SPEARE'S TIPS: THE FILMS OF 4/17 - State of Play, 17 Again, Crank: High Voltage

I lot of people (myself included) actually liked the Da Vinci code...the books are best sellers...i wouldn't count this one out yet just because you don't like it. Remember, you were hating on Fast and Furious too. Which came out WELL after the original.

Is the adventure seeker craze over? Could have fooled me. It was just last year that Indiana Jones made over 300M. Of course, that was a special case.

More realistic comparison: National Treasure 2, which was terribly reviewed and everyone I know who has actually seen it thought it was god awful, starred the hit or miss Cage and pulled in over 200M.

This film is the sequel to a massive 200+M dollar movie, is based on a best seller, and stars a consistently huge draw in Tom Hanks. On top of that, it has a big marketing campaign. I would say that over $100M is pretty much guaranteed. [And it'll probably do gangbusters worldwide going by the fact that Da Vinci code did double WW as it did domestically].

Personally I don't think it'll do as well as Da Vinci code because it doesn't have the hype/controversy, but $80 is low balling it for sure.

2007 was around the time that the craze was waning. 2008 is when it died. Back when the books were released, treasure seeking was a fad that people wanted a part of. The books were huge and people started taking those said books seriously (a good example of this was shown in Julie Delpy's 2 Days In Paris, in which Delpy and Adam Goldberg meet and eventually make fun of a treasure seeking group obsessed with the books).

By 2008, the Da Vinci Code/treasure seeking craze died out because people simply stopped caring. Instead, they either went back to their regular lives or got caught up in Twilight mania.

Weren't the books huge because the movie was coming out? I'm pretty sure that it was out more that twenty years before and people really liked it when they read it then. I think the movie made the book revelent again, not the other way around.

J-Man wrote:More realistic comparison: National Treasure 2, which was terribly reviewed and everyone I know who has actually seen it thought it was god awful, starred the hit or miss Cage and pulled in over 200M.

actually, it's really not that bad.. FAR better than Indy 4.. in fact, if they had simply used that script and replaced the characters with Indiana Jones & Co., it would've been great

Yeah and the Fast and Furious fad died down too... Look, a fad doesn't sell a movie. People that read Angels and demons 2 years ago are not going to forget that they liked the book. If anything, this will remind them they liked it or inspire more people to get into it. I can't wait for you to be way off base on this.

Very well said J-Man.

I think $80M is a little low for A&D, but I do think that it will be the lowest of the May blockbusters with $120M-$140M. From all the big may films, I've heard about this one the least and the trailer that i did see looked uninteresting. Also like someone said this one doesn't have the controversy surrounding it.

My gut tells me the lowest grossing may release will be Star Trek. If there was one big release that I would put my money on not cracking 100M, it would be it, even though it probably will.

Biggest May release: I think it'll be Night at the Museum, but then I think about what happened to Narnia last year (luckily I didn't pick that film at the old place)...

The biggest May release will be either Wolverine or Terminator. I agree with you on star trek though J-Man.

dude no way night at the museum 2 is the highest grosser probably not even close. the only reason it made so much was because of its monster legs which is mostly attributed to being a december release like all those other holiday movies. It should open bigger than the last but only to bout 55 which terminator should trounce in its opening weekend.

my gut says go with marvel they havent let me down yet. I'm expecting that little puppy to fly past 200 without breaking a sweat.

I do agree with the star trck being the lowest though when was the last time the second week in may been good to any movie

Why do you think Night at the Museum had monster legs? Marley and Me didn't enjoy those same legs. Neither did Tale of Despereaux. It grossed that sum because it had insanely great w.o.m.

On top of that, what do you think the summer is? Is Memorial Day no longer counted as a holiday?

Terminator on the other hand, has the bomb of show Sarah Connor and T3 to deal with. There is no way in hell it opens above NATM2. Sarah Connor is on the verge of cancellation. That shows just how much interest there is in yet another Terminator incarnation. I actually think Terminator 99 will be the lowest grossing May film, with Star Trek and it's frantic forum fanboys and insular buzz running a close second.

Keep thinking that JackO... and go watch Slumdog Millionaire again. If you think Sarah Connor Chronicles is any indication for this, you are way, and I'm talking WAY off base. I watched one episode of the show and hated it. I could not be more excited about the trailer. And I am the biggest Terminator fan I know. Sarah Connor goes into the Terminator 3 category. It just doesn't matter.

I avoided The Sarah Connor Chronicles like the plague. You know you've got a disaster in your hands when your show stars the girl from Serenity (she was awful in that movie and the main reason why I wanted the bad guys to win) and Brian Austin Green.

Using Slumdog as an insult! Maybe, I'll just sit on the next big thing next time. Those depending on T4 and Star Trek will be greatly disappointed if the hope is for anything above 150M.

You probably just caught one of the bad episodes, geez. I've seen every episode so far and some are really bad and then some are actually very interesting. Maybe I'm more lenient, I just dont think that you can correctly judge it with one episode. I dont think there is a tv series that every episode is great. Don't get me wrong, the show isn't award worthy or such, but i find it quite entertaining. Also Summer Glau's acting is actually pretty good. Did you ever watch Firefly buscemi? If you didn't like the show then you wouldn't like the movie either.

geez, or you might just not like it because Terminator 2 is one of your favorite films and the show is messing with the material, might that be it? I actually liked all three terminator films. Didnt think they were great but good enough.


I think the may films will be in this order when all is said and done


1. Terminator $230
2. Wolverine $200
3. Up $200
4. Night of the Museum 2 $180
5. Star Trek $150
6. Angels and Demons $140

but if there are any that might pull a speed racer, I think it could be NATM2 or Angels

I watched the first episode UDM. It was really dumb. You are right, if something is using the Terminator source material, it better be mind blowingly awesome. The show failed. It was ridiculous. It couldn't even hold my attention. I never went back. Same with Terminator 3, it was ok and all, but it wasn't Terminator worthy, so I've filed it away and will probably never see it again.

With the new Terminator, I was all ready to do this again. My only hope was Christian Bale and his track record. Then I saw the trailer, and it was everything that I could have possibly hoped. This is the reaction I have heard from every Terminator fan I know. Unless the film comes out and has terrible word of mouth, this will be big. Like really big. Fast and Furious just made 72 million fucking dollars people! And you don't thing Christian Bale's Terminator will be big? Good luck.

I really don't think there will be anything close to a Speed Racer, but Star Trek will be the closest to that. I see them all making 125 at least though.

No, I never watched Firefly. In fact, I hated Buffy as a series (seriously, ideas like this only work as comedies) and tend of avoid Whedon when I can. However in the case of Serenity, I was attracted to the combination of sci-fi and western and Chiwetel Ejiofor as the villain. I saw the film in a twin bill with Polanski's Oliver Twist and while Oliver Twist was a really good and perhaps definitive film version of Dickens' novel, I was very disappointed in Serenity and half the time I couldn't wait for the damn thing to end.

After that, I swore never to watch anything with Joss Whedon's name again. Unless it's Buffy 1992, Speed, Toy Story or the first X-Men (he was a script doctor on the last three).

J-Man wrote:My gut tells me the lowest grossing may release will be Star Trek. If there was one big release that I would put my money on not cracking 100M, it would be it, even though it probably will...

Not sure if it'll be the lowest, but not cracking $100 million is a reasonably safe bet. If the numbers are like they were for 'Nemesis' (43 Million) then it would be a disaster for the franchise. The again, the box office take for the franchise has never really provided blockbuster numbers. Only 'Star Trek 4' has cracked $100 million. The film is badly over-priced in all of our current leagues if we assume that it will do about the average of the others in the series.

To counter point someone else's argument....The Da Vinci Code was a NY Times best seller the year it came out (2003), well before the movie came out. It also stayed on the best seller list until 2005, yes that was two years on the best seller list. When the movie came out (I think in 2006, I'd have to check) the book enjoyed a spike in sales (they re-released it in mass paperback). So no, the book didn't become popular b/c of the movie, I'm quite sure it's the opposite actually.

But don't you expect that same spike in sales for Angels and Demons? Along with the people that already read the book a few years ago... Plus the fact that it is Tom Hanks who rarely fails... Plus the other one made over 200 million dollars... There is just a lot going for this one.

I agree with you Geez, i was arguing the fact that someone said the only reason the book did so well is that the movie came out...my argument was that no, the book was a best seller before the movie...I too think the movie will do well.

Yeah I agree with that too, the book was successful before the movie.

brockman81 wrote:To counter point someone else's argument....The Da Vinci Code was a NY Times best seller the year it came out (2003), well before the movie came out. It also stayed on the best seller list until 2005, yes that was two years on the best seller list. When the movie came out (I think in 2006, I'd have to check) the book enjoyed a spike in sales (they re-released it in mass paperback). So no, the book didn't become popular b/c of the movie, I'm quite sure it's the opposite actually.

I thought that "The DaVinci Code" was realeased in the 80's? I was saying that since the film came out, the books became popular again... Was it really released in 2003?

Yeah, it really did W.

Yup in 2003. Then when the movie came out the re-released the book in mass paperback form. I'm sure the movie helped the book, they always do. LOTR had a huge jump in sales b/c of the movies.