box office Tagged Articles at Cinematical

On Friday, Star Trek reached an important milestone when its U.S. box office total passed the $200 million mark. It's the first film of 2009 to cross that barrier, and that fact got me thinking: Friday was May 29. Isn't that later than usual for the first $200 million film of the year? I did some poking around at Box Office Mojo and found that my suspicions were correct.

In 2008, Iron Man hit $200 million on May 17. In 2007, Spider-Man 3 did it on May 12. In fact, since 2001, a film has always made it to $200 million before May 29, with only two exceptions: In 2006, X-Men: The Last Stand didn't achieve it until June 11, and in 2001 it was Shrek, on June 19.

To look at it another way, in some years there have been TWO $200 million films by the end of May. The reason for the deficit this year, obviously, is that the early "summer" (i.e., early May) releases didn't take off the way the tent poles in those slots usually do. X-Men Origins: Wolverine (released May 1) was a disappointment, and Angels & Demons (May 15) was never going to make the same kind of money as its predecessor.

Another factor is that May has lacked the major sequels and prequels that have usually been the biggest moneymakers. No Indiana Jones, no Spider-Man, no Star Wars, no Matrix. (In 2003, the first $200 million film was The Matrix Reloaded, which crossed the line on May 25.) If you'll recall, those movies tended to make a lot of money, and they tended to make it FAST. Like, record-breaking fast. In contrast, it took Star Trek 22 days to make $200 million -- and 31 films in history have done it in less time. Even Independence Day did it faster, and those were 1996 dollars.

Will young people in space outperform a Canadian dude with claws? No one will know until J.J. Abrams' Star Trek begins screening to the general public tonight, but early reviews continue to be overwhelmingly positive and online advance ticket sales have been brisk, with Fandango claiming in a press release that the film is responsible for 91% of their daily ticket sales. Still, is it only geeks and cult fans who are excited about Star Trek this weekend?

"Let's be realistic: This is not a sure thing," says Logan Hill at Vulture, pointing to the lack of "bankable stars" and his opinion that "it's a reboot of a franchise that's become little more than a punch line to anyone over the age of 25, and simply isn't a firsthand reference for anyone younger." Also, heavy-duty advance online ticket sales were also reported for the R-rated Watchmen, which "underperformed estimates" by drawing (only) $55 million.

Of course, Star Trek is rated PG-13, and is shorter than Watchmen's 163-minute running time. Our own Matt Bradshaw predicted Star Trek would make $82 million this weekend, a few million less than Wolverine's gross last weekend. Other predictions so far have been more modest, ranging from $40 million (Box Office Prophets) to $65 million (Steve Mason at Big Hollywood) to $74 million (Box Office Guru). Variety, however, thinks it can top $100 million.

What do you think? Will Star Trek under perform, drawing only from its fan base? Or will it be an across-the-board, popular smash this weekend? Take our poll and let us know: Which estimate is most likely to be right?

There's a story making the rounds -- originating, as best I can tell, with this post over at Yahoo! Movies -- making the case that this past weekend's minor computer-animated effort Delgo is, to paraphrase, the biggest wide-release bomb of all time.

Is that right? As usual, it depends on how you look at it. If you limit your scope to films released in over 2000 theaters -- Delgo occupied 2,160 -- then the raw numbers back up this claim: Delgo's $237 weekend per-screen average and $511,920 gross easily top the chart of all-time worst openings in that category. On the other hand, just this September a quasi-documentary called Proud American opened on 750 screens and managed an even more impressive $128 per-screen average. And Delgo even has competition this December: just the week before, the Alan Rickman action comedy Nobel Son opened on 893 screens to a comparable $374 per-screen average.

Both Delgo and Nobel Son were distributed by Freestyle Releasing, an independent distributor-for-hire. Freestyle fared slightly better with The Haunting of Molly Hartley over Halloween and much better with this summer's limited-release Bottle Shock. The lesson here, I think, is that unless you've got something that's easy to market (e.g. the PG-13 horror of Molly Hartley) and the budget to market it, an independently-arranged wide (or semi-wide) release is a very dicey proposition. Trying to shove a low-profile animated family film into the marketplace during the holidays is even dicier.

Delgo may be the biggest wide-release flop of all time, but no one will remember its failure like they remember Cutthroat Island and Last Action Hero: not because Delgo was low-budget (it reportedly cost $40 million), but because it was, for all intents and purposes, set up to fail.

The numbers just rolled in, and it looks like Twilight has grabbed a whopping $70.5 million in its opening weekend, slightly above earlier estimates of $45-65 million. For a film catered more toward young female audiences, these numbers are pretty damn impressive -- especially since these sorts of openings are usually reserved for big-budgeted action/superhero blockbusters featuring big names and lots of explosions. Twilight, however, starred the relatively unknown indie hopper Kristen Stewart and equally-as-unknown Robert Pattinson -- both of whom will no doubt return for the sequel, which was officially announced yesterday. Despite the Twilight army, Disney's Bolt still managed to squeeze out $27 million for third place, while Quantum of Solace dropped to second place with $27.4 million.

We'll have a full box office report tomorrow morning. Let us ask you this, though: Are you surprised at Twilight's $70 million take, or did you expect the film to make more?

Woody Allen's latest film, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, has earned mostly rave reviews, and it's doing well at the box office -- or, that is, it's doing well for a Woody Allen film. It opened in 10th place for the weekend of Aug. 15-17, the first time an Allen film has cracked the top 10 at all (let alone opened there) since Small Time Crooks, eight years and eight movies ago. And Small Time Crooks was the first one since Husbands and Wives, eight years and eight movies before that.

I wouldn't say there's ever been a time when Allen's films routinely made the top 10 -- he's always managed to release a total flop here and there to break up the streak -- but it certainly used to occur much more frequently than it does now. Manhattan opened at #1 in 1979, possibly the only Allen film ever to do so. (I can't find specific weekend data on Annie Hall, which is the only other likely candidate.) Various others have spent at least a couple weekends in the top 10. Still, no Allen film has ever been what you'd call a "blockbuster." His biggest hit, Hannah and Her Sisters (1986), made $40 million and never got higher than 5th place at the box office. Granted, if you adjust for inflation, Annie Hall's $38 million would be about $120 million today, and that would be considered fantastic for a low-budget indie. But it's still not commensurate with how beloved and acclaimed Allen is.

Consider this: Woody Allen has directed 38 theatrical features. The Dark Knight has made more money than all 38 of them combined. Isn't it strange that one of the most iconic American filmmakers of all time can barely scrape together a crowd to actually watch his movies?

"Next week is all counterprogramming, with the only wide debuts being the R-rated Sex and the City and The Strangers. Expect Indy to hold on to the crown." - me, last Monday

Yeah, good work, Nostradamus. "Counterprogramming" -- can you believe this idiot? Who let him on here, anyway? Far from headlining mere counterprogramming, Carrie Bradshaw delivered a swift kick to Indiana Jones' man-crotch, winning the weekend with $55.7 million to Indy's $46. Sex and the City's bow is the 5th all-time best opening weekend for an R-rated film. I -- and, in my defense, many others -- obviously underestimated the size of the "niche" audience eager to watch the big-screen finale of the far-too-popular HBO show. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, meanwhile, fell a hefty but hardly uncommon 55% from its first weekend, and it looks likely to eventually overtake Iron Man. That film, in turn, continues to have remarkable legs, dropping only 32% and bringing its cume to $276.6 million. And, since I caught flak for not mentioning it last week, I'll say that What Happens in Vegas is also holding very well, despite sucking.

Rogue Pictures will be very pleased with the debut of The Strangers, a low-budget, R-rated horror film. $20.7 million is a very good number, matching that of the PG-13 Prom Night 8 weeks back. And a #3 turn in last weekend's marketplace is nothing to be ashamed of. Horror films tend to plummet pretty quickly after the first weekend, but word-of-mouth on this one might actually be okay; we'll see. A bit further down the chart, Tarsem's cult-ready The Fall performed unspectacularly in its first weekend of semi-wide release, taking in $361,000 on 108 screens.

Click through for the weekend's top 10, and a couple of very sheepish thoughts about next weekend.

Ever since the numbers were released yesterday, anyone and everyone (as well as anyone who is everyone) has been talking Speed Racer -- specifically, how a $120 million Hollywood blockbuster could open with only $20 million at the box office. You can blame Iron Man, you can blame the marketing, you can blame the blogs for trashing the film all year long, you can blame Christina Ricci's weird haircut, or you can blame that judge on Project Runway for saying, "You can never have too much color!" Fact is, it missed the mark.

But what could've helped Speed Racer make more money in its opening weekend? The running time has been mentioned a lot in the past 24 hours, but a running time doesn't exactly woo audiences into the theater. Is the film's marketing 100% to blame? Should the trailers have been cut differently? Should they have stressed that this was a film for kids? Should they have added a little viral action into the mix? Or what about overall? From the beginning, were the Wachowski Brothers the right folks for the job? Should they have gone the animated route instead -- or maybe the animated 3-D route? Should they have made this a film for older kids; slap on a PG-13 rating?

In your opinion, what could've helped Speed Racer -- both in its opening weekend and in its development as a feature film?

According to early estimates from Box Office Mojo, this summer's second big-budgeted extravaganza failed to pick up more than $20 million at the box office this weekend, with the poorly-reviewed comedy What Happens in Vegas finishing right behind in third. Of course, Iron Man took the top spot for a second week in a row with roughly $50 million, while Speed Racer -- which some projected to take home at least $30-40 million -- came in second with $20.2 million, as What Happens in Vegas slid into third with $20 million. Rounding out the top five were Made of Honor ($7.6 million) and Baby Mama ($5.7 million).

So what happened to Speed Racer? Part of the reason had to do with its targeted audience, which, supposedly, was kids, though kids weren't very familiar with the cartoon the film was based on. That, and the flick clocked in at over two hours -- a running time that's been mentioned a lot this weekend, as well as one that's way too long for a PG-rated kiddie adventure. That said, its PG-rating scared away those adults who grew up with the cartoon; people who, most likely, were looking for something a bit more skewed toward adults (especially when Iron Man came out the weekend before and kicked a whole lot of ass). Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure we can rule out that Speed Racer franchise at this point.

Coupla questions for ya: Why do you think Speed Racer failed to power across the finish line in spectacular fashion? Also, what happens to the Wachowski Brothers now? Will folks think twice before giving them $150 million and free reign?

Despite an intense marketing push, Will Ferrell's latest sports comedy just couldn't hold up to his previous two efforts. Semi-Pro did take the number one spot at the box office this weekend, but it did so with a measly $15 million. Compared to last year's Blades of Glory (opened with $33 million) and Talladega Nights (opened with $47 million), that $15 million doesn't look so great -- and it's certainly not the way New Line wanted to go out (even though they are, technically, going out on top).

So why didn't anyone go see this film? Granted, people did go see it (enough for $15 million), but it played in over 3,000 theaters. Did the R rating actually hurt the film? Keep in mind, both Blades and Talladega Nights were PG-13 -- so did a raunchy, foul-mouthed Ferrell keep audiences away? Or was it the supporting cast? Woody Harrelson and Andre Benjamin aren't Jon 'Napoleon Dynamite" Heder and Sacha "Borat" Baron Cohen. Did Ferrell need a little more juice around him in order to score bigger buckets? Maybe the whole '70s basketball thing wasn't so appealing? I guess the bigger question should be: Does this $15 million opening signal the beginning of the end of Ferrell's reign over the box office?

Why did you stay away from Semi-Pro, which I heard was actually pretty damn funny?