Latest posts for the topic "Biggest $100 million surprise?"

Biggest $100 million surprise?

dranscht — GMT

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.

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

geezer9687 — GMT

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.

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

SuperShaan — GMT

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.

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

iamhollywood — GMT

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

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

Nicodemus — GMT

...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?

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

ashkul88 — GMT

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.... :D 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?? :D :wink:

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

Nicodemus — GMT

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.

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

transformers2 — GMT

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 )

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

ashkul88 — GMT

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) .... :D 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) :D

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

ashkul88 — GMT

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' :D....

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

Nicodemus — GMT

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.

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

jameydunne — GMT

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.

Biggest $100 million surprise?

la_resistance28 — GMT

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.

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

jameydunne — GMT

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.

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

Nicodemus — GMT

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.

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

annyonggob888 — GMT

[16] I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry. $119,677,000. An original idea, if you ignore the glaring Odd Couple analogy.

Nope, they couldn't even make this from an original idea. Look up the Australian film "Strange Bedfellows" starring Michael Caton and Paul Hogan, and thell me Chuck and Larry was an original idea...

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

Nicodemus — GMT

Fair enough, ann... And, of course, you're making my point. [Grin] I love it when I can be wrong and still proven right. That's the sort of Star Trek anti-logic that makes life so worth living. ...And, I know I've been bagging on Trek a lot, lately, but I really am a fan. You can only insult something this fully when you really, really adore it. (Really, guys, you should be praying for Nicomissus. She has to put up with me every day, and in person, no less.) I remain, as always... Nico.

Biggest $100 million surprise?

cRAzY — GMT

Whats with all the wild hogs haters. At least I have the decency to see a movie before I talk crap. And I wouldn't really call them washed up actors. They're just in a different category of acting than what we are used to them being in. The punisher. Seriously. Did Travolta really looked washed up in that. Tim Allen isn't as good as he used to be. But just like most his age he moved on to the family comedy genre. Anyways. Wild Hogs isn't in my top ten for the year. But it comes to no suprise making over 100 after seeing it. I voted oceans 13. I wasn't expecting that one to do that good at all. I never saw it so I can't really say it sucked. I heard it was good. Just not a big fan of those movies. Another suprise for me would be fantastic four 2. I loved the first. But after hearing it being trashed so much by pretty much every one I know I really wasn't even expecting a second one to be made much less make that much.

Biggest $100 million surprise?

lillylovelost — GMT

cRAzY wrote:

Whats with all the wild hogs haters. At least I have the decency to see a movie before I talk crap. And I wouldn't really call them washed up actors.

I was one of those that bashed Wild Hogs before I saw it. I finally saw it, (but didn't pay for it), about 2 weeks ago. I must say, I was correct in the fact that it is pure crap. It's schlocky more than anything. It's a bloated middle aged, 21st century Easy Rider. I think that the idea is a great concept, but it wasn't pulled off well. Literally, every scene is a one note joke. There is no real character development. We learn a little bit about each character, but nothing worth knowing. William H. Macy is the only one that you feel for. Dr. Drew on Loveline talked about his one scene on the movie. He said that in the script, they didn't even know how to write a "heart attack" in medical terms.

They're just in a different category of acting than what we are used to them being in. The punisher. Seriously. Did Travolta really looked washed up in that. Tim Allen isn't as good as he used to be.

John Travolta wouldn't have a career again if it wasn't for Quentin Tarantino. That's a given. I don't think Travolta has a set audience, which can make a difference. I agree about Tim Allen. Bottom line: I think Wild Hogs was made for all the actors to work with each other once. Plus, money talks.

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

jameydunne — GMT

cRAzY, I hope you don't think my post was dissing the movie. For what ever it is worth, I do actually want to see it at some point, probably when my wife and I can't find something else to watch together. (Eh, such is the perils of relationships, mediocre movies. But the cuddling is fun.) My point was simply this- good ,bad, or otherwise, Wild Hogs is the kind of prepackaged, fancy wrapped mediocrity that studios make because, as Nico so eloquently described, people go to it. The names were 'franchise' titles plugged into a formula where STARS + SAFE AND 'UNIVERSAL' STORY= GOOD BOTTOM LINE. I like many plug and play movies. I just am not above calling what they are. And cRAzY, the acting wasn't the only problem in The Punisher. That movie had many little problems, all adding up to one big mediocre BLAH. jameydunne -I was looking forward to playing Fun with Tazers today but nobody around wanted to. Any volunteers?

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

Shryke42 — GMT

jamey, not to get too off topic, but you have become quite a "regular" regular, and yet you've yet to join any of our Regulars Ultimate Leagues. Is there anything I can do to talk you into joining our next one?

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

geezer9687 — GMT

I've ripped it without seing it, that said, I know my taste in movies, and that is not it. I actually rarely see a movie that I do not enjoy because I deliberately stay away from movies that look bad (Rollerball being the glaring exception, as well as the name of my Bankrupts studio). So maybe I miss out on a movie that might surprise me. It also saves me a lot of time that I could spend watching crap and hoping for a surprise. I will not watch Wild Hogs. Life's too short to waste on crappy movies.

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

Nicodemus — GMT

Life's too short to waste on crappy movies.

Agreed, in principle, and yet, I'll bet I've spent at least a year of my life watching 'em. Sometimes, even when I KNEW they were crap. (That's called apathy, or self-loathing, or, very possibly, a brutally indiscriminate masochistic streak. However, I digress.) After all, I'll watch Coneheads whenever it's on. Mips... MIPS... MIPS! I remain, as always... Nico. (Maintain low tones!)

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

la_resistance28 — GMT

Shryke42 wrote:

jamey, not to get too off topic, but you have become quite a "regular" regular, and yet you've yet to join any of our Regulars Ultimate Leagues. Is there anything I can do to talk you into joining our next one?

What's a "Regulars Ultimate League"? Is that supposed to keep your digestive system healthy?

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

jameydunne — GMT

Shryke, if you want to forward me a way to join the next one, go ahead, I tried using one of your tags in a thread and apparently you never got the message. So definitely try again. I am interested. And not to deflate the conversation any, but isn't passing 100 mil not that big of a deal any more. Beowolf better pass 100 mil or there are going to be some very unhappy shareholders. Spiderman 3 (allegedly) cost around 500 mil to make so if it didn't clear the mark, the studio's may crush under a blow like that. I would suggestg that the old 100 mil mark is probably closer to 150-175 mil nowdays if you factor budgets, ticket prices and inflation. jameydunne -Spoon!

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

StnMan5 — GMT

I don't know Jamey, 100mil is still a pretty big deal. Actually, even more so nowadays. Think about it...illegal downloading, bootlegs that you buy on the street, waiting for it to be offered on netflix. These are problems that the movie industry didn't really face 5-10 years ago. According to IMDB's usa archive...only a little less than 400 movies have made more than 100mil in the usa. 400 movies in like 100+ years? That's not really a whole lot by any standards when you consider how many movies are made. (especially today) My point is, the industry is flooded with alternatives to spending money at the local multiplex which means the movies that are fortunate enough to make a good amount of money have to have a little something. People don't go see something unless it is something that appeals to them. I have a distant acquaintance who on his own free will paid almost $10 to see (and loved) Epic Movie. I'm just saying that 100mil is still kind of a big deal. We wouldn't be discussing surprises in the category if it wasn't. That being said, I agree with pretty much everyone else... I was expecting Wild Hogs to be in theatres for about a weekend, and then be given out with a tank of gas at the shell stations, but I severely underestimated the box-office draw of it's stars. (I think Travolta and Allen did most of the work) Macy's my favorite of those guys, but he's not exactly Box Office Gold. And sure Martin Lawrence has appeal to a wider audience, but National Security? Rebound? Big Momma's House 2? Although, thanks to Hogs it looks as though he's gonna do a travolta and have a pretty good comeback in the next few years. Anyway, I'm just saying.

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

ashkul88 — GMT

500 mil??!! you can't be serious!!!! a studio spent 500 mil on a spidey movie??!! remember studios only get about 50 % of the total grosses, so i can't see any studio taking for granted that spidey 3 would definitely cross 1 bil in grosses....

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

StnMan5 — GMT

yeah. That's a lot of money.

Biggest $100 million surprise?

cRAzY — GMT

Ya'll don't get me wrong. Wild Hogs isn't even in my top twenty for the year. I just don't think it was a million dollar surprise. Who did you think the target audience was. The movie hit its target dead on. A bunch of middle aged guys who grew up watching the actors. And they just happen to take their families. p.s. John Travolta kicks ass. and so what if he made his career with pulp fiction. You obviously didn't see broken arrow or face off. Besides others of course. Punisher kicked ass. John Travolta kicked ass. I thought wild hogs was an okay movie for what it was intended to be.

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

ashkul88 — GMT

so i checked and spidey 3 does have the largest budget ever commissioned for a movie, but it's only 258 mil.... which makes sense since the worldwide gross was about 800 mil and the studio would have lost about 100 mil if they had spent 500 mil on the movie and got only 50 % of the returns.... which is what usually happens....

Biggest $100 million surprise?

becs — GMT

cRAzY wrote:

p.s. John Travolta kicks ass. and so what if he made his career with pulp fiction.

Wow.. just wow.. are you kidding me? John Travolta made his career in 1976 with his first notable role.. in Carrie. He then went on to star in a number of decade defining roles in Saturday Night Fever, Grease, Urban Cowboy, and Staying Alive. He killed his career by doing the "Look Who's Talking" trilogy, and was reduced to TV Movies. Pulp Fiction revived his several years dead and rotten career, but in no way did it make his career, and it is hardly something he is even remembered for, much less.

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

StnMan5 — GMT

I agree and disagree with you there, becs. Obviously John Travolta was a star, even a household name before Pulp Fiction. But I don't think his career would be quite the same without it. Before Pulp Fiction he was, as you said remembered for Grease, Staying Alive, Saturday Night Fever, and Urban Cowboy. I think John Travolta needed to do a movie like pulp fiction, because without it he would be remembered as the singing pansy from the seventies. But nowadays I'd say he's more remembered as a badass thanks to Pulp Fiction, Get Shorty, Broken Arrow, and Face/Off. So now he appeals to women and badasses. So yeah, I think he's probably most remembered for Pulp Fiction.

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

Nicodemus — GMT

Travolta's a frustrating guy for me, full of contradictions, kind of like Bill Clinton in a way (which made him, really, the perfect actor to PLAY Slick Willie, in Primary Colors, but we'll get there): He's a guy you like pretty much immediately, and keep on liking no matter how bizarre and cultish his beliefs become, no matter how much monket sh!t he flings at you, no matter how deep or often he sinks the rusty shiv of disappointment into your soft, inviting, ever-trusting underbelly. He kills your soul and smiles, and you not only forgive him for it, you love him all the more and beg him to open just a few more of your veins, to torment you just a little longer with his relentless mediocrity. He's like that fucked-up cousin you can't help but forgive; every Thanksgiving, he keeps showing up, drunk and abusive, to eat your food and spill red wine on your tablecloth and piss off your guests and steal money right out of your wallet and tell you what a jerk you are and how your mom always liked him better. Then, after kicking him into the street and warning him not to show his dirty face around your home again, you immediately start to feel bad about it, and by next November you're leaving him messages begging him to come by, the kids love hm so much and he's family, after all. He makes the world around him into a cast of admirers and enablers, just by flashing that vaguely manic grin and saying, Aw, shucks, fellas with that delightfully inbred backwoods folksy charm. He's got that guys-want-to-have-a-beer-with-him, girls-want-to-take-him-home-to-mama-and-coo-over-him mystique that would have translated perfectly into politics. But, especially since he went through his valley-of-the-shadow-of-career-death years with films like, as becs so correctly pointed out, Look Who's Talking One, Too and Poo, he's had this inaccessibility, this tightness, this mask about him, as if he'd had one too many botox treatments or had been switched out with Jon Voight or was wearing someone else's face, a la a certain John Woo film. I don't think he's ever been, exactly, a GREAT actor -- he actually reminds me a lot of one of his contemporaries, Richard Gere, in many respects -- but he's had something, especially early on when he could actually allow himself to show some vulnerability, instead of just swaggering through cinema with that bouncer's stride and his Cheshire Cat grin and incongruously pimpadelic threads. The most emotion he's been able to show in the last twelve, thirteen years is infinite annoyance laced with gleeful contempt; he's got about as much range and subtlety as Alec Guiness' death mask. However, I digress. Travolta, for me, hit his peak early on, and in just one film: Urban Cowboy, which helped define an entire generation of pretty, pouting man-boys playing at being macho while primping like a future deb (again, I'm reminded of Richard Gere, early Marlon Brando and, once again, a younger Jon Voight. Is it the fate of all flitting fancy-boys to wind up looking like Emperor Palpatine? However, I digress.). I never liked his musical stuff, though I have to admit, he always seemed, like Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman and Gary Oldman, to approach his roles as if they were on-stage, and not on-set. He did alright in his obligatory disease-of-the-week teleplay The Boy in the Plastic Bubble, though (which, btw, is NOT about George W. Bush). Other than that, I'd have to grade his roles on a 1-10 scale of how much they disappointed; yeah, he surged back into public consciousness (after half a decade in a Look Who's Yarking sugar coma) with his portrayl of Vincent Vega in Pulp Fiction, and he deserves credit for that, but allow me to point out a few things: First, that film was chock-full of career-resurrecting performances, from Bruce Willis to Eric Stoltz, and Travolta's was by no means the most impressive (I have to give it up to Bruce, there, actually, or Tim Roth). Suave is no more an emotional gear than cocky; it's indicative of acting upholstery, not the engine. Second, Travolta was playing straight man to Samuel L. Jackson; Jules was the guy worth remembering, quoting and imitating, not Vega, and if it weren't for action Jackson no one would have given a damn about Travolta, and no one would have remembered his one-note schtick. Lastly, Travolta's basically been playing that same role for the last going-on fifteen years, with only a couple exceptions (and I'll get to those in a moment): Get Shorty, Broken Arrow, Face/Off, Swordfish, The Punisher. That's fine, you can get fed very well perfecting a single character and repeating it ad infinitum: Hoffman, Oldman, Pacino, Woody Allen and Jack Nicholson have all become very, very rich and very, very well-respected doing pretty much exactly the same thing. But he hasn't mastered his craft, only eighty-seven different ways of looking damned cool walking, turning, cocking his head, smoking a cigarette, staring, glaring, grinding his teeth and tossing out clench-jawed one-liners. This is the Method for cop and prison shows, and Travolta's got it down pat, which is why I frequently confuse him with David Caruso and not, you know, an actual actor. But, he's thrown me enough bones over the years to keep me hopeful, keep me interested and, most of all, keep me coming back for more. I think White Man's Burden -- though its Crash-like self-importance grates a bit -- is one of the most underrated films ever, and it, not Pulp Fiction, easily qualifies as the riskiest role Travolta ever took, because it took his newfound, hard-won hipness, confidence and success and threw it off a cliff. A Love Song for Bobby Long deserved to be up for more than just a Golden Globe, and a lot of that was due to Travolta's earnest, toned-down portrayal. And Travolta delivered the performance of his post-Urban Cowboy career in Primary Colors, perhaps because, I suspect, he was actually playing himself. Now, I know I've been ragging on John-Boy's roles in bread-and-butter films like Get Shorty, Broken Arrow and Face/Off, and haven't even mentioned other well-known, oft-loved titles like Phenomenon or Michael, much less quality films like A Civil Action, The Thin Red Line or Basic. Why? Well, here it is: Much as I like some of those releases -- in the case of Get Shorty, Face/Off, Phenomenon, A Civil Action and The Thin Red Line, "love" comes closer to the truth -- what Travolta did for them can't really be called acting. At best, as in Phenomenon and A Civil Action, his performance only merely approximated actual acting... At worst, he was the cinematic equivalent of a runway model, as in Face/Off, Broken Arrow and both Chili Palmer films. But, I have no illusions about the popularity of the opinions I've expressed, here. All Travolta has to do is turn around, cock his head, squint, purse his collagened lips and murmur, "Ain't it cool?" -- all in slow-motion, mind you -- and three generations of women sigh and get all Jell-O-ey, and two generations of men sit upright and start paying attention to all the upcoming coolness that's sure to follow, and men of a certain advanced age and greater experience shake their heads and wish that Steve McQueen was still alive, or that John Wayne was still alive, or that Clint Eastwood was still in his fifties. I get it. But, for all John Travolta's memorable roles and fame and influence, no one, I repeat, no one will ever be able to convince me that his career stood for anything more than well-practiced style over anything even remotely resembling substance. ...And that ain't cool. I remain, as always... Nico.

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

StnMan5 — GMT

Wow. That's a pretty in-depth analysis of John Travolta's career, Nico. How long have you been holding that in?

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

Nicodemus — GMT

That's a pretty in-depth analysis of John Travolta's career, Nico. How long have you been holding that in?

Well, hm, let's see... You know, I've been indulging in quite a lot of cheeses and chocolate lately, and haven't been eating my seven "on a mission" Kashi grains like I ought, so, yeah, it's been, like, four or five days, maybe a week, even. Ohhhhhhhh... You meant, about TRAVOLTA. Erm, longer. And that was infinitely more uncomfortable and annoying, btw. But I feel much better now! I remain, as always... Nico. (I feel lighter already!)

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

dranscht — GMT

Nicodemus wrote:

Well, hm, let's see... You know, I've been indulging in quite a lot of cheeses and chocolate lately, and haven't been eating my seven "on a mission" Kashi grains like I ought, so, yeah, it's been, like, four or five days, maybe a week, even.

Someone's been watching the new episodes of South Park... Or if you haven't, then I guess I just connect things too easily. :lol:

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

Nicodemus — GMT

I haven't seen any of the new ones since the Tourette's episode, actually, but they're all TiVo'ed. (Along with all the new Robot Chickens, and Boondockses.) Thanks for reminding me! I remain, as always... Nico. (Howdy ho!)

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

numbersix_99 — GMT

John Travolta has to be one of my least favourite actors, which is ironic, as he's in one of my favourite films (Pulp Fiction). I hate pretty much everything else he's in, often because of him. White Man's Burden? Is that the film where black people are the majority and white people the minority? Nico, that film was treated with what it deserved- general apathy. I found it rather heavy-handed and a one-note two-hour preach. Give me Spike Lee any day over that crap.

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

jameydunne — GMT

I just decided I like bullet pointing and numbering my thoughts. I think it keeps them more concise and clear (and less redundant too!), and I can feel like I spreading great truths to an unwashed public (maybe I can I a Nobel Peace Prize in the process- who knows!). And I think it makes me look important, which is always important (smirk). 1. The 500 mil quote on Spidey 3 was a rumor I heard/ read, just to clarify. I had also heard numbers closer to 300 mil, but the money can be thrown around in Hollywood, I don't put anything past them. Maybe the number was including promo costs too, which holds some weight as a thought. 2. The 100 mil defence you gave (I forgot who described and took the time to look at how many films have crossed that line) was very solid, and as for the initial box office numbers I would have to agree with you. But as an additional thought, and not to complicaticate the moguls game in any way, shape, or form, don't you think they should film earns differently than they do now? It used to be that if you failed in the theatre on your initial run didn't become cult (Rocky Horror Picture Show) or get rereleased many times (Fantasia was rereleased five times into theatres before it even started approaching a profit, I'm pretty sure), your film was a financial failure. Since the creation of reliable and affordable home film viewing equipment, a la VHS, now DVD, Box office earning s are important but not completely vital to most films. Leathal Weapon was one of the first films to show this fact. It was a box office failure. It revitalized and sequeled to hell because of video rental and purchase success. Around 2000 another shift hit the industry when the DVD sales of 8 mile and The matrix belittled its box office earnings, both of which were considered solid box office surprises. 3. John Travolta has been around for a longtime in the entertainment industry, so I will diverge into a couple of directions on this one. First, I always thought that Travolta was a good, not great, actor with a couple really bright shining moments. He probably compares closer to a Keanu Reeves, Charles Bronson, Slyvester Stalone, or Kurt Russell than to an A-list star as far as skill and star status goes. His two biggest moments are very easily Saturday Night Fever And Pulp Fiction, two movie that defined generations. Second, I would like to defend Look Who's Talking. LWT is a fun light romantic/ family comedy with a distinct and well played twist. I think the fact they repeated themselves twice and the studios bombarded the audiences with lame 'me toos' almost immediately take away from its simple uniqueness and charm (see Home Alone for a similar take). Third, a factoid for the for the young ones and a sharp witted take on his career. He actully got started on television on a show called Welcome Back, Cotter. He was one of the lead character students in the class. I don't think the show aged well, kinda like the burnt orange carpeting of the era. Finally, I find it interesting that Travolta vault to stardom was playing a '50s bad boy in a movie that was as believable as Fonzie on Happy Days. Fonzie was the so supposed to be the bad boy every guy wanted to be and every girl swooned over, but no one ever really knew why. It was simply because he was 'the Fonz'. At some piont the 'the Fonz' run, he was so cool that he water skiied over a shark, destroying any credibilty he had to begin with, and looking twice the fool, and damning the series (a la 'Jump the Shark'). Travolta's career has bounced between playing the bad boy all the boys want to be (Pulp Fiction) and the man that every woman clammered to be with (Saturday Night Fever). He was all pomp and style, and substance and reality was difficult for him to attain. At one point, he bought into his own PR's firm about the coolness that is Travolta, and began choosing preposterous roles and films, thinking he is bigger than he was. His own coolness became the shark he 'must' jump. And when it was all said and done, he looks silly in the process and we feel silly for buying into it in the first place. Life is tragic for an aged bad boy. "Hey!" (thumbs pointed up). jameydunne -good thing I kept this short. Otherwise it might have gotten long and nicoesquian.

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

Nicodemus — GMT

"Nicoesquian." I like it, but it's a little long. How 'bout Nicosian? I remain, as always... Nico. (Nico-ey?) P.S. It was Welcome Back, Kotter, starring Travolta, Gabe Kaplan and an steroid-popping illegal alien Tribble named McT as Kaplan's hair.

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

jameydunne — GMT

Nico, I just figured a person of your stature deserved a dignified and important sounding adjective, not some simple, mundane one. But ultimately the adjective has to run through the person it applies to, if possible, your ratness. jameydunne -pete and repeat are sitting on a fence. pete fell off. Who's left on the fence?

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

geezer9687 — GMT

HAHAHA thats a great one jamey, i love it, use it all the time!

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

Nicodemus — GMT

...I just figured a person of your stature deserved a dignified and important sounding adjective, not some simple, mundane one. But ultimately the adjective has to run through the person it applies to, if possible, your ratness.

[Bowing] Then I of course gratefully defer to your linguistic intrepidity and good sense, despite the fact that so many compliments makes me wonder if I'm being rolled. [Grin] Nicoesquianlike it is. I remain, as always... Nico. Ey.

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

becs — GMT

Though I am of the "younger" generation of this forum (or somewhere in the middle anyway)... I watched Welcome Back Kotter reruns on Canadian TV as a Tween (and these days they watch Bratz and hannah montanta.. what is this world coming to) and I would have to say Vinnie Barbarino is the ONLY even remotely enjoyable role I've ever seen John Travolta in. I have yet to see (I really need to see a LOT more movies don't I) Hairspray, which I hear he is stunning in... but I just have never understood his appeal. As manure filled as his performance in Phenomenon was, NO big screen performance of his was ever any better or worse.

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

numbersix_99 — GMT

I presume youall know that Travolta is a closet homosexual which the Scientologists picked up on and used against him to brainwash him into joining them. Some say Cruise is the same.

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

Otter — GMT

"Wild Hogs" but I didn't watch this crap film.It just reeked of sink from every trailer.$168-Mill why people?Nothing better to waste your hard earned disposable income on? Late On the other end of the scale "Ratatoulle" is my favorite of those same top grossers.

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

Nicodemus — GMT

Some say Cruise is the same.

Who? Mimi, Nic and Katie? (I'm just entertaining myself, here...) I remain, as always... Nico.

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

tuan69 — GMT

Well well, a lot of John Travolta hate in here. One thing that can be said... is that he has a pretty smokin' hot wife, Kelly Preston. Watched her in Space Camp a while back. Gorgeous.

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

lillylovelost — GMT

I must say though, that I think that Wild Hogs did really well was because it was aimed for an age group that is constantly ignored in cinema: over 40. They look for quality entertainment just like the younger folk.Wild Hogs had actors and situations that anyone of that generation could relate too (old age, reliving the good days, divorce, health problems). Somethings Gotta Give also did really well because it catered to the older crowd also. Same goes with African Americans. They too look for quality entertainment and Tyler Perry seems to deliver that.

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

la_resistance28 — GMT

Otter wrote:

On the other end of the scale "Ratatoulle" is my favorite of those same top grossers.

"Ratatouille" was probably my favorite studio movie this past summer as well, it was just so charming and passionate. I wasn't around on FM then, but did anybody have the Rat on their slate? I'm really curious as to how it performed relative to its cost, predictions, and similarly-priced competition. It seemed like it sorta under-achieved domestically, but it's totally kicking a$$ and taking names overseas, just blasting past $300 million overseas this weekend.

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

BarcaRulz — GMT

It's between Wild Hogs and Evan Almighty for me. I actually expected Wild Hogs to get past the 100 million mark, but only just. The reason it's surprising is how easily it did that, and the fact that it went on to make 150 million + took me by complete surprise. I thought Evan Almighty would BOMB HARD, and for a movie that cost 175 million to make (why?), it sure as hell didn't make it's money back in the domestic market. I thought it would end up with less than 90 million, and that looked very likely at one point, but it creeped it's way to the 100 million cornerstone.

Re:Biggest $100 million surprise?

tuan69 — GMT

la_resistance28 wrote:

"Ratatouille" was probably my favorite studio movie this past summer as well, it was just so charming and passionate.

Mine too. Just watched it over the weekend. Definitely in my Top 5 for the year so far. Such a great film.

Biggest $100 million surprise?

cRAzY — GMT

Evan almighty only cost 175 mil to make. I read somewhere it was over 200. since we're on the topics of budgets though. i found out spiderman three had set another record besides its BO gross. Its budget. I read in the news it had the highest bugdet of any movie. Ever. Could be wrong. Buts thats what the news said.

Biggest $100 million surprise?

ashkul88 — GMT

cRAzY wrote:

Evan almighty only cost 175 mil to make. I read somewhere it was over 200. since we're on the topics of budgets though. i found out spiderman three had set another record besides its BO gross. Its budget. I read in the news it had the highest bugdet of any movie. Ever. Could be wrong. Buts thats what the news said.

i've already posted about this in another thread (or was is earlier in this one??) but spidey 3 has the largest budget ever, and i believe the number is 258 mil or something....i corrected someone who thought it was 500 mil....and i also believe the official number on evan is 175 mil, and it grossed 260 mil worldwide, so the studio took a 45 mil hit on that one (they only get back about 55% of the overall gross)....pretty massive, n'est-ce pas??

Biggest $100 million surprise?

tuan69 — GMT

ashkul88 wrote:

and i also believe the official number on evan is 175 mil, and it grossed 260 mil worldwide, so the studio took a 45 mil hit on that one (they only get back about 55% of the overall gross)....pretty massive, n'est-ce pas??

$260M worldwide? Where did this number come from? Because I can guarantee you it's not even close to breaking even yet. http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=evanalmighty.htm