:
quote: John Wilson
There was talk of the premiere at Cannes being in 70mm...was that true?
Not from what I've heard.
Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 05-25-2008, 11:41 AM:
Well, we saw a big drop-off last night. Our schedule is prepared to accommodate interlocking one of our prints three times a day, and we did interlock twice Friday, but we didn't even come close last night. The nice weather probably has something to do with it, since it has been pretty crappy the last few weekends, but I'm holding out hope that everyone heard how bad the movie is. If studios and certain infamous directors would get it into their heads to kindly not make sequels/"prequels" to classic films, I would sleep better at night.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 05-25-2008, 01:11 PM:
It's funny how you're rooting for Indy to bomb. But you're going to be sadly disappointed. According to Box Office Mojo, Indy did an estimated $37 million on Saturday and the Sunday estimate is for $33 million - which would put the 4 day gross at about $126 million and set it up for a 5 day gross right around $150 million.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-25-2008, 01:21 PM:
quote:
If studios and certain infamous directors would get it into their heads to kindly not make sequels/"prequels" to classic films,
There's nothing wrong with a sequel if it's a good movie. Some of the best movies and all-time classics are sequels, and a lot are remakes.
The public has complete and total control over the production of sequels and remakes. All they have to do is stop going to them, and start supporting the hundreds of "original" movies that appear and disappear with no attendance every year.
The fact is, most people love a "known quantity" and since people are so ingrained with TV series, maybe they think of a movie sequel as just another "episode" in a series of stories about their favorite characters.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 05-25-2008, 01:35 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
There's nothing wrong with a sequel if it's a good movie. Some of the best movies and all-time classics are sequels, and a lot are remakes.
Spider-Man 2 was one of the best sequels ever, besides being a great film on it's own. Given that, it's no surprise that Spider-Man 3 was so popular. Unfortunately, people didn't know that Spider-Man 3 was a piece of crap until they had seen it and driven the gross way up. Which then give the studio a reason to make a 4th movie - the Same can be said for Shrek 2 and 3. At least with Spider-Man 3, people caught on quickly and the movie died off very quickly - even if it did have a huge gross (it made $240 of the $336 million in the first 10 days).
Posted by Robert LaValley (Member # 4319) on 05-25-2008, 02:58 PM:
but dont you think most of the time sequels dont match up to the first of a series. like pirates, or matrix. And even indy really. although I happened to like last crusade better out of the four just cuz of connery. you cant beat connery. :-)
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-25-2008, 04:07 PM:
I think it depends on the series. For something like Indiana Jones, the first one will most likely be the best, because it's designed to work on its own, and a sequel is just trying to recapture the magic.
For something like Spider-Man, I would anticipate the sequel being better, because you're dealing with a huge franchise, and in order to get to the good stuff, you have to spend the first movie setting things up. That's tedious and boring.
Of course that line of reasoning suggests that SPIDER-MAN 3 would be great, so go figure...
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-25-2008, 08:47 PM:
I think this is covered in some other thread, but there are a few instances where the sequel is better than the original, for the reasons Mike S. stated...the most popular being The Godfather Part II, and Superman II (a subject of great debate, but I like it better than the first).
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-25-2008, 09:23 PM:
'Surf 2' was also way better than the original.
In fact, it wasn't too difficult to achieve... there never even was a 'Surf 1'.
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-25-2008, 09:24 PM:
Don't forget THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK!
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-25-2008, 09:35 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
Superman II (a subject of great debate, but I like it better than the first).
I'm REALLY looking forward to getting to see the Richard Donner cut of Superman II soonish just to compare it to the Lester version.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-25-2008, 09:36 PM:
Estimates are out....Indy did $126m for Thurs-Sun, expected to add $25m on Monday.
B.O. is still down some from '07, but that's understandable considering the "big 3" that opened in this timeframe. Looks like Narnia, Iron Man and Vegas are holding up pretty well!
Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 05-25-2008, 10:48 PM:
My problem isn't with sequels, I love Last Crusade and I even really like Temple of Doom (when I was a kid, I absolutely loved the scene where the guy's heart is ripped out). My problem is with making a crappy sequel almost 20 years after the movie(s) is/are done and over with, just to make a quick buck. I mean, Last Crusade came out the year I was born! It has moved out of its parents' house and has a steady job and maybe goes to school part time, you know, trying to decide what to do with its life. (The Last Crusade's life is not, in fact, a reflection of my own, this is just personification.) But wait, here comes another one! Only now, this one is about aliens from some wacky dimension, and their heads are magnets or something. Awesome. Plus, you know how the action sequences used to be timeless and, well, good? Now they're full of shitty CGI that will look antiquated by the time the thing is out on the video format of the day! Great!
Maybe I'm just jaded because I watched these movies when I was in diapers and loved them, but even if Crystal Skull was a good movie on its own, it would still be riding on the coattails of the trilogy to make a $150m opening weekend. That, plus it isn't good.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-25-2008, 11:06 PM:
I call BS on part of that.
Not too long ago, Last Crusade was on TV. I saw the part where Indy and his dad got into a small plane and hit some birds and stuff. And the first thing I noticed was that the background looked completely fake... because they didn't actually fly a plane around.
So were the action sequences always good or ones that were sometimes fake and now look antiquated?
Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 05-25-2008, 11:18 PM:
Fine, they weren't perfect, but those special effects certainly looked nicer than nasty CGI. I mean, for some special effects awesomeness, watch Die Nibelungen and check out that dragon. Does it look realistic? Hell no, it's a big puppet. That is special effects Fritz Lang-school, and it kills George Lucas all day long. But even old school George Lucas beats new school Lucas.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 05-26-2008, 05:11 AM:
I have to quibble about one point with regard to the new Indiana Jones. Obviously the financial incentive is what got the movie made. But I think the reason they wanted to make the picture is because the franchise continues to be so popular and all the principles were up for another movie. Although I haven't had a chance to see the new movie yet, I think any problems in the story are a separate issue for the fact they made another movie. In fact, had the new movie been really good, everyone would have been singing the praises of Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford.
And as far as special effects integration, I would challenge you to go back and take another look at the original Star Wars movies - especially Jedi. While they might have been state of the art in their day, there are many shots that are very fake looking (actors in front of green screens, actors in front of moving mattes, etc).
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-26-2008, 11:34 AM:
quote: Justin Hamaker
Obviously the financial incentive is what got the movie made.
I hate to ruin you guys' fantasy world, but financial incentive is what gets EVERY movie made.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 05-26-2008, 02:30 PM:
Mike, I would modify your statement. Financial incentive is what gets major tent pole movies made as well as most mainstream studio releases. However, I believe there are plenty of movies that are made for the sake of telling the story, rather than to make money. Unfortunately most of these movies never see wide release and are largely ignored by the general public.
Of course the people who make such a movie will do everything within their power to see a return on their investment, but I do believe many smaller films are made for reasons other than just to make money.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-26-2008, 03:06 PM:
Moviemaking is a business -- a for-profit business. Of course there are people who make a movie just because it's a passionate thing with them (Mel Gibson is a good example) but they can afford to do it, and they still hope and pray that the public will latch onto it and it'll become a hit. And there are always plenty of other people attached to the product hoping the same thing.
Indy 4 was made because they knew it'd be a moneymaker, sure. That may have been a lot of peoples' incentive to get on board with it. But it was also the public's love of the character, and the filmmakers' conviction that they had a good story to tell, that got it made. The fact that some people would not like it was a given from the start.
Posted by Phil Blake (Member # 2012) on 05-26-2008, 10:49 PM:
OK my guestimate for the opening weekend was way out , people did flock to it in USA and here. However my attendance predictions with 10 to 24 year olds was spot on.
We had reasonable crowds here but not one teen , it was people 40's plus and parents with young children (up to 8yold) that made up 99% of the audience. The teens have marked it totally uncool.
I would be interested to hear how many others have experienced the same effect.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 05-26-2008, 11:42 PM:
My theatre was just as busy as last memorial day, but it was mostly Indiana Jones and it covered all demographics from kids through seniors. The audience might have skewed toward 30+, but there were plenty of teens and early 20's. In fact, we did just as well with 1 print of Indy as we did with 2 prints of Pirates last Memorial day. If we had 2 prints of Indy, we probably would have done 30-40% more because we turned a lot of people away.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-27-2008, 01:01 AM:
We're not playing it yet, but all the teens on my staff are excited to see it. We're getting inquiries from lots of adults of all ages as well.
Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 05-27-2008, 01:20 PM:
quote:
I mean, Last Crusade came out the year I was born!
Wow, 18 y/o? No wonder you know everything! Well, Galen, that explains much to me. Your off-the-cuff, pretentious film appreciation minor course Fritz Lang reference didn't impress me.
Seeing Indy on the screen in a respectable film (better than Temple of Doom in my opinion) was a treat. Seeing him matured and coming full circle in certain aspects of his life is touching to some of us. He's a character I and many movie lovers "bonded" with years before you were born. We are not primarily interested in whether the CGI looked as good as some other movie...we wanted to see our old friend.
I would say it's likely you may NEVER in your entire life love and respect movies the way many of us here do. When I became aware of the movies it represented an event...something special to do with your friends or family. A bonding experience in many cases. You had to go out and sit with hundreds of other people. And they didn't talk while the movie was on like they were in their own living room. They didn't have obnoxious electronics ringing and beeping and buzzing. And you couldn't hear explosions from a theater next door while the hero was kissing the girl. When YOU gained movie awareness it was a piece of plastic you could throw around your house. If you broke it you could replace it for $10. If I wanted to see "The Wizard of Oz" when I was a child I had to be sitting in front of the TV the same night once a year at 8:00 (Easter?) with my TV tuned to CBS. It was my only option. YOU could pop a VHS tape in every day if you chose. Even when I was old enough to be aware of the 16mm and 35mm collector's market such titles were near impossible to find and even if you could they were astronomically expensive. When I started collecting film I had to set up my screen and projector in a suitable place and I could invite some friends over because people actually got together to watch movies then instead of (in the words of a wise projectionist friend Bill R.) "jerking off alone in their basement".
"Raiders..." came out before home video cheapened movies. I was two days back from my honeymoon when my then-wife and I saw it reviewed by Siskel and Ebert (back when they were still on PBS). We ran out to see it that afternoon. The Rosenberg family whom we hadn't seen since high school were there. They had watched Siskel and Ebert that morning too. Two days later I got my dad to go, then a few days later took a friend who couldn't drive himself because he had broken his ankle. In all I saw Raiders six times during it's initial release. I had to...I didn't know when I'd ever be able to see it again because movies weren't coming out on video like they do now - and the video formats of that day were far inferior anyway. It was 1981 and Star Wars wasn't even out on videocassette yet.
As the movie (IJ4) started I thought about a friend who passed away last year. I was with him when "...Last Crusade" came out. We were in "the business" and attended the trade screening. I missed him so much on Saturday my eyes filled with tears. I'd have given nearly anything at that moment to have Clyde there with me. Maybe I am a sentimental ass, but that's the emotion a movie can bring out in me. I hope one day they will do the same for you. In the meantime you can debate which movies had sequels that were better than the originals (I think Spiderman 2 was mentioned) or if the CGI was up to par in Indiana Jones...and I'll appreciate all the old-school stunts they did live on the set and then go home and watch Godfather II.
Here's a scan of what remains of something Clyde and I organized together with another friend named Dave. It cost about $2000 to produce and we made the money back and a few hundred bucks in addition...but that wasn't the point. RIP Uncle!
Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 05-27-2008, 02:39 PM:
I will thank you not to insult me. How could you possibly know how much I appreciate what movies? I enjoy the original Indiana Jones movies immensely, and have seen them each dozens of times. Ditto for Star Wars. The fact that I think that these decades later sequels are pieces of shit, inspired by their makers loss of any artistic vision and immense greed, both for money and additional repute, does not detract from the original films, but it does detract from their dumbass directors/producers.
And, attacking me based upon my age is childish and unbefitting of the professional I assume you are. I do my damnedest to provide a fantastic viewing experience for my patrons, and while the fact that I am only 19 and relatively inexperienced in projection does detract from my actual skill, I feel it reflects all the more on my passion that I provide such excellent presentation. This is a forum for professionals, and I would very much appreciate if you would treat me like the professional I try to be. I will reciprocate, and treat you like the professional that I will assume you are despite your pigheaded attacks on my person.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-27-2008, 03:00 PM:
I think he was more attacking your attitude than your age but I'm sure you won't see it that way.
Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 05-27-2008, 03:06 PM:
galen, your die nibelungen: siegfrieds tod comparison works for me. hopefully you saw it on film, not on a plastic disc as joe implies (how would he know?). anyways, it shows you have a certain amount of perspective on film history, more than most posters here seem to have.
Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 05-27-2008, 03:10 PM:
quote:
Wow, 18 y/o? No wonder you know everything!
Am I less entitled to an opinion about the movies that I project than anyone else because I am 19? He may be attacking my attitude, which, by the way, is simply one of disgust for crappy sequels to beloved movies, but he certainly does take an unnecessary crack at my age. If I had any control over my age, believe me, I would not be 19. But that does not change the fact that I am a discerning movie viewer, and that I come to my opinion that this movie sucks fully formed. Believe me, I don't want it to suck, but I have no control over that. Hell, I can't even make it look critically in focus, because some jackass DP decided to rub some secretion all over the front of his lens.
Carl, unfortunately, I saw it on DVD in a film class, although I did see Metropolis at the Detroit Institute of Art's incomparable arthouse theater, accompanied by the Alloy Orchestra playing their own original score. This was when I was quite young, however. I don't make it to see such films as much as I used to, as my pursuit of projection excellence demands that I be at my own theater when most arthouses are open.
Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 05-27-2008, 03:14 PM:
WAAAAA!!!!!!! Mommy he was mean to me!!!!!!
Just kidding.
First I made no disparaging comments concerning your work. Taking you at your word I applaud you (as I do all of us here) for providing the very best presentation possible.
It's comments like this that ruffle my feathers:
quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
Hell, I can't even make it look critically in focus, because some jackass DP decided to rub some secretion all over the front of his lens.
"...some jackass DP..." Janusz Kaminski - look him up on IMDB... film student!
I was sitting in the third row. Looked fine to me. Have you considered that perhaps the goal was to make it look like the previous films in the series? Perhaps sound like them too (the sound did seem slightly clipped as mentioned by Brad)? When you are DP on a $120 million production I'll accept your choices.
quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
The fact that I think that these decades later sequels are pieces of shit, inspired by their makers loss of any artistic vision and immense greed, both for money and additional repute, does not detract from the original films, but it does detract from their dumbass directors/producers.
You're right about one thing there - you think that. The rest is wrong...prententious film school 101 bullshit.
You miss the entire point of this film. I could explain it to you but you're 19 years old and know everything...just like my daughter did when she was your age. I don't hold it against you. In fact, it's kind of comforting how constant some things are. But I digress...
The point of most films - especially films like Spiderman 17 or whatever number they're up to - is to make money. I am certain Mr. Lucas and Mr. Spielberg are happy their film is a hit but we can hardly believe either of them needed the money. These are men of vision - visions that I sometimes appreciate and other times don't - and they deserve a lot more respect than you are giving them. They don't need to prove anything and, yes, this film isn't as inspired as some of their previous work. I think they know that. This film is a gift to the people who love these characters and the spirit they embody...and you are throwing that gift right back in their faces and telling them it's not good enough. Shame on you.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-27-2008, 03:44 PM:
I don't think saying "this isn't good enough" is the problem. I'm sure there are plenty of people who disliked the movie that wouldn't go to the extent of saying that "the filmmakers all have no creative vision and are solely in it for the money."
Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 05-27-2008, 03:47 PM:
Thanks Chris. You are right. He didn't say it wasn't good enough. He said they (assuming he means the Star Wars films too) were pieces of shit.
Galen - you don't like people making cracks about your age? Who wrote this on 5/19:
quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
Well, considering the relatively poor ad campaign (no full length trailer until a month ago, crappy commercials) and the fact that most people who saw the previous ones in theaters need to use walkers to get into the theaters, including Harrison Ford (The Last Crusade is as old as me!), I'm going to say $93mil.
Didn't see any walkers, blew away $93mil. Wrong on both counts...junior!
Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 05-27-2008, 04:05 PM:
I would accuse you of taking what I said out of context, but you aren't. I will, however, clarify: this Indiana Jones film may not be "shit", but it is not up to the standards its own filmmakers set with their previous works in the series. I'm sure that Lucas and Spielberg have a vision, but I feel it is not the vision of the previous Indy films, and it doesn't do justice to Indy. That is my opinion.
The so-called "Star Wars" movies are shit. That is scientific fact, and can be measured with a Geiger counter in the vicinity of a DVD or Blu-Ray boxed set, or alternately by throwing it in a fire.
I did see a few walkers, so I was half right.
Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 05-27-2008, 04:24 PM:
Galen - as much as I love the debate I have to concede we are finding some common ground. While I don't entirely agree with you on the Star Wars films they definitely fell off after ESB. I think Brad has a Turd-O-Meter or something that you might want to employ.
You seem like a good guy and I respect your dedication to making the moviegoing experience as good as it can be. God knows there are enough obstacles you have to work around. Just try not to forget that movies can just be fun. Not every film has to be a work of art. There's a place for "Dumb and Dumber" too and sometimes I prefer that to "Citizen Kane".
Good luck in film school. Maybe you'll win an Oscar one day I'll be pointing at the TV saying "I called that kid an asshole when he was just a film student!"
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-27-2008, 04:25 PM:
I love a spirited debate.
Both Galen and Joe have valid points. Younger moviegoers perceive the moviegoing experience from their life experience in which movies that last 4 weeks in a theater are considered very successful and most of a film's money is made on opening weekend via saturation booking and dozens of showtimes in each plex. There's really no waiting in line or getting there 3 hours early. What, the 7:00 show is sold out? No problem, there's a show at 7:20. And anyway it'll be out on DVD in no time at all.
I do think that many of us who were around for films like Star Wars and Raiders regard them as very special. Moviegoing was a different experience then, and I don't mean presentation or showmanship or how many channels the sound had. It was special because you couldn't get it on demand. You had to go to a theater and perhaps stand in line. There were no cell phones, no stadium seating, no preshow advertising, few trailers (often no trailers at all for 70mm engagements). There were maybe 4 shows a day, not 24.
Well that was then, this is now. I think Spielberg and Lucas have done good with Indiana Jones 4. It may not be great but it's at least good and I'm willing to cut them some slack for giving it an honest sincere effort and trying to satisfy everyone, which is of course impossible, and coming up with a decent entertainment that nobody has to be ashamed of.
BTW I too did not like the "look" of IJ4 but obviously Spielberg trusts Janus Kaminsky and there you have it. I'd rather have IJ4 photographed through a smeared lens than not at all. At least they shot it anamorphic. The glass is therefore half full.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 05-27-2008, 04:40 PM:
The one thing that really bothers me about IJ4 is Lucas coming out and saying "it's just a movie". I haven't seen it yet so I can't give my opinion. But is seems to me like he's giving himself a pass for what may be some lazy writing and/or execution. This probably wouldn't be noteworthy except that it seems like story is the last aspect of a movie that Lucas pays attention to. But I would expect much more from Spielberg.
Here's the story in USA Today, although I originally saw it somewhere else. http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2008-03-24-lucas_N.htm
Posted by Rene Ferron (Member # 4674) on 05-27-2008, 04:50 PM:
quote: Rene Ferron
I would say 122 Mil.
I was close enuff ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 05-27-2008, 04:51 PM:
I had read comments about the "smeared lens" here before I saw the film. I was sitting in the third row which I typically like if the theater's sound is acceptable there. Knowing that there are many good pairs of eyes and ears on these forums (I've been lurking here since 1998) I looked specifically and aside from some shots that seemed like they might be hazy settings (like a steamy jungle scene) I didn't see it. I did, however, think the whole look of the film was reminicent of films of the early 80s. It's very likely we will learn in the inevitable DVD special features that this was intentional and possibly even shot with lenses from that era. As a result not only would the film look more like the other three but also closer to the era in which the action is placed. We can debate all day whether we like the look or not and no one's opinion is wrong - but I think we all agree it didn't end up looking this way by accident. Kaminski and Spielberg chose to make it look as it does and I for one think it may have added to the nostalgic quality that the material itself evokes.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-27-2008, 05:00 PM:
Honestly, the "smeared lens" effect was really only objectionable to me in a couple of scenes. But most of the movie had a greenish-golden tinge that bugged me. I totally agree this was probably a deliberate artistic choice, not an accident. I just didn't much like it. I also wouldn't be surprised if you're right and they shot it with older lenses etc.
Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 05-27-2008, 05:04 PM:
Greenish - gold tinge? Maybe they pulled out an old Kodak SP stock print of Raiders and tried to make it look like that! Or maybe they just printed it on FUJI stock. The print I saw was definitely on the higher contrast stock Kodak is producing now.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-27-2008, 06:55 PM:
quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
This is a forum for professionals, and I would very much appreciate if you would treat me like the professional I try to be.
He does have a point though. People under age 30 or so have no idea what an "event" a movie used to be. It was something you went out of your way to experience -- it wasn't available anytime, anywhere, and if you missed it, it was gone, maybe forever. Time was, a movie could be a phenomenon for YEARS. Today we're lucky to get two weeks out of it before the "I'll wait for the video" mentality takes over.
There's no way you or anyone else your age will ever know what it was like, Galen, and it's too bad for you, because the movies were a lot more magical then. That's the point he was trying to make.
I still get "the old feeling" when the lights go down and a movie I've been waiting to see begins.
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-27-2008, 07:48 PM:
quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
The so-called "Star Wars" movies are shit. That is scientific fact, and can be measured with a Geiger counter in the vicinity of a DVD or Blu-Ray boxed set, or alternately by throwing it in a fire.
Before torching it, you should try selling that Blu-Ray boxed set of Star Wars on ebay. I bet it's worth quite a bit... since you have the only one in existence.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-27-2008, 08:00 PM:
Are the tallys not in yet? I'm not seeing any numbers posted here except guesses.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 05-27-2008, 08:18 PM:
According to Box Office Mojo, $151 million and change for the 5 day opening. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?view=&yr=2008&wknd=21a&p=
The estimates I posted earlier in the weekend were also from Box Office Mojo.
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-27-2008, 08:19 PM:
Thursday - $25,041,072
Friday - $30,571,275
Saturday - $36,533,839
Sunday - $33,032,721
Monday - $26,779,538
Friday to Sunday - $100,137,835
Thursday to Sunday - $125,178,907
Thursday to Monday - $151,958,445
Budget was $185 million...without Spielberg, Lucas or Ford being paid yet! WTF?
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-27-2008, 09:41 PM:
I read somewhere that the three principals deferred their normal fee and are getting "points" (a percentage of the gross). A smart move on their part.
Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 05-29-2008, 04:19 PM:
I'm sorry...How much does it cost to render a gopher, a nuclear blast, and manufacture a plexiglass skull?
Roger Corman could have made this movie for $18.5 million...and he would have used real gophers.
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-29-2008, 07:21 PM:
Yes, but CGI gophers are 'real-er-er' than 'real' gophers.
We used to have possums in our roof but CGI ones moved in and made them feel redundant so they left.
Now, if only I could find some easier way of cleaning out their '0's' and '1's' droppings they leave behind.
Maybe I'll just wait for Spielberg's DVD version of my roof to come out. I hear he's removed the droppings and replaced them with walkie talkies.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-29-2008, 08:51 PM:
quote: John Wilson
Yes, but CGI gophers are 'real-er-er' than 'real' gophers.
Reminds me of a Futurama episode
Leela: Fry, you're wasting your life sitting in front of that TV. You need to get out and see the world.
Fry: But this is HDTV. It's got better resolution than the real world.
Real-er indeed.
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 05-30-2008, 10:40 AM:
Why didn't they use the gopher from Caddyshack 1 and 2? Is he retired?
Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 05-30-2008, 11:25 AM:
He wanted his money up front.
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-30-2008, 12:08 PM:
What I'm trying to figure out is some of the CGI backgrounds. Was it bad CGI or were they trying for the look that a 1950's made movie would have (with matte paintings). The backgrounds at the "secret base" and in the warehouse were obviously fake (the lighting didn't look right and they were soft). I'm just wondering if this look was done one purpose to give it an "old school" feel.
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 06-04-2008, 08:43 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
I read somewhere that the three principals deferred their normal fee and are getting "points" (a percentage of the gross). A smart move on their part.
I thought after Nicholson made out like a bandit doing that on Batman the check writers were super-careful about that stuff.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-04-2008, 10:45 PM:
The ones I heard about making out like bandits were Tom Hanks ("Forrest Gump") and Bruce Willis who got something like $20 million just for being the voice in "Look Who's Talking."
I think that kind of deal is quite common among the super-powerful talent, especially if it's a project that is "personal" to them.
Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 06-05-2008, 01:05 PM:
quote: Lyle Romer
The backgrounds at the "secret base" and in the warehouse were obviously fake (the lighting didn't look right and they were soft). I'm just wondering if this look was done one purpose to give it an "old school" feel.
I agree they looked obvious. I was thinking "green screen" while I watched that sequence and was glad it wasn't that way through the entire film. As to if it was intentional? I would guess not. They didn't employ intentional visual techniques in the other IJ films to make them look older. In addition it seemed to me they tried to copy the 80's look of the first film through most of the film. I think it was just typical CGI - it never quite looks real. ILMs are among the most offensive probably due to overkill. I kept waiting for some speeders to fly by in the background.
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2