WEEKEND Box-Office Projections 5/7: MI3 Disappointment

[AndyDursin]

If this holds up SCARY MOVIE 4 will have a bigger opening day than MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 3. Maybe the Tom Cruise overexposure factor has finally left the station?

And not that $50+ million is a bad weekend, but it's not up to the level of hype this movie has had going...it's on pace to track UNDER Mission Impossible 2, which opened 6 years ago!

1. MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 3 - MI3 PARAMOUNT 4,054 17,019,000 4,198 n/a 17,019,000
2. RV SONY 3,651 2,964,000 812 n/a 22,882,000
3. AMERICAN HAUNTING, AN FREESTYLE 1,667 2,025,000 1,215 n/a 2,025,000
4. STICK IT BUENA VISTA 2,044 1,883,000 921 n/a 14,318,000
5. UNITED 93 UNIVERSAL 1,819 1,499,000 824 n/a 16,322,000
6. SILENT HILL SONY 2,556 1,152,000 451 n/a 38,040,000
7. SCARY MOVIE 4 WEINSTEIN CO. 2,537 998,000 393 n/a 80,912,875
8. HOOT NEW LINE 3,018 963,000 319 n/a 963,000
9. AKEELAH AND THE BEE LIONS GATE 2,195 900,000 410 n/a 8,167,000
10. ICE AGE 2: THE MELTDOWN 20TH CENTURY FOX 2,426 896,000 369 n/a 180,164,000

[Carlson2005]

I think a huge part of it isn't so much Cruise's antics as the fact that MI2 was one of the worst Summer action movies ever made. It's certainly the thing that's keeping me from seeing it (along with what will probably be another ridiculously over-mannered performance from Philip Seymour Hoffman). The series seems to be no more than a vanity project for Cruise, and the prospect of another two-hour slo-mo gairspray commercial masquerading as a thriller isn't exactly enticing.

[AndyDursin]

I do think people are sick of Cruise. The only person who could possibly rival him is Clooney, but at least with his obnoxious political ramblings (that nobody outside of himself could possibly care about) you can turn him off. Cruise seems to be on EVERY channel by comparison! In fact I can't recall another star ever, in my lifetime, continually getting the sorts of attention even on "reputable" news programs as Cruise.

I'll grant you that there may not have been a lot of anticipation about MI3, but I do think it goes beyond this film (War of the Worlds didn't light it up as much as they anticipated, either)...granted $48 mil isn't awful, but given the parameters of summer blockbusters and expectations it's definitely out of whack (the guy at Boxofficeguru claimed it would make $74 million! Every pre-weekend estimate had it running in the $60-$70 million range)...I remember VAN HELSING's $51 million debut was widely derided as being a letdown, which makes this figure a huge disappointment...especially with the budget targeted at $150+ million and the movie on over 4000 screens. No matter how you slice it this is a weak opening for a film of this sort.

I'll be checking it out this week (have a free voucher from the MI Special Edition DVD) but anyone who has seen it, feel free to pass some thoughts on.

# Title May 5 - 7 Apr 28 - 30 % Chg. Theaters Weeks AVG Cumulative Distributor

1 Mission: Impossible III $ 48,025,000 4,054 1 $ 11,846 $ 48,025,000 Paramount
2 RV 11,100,000 16,414,767 -32.4 3,651 2 3,040 31,006,000 Sony
3 An American Haunting 6,380,000 1,667 1 3,827 6,380,000 Freestyle
4 Stick It 5,522,000 10,803,610 -48.9 2,044 2 2,702 17,977,000 Buena Vista
5 United 93 5,211,000 11,478,360 -54.6 1,819 2 2,865 20,055,000 Universal
6 Ice Age: The Meltdown 4,000,000 7,204,960 -44.5 2,426 6 1,649 183,274,000 Fox
7 Silent Hill 3,900,000 9,336,399 -58.2 2,556 3 1,526 40,805,000 Sony
8 Scary Movie 4 3,763,000 7,805,568 -51.8 2,537 4 1,483 83,718,000 Weinstein Co.
9 Akeelah and the Bee 3,400,000 6,011,585 -43.4 2,195 2 1,549 10,663,000 Lionsgate
10 Hoot 3,400,000 3,018 1 1,127 3,400,000 New Line

[romanD]

yeah, part 2 sucked big time. what a bad movie...

so far only one of my friends liked mi3, but the rest told me to stay far far away!

well, I have to go on Tuesday, it's a date, so I couldnt say no...

looking forward to SILENT HILL a lot more, which pens here in a week... that holds onto its audience pretty good, doesn't it? considering the bad reviews and all that...

[AndyDursin]

yeah, part 2 sucked big time. what a bad movie...

so far only one of my friends liked mi3, but the rest told me to stay far far away!

well, I have to go on Tuesday, it's a date, so I couldnt say no...

looking forward to SILENT HILL a lot more, which pens here in a week... that holds onto its audience pretty good, doesn't it? considering the bad reviews and all that...

The one thing I've heard about SILENT HILL is that it's OUT THERE so to speak. Even the bad reviews said it's incredibly over the top and head-scratching, which means it's at least different...even if it's bad. I'd say its $40 million gross has been pretty healthy, along the lines of what the first RESIDENT EVIL movie did here (and that sequel did even better).

[romanD]

yeah, and I guess because of the visuals (which even the ones who hated it said were really impressive) is a reason to watch it in the theaters!

I also like Rhada Mitchell and am curious what Jeff Danna came up with...

[MarkB]

This is definitely below expectations. I do think that people have gotten sick of Cruise. I read an article recently that claimed the strange behavior in his personal life was turning off his female audience, and I've heard comments to that effect from the women I know. At least a couple have come right out and said that they refuse to see anything with him in it. (Actually, I started hearing those comments last summer when WAR OF THE WORLDS came out.)

Apparently men just want to see a good movie and could care less about the star's personal life.

Anyway, I did go see MI:3 Friday and enjoyed it. It wasn't too deep -- I've heard it described as a good two-hour TV episode, and I would have to agree with that. Abrams did a great job with the action sequences, and I liked the way he brought the "team" to the forefront.

However, if you asked me to explain the plot, I'd be at a loss. It doesn't matter, though, since it's really just an excuse for some exciting action with entertainingly drawn characters. Abrams himself seems to dismiss the plot as irrelevant with a couple of lines of dialogue near the end of the movie.

I'd rate it three stars out of four. A good way to start the summer, but not something I'm in a hurry to go back and see.

Mark

[AndyDursin]

Mark: so I ought to use my free voucher then. Will be going some night this week!

[Carlson2005]

I do think people are sick of Cruise. The only person who could possibly rival him is Clooney, but at least with his obnoxious political ramblings (that nobody outside of himself could possibly care about) you can turn him off.

Spoken like a true Fox News viewer, Andy! Opinions are only obnoxious when you disagree with them, and I figure the Clooney Looney-to-Fox Bollox ratio is pretty much slanted on Murdoch's side. And it's not as if he's demanding people base their lives around a moneygrabbing 'religion' based on flying saucers that, for some unknown reason, disparages it's members from visiting psychiatrists...!

The Scientology factor probably had a slight impact, but not that much. It's possible that his persona overexposure had something to do with it - take away the Scientology and you've still got an egomaniacal know-it-all control freak who gets on people's nerves (one reason his former publicists kept him on such a tight leash). But I still think that the deciding factor is just how incredibly bad the last film was and how much this looks like it follows the same route (whether it does or not, the sequels have been heavily sold as little more than vanity trips for Cruise). The first was okay, but it wasn't great enough to justify MI2, and certainly the fanbase of the original show have been completely alienated, so it's just down to the teen audience for whom Cruise s getting to be some old guy still trying to be hip.

On he plus side, this cost between $100-125m less than MI2, so it's not as if Paramount are facing a wipeout, and Cruise's films are always bolstered by the overseas taken (usually 70% or more of the total take), where they tend to have better legs than in the US. But I'm guessing that Paramount won't be confirming a new Star Trek movie this week after all.

Of course, it might just be down to Cruise looking like Mark Harmon on the posters...

Still, if you think this is a disappointment, wait till Da Vinci opens. After Poseidon, I have the feeling it's going to be the major underperformer of the Summer.

[AndyDursin]

Spoken like a true Fox News viewer, Andy! Opinions are only obnoxious when you disagree with them, and I figure the Clooney Looney-to-Fox Bollox ratio is pretty much slanted on Murdoch's side.

It's amusing how people on the left chastise Fox News after the "mainstream press" has a liberal bias for over 30 years in this country. Then Fox rolls around, the left-leaning press loses their footing, and NOW news coverage has suddenly -- oh my god!! -- become un-objective. Hilarious!

Anyway I don't want to talk politics for this very reason, so this discussion is terminated!

Still, if you think this is a disappointment, wait till Da Vinci opens. After Poseidon, I have the feeling it's going to be the major underperformer of the Summer.

Given expectations, how is it NOT a disappointment?

SIX years ago MI2 does $57.8 million

WAR OF THE WORLDS three-day opening weekend take was $64 million

I realize it's not a bomb (never said it was, either), but it is definitely UNDER EXPECTATIONS.

I agree on Da Vinci, though. Tom Hanks' hair is enough to scare off a lot of viewers!

[Carlson2005]

Well I suggest if you want to avoid politics, keep 'em out of your posts, Andy! C'mon, lead by example!

Considering how badly MI3 was tracking, although $12m lower than expectations, it's not as big a drop as some had been predicting, and particularly with the recent state of the marketplace in mind it's certainly done better than most Part IIIs to godawful Part IIs (Beverly Hills Cop 3 anyone?). And Cruise's films have had a tendency in the past to always open below expectations - WOTW was supposed to be a $100m+ opener, Minority Report was expected to top $50m, The Last Samurai to do $38m - yet go on to do good-very good at the box-office.

It'll all depend on what it does in the next few days, but with no serious competition until Da Vinci (Poseidon, with its 99-minute runtime is giving off a very strong Avengers vibe, especially since critics have only been shown the first 20 minutes) it could still hold up. And, compared to the inexplicable $250m they blew on MI2 (despite their claims it cost only half that), with Cruise taking a much lower backend this time when the new head of Paramount threatened to cancel the picture, this seems a fairly safe investment.

[Eric W.]

I think all of these movies are going to underperform for the same reasons that have been in play:

1.) Movie tickets are rip offs. The peripheral costs are arguably an even bigger rip off. (Food, drinks, parking.)

2.) Rude people in pubic.

Fact of life but when you combine this with number one and you have a bunch of cellphones and brats going off during the movie...it doesn't sit well.

3.) DVD's are just damned cheap.

Let's see: I can blow $8 on a ticket to see a movie one time or I can spend anywhere from that much up to about $20 to get a LOADED DVD of that movie that I can own forever and watch a million times in my home theater, at my leisure.

Even people without home theaters, by and large, and starting to feel more this way. Home theaters, in general, are on the way up. And I don't mean everyone is going out and spending 5 to 6 figures to get it done, either.

I can easily wait the 3 months for the movie to leave the theater and make it to DVD. Once Blu-Ray settles out, and I can watch HD discs in my home? Even more so. Forget about it. I'll never go back to the theater at that point for sure.



4.) The piracy factor. It's there. It's unavoidable. It matters.

[Carlson2005]

Well, the Sunday drop was quite substantial While the first film dropped 6% on sunday and MI2 10%, not only did MI3 take less than the last one, but it dropped a whopping 31% on the sunday. Considering the fact that the first two opened on wednesdays, that doesn't bode well for the word-of-mouth on the picture, especially since it came in more than $10m less than MI2's 3-day weekend gross.

I think disillusionment with the whole cinema experience is definitely setting in - and not just because of prices. Not exactly MI3 related, but a horror story when I went to see Munich last Wednesday at a UK cinema which explains why some people mioght be put off shelling out for the 'theater experience':

It gets more and more like Russian Roulette every time, with this disaster just another chapter in an increasingly long saga of the kind of substandard service you usually only get at certain AMCs.

I wanted to catch Munich again on the big screen before it disappeared. the show started at 7.00. I'm there at 6:40. Twelve people in line in front of me, but they're mostly couples which should make it quicker. There's only one person selling tickets, but it's twenty minutes so there shouldn't be a problem.

Wrong. At 7.00 there are still four people in front of me. Because of some mobile phone promotion, to get a buy one-get one free offer on tickets, people have to phone their network, get a text message, pass the message onto the ticketseller who then phones up the network to confirm. And all of these people are paying by credit card, so with confirmation, each transaction is taking six minutes. Apparently this happens every Wednesday, so you'd think they'd be prepared, or at least open another window. Nope.

But wait! They have opened another window on the other side of the lobby. So I go over there, first in queue, only to find out that they have to wait until they get a call back from that mobile network before they can open the box-office (the fact that I'm paying cash, have exact change, don't want to use the offer and the damn film is starting in a minute cuts no ice.) Another ten minutes later, finally I get sold a ticket. Before handing over my cash I ask if the film has started yet, and am assured no, it's just ads and trailers. I even ask twice so there's no misunderstanding.

Naturally, when I go in, it turns out there were no ads or trailers to delay the start, the massacre's over and Eric Bana's already chatting with that cuddly Golda Meir caricature. I get a refund on the ticket and stay to watch the rest of the film, already in a bad mood.

Thankfully, for most of the film there aren't any of the usual problems you get in multiplexes (the film being out of focus or the racking being wrong because the operator and ushers haven't checked the film). Well, until the end. Amazingly, before the final caption appears, the anamorphic lens is whipped off and Geoffrey Rush and Eric Bana suddenly get anorexic. The house lights go up. The soundtrack is cut off and replaced by S Club 7 singing Reach For the Stars. And slide ads for local curry houses, minicab firms and used car dealerships are projected over the end credits.

The worst thing about all this, is that of all the movie theaters in my neighborhood, this one has the highest standards of presentation (well, at least until the local arthouse reopens).

[DavidBanner]

I saw Mission Impossible 3 last Thursday night at a late show. (one of those "what the heck" moments, right?)

It's a fun movie. I don't think it's an instant classic, but I wasn't expecting one either. The analysis that it is a big TV episode is right on the money. The movie plays like a really big TV pilot for a show you'd probably want to watch every week if they could maintain this level of intensity. And they certainly let you see the locations they were visiting - really good footage of China and Italy (at least I think they were in Italy) are fun throwbacks to the days of the good James Bond movies. (Things like Spy Who Loved Me come to mind, as far as travelling goes)

I have been telling people for the past two weeks to wait until this opened before predicting that Abrams would immediately become the next big blockbuster director. (I have my own doubts about a Star Trek movie happening anytime soon. What was announced is effectively a development deal - there's no reason it will or should happen before 2010) I personally feel Abrams should take this time to rededicate himself to LOST and any other TV shows of his that may wind up on the air this fall. I had hoped he would personally direct the finale of LOST for this season, but he could make up for this by getting personally involved in the writing arc for Season 3 and directing their premiere. He's a great find for television, and there's nothing wrong with that - it's a needed skill. And it doesn't preclude him from directing other movies in the future.

As far as the Mission Impossible movies go, this one played the closest to the style of the original series. All the publicity fluff talk about really examining Cruise's character was of course irrelevant. We still don't know anything about him by the end of the film apart from what happens to him in it. On the other hand, the discussions about emphasizing the "team" element from the TV show were reflected pretty well in the final product - although there were places where I really couldn't see why the whole team would get involved. But if you don't worry about the whys of the plot, it's just fun getting from one set piece to another, which is clearly what Abrams was doing here.

Was it the best of the three films? Honestly, I think the first one still holds that title, although none of them are genre classics. The first one at least had the element of surprise in its opening reels, and had Brian DePalma on a good day. I remember the first one being roundly criticized for being too confusing when it initially opened, but I found it pretty clear. I get the impression a lot of people here didn't like the second film, but I didn't mind that one either. There were a lot of fun action set pieces in there - say what you want, nobody can touch John Woo when it comes to staging massive multiplane action sequences. The second film had the weakest script, but like the third film, the script was clearly designed to just lead from one action setup to another. It should also be noted that the script was massively rewritten during filming on location in Australia. (They arrived in Australia without a completed script, which caused schedule and budget overruns, as well as leaving the film with a pretty disjointed feel to it) Personally, I think the second and third films are about equal - the third really doesn't have the same level of action that the second one had, but the third one mostly holds together better.

As far as Cruise himself, I honestly don't pay any attention to him offscreen. I don't know the man, and I've never worked with him. So while I agree that the public may be saying "Enough!" right now, it didn't affect my judgment to see the picture, or my opinion about it.

[romanD]

at our local cineplex they recently forgot to take SAW 2 out of the projector after the late night show and the next day at noon there were many kids with their parents there to watch BAMBI 2... well... I guess many of them couldn't sleep that day... lol...

but of course, that stuff at the UK multiplexes is quite ridiculous, especially with the prices in London... like 20 dollars for a movie???!! hello? who goes to the movies there??? especially when you can get DVDs there for 10 dollars...

here in Germany, the prices are still very reasonable.. Mondays and Tuesday and sometimes Thursdays you can go for 6 dollars... and on the weekend for 9... but I don't know anybody who goes on the weekends anyway...