There can only be two! A possible future where Disney and Warner Bros. dominate franchise tent-pole film making...

The news that has broken over the last couple days is not a little depressing.  While the Seven Samurai-esque Star Wars stand-alone film to be helmed by Zack Snyder was quickly denied, we have gotten word for Disney that there would indeed be stand-alone Star Wars films.  The bad news?  So far, they seem to be entirely centered around well-established characters from the original trilogy.  You want a stand-alone prequel involving Yoda?  Or how about films centered around a young Boba Fett or a young(er) Han Solo?  If so, you're going to be pretty happy over the next half-decade or so.  But if you thought that Disney was buying the Star Wars franchise to somewhat expand its universe rather than merely give us unneeded origins and/or backstories for the very characters we already know a good deal about, well this news won't make you happy.  In fact it reeks of the kind of lazy corporate thinking that gives entertainment corporations a bad name.  It's frankly the first bit of news that might make one thing that maybe Disney, which in general has been relatively good to the properties they have purchased over the years (Muppets, Marvel, etc.) might not be the perfect owner of Lucasfilm that we all thought.

In mainstream films, dead moms don't count...

I had originally planned to do a spoiler-filled discussion of the various things that vexed me about The Amazing Spider-Man, but frankly my heart just isn't in it.  The film is obviously a victim of severe post-production tinkering (Devin Faruci laid it out here) and it just feels petty to further attack a film that A) I've already panned in 1,500 non-spoiler words and B) is more a disappointing mediocrity than an outright travesty.  Instead, I'd like to use the film's release to discuss something that has bothered me for at least the last several months, something I made a brief note about during the run-up to Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.  If you've seen The Amazing Spider-Man (and this isn't a spoiler if you haven't), you'll know that Peter Parker's emotional trauma is partially centered around the fact that his parents abandoned him when he was a young child and then died soon after.  But as the film progresses, it's clear that Peter's journey and Peter's discoveries center almost exclusively around his father (Campell Scott).  His mother (Embeth Davidtz) gets barely a line of dialogue and no real character to play.  And that's the pattern, it would seem.  Be they dead at the start or be they dead by act one, dead fathers are often fleshed out characters while dead mothers are, at best, pictures on the bookshelf.

Why Warner Bros' Lego: The Piece of Resistance may end up being the greatest movie ever made by humans...

Much of this is speculation, so bare with me.  Jeff Snyder over at Variety reported today that Channing Tatum and Will Arnett have been cast as voices in Warner Bros' new Lego movie. The bad news is that yes there is a Lego movie coming, but the good news is that it's being directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, they of Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs and 21 Jump Street (so they are two for two so far).  The even better and more curious news is that the live-action/animation hybrid Lego: The Piece of Resistance is casting Tatum as Superman and Arnett as Batman.  Yup, Justice League may or may not ever happen and Wolfgang Peterson's Superman Vs. Batman project is a distant memory, but we will indeed be seeing an big-screen team-up of the Caped Crusader and the Man of Steel in some form.  That's certainly amusing and perhaps noteworthy, but a little imagination leads to an even more insane possibility.  In short, what if Warner Bros. gets the rights to use all or most of the various properties that Lego currently has? 

June 18th, 1992 - Twenty years later, how backlash against Batman Returns changed the blockbuster business.

Three years ago, in celebration of the 20th anniversary of Tim Burton's Batman, I wrote a piece detailing seven ways in which the film changed the movie business.  What was meant to be a celebratory piece turned a bit dark as I realized that the film (which I still love) had far more negative effects than positive effects.  Now we sit on the 20th anniversary of Batman Returns, which is divisive enough as to cause fights over its relative quality.  It's either an overstuffed mess or possibly the best Batman film ever made, you can guess which side of the fence I'm closer to.  The sequel opened on June 18th, 1992 to mixed-positive reviews.  There is no laundry list of the ways the sequel altered the cinematic landscape like its predecessor.  But it did indeed have two massive effects on mainstream movie-going, both of which are quite negative, that still reverberate to this day.  And without further ado, here are three (3) ways Batman Returns changed the industry, one relatively unimportant and two quite unfortunate.

Don't leave us hanging... If you want us to see a sequel, you might want to *finish* the first film.

Corey Atad wrote a great 'wish I had gotten around to writing it first' piece on Friday.  It's about well, it's called "Prometheus; or Stop Trying to Set Up Sequels!".  I've whined about this in brief or in the context of something else from time to time, but the whole 'everything's a trilogy' mindset has been quite harmful to any number of pictures over the last decade.  When you go back and look at the films that spawned successful franchises, they generally began with mostly close-ended installments.  Star Wars stands on its own, as does The Matrix, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Batman Begins (heck, over the last four years I've come to admire how The Dark Knight begins and finishes its Harvey Dent business within its own 152 minute running time).  Even the first Back to the Future ended its specific narrative before offering a comedic cliffhanger that didn't necessarily need to be revolved (the producers always say they sure as hell wouldn't have had a flying car at the epilogue if they knew they were going to have to do expensive FX for a flying car all throughout a sequel).  Even Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone had a relatively self-contained story that didn't necessarily require a sequel to complete its narrative.

In post-Potter exile no more: Evanna Lynch, who was almost *too good* as Luna Lovegood, joins Monster Butler.

Last year, when Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II opened in theaters, Elisabeth Rappe did a slideshow regarding what was next for the various Harry Potter alumni.  To my shock, the only major cast-member with nothing on his/her plate was Ms. Evanna Lynch.  As I discussed during last year's Harry Potter retrospective, Lynch pulled off the rare feat of actually improving a character from the source material.  Going into Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, I barely remembered Luna Lovegood from the book I had read four years prior.  But Lynch's terrific 'shoulda-been breakout' turn was so dynamic and engaging, her chemistry with Daniel Radcliffe so potent and convincing, that she basically torpedoed Harry Potter's romantic arc of the last four movies.  Without being mean about it, why would Harry Potter be chasing after the deadly dull Cho Chang or even the attractive but thinly-written Ginny Weasley (who was neutered in the film translations) when he obviously got along so well with the smart/funny/wise/kind/hot/etc. Lovegood?  My wife and I both spent large chunks of the fifth and sixth films wanting to grab Harry and smack some sense into him.  So it is with token relief/approval that, so says The Hollywood Reporter, Evanna Lynch is joining the cast of Dough Rath's Monster Butler.  Based on a true story of a murderous con man played by Malcolm McDowell, the film also stars Gary Oldman and Dominic Monaghan.  I have no idea if she has any star power behind what may have been a tailor-fit role for her, but I'm happy to get a chance to find out.  The rest of the Potter cast has so far done well with finding work post-Potter, and it's good to see that the one holdout is finding her footing as well.

Scott Mendelson

Unconventional Wisdom: So Chris Nolan's Batman films inspired a trend of dark/gritty blockbusters? Such as?

I've discussed this a few times over the years, so while debunking the concept in question I must accept guilt for believing it uncritically on prior occasions. If you've been reading reviews and general commentary for The Avengers, you've probably read at least a few pundits talk about how Joss Whedon's The Avengers is a welcome respite from the grim/gritty blockbusters that were born from the massive success of Chris Nolan's Batman movies (the second of which is still falsely held up as a NeoCon propaganda fantasy).  It's an easy sell, as the bright, colorful, and larger-than-life super-heroics found in The Avengers are worlds away from the street-level fights and chases in the Nolan-verse.  But in the seven years since Batman Begins debuted, where exactly are all of these grim/gritty blockbusters that Nolan is constantly credited with inspiring?  In short, they basically don't exist.  Whether it be comic book films or unrelated fantasy blockbusters, the films that soared highest are still the biggest, most colorful, most larger-than-life, and arguably the most 'fun'.  Four years after The Dark Knight, Chris Nolan's second Batman epic remains not a template for blockbuster success but somewhat of an anomaly.

Midnight box office math: The Avengers earns $18.7m at 12:01am. Weekend gross between $93m and $283m!

The unofficial midnight gross for Marvel's The Avengers is $18.7 million.  That's the eighth-biggest such midnight haul on record.  The seven ahead of it are The Hunger Games ($19.7 million), Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince ($22 million), Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part I ($24 million), The Twilight Saga: New Moon ($26 million), The Twilight Saga: Eclipse ($30 million), The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn part I ($30 million), and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II ($43 million).  Obviously The Avengers was never going to top the midnight-grossers list, and its worth noting that the film earned more on its midnight debut that pretty much every prior Marvel Studios movie combined (Offhand, Thor earned $3.5 million, Captain America earned $4 million, and Iron Man 2 earned $7.5 million in their respective midnight debuts).  It's a larger midnight, just barely and likely due to inflation and the 3D-price bump, then The Dark Knight, which broke a midnight record four years ago with $18.5 million on its way to a $67 million opening day and a $158 million opening weekend (both records at the time).  Unless the film is front-loaded on the level of a Harry Potter sequel or a Twilight sequel, we're looking at a $140-160 million debut here.  But is the three-day record still in play?  Let's whip out the calculator!

Titanic 3D opens with $4.3 million, sails towards likely $20-$25m 5-day total.

The much-hyped 3D-release of James Cameron's Titanic debuted yesterday with a solid $4.3 million.  What's left to do now is merely play with the numbers to estimate where the five-day opening weekend for this 3D release will end come Sunday.  The wild-card for the weekend is that tomorrow is Good Friday, which means that many kids will be out of school for at least part of the day.  On the other hand, Easter Sunday means that families will be spending the day together, and even if a trip to the movies is in order, I can't imagine the entire family agreeing to a 3.5-hour emotionally-draining tragedy that most people own on DVD being the likely pick, especially as families with small children are less likely to shell out for the 3D upgrade.  Anyway, let's presume that Easter Sunday cancels out Good Friday and call it even.

Weekend Box Office: (03/25/12): The Hunger Games debuts with $152 million.

Besting any number of opening weekend records, The Hunger Games (review HERE) opened this weekend with a scorching $152.5 million.  That's the third-biggest opening weekend of all-time, behind The Dark Knight ($158 million) and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II ($169 million).  Obviously by virtue of being number 03 on the list, it's also the biggest opening weekend for a non-summer movie, a non-sequel.  It's of course the biggest debut in history for a film not released by Warner Bros. during the third weekend in July, for those keeping release-date score.  It's also Lionsgate's highest-grossing film ever after just three days, besting the $119 million domestic total of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.  While it's Lionsgate's most expensive movie, it's still an example of smart budgeting as it came it at $90 million before tax credits which brought the total exposure to just $78 million.  Even if you factor in the hardcore marketing campaign over the last month, Lionsgate is surely in the black or will be by Friday, making everything after this pure profit.  There isn't too much to say because this record debut has been prognosticated to the point of tedium over the last two months, as one tracking report after another continually upped the predicted opening weekend number, to the point where the film would have been called a 'flop' if it hadn't opened with at least $100 million (not by me, mind you).  But yeah, Lionsgate pulled some of the best marketing in modern history (teaser/trailer01/trailer02), turning a relatively popular young adult book series into a mainstream media 'event', which in turn made the film adaptation into a must-sample event even for audiences who only had token knowledge of the series.

Midnight Box Office (03/23/12): Hunger Games scores $19.75m at 12:01am.

First and foremost, The Hunger Games earned a robust $19.75 million at midnight screenings alone, besting a record for a non-sequel and the seventh-biggest midnight haul of all-time.  It earned more than the $18 million midnight gross of The Dark Knight back in 2008 and the $17 million midnight haul of Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith back in 2005. It is the biggest midnight gross for any movie not called Harry Potter or Twilight (Harry Potter 6: $22m, Harry Potter 7.1: $24m, Twilight: New Moon: $26m, Twilight: Eclipse and Breaking Dawn I: $30m, Harry Potter 7.2: $43m).  If this film were like any normal picture (between 4.5% and 6.5% of its weekend at midnight), we'd be looking at a $300-$400million+ opening weekend.  So let's presume that it's a bit front-loaded, but the question is how much so?  The last two Paranormal Activity films earned about 15% of their respective opening weekends at midnight ($6.3m and $8m respectively), while The Dark Knight earned just 11% of its then-record $158 million opening at 12:01am.  The difference between those two figures is the difference between a massive $132 million debut and a record $179 million opening weekend.  On the other hand, if the film really does play like a Harry Potter or Twilight sequel (which would seem to be the likely case), then we should compare it to those openings.

Classic Marketing: Universal teases The Flintstones a year in advance...

It was no secret that Universal was planning a big-screen adaptation of The Flintstones for the summer of 1994.  I remember actually being on the Universal lot while visiting a cousin in the winter of 1993 so I could shoot portions of a Bar Mitzvah movie (long story... another time) and being told by the Universal guy that if we got caught to say "We're here working on stuff for The Flintstones... nobody knows what the plot is yet anyway."  But a six months later, as my dad and I watched the lights go down for our advance-night 10:00pm screening of Jurassic Park (arguably the best single movie going experience of my life... ask me about it next summer), we were stunned that Universal had already cooked up a teaser for the seemingly un-shot and certainly unfinished Flintstones feature.  As you can see, it was basically just a bouncing ball version of the theme song, climaxing with an in-costume John Goodman screaming 'Yabba-dabba-doo!' at the top of his lungs.  Let me tell you, the entire audience roared with applause and I admit I was caught up in the infectious excitement for a project I couldn't really care less about.  That was the start of something new.

Read it and weep! The Phantom Menace is about to out-gross The Dark Knight! Or: What the onslaught on 3D reissues means for the all-time grossers list.

With just $1 million separating the two films, today or tomorrow is likely the day when one of the more reviled films in geek-ville, Star Wars Episode One: The Phantom Menace, will surpass one of the more openly worshipped geek film in recent years, The Dark Knight, at the global box office.  As of Wednesday, Star Wars Episode One: The Phantom Menace crossed $1 billion, becoming the eleventh film to do so and the first Star Wars film to cross said benchmark.  Obviously there is inflation and 3D price-bumps to figure, but just remember that The Phantom Menace's adjusted-for-inflation grosses from 1999 would equal about $664 million in domestic grosses alone (it earned $431 million in the summer of 1999, the second-largest grossing first-run film behind Titanic at that point).  And don't forget that a number of major fantasy films, chiefly the first three Star Wars films, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial, have had several theatrical releases since their initial respective debuts.  In the days before VHS became mainstream, it was not uncommon for popular films to show up repeatedly at a theater near you.  With the apparent consumer appeal of 3D-converted re-releases, we are seeing a return to what may be a revolving door atop the list of all-time box office champions.

Weekend Box Office (02/05/12): Chronicle and The Woman In Black both debut to around $20 million while Big Miracle tanks.

As I wrote yesterday (HERE), I don't care which of the two big releases end up at number one for this weekend.  Chronicle and The Woman In Black are both low-budget over/under $15 million releases that are somewhat abnormal in terms of what's considered a mainstream release, both were exceedingly well-marketed (as opposed to 'saturation marketing'), and both are unqualified hits after their first three days.  But since I have to choose which film to discuss first, I will pick Chronicle (review), which A) I've seen and B) is the unofficial #1 film this weekend with $22 million (as opposed to The Woman In Black, which made 'just' $21 million).  Chronicle announces the arrival of director Josh Trank (and writer Max Landis, son of John).  The quite compelling and thoughtful character study, which is plays with the genre trappings of as super-hero origin story through the 'found footage' format, cost just $12 million and drew a large chunk of young audiences of both genders (it played 45% female).  I have no idea what the legs will be like on this downbeat morality play (it received a B from Cinemascore), but I'd argue its artistic and box office success pretty much kills Warner Bros's planned live-action Akira remake and hurts Sony's The Amazing Spider-Man (which is advertising itself as a more low-key and emotionally-gritty superhero origin story... whoops).  Come what may, a very good and creative little movie just opened very well, and that's a win for everyone.

The 2011 movie year in box office trends part II: 3D matters, except when it doesn't.

I generally dislike trend pieces. I'm a strong proponent of the idea that how well a film does is specific to the movie itself.  That having been said, there were a handful of interesting patterns that did rear their ugly or not-so ugly heads this year.  These pieces will be more about box office trends and what they may mean for the future.  Without further ado, here we go...

3D matters, except when it doesn't!

I wrote about this back when summer ended, but the last four months of 2011 reiterated the same message: It's the movie!  3D cannot make a would-be flop into a hit.  But where it can (and did) help this year is in getting predestined blockbusters to greater heights of would-be box office glory.  Without 3D, it stands to reason that Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides would have barely made it past $200 million, that Green Lantern would have struggled to top $100 million, and Transformers: Dark of the Moon would have ended up closer to the first film's $319 million gross.  Thor and Captain America ended up with $175-180 million at least partially due to the 3D ticket-price bump, without which they would have ended up closer to the $130-155 million grosses of Ghost Rider, Fantastic Four, and/or The Incredible Hulk.  Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II broke the opening weekend box office record partially because of the 3D-bump, as even just 43% of opening weekend ticket-buyers making that choice was enough to put it past The Dark Knight's $158 million debut (in just 2D, barring other variables, Harry Potter 7.2 would have debuted at just over $150 million, or good for third place on the list).

The 2011 movie year in box office trends part I: Sequels drop domestically, but soar internationally.

I generally dislike trend pieces. I'm a strong proponent of the idea that how well a film does is specific to the movie itself.  That having been said, there were a handful of interesting patterns that did rear their ugly or not-so ugly heads this year.  These pieces will be more about box office trends and what they may mean for the future.  Without further ado, here we go...

Sequels grossed less here, but much more over there!

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, with a few exceptions, it was generally a foregone conclusion that sequels would cost more than the originals but gross a bit less.  Normal were sequels like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom ($184 million versus $242 million for Raiders of the Lost Ark) or Batman Returns ($162 million vs. $251 million for Batman).  Yes, you occasionally had a break-out franchise like Lethal Weapon ($65 million for Lethal Weapon, $147 million for Lethal Weapon 2), but the franchise growth pattern was generally closer to the likes of Beverly Hills Cop or Gremlins.  But sometime around 2001, starting with The Mummy Returns ($202 million versus $155 million for The Mummy) and Rush Hour 2 ($226m/$141m), we started a ten-year trend of sequels generally out-grossing their predecessors domestically.  You could argue the first big example was Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me, which out-grossed its predecessor in just its opening weekend in June 1999, but the general rule quickly became that a well-marketed sequel to a popular original could be expected to out-gross its immediate predecessor in America.

How 2001 was a film game-changer V: Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter influence a decade of blockbusters.

This is the final entry in a handful of essays that will be dealing with the various trends that were kicked off during the 2001 calendar year, and how they still resonate today.

Yesterday (the 19th) marked the tenth anniversary of the US theatrical release of The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring.  It was just over a month after the US theatrical release of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, which had debuted with a record-breaking $92 million opening weekend.  Debuting with a December-record $72 million five-day haul, The Fellowship of the Ring parlayed superb reviews and splendid word of mouth to break a number of Christmas and New Year's season records and show off some of the best legs this side of Titanic and The Sixth Sense. These two films, which closed out the year, would directly or indirectly pave the way for the next full decade of would-be blockbuster filmmaking.  At last, we had reached a point where basically anything was possibly onscreen if you had enough money and (ideally) enough talent.  The culmination of every trend discussed in the prior essays (the gutting of the R-rating, the explosion in opening weekend box office potential, the emergence of overseas box office dominance, the mainstreaming of 'family entertainment' etc) was personified in the massive success of these two big-budget fantasy pictures.  Whether based on a novel, a comic book, or a theme park ride, big-budget fantasy spectaculars were about to become the dominant tentpole of choice.

Trailer: Daniel Radcliffe's The Woman In Black teases old-school gothic horror and period-piece ghostly menace. Yes, please.

This frankly looks fantastic.  First of all, Daniel Radcliffe genuinely looks like a young adult, which is of paramount necessity to selling this one.  But, most importantly, this looks like a slice of genre heaven.  The atmosphere feels real, the production looks stark and foreboding, and the use of a young girl to narrate the sinister poem sounds just right.  Kudos to CBS Films for apparently leaving much to the imagination, as the film offers plenty of creepy imagery while leaving the general narrative and presumably most of the big shocks unspoiled.  This one comes out on February 3rd of 2012.  As always, we'll see, but I'm pretty sure this one will be worth the babysitter (be it for a press screening or opening night).

Scott Mendelson 

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II is officially the top-grosser of 2011!

As of yesterday, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II is the highest-grossing film of 2011, both worldwide and domestically.  On the domestic front, it surpass Transformers: Dark of the Moon and now sits at $344 million in just over a month of national release.  On the worldwide front, the Harry Potter series finale is now the highest-grossing film of all-time not directed by James Cameron.  Second only to Titanic ($1.8 billion) and Avatar ($2.7 billion), the eighth and final Harry Potter adventure now sits at $1.13 billion, surpassing the $1.119 billion gross of The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King.  Yes, we can discuss the 3D bump and the inflation argument, but Frodo's big record (the biggest-grossing film not helmed by James Cameron) has held steady for nearly eight years as several films joined the $1 billion club but couldn't get that extra $120 million needed to get over the hump.  While it sits $7 million below Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides in terms of pure overseas grosses, that will be surpassed in the next day or two, leaving the film as the third-biggest overseas grosser as well.  All in just over a month of worldwide release.

Not sloppy seconds or hand-me-downs, but a new myth for the current generation. Why The Hunger Games film franchise matters...

Arguably the most surprising bit of news dropped yesterday was the admission that Steven Soderbergh would be performing duties as the second-unit director for Gary Ross's The Hunger Games.  Even with the friendship that the two of them apparently share (The Playlist goes into details), it is a little unexpected for someone of Soderbergh's stature to agree to do second-unit work, on someone else's big-budget young-adult literature adaptation no less.  But that news is merely a segue-way into why the series is indeed far more important than we realize to the long-term health of the industry.  The film, due to be released on March 23rd of next year, is an adaptation of the first of three books detailing a futuristic wasteland where teenagers are forced to fight to the death on a reality TV show as a form of tribune to the society overlords.  Yes, this is not unlike Battle Royale, which is an absolutely terrific action film/social satire from Japan that basically has the same general premise (it's based on a book and a comic book as well).  Having said that, I'll give author Suzanne Collins the benefit of the doubt that she's never seen the 2000 release, as it's never been officially released in theaters or DVD in America.  But the film being released in March, which will theoretically spawn two more in the next several years, is indeed a vital and important one for reasons unrelated to its premise.