My Studios

21 movies have topped $100 million in the US this year. Besides the top 6 (Spider-Man, Shrek, Transformers, Pirates, Harry Potter, Bourne), which aren't really surprising in the slightest, which do you think is the most surprising or least deserving (doesn't have to be both), and why?

Personally, while I think it's a bit surprising that 300 made as much as it did, my vote for the biggest surprise goes to Wild Hogs. I NEVER would've thought that this film would still be in the top 10 highest-grossing movies of the year by the beginning of November. Now, granted, it's at #10, so one of the holiday biggies will surely knock it out, but it looked so terrible that I would've thought $50 million was about its peak.

I completely agree with you. Wild Hogs looks terrible, I will not see it, I dont know what this movie has going for it. How in the world did it make that much money!?!?!? It's like how many licks will it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop, the world may never know.

I am also surprised by Hairspray crossing the 100 mil mark, but Wild Hogs making that much is an abomination.

Very suprised that Hairspray did as well as it did, considering it was a musical and surrounded by big summer blockbusters.

300, shocked that it made over $200 million, but not that it made over $100 million.

As for Wild Hogs, there must have been a film draught when it was released, However it was released a couple of week's after Ghostrider so it was the season for crap to rule.

But as the rule goes disney family comedies seem to make a lot of money so it didn't suprise me that much that it passed $100 million, and Nick Cage films usually pass the 100 million mark.

Obviously, Wild Hogs is the bomb that didn't explode. Washed up actor freaks trying to ride motorcycles, give me a break.

...Wild Hogs is the bomb that didn't explode.

[Chuckling] Now, THAT is a quotable quote! Love it. Nicely done... You know, with that sort of wit, style and discernment, I wish that you really WERE "Hollywood."

I remain, as always...

Nico.

ETA: Oh, yeah. I selected Wild Hogs. Who'da thunk it? [Grin]

Will the inevitable sequel [suppressing involuntary shudder] be called, Wild Hogs II: Hog Wilder, do you suppose?

In January, as we surveyed the vast expanse that was Hollywood releases 2007, we noted the massive mountains that were Spidey, Shrek, Transformers, the expected 'hills' in the form of Rush Hour 3 and Knocked Up and also a microscopic anthill called Superbad. And then there were trenches where studios dug their graves with releases like Evan Almighty.

While Mount Transformers and the other Titans were easy to spot, it took a discerning viewer to well-establish the potential of the 'hills that weren't hills'. While early predictions called for these movies to gross anywhere from $30-$60 mil, all of them soared high into the $130-140 mil range and beyond.

I recall saying that if Superbad outdid $150 mil, i might eat a hat - that is, while I was sure it would gross at least 80-90 mil, there was no way in hell that I expected it to break the 120 mil barrier (which it did last week) and during it's 8 week-theatrical run, Superbad may not make me eat a hat, but it sure had me chewing my nails for a bit....

To conclude, these are my top 3 $100mil surprises of the year (as for Wild Hogs, let's just say I do not include pure filth in my movie-talk - damn, I said the name, gotta go rinse my mouth with soap....) and if only 1408 had crossed the $100 mil barrier, it would be top of this list rather than just an honourable mention alongside these unexpected successes.

PS>> For a $2 movie, Superbad didn't disappoint did it??!! $120 mil in BO, 8.3 IMDb, 19 Top 5 and 5 PTA!!!! I mean, that's a little on the below average side....if we're talking about an entire $100 slate of 8 movies!!!! But for a $2 movie....well, I'll leave the reflecting up to you shall I??

For a $2 movie, Superbad didn't disappoint did it??!! $120 mil in BO, 8.3 IMDb, 19 Top 5 and 5 PTA!!!! I mean, that's a little on the below average side....if we're talking about an entire $100 slate of 8 movies!!!! But for a $2 movie....well, I'll leave the reflecting up to you shall I??

[Nodding] Damn skippy, ashkul, and for what it's worth, you just touched upon the central theme of my new FM column, debuting in a little over two weeks. Yes, dear friends, after a six-month absence, the good folks at FM have invited me to return with a brand-spanking-new feature.

It's going to be called, "Bank for Your Buck", and I believe we're looking at a Nov. 2 launch date, with new columns initially scheduled to appear every two weeks. (Though, as the new year approaches, it's possible I'll be rolling out a separate column to appear on Bank for Your Buck's "off" weeks. That's not definite, though.)

More details coming soon...

I remain, as always...

Nico.

Wild Hogs by far i thought it would be lucky to make 10 million let alone 168. Anyways congrats Nico on getting another column i hope i get a column someday

thanks Nico, and congrats on your new column!!!!

as for me, the New York Times and Variety are currently in the midst of a bidding war to secure my services as editor (with the 'me' in question being a 19-year old 3rd year physics undergrad in canada) ....

hehe, dreams!!!! well, Trans, when that day does arrive, i'll be sure to mention your name to the Times (i'd pick variety any day, just coz i'd love to live in LA)

oh and nico, if you're looking for an interesting opening for 'bank for your buck', you could use my little experiment over the august to october season....

i deliberately created 2 studios (aug-oct being only my second season at FM) to test the theory of mogul monsters versus medium-sized picks....

the monster for that season was, obviously, bourne, and i picked 2 studios, one with and one without....the results seem pretty interesting, let me know and if you're interested, i'll go into detail about my 'findings'

....

Thanks, ashkul, for the suggestion... I've been doing much the same thing, only without actually creating the studios through FM. I've been building an Access database for several weeks, now, looking ahead to the films scheduled to be released through January, and retroactive to last October.

I'll see if I can figure a way for us to chat more about this soon... Stay tuned! And thanks for the good thoughts.

I remain, as always...

Nico.

It was asked who went to see Wild Hogs? Simple answer- Blame or thank the baby boomers. With my job (I work as a in home sales representative for a cleaner company) most every person I would talk with during my demonstration would mention two things- either me and friends saw it and loved it, or my friends saw it and I looking forward to seeing on DVD/ cable. And they would usually go without thier kids, or with thier older (20's and up). The timing was prime too, with very little competition draw business away. And the producers were spot on in their logic- find a handful of actors that have a solid but aged fan base that creates strong male/ female draw and place them in a story where men and women will be equally drawn to. It sound completely prefabricated and milquetoast as you can get- but the boomers ate it Allen, Travolta, and Lawrence.

Hurrah! Congrats on your new column, Nico!

And jameydunne, I think that's a pretty astute observation as to just how marketing-driven some movies are. But really, movie studios are in the business of making money so we can't entirely blame them. What we CAN blame them for is when these sorts of creatively-bankrupt movies spawn other creatively-bankrupt movies at the expense of unique film-going experiences. That's just maddening.

Resistance- humor me on this thought. As easy as it is to dismiss medocre/poor movies from other genres, look at the genres that we ramble on about. A Halloween remake? Yet another Saw movie? Scary/Date/Epic Movie? Even (don't hate me too much for this one) The Simpsons Movie?

Some of these movie rose above their financially driven origins (if one one of those titles is a favorite of yours good for that movie), but most don't ever look like more than what they ever were- a studio capitalizing on a visably profitable market. The fact that they are fleecing someone elses wallet with mediocrity doesn't change the fact that you are also opening you wallet to get fleeced by the same mediocrity.

Me, I'm waiting for Hellboy 2.

jameydunne
-ending my sentences with propositions. I am so Minnesotan.

The fact that they are fleecing someone elses wallet with mediocrity doesn't change the fact that you are also opening you wallet to get fleeced by the same mediocrity.

Echoing vive's sentiment, here, but what's true when someone else says it is still, well, true: This may just be the most astute observation I've read in this Forum. Sadly, I agree 100%, jamey.

Take a look at this year's current Top 10 highest-grossing films. There are only TWO defensibly "original" ideas in the bunch; and one of 'em, cruelly enough, IS Wild Hogs (Gah, did I really just SAY that?):

[1] Spider-Man 3. $336,530,303. Sequel. Based on a comic book.
[2] Shrek the Third. $321,012,359. Sequel.
[3] Transformers. $317,584,000. Based on television series. Also, arguably, a remake.
[4] Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. $309,420,425. Sequel.
[5] Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. $290,753,534. Arguably, a sequel. Based on a novel.
[6] The Bourne Ultimatum. $225,578,000. Sequel. Arguably, based on a novel.
[7] 300. $210,614,939. Based on a graphic novel.
[8] Ratatouille. $204,041,998. An entirely original idea. Bless you, Pixar.
[9] The Simpsons Movie. $182,330,477. Arguably, based on a television series.
[10] Wild Hogs. $168,273,550. God help me, it's pretty much an original idea. Yeah, it's derivative of City Slickers and just about every "road movie" ever filmed, but other than that, it's fairly original, if lame.

Looking at the year's list of $100 million blockbusters, it gets even worse:

[11] Knocked Up. $148,761,765. An original idea.
[12] Rush Hour 3. $138,893,001. Sequel. Lame.
[13] Live Free or Die Hard. $134,473,395. Sequel.
[14] Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. $131,914,259. Sequel. Also, extremely lame.
[15] Superbad. $120,732,754. An original idea.
[16] I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry. $119,677,000. An original idea, if you ignore the glaring Odd Couple analogy.
[17] Hairspray (2007). $118,434,331. Remake. Also, based on a stage production.
[18] Blades of Glory. $118,245,842. An original idea.
[19] Ocean's Thirteen. $117,154,724. Sequel.
[20] Ghost Rider. $115,802,596. Based on a comic book. Lamer than a one-legged millipede.
[21] Evan Almighty. $100,289,690. Sequel.

...Pretty discouraging, isn't it? Out of 21 titles, you've got no more than five legitimately original ideas, and every single one of them is a comedy.

Hey, want to play a game? Try guessing the last year when A MAJORITY of the Top 10 highest-grossing films were actually ORIGINAL. Here's a clue: Tom Hanks was the star of the highest-grossing film of that year, and he was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role for that film (but didn't win). [Swipe for the answer:] 1998, when a whopping EIGHT out of the year's Top 10-grossing titles could be considered "original": A Bug's Life, Armageddon, Deep Impact, Patch Adams, Rush Hour, There's Something About Mary, The Waterboy, and the year's top film, Saving Private Ryan. That's pretty friggin' sad, y'all: [Swipe:] It's been nearly a decade since American studios and filmgoers could be counted upon to value creativity over commercial appeal. And, no, 2000 doesn't count, since Scary Movie was the very epitome of "derivative," and only five films qualify as true originals: Cast Away, Gladiator, Meet the Parents, What Lies Beneath, and What Women Want...and five ain't a majority.

I'll break it down for you and put it this way: The major studios have all but given up on fresh, innovative ideas, and feel it's more fiscally responsible to feed audiences what they're already familiar with, in a brand-new wrapper and with more whiz-bang-boom, than to risk alienating us by challenging us with original concepts. They feel that way because, year after year, they've seen Middle America ignore the new, the unknown, the challenging, and rush to theaters and Blockbusters and Best Buys to throw money down on what they've already read or watched or heard. These are smart people, and they have calculators, and they have stockholders, and when they can count on $40 million-plus opening weekends for sh!t like Scary Movie 4 and Rush Hour 3, putting out assembly-line garbage just seems like good, responsible business sense all-around.

However, it's possible I digress. No, actually, I didn't. I'm just backing up your point, jamey, but perhaps I don't need to. You guys are pretty damned smart, yourselves, and I'm probably just preaching to the choir. So, moving on...

What vive said is equally true:

...[M]ovie studios are in the business of making money so we can't entirely blame them.

Corporately, we can't blame them at all. They're just giving us what we've asked for or, at the very least, continuing to provide us with what they've been paid handsomely, with our money, to give us in the past. When a child stomps on your foot and you give 'em ten bucks for the pleasure, guess what they're going to do when they want ANOTHER ten bucks? Or, twelve? Or fifty? This doesn't happen by chance: It's learned behavior. It's perfectly reasonable, even inevitable, given the facts and historical precendents: Lowering standards in their products has only yielded higher profit margins, so what can they do to boost revenues even more? Obviously, drop quality through the floor, and hire more accountants to add up the cash. Perhaps we'll get to the point where there are only ten different movies, and they're re-made, or get a sequel, or are "re-conceptualized," or "re-booted," or "re-visited," every year. Of course, the most cynical among us might well say, Dude, we're already there.

However, I digress.

What we CAN blame them for is when these sorts of creatively-bankrupt movies spawn other creatively-bankrupt movies at the expense of unique film-going experiences.

To reference Field of Dreams -- an original movie, btw -- If they build it, and we don't come, why would they ever build another? WE ASKED FOR THIS. THEY'RE ONLY TRYING TO GIVE US WHAT THEY THINK WE REALLY, REALLY WANT. THEY FIGURE OUT WHAT WE WANT BY WHAT WE SPEND OUR MONEY ON. And, this year alone, we've already spent a whopping $4 BILLION -- okay, fine, $3,930,519,942.00, but, hey, who's counting? -- on what is, overwhelmingly, the same old sh!t. And that's just for the top 21-grossing films. And that's just domestically. And that's just in theaters. And that's just for the first nine months of the year.

Interestingly, films a little lower in the pecking order -- not all of them commerical failures, but none of 'em hits -- seem to be far more novel, on the whole. On this year's list, after #35 (Resident Evil: Extinction), original films outnumber sequels and remakes and regurgitations, by three or four to one against. Not all of them are good films, and tastes differ, but there are some pretty decent ones in there, and even a few exceptional titles, to be sure: The Kingdom, The Brave One, Zodiac, Breach, Amazing Grace, Waitress, Eastern Promises, Across the Universe, Michael Clayton and The Lives of Others, to name a few... ten, actually. I have to wonder, what sort of "tentpole" releases might we have the privilege of looking forward to, if THESE were our Top 10 Films of 2007? It's worth thinking about. Hard.

My point is, we're in the habit of REWARDING studios for putting out crap, or pablum, or crappily made pablum, or all three. We get what we paid for -- in far, far more ways than one.

Here's another question: Would ANY of us contend that the Top 10 highest-grossing films of ANY year, were also the Top 10 highest-QUALITY films released that year? Ever? And, to skip ahead a bit, to the end of the page and that particular discussion: WHY is that so "impossible"?

Okay, sermon over. May you go forth from this sacred place where we, the faithful, congregate, and spread your wisdom into the world. Thy -- thine own -- will be done. Amen.

I am so Minnesotan.

Would that then make you, by default, a Colorado Rockies fan this month? If so, cheers, and I hope my Red Sox meet your guys in the Series.

I remain, as always...

Nico.

My Studios

ADVICE & ANALYSIS: