Super-contest of 2009// Blockbusters of 2009

IPKI$$ and undeadmonkey, don't forget to add a total for these Top 10 movies... in billion USD... This will be used in case of a perfect tie (same movies, same order...) I hope it won't be the case, but just in case...

UDM, you're forgetting that one of those 8 R-rated movies to make more than $200mil., 300, was directed by the same guy doing Watchmen, and when you break it down they're much more similar than that. I thought 300 would break $100mil. if it was lucky, but the smart marketing made it appeal to a far larger audience than just the fanboys and I expect this to do about the same.

Here goes nothing:

1.Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
2.Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
3.Watchmen
4.X-Men Origins: Wolverine
5.Terminator Salvation
6.Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian
7.Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs
8.Up
9.Avatar
10.Star Trek
Total $2.175 billion

Watchmen's fate is still not decided... Judge Says Fox Owns Rights to a Warner Movie (source)

LOS ANGELES — In a surprise ruling, a federal judge in Los Angeles said he intended to grant 20th Century Fox’s claim that it owns a copyright interest in the “Watchmen,” a movie shot by Warner Brothers and Legendary Pictures and set for release in March.

I'm not sure how long to hold out on assembling my top 10. I have gotta know what is going on with Watchmen first, as that will surely crack the top 10 if released, but if it isn't then it is a wasted spot. The deadline is 1st February, right?

Yeah surfer, that's the deadline. Just started reading the book last night.

silversurfer19 wrote:I'm not sure how long to hold out on assembling my top 10. I have gotta know what is going on with Watchmen first, as that will surely crack the top 10 if released, but if it isn't then it is a wasted spot. The deadline is 1st February, right?

Haha I was just going to ask this same question! Thanks Surfer! (And Geezer!)

This could also be a 2009 hit ($100M +):

The Weinstein Company has announced that Quentin Tarantino's sixth movie Inglourious Basterds (the title is spelled as such by the studio and Tarantino), a WWII film starring Brad Pitt, Diane Kruger and Christoph Waltz, will be released on August 21, 2009.

source

hmm, i could see it performing pineapple express or tropic thunder-wise. Around $100M, but thats not enough for top ten.

I was hoping Inglourious Basterds would open in June but August is fine too, I guess.

Wow. Lots to catch up on here.

Okay, first off, let's give a nice, big Andy's Room 'thank you!' to our creative, dedicated and borderline obsessive-compulsive friend flipper, who has more than earned far-ranging notoriety throughout the (Alterna-)Fantaverse for not only laying claim to the ickiest sea-creature fetish since Troy McClure, but also for birthing, nurturing and fulfilling one of the most innovative and entertaining games EVER to emerge from the now-defunct Fantasy Moguls. You've done one helluva job thus far, delfin, and I know only too well the amount of thought, effort and diligence you've poured into this worthy endeavour. You are, by far, the very best thing that's happened to the Earth's second-most intelligent mammals since Bill Parcells, the U.S. prohibition on drive hunting and whatever emergency transport system allowed them to flee the planet ahead of the Vogon Constructor Fleet. I salute you.

I liked the rules you proposed (the "total" estimate, especially, was a nice touch) and in fact would have been in favor of a "redundant" selection method, whereby a slate's posting here would be safeguarded (against cheating) by an E-mail to you verifying a participant's ten selections; unfortunately, I missed the boat as far as voting your rules went, so I suppose I'll just shut the f@$% up now.

I'm fine with the DVDs, and in fact would be amenable to having all participants state their intended "donation" at the time of their posting of their 2009 slate. I think participating Fantaversians should be encouraged to be creative in their choice of DVD prizes, that is, make an effort to select non-mainstream titles, perhaps even discontinued or "rare" products, that might reflect the participating member's tastes, or / and fulfill one's desire to introduce others to off-the-beaten-path entertainments. But, that's just me. Suit yourselves.

One minor quibble: I think participants ought to be allowed to modify / refine / correct their slates, posted or not, at ANY time up until the actual deadline... One ought not be punished for being inadvisedly prompt in his / her selections. I'm thinking, specifically, of our friends Prime and Boussh, who bravely (and, perhaps, not entirely rationally) selected Watchmen as their #6 and #7 picks, respectively, not only sixty-odd days ahead of the contest's actual selection deadline, but also several weeks in advance of the nonsense I and others have described in some detail in another thread. Ditto Six, phantasmalape, Jackie Oh, M!L0, Shaan and Alyson (my aim is true!), who've also courageously tossed their hats into the ring. Now, I understand the need for holding rhetorical feet to the proverbial fire, as you outlined in Article 2 of the Super Contest 2009 Charter; once the entry deadline has passed, well, as my long-suffering spouse, Nicomi- erm, Missus Swedgin!, might say, tough taco shells... and, as you'll remember I held that same view last year, even after Trek got bumped to a much, much later stardate. But, as you say, fair is fair. Even real-world studios have a "lock-in" date for each release, after which they take real pains not to alter their titles' opening days, because of the massive costs that can be incurred by revising the schedule in either direction as prints are being manufactured, ad buys are being fulfilled and billboard and newspaper promotions are being published. But, right up until that date, juggling of one sort or another is not only permissible, it's practically unavoidable... hence, IMDbox Office Mojo's weekly (sometimes, even more frequent) listing of new and revised opening dates. My point is, I think it's terribly unfair, if somewhat well-deserved, for the more enthusiastic of our number to lose out on the opportunity to make use of the same publicly available information the rest of we far more cautious, reserved and risk-avoidant Fantaversians will have at our disposal when we finally, at long last, get around to commiting ourselves to ten titles. My response to Dubya, who reasonably queried, "Are we allowed to change movies before the deadline [my emphasis] if one gets moved?" would be: ABSOLUTELY. Like Banks said, no one wants to get Munson'ed again.

...And, not that anyone asked, but I tend to side with geez's outlook on '09: Half a dozen (perhaps more) earners in the $200-$350M range, as many as two dozen within easy striking distance of $100M or topping that figure, but no truly bank-breaking titles, and certainly nothing to challenge TDK or Titanic. My money's on five films to be the top earners of '09: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Star Trek, Terminator Salvation, Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince and Avatar, not necessarily in that order but, yeah, probably, actually. With the only one of these with a prayer of eclipsing $400M, in my not-so-humble opinion, being Transformers 2: Transform Harder. And, no, I don't think Watchmen will be in the Top 10, regardless of when it's released, though I'll save my actual list of 2009 selections for later in the month, being rather more deliberate, circumspect and candy-assed than certain of my compatriots here. [Grin]

All that aside, really looking forward to the 2nd Annual Super Contest, and, once again, thanks for your commitment to this uniquely challenging game, dolphin-boy. You put the 'ace' in cetacean. [Grin]


The Spy Who Splashed Me

Delfinasu is that Buck Henry-voiced dolphin from Mike Nichols' The Day Of The Dolphin. Let's hope we don't train him to kill government leaders.

Meanwhile, I honestly don't see any films hitting $400 million this year. It's just going to be another year of sequels and remakes and with no Dark Knight-esque titles coming up, it's looking like 2007 again (where many of the big films had negative reviews, big openings, middling word-of-mouth and big drops).

I especially see New Moon, Wolverine and Angels and Demons being disappointments. In New Moon's case, the shake-ups with directors, the studio rushing the film into production and the fact that they aren't increasing the budget or improving on the mistakes of the original could really hurt the film with its fanbase. Plus Sherlock Holmes opens the same day and that could potentially split audiences. I've already explained my reasons with Wolverine and Angels and Demons I think will flop because The Da Vinci Code seems to have tailed off plus the first one sucked.

Now let cool my mouth from the burn of hot sauce. Hot sauce is good.

OK, Swedgin, my Nico-friend! First of all, thank you for your appreciations! You're also the only one who subscribed to my idea with the DVD for the Top 3...
The reason I initially didn't allowed changes after being posted here, until the actual deadline is this:
all the players can be tempted/ inspired to do some changes after several ulterior players post their choices... It happened last year, it can happen this year too.
That's why I initially proposed for the elections to be emailed (to me and another person beside me to counter-sign) throughout a "txt" file attached, archived with a password using WinRAR - to eliminate/ reduce the risk if we simply post here the elections - moguls who'll enter later will be (almost sure) influenced by the choices already made.
Another risk is this: the majority of moguls (you all are moguls for me, just for being here) will wait for imdBOM latest NEW DATES & CHANGES and probably some of them will forget to actually post here their elections and we won't have more than 25 players (as last/ first edition).
I identified no more than 5 movies until now - Watchmen, Avatar, Princess and the Frog, New Moon and Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel - which can be delayed in 2010. But, again, I must repeat myself, who risks, can also WIN...
Watchmen is a particular case, but it has its chances to be finally released this year...

Bottom line, this is my opinion BUT it's a democracy, that's why you can decide (just vote) until next Sunday, if players should be allowed to change their slates until the actual deadline which by the way is February 1, 2009 - so less than 30 days...

Why I can't change the poll?
Can an admin help me to change the actual poll to:

players should be allowed to change their slates until the actual deadline?
Yes/ No
vote until next Sunday.

Thank you in advance!

If not, just post here your option. Thank you!

poll has been amended, and for my opinion, I think players should be allowed to make changes up until the deadline, and I doubt anybody really would change their list to match somebody elses, I mean, who really is better at this game than everyone else? We are all as good as each other and each one of us could pick the right selections.

Thank you SS for changing the poll. I didn't get it why this time I couldn't changed by myself.
As for changing our selections, let's wait for majority to vote...

I'm actually glad I wasn't allowed to change mine last year. If I was I'd have dropped Horton for High School Musical 3. Would have been a big mistake. But I do think it should be allowed. Especially with Watchmen being so screwed up.

I'm counting my luck stars as well Geezer, as I would have traded out Sex and the City for High School Musical 3. Now if only I saw freakin Marley and Me from January . . . .

[Chuckle] Boussh, you're rapidly becoming one of my very fave Fantaversians. Props.

I rather thought fin-boy was more like that bottlenose dolphin from The Life Aquatic. You know, the one Stevsie thought was overrated. [Grin]

Let's hope we don't train him to kill government leaders.

[Evil grin]


Point Mugu Blank

I especially see New Moon, Wolverine and Angels and Demons being disappointments. In New Moon's case, the shake-ups with directors, the studio rushing the film into production and the fact that they aren't increasing the budget or improving on the mistakes of the original could really hurt the film with its fanbase. Plus Sherlock Holmes opens the same day and that could potentially split audiences. I've already explained my reasons with Wolverine and Angels and Demons I think will flop because The Da Vinci Code seems to have tailed off plus the first one sucked.

Amen and me, too to EVERYTHING you said, there, plus, I wouldn't be at all surprised if New Moon was delayed to '10. I'll add a few more potential disappointments: Inkheart (though, I doubt it's expected to do much anyway, so perhaps "disappointment" is a little inexact), Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (ditto), Coraline, Pink Panther 2, Race to Witch Mountain, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, 2012, G-Force, G.I. Joe, Where the Wild Things Are (perhaps one of the biggest box-office bombs of ALL time), The Wolfman, Planet 51 and The Lovely Bones... Not to mention [siiigh], Pixar's Up. I know, dahlink. I know.

Now let cool my mouth from the burn of hot sauce. Hot sauce is good.

That's funny, the Swedgin! clan had homemade five-alarm chili tonight. It ain't worth eating until it removes the lining from your tongue.



In search of the legendary Jaguar shark

I think that The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3 could be a hit simply because of its release date. Absolutely nothing for its audience to it will be opening against it. Terminator Salvation will be tailing off, Drag Me To Hell will begin to drop, Up and The Proposal are for different audiences, Land Of The Lost will be like Speed Racer and Hangover and Nowhereland will be non-starters. Unless something crazy happens with the schedule, it should easily take Number 1 on opening weekend.

Meanwhile, I could see Race To Witch Mountain performing similar to The Game Plan. Dwayne Johnson is popular with the kids and since the film also has The Game Plan's director, you could expect a similar outcome. And the nostalgia factor will kick in once again (Race is a loose remake of Escape To Witch Mountain and Return From Witch Mountain).

And I definitely see Where The Wild Things Are flopping big time. Since Spike Jonze has final cut and Warner Bros. hates his cut, they'll most likely dump the film into a bad spot (the current date is October 16th) and write off the $75 million investment as a loss. But like other films before it (such as Labyrinth* and Willy Wonka and The Chocolate Factory), the film could survive on DVD and become a cult classic and a popular kiddie matinee or holiday movie on television.


*-Interesting piece of trivia: some elements of Where The Wild Things Are helped inspire Labyrinth.

Swedgin! wrote:
My money's on five films to be the top earners of '09: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Star Trek, Terminator Salvation, Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince and Avatar, not necessarily in that order but, yeah, probably, actually.

As much as you love speaking to your family in Klingon, I really don't think the nation will share your (quite frankly, worrying) palpitations for the new Star Trek movie.
Firstly, there will be a number, not a lot, but a number of fans who will regard the new film as more of a marketing ploy than a reboot. I mean, the trailer shows sex scenes and cars racing! This is not the Stark Trek of people sitting over odd-looking computer panels and debating the moral consequences of blah blah blah sub-space anomalies blah blah blah.

But most importantly, I don't think this attempt to broaden the appeal will work. It's Star Trek. It's title alone will be enough to ensure any female aged 15-40 will steer clear of this baby. Not even Sylar will be enough to make this a substantial hit.

Looking at the release date, the film is out on May 8th, the dreaded 2nd May week. It's nestled between Wolverine (which will be a hit), and Angels and Demons (as much as most of us hate the Da Vinci Code, there's plenty of people who enjoyed it because they enjoyed those awful books, and with Hanks on board it will do well) as well as Bruno.

Count me in agreement with Number 6 on this one.

I dont think it'll be in the top 5, but top 6-15 definitely. I've never had any interest in star trek,, i've probably seen half an episode, but this looks like fun. I'm looking forward to it.

It might also have the nostalgia factor going for it, just because it's an iconic franchise (sort of).

Responding...

As much as you love speaking to your family in Klingon, I really don't think the nation will share your (quite frankly, worrying) palpitations for the new Star Trek movie.

[Chuckle] I hear ya. Though, to be fair, I am far, FAR MORE a Star Wars nut than a Trekker... My current OCD lunacy for Trek is even measurably less than I experienced for Superman Returns just prior to ITS release, frankly (though somewhat greater than my hopeful expectations for Ang Lee's Hulk). I'm about as jazzed for Trek as I was for Batman Begins and X-Men, actually. Which just goes to prove three facts about yours truly: [A] I have no life; [2] I have an extremely addictive personality; and [C] it's entirely possible I lack reliable discretion and / or explicable judgment. [Shrug]

...And, remember: I am a staunch defender of Bryan Singer's Supes Returns, and even of certain aspects of Lee's Hulk (though I freely admit that, as a whole, last year's Incredible Hulk was very much the superior filmgoing experience). I'm just sayin': Consider the source.

...And, as far as your Klingonese wisecrack goes, let me respond this way: Hab SoSlI' Quch! (Your mother has a smooth forehead!) [...And your father smells of elderberries!] Puny, sniveling, weakling humans... ugly bags of mostly water.


This friggin' planet is so unbelievably f@$%ed-up

...[T]here will be a number, not a lot, but a number of fans who will regard the new film as more of a marketing ploy than a reboot. I mean, the trailer shows sex scenes and cars racing! This is not the Stark [ahem... -ed.] Trek of people sitting over odd-looking computer panels and debating the moral consequences of blah blah blah sub-space anomalies blah blah blah.

Not to quibble, but that general default cyncism you're referencing is frankly unavoidable, in ANY property / franchise, not just Star Trek (though, I would argue that, the bigger the established reputation of the concept, the larger the percentage of the filmgoing public will respond in such a fashion... Making Trek, perhaps, the most difficult franchise -- excepting only Star Wars -- to 're-boot', in any case). I mean, there were skeptics of the Nolan's Batman Begins effort also... Not to mention Singer's aforementioned Superman Returns, BOTH the Ang Lee and Zak Penn Hulks, every single Punisher filmed product ever produced (and, really, there've been TOO many of those, at this point, wouldn't you all agree?), and so on. Hell, even the Star Wars prequels are widely regarded -- including, sadly, by yours truly -- as far, FAR more an excuse by King George to rake in the bucks, than to add to an incredibly rich and varied universe of the imagination. So, yes, I agree, the very fact that Trek is undergoing a high-profile 'extreme makeover' less than four short years after first-run episodes of the disappointing Enterprise dematerialized from our plane of existence, is ample grounds for skepticism, particularly since the trailer went to such extraordinary lengths to distance itself from what pop culture is familiar with, e.g., its undeniable and somewhat off-putting Starfleet Academy, 90210 / Stardates of Our Lives qualities. However, I have faith -- and, actually, certain 'evidence' at hand -- that J.J. Abrams and his team not only anticipated this completely unavoidable public reaction, but have gone to enormous trouble to accomodate and even embrace it. It seems to me that they are very, very aware that their only realistic shot to reinvigorate the concept and, oh, by the way, make money at the same time, is to DEFY EXPECTATIONS, of which there will be legion. The nature of Trek and its devotees (me very much included) is such that just about any product will no doubt fail to meet expectations; think about all the franchise films that have been released in the last, say, twenty years, going all the way back to Tim Burton's Batman, and consider how many of them have been ultimately regarded as either blemishes on or refutations of the original concepts that spawned them. I would contend that at least seventy percent of ALL franchise or prior-awareness-of-concept films are, no matter their initial hype, opening-weekend numbers or early reviews by alternately dense or publicity-seeking critics, in the long run deemed crap by their target audiences. Even while we save our nickels and rearrange our schedules and stand in interminable lines and press into crowded theaters to watch these sorts of films, we acknowledge -- often unwillingly -- that what we experience will, most of the time, be a letdown. We do it anyway, which is why films like The Lost World: Jurassic Park and Men in Black II and Mission: Impossible II and Shrek the Third and Spider-Man 3 and Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace and X-Men: The Last Stand continue to live on the list of Top 100 Domestic Earners of All Time, even though most semi-literate film advocates -- yours truly very much included, here -- would have difficulty counting [spoiler alert!] ANY of 'em among THEIR OWN Top 1000 Films (or, even, Top 1001). (In fact, only one appears -- and not terribly 'high', either -- on my list, which I hope to begin sharing with you all shortly.)

However, I digress. Point is, the Law of Unreasonable Expectations By Some is twinned with the Law of Dubious Value By Others. The plain truth is that Star Trek is far too ingrained, far too familiar, far, FAR too moribund a franchise in the public consciousness to avoid being seen as an almost messianic revelation by some (might as well include me, here) and a total f@$%ing waste of theater counts by many, many others. Its failure is all but assured; the fragile psyches of dedicated Trekkers will almost assuredly be raped, like a mind-meld gone horribly wrong, at the film's supercharged, far-flung mediocrity, while the rest of humanity will be mildly annoyed at best and thoroughly irritated at worst. Again, I point to Abrams, who is more than familiar with notions like fan fanaticism, audience expectations, the critical two-step of love/hate, and the difficulties inherent to sustaining a highly visible franchise in an age defined by audience sophistication, default pessimism and universally, not to mention instantaneously, accessible 'inside' information and spoilers. You think (and I do) James Cameron had it rough, following in Ridley Scott's footsteps with Aliens? Or that McG has it hard (and I do) fulfilling the promise of Cameron's vision? Or that Lucas had a thankless task (and I do) following up the (to that point) most successful filmed franchise in history, with three theoretically new, yet unsurprising, chapters, a decade and a half on? Then you know something of Abrams' task. And yet: The man's no fool. He not only -- as a first-time motion picture director, natch -- slipped into the shoes vacated by such cinematic giants as Brian De Palma and John Woo by helming a wholly unnecessary and unanticipated Mission: Impossible III, he crafted by far the best film in that franchise, lifting it to a level approaching (though, not entirely equalling) that of Casino Royale and the Bourne trilogy. As producer and conceptual director of Cloverfield, he whipped up a nearly unprecedented public frenzy surrounding an entirely unknown property, and not only sustained it for the better part of a year, but kept the film's secrets COMPLETELY under wraps right up until the film had its premiere in New York. (I know. I was there.) Abrams is, again, no dummy. He realizes that taking Star Trek from pop-culture punch line and artistic afterthought to mass-entertaining and highly profitable property is a tall order, perhaps even a fool's errand. He's doing it anyway, which tells me two things about him: First, he doesn't shrink from a challenge (as if we didn't 'get' that about him, after seeing what he did with Alias, Lost and M:I III, right?). And, second, HE DOESN'T SHRINK FROM A CHALLENGE. What killed Star Trek was, more than anything, a lack of fresh ideas, a risk-averse deference to traditional thematic elements and conceits, a lock-step adherence to tired, familiar self-references and in-jokes and blah blah blah blah f@$%ing blah that turned what was once a Twilight Zone-esque theater of revolutionary inventiveness and idealism into an increasingly cheaply manufactured and artistically bankrupt low-quality photocopy of ITSELF. When Paramount, the showrunners and, yes, a cadre of overpriced and overinfluential 'talent' stopped thinking about new and exciting directions to take the concept, and started adhering to a Series Bible with a veritable Book of Leviticus of show rules, regulations and requirements... when the creativity of writers was first suborned, and then sacrificed entirely, to the demands of actors' ambitions, their egoism and, most destructively, their contracts... when the entire property became a mere recitation of familiar circumstances, resurrected content, instantly identifiable elements and pasteurized canned gobbledygook, Star Trek died and was replaced by its very own Pod Property, a cruelly soulless Doppelgänger indistinguishable in every way from its previously living and feeling original body, except that it had no heart and no independent brain, and was out to snuff every single independent thought in its universe.

Burdened with a wholly tired and perhaps outdated concept, a cynical and impossible-to-please fan base, a largely apathetic culture and some seriously heavy competition for an increasingly scarce discretionary dollar, Abrams has voluntarily strapped himself to an ACME rocket loaded up with TNT and shot himself toward the sun. He's a young man still, far closer to the beginning of his career than its potential end, but a second film is a fickle thing, and a massively expensive misstep at this critical moment in his life might well endanger a phenomenally promising future. Knowing this, and, moreover, knowing that HE knows his every bit as well (probably more), I'm fairly breathless with anticipation to see how he's going to wriggle his way out of his very own Kobayashi Maru scenario, defuse the onboard explosives and pilot the thing to a safe landing. Harry Houdini has just chained himself to a depth charge, thrown himself off the boat and into a body of water filled with piranhas. Anyone NOT want to see how he's going to try and escape?

...And, to address your assertion that " This is not the [Star Trek] of people sitting over odd-looking computer panels and debating the moral consequences of blah blah blah sub-space anomalies blah blah blah," I couldn't agree with you more. That was called Star Trek: The Next Generation, and although Deep Space Nine started off copying that particular approach and conceit, by Season Four (and largely at the behest of current BSG showrunner Ron Moore, who joined DS9 in Season Three as a supervising producer, and by its final episode was co-exec producer) it had run its course, and a new, less sterile / sanitized approach was needed. Both Voyager and Enterprise failed to fulfill the promise or realize the potential of their refreshing and innovative series concepts.

I suspect that the technobabble will be limited to what is only absolutely necessary to advance the plot of Star Trek, btw. Hopefully Abrams and Paramount will take their cue from the Casino Royale reboot of the James Bond filmed series: When technology, and not elements like character, narrative or even suspense, figures as the central attraction of your franchise, eventually you end up with tech that simply CANNOT BE ADVANCED ANY FURTHER (an invisible car; an undetectable time-traveling starship) and must fall back on such basic tools, except that you've written them out altogether (necessitating a reboot of the franchise... Hey, how about that). [Grin]

Hm. I have more to say, but the Forum Gods are momentarily displeased by my deafult verbiosity, so I'll tie this post off and continue in a moment...