tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57037803998543694552024-03-14T04:47:04.276-04:00Act 3 MoviesGiving you the best parts of everything movies. From reviews to predictions to analysis what's going on in Hollywood. Seen in over 90 countries.Jayson Blankenshiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630207805831892920noreply@blogger.comBlogger87125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5703780399854369455.post-62253969060320807652017-01-06T21:22:00.001-05:002017-08-22T13:51:00.960-04:002016 Winners and Losers<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.madman.com.au/news/wp-content/uploads/HOHW-Poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="715" data-original-width="500" height="200" src="https://www.madman.com.au/news/wp-content/uploads/HOHW-Poster.jpg" width="139" /></a></div>
<i>Winners</i>: </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.impawards.com/2016/posters/bad_moms.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Walt Disney Pictures</b>. Disney had a banner year, and I mean<i> banner</i>. The top 3 movies of 2016 are all Disney titles, and 6 of the top 10. Disney was the fastest studio to hit $1 billion dollars, with 37 days to spare, and owned a 26.4% market share, so far. Disney's $3 billion haul is the largest ever for a studio. Disney has made full use of their purchases of Pixar, Marvel, and Lucasfilm, and it's paying dividends with <i>Finding Dory, Doctor Strange, Civil War</i>, and <i>Rogue One</i>, which still hasn't finished its run. It also doesn't hurt that Walt Disney Animation Studios has become a powerhouse with back to back smashes this year in <i>Zootopia</i> and <i>Moana</i>. Oh yeah, and <i>Jungle Book</i>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><i><br /></i></b>
<b><i>A Madea Halloween</i></b>. I know, I know, what an odd choice for a "winner", but hear me out. <i>A Madea Halloween</i> was the first Madea movie since 2013. The Madea brand had seemed to have been on the decline after the obvious peak in 2009. Shticks get old quick and 3 years of no Madea was enough time for the brand to fade, but it didn't. <i>A Madea Halloween</i> played strong and finished with $73 million, which is the 2nd highest total for a Madea movie. What's even more shocking is Tyler Perry was able to do this with the Halloween theme. <i>A Madea Halloween</i> also had the 2nd best legs for a Madea movie. That's a winner in my book.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b>Deadpool</b></i>. This is probably the most obvious one. This movie wouldn't have even been made if it wasn't for fans going rabid over leaked footage. And then when it was given the greenlight, many still saw <i>Deadpool</i> as C-list at best and didn't think he could break the mainstream glass. Well, he did. <i>Deadpool</i> broke records left and right: biggest February opening, Winter opening, and R-rated opening.<i> Deadpool</i> wasn't able to pass Jesus, but still, number 2 for all time R-rated is pretty nice, considering R-rated movies have been getting less and less blockbuster attention by the studios.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b>Suicide Squad</b></i>. This movie was everything we didn't want it to be. A bloated, studio-manufactured, CGI fest, and an incoherent and tonal mess to top it all off. Yet, we still had fun with it. After reviews came out, <i>Suicide Squad's</i> run was looking to shake up to a disaster, but it still managed to muster up $325 million domestic, which is just a few mil below <i>Guardians of the Galaxy</i> and $745 million worldwide. <i>Suicide Squad </i>stumbled out of the gate, but found pretty good later legs. It didn't have the best multiplier, but for a release that could have easily fallen off of a cliff, it came out fine in the end.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b>Trolls</b></i>. As with Madea and R-rated blockbusters, DreamWorks was supposedly on the way out. Then came <i>Home</i>. But <i>Home </i>could have easily been a fluke. Well it wasn't. <i>Trolls</i> assured that DreamWorks still has some staying power left. <i>Trolls</i> also wins because it ended up not being as absurd as the teaser trailer made you believe. From what I hear, <i>Trolls</i> is actually enjoyable.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><i>Bad Moms</i></b>. "STX? Who dat?" "Mila Kunis leading? Okay." "Katherine Hahn? Oh, the crazy lady from <i>Step Brothers</i>. Yeah, sure." "Kristen Bell? I mean yeah she's cool, but whatever." <i>Bad Moms</i> could have easily fell on it's face like <i>Hot Pursuit</i> did, yet it ended up being the <i>Bridesmaids</i> of the year, grossing $113 million domestic on a modest $23 million opening, and a little over $170 million worldwide. What a surprise this movie's reception was. Next up: <i>Bad Dads</i>, <i>Bad Aunts, Bad Siblings</i>, and <i>Bad Sleezy Uncle Who Always Asks Where You Got Your Shoes Then Asks You To Let Him Hold Some Money at the Family Dinner</i>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b>Purge: Election Year</b></i>. Are we not tired of the <i>Purge</i> fad yet? Guess not. <i>Election Year</i> managed to become one of the rare threequels that increases over its predecessors. Universal keeps finding a way to reinvent the <i>Purge</i> concept, and it's showing at the box office.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><i>Sausage Party</i></b>. <i>Sausage Party</i> couldn't pass $100 million in the end, but it came close at $97 million. R-rated animation is rare. It's rare because it's super niche. <i>Sausage Party</i> was able to break out of the niche and have a respectable run. <i>Sausage Party</i> was met with some controversy and mixed WOM which may have been enough to halt the $100 million train, but for an R-rated animated movie about a foul-mouthed hot dog wiener with gloves, $97 million is more than successful.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<i><b>Don't Breath</b></i>. This movie had a quiet, yet leggy fall run, falling $1 million short of $90 million, and managing to gross another $20 million or more than similar recent horrors. Like the concept of the movie, <i>Don't Breath's</i> run was pretty quiet, but its staying power deserves attention.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b>Hell or Highwater</b></i>. Only one movie could make West Texas look so cool, and it was this one. <i>Hell or Highwater</i> was a refreshing, intimate surprise and legged its way through the late-Summer. While it didn't put up blockbuster numbers, it definitely is one of the best movies of the year and succeeded in finding an audience.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><i>10 Cloverfield Lane</i></b>. This movie managed to make only $8 million less domestic than the original <i>Cloverfield</i>, even though it had no monster, no New York City (or any city for that matter), no found footage, no decapitated Statue of Liberty money shot, and no anticipation as no one knew it was coming until like a week before. That's a winner.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Lights Out</b></i>. James Wan knows two things: horror, and how to keep the horror cheap. He did that with Lights Out and while its $67 million domestic gross isn't Earth shattering on its own, for a recent supernatural horror, that's pretty good. Add in overseas and you get a worldwide total of $148 million. The budget you ask? $4.9 million. That's a staggering ROI for Warner Brothers and Mr. Wan.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Losers:</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b>Batman vs Superman</b></i>. This movie should have blown past $400 million domestic and $1 billion worldwide with ease. And I mean ease. Grossing that is not easy by any stretch of the imagination, but for the world's two most recognizable superheroes, in a time when superhero movies are at a zenith, in their first ever cinematic meeting? Yeah, it should've happened. Yet Warner Brothers meddled in the production and Zack Snyder delivered a mediocre product. This movie tried to do too much: introduce Batman, dig deeper into Superman/Clark Kent and Lois Lane (who again is too much of a plot convenience), shoehorn Wonder Woman, shoehorn Doomsday, dose down on an awful Luthor, while trying to be sleek, edgy, rough, polished, and sexy all at once. It didn't work. What exactly was Holly Hunter's role again? Oh I totally forgot about the wheelchair guy. Ah, the jar of pee. Don't remember much about it other than that's a pretty gross metaphor. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>BvS</i> still grossed a respectable $330 million, but that's less than <i>Guardians</i>, which was an unknown property that was headlined by a talking raccoon. That's $5 million more than <i>Suicide Squad</i>. Even with 9 years of inflation, that's less than <i>Spider-Man 3</i>, which the internet is still making fun of. And that 27% RT score is unacceptable, no matter how you spin it. Batman, Superman, and the DC brand should be fine in the long run, and I'm sure Warner sold plenty of Batman bedspreads at Target, but you can't help but wonder what really could have been.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b>Allegiant</b></i>. This franchise is so bad, it's getting tossed to TV. And not the good part of TV either. As far as I'm aware, no network has agreed to air it yet. Take this L, Lionsgate.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Sequels Trying to Recapture Magic</b>. There's nothing wrong with sequels, but Hollywood is still doing them all wrong. Sequels are either coming out way too late, ala <i>Zoolander 2</i>, <i>Independence Day Resurgence </i>(20 years!), <i>Bad Santa 2</i>, <i>Alice Through the Looking Glass</i>, and <i>Greek Wedding 2</i>, or we didn't need a sequel in the first place, ala <i>Now You See Me 2</i>, <i>Neighbors 2</i>, and <i>Ride Along 2, </i>and all those other sequels I just mentioned. <i></i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Jason Bourne</i> posted a nice $162 million, but adjusted and unadjusted, it's a fall from grace. <i>Star Trek's</i> $158 million ranks 15th for the year, but it's still a hefty drop. <i>X-Men Apocalypse</i> lost its way. And <i>Kung Fu Panda 3</i> didn't really make any headlines, even with the reveal of Po parents. While it's wrong to call these movies "losers" in terms of individual performance, they didn't manage to bring their respective franchises back to the spotlight.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b>Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2</b></i>. I know the internet thinks the first movie is horrid, but audiences obviously enjoyed it after it grossed a surprise $191 million in August 2014. Looks like audiences had short memory as the sequel dropped very harshly. <i>Turtles 2</i> was only able to capture $82 million, a 57% drop from the first. As the wise Chris Tucker says "damn, he gonna be in <i>Turtles 3</i>."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b>Huntsman: Winters War</b></i>. Either Kristen Stewart has a really good agent, or Chris Hemsworth, Charlize Theron, and Emily Blunt have bad ones. Like the vast majority of 2016 sequels, <i>Winters War</i> couldn't capture any major and fell flat on it's face. $48 million with that budget, cast, and marketing? Ouch. That's a 69% drop, even worse than <i>Turtles</i>. At least no one's making fun of this movie like they should be.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><i>13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi</i></b>. Maybe my expectations were too high? Okay, they were, but look: this movie was coming off the heels of red hot modern war movies <i>American Sniper, Lone Survivor, </i>and<i> Act of Valor</i>. Also, this movie was releasing during Hillary Clinton's presidential run, where Benghazi had been a focal point. CNN, Fox News, Twitter, you name it, Americans were still demanding answer for Benghazi. <br />
<br />
And to top it off, America lately has been its most patriotic since 9/11. Look at <i>American Sniper </i>and <i>Lone Survivor</i>, the kneeing controversy, political attitudes, and the election aftermath for proof. Plus, Michael Bay and explosions. So why couldn't <i>13 Hours</i> capitalize on all of this? Well the 50% RT score didn't help, but <i>13 Hours</i> still landed a 83% audience score regardless. Expecting an <i>American Sniper 2</i> levels was too much, but with everything going for it, a $53 million total is just too, too low.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Zach and Zac.</b> Our pal "Alan" shot into the A-list after <i>The Hangover</i>, suddenly becoming one of Hollywood's leading comedy men. The <i>Hangover</i> franchise, <i>The Campaign</i>, <i>Due Date, Puss in Boots</i>. He was suddenly left and right. Well 2016 was not kind as he suffered not one, but two cringe-worthy flops as a leading man with <i>Masterminds</i> and <i>Keeping Up With The Joneses, </i>which had the 8th worst opening ever for 3,000 screens. Are people sick of Galifiankis? Personally, I say no. I'm sure he'll provide a better Joker in <i>Lego Batman</i> than Leto could, and he'll be a part of <i>A Wrinkle in Time</i> which irons out next year. And hey, his "Between Two Ferns" with Hillary Clinton was still funny.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Efron was given three leading roles last year, and none of them made a dent in the box office. While <i>Neighbors 2</i> isn't really on him, <i>Dirty Grandpa</i> and <i>Mike and Dave</i> were pretty come and go. Efron is obviously still a popular dude, and <i>Baywatch</i> should suit him much better, but he's still not making the noise you'd think he'd be capable to make.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><i>Gods of Egypt. </i></b>I honestly wanted to put this in "not full losers" (see below) since no one was expecting anything from this other than Lionsgate. Still, the budget was ridiculously high and this movie was ridiculously laughable. When your action-adventure is taken as a comedy, and when you spend $140 million on something that looks like it cost $60 million, well, you have to take a tub full of L's. So many L's, you could drown in them. More like "L-ionsgate." </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><i>Alice Through the Looking Glass</i></b>. I know I already mentioned this, but I just <i>had </i>to highlight the fact that this movie dropped a whopping 77% from <i>Wonderland</i>. So for every 10 people that went to go see <i>Wonderland</i>, 7.7 of them didn't come back. That turnover rate is higher than Walmart's. And that's not sarcasm, I actually looked that up. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sure <i>Wonderland</i> was 6 years old, was aided by 3D at its apex, and starred Johnny Depp before he went deep, but lord, 77% and a $257 domestic drop (we won't even mention worldwide)? That has to be a record. I'm calling it a record.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b>Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk</b></i>. Ah <i>Billy Lynn</i>, you thought you were gonna escape this. Nope. <i>Billy Lynn</i> was looking to be a major awards player, but that quickly faded during the festival circuit. Hype for <i>Billy Lynn</i> and the 120FPS format died, and a movie that was supposed to play out strong through the holidays, ended up with a botched released, the 25th worst opening for a film on over 1,000 screens, and a 76% second weekend drop. <i>Billy Lynn</i> has only grossed $1.7 million domestic. Maybe it should've been <i>Billy Lynn's Standing National Anthem</i>. Get it?...</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b>Wide Release Flops</b></i>. <i>Rules Don't Apply </i>(6th), <i>Morgan</i> (8th), and <i>Max Steele</i> (14th) were pretty terrible all time openers for a movie in at least 2,000 theaters. <i>Hardcore</i> <i>Henry</i> had the 5th worst opening of all time for a movie in 3,000+ and probably did more harm than good in trying to start the "VR" genre. And <i>The Bounce Back</i>, whatever that is, had the 3rd worst ever opening in wide release aka 600 theaters. And while <i>Green Room</i> is supposedly good, we have to mention it, at number 16 and <i>The Bronze</i> at 13. So, yeah.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><i>Birth of a Nation</i></b>. I'm not going to dive into this one much other than it had potential, but that potential was pretty much squandered. It couldn't even beat a movie called <i>Middle School</i> that wasn't even appealing to current middle schoolers. Netflix dodged the biggest L of the year after they offered $20 million for it, but lost out.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b>Inferno</b></i>. <i>Inferno</i> lost 74% of <i>Angels and Demons'</i> audinece, which had already lost 38% of <i>Da Vinci Code's</i> audience. Do the math and <i>Inferno</i> lost 84% of <i>Da Vinci Code's</i> audience in 10 years. And that's just unadjusted gross, not ticket sales. That's a capital L.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Mixed</i>:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b>Ghostbusters</b></i>. Let's be real, this movie was never given a fair chance. This movie was so alt-righted that we broke control Q. Did having an all female cast really hurt the gross? Probably not, but I don't think it helped either. Either way, the whole hoopla that this movie had to endure was ridiculous. In terms of success, I think we expected too much. Expectations were lofty because it had "Ghostbusters" in the name, but we forget the last <i>Ghostbusters </i>movie came out back in the 80's, which is a lot longer ago than it sounds like. <i>Ghostbusters'</i> $128 million pull is respectable, but the $229 worldwide pull is not. <i>Ghostbusters</i> came and went, and the feminists and meninists have finally stopped bludgeoning each other. Now this movie can finally rest in peace, until it's time for FX to exhume it out of the grave.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><i>Passengers</i></b>. Predictions were wayyy too lofty with this one, but even with Jennifer Lawrence's waning it-girl status, the combination of JLaw and Pratt, the release date, and the track record of recent sci-fi space movies, this movie could have cleared $150 million. I'm saying mixed because it's obvious reviews hurt it, plus <i>Rogue One</i> stole much of the sci-fi crowd. <i>Passengers</i> is still shaping up to have a decent run when it's all said and done, all things considered. And besides, this movie will definitely be overplayed on FX by 2019.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Faith based adaptions</b>. While <i>Miracles From Heaven</i> was able to keep the Christian-targeted film train running with $61 million domestic, <i>God's Not Dead 2</i> fell flat, only able to get $20 million in the collection plate - a 67% drop from <i>God's Not Dead's</i> $60 million haul in 2014. <i>Risen</i> also wasn't the next <i>Passion, </i>but to be fair, it was never in position to be.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Not full winners, but on the winning side</i>:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><i>Legend of Tarzan</i></b>. Many movie buffs were rooting for this to fail, for whatever reason. Well, <i>Tarzan</i> stuck it to them. While still not a "box office success" thanks to its high budget, <i>Tarzan</i> played well throughout the summer with a surprising $126 million finish. Nothing earth shattering, but that's much more than the $40-70 million many were expecting this to leap into.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><i>Sully</i></b>. Hanks still has it. You'd think <i>Sully</i> was automatic to be successful with Hanks and Eastwood, but the Hudson River miracle didn't look <u>that</u> dramatic on paper, and Hanks didn't have any handicap he had to battle throughout the movie, unlike Denzel battling alcoholism, drug abuse, dead passengers, too many side characters, and lawsuits in <i>Flight</i>. Didn't matter. <i>Sully</i> had an impressive Fall run, and impressed audiences and critics alike.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b>The Angry Birds Movie</b></i>. This movie was incredibly boring, incredibly stupid, and had pretty terrible legs for an animated kids movie, but!...it was still based on a smartphone app, and managed to pull in $350 million worldwide on a modest budget. There aren't many apps in the App Store that could do that. Maybe "Goat Simulator" and Tinder. That's about it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b>The Shallows</b></i>. I honestly can't put my finger on exactly why I think this belongs here. Maybe considering this could have easily been a laughable, MTV quality movie. Yet, it wasn't. The last 10 minutes alone were more thrilling than anything you'll ever see on <i>Teen Mom</i>. Okay the whole movie was. Blake Lively staring at sand > <i>Teen Mom</i>. While expectations for <i>Shallows</i> were modest, I think this movie still passed them in reviews, in delivery, and in box office. Plus $119 million worldwide on a $17 million budget. Cash out. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Not full losers, but on the losing side</i>:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b>The Girl on the Train</b></i>. I had to put this here because it was clear this was expected to be the next <i>Gone Girl</i> by most everyone. And it seemed to be heading in that direction too before it derailed (come on, you knew a train pun was coming). Instead, a $75 million finish. Less than half of <i>Gone Girl, </i>but nonetheless, fine on its own.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b>Assassins Creed</b></i>. I know you're thinking <i>Assassin's Creed, </i>or <i>Ass Creed</i> as the locals call it, should be in the full loser column, but, it's a video game movie, that directly adapted the video game. Even with that budget, what did we expect? The narrative is still alive and well. It's not a loser to me, because I was never expecting big things to begin with, but it's even farther from a winner because Fox couldn't help but make the same mistake yet again that studios continue to make with video game films. Now do you get why Mario is locked under ten feet of steel and poison gas?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b>Warcraft</b></i>. Another movie where much shouldn't have been expected. Yeah the budget was huge and the studio went all out with the marketing, but we see this story every single year. Nothing new. The year before it was <i>Jupiter Ascending</i>. This year it's <i>Valerian</i>. At least <i>Warcraft</i> had China to help stop the bleeding.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b>Ben-Hur</b></i>. It feels off to call this one a loser considering Paramount never really tried with it in the first place. Plus, this was so harmless. It was like a lady bug.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><i>Storks</i></b>. I just can't help but be disappointed at <i>Storks'</i> run. Only $72 million. Considering this was the year of talking animals - <i>Finding Dory</i> ($486 million), <i>Secret Life of Pets</i> ($368 million), <i>Zootopia</i> ($341 million),<i> Sing</i> (will finish over $200 million), <i>Kung Fu Panda</i> <i>3</i> ($143 million), and <i>Angry Birds</i> ($107 million), <i>Storks</i> pales in comparison. Plus, those cute babies. Come on, man. <i>Ice Age 5</i> did worse, but...it's <i>Ice Age <u>5</u>.</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Not a loser, but damn we get it</i>:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b>Office Christmas Party</b></i>. For how many times I had to sit through the TV, radio, <i>and</i> Spotify spots for this during the month of December, you would've thought this was going to be the next <i>Force Awakens</i>. Should've been, shouldn't it?.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Some 2017 movies to look out for:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Here are some movies releasing this year that could easily teeter into either column. <i>Power Rangers, Wonder Woman, Kong: Skull Island, Justice League, The Mummy</i>, <i>Jumanji</i> (already losing thanks to people crying over Karen Gillan's outfit),<i> Baywatch, </i>Dreamworks<i>, King Arthur, Alien: Covenant, Saw: Legacy</i><i>, </i>Marvel<i>, Snatched, </i>and <i>Dunkirk.</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Jayson Blankenshiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630207805831892920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5703780399854369455.post-50977848604982658622016-11-17T13:25:00.000-05:002016-11-17T13:28:42.435-05:00Talking Animal Takeover<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i.imgur.com/nmgKmWw.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://i.imgur.com/nmgKmWw.jpg" height="200" width="133" /></a></div>
<a href="http://www.joblo.com/timthumb.php?src=/posters/images/full/Deadpool-poster-8.jpg&h=600&q=100" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.joblo.com/timthumb.php?src=/posters/images/full/Deadpool-poster-8.jpg&h=600&q=100" height="200" width="136" /></a><br />
While diversity has become a pressing issue in pretty much every aspect of society today (America's changing demographics, inclusion on TV, #OscarsSoWhite, etc), it seems American moviegoers this year haven't demanded a diverse lineup and instead have slimmed down their genre preferences. 2016 has been an alright, albeit unusually top-heavy year at the box office. Yet when it comes to this year's box office, two genres have emerged as kings. Superhero movies and talking animal animation have single-handedly taken over domestic cinemas and studio receipt books.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As of this post, the current #1 domestic movie is <i>Finding Dory</i> (talking animal). What occupies the #2? <i>Captain America: Civil War </i>(superhero). #3: <i>The Secret Life of Pets</i> (talking animal), #4: <i>The Jungle Book</i> (talking animal), #5: <i>Deadpool</i> (superhero), #6: <i>Zootopia</i> (talking animal), #7: <i>Batman vs Superman</i> (superhero), and #8: <i>Suicide Squad</i> (young adult book adaption...kidding, kidding, they're superhero...or anti-heroes?). #9 for now: <i>Jason Bourne</i> (Matt Damon), #10: <i>Doctor Strange</i> (superhero), <i>Star Trek Beyond</i> (science-fiction), #12: <i>X-Men: Apocalypse </i>(superhero), and last, but not least is <i>Kung Fu Panda 3 </i>at #13. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If you've lost track, that's talking animal, superhero, talking animal, talking animal, superhero, talking animal, superhero, superhero, Matt Damon, superhero, sci-fi, superhero, and talking animal.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While we're finally done with superhero adaptions for the year, Disney's <i>Moana</i> and Illumination's <i>Sing</i> both have very solid chances to crack the top 10. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While the talking animal takeover has been generally stronger this year, not every film has passed the test. Scrat and the gang have long overstayed their welcome with <i>Ice Age: Collision Course</i>. <i>Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2</i> ended up netting $82 million over the summer, but that's a far cry from its 2014 predecessor's $191 million. One of the years biggest bombs was <i>Alice Through the Looking Glass</i>. While there's plenty of human characters, I'm pretty sure there's a talking rabbit somewhere in the movie. <i>Nine Lives</i> was released about 16 years too late. And Warner Brothers' <i>Storks</i> wasn't a bomb, but it's $70 million total could be seen as a momentum killer.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While the abundance of superheroes and animals seem like overkill, it's actually not a far cry from 10 years ago. The 2006 top 11? Pirates, family fantasy, talking cars, superhero, <i>Da Vinci Code, </i>superhero, talking animal, talking animal, James Bond, homeless Will Smith, and talking animal. We've always had a fondness for talking animals and that doesn't seem to be disappearing anytime soon, but the superhero craze is now in full force. Every year, box office analysts and nerds predict that it's the year audiences grow tired, but every year tells us otherwise. Maybe 2017 really will be the year we grow tired. Or maybe the top 10 will again end up a hot potato between superheroes and talking dogs.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It does make you wonder: if animals really could talk, what would be co-king at the box office with superheroes? Talking kitchen appliances? Hmm, it's possible.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
Jayson Blankenshiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630207805831892920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5703780399854369455.post-6327629045333573822016-01-14T12:15:00.000-05:002016-01-14T12:16:17.713-05:00For Your "You Really Should Consider These" Consideration<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/Straight_Outta_Compton_poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/Straight_Outta_Compton_poster.jpg" width="126" /></a> Every year there is a wave of great, deserving movies that seem to be left out by the awards guilds; mainly the Academy Awards. While 2015 was a solid year for film overall, the tides powering the wave of movies this season seem pretty weak. There will be some big players, such as <i>The Big Short, Spotlight,</i> and <i>The Revenant</i>, but this year still doesn't seem to stack up to past years. Here are nine movies that I personally feel won't get all the attention they deserve come nominations, but should, and why.<br />
<br />
I wrote this article yesterday before the nominations were announced. They were announced today and even though some of these movies were nominated, I decided to keep them here anyway to show my argument.</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="font-weight: bold;">Creed. </i>Michael (not) Jordan, Sly Stallone, and Tessa Thompson deliver knockout performances. Direction from Ryan Coogler is also deserving. The movie got the "real Philly" tone down to a tee, the boxing scenes were well choreographed and thrilling, soundtrack and cinematography was great, and there was always stakes. This movie was a 2 hour commercial for "you're not given it, you have to earn it" + end credits. Well, I think <i>Creed</i> earned it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b>Inside Out.</b> </i>Yes, I know, <i>Inside Out</i> is pretty much a lock for Best Animated Feature, but what about Best Feature period? The Academy is pretty rigid when it comes to animated movies in the best picture category, but if any animated movie deserves a slot, it's <i>Inside Out</i>. One of the best of the year, irregardless of medium. The screenplay was the Pixar gold standard. And while cinematography could seem tricky to deduce from animation, <i>Inside Out</i> was very imaginative, clever, and provided us with some moving and memorable shots. This has no chance of happening, but Amy Poehler for Best Actress? Her voice work as Joy was some of the best in a while. Honestly nominate the whole cast. What a cast. What a movie.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="font-style: italic;">Straight Outta Compton. </b>With it's August release and hip hop subject matter, it'll be easy for <i>Compton</i> to be overlooked. One of my favorites of the year, <i>Compton</i> took everyone by surprise. This wasn't your typical BET-esque "black picture", no. And even if Kevin Hart, Tyler Perry, or Loretta Devine were in this, this movie still wouldn't be brought to that level. While the "industry rags to riches" story was pretty standard, the way it was done was very fresh and heartfelt. F Gary Gray did an amazing job in the directors chair. The movie really did have that 1990's South Central LA feel. Acting was superb all around, the soundtrack killed, writing was pretty sharp, and you can tell the cinematography had a budget.</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="font-style: italic;">Dope. </b>It was pretty easy to pass by <i>Dope</i> last summer and not notice. I didn't catch it until Redbox a couple months ago, but it really was a treat. Witty, irreverent, and they really put a fresh take on the "oops, I found drugs and now drug dealers are after me" storyline. Acting was solid, the screenplay had a nice beat, and the movie ultimately had heart. <i>Dope</i> won't have the same lobbying and backing the more star-studded and recent films will have, but it's a movie that will appreciate in value.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="font-style: italic;">Spy </b><b>and</b><b style="font-style: italic;"> Mission Impossible: Rouge Nation. </b>A Melissa McCarthy movie? A modern Tom Cruise movie? Are you drunk? No, but this <u>is</u> a weak year, and these spy films were pretty strong and pretty fun. (Seriously, go watch).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="font-style: italic;">Ex Machina. </b>This was a good film, but it didn't leave a lasting impression on me. Either way, I feel it's a film that could easily be overlooked because of its release date (which feels like eons ago).<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i style="font-weight: bold;">The Martian. </i>It's become pretty standard now for October to produce a contender. Why not <i>Martian</i>? I didn't fall in love with <i>Martian</i>, but it's a good movie that would seem to be up the Academy's wheelhouse. The Academy is rigid with blockbusters, but <i>Martian</i>
really isn't one. Yes it's made $600 million worldwide, but director
Ridley Scott utilized the movie's smarts, strong acting and characters,
brisk narrative, and beautiful imagery to get it there, not a bunch of
random explosions and girls in bikinis. (Which wouldn't be too feasible
on Mars).<br />
<br />
<b style="font-style: italic;">Mad Max: Fury Road. </b>This is nowhere close to your standard Oscar film. Heck, this isn't your standard film period. <i>Mad Max </i>was a cinematic darling with breathtaking visuals and fast storytelling. Director George Miller deserves <u>a lot</u>
of credit for keeping this project together and delivering the final
product that he did. Yes, it's a May release, yes there's blow-em-up
action, yes it's weird and usual, and no there isn't any scenes with
Meryl Streep crying or Jennifer Lawrence stern, but <i>Fury Road</i> really is one of the best of the year and should be noticed as such.</div>
<br />
<br /></div>
Jayson Blankenshiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630207805831892920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5703780399854369455.post-40526051733570764782015-08-26T14:40:00.002-04:002015-08-26T20:48:57.564-04:00'Mission'...X?, X = No Limits?<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fb/Mission_Impossible_Rogue_Nation_poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fb/Mission_Impossible_Rogue_Nation_poster.jpg" width="130" /></a> It's 2015 and we're now on the fifth <i>Mission Impossible</i> movie. That's right - fifth. <i>Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation</i> is the latest Tom Cruise vehicle in the action franchise. The first <i>Mission Impossible</i> was released in 1996, with follow ups in 2000, 2006, 2011, and this year. Five movies in a franchise seems redundant and unnecessary, right? Why can't Hollywood come up with fresher, original ideas? Why keep churning out <i>Mission Impossible</i> after <i>Mission Impossible</i>? Well, when it comes to certain franchises and the creative team in charge...does it really matter? Let's see.<br />
Eventhough it's the fifth movie in a near 20 year old franchise that stars a 53 year old, <i>Rogue Nation</i> has currently totaled near $160 million dollars domestic. <i>Rogue Nation</i> has held very well the past three weekends, and though its a stretch, $200 million is still in play, which would put <i>Rogue Nation</i> right behind 2011's <i>Ghost Protocol</i>. <i>Rogue Nation </i>is also making strides at the overseas box office with over $280 million so far.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Not only is the box office solid, but <i>Rogue Nation</i> currently holds a 93% rating on Rotten Tomatoes with 233 reviews. Though it's not the most accurate or useful metric, the audience score for <i>Rogue Nation</i> sits at 91%. With these solid reviews and box office returns, it's quite obvious that people still aren't tired of the franchise. <i>Mission Impossible 6</i> is reportedly already in the works over at Paramount (and judging by their current library, they need it). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Another franchise that seems to defy aging is the <i>Fast and Furious</i> franchise. Not only was <i>Furious SEVEN </i>a hit with critics, with 81% on Rotten Tomatoes, but it is also the fifth highest grossing movie <u>of all time</u>. Yes, all time. Worldwide. Without 3D. We talk about how big the Avengers and the Marvel Cinematic Universe are, but no MCU movie, including both <i>Avengers</i> movies, have higher attendance than <i>Furious 7</i>. We're talking about a franchise that was relegated to near TV-movie status with <i>Tokyo Drift</i> (the third movie). Universal was about to give up on <i>Fast</i>, but they decided to keep going, and freshen up the franchise some how. Well they did. And it worked. No one is bothered that there is a "7" in front of "Furious." And no one seems to be bothered by the invisible "5" with <i>Rogue Nation</i>.<br />
Three used to be and sort of still is the magic number for franchises, but with today's growing international marketplace, technology, and synergy, studios are trying to pump out fours and fives and sixes. I'm not the biggest on sequels; I'd like to see more original or creative content, but when you think about it, maybe the number should be just that - a number. Even though <i>Mission</i> and <i>Fast </i>are aging, they still bring something new to the table that re-freshens the concept. <i>Mission</i> is more than "Tom Cruise dodging bad guys with self destructing messages" and <i>Fast</i> is more than "let's race and talk about family." I mean did you see <i>Furious 7</i>? Did you see the car go out of one skyscraper into the next skyscraper? Did you see the cars being dropped from the plane? Heck, in<i> Fast 6</i> did you see the tank taking a Sunday drive down the highway? In <i>Ghost Protocol</i>, did you see Cruise scale the tallest building in the world? What was the last movie that you saw the main character hanging from a plane as it departs and ascends? It's spectacle like this that keeps these franchises going. If any franchise can keep bringing something new to the table, then it should not matter what number it is.<br />
<i>Paranormal Activity</i> is stale. Why? Because it's the same thing every movie, just a new household. Same old blue-scale posters, same old jump scares, same old Toby. It was fun the first couple of times, but now it's a retread. And adding 3D doesn't count. But if <i>Paranormal Activity</i> can bring something new and fresh, like <i>Purge: Anarchy</i> did, instead of being literally <i>"Purge 2"</i>, then there is no problem with 10 <i>Paranormal Activities. Spongebob: Sponge Out of Water </i>brought something new to the table, and audiences showed up. Even though 10 years older, <i>Sponge Out of Water</i> managed to sell more tickets than <i>The Spongebob Movie</i>. And y'all said Spongebob was dead.<br />
So to conclude, I think Hollywood makes too many sequels, but at the same time, the number at the end of the title should not be a deterrent. If the studio can bring something new, fresh, and rejuvenating to the franchise, then I don't care if they make 10 of them. But when each new movie is a carbon copy of the first, you can expect diminishing returns and backlash. Don't make <i>Iron Man 4</i> for the sake of it, and make it literally the same as <i>Iron Man 1-3</i>. Take Stark to space, give him a new color suit, heck let Tony Stark time travel back to Ancient Egypt, I don't know. Just don't give us the same-thing-over. Thanks. And a better villain next time.<br />
So don't fret when <i>Fast 9</i> through <i>11</i> is announced, and don't moan and groan when Tom Cruise says he's returning for <i>Mission Impossible 7</i>. And we know eventually <i>Star Wars</i> will go into the double digits, but don't be too quick to panic. While right now it seems like too much, if we keep getting what we currently are, it <u>may</u> not be enough. Then again, there's still a chance of the franchises getting stale. Time will tell. Until then, enjoy.</div>
Jayson Blankenshiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630207805831892920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5703780399854369455.post-16515915815331980422015-07-22T15:17:00.001-04:002017-08-22T13:53:17.002-04:00What The 'Emoji Movie' Idea Says About Priorities<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTkzMzM3OTM2Ml5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMDM0NDU3MjI@._V1_UX182_CR0,0,182,268_AL_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="268" data-original-width="182" height="200" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTkzMzM3OTM2Ml5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMDM0NDU3MjI@._V1_UX182_CR0,0,182,268_AL_.jpg" width="135" /></a></div>
Yesterday, Sony Pictures announced plans to produce a movie based on the popular Emoji keyboard emoticons that make your Iphone feel naked if they're not installed. Emoji's consist of ideogram smileys, flags, families and couples, animals, everyday items and vehicles, and even a bomb, cigarette, bathtub, gun, and a <a href="http://dazedimg.dazedgroup.netdna-cdn.com/1200/0-205-1000-667/azure/dazed-prod/1120/0/1120288.jpg">smiling pile of poop</a>. Oh and there's even a floppy disk. Yeah, I know, "what is a floppy disk?"</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
How could Sony possibly develop a 90 minute long feature out of the emojis? To be completely honest with you, I have no clue. I don't think Sony does either. I know everyone said "how could they possibly make a movie out of Lego and Need For Speed?", but...come on, that's not the same thing. Other weird concepts that have been announced lately include a Play Doh movie, Hello Kitty, Minecraft, Cut the Rope Movie, Monopoly, Roller Coaster Tycoon, Temple Run, a "Robin Hood Cinematic Universe", the 70s TV show "Good Times", 5 Nights at Freddie's (this has potential): it seems Hollywood is latching onto any fad harder than ever. Like an octopus that latches onto you, and you just can't shake it off, so you just go ahead and go about your day with it. That's how this feels.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Even if Sony did find a worthy pitch, this is not something that should
be happening. Latching onto a fad is one thing, but a ideogram keyboard
with a smiling pile of poop? I would rather a Bed Bath and Beyond movie,
a movie based on Nutella, a Lucky Charms movie, even a movie based on
Little Rock, Arkansas. What is in Little Rock worth making a movie
about? Exactly. But no, no Little Rock movie, no Nutella movie, instead
we get an emoji movie. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Honestly, Sony should be embarrassed with this emoji announcement. While emojis are obviously popular, the average person will tell you that trying to adapt them into any kind of media is dumb. No one is going "yesss! An emoji movie! I'm so happy, screw <i>Star Wars</i>!" The general reaction is more like "lmao, I can't with this." Sony got no one excited by this news, but rather just invited a barrage of laughs and <a href="http://images.complex.com/complex/image/upload/t_in_content_image/nick-young-confused-face-300x256_nqlyaa.png">Nick Young question mark memes</a>. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The point of an announcement is to drum up excitement. I remember the moments I found about a new <i>Star Wars</i> trilogy, Ben Affleck playing Batman, Marvel's upcoming MCU schedule, and even when <i>Finding Dory</i> was announced. How is this emoji reveal drumming up excitement? It's not. It's instead drumming up confusion and mockery. If no one is excited, but instead mocking this announcement, what does that say about the movies prospects? To be fair, <i>The Lego Movie</i> was mocked by some when it was first announced, but at least that was already a tangible franchise, and it wasn't made aware that the movie would be based on an anthropomorphic Lego figure, and not the actual Lego bricks that we would step on as kids. Emoji is different because its a cell phone keyboard with no history or appeal other than use in text messages.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The offensive thing about this announcement is not necessarily that we're getting a emoji movie, but that this announcement is an assault and insult on creativity. Dozens of great scripts from dozens of great screenwriters are turned away everyday in Hollywood. Plenty of new, independent writers writing Oscar-caliber scripts, scripts with fresh, new concepts, and scripts that have the potential to take audiences new places. But those eager and hopeful screenwriters are shot down. Hundreds of scripts on the "Black List" website alone that Sony could pull from, but instead they decide on emojis.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As a screenwriter who has currently written 5 film scripts, 3 separate television shows with multiple completed episodes, a skit, commercials, and over a dozen other ideas currently on my hard drive and cloud storage, I have big aspirations. I'm willing to make the over 2,000-mile journey from the east coast to the west coast to test the waters and try to achieve my goals. And I know I'll get more "no" than "yes", but it's upsetting to know that a Hollywood studio will be turning down my new idea, while at the same time trying to figure out how to make a movie about Snapchat, the "Deez Nuts" guy, or the Goat Simulator game. I wish there was more balancing. A more welcoming atmosphere for novice screenwriters to showcase their talent, while we find new IP's to adapt. Maybe there is? I've haven't been to Los Angeles yet, so I can't speak from experience, but the past decade, it seems the majority focus has shifted to studio-generated adaption. It's amazing a completed <i>Wonder Woman </i>script can sit on the shelf for a decade, but we fast track an emoji script.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bottom line is Hollywood is an industry. Movie making is a business. In order to keep businesses open, you need customers, who bring money. The sad truth is a Play Doh movie and Temple Run movie are more guaranteed to make money than a random script off the "Black List." I can't completely fault Hollywood. They have to make what's profitable and sustainable. We can hate the overabundance of sequels, prequels, reboots, and remakes all we want, but as long as people keep going to them, they're going to keep getting made. That's bottom line. If I'm given the opportunity to write a sequel, prequel, reboot, or remake, I'm not going to say "are you kidding me? Take that offer elsewhere Warner Brothers!" I'd definitely take the deal if its meaningful (Play Doh Movie 2?), but I just hope my original content turns heads as well.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But listen up, Hollywood. Yes, there is plenty of established properties that are ripe for a movie and that have potential, but you need to know your limit. Just because it is popular does not mean it is a good idea. Emoji's are popular, but they're not Angry Birds type of "popular." This is probably the worst idea proposed this year, but that's the business. I will say, if we're going to make an emoji movie, the smiling poop and the woman fluffing her hair better be the main characters.</div>
Jayson Blankenshiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630207805831892920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5703780399854369455.post-50786822287230150472015-07-21T23:47:00.000-04:002015-08-27T13:24:57.645-04:00'Force Awakens': Is the Stars the Limit?<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://sensiblereason.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/LatinosPost-fake-poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: justify;"><img border="0" src="http://sensiblereason.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/LatinosPost-fake-poster.jpg" height="200" width="134" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
5 months. Just 5 more months before the force is awakened. That's right, <i>Star Wars: The Force Awakens</i>, aka <i>Star Wars Episode VII </i>is just 5 months away, releasing domestically December 18, 2015. A franchise with one of the most passionate fan bases: hopes, dreams, and expectations are high for <i>Force Awakens</i>. And so is the box office possibilities.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Before May 1st, the battle for the #1 crown seemed to be between <i>Avengers: Age of Ultron</i> and <i>Force Awakens</i>, but after <i>Ultron's</i> diminishing returns were realized, <i>Force Awakens</i> instantly looked like the early favorite for #1. Once June 14th and <i>Jurassic World's</i> $209 million opening rolled around, the competition for #1 ramped back up and now seems to be between <i>Jurassic</i> and <i>Force</i>.<i> Jurassic</i> is currently at $612 million and counting, and should end in its dino-sized run in the lower-mid $600's. Can<i> Force</i> top that? To be honest, I have no clue. While box office nerds can throw around their $400-$800+ millon figures all they want, no one honestly has a clue where this movie can and will land. <i>Star Wars: Force Awakens</i> may be one of the hardest movies ever to predict, and here is why.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
You may or may not notice, but the Star Wars brand has found a new owner. The Mouse House. 20th Century Fox were the distributors of the previous <i>Star Wars</i> films, but after the purchase by Disney in 2012, all future <i>Star Wars</i> titles will go through them. It's not even a competition: the marketing for <i>Force Awakens</i> will be much broader and dazzling than <i>Revenge of the Sith</i> and co. Disney does not hesitate to spend marketing dollars, and their corporate synergy can only help. Another advantage <i>Force Awakens</i> has over previous <i>Star Wars</i> movies is the advent of social media. There was no Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr, Vine, and whatever they have in China in 2005. There was Youtube, but it was in its infancy and was mainly just a website of amateur videos of babies biting their siblings. Advertisements and footage for <i>Force Awakens</i> will spread over the web like wildfire, adding fuel to the fire called "hype." You won't only see<i> Force Awakens </i>content on social media sites, but they will definitely play a <u>big</u> role in getting the general public excited.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Another thing that <i>Force Awakens</i> is doing that many franchises haven't done is bring back the old cast. Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, and Mark Hamill will be returning, as well as Chewy, R2D2, and C3PO (my favorite), and other characters and locations from the original trilogy. Bringing back the original gang, locations, and even music adds nostalgia to this movie, and many people who saw the originals in the 70s and 80s that may have been considering skipping <i>Force Awakens</i>, may now be inclined to get back on board. The Han/Chewy relationship and C3PO sass is worth admission alone. It's confirmed nostalgia is added, but how much will this effect gross? <i>Sith</i> didn't have nostalgia, and <i>Phantom Menace</i> really only had the nostalgia of being "a new <i>Star Wars</i> 16 years later." <i>Force</i> is in good position here.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Solid points, but the biggest factor that is preventing anyone from giving a concrete prediction for <i>Force Awakens </i>is the fact that today's box office climate is nothing like before. <i>Force Awakens</i> in 2015 is in a completely different box office world than <i>Revenge of the Sith</i> in 2005, just 10 years ago. Not only has 3D invaded and IMAX became mainstream, but overseas markets have <u>exploded</u>. China, India, Russia, Brazil, the list goes on. For example, in 2010,<i> Iron Man 2</i> grosses a healthy $623 million. Just 3 years later, <i>Iron Man 3</i> pulled in $1.2 billion, good enough for #5 all time. In just TWO short years, <i>Iron Man 3</i> has already fallen to #9. <i>Fast Five</i> shocked the world with $626 million in 2011, and <i>Furious 6</i> improved on it with $788 million. Bring in <i>Furious 7</i>, just two years later...$1.5 billion. One of the best examples is the <i>Transformers </i>series. 48% of <i>Transformers 2's</i> take came from domestic audiences. Bring on <i>Transformers 4</i>, just 5 years later and domestic grosses only accounted for 22% of the box office. Just like <i>Furious 7</i>, <i>Transformers 4's</i> gross in China alone was bigger than the US/Canada.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For that reason alone, predicting <i>Force</i> is impossible. It's hard to gauge how interested American audiences still are, but its even harder to gauge how interested overseas audiences have become, especially in Asia, where box office has grown the fastest in the last few years. In this series, we have 6 movies for precedent, but just like <i>Force Awakens</i>, the original trilogy was in a different box office climate than the prequels. There was no $12 ticket prices, Netflix, piracy, HD, and movies weren't going on home video just 3 months later. It's easy for someone in today's climate to say "I can wait a few months. It'll be cheaper." But then again, this is a movie 32 years in the making. Do people really want to miss out on this event? Another factor is the fact that <i>Force Awakens</i> will be released in December, which behaves differently than May. With May, school and work is still in session, so most people have to wait for the weekends. With <i>Force Awakens'</i> December 18 date, Christmas break will be beginning for most. Instead of moviegoers rushing out for Thursday previews and Friday evening, there will be plenty of time for people to do Christmas shopping and see <i>Force Awakens</i> throughout the next couple weeks. With the holiday weekdays, add in the lack of blockbuster competition and <i>Force Awakens</i> could be in for a forcible gross. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The general consensus on <i>Phantom Menace</i>, 16 years later, is "it sucks", but that didn't stop it from selling over 80 million tickets. Even if <i>Force Awakens</i> "sucks", the sheer giddyness of having a new <i>Star Wars </i>in theaters when we weren't even supposed to (Sith was "supposed" to be the last), should keep fans blinded long enough to keep <i>Force Awakens </i>from suffering too hard. But if <i>Force Awakens</i> is seen as just "good", possibilities are then endless. Look at <i>Jurassic World</i> for instance. An "okay" movie, but still steamrolling the box office. "Crap", "meh", "good"...but what if <i>Force Awakens</i> is "great?" Oh boy. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Over $1 billion for <i>Force Awakens</i> is a given, but is $1.5 billion a given as well? Is $2 billion on the table? Or should <i>Iron Man 3's</i> $1.2 billion be a good target? Only time will tell, but until then, no prediction is wrong or right.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As of now, I could see <i>Force Awakens</i> doing $600 million and at least $1.2 billion. After <i>Jurassic World</i>, and looking at past <i>Star Wars </i>history, $500 sounds too low, but $700 sounds too high. After the D23 Expo, and once the marketing blitz starts up, we'll have better idea, but for now, just sit back and enjoy the uncertainty. Oh, and be excited (and thankful) that we're getting another <i>Star Wars</i> movie with C3PO in it, and Jar Jar not.</div>
Jayson Blankenshiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630207805831892920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5703780399854369455.post-57150594724987781662014-10-06T15:40:00.000-04:002014-11-09T15:50:05.771-05:00Is 'Interstellar' The Next Big Discovery? <div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bc/Interstellar_film_poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bc/Interstellar_film_poster.jpg" height="200" width="128" /></a></div>
Recently, astronomers and scientists have discovered an asteroid with rings, new moons orbiting Pluto, extrasolar planets, a star that is 13.6 billion years old, and the God particle. But there's another potential discovery that could be bigger than all: <i>Interstellar. </i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i> </i>As important as directors are, most are still unknown to the general public. Spielberg, Tarantino, Bay, Emmerich, Zemeckis, and Burton arguably help form the league of A-list directors, but one visionary has skyrocketed into a household name in recent years as well: Christopher Nolan. Thanks to the massively successful <i>Dark Knight</i> trilogy, and <i>Inception</i>, Christopher Nolan is now a huge deal. Not only are his movies success stories, they're also good. No movie he has directed has received a "rotten" tag on Rotten Tomatoes, and <i>The Dark Knight </i>is considered one of the best superhero movies of all time, and was the highest grossing for 4 years. But this isn't about Christopher Nolan, it's about his new project, and why it could be the next big thing in cinema, astrophysics, and life.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Interstellar</i> has been in development since 2006, and it's so ambitious that Paramount, Warner Bros, Legendary, and Synocopy have teamed up to finance and distribute it. <i>Interstellar</i> tells the simple story of a widow living on a dying Earth, who partners with a team of scientists to find new habitable worlds after they discover a wormhole. There's a couple reasons why that simple story could be the years biggest.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In <i>Interstellar</i>, the Earth has been depleted of natural resources and agriculture. Mainly corn. No more corn means no more gas, cosmetics, hand soap, tires, Windex, toothpaste, aspirin, spark plugs, plastics, diapers, and corn chips ala Doritos, Cheetos, and Fritos. How can we survive on Earth without any of these products? Especially the Doritos? Can you really imagine traveling to Walmart, Target, Kmart, CVS, Publix, Kroger, and every vending machine in the world and not being able to find a single bag of Doritos? You'd die. In <i>Interstellar</i>, they don't want that to happen so they have to find alternatives, and thanks to the wormhole discovery, they're able to transcend space in a fraction of the time it would take without it. Matter of fact, without the wormhole, they would die before they got out of our solar system. Fascinating!<br />
Plenty of innovative movies have been set in space such as <i>Star Wars, Star Trek, 2001: A Space Odyssey</i>, and <i>Gravity, </i>and even though they provide inspiration, <i>Interstellar</i> is something not yet seen. <i>Gravity</i> was innovative in letting audiences feel what its like to orbit the Earth (minus the G's), but didn't go any further into space, <i>2001</i> was made before modern CG technology, and <i>Star Wars</i> and <i>Trek</i> are space operas. <i>Interstellar</i> is using real space travel, physics, and reality concepts, and with todays CG technology, <i>Interstellar </i>should be unlike anything we've seen. <i>Gravity</i> stayed contained with Earth's orbit, yet looked breath-takingly real; imagine <i>Interstellar</i>, that's going even further into the cosmos. We've seen time and time before that audiences love innovation and originality. In a sea of sequels, reboots, and remakes, original movies are a gasp of fresh air. If <i>Interstellar's</i> marketing can distinguish itself as that, it'll have no problem bringing in audiences. Much of movie was also filmed in IMAX, so that just adds to experience.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The cast is also an A. Matthew McConaughey headlines, and he's hot off winning his first Oscar, and has lately been delivering acclaimed role after acclaimed role. <i>Interstellar</i> also stars Anne Hathaway, who won an Oscar a few years ago and is a household name, Jessica Chastain, whos been nominated 2 times since 2011, Casey Affleck, Topher Grace, John Lithgow, Matt Damon, and the legendary Michael Caine, among others. All you're missing is Morgan Freeman and Marion Cotillard. Now a star-studded, Oscar-heavy cast doesn't always guarantee butts in the seats, see: <i>The Counselor</i>, but it doesn't help if your movie is also ebola of cinema. When you combine a good movie with a good cast, great things usually happen. See: <i>American Hustle. </i>Expect it here as well. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The fact that this is a Christopher Nolan movie also raises potential - and expectations. Because of Nolan's recent success, high-quality product is expected of him, and fanboys worry if this ambitious product could be an ambitious bust. But by what I've seen and heard so far of <i>Interstellar</i>, I think there's a better chance of Chipotle switching to an all-seafood menu, than <i>Interstellar</i> being a fail. <i>Inception</i> opened in 2010, featured an all-star cast, and an innovative concept, and went on to shock everyone and gross $825 million worldwide. A similar situation could be in store for <i>Interstellar</i>, but Nolan's name alone won't get it there. Warner and Paramount have to hook audiences with their marketing. Highlight the emotion, but dazzle us with shots of sexy Saturn. But, at the same time, Nolan's name will produce an awareness boost that a typical director doesn't have the luxury of.<br />
Marketing so far has been hot. TV spots have been airing since September, trailers have been well viewed online and in theaters, IMAX is being highlighted, and they're letting audiences know this is sort of <i>Gravity</i> Plus. Awarness is high, tracking is solid, and they show Saturn in every clip. All these factors can only help.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Interstellar</i> also has a prime release date: holiday season and Oscar season. It will have the Thanksgiving, Veterans Day, and Christmas season to buoy the gross. <i>Interstellar</i> will have to deal with the typical adult-targeting Oscar-hopeful competition, and there looks to be some good ones this year, but <i>Interstellar</i> still can set itself apart from the rest thanks to its concept.<br />
For it's budget, <i>Interstellar</i> is also putting emotion alongside spectacle, instead of giving it the backseat, which blockbusters typically tend to do. It's not just females that like emotion, we all do, since emotions is something we all feel every day. Having to leave your family behind to go transcend space? Having to deal with elements and worlds never before set foot on? Having to deal with the possible ending of the world? A world without Doritos? Yeah, this movie is gonna be hard-hitting. Even though it's a movie with wormholes and dried-up crops, it still has a human element, which is key.<br />
Early buzz has been good for <i>Interstellar</i>. Some critics and early viewers have gone as far as saying this movie will be one remembered for generations, like <i>Jurassic Park, Jaws, </i>and<i> Forrest Gump</i>. That's likely hyperbole, it's still pretty early, but the stars are still aligning for this to be a critical darling. <i>Interstellar</i>, though a blockbuster tentpole, will still rely on word-of-mouth to get the audiences coming. There's some big name stars and a big name director, but it's still not based on existing material, and the concept is still not a normal one. I personally believe <i>Interstellar</i> will open 60 million, but I think it's legs will chug on into the holidays. IMAX will be <i>Interstellar's</i> top hook to keep people coming through the fall.<br />
<i>Interstellar </i>may not be the "generational" event that some are hyping, but it should still be nothing short of (inter) stellar. Pun intended. Much of the movie was filmed with real IMAX cameras, and Warner Brothers has secured an exclusive IMAX deal, so that'll hopefully loft grosses for the studio, and put the audience in an immersive experience we may have never seen before on screen in modern times. It's still hard to predict this movie. It could finish with $250 million domestic and $800 million worldwide, or $150 million domestic and $400 million worldwide, or $400 million domestic and $1 billion worldwide, we just don't know.<br />
Either way, <i>Interstellar</i> looks to be shaping up to be a big discovery: a discovery for moviegoers and cinema. A reason why we go to the movies. Hollywood is not a fan of taking risks, but they took one here, and it as of now looks very well looks to be paying off. Let's see if it can be sustained. <i>Interstellar </i>starts next month. Order your tickets and stockpile your Doritos. Stay tuned to the news, because a new <u>big</u> discovery may have been made, and you don't want to miss it.</div>
Jayson Blankenshiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630207805831892920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5703780399854369455.post-29600493372030487302014-09-02T14:33:00.001-04:002014-09-02T22:53:56.385-04:00How 'Guardians' and 'Turtles' Have Changed Us<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://rack.1.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDE0LzA1LzE2LzE3L0dPVEdfUGF5b2ZmLjUyMzZmLmpwZwpwCXRodW1iCTEyMDB4OTYwMD4/b75259dd/9c7/GOTG_Payoff_1-Sht_v4b_Lg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: justify;"><img border="0" src="http://rack.1.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDE0LzA1LzE2LzE3L0dPVEdfUGF5b2ZmLjUyMzZmLmpwZwpwCXRodW1iCTEyMDB4OTYwMD4/b75259dd/9c7/GOTG_Payoff_1-Sht_v4b_Lg.jpg" height="200" width="135" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
On August 1, we were introduced to Star-Lord, Gamora, Drax, Rocket, and Groot. On August 1, we were also introduced to a new way the Hollywood scheduling game will be played. Before the release, even days before, people were skeptical of <i>Guardians' </i>potential. "Marvel's first flop?" "Will audiences connect with the characters?" "Will <i>Guardians</i> damage the Marvel brand?" "Are the characters too silly?" All these and more were asked until <i>Guardians'</i> midnight numbers rolled in. Groot and co. ended up grossing $94.3 million over the weekend: beating the undoubtedly more popular Spiderman and X-Men and falling only $1 million behind Captain America, which already opened to a surprising high. Yeah, so what, right? Plenty of movies have already opened to $94 million or higher: 31 to be exact, so why is <i>Guardians </i>so special? Well because <i>Guardians</i>, and <i>Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles</i> have changed the game for the future.</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What makes <i>Guardians' </i>$94 million opening so impressive, other than it was it an original and unknown franchise, was that it did it in August. August in the past has mainly been seen as a dumping ground for Hollywood movies that were too good for September, but not sexy enough for the prime out-of-school days. Before <i>Guardians</i>, the highest opening for August was <i>Bourne Ultimatum</i> with $69 million. Even with inflation, it falls short of <i>Guardians</i>. Next up was 2001's <i>Rush Hour 2</i> with $67 million. In terms of attendance, <i>Rush Hour 2</i> still holds the crown. But that doesn't diminish <i>Guardians'</i> success. What's even more impressive is that a little, already hated by the internet movie called <i>Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles,</i> was able to post the 4th best August opening of all time with $65.5 million the next weekend. Back-to-back weekends of over $170 million from the top 12 movies. No one saw it coming. This August is the first to gross $1 billion in sales, and saved summer 2014 from being a complete disaster. It was still a disaster, but not complete! This is also the first time in the modern era that August has beaten July, and that an August movie has finished #1 for the summer. </div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Guardians</i> and <i>Turtles</i> have shown that you can still have a blockbuster opening in August; and not only opening, but also legs. <i>Guardians, Turtles, Let's Be Cops,</i> and other releases last month have been legging it out better than most of the bulimic May-July releases. <i>Guardians</i> is already the highest grossing movie of the year and will eventually reach $300 million. <i>Turtles</i> still has a shot at $200 million, and <i>Let's Be Cops</i> had a soft opening, but will finish higher than other higher-profile summer comedies <i>Sex Tape, A Million Ways to Die, Blended, and Think Like A Man 2. </i>Already, studios are starting to flood August 2015, '16, '17 and beyond will higher profile movies. The previous problem has been studios trying to cram everything in May-July, mainly May, but thanks to the success of <i>Guardians</i> and <i>Turtles</i>, August has been given new hope.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Guardians'</i> success also means more assemble movies, and <i>Turtles' </i>means more 80 and 90's nostalgia. <i>Guardians</i> gave Marvel new confidence, and now they have announced <i>Inhumans</i>. Sony has now put <i>Sinister Six </i>back on track, and Fox has something up their sleeve with their <i>Fantastic Four</i> and <i>X-Men</i> franchises. Warner may also be exploring the possibilities of assembles outside of <i>Justice League</i>. Del Toro's dreamed <i>Justice League Dark</i> could also possibly get off the ground. <i>Turtles</i>, that <i>Saved By the Bell</i> special, a <i>Full House</i> revival: the 80's and 90's is about to take back over, and deservedly so. But thanks the success of <i>Turtles</i>, one 90's franchise has just struck a July 2016 date: <i>Power Rangers</i>. That's right, they're bringing back <i>Power Rangers</i>. The possible reboot had been announced before <i>Turtles</i> was released, but after Hollywood saw decades-old <i>Turtles</i> shocking success, Lionsgate quickly found a date. With so many great things to come out of the 90's, don't be surprised to soon hear more announcements. <i>Animaniacs? Doug? Seinfeld: The S#8t They Didn't Show? </i>We'll see.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
October and April have also been seeing massive success lately, and March is now a certified powerhouse month, so hopefully this will lead to movies being more spread out in the future. One of the most shocking date announcements is <i>Batman vs Superman </i>being released in March, instead of the traditional summer. This movie is arguably the most anticipated of 2016, and is with <i>Avengers 2 </i>for near future movies, but it just screamed summer. But, this is a good thing. Warner Brothers has confidence that people will still see the two most popular heros, no matter the month, and they're correct. Does this mean the end of the summer season and beginning of the spread out 12-month fiscal year? No. Summer's still crammed, and for the most part, any movie with a budget of $150 million or higher is still finding home there, but it does mean that thanks to some newfound confidence, and breakout movies, these films will have more room to breathe. What if <i>Guardians</i> had underperformed, or even performed at expectations? What if <i>Turtles</i> had flopped like the internet was waiting for, or what if it had a modest, typical opening of $30-40 million? Hollywood still hasn't completely learned their lesson, and August may still stay 2nd-tier for a while, but <i>Guardians</i> and <i>Turtles</i> have broken some stigmas and given the studios confidence, showing they had a bigger impact other than their numbers on the 2014 box office calendar.</div>
</div>
Jayson Blankenshiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630207805831892920noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5703780399854369455.post-25065099888827403312014-04-22T17:19:00.000-04:002014-04-22T22:25:30.019-04:00Why 'Frozen' Has Put Us In A New Ice Age<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://christinajeter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/frozen-movie-poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://christinajeter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/frozen-movie-poster.jpg" height="200" width="140" /></a>Are you tired of "Let it Go"? Too bad. You haven't seen <i>Frozen</i> yet? You live under a rock. What is your girlfriend, kid, and maybe even boyfriend going to dress as for Halloween? Elsa. <i>Frozen </i>and its associates have taken the world by storm. If you tell someone that <i>Frozen</i> is the biggest animated phenomenon since 2004, they may laugh at you, but it's true.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What was that 2004 phenom? <i>Shrek 2</i>. Even ten years later, <i>Shrek 2</i> remains the highest grossing animated film domestically at $441 million. Adjusted, <i>Shrek 2</i> raked in $565 million - without 3D, making <i>Shrek 2</i> likely the 2nd or 3rd biggest film of the 2000's decade. Ten years later, it's <i>Frozen's </i>turn. <i>Frozen</i> is the biggest animated movie since 2010's <i>Toy Story 3</i>. <i>Frozen</i> won't pass the domestic gross of <i>TS3</i>, but it doesn't need to to solidify its cultural status.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While <i>Toy Story 3 </i>was the biggest animated movie in six years, it didn't have the impact that <i>Frozen</i> has had. <i>Toy Story 3</i> had the luxury of <i>1</i> and <i>2</i> and was mainly huge in theaters, video, and merchandising. <i>Frozen</i> is not a sequel with 15 years of built-up goodwill, and has a few more categories that it gets to claim. From its stratospheric box office gross to its two Oscar wins to its staggering Youtube views, you just can't stop the Elsa blizzard. Looks like you just gotta freeze.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Soundtrack. <i>Frozen's</i> soundtrack is pulling an Adele. It is the longest running #1 animated soundtrack in history and has been #1 on the Billboard 200 for 10 non-consecutive weeks, and shows no signs of slowing down soon. "Let it Go" has also peaked at #5 on the Billboard 100. Youtube. <i>Frozen</i> is a viral sensation. Firefighters, little girls, college students, violinists, soccer moms, African tribes, choirs, parody makers, celebrities, news anchors, and maybe even prisoners have been caught singing "Let It Go" and have made covers. The official "Let It Go" video has nearly 200 million views, the sing-a-long adds another 50 million, and the Demi Lovato version nets 137 million. Altogether, videos about "Let it Go" alone have generated over 500 million views. <u>Just</u> "Let it Go". Still not on the level of "Gangnam Style", but what other movie has pulled 500 million views and hundreds of covers for one song? None. Just <i>Frozen</i>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Home video. <i>Frozen</i> sold 3.2 million DVD's and Blu-rays in its first day of release; something that hasn't been done in a decade. For comparison, <i>Toy Story 3</i> sold 3.8 million in its first <u>week</u>. The digital download is also the fastest selling of all time. Merchandise. <i>Frozen's</i> merchandising potential is seemingly unlimited. Who does synergy better than Disney? Furniture, plush toys, dolls, apparel, school supplies, snacks, <i>Frozen</i> on Ice, <i>Frozen</i> on Broadway, Lego <i>Frozen</i>, Disney Channel and ABC, Disney World and Disneyland appearances, games and apps, soundtracks, animated shorts, Olaf Christmas specials, costumes, it just doesn't end. The Anna and Elsa costumes will undoubtedly be the #1 costumes this upcoming Halloween, whether you're 6 or 26. There have also been reports of parents shelling out hundreds on Ebay for sold-out<i> Frozen</i> dolls to give to their daughters. Disney is trying it's best to keep Disney Stores stocked. <i>Frozen</i> merchandise sales are poised to surpass ticket sales (if it hasn't already).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Even cosplay, fan-fiction, and conspiracy theories are becoming <i>Frozen</i> obsessive. If you didn't know, children don't really participate in those, so this shows how teens, young adults, and adults are embracing it as well. Was Olaf responsible for Stonehenge? Is Anna rigging the NBA? Is Elsa melting glaciers? Somewhere, someone thinks so. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Lastly, the box office. Back in October, the average prediction for <i>Frozen</i> was $200 million domestic and $400 million overseas. Turns out...everyone was wrong. <i>Frozen</i> is now the highest grossing animated movie of <u>all time</u> worldwide and #6 overall. It is currently sitting at $1.2 billion, with Asia being a huge surprise contributor. South Korea, China, and Japan all gave <i>Frozen</i> a surprisingly warm welcome (no pun intended). Any day now, <i>Frozen</i> will cross $400 million domestic, becoming the 19th overall and 4th animated movie ever to do so. <i>Frozen</i> is also the 2nd biggest PG-rated movie ever, the 7th biggest overall of this decade so far, and the 2nd biggest animated of the 2010's so far, in North America. No one saw this coming, and the way<i> Frozen</i> was able to survive in mainstream theaters for five months (in dollar theaters now) shows how amazing of a reception the movie has received. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When I saw <i>Frozen </i>in theaters, a little girl walked in wearing Elsa's snow dress. I have never seen someone dress up to a movie before (I don't do midnights) and it was very aww-ing. That same girl also sang along. This has to have happened all across the country. I've overheard many people talking about <i>Frozen</i> in conversations and friends have asked me about it. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If you think <i>Frozen's</i> pop-cultural impact is overrated, you're in a small, small, small minority. From 6 year old girls to 50 year old male news anchors, people just can't let go of <i>Frozen</i>. We haven't seen an animated movie phenomenon like this in a decade and <i>Frozen </i>deserves it all. There have even been reports that Anna and Elsa are soon going to be inducted into the Disney Princesses. Is there a <i>Frozen 2</i> on the horizon? Many fans actually don't want a sequel because they don't want the charm of the original to be ruined, but <u>when</u> <i>Frozen 2</i> is announced, it will be welcomed with open arms anyway. If it is not released in 2016, which is pretty likely it's not, don't expect it before 2018 based on Disney's current schedule. No telling when the <i>Frozen</i> train will slow down, but it's good to see the world coming together for something like this. Like<i> Shrek</i>, Pixar, and <i>Despicable Me</i>,<i> Frozen</i> had the perfect formula to make it happen. Now let's make like Olaf and bring back Summer, because the cold weather has to go.</div>
Jayson Blankenshiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630207805831892920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5703780399854369455.post-57237916236219405082014-04-08T15:46:00.002-04:002017-08-22T13:54:59.106-04:00A Game of Hollywood Chicken 2<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/screencrush.com/files/2013/10/captain-america-2-poster-full.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/screencrush.com/files/2013/10/captain-america-2-poster-full.jpg" height="200" width="135" /></a> I didn't think I'd have to write another one of these for a while, but
here I am, writing another. And who better it involve than Warner Bros and Disney? It's not
often that you see films targeting the same demographics open on the
same day, but it does happen. Last year we had <i>Furious 6</i> and <i>Hangover 3</i>. One prevailed, while the other obviously suffered. Now that that battle is over, another "foot" measuring contest has begun in Hollywood. <i>Captain America 3</i> and <i>Batman vs Superman</i> (neither titles are official) are currently both set to bow on May 6, 2016. No, don't reach for your glasses, and no don't refresh the page, you read correct. Two superhero movies are currently playing chicken. They're not a week apart, even 2 days apart, no they're on the <u>same damn day.</u></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In my opinion, both studios have a right to claim this spot, but then again they don't. "Marvel untitled film" was put in the spot last year, but Warner Brothers put an actual movie there first. So who stays? Currently, both studios say they're not backing down. The Marvelites argue that Cap should get the rightful spot because "Marvel was there first", but why didn't they just announce a movie there to begin with? This eeny-meeny-miny-moe culture with studios and dates is ridiculous. There's an "untitled Fox/Dreamworks/Blue Sky animation" set for December 21, 2018. WHY? Release dates are competitive, but you can't just slap your untitled and unconfirmed movie anywhere and call it your weekend. No. But at the same time, why is Warner Bros even making this a thing? A Marvel film has opened the first weekend of May every year since 2002, excluding '04-'06 . Warner has never released a DC Comics film in May, so why start now? June and July have been goldmines for WB and DC. To movie buffs, the 3rd Friday in July is "WB day", as they always release a tent-pole on that weekend. So why choose May? Why choose "Marvel day"?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This date war is pretty amusing, considering both studios have so much to lose. Neither film is invincible. While <i>Winter Soldier</i> and <i>Avengers 2</i> will propel Cap's popularity even further by the time <i>Cap 3</i> comes around, <i>Batman vs Superman </i>seems
like more of the event film. Fans have been waiting for these two
heroes to share screen time since the invention of the wheel. <i>Batman vs Superman</i> will also include Wonder Woman for the first time, and will serve as the precursor to <i>Justice League</i>. The potential here is <u>huge</u>, maybe $400+ million domestic huge, and Cap's goodwill shouldn't be able to match it. At the same time, even though it may not be as big as <i>BvS's</i>, <i>Cap 3</i> will have an audience. If these films stay in the same date,<i> Cap 3</i> <u>will</u> put a dent in <i>Batman vs Superman</i>. <i>Man of Steel </i>was a mixed bag in reception and <i>BvS</i> will have to deal with a rebooted Batman universe, while <i>Winter Soldier's</i> word-of-mouth and reviews have been stellar. If <i>Avengers 2</i> lives up to the hype, and "<i>Avengers</i> effect" keeps growing, then<i> Cap 3 </i>could cause even more damage than <i>BvS</i> would cause.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Hardcore fans have also seemed to be pleased with most everything Marvel has been doing so far with <i>Cap, Avengers</i> and the MCU, while <i>Man of Steel </i>and <i>BvS</i> got and have been getting mixed receptions with the castings of Ben Affleck as Batman, Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman, Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor, director Zack Snyder, and how WB has been handling their DC properties lately. (You watch the CW, right? Just check your TV guide, it's there somewhere.)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
WB has found success in mid-summer and <i>Winter Soldier</i> proved that Marvel can open big in April or anywhere (and no, April is not "summer" now, please stop with this). What if Warner gave the spot up to Disney, but then opened <i>Batman vs Superman</i> a week after <i>Cap 3</i>? What if <i>Cap 3</i> just took April again? What if both left May? What if both just leave 2016 and never come out? Eh, okay.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'm personally excited for both movies and I think both have potential for $300 million or more domestic and $800 million worldwide, so what's the best solution? Initially, I felt that Warner should just give the date up and move to July 22, 2016, but they have now scheduled <i>King Arthur</i> for that date. The King is no match for the Bat, but I don't see WB shifting that unless production problems arise. No, DC-ers, I don't want <i>BvS</i> to move because <i>Cap 3</i> will be "better" or "more hyped" or whatever, but because that date was wide open, and it's successful for WB. That July date would've provided <i>BvS</i> with less competition as late-July and August are weaker than May and early-June, so putting unknown <i>King Arthur</i> there instead is a dumb move, in my opinion. The first <i>Captain America</i> opened in July, so it's possible that <i>Cap 3</i> just goes there as well and lets <i>BvS </i>take on that (eventually) crowded May schedule, but another, surprise surprise, "Marvel untitled" is currently sitting at July 8. That could be moved, but chances again are low. Spring could really work for <i>Cap 3, </i>which would make <i>Cap 3</i> the event movie of the Spring, and allow Disney a head start on the Superman/Batman, Spiderman, <u>and</u> X-Men competition<i>.</i> November 2016 is also a possibility for either film, but December is not. A long, and I mean long, awaited film called <i>Avatar 2</i> will be hitting a theater near you. Even though the Holiday season can provide great legs, the likelihood of either movie opening that far out is very slim. 12 months in the year is just not enough apparently.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Ironically, this same thing is happening with <i>How to Train Your Dragon 3</i> and <i>Finding Dory</i> for June 17, 2016, but we'll save that for another day. So, is it likely that Cap and Supes will still be opening on May 6, 2016 come May 5, 2016? No, very unlikely, but stranger things have happened and studios can be stubborn, and I'd imagine Disney and Warner will keep on driving towards each other for as long as possible until one finally takes that swerve of faith, which may be next week, or next year, or maybe never. No matter what happens, just make sure you have no plans for May 6, 2016. You will see what Clark did, you will join them in the Sun, or you will "hail Hydra!"</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
Jayson Blankenshiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630207805831892920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5703780399854369455.post-58170681980894753072014-04-04T23:46:00.003-04:002015-08-26T14:00:07.399-04:00Why The 'Winter Soldier' Makes Marvel A Winner<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-f0LH7LQ5_MA/Uz919-4TwSI/AAAAAAAAAd8/Q8Yr5FO7dv0/s1600/cap.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-f0LH7LQ5_MA/Uz919-4TwSI/AAAAAAAAAd8/Q8Yr5FO7dv0/s1600/cap.jpg" width="134" /></a> Let me start by saying <i>Captain America: The First Avenger</i> sucks. I didn't like it. I don't know why; it seemed like it had heart, but I just loathe it. I was not sold on the character of Captain America, though I do like Chris Evans in the role. <i>Marvel's Avengers</i> brought Cap back, and though I thought he was solid in it and brought team unity, he was nowhere as exciting as Iron Man and Hulk. Here comes <i>Captain America: The Winter Soldier</i>, but it didn't look like <i>Captain America 2</i>, it looked like<i> SHIELD: The Captain America Story. </i>This concerned me. SHIELD was the least exciting thing about <i>Avengers</i>, they have a show on ABC that I don't watch, and I just didn't care to see them yet again so prominently. Well, I'll say again, I did not enjoy the first <i>Captain America</i>. As it turns out, that was not same for <i>Captain America: The Winter Soldier</i>. Honestly, it didn't even come close.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Winter Soldier</i> follows the life and times of Captain America/Steve Rogers, Black Widow/Natasha Romanoff, Nick Fury/Nick Fury, and ya boy SHIELD after the attack on New York. Steve is doing fine, Natasha is doing fine, Nick is doing fine, and SHIELD is kicking tail better than ever. Steve has also made a new friend - Sam Wilson aka Falcon. After a mission on an oil tanker (like<i> Captain Phillips</i> with high tech weapons), it is revealed that SHIELD has been compromised. Steve and Natasha get framed and have to go on the run. When they figure out who is <u>really</u> controlling SHIELD and what their plans are, Steve, Natasha, Sam, and a couple other "trustworthies" must try to stop them. Oh, and there's also another small obstacle getting in their way - Bucky Barnes aka the Winter Soldier. Bucky is a longtime friend of Steve, but parishes in the first <i>Captain America</i>. When Steve was recovered by SHIELD, it turns out Bucky was recovered by another significant group of people. He's been brainwashed and altered, and the only thing that goes through his brain is "kill my target". Steve and Bucky run into each other, and not in a normal way, and what follows is great characterization and stylized knife fights.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I loved most aspects of <i>Winter Soldier</i>, so I'll start by saying the few things I didn't. The early parts of the movie, even though it does a good job at establishing characters, is still pretty slow. The first action sequence on the ship felt like a low-rent episode of <i>24</i>. The Falcon didn't add much to the movie. This bothered me the most, considering I was really anticipating him. It was good to finally see another super-suited minority hero in the MCU (after War Machine/Rhodey), but he was severely underused. I liked Sam; he was funny and he fit in well with the already established team, but honestly if you cut out all of his scenes, it wouldn't have changed the movie one bit. It felt like once he would get in, he would get right back out. His screen time just flew by (pun intended). Bucky as Winter Soldier provided plenty of outstanding action, but a little more Bucky as Bucky would've been nice as well.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There was also a lack of danger at times. I had this problem with<i> Avengers</i> too. The characters were hit with the elements: explosions, bullets, falls, punches, and even electrocution, but for the most part, they seemed to walk away unscathed. This makes what they're trying to accomplish feel too easy, especially for Black Widow. Yes shes the best at what she does, but will she ever get a noticeable cut? Falling off your bike in the park does more damage than hurdling through a window? Also, Steve and Natasha were confronted with a flash drive with precious data that they needed to extract. Like most movies, they got through the complex computer security, extracted the complex data, and found where they needed to go pretty easily. Can this plot point ever become a challenge? Also the score was forgettable, considering I've already forgotten it. The last problem I had was that damn shaky cam. It was headache by the first 15 minutes. It became less noticeable as the film went on, but I still wish it wasn't included at all.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
These sound like major complaints that would put the film in the C-range, but it's not like that. My overall feeling on <i>Winter Soldier </i>was that it was well executed. For someone that thinks the first movie is complete doo doo, they really made it easy to enjoy this one. <i>Winter Soldier </i>had a lot more wit than I thought it would, with all the major characters contributing. And speaking of characters, other than than Falcon, they all have great development, especially Steve. Every new complex thing tossed at him brings out a new dimension in his character. The chemistry between the characters, Falcon included, was also very strong. The action scenes and combat were well executed, and you could feel the drama during the fights, giving the action another dimension. The acting was great - Chris Evans <u>is</u> Captain America, the story was coherent, and the effects for the most part looked top notch. <i>Winter Soldier</i> was a lot more enjoyable than <i>Iron Man 3</i> and <i>Thor 2</i>, which is ironic considering of phase one,<i> First Avenger </i>was the only one I didn't like. <i>Winter Soldier</i> has also done the best job in establishing a base and creating anticipation for <i>Avengers 2</i>. The filmmakers wanted to deliver, and they did, shattering my mid-range expectations. It's hard to call this one out and fault it after being such a big improvement. Here's hoping <i>Captain America 3</i> is...well you already know - <i>Winter Soldier</i> <i>2 </i>and not <i>First Avenger 2.</i> </div>
<br />
A- -.Jayson Blankenshiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630207805831892920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5703780399854369455.post-35546158190189232012014-01-10T15:48:00.000-05:002014-04-05T00:32:05.196-04:00The Year Of The SciFi <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xVKue1SejLs/UtDbODDMC1I/AAAAAAAAAdo/Yq13AoXHZpA/s1600/apes.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xVKue1SejLs/UtDbODDMC1I/AAAAAAAAAdo/Yq13AoXHZpA/s1600/apes.jpg" height="200" width="133" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2014 came up on us fast. We waved 2013 goodbye and brought in the big 1-4. 2014 is bringing an interesting huddle of movies to the screen. A big player of original movies is sci-fi movies. 2013 wasn't a disaster year for sci-fi, but it damaged its bankability. In my first sci-fi article, I discussed how <i>After Earf, Oblivion, Star Trek Into Darkness, Pacific Rim, </i>and <i>The Host </i>didn't put up the grosses studios and fans were hoping for. It was up to<i> Elysium, Gravity, Ender's Game,</i> and <i>Thor 2</i> to turn things around. Well <i>Ender</i> came and went quietly,<i> Thor's</i> and <i>Elysium's</i> numbers were respectable, and<i> Gravity</i>
was sensational - becoming the highest grossing October movie of all
time, by far. All this still wasn't enough to redeem 2013's sci-fi slate.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There's no point in crying over spilled milk. 2013 is done. 2014 has a fresh upcoming slate of sci-fi adaptions that could turn things around. <i>Robocop, Transendence, Dawn of the Apes, Interstellar, Godzilla, Jupiter Ascending, Divergent, X-Men: Days of Future's Past, Edge of Tomorrow, Transformers: Age of Extinction, Guardians of the Galaxy, Lucy, The Giver, Resident Evil 6, The Maze Runner</i>, and <i>Mockingjay Part 1 </i>are the listed sci-fi classified movies set for release this year. Geez, that's a lot. See, Hollywood isn't being too skeptical.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>X-Men, Transformers</i>, <i>Apes,</i> and <i>Mockingjay</i> will obviously make money, but there still risk in all of these projects. <i>Guardians </i>is a strange concept and it has yet to be seen if it will connect with mainstream audiences, but with the backing of Marvel, an all star cast, and good early reactions, <i>Guardians</i> could be a summer surprise. Half of the internet is still waiting on a trailer, but when it debuts expect a lot of talk, whether good or bad.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i> Divergent</i> will be trying to capitalize off of <i>The Hunger Games</i> success, kind of like the annoying little sister that wants to be just like the older sister, so she mimics everything she does. Last year was not a good one for young adult adaptions, but <i>Divergent</i> seems to have more going for it than those movies did. <i>Divergent </i>won't be the new <i>Hunger Games</i>, but it should be able to break out enough to gain it's own identity. <i>Maze Runner</i> is in the same boat, though this movie is the bigger risk. Since <i>Maze Runner</i> was pushed back to the Fall, not much has been seen from it so it's hard to gauge anything about it yet.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Robocop</i> has a lot of work to do. Not only is the title simply ridiculous for 2014, but 80's remakes haven't fared too well lately. <i>Total Recall </i>seems to be right up <i>Robocop's</i> alley; compare the trailers and they'll look exactly alike. There's nothing special about the reboot and Joel Kinneman isn't exactly a household name - even though Gary Oldman and Samuel L Jackson are. <i>Robocop </i>will likely have trouble making noise for the box office. There isn't much reason to be optimistic that <i>Robocop</i> will pass <i>Recall's</i> $58 million haul. Seriously, just title it <i>Iphone-Cop</i> already. <i>Godzilla</i> on the other hand has been making a tidal wave of noise online and so far Gareth Edwards and Warner/Legendary have done a fantastic job of differentiating this from the dreadful 1998 version. It's still a while until May, but <i>Godzilla</i> looks to be tracking to be a sleeper hit of summer.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Jupiter Ascending</i> includes Channing Tatum and Mila Kunis, two big A-listers, but Kunis' <i>Friends With Benefits</i> and Tatum's <i>White House Down</i> showed that drooling women and men aren't going to automatically show up for them. <i>JA</i> is a strange concept and Warner's marketing will need to go all out to explain to audiences why<i> JA</i> is the event movie it's budget makes it out to be. Warner is risking with <i>JA</i>, and it's up to them if it'll pay off. I'll get more into <i>Interstellar, Guardians</i>,<i> The Giver, </i>and others as the year progresses.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Science fiction is a genre you can't live without. 2014 has plenty of it and these movies have potential to do things 2013 couldn't. We'll see how the year and these sci-fi movies progress, but so far things look good.</div>
Jayson Blankenshiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630207805831892920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5703780399854369455.post-29520458855692238512013-12-27T03:19:00.000-05:002015-08-27T13:35:41.354-04:00The Mighty '13<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-U-YGuqaYQM0/Ur0y6Fgu2UI/AAAAAAAAAdY/RaQNCMgnGmI/s1600/millers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-U-YGuqaYQM0/Ur0y6Fgu2UI/AAAAAAAAAdY/RaQNCMgnGmI/s200/millers.jpg" width="135" /></a> <b> Updated 1/4/14</b>. 2013 has came to close and what a year it was. What looked to be a
disaster of a year back in March, with a strong second half it was poised to become the highest
grossing ever. We all know the hits and flops of the year - <i>Iron Man 3, Catching Fire, After Earf, Despicable Me 2</i>,<i> Lone Ranger, </i>etc, etc, but do you know the surprises? Plenty of movies this year pulled a 180 on us and did the complete opposite of what they were expected and only a few saw coming.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
By the far biggest surprise of the winter season and possibly the year is Disney's <i>Frozen</i>. <i>Frozen</i> initially looked like a rehash of <i>Tangled</i> with snow, but after 6 weeks of release, it's proven to be <u>much</u> more. Most saw <i>Frozen</i> doing no more than $200 million, around the same range as <i>Tangled</i> - <i>Frozen's</i> total as of now? $289 million, and counting - even after 7 weeks it'll be #1 this weekend, meaning its going to be out welllllll into 2014. Audiences have fallen for <i>Frozen</i>. The Disney princess musical has been attracting grown men just as much as young girls. The soundtrack is also #1 on Itunes. Just to give you an idea of how big <i>Frozen</i> is, it's going to end up the highest grossing original animated move <u>ever</u> and the biggest Disney animation of all time, topping <i>The Lion King </i>(counting out the re-release), which is ironic since TV ads were calling it the best Disney animation since then<i>. </i>Even <i>Despicable Me 2's</i> $367 million haul could be in danger, which is just flat out remarkable for a movie most analysts and movie buffs saw doing $200 million or less, and just remarkable period. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Gravity</i> defied box office astronomy and has brought us a movie going experience that we really have never experienced. When <i>Gravity</i> finally crashes down, it'll be the highest grossing October movie ever - by over $100 million. <i>Gravity's</i> simple concept wasn't guaranteed to be a success, with most predicting an opening of $30 million or lower. $40 million was considered ballsy. Well, yeah <i>Gravity</i> ended up pulling a jaw-dropping $55 million in it's opening and thanks to its universal reviews and rollercoaster IMAX-esque experience, it held well in the weeks since and is now at $255 million where it has seemed to stall, but with guaranteed awards noms coming up, <i>Gravity</i> still has a few more millions to rake in well into the new year. I knew <i>Gravity</i> would be good, but <u>that</u> good? The last 10 minutes were the most emotionally invested/edge of my seat I've ever been in the theater. Truly life-changing. And with that said, after this I'm going to submit my application to NASA.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Also a contender for surprise of the year is <i>World War Z</i>. The June Brad Pitt led thriller shut up naysayers <u>fast</u>. Projected to open with $45 million or less by most, <i>Z </i>added to a record breaking June with a $66 million opening, #2 at the time for a movie that didn't open #1 (<i>Frozen</i> now has that #2). <i>Z </i>has finally died off with $202 million and with $540 million worldwide, <i>Z </i>showed that just because you have production problems doesn't mean your movie is destined to be a turd.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Comedy <i>We're the Miller's</i> was the biggest movie of August and the 2nd biggest comedy of the <u>year</u>, just $9 million shy of <i>The Heat</i>, and with an opening of only $26 million. <i>Millers</i>, the story of a fake family hired to smuggle drugs across the border, looked like a modest hit, but it proved to be more than modest as it had one of the best legs of any of the movies this summer. Most didn't even know<i> Miller's</i> was a thing until the first trailer, so a great run indeed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Add <i>The Conjuring</i> to the list, which had phenomenal legs for a horror. <i>Conjuring</i> bucked the trend for horror movies and had steady 40% drops every weekend instead of the usual 60% or bigger. With a worldwide total of $316 million and only a $20 million budget, don't be surprised to get the hell scared out you, literally, again with a sequel.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A few other better-than-expected surprises were <i>Bad Grandpa </i>(that 2nd weekend drop!), <i>Warm Bodies, Now You See Me, Identity Theft, Great Gatsby, 42, Captain Phillips,</i> and <i>Planes</i>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Surprises can go both ways. With its share of "wow that made so much more than I expected!", theres a crop of "wow that sucked, it didn't even make half of what I thought". <i>White House Down</i> is possibly the biggest offender of the year. It had everything going for it - Channing Tatum fresh off a stellar 2012, Jamie Foxx who was hot off <i>Django</i>, a late June release, Roland Emmerich, an appealing concept, a democrat President, a flashy budget, and a cool title. What more did Sony need? Well, Sony definitely didn't need <i>Olympus Has Fallen</i>. <i>Olympus</i> was a cheaper version of <i>Down</i> with cheaper effects, a cheaper star, coming from a cheap B-list studio, yet <i>Olympus</i> went on to pull near $100 million, which makes it a 2013 surprise as well. I'm telling you the trailers looked straight-to-Netflix quality, but the movie was actually badass. Unfortunately, not too many people wanted to see basically the same movie just 3 months later. <i>Down</i> opened to an appalling $24 million, $15 million lower than <i>The Heat</i> which it was projected to beat, and has finished with a weak $73 million. I call that weak considering a total of $150 million or higher was most everyone's expectations. Maybe we'll get a <i>Mount Rushmore Down</i> or <i>Fort Knox Down </i>or <i>Golden Gate Bridge Down</i>, and <i>White House</i> will be redeemed. Can't wait for the <i>Waffle House Down</i> parody. It's coming. I feel it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Most expected <i>After Earff, The Lone Ranger, Turbo, Jack the Giant Slayer, Hangover 3, Gangster Squad, RIPD, Scary Movie 5,</i> and <i>Believe</i> to dissapoint, so not really a surprise there.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Beautiful Creatures, The Host,</i> and <i>City of Bones</i> weren't expected to be the next <i>Hunger Games</i> and <i>Twilight</i>, but they should've at least been able to become the new something. None did well enough to justify a franchise and with <i>Twilight</i> finished and minus <i>Hunger Games</i>, it makes you wonder if the young adult genre has lost it. At least they still have Barnes N Noble. With <i>Maze Runner, Vampire Academy, Divergent, </i>and <i>The Giver</i>, 2014 has a lot to prove or Hollywood will be leaving young adults adaption-less soon after.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Can we nominate a month? Yes. And I nominate February. February 2013 was <u>dreadful</u>. The worst grossing and attended in over 10 plus years. This is even more disappointing considering February 2012 set a gross record and was the 4th best attended ever. January wasn't special either and if it wasn't for a strong 2012 Christmas slate, it would've been equally ugly. At least we had June.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Another disappointing fact is that <i>Thor: The Dark World</i> and <i>Star Trek Into Darkness</i> won't be occupying the domestic top 10. Both looked to dominate based on the success of their predecessors, but it wasn't enough after all. <i>Trek</i> was stuck between <i>Iron Man 3 </i>and <i>Furious 6</i>, couldn't break out of its niche audience, and Paramount didn't do a good job showing audiences who saw <i>Star Trek </i>in<i> </i>2009 why they should come back after a 4 year wait and secret villain. <i>Into Darkness' </i>gross of $228 million domestic and $467 worldwide is pretty dang good, but everyone seemed to be expecting a little more. Ehh, actually <u>a lot</u> more...<i>Thor 2</i> started off well thanks to the Marvel brand, but couldn't hang on due to competition and lukewarm reception. Good thing overseas loves Marvel as <i>Thor</i> has picked up $627 million worldwide.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2013 like every year had its hits and misses, but eye-openers is one 2013 had plenty of. From <i>Gravity</i> <u>shattering</u> Fall records to <i>Hangover 3</i> completely dropping the ball to <i>Frozen</i> seeming to please pretty much everyone, 2013 was a year for the calendar. Since 2014 seems to have a line up full of "eh's", there's a chance those "eh's" will surprise and put 2014 on the map, but for now 2013 is truly the year no one saw coming.</div>
Jayson Blankenshiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630207805831892920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5703780399854369455.post-78777147313397274882013-12-02T16:05:00.001-05:002013-12-09T14:59:29.760-05:00Like Fire and Ice<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-W5BQFSuM5uE/UqYacRB1l8I/AAAAAAAAAbg/9xBpgovmoZg/s1600/frozen.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-W5BQFSuM5uE/UqYacRB1l8I/AAAAAAAAAbg/9xBpgovmoZg/s200/frozen.jpg" width="139" /></a></div>
Thanksgiving weekend was a big one for females, and not because of TJ Maxx, Macy's, Khol's, and DSW Black Friday deals. <i>Frozen</i> and <i>Catching Fire</i>, both with female leads, amassed
over $200 million by themselves over the 5-day Thanksgiving
weekend. It has been a common myth in Hollywood that females can't carry
a big movie by themselves, but that myth has been busted (pun intended). <i>Frozen</i> is Disney's adaption of the "Snow Queen" and has surpassed all expectations. Over the 5-day weekend, <i>Frozen </i>earned a staggering $93 million, which ranks 1st all time for Thanksgiving, and for the the 3-day it raked in $67.3 million which is 2nd all time - behind <i>Catching Fire</i>. <i>Frozen </i>also ranks 2nd all time for a movie that did not open at #1. <i>Tangled</i>, <i>Frozen's</i> counterpart, only raked in $68.7 million over the 5-day back in 2010. </div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Both of <i>Frozen's</i> main characters are female - Anna and Elsa. Having two females in a lead role is uncommon; even <i>Tangled</i> only had one. With highly positive reviews and little competition over the holiday season, <i>Frozen</i> can give Pixar's <i>Monsters University</i> a run for its money for 2nd biggest animated film of the year and top 10 all time. <i>Frozen's</i> polled audience was only 57 percent female, as opposed to 70-80 percent for <i>Twilight</i>. This shows that even with multiple female leads, men will still show up.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
If you don't know who Katniss is by now, then add that to your list of 99 problems. <i>Catching Fire</i> is doing what <i>Harry Potter</i> did last decade. <i>Catching Fire</i> ignited $74.1 million over the 3-day weekend and $110 million over the 5-day, both which rank 1st all time. <i>Catching Fire's</i> second weekend is also 4th all time. You could argue many people buy tickets for <i>Hunger Games</i> to see the arena battle scenes, but that's not the the main focus. Katniss Everdeen <u>is</u> "Hunger Games"<i> </i>and if more people are showing up for her than for the boy wizard Harry, then how can you say a female cant lead? Sure you have her love triangle co-stars, but it's Katniss' story, and <u>she's</u> the badass. Peeta and Gale do what <u>she</u> tells them to do.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Wonder Woman is the most popular female superhero and one of the most popular in general, but Warner Brothers still hasn't given her the greenlight. Why? You could say they can't find a star or director, which is false. You could say the source material is too tricky and complex, which is false. You could say because Warner is afraid, which is true. Here we are about to get a 4th version of <i>Batman</i>, 3rd version of<i> Superman</i>, 2nd version of <i>Spiderman</i>, and more <i>Captain America, Iron Man</i>, and <i>Thor</i> sequels to come, but Diana has yet to see the green screen. Marvel has said they're looking into a female-led movie, but that none is in their current plans. There are plenty of self-righteous and sexist people in the world; it's a naive thought that the average male would refuse to see a <i>Wonder Woman</i> movie because she's not a man. Wouldn't men rather see a woman in a tight-fitting costume than a man anyway? Yes.<i> Catwoman</i> and <i>Elektra </i>did not fail because of their female stars, but because they were truly awful movies - with 9 and 10 percent on Rotten Tomatoes respectively, compared to the big names which land on average in the 70's and 80's. Anyone who studies movies could tell you that.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
We have plenty of movies where females co-lead with a man; when will we just let them do their own thing instead? <i>Frozen</i> and <i>Catching Fire</i> weren't affected. And you can look at past movies; Angelina Jolie's <i>Salt</i> was more successful than Tom Cruise's <i>Jack Reacher</i>, Sandra Bullock carried most of <i>Gravity</i> on her own, <i>Bridesmaids </i>and <i>The Heat</i> which had all female leads out-grossed recent comedies from Adam Sandler, Jonah Hill, Seth Rogen, Will Ferrell, Zach Galafinakis, and Sacha Baron Cohen - male Hollywood comedy heavyweights. <i>Brave, Zero Dark Thirty, Snow White and the Huntsman, The Help, Bad Teacher, Black Swan, </i>and <i>Princess and the Frog</i> are all recent action, comedy, and drama movies with female leads that audiences, both male and female, showed up for. Romantic comedies and dramas star women because they are made for women, but its time let women entertain us men too. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Hollywood is taking small steps forward. Melissa McCarthy has an endless number of comedies coming up, an all female <i>Expendable's</i> spin-off is in the works, and more females such as Kathryn Bigelow, Angelina Jolie, and Melissa McCarthy are directing bigger name movies, but until we can at least get a <i>Wonder Woman </i>solo movie with the same budget and focus as the big boys, not much has changed. With <i>Catching Fire </i>and <i>Frozen</i> paving the way, hopefully Hollywood will start getting the memo. Just remember, even Shaquille O'Neal has gotten to play a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_%28film%29">superhero</a>...</div>
Jayson Blankenshiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630207805831892920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5703780399854369455.post-42145350401429958322013-11-19T23:19:00.003-05:002014-04-23T00:29:30.996-04:00'Catching Fire' Is Ready To Roast Cinemas<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-J2UtgU3J7IA/Uo1tZrLq7-I/AAAAAAAAAbA/ShkY7FEOXY0/s1600/jenn.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-J2UtgU3J7IA/Uo1tZrLq7-I/AAAAAAAAAbA/ShkY7FEOXY0/s200/jenn.jpg" height="200" width="135" /></a> One of the biggest surprises of 2012 was the success of <i>The Hunger Games</i>. Starring Jennifer Lawrence, <i>Hunger Games</i> broke all kinds of records - from biggest Spring opening to fourth biggest Saturday to sixth biggest opening of all time (3rd at the time of release). When it was all said and done, <i>Hunger Games</i> ended with a $408 million total - and $691 million worldwide, which ranks 14th all time domestic and #1 for a movie from an independent studio - and that is without 3D. By the end of 2012, <i>Hunger Games</i> shocked the world and had out-grossed known popular franchises James Bond, Spider Man, Twilight, Pixar, and Lord of the Rings. Back in 2011 if you called this then you deserve a million dollars, a supermodel girlfriend/boyfriend, a black Ferrari, and your own private island, because you were as bold as Bear Grylls and didn't collapse under pressure from being called an idiot (or worse) and accusations of knowing nothing about box office, and maybe even life. Go, you. One special thing <i>Games</i> had was great legs - no I'm not talking about Lawrence's, but the fact that the movie was able to stick around for so long. Young adult novel movies such as <i>Twilight</i> and <i>Harry Potter</i>, usually open hefty, then fall heftier the next weekend. <i>Hunger Games</i> had a huge curiosity factor which led to the masses coming weekend after weekend and <i>Games</i> being #1 in America for 4 weeks, the first time that has happened since January 2010.<br />
Now 20 months later, <i>Catching Fire</i>, is set to light Regal's and AMC's everywhere on fire. <i>Catching Fire</i> will be no surprise as everyone and their mother knows it's going to be a monster. Now the debate has gone from "will <i>Hunger Games</i> be a success?" to "how much freaking money will <i>Catching Fire</i> bring in this weekend!?" The answer is "a lot." Emphasis on a lot. Box office analysts and anyone who has a poster of JLaw and/or the Mockingjay on their walls is predicting $160-$180 million for the weekend, with predictions as high as $200 million. Yes, that's a 2. <i>Catching Fire</i> only needs $174.2 million to claim the second biggest opening of all time, and that looks very feasible. Even if it opens to the low end of many projections that's still the 4th or 5th biggest opening of all time. Again, without 3D.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The big argument now is will <i>Catching Fire</i> be able to stay at the box office party for long? Or will it have too many drinks on opening weekend and stumble the rest of the way? Judging by the fact that <i>Catching Fire</i> is a sequel and is a based off a YA adaption, opening weekend will be so big it'll have its own gravitational pull, but the next weekend will suffer a steep drop, and the week after, and the week after...or will it? If you haven't seen the reviews for <i>Catching Fire</i> yet, they're pretty positive, with many of them raves. The movie currently holds a 93% on RT, which is rare for a blockbuster. That number can go down by Friday, but don't expect it to be by much. With reviews this good, this may incline some people that <i>CF</i> is worth seeing, even if they don't know what the heck it's about. Good reviews don't guarantee butts in the seats and don't guarantee small drops in the subsequent weeks, but they sure don't hurt the movie.<br />
Another complaint (even by me at one point) has been that <i>CF</i> looks like a carbon-copy of the <i>Hunger Games</i> and doesn't have the curiosity factor luxury of the first. While <i>CF</i> still doesn't have the same curiosity, I've realized the carbon-copy argument has little weight. <i>CF</i> is holding its own with its refreshing visuals, bigger scale, and new characters - though Lionsgate could have marketed them better. And guess what else? No-more-shakey-cam! Go ahead and go wild like I know you already are. The performances in the movie also seem to be getting a lot of praise.<br />
Also, even though <i>CF</i> will behave like a sequel, it will have Thanksgiving break and even Christmas break to provide some cushion. The biggest challenge for <i>CF</i> is to get back its non-fan audience. Many people saw <i>Hunger Games</i> because it was new and fresh and the buzz came out of the blue. "It was cool seeing Katniss on the screen last year, but why do I need to shell out $11 to see her again?" Though a growing fan base will help offset this a little, in order for<i> CF</i> to get back over $400 million, the curiosity needs to come back. Let's hope Lionsgate's marketing team got the memo.<br />
I won't know for myself until I see it, but apparently <i>Catching Fire</i> is the event of the year (as with <i>Iron Man 3</i>) and looks to possibly be the biggest movie from now until May 2015. It's still up in the air whether <i>Catching Fire</i> can defy box office logic and make it past $400 million, which would make it only the third franchise (Star Wars and Batman) to have more than one movie above the mark. I personally believe <i>CF</i> will miss $400 million, but not by much. It doesn't matter whether or not <i>Catching Fire</i> reaches that milestone - it's already a success for Lionsgate, Lawrence, and the fans who just want a good adaption, and is poised to end at least #2 for 2013 when it's said and done; it will challenge <i>Iron Man 3</i> for #1. Expect a nice increase for a top five finish worldwide. It's possible <i>CF</i> could fall below <i>Despicable Me 2</i>, but that's almost as likely as Katniss deciding not to do the games instead because shes scared. We'll see in a few days how big and how masterful <i>Catching Fire</i> really is, but expect for your local theater to be a lot busier than your local Walmart or interstate highway at 5 o'clock this weekend. <i>CF</i> is now committing arson in Brazil and looks to start Wednesday and Friday worldwide, in glorious, but non-surcharging 2D. Rated PG-13 and 146 minutes (yes, that's over 2 1/2 hours). </div>
Jayson Blankenshiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630207805831892920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5703780399854369455.post-31654999235235983062013-10-06T20:50:00.000-04:002014-04-23T00:43:20.555-04:00'Gravity' Still Won't Let Go<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-taA0HhPeWpQ/UlH9qcygtXI/AAAAAAAAAao/55jcbc4YBS0/s1600/grav+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-taA0HhPeWpQ/UlH9qcygtXI/AAAAAAAAAao/55jcbc4YBS0/s200/grav+2.jpg" height="200" width="135" /></a> Do you know what it feels like to float in space? With no sound, no air, no protection from uv rays, space junk, and no gravity? Do you know what it's like to sit and watch the Earth rotate and orbit while seemingly floating in the empty black void known as the universe while millions of little white dots stand stationary in the background? Of course you dont...like you've been in space before, pshht sit down. Well thank Warner Brothers and physics for <i>Gravity</i> because even though it isn't the real thing, it's darn close.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Alfonso Cuaron's <i>Gravity</i>, which stars the talented Sandra Bullock and George Clooney, is not a movie, it's an experience. Yes you've probably heard that 20 times and it's likely been trademarked by now, but I don't care. It's true. <i>Gravity</i> in IMAX and 3D took the movie to a whole new level and has made <i>Gravity</i> a must see in theaters. Sure the movie will still be amazing on Redbox, Netflix, HBO, and cable with commercials included, but seeing <i>Gravity</i> on the silver screen is like no other.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Gravity</i> is about astronauts Ryan Stone (Bullock) and Matthew Kowalski (Clooney) who are doing work on the Hubble Telescope when a destroyed satellite and all its 20,000+ mph debris glory ends up heading their way. Before they can make it back to the shuttle, they are caught in the crossfire. The collision ends up leaving Stone and Kowalski drifting into dark space, and without any communication from NASA they must figure out how to now survive in airless, soundless, space.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
You could say mother Earth should be nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and it's true. The special effects in <i>Gravity</i> are some of the most realistic and accurate I've ever seen. Earth looked so realistic it was scary. The space suits, the shuttle, the debris, the Sun, the Moon, everything. It's so immersive that you feel like <u>you</u> are the one drifting thousands of kilometers above Earth. You see the Aurora's, lights from metropolitan areas, land masses, oceans, the sunrise over the rim of the Earth, I even spotted a hurricane; it's unreal. The sound is also top notch. If you haven't taken 7th grade science than you may not be aware that there is no sound in space. So how do you hear the explosions you ask? Well, you don't. Well, it's kinda-sort of. Cuaron, wanting to keep the movie realistic, has came up with an innovative way for us to hear the sounds - keeping the movie suspenseful and frighting. The soundtrack also gives us a break from the loud foghorns and drums that come included free in every summer blockbuster and instead gives us more angelic yet frightening tunes that match the scenes more perfectly than a sorority girl with Lilly Pulitzer.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
With no surprise, I give <i>Gravity</i> an A+, 5/5, 100, 4 stars, 2 thumbs, and 10 toes. (Don't roll you eyes and be like "oh please". Unlike you, I'm not impossible to please). Back when everyone was laughing at the <i>Gravity</i> trailer when <i>Man Of Steel</i> was released, I was intrigued. Getting lost in space? Well how could they make a movie out of that? I now know how and it was flawless. <i>Gravity</i> took five years to make, but it was a five years far from wasted. Alfonso Cuaron put his passion into the movie and from the detail of the Earth to the cockpits, it was <u>well</u> done.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sandra Bullock was outstanding. She gave off an array of emotions, and even without the IMAX or 3D, you feel every one. The last 10 minutes of <i>Gravity </i>(no not the credits) were the most nerve racking, intense, thrilling, and emotionally draining 10 minutes I have ever seen. <i>Gravity</i> may not be a masterpiece, but we rarely get them anymore, at least in my opinion. Winning "Best Picture" doesn't make you a masterpiece; heck, I liked <i>Argo</i> <u>less</u> the second time. <i>Gravity</i> doesn't have to be one though. It's easily one of the best, visually stunning, and most entertaining movies I have ever witnessed. <i>Gravity</i> achieved what <u>very</u> few movies have - made me feel like it was more than a movie. With <i>Gravity</i>, I never once thought to myself "this is just a movie" because I was <u>so</u> immersed. I felt the rollercoaster ride that Sandra was experiencing.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yeah, whatever, I know it sounds weird, but watch this movie in 3D on the biggest screen possible and you'll be doing <a href="http://static.squarespace.com/static/5007953384aef6ab9cd04068/t/522915bfe4b052a273f74fcc/1378424259411/weebay-shocked-face.gif">this</a> too. I've only seen three 3D movies and I loathe the gimmick, but it was no gimmick with <i>Gravity</i>. Whether you do IMAX or not, this movie needs to be in your plans. Alfonso, Sandra, George, Warner, and the hundreds of people who spent their precious time on this movie deserve a quick clap; they put together something special, not just an easy money maker. <i>Gravity</i> has now broken the October opening record and with the universal reviews and amazing audience reception, <i>Gravity</i> is prepped to have a longggg life in theaters well into 2014. And it is well deserved. To me, it's possibly the best I've seen on screen, to some it's one of the best, to some it's just great popcorn fun, and to some it sucked, but either way this is a rare movie that blends summer blockbuster action with fall awards story perfectly. With a dash of 3D, it is not a movie, it is an amazing, technical, thrilling, emotional, and immersive experience. You won't want to let go.</div>
Jayson Blankenshiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630207805831892920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5703780399854369455.post-6072350497315467802013-09-24T20:38:00.000-04:002014-04-25T01:30:20.880-04:00October's Very Own<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KzJt9I4b604/UkIl6KHHKnI/AAAAAAAAAaY/G9Cm7L2j0qo/s1600/gravity.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KzJt9I4b604/UkIl6KHHKnI/AAAAAAAAAaY/G9Cm7L2j0qo/s200/gravity.jpg" height="200" width="134" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
October is a great month hands down. It's my birthday, football is in full force, the weather is perfect (at least where I am), Halloween (or Halloweek if you're in college), basketball begins, it's National Pizza Month, it's my birthday, and many other reasons. October isn't one of the stronger movie months, usually finishing in the bottom 3rd, but that doesn't mean October can't deliver. This year, October does look like it will deliver. And no I'm not saying that because it's National Pizza Month.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Gravity, Runner Runner, Carrie, Captain Phillips, Machete Kills, 12 Years A Slave, The Fifth Estate, The Counselor, Escape Plan, Jackass: Bad Grandpa, </i>and<i> Romeo and Juliet </i>are the wide releases, and <i>Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs 2</i> will be in its second week. On paper, it looks like the only thing these movies have going for them is their cool names, but this year is a special bunch. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For the first time in a long time, <i>Carrie</i> (10/18) is the only major horror of the month, which is <u>very</u><i> </i>odd for October. We should be on <i>Saw 10</i> by now. It's also the first time in what feels like forever that a <i>Paranormal Activity</i> movie isn't opening, though don't worry, we'll get two <i>PA's</i> next year. Yay. With <i>Carrie</i> the only option to scare the masses, the masses should show up. Usually remakes like this don't blow the box office away, but <i>Carrie</i> should benefit of being the lone scarer of the fall and do at least above average. Also benefiting from the absence of its genre is <i>Cloudy 2 </i>(9/27). Though technically a September movie, it will play like an October one. Though this is nothing new for the month of October, <i>Cloudy 2</i> will be the only family friendly affair, so it should have an easy time sticking around for a while.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This October is also looking insanely strong to make some noise in awards season. The only major awards contender last year was <i>Argo</i>, but this year <i>Gravity, 12 Years, Counselor,</i> and<i> Captain Phillips</i> are looking like major candidates. <i>Gravity</i> (10/4) is being called by some critics "the best movie of the decade". That's not too farfetched considering it's only been this decade for 3 years, and again it's critics saying this, not Warner Bros' marketing team. <i>Gravity</i> undoubtedly will earn a Best Effects nom, and Best Picture, Director, Cinematography, and Actor/Actress are still possible. Sandra Bullock and George Clooney are the only two actors in the entire movie so all eyes will be on their performances. Just watch the trailer and you'll see why this should end up an awards juggernaut. The movie is also being called a "thrill ride" and hey audiences love rides, right? This has a strong chance of becoming October's #1 movie, especially if awards season is good to it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The concept of<i> Captain Phillips</i> (10/11) is a little more relatable, but that won't matter when it comes to awards; good thing <i>Captain Phillips</i> is already getting raves as well. The general consensus so far is "Tom Hanks is back and it's a thrill ride." The noms that <i>Phillips</i> could receive other than Best Director and maybe Cinematography aren't clear, but it's still looking to be a strong general contender and perfect fall thrill for audiences. These types of roles and voicing toys is what Hanks was born for, so if a Best Actor nom slips his way, you better cheer him on. I personally don't believe awards winners can be called so far in advance, but apparently <i>12 Years</i> <i>A Slave</i> (10/18) is already the frontrunner to win Best Picture. <i>12 Years</i> has been screened at film festivals and it's apparently left people in awe. "Strong", "brutal", "eye opening", "intense", and "almost too much to sit through" are words describing it. <i>12 Years</i> doesn't have the more mainstream elements that <i>Django</i> did so how audiences handle it is yet to be seen, because apparently it's raw, but again this won't matter with awards. Whether <i>12 Years</i> makes $100 million or $10 million, it's looking to create major noise this year. We'll have to wait until March to see if it really does win, but judging by reactions so far, don't be too surprised if it does.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Counselor</i> (10/25) is an awards dark horse. Coming from famed director Ridley Scott, <i>Counselor</i> contains an all star cast, though that also doesn't matter with awards. Based on the subject matter, it'll take a little push to get general audiences on board, but this gritty, rough, stylish action and acting is what awards voters love. This is likely to win Best Makeup more than anything else, but hey a win is a win. We'll see in a month though what that RT score is looking like.<i> Machete Kills </i>(10/11), <i>Escape Plan</i> (10/18), and<i> Bad Grandpa</i> (10/25) won't be around for long, but they should provide the nonsense B-movie fun that we all know and love. They will pretty much be must sees once they appear in your Netflix queue. <i>Runner Runner </i>(10/4), though starring the talented Ben Affleck and Justin Timberlake, may be a Redbox must see, but maybe it's just me. Audiences will either love it or hate it, but hopefully it will provide some respectable grosses to the October total. <i>Fifth Estate </i>(10/18) early on looked to be an awards contender, but after the TIFF, that's pretty much a deep sleep dream. Considering the subject matter, this may also be a toughie to get general audiences on board. If you've wanted to see Benedict Cumberbatch with blonde hair though, this is the movie of the fall for you. Not much can be said about <i>Romeo and Juliet </i>(10/11). If you miss it though, don't worry, it should make its cable debut on the CW in two years.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
People usually sleep through October to get ready for the winter season, but this October is one to actually stay awake for. With a respectable slate of movies and my birthday (the 5th), keep every Friday (and the first Saturday) in October circled on your calendars.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
Jayson Blankenshiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630207805831892920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5703780399854369455.post-78334447479480768662013-08-07T16:58:00.002-04:002013-10-06T21:19:18.710-04:00The Day Of The SiFi is Over?<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gESwpxr3ogE/UgKuQyR3nNI/AAAAAAAAAaE/tEl5PDcz57k/s1600/elysium.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gESwpxr3ogE/UgKuQyR3nNI/AAAAAAAAAaE/tEl5PDcz57k/s200/elysium.jpg" width="135" /></a> From the countless classics of <i>E.T</i> to <i>Star Wars</i> to <i>Avatar</i> to <i>Lawnmower Man</i> - Hollywood has delivered with Sci-Fi. It's such a successful genre across the board because of its storytelling, break from reality, and immersive effects. Is <i>Star Wars</i> realistic? No. Is <i>Avatar</i>? Not in this century. What about <i>Lawnmower Man</i>? Well if you own a lawnmower then kind of. That doesn't matter though. Even the superhero genre that has been getting all of Hollywood's attention since 2002 relies on sci fi. So why are people panicking? Because of the recent box office. Well this year's BO has been smelling quite fine with record breaking numbers...except in the sci-fi department.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i> Oblivion, After Earth, Star Trek Into Darkness</i> (to a lesser extent), <i>Pacific Rim</i>, and <i>The Host</i> are all sci-fi that have put up disappointing grosses this year. Are <i>Elysium</i>, <i>Gravity</i>, <i>Thor 2,</i> and <i>Ender's Game</i> next? What about <i>Divergent, The Maze Runner, Robocop</i>, <i>Transcendence, Jupiter Ascending, </i>and <i>Intersteller</i> for next year?<i> John Carter, Battleship, Total Recall, The Watch, Cloud Atlas, Dredd, Prometheus, Cowboys and Aliens, Surrogates, The Thing, Mars Needs Mom,</i><i> Repo Men, </i>and <i>Skyline </i>are all some recent sci-fi flops/fails/bombs/disappointments. Now to be clear, the genre has still had success lately, but the flops outnumber the successes. Also it seems sci-fi, especially original, has dissapointed more lately than any other genre.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Hollywood has made it clear that it likes to spend on success, but lately sci-fi hasn't been that. Are studios going to start red-lighting original and remakable sci-fi projects unless they're 100% proven to succeed? <i>Elysium</i> has a lot going for it. Matt Damon, compelling concept, stellar effects, Matt Damon, lethargic competition, good reviews, and Matt Damon. So whats the problem? Well it seems those things alone can't sell movies anymore for some reason. <i>After Earf </i>(thats how I say it) had Will Smith, probably the #1 star on the planet, and his offspring, but it stumbled right out of the gate. <i>Oblivion</i> had Tom Cruise, probably #2, and that started off nicely, but couldn't hold on. Remember also the misfires from last year, all with big name stars...except for <i>Carter </i>of course. Okay, stop laughing at Kitsch, he's suffered enough.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Right now the studios are making bank with cheap R-rated comedies, superhero movies that sell toys, animated franchises that also sell toys, and dirt cheap horrors. Sci-fi's haven't been as kind and don't sell as many toys. (Don't bring up <i>Star Wars 7</i>, you still got 2 years for that). "Cheap" for a sci-fi isn't cheap either. If you make a summer sci-fi blockbuster for $20 million, the same price as <i>The Conjuring</i>, it's going to look more butt-ugly than the <i>Butt Ugly Martians</i> cartoon from Nickelodeon. Once it's all said and done, today's sci-fi can cost almost $200 million or more once production and marketing are both factored in. <i>Oblivion's</i> reported $120 million budget is cheap for sci-fi, but still expensive by today's standards.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So what do we do? I don't want these movies to fail. Thousands of people put hard work into these movies, especially the effects team. Do you know how difficult it is to animate Optimus Prime? Why people haven't been flocking to these movies like they used to is a hard guess. Some of these movies have been garbage, but some like <i>Oblivion, Trek,</i> and <i>Pac Rim</i> were met with good reviews. Even if <i>Elysium, Gravity, </i>and<i> Ender's Game</i> fail, I don't think studio's will pull the plug on original sci-fi, but you can bet they'll retool it. We likely won't see any $200 million+ or even $150 million original concepts anytime soon, but they won't completely fade away. Sci-fi is still a beautiful genre and a year full of superhero and R-rated comedies would create too much imbalance. The concepts are there; the best thing to do at this point is to just make them cheaper and more niche-less. One problem with <i>Pacific Rim</i> and possibly <i>Elsyium</i> is that they just don't appeal to the general crowd. The marketing teams have to find a way to fix this, and fast. <i>Elysium </i>opens Friday, <i>EG</i>, and <i>Gravity</i> open in the Fall. Will they buck the trend? We'll see and we hope so. No one wants a Marvel movie every month.</div>
Jayson Blankenshiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630207805831892920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5703780399854369455.post-4879261393624360002013-07-14T23:41:00.003-04:002013-12-09T17:05:13.227-05:00Summer's Too Hot<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qtUmKRfwriw/UeNrIBearAI/AAAAAAAAAZ0/w-KHVOQ1rBQ/s1600/wwz.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qtUmKRfwriw/UeNrIBearAI/AAAAAAAAAZ0/w-KHVOQ1rBQ/s200/wwz.jpg" width="130" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2013 was a dull, dull, dull...dull, dull, dull...dull, wait for it...dull year at the beginning. Attendance was down, records weren't being broken, everything was rated R, true panic mode. Fast forward to July 14 and the year has transformed from dull to "ouch I burnt my hand!". May and June both set gross records, by wide margins, and July should be decent.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
June was hot. Out of the oven hot. Out of the volcano hot. Out of the Sun hot. The previous June record was set June 2009 (<i>Hangover, Transformers 2, Proposal</i>) with $1.08 billion. This June? $1.24 billion! That's third in attendance, after 2002 and 2004. June also ranks as the 5th biggest month of all time! We knew June would be big, but not this big, as practically every movie broke out. Strong holdovers from May also offered their services. 2013 is now less than 1% behind 2012.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Man of Steel</i> led the fray with $248 million in June and $281 million so far. <i>Man of Steel's</i> opening was ranging from $80 million to insane. Ultimately it landed at $116 million (minus Wally World) which is excellent. That was enough for a total over $300 million, but Supes faced tough competition and may fall justttt short. Still, a sequel is guaranteed and the DCU has been born, and with over $600 million and counting worldwide, it's a success. <i>The Purge</i> was also a big surprise. Predicted to open in the teens, but thanks to strong social media buzz, it landed at $34 million. I predicted $33 million. As expected, <i>The Purge's</i> strong run in theaters lasted as long as the real purge - it dropped off the Earth and now rests at $63 million. Still, the movie only cost $3 million, so it was already profitable from day 1.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i> Monsters University</i> opened to a surprising $82 million, after predicted to land in the high 60's to mid 70's. The Pixar smash earned $170 million in June and $237 million so far and will land in Pixar's top 5. Female-driven <i>The Heat</i> opened to a strong $39 million and will end up being the highest grossing comedy of the summer with $112 million in the bank so far with bullets still left in the AK.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The biggest surprise of June and arguably the summer is <i>World War Z</i>. Most had <i>WWZ</i> opening no more than $45 million...and then it goes and does $66 million, even with <i>MU</i> and <i>MOS</i> as competition. There are plenty of reasons why people online were writing off <i>WWZ</i>, but in the end, the zombies, Brad Pitt, Paramount, and the letter "Z" proved everyone, including me, wrong. <i>WWZ</i> made $123 million in its 2 weeks in June and $177 million so far, and can end up over or very close to $200 million when the zombies all die out in the theater.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>This is the End</i> and <i>Now You See Me</i>, two smaller, lower budget hits, still knocked it out the park. <i>Now You See Me</i> currently sits at $113 million, which is where very, very few predicted it would end up. <i>TITE </i>also sits at $91 million. $100 million may be out of reach, but its still a huge success nonetheless, especially with the competition it faced.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
May holdovers <i>Fast 6, Star Trek, Hangover 3</i>, and<i> Iron Man 3</i> did their parts. Technically <i>NYSM</i> and <i>After Earff</i>...okay <i>After Earth</i> came out May 31st, but since that's only one day of business, I considered it June. Shout out to <i>Iron Man 3</i> for also becoming the 17th movie to pass $400 million. At this point, it looks like Tony Stark will stay lounging at #1 for the year, but like Kevin Garnett says, "anything is possibleeee". Speaking of<i> After Earff</i> (that's what I call it), the grassy green field of June of course had its share of turds.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>AE</i> was supposed to be Shamayamama's return to prominence, but once that 11% RT score came in...anyway, the movie tanked with only $59 million in receipts, even with star Will Smith. <i>The Internship</i> lost its job with only $43 million, which is degrading for a comedy with this star power. <i>White House Down</i>, though many have seemed to enjoy it, still couldn't bring in the masses or the liberals, jk. Debuting at #4, it has amassed $62 million and won't beat <i>Olympus Has Fallen</i>, which was made for $70 million less.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
June was great. I loved it. I want an encore. The first two weeks of July has also been scorching hot, but things may soon cool off. I'll dive into that pool when we get there, but for now I'm fine swimming in this.</div>
Jayson Blankenshiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630207805831892920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5703780399854369455.post-22661667773948863422013-06-27T17:50:00.000-04:002013-11-20T12:07:04.948-05:00How Bee-Do Bee-Do Big Can 'Despicable Me' Be? <i> </i><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<i><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PR7M8--01WA/UcytZzzcd9I/AAAAAAAAAZk/eCHP3sMvJdE/s273/dm2+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PR7M8--01WA/UcytZzzcd9I/AAAAAAAAAZk/eCHP3sMvJdE/s200/dm2+2.jpg" width="134" /></a></i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bee-do, bee-do, bee-do, attention all, its about that time! <i>Despicable Me 2</i>, the new animated sequel from
Universal and Illumination, is just days from release. If you
haven't seen <i>Despicable Me</i>, you live under a rock - unless you're
Patrick Star. He's seen it. If you haven't heard of the Minions, you don't
live on Earth. The Minions could be called the "new Spongebob". They're
yellow, they have big eyes, they're popular and they're on half of the
products in Walmart. So is <i>Despicable Me 2</i> the second coming of animated movies?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Despicable Me</i> was the sleeper hit of 2010; the Minions, Gru, and Agnes soon became worldwide phenomenons. Universal realizes the appeal and potential of the Minions so they've set a 2014 release date for their spin-off movie, and they've marketed the heck out of <i>Despicable Me 2</i>. It has scored over $254 million in marketing tie-ins, one of the biggest of all time. So is the awareness there? Oh yes. The thing about the Minions is they're so easy. They're simple happy go lucky "beans" with big eyes which makes them easy to slap on bags, boxes, and containers. There's even a "Despica-blimp" flying around America - the first time a studio has used an airship to advertise.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Animated movies are tricky. They're stereotyped as "only for kids", just like cartoons. Animated movies usually do big at the BO, but when you think about it, half of its money is coming from parents who had to bring their kids, which gives animated movies a leg up over say PG-13, since most teenagers are too hip to be seen at the cineplex with mom and dad. Possibly the biggest advantage <i>DM2</i> has is its adult appeal. Not just kids, but teens and adults also love the Minions (I know 40 year olds excited for this, yall). Go ahead and call them annoying, you're a minority. Like I said, "new Spongebob". People call Mr. Squarepants annoying, but does that stop him from being the #1 cartoon character of the 21st century? Nope. And can he be #1 if he's only adored by kids? Not even. The Minions have had commercials during high-rated sports programs, they have a Progressive commercial, which for those of you that don't know, Progressive is car insurance, and considering kids can't drive, it's meant to appeal to adults, and they already have their own ride at Universal Studios Orlando. What great and smart product placement.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Why was <i>Shrek 2</i> the biggest animated movie of all time? And still is. After 9 years. And why was <i>Shrek</i> big enough to start it all? A big reason is likely that CG animation was still in its infancy and not saturated back in '01 and '04, but another big player was the adult appeal. <i>Shrek</i> and <i>Shrek 2</i> had many jokes for kids, like fart jokes, but also many jokes for adults that flew right over kids' heads, like celebrity references. <i>Shrek's</i> heavy reliance on pop culture and adult humor brought adults in in droves and <i>Despicable Me</i> utilized the same style, hence a reason why many people are calling it the the next <i>Shrek</i>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I believe that <i>Despicable Me 2</i> will be the biggest animated movie between <i>Toy Story 3</i> and <i>Finding Dory</i> (I think <i>FD</i> will be the movie to dethrone <i>Shrek 2</i>). Universal's A+ marketing, the universal appeal of the Minions and Gru (see what I did there?), <u>adult appeal</u>, perfect release date, 3D, and a lackluster looking July could drive <i>Despicable Me 2</i> to at least $350 million and <u>huge </u>numbers overseas. But can it hit $400 million? It's hard to call, and pretty tough, but again considering that all ages admitted are excited for this and and the positive responses for <i>Despicable Me</i>, even on home video, it could. I'm going to stick with $350 million to play it safe, but if the Minions cruise past that, its gravy to me. The movie is already trampling records in the UK and other countries and if they are any indication, <i>Despicable Me 2</i> is in for a wild lofty run. And I leave you with <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJySOf2jPnU">this.</a></div>
Jayson Blankenshiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630207805831892920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5703780399854369455.post-30275927204010566772013-06-06T16:53:00.001-04:002013-10-06T21:21:12.803-04:00How High Will Superman Soar?<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iuZHfBnFUgk/UbDvKnhixSI/AAAAAAAAAX8/Ia-sgq5ErY4/s1600/man+of+steel.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iuZHfBnFUgk/UbDvKnhixSI/AAAAAAAAAX8/Ia-sgq5ErY4/s200/man+of+steel.jpg" width="135" /></a> 2006. 2006 was the last time Superman has appeared on the silver screen.
2006 is also possibly the last time you fell asleep during a superhero
movie. Okay, maybe <i>Iron Man 2.</i> You're living under two rocks if you don't already know, but a new Superman movie is coming out - next week, and it looks gorgeous, and most importantly, not boring.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Superman Returns</i> grossed $200M in the US and $391M worldwide. Now, that's pretty bad, but in 2006 it was exceptional, but still a disappointment.Warner yet again had to go back to the drawing board and figure out how to do it right. After the colorful failure of <i>Green Lantern</i> (see what I did?), the soon ending of Nolan's <i>Batman,</i> and the success of Marvel, Warner was in desperate need to get a DC hero back in the cineplex. Superman was the easiest bet and Christopher Nolan, David Goyer, and Zack Snyder were eventually landed as producer, writer, and director respectively. British actor Henry Cavill landed the part of Clark Kent/Supes and filming began in 2011. Though everyone on the internet basically wants to have Nolan's babies, Zack Snyder doesn't have the best track record among the web crowd, so initial reactions weren't all that stellar and most had <i>Man of Steel</i> barely making above <i>Superman Snores</i> -- I meant <i>Returns</i>. Now, this movie has pulled a 216. Yep, 180 just isn't enough.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Man of Steel</i> looks beautiful. Snyder's movies may not have the best stories, but the visuals always make your eyes want to give you a hug. Now predictions for <i>MoS</i> are even as high as $400M, double what some were predicting just 2 years ago. Though predictions in the $300 mills is more realistic, it's still stellar and breaks the laws of reboots. The "S" doesn't stand for Superman (yeah, I couldn't believe it either when I learned it...a few months ago), it stands for "hope". Responsibility, hope, power, fitting in, self discovery, acceptance, limits, and family are all themes of the movie and should win over critics and parents with rebellious middle schoolers. The bar for action has been raised and Snyder's impressive style and fast approach is sure to wow audiences. I mean wowwww.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Early reactions for <i>MoS</i> so far has been mostly stellar and early buzz is through the roof, with <i>MoS</i> already selling tickets like Bojangles biscuits at 8 am. Thought to be impossible a few months ago, <i>MoS</i> has a legit shot at a $100M opening, and the June weekend record. I have <i>MoS</i> at a $111M opening and $310-$340M finish, though it's not impossible for this to go higher. Superman has never looked better on the screen, and he finally knows how to wear underwear properly. The Superman "S" is the 2nd most recognized symbol in the world after the cross and he is still arguably the most known superhero. That doesn't mean people are just going to show up, the movie still has to appeal, and so far it seems to be going beyond that. Marketing has also gone the whole 10 yards and <i>MoS </i>has racked up $160M in promotional tie-ins. If you go to Walmart, you won't leave without seeing at least 40 items with <i>MoS</i> on it. Speaking of Walmart, they're even selling advanced tickets, the first time a major retailer has done this.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Everyone. That's who this movie appeals to. You don't have to follow Superman to understand this movie. I do all my learning through Wikipedia. By early reactions and trailers, it seems <i>Man of Steel</i> won't disappoint. Though it won't reach <i>Iron Man 3</i> and <i>Dark Knight Rises</i> opening levels, it's still poised to pull in a big league opening next week. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Man of Steel </i>stars Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Lawrence Fishburne, Diane Lane, Christopher Meloni (the SVU theme just played in your head, didn't it?), Antje Traue, Michael Keaton, and Russell Crowe (no, he doesn't sing). Directed by Zack Snyder, catch <i>Man of Steel</i> June 14 and worldwide starting June 13.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Watch the mouth watering <i>MoS</i> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpdZf3FY_WY">Nokia trailer</a>, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlOF03DUoWc">trailer 4</a>, and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6DJcgm3wNY">trailer 3 </a>here.</div>
Jayson Blankenshiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630207805831892920noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5703780399854369455.post-13518188461196161892013-05-27T14:45:00.000-04:002013-10-06T21:21:45.127-04:00Memorial Madness<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EQQMufPCFUg/UaOmWeSbyTI/AAAAAAAAAXs/F8pE6JQuvrY/s1600/hangover.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EQQMufPCFUg/UaOmWeSbyTI/AAAAAAAAAXs/F8pE6JQuvrY/s200/hangover.jpg" width="129" /></a><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UUGjeV7feHE/UaOl4txQz-I/AAAAAAAAAXc/OyhJ3I67VmA/s1600/fast+six.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UUGjeV7feHE/UaOl4txQz-I/AAAAAAAAAXc/OyhJ3I67VmA/s200/fast+six.jpg" width="134" /></a> Memorial weekend is always lucrative at the box office, but this weekend, May 24-27, brought in the money and people in droves. This weekend is the highest grossing and most attended Memorial weekend of all time with $310 million in business. Though only the 6th highest grossing 3-day weekend ever, its the most attended and highest grossing 4-day. Another amazing feat is that <i>Furious 6</i>, the #1 movie, only accounted for 39% of the total. In most weekends this big, the #1 usually takes in 60-80% of the business.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Furious 6</i> came in at #1 with $120m, <i>Hangover 3</i> at #2 with $51.2m, <i>Star Trek</i> at #3 with $47m, <i>Epic </i>at #4 with 42.6m,<i> Iron Man 3</i> at #5 with $24.3m, and<i> Gatsby </i>at #6 with $17m. The next closest movie was <i>Mud</i> with </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
only $2.4m. These numbers all look good together, but there were some successes, along with some stinkers. And I mean clogged port-a-potty type of stinker.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i> Furious 6</i> defied expectations and gravity. Its 3-day opening increased over <i>Fast 5</i> and it is also Universal's highest opening ever. 3 of the top 4 Universal openings are from the <i>Fast and Furious</i> series. It is by far their biggest franchise. Universal has been trying to expand <i>F&F</i>'s audience, and they succeeded, bringing in 46% females and 43% under the age of 25. Another interesting fact is the opening was 32% Hispanic. <i>Furious 6</i> will now coast past <i>Fast 5</i>'s total with ease.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Hangover 3</i>'s weekend may look big, but "fail" is the only word to describe it.<i> Hangover 3</i>'s five day total is $63m, but <i>Hangover 2</i> opened to $135m on the same weekend two years ago. Given that movies drop big the next weekend and <i>Hangover 3</i>'s total is so far off from <i>2</i>, <i>Hangover 3</i> will certainly finish <u>below</u> <i>Furious 6</i>'s 4-day total. That's one Hangover that WB might not want to wake up from. The movie has also been ravaged by critics, 21% and 4/10 on RT, mocked by audiences, and likely will be neglected in the coming weeks - at least until it hits Redbox. Many factors could contribute to<i> Hangover 3</i>'s collapse - more of the same, lukewarm reception of <i>Part 2</i>, the change on emphasis from comedy to action, poor reviews, competition (doesn't help that<i> F6</i> got 72% on RT and an A from audiences), fatigue, and the blatant killing of animals. PETA will be on WB's ass soon enough.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Epic</i>, being the first kids movie since March, scored well and should play well with families with no major competition for 4 weeks when <i>Monsters University</i> opens and with kids now getting out of school.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
After a "disappointing" opening last week, <i>Star Trek Into Darkness</i> rebounded this weekend, even with the stiff competition. <i>Darkness</i> is now back on track for an over $200m finish and Paramount's losses should be softened. Though, they'll still have losses.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Iron Man 3</i> is still going strong after 4 weeks and its total now stands at $372m. <i>IM3</i> will soon finish over $400m and it could be the only 2013 film to do so, though <i>Catching Fire</i> still has a shot, but regardless, <i>Iron Man 3</i> will likely stay the highest grossing movie of the year and the highest grossing movie until <i>Avengers 2</i> in 2015, but with box office, anything can happen. <i>Gatsby</i> sits at $117m and its run is still doing better than what most expected.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
May 2013 has already set a record for highest grossing May of all time and the rest of the summer looks huge as a whole. <i>Man of Steel, Despicable Me 2, Monsters U, World War Z, White House Down, Elysium, Pacific Rim, Lone Ranger, The Purge, The Heat, Grown Ups 2, 2 Guns, Smurfs 2</i>, <i>After Earth</i>, <i>This Is The End, Wolverine</i>, yeah the list just keeps going. 2013 is closing the gap with 2012 and this Summer likely will land as the top grossing and one of the most attended of all time. No need to do drugs because these movies will provide one of the best highs you'll experience. Get to your theater and prepare to melt in your seat!</div>
Jayson Blankenshiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630207805831892920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5703780399854369455.post-78634031503734123842013-05-25T14:29:00.001-04:002013-12-10T02:32:05.980-05:00'Furious 6' Shifts Into High Gear<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CavW2z_5LCM/UaEA5QjS-8I/AAAAAAAAAXM/oRvsfCcYCLw/s1600/fast+and+furious.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CavW2z_5LCM/UaEA5QjS-8I/AAAAAAAAAXM/oRvsfCcYCLw/s200/fast+and+furious.jpg" width="126" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span id="goog_2065956413"></span><span id="goog_2065956414"></span> Warning. <i>Fast and Furious 6</i> is so mind-blowing, you need 8 brains to process it. You won't be able to concentrate after and you'll try to comprehend what you just saw, but your mind will be so scrambled, that will be impossible for a few hours. <i>Fast and Furious 6</i>, or <i>Furious 6</i> as it is in the movie, defies logic, defies gravity, defies all scientific and road laws, but who cares? Its <i>Fast and Furious</i>, and that's what they do best, and they sure did it well. From the first scene, <i>Furious 6 </i>kicks it into high gear, and they don't let up.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Furious 6</i> follows the gang as they're living their laid back lives across the world. Hobbs aka "Samoan Thor"(Dwayne Johnson) is chasing a racing crew lead by Owen Shaw (Luke Evans) through Europe who hijacks military equipment to build a tech bomb to sell to billionaires. Once Hobbs finds out the second-in-command is Letty Ortiz (Michelle Rodriguez), who is Dom Torretto's (Vin Diesel) supposedly dead girlfriend, he goes looking for Dom. Hobbs finds Dom and tells him that he needs Dom and his team to help him and the DSS find the crew and bring them down, before they cause global disaster. In return, they will get closer to Letty, and receive pardons, though they practically care more about the former.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The rest of the movie is Dom's team, including Brian (Paul Walker), Roman (Tyrese Gibson), Tej (Chris "Ludacris" Bridges), Giselle (Gal Gadot), and Han (Sung Kang) chasing Shaw's team through Europe before they take off with a computer chip to complete their bomb to sell. Mia (Jordana Brewster) is still in the mix, but she plays a different role since her and Brian now have a kid.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What are sequels supposed to do? Bring something new, but keep familiar with the old, without bringing more of the same. <i>Furious 6</i> achieves that. After <i>Fast Five</i>, it was wondered how <i>Furious 6 </i>could ever top it. Now, after seeing <i>Furious 6</i>, I have no idea how <i>Fast 7</i> will top that. No idea. <i>Furious 6</i> felt like an obvious sequel to <i>Fast Five</i>, but with stakes, action, urgency, and relationships all raised. A good thing about <i>Furious 6</i> is even if you haven't seen <i>Fast 1-5</i>, you don't have a tough time understanding the characters, though watching at least <i>Fast Five</i> is good idea.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When it comes to action movies, I like crystal clear action, no shaky cam, and great pacing. Justin Lin, the director, did an excellent job setting up the action scenes and switching between characters. With so many characters, its easy to get lost and easily forget what they're all supposed to be doing, but with the smooth transitions and clear path, <i>Furious 6</i> succeeds. The biggest theme in<i> Furious 6</i> is "family". Dom's team is one big extended family and you see that. The chemistry between the characters was just as good as <i>Avengers</i> from last year. Dom and Brian, Roman and Tej, Roman and everyone, Dom and Shaw, Letty and Riley (Gina Carano), Letty and Dom, Owen and Letty, Dom and Hobbs, the chemistry is amazing. Having a movie with a million characters can easily bring it down, but <i>Furious 6</i> did a great job at keeping it integral.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Like every movie, they are a couple problems. The biggest one is that Letty's plot is very predictable. Shaw's team was also underdeveloped and not given much freedom to do things outside of Shaw's orders of drive and shoot. There was little improvising between them, unlike Dom's team. The plot in whole wasn't predictable, but individual scenes were. Hobbs also delivered some cheesy lines that were more miss than hit. Shaw, though he was a villain, felt just like another player on his team. Other than him being the leader, there wasn't much separating him from his teammates and he lacked menace and instead does most of his dirty work through a cell phone. Though to be fair, that is a big problem with most villains outside of superhero movies, and even they have issues.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
My theater went wild during <i>Furious 6</i> and it was a great experience. This is a movie you just have to see with a huge crowd to get full benefit. Believe it or not, at my showing their was 4 year olds in front of me, 7 year olds behind, all major races (no pun intended), teenagers, senior citizens - my theater room was one big multi-cultural melting pot. I extremely recommend <i>Furious 6</i>. It is a movie where you have to suspend belief, but hey you had to do that with <i>Avengers</i>, <i>The Dark Knight Rises</i>, and <i>Skyfall</i> too. Solid A and automatically one of my favorites ever, and my favorite in the <i>Fast</i> series. I knew I would enjoy <i>Furious 6</i>, but I wasn't expecting as much intense action, witty banter, and strong central characters as their was. Catch <i>Furious 6</i> in theaters NOW or miss out!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
Jayson Blankenshiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630207805831892920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5703780399854369455.post-83339421017123285882013-05-07T16:03:00.000-04:002013-11-20T12:07:27.172-05:00'Iron Man 3' Lifts To The 2nd Biggest Opening Ever<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EmbY3pKCVxw/UYlYaAcNqTI/AAAAAAAAAWc/Wk_dy5tkF0k/s1600/im33.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EmbY3pKCVxw/UYlYaAcNqTI/AAAAAAAAAWc/Wk_dy5tkF0k/s200/im33.jpg" width="135" /></a> <i> Iron Man 3</i>, starring Robert Downey Jr, flew into North American theaters last weekend, ranking #2 <u>all time</u>, behind another Iron Man vehicle - <i>Avengers</i>. It is a given now that <i>Iron Man 3</i> will pass $1 billion dollars worldwide given its $680 million total in one week. <i>IM3</i> is also set for over $400M domestic and as I predict a decrease for the <i>Hunger Games</i> sequel, <i>Catching Fire</i>, <i>Iron Man 3</i> is set for #1 of 2013, the fourth #1 for a Marvel character in 11 years.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
$174.1 million. That's a lot of millions, right? Right, and that's how many millions <i>Iron Man 3</i> pulled in last weekend. Thanks to RDJ, the Disney/Marvel production and marketing machine, and well received previous installments, Iron Man is a certified A-list hero, arguably the #2 most popular around the world right now after Batman.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Iron Man 3</i> was a massive upgrade from the lazy <i>Iron Man 2 </i>that featured less action that a shopping trip to Marshall's. Shane Black, a known action director, helmed <i>Iron Man 3</i> and he surely left his mark. <i>Iron Man 3</i> had its tense and dark moments, but at times it borderlines as a comedy. Robert Downey Jr's quick whit rubbed off on everyone around him. Maya who the scientist in the opening scene, Happy Hogan who Tony's bodyguard, Harley who is a kid from Tennessee, and even the henchmen. When the action is not happening in act two, it's basically a boxing match between Tony and Harley on who has the best witty banter. A key thing about<i> Iron Man 3</i> is all the characters play significant roles. Many blockbusters fail at utilizing all the characters given, but every character is integral to Tony's story and journey and the chemistry is clear. Tony and Pepper are more emotionally connected than ever and they share one of the strongest relationships on screen in a while.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There wasn't much I found necessarily wrong with <i>Iron Man 3</i>, but I wasn't blown away. There were some plot elements in the movie that were left unexplained, but they're not big enough where they take away from the movie. I'm not a whiner about plot holes anyway. The climax, though it was huge, also had a few small issues. The <u>major</u> twist didn't bother me since I don't read comics, but I can completely understand why die hard fanboys would be upset. They were so upset that "Iron Man 3 sucks" was trending on Twitter by Friday morning, but that all changed once Friday night came around and "awesome" was most popular adjective used to describe the movie.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
My favorite thing about <i>Iron Man 3</i> was the Mark 42 armor. That armor provided great quick action and even comedy. From the underwater scene to the Air Force One rescue (which in my opinion is the best action sequence in the movie) to the "journey across America", the armor was like none we've seen in the previous<i> Iron Man</i> movies. Kudos for the originality on that. Most of the action sequences were also clean and swift. I'm not a fan of shaky cam, quick ADHD cuts, and overzealous in and out zooms. Having Tony out of the suit and showing his strengths and weaknesses without it was also a plus. When you go to a superhero movie, you want to see the hero with his cape for as much of the movie as possible, but Tony out of it lead for great development. <i>Dark Knight Rises</i> and<i> Spider Man 2</i> did the same to progress their characters.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Overall I give <i>Iron Man 3</i> a 4 out 5. You may have seen the story before, but it provides the type of summer movie fun that you crave, while still keeping strong characters, great acting, and clear action. Setting records in most of the countries it was released in, <i>Iron Man 3</i> is a true worldwide phenomenon. RDJ's Marvel contract has expired, but its <u>strongly</u> expected that he'll return for <i>Avengers 2</i> as Iron Man is Marvel's mascot and one of the main reason for the success of <i>Avengers</i>. <i>Iron Man 3</i> doesn't rise to the bar that was set by its first movie in 2008, and its a little clunky and questioned at times, but still well directed, acted, and dialogue written, <i>Iron Man 3</i> proves you can have a "Hulk Smash" at the BO, without the Hulk.</div>
Jayson Blankenshiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630207805831892920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5703780399854369455.post-34315124883486233612013-04-26T14:39:00.002-04:002013-11-20T12:13:07.164-05:00How Much Money Can 'Iron Man' Lift?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tO1wrlOIH7E/UXrD3M-VfMI/AAAAAAAAAWE/iaVqzYUVYAw/s1600/im3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tO1wrlOIH7E/UXrD3M-VfMI/AAAAAAAAAWE/iaVqzYUVYAw/s200/im3.jpg" width="136" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i> Iron Man 3</i>, the new movie from...does this really need an introduction? Okay, I'll give it one. Starring <u>the</u> Robert Downey Jr, Gweneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Ben Kingsley, Guy Pierce, Rebecca Hall, and John Favreau, it is the latest installment in the <i>Iron Man</i> franchise, this time directed by action director Shane Black, produced by Marvel, and distributed by Walt Disney Pictures. <i>Iron Man 3</i> takes places after <i>The Avengers</i> and it's the first film in Marvel's 'Phase 2'.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
America will finally get the film in 7 days, May 3rd, but most other countries already have their hands - or eyes - on it. <i>Iron Man 3</i> opened April 24, 25, and today the 26th in most countries, including big boy territories - the UK, Australia, France, South Korea, Japan, Mexico, Brazil, and the Philippines. China, Hollywood's new favorite vacation spot, gets the movie May 3rd. It's hard to believe, but America gets the movie 2nd to last - May 3rd. China's ahead in time zones, they beat us.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So whats the big deal? "Yay, Iron Man is out in places I'll never go. Why are you telling me?" I'm telling you because <i>Iron Man 3</i> is doing something big and somewhat unexpected. <i>Iron Man 3</i> in many countries has opened <u>bigger</u> than the <u>big</u> <i>Avengers</i> in its first few days. Do you remember how massive<i> Avengers</i> was? So massive, it would put a dent in Mount Everest if you sat <i>Avengers</i> on top of it. So massive, NASA gives it a planetary certification. It was that massive - the biggest movie since '09. Yeah, only three years, but that was the biggest movie since '97, so its a big deal. Wow, I've said "big" a lot.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Does this mean <i>Iron Man 3</i> will outgross<i> Avengers'</i> $1.5 billion worldwide? #3 all time? Likely not, but it does mean <i>Iron Man</i> is about to light up the box office. Front yard Christmas lights style.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the Philippines and Taiwan, <i>Iron Man 3</i> scored the biggest opening day of <u>all time</u> - picture that in a Kayne West VMA voice - "okay other blockbusters, I'ma let y'all finish, but <i>Iron Man 3</i> had the biggest opening of all time...all time" *drops mic and walks away*. It's total already stands at $36.5 million - in 2 days. In the UK, it opened behind Avengers, but ahead in Hong Kong and Indonesia. It opened 3rd all time in South Korea and 2nd all time in Argentina.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Iron Man 3'</i>s impressive WW debut bodes well for America. <i>IM3</i> has little chance of outdoing <i>Avengers</i> record $207M, but a debut between $150-$180M looks in store, which could place it even 2nd all time if it makes over $169.2M. The marketing for <i>IM3</i> has been stellar and RDJ made a world tour, promoting the movie around the world. There was worry that now that Iron Man is flying solo (pun not intended), that some people would lose interest (spoiler alert - no Hulk smash in <i>Iron Man 3</i>). There was also worry that the lazy movie that talked us to death, aka <i>Iron Man 2</i>, would impact this one, as not-as-well received sequels tend to do to their threequels, but it looks like <i>Iron Man 3</i> is having no problem.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thanks the the marketing, stellar reviews - 92% on RT as of this post, the "<i>Avengers</i> effect", the star power of RDJ, heavy action, great performances (Ben Kinglesy Oscar 2014? Hmm...), and Iron Man being catapulted to at least the worlds 2nd favorite hero (behind Batman), if not the first,<i> Iron Man 3</i> is poised to smash the BO. Hulk smash. Minus the Hulk. In America, <i>Catching Fire</i> will give it a run for its money, but <i>IM3</i> is still my favorite to win the year. Come back next week when I reveal just how <u>big</u> <i>IM3</i> did do and give a spoiler free review. Catch Iron Man and his 30-something suits now or next week, depending on your locale!</div>
Jayson Blankenshiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630207805831892920noreply@blogger.com1