Are 'Evan' and 'Stardust' the Bombs of the Summer?
Filed under: Comedy, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Thrillers, Paramount, Universal, Box Office, The Weinstein Co.
Summer's nearly over, school is about to begin and Hollywood is counting its money. Looking back, we could assume the studios made bundles this season; almost every weekend seemed to deliver a new record-breaking blockbuster. In order of enormity, there was Spider-Man 3, Shrek 3, Pirates of the Caribbean 3, Transformers 1 (it will have sequels), Harry Potter 5, 300, Ratatouille and finally another threequel, Bourne 3 (which should gain on at least that numberless Pixar movie). According to Box Office Mojo, the grosses for 2007 are up 7.2% over last year, and 13.7% over 2005 (aka the year of the slump). Now, normally about this time of year, we can also look back and see a number of disappointments, bombs and otherwise failed releases. In fact, Entertainment Weekly should be giving us its annual rundown (my favorite) any week now. But Business Week has already announced the biggest losers of the season: Evan Almighty and Stardust. And as dishonorable mentions, it points to The Invasion, Grindhouse, The Reaping and The Number 23. Of course, the latter three were released much earlier in the year, and shouldn't be counted -- they seem to be thrown in as other mistakes of the year in general.
BW's reasons for why Evan Almighty failed can't be taken as correct, in my opinion. The magazine writes that Universal messed up by issuing a sequel without the original star, Bruce Almighty's Jim Carrey. As if Evan lead Steve Carell was the equivalent of substituting Cuba Gooding Jr. and Paul Rae for Eddie Murphy and Jeff Garlin. Carell is a decent enough draw, probably even bigger than Carrey right now (as was seen with the BW-cited Number 23), so his star-power couldn't have been an issue. For BW to say Carell didn't have the talent for the role is ludicrous. It was a bad script that killed Evan. And it still made close to $100 million. Universal just spent too much for a movie that wasn't good enough for repeat viewings or word-of-mouth interest. End of story.
As for Stardust, well there may be a point about it having an incomprehensible script, as BW claims, but a lot of critics did seem to like the fantasy flick, so moviegoers couldn't have been turned off by plot difficulties. For that explanation, it would require that people actually went to the movie in the first place, on opening weekend, and then responded to such. No, once again the failure is more about Paramount spending too much. If Stardust had cost the equivalent of what its most similar predecessor, The Princess Bride, cost, then it would have been more successful -- though still less than a hit.
Finally, BW gets one more thing in its prediction for summer 2008, which it points out lacks another Spider-Man, another Harry Potter, another Pirates and another "green hulking ogre." Well, sure, Shrek 4 isn't coming next year, but those words BW uses are interesting, because they almost certainly describe The Incredible Hulk. Perhaps Business Week should stick to facts about the biz and allow us movie bloggers to do the snarky commentary on the box office? Meanwhile you can vote on your favorite and least favorite movies of the summer of 2007 over at Moviefone.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
8-23-2007 @ 8:21PM
shawn said...
I did not like The Number 23, but it wasn't a bomb. According to Boxofficemojo.com the films budget was 30 million dollars. Domestically the film made 35 million and then Worldwide it made about the same: 35 million. That's 70 million right there. And if it's true that a way for a film to be profitable is to double the production budget.
It's been doubled plus a little.
And that's not even including the money it's made with DVDs sold and rented.
So the Number 23 is not a bomb. It's not really a blockbuster. But it's enough of a hit that the producers aren't shitting their pants.
Stardust and Evan Almighty may be considered bombs.
And I think the reason why Almighty bombed was because the budget was just way too high. People saw and liked the movie. It just wasn't a must see like Spiderman or Pirates. People liked Carell. So the producers are shitting themselves over this one. And smacking their forehead asking "why did we spend so much on this!"
Stardust didn't have a good advertizing campaign and they also spent too much on the film. They should have never expected this film deserved a budget of 70 million. It could have been made for 15, and then it would have been a hit.
Reply
8-23-2007 @ 8:38PM
Gilbert Davis said...
I saw the movie Stardust and it was good. Very enjoyable, cute little story and wry humor. You'll admit that there have been many a movie where for some reason the box office didn't click for it but it found it's audience later. Like, hum, Princess Bride maybe? This is a quality movie that will find it's audience eventually, not so much a bomb but more like a long term investment.
Reply
8-23-2007 @ 9:52PM
Bart Smith said...
300 probably doesn't belong in the discussion of summer movies as it opened back in early March.
Reply
8-23-2007 @ 11:51PM
bebe said...
Stardust was a great flick but woefully mismarketed. I don't think the studio marketers understood what it was and its appeal. The billboards were incomprehensible and the trailers just plain terrible. I also think everyone was perfect in their roles except Claire Danes, who was miscast. I do think it will be appreciated when families and kids discover it. That's who the movie is for, not 20something hipsters and action fans, which appear to be the demographics the studio was after.
Reply
8-24-2007 @ 1:33AM
tande said...
I totaly agree that Stardust is a long term investment and its a bit early to be writting it off as a bomb. I'd like to see it get some good word of mouth.
When we went to see it I was expecting it to be great but the others I was with weren't so sure. By the end we were all in love with it. Great movie.
Reply
8-24-2007 @ 9:00AM
Mike said...
Stardust was a very good movie and I feel it will do well when it is on DVD... It was a fun flick with a good story and had a great love story for the ladies (maybe that is stereotypical for me to say that).
As mentioned 300 shouldn't be in either list and GrindHouse either.
GrindHouse was one of the years best films (if not the best) but the general population did not understand the point nor wanted to sit a theater for that long. That is a shame, it such a great experience and extremely well made...
Reply
8-24-2007 @ 10:14AM
Jessica said...
I wasn't interested in seeing Stardust at first. I think the trailers didn't do it justice. After a friend forced me to go see it, I have to say I'm very glad I did. The movie was great from start to finish. Never a dull moment. I loved it!
Reply
8-24-2007 @ 10:32AM
Christopher Campbell said...
Bart, you're right about 300. I was following a list of 2007's biggest grossers, not the summer's. Oops.
As for Stardust, hopefully if it is that enjoyable, Paramount will let it linger in theaters and hope for word of mouth. Otherwise, it better do better at marketing the DVD.
Reply
8-24-2007 @ 2:53PM
Lynn said...
I have to agree with everyone here praising Stardust. I thought it was fantasitc. I really didn't expect to like it as much as I did, but it was just a great little fantasy. Everyone I was with just adored it.
I was surprised to learn that it did so badly at the box office. It deserves to be seen by more people, even if it doesn't ever eventually make its money back. Hopefully the studio won't drop the ball when it's time for the DVD release.
Reply
8-25-2007 @ 10:59AM
Bracken said...
STARDUST was simply fantastic. I bumped into it by mistake when Rush Hour 3 was sold out - and thank god I did - Ruch Hour could never hold a candle to this incredible film.
What a tragic missmarketed film. I tell everyone to go see this truly entertaining movie right away and of course they have never heard about it. STARDUST what?
If you have not seen it, get up and go right now. NOW I SAY!
Reply
8-26-2007 @ 12:22AM
Raging_Demons said...
Grindhouse was eh. When "Death Proof" came on the screen that killed the momentum of the movie. Anyways back on topic here.
Isn't one of the reason why "Evan Almighty" bombed was that it was the most expensive comedy ever made as well? I heard that it cost $200 million just to make that movie.
I have no interest in seeing "Stardust". Though it might hurt Neil Gaiman a little bit in the movie department since he is a good writer.
Reply
8-26-2007 @ 2:13PM
kma said...
can you say bitter? maybe because someone beat him to his own story?
Reply
8-26-2007 @ 2:23PM
Kelli said...
Well, see that's the problem. I'd actually blame studios for so many movies "bombing" today. Trailers that just don't fit the movie (Stardust, anyone?) and releasing DVD's to quickly. Half the people I know, now just wait for everything to come out on DVD!
So, let's stop with the five new movies every week, and things might not get lost in the mix!
As for Stardust, I didn't expect much when I was going to see that movie, and I walked out with SO much more, was utterly fantastic! Please, trust the board and see it. And then spread the word!
Reply
8-26-2007 @ 2:25PM
Alejandro said...
First of all, Evan Alighty was a bust because of the lack of Jim Carrey. Secondly, it didn't look good.
Now, The Number 23 busted not because of Jim Carrey, but because it also did not look like a good movie. They could have put Mel Gibson, Tom Hanks, Angelina Jolie, Julia Roberts, Denzel, the other Tom, Jodie, and Jessica (pick one)and it still one have under performed. And why is 300, GrindHouse and The Number 23 listed under summer bombs? Those movies are winter and spring movies!
Reply
8-26-2007 @ 4:20PM
Dan Gibson said...
Evan Almighty was marginally amusing at best -- Steve Carell is capable of producing belly laughs, it just did't happen in this film. A total miss at "comedy" with a bad script, too much $$ was spent on this film -- the animals were the only highlight.
Reply
9-02-2007 @ 12:17PM
Don Crawford said...
Just saw Stardust. It was great. A perfect fairy tale genre movie. It was not as adult as the trailers made it appear to be. Made you laugh and cry at all the right places. It will be a long time classic I predict. Or give it some time at the theaters and the buzz will pick up attendance.
Reply
8-26-2007 @ 2:46PM
rsoxman said...
I would like to add to what people have said about Stardust. I saw it with a friend Monday, then took my wife Saturday. This is the kind of movie Hollywood should be making. I was totally entertained for 2 hours and when you leave the theater you feel like you know the characters personally. Stardust is this generation's Princess Bride and people are going to love this movie for years and years.
Reply
8-26-2007 @ 2:54PM
Margaret said...
Saw Stardust with my grandchild (9) - both of us loved it. Who declars these things "losers"
If we are talking $$$$$$$ - can't tell you how much it lost or made - but.....
if we are talking entertainment - this one was excellent.
Reply
8-26-2007 @ 2:55PM
sherry said...
Not one origianl thought...This summer's offerings were the worst ever and now there isn't a good DVD to rest because Movies are either a remake, a sequal, or aimed at 15 year old kids who seem to thrive on potty jokes. When is someone going to make a movie worth watching?
Reply
8-26-2007 @ 11:38PM
al said...
YOu know, ths might be risky saying. But i would say spiderman 3 was a bomb. Sure, by a money standpoint there is no equal (literally, it has the record for most money made) but it was a BAD movie. Almost on equal with the fourth batman. Tell, me which is worse, a batsuit with nipples or an emo spiderman.
Reply