SPEARE'S TIPS: THE FILMS OF 2/6: Push, He's Just Not That Into You, Pink Panther 2, Coraline

I think the argument that the title matters that much is a little arbitrary.

Well when people go to see a movie, they need to know the title. And it needs to a good title.

Buscemi wrote:Well when people go to see a movie, they need to know the title. And it needs to a good title.

Hancock made more than $200m last year, and we all know what we thought of that title.

Buscemi wrote:Well when people go to see a movie, they need to know the title. And it needs to a good title.

Debatable.

Although it's not that hard, 3 out of 4 people that came to Talladega Nights could not pronounce it, I swear. They just wanted to see "that Will Ferrell movie about racing." Some people that came to 'Eight Below' just went ahead and called it "Snow Dogs" because it was basically the same thing. We got people saying 'Underwaterworld' when the 2nd Underworld movie came out. All kinds of mispronunciations. And stupidity aside (which I grant is a cause of many instances like that), more often than you'd think, people come in and go (this happened especially over Christmas) "what's that Tom Cruise (/Clint Eastwood / Will Smith / most any star) movie? Yeah, I want to see that one." They don't care what it's called, they just saw the commercials and thought it looked good/interesting/funny/insert other adjective here.

But the way that you explain how get tickets, how will anyone pay to see the movie? There are no names in it and a four-lettered word that isn't fuck is pretty hard for the average person to remember.

Buscemi wrote:But the way that you explain how get tickets, how will anyone pay to see the movie? There are no names in it and a four-lettered word that isn't fuck is pretty hard for the average person to remember.

Man, you have a low opinion of the movie going public....

Yeah, I've been like that since Date Movie became a hit.

Buscemi wrote:Yeah, I've been like that since Date Movie became a hit.

$19 million opening and $48 million total take... yeah, I suppose you could loosely called that a "hit"...

But to take the handoff from Mr. I, I think the simpler a title is, the more likely people ARE to remember it. Yes, it's true that longer titles with ten words, including two digits and three colons, tell more about the story itself, but I don't think it really affects ticket sales. I don't know how many people show up at theaters with no clear idea of what they want to see (wanna help me out there, Mr. I?), but like he said, if people can't remember the actual name of the film (which is probably outside the theater printed on a nice big poster OR shown above the ticket counter in big electronic letters), they'll find a way to describe the movie they want to see. It would take a serious moron to buy a ticket, go into a theater, wait for the movie to start, watch a few minutes of it, and then smack himself in the forehead and go, "Wait a minute! This isn't the film I wanted to see!"

Granted, that actually DID happen to me once, kind of... I paid for a movie that started at 1:30, and I ended up walking into a different room that was showing the same movie at 2:30. It took twenty minutes of complete solitude before I realized something was amiss...

Maybe one thing that could go in Push's favour regarding its title is that it could get confused for the movie which has just won the grand prize at Sundance....

That won't help it. Half of those Sundance winners flop at the box office anyway (a good example being 2007's Grace Is Gone, a major flop despite having John Cusack in the lead).

Didn't Jumper make 80 million dollars??? You think Push will struggle to make 40% of that? And your reasons are: because the cast is bad (because Hayden Christianson and Rachel Bilson scream talent) and because it has a bad title? How the hell does this make any sense??? Just admit you hate all effects driven movies and have a prejudice against them because people happen to like escapist movies that can't happen in real life and will go see it. Clearly this pisses you off, as you think every movie should be about a "robot who is more human than most humans" falling in love. Not every movie has to capture your emotions. Not every movie has to mean something. Sometimes, people just like to go watch other people move shit with their minds and blow stuff up.

I don't hate all effects-driven movies. I liked The Matrix, the Star Wars movies (even Clone Wars), most of the Star Trek movies, hell I like a lot of effects-driven movies. It's just that a lot of them today don't seem very realistic and the stories aren't there.

Meanwhile, Jumper was a hit mainly because it had the major backing of a studio, a bigger budget and a name villain (Samuel L. "Bad Motherfucker" Jackson). Push has none of that. Hell, Push doesn't even have the cameo by a familiar forty-something but still very hot Academy Award nominee at the end.

Also, Hayden Christensen is more well known than Chris Evans. But that means very little.

Buscemi wrote:I don't hate all effects-driven movies. I liked The Matrix, the Star Wars movies (even Clone Wars), most of the Star Trek movies, hell I like a lot of effects-driven movies. It's just that a lot of them today don't seem very realistic and the stories aren't there.

Meanwhile, Jumper was a hit mainly because it had the major backing of a studio, a bigger budget and a name villain (Samuel L. "Bad Motherfucker" Jackson). Push has none of that. Hell, Push doesn't even have the cameo by a familiar forty-something but still very hot Academy Award nominee at the end.

Also, Hayden Christensen is more well known than Chris Evans. But that means very little.

In what way is a movie like The Matrix realistic? I can't remember the last time I saw someone dodge bullets in slo-mo. Movies don't have to be realistic to be successful.

And having the BMF as a villain doesn't really help either. Just ask Frank Miller.

I was saying that I do like things that don't need to be realistic. Hence, The Matrix. But not the sequels. They were awful.

And Samuel L. Jackson can't deliver when you won't let him curse (apparently, Frank Miller is a Sunday School teacher) and then you force him to wear a Nazi uniform.

And no, his comment about toilets being funny didn't help things.

But Morgenstern was hot. She was the only remotely interesting character. Scarlett Johansson played herself, Eva Mendes wasn't a convincing Arab, the Helen character wasn't well-developed and Plaster Of Paris was a thankless cameo.

Buscemi wrote:
And Samuel L. Jackson can't deliver when you won't let him curse (apparently, Frank Miller is a Sunday School teacher) and then you force him to wear a Nazi uniform.

He cant even deliver then, snakes on a plane anyone?

The Nazi uniform and lack of cursing is Uncle Sam's kryponite. He is powerless when he can't be Mr. Cool.

Facebook Flixster Charts (1/29/2009):

This may not be the greatest tracking numbers but it seems to be good with tracking teen audiences.

He's Just Not That Into You: 84% Want To See
Coraline: 78% Want To See
Pink Panther 2: 74% Want To See
Push: 34% Want To See

Push has the most votes but that's probably because Summit has seemed to pay for advertising on Facebook. Also, the star ratings are nothing to write home about (2.5 out of 5).

Well, According to BOM, the theater counts for next week look like this:

He's Just Not That Into You - 3000+
Pink Panther 2 - 3000+
Push - 2200
Coraline - 2100
Fanboys - 40

Now, I imagine this numbers will go up slightly next week, meaning Push will end up around 2400-2500 theaters, which means that $27 million now seems unlikely. I am therefore revising my weekend predictions from Page 1:

1. He's Just Not That Into You - $22 million
2. Pink Panther 2 - $18 million
3. Push - $17 million
4. Taken - $13 million
5. Coraline - $11 million

Which means, Push is now looking like a bad pick for $19/$19, He's Just Not That Into You is looking quite good for $12/$11, and Pink Panther 2 is still questionable for $15/$14. Coraline for $11/$9 seems overpriced. And as for Fanboys, even for $3/$3, will it have enough juice to crack the PTA Top 5? I haven't seen any buzz or advertisement for this film AT ALL.

Just for the record, I've been calling He's Just Not That Into You to win all along.

I can see that Pink Panther 2 count being higher by Thursday. Higher as in 3,300 theatres.

Chocolate is down for 6 theatres now according to the-numbers.com. I think Push is very overpriced if its only to be released on 2200 screens, and its a shame Coraline is only opening on 2100. Not That Into You is looking good, glad I have it on my slates.

The weekend win could go either way. 'Just not that into you,' has a very good chance but I can't help but think that boyfriends, if given the choice of a date movie, would likely prefer Pink Panther 2. I think it has broader appeal although, to be honest, nothing next weekend looks really all that appealing. Being offered the chance to see either of them is like asking someone if they'd prefer to be boiled in oil or eaten by ants.

silversurfer19 wrote:Chocolate is down for 6 theatres now according to the-numbers.com. I think Push is very overpriced if its only to be released on 2200 screens, and its a shame Coraline is only opening on 2100. Not That Into You is looking good, glad I have it on my slates.

Well, shit. After I've already told everyone it had been pulled. I guess anyone who hasn't replaced it yet can keep it. Can anyone tell me how much I was charging for it in the January leagues?

You were charging $2 for it.

i think Push will win the weekend. I am proably the only idiot on this site that dug Jumper. So i am excited to see Push because it looks better than Jumper. I think He's Just No That Into You will fare decently well also. I think Coaraline will Tank and im unsure about Pink Panther 2's fate. I see the Feb 6 weekend shaping up like this.

1. Push 25 Mill
2. He's Just Not That Into You 20 Mill
3.Pink Panther 2 18 Mill
4.Taken 13 Mill
5.Coaraline 9.5 Mill