380 replies to this topic

[Jim]

Oh.

[Dr. Noah]

Oh.

Now THAT'S a good post.

[Jim]

Oh.

Now THAT'S a good post.

Does the topic deserve better? Hard to say.

[tdalton]

I saw that FoxNews story last night as well, and I'm glad that it was posted here. I wonder how much of the drop off that MI3 is having is due to Tom Cruise's media antics and how much of it is due to much of the negative reaction that it is getting. Yes, I know that it's getting generally good reviews, but even some of the good review acknowledge that it didn't exactly live up to the epic thriller that nearly everyone thought that it was going to be. Or, I wonder how much of the drop off can be attributed to a general lack of interest in the franchise after the awful MI2. Either way, I hope that Casino Royale doesn't share a similar fate.

[Dr. Noah]

I saw that FoxNews story last night as well, and I'm glad that it was posted here. I wonder how much of the drop off that MI3 is having is due to Tom Cruise's media antics and how much of it is due to much of the negative reaction that it is getting. Yes, I know that it's getting generally good reviews, but even some of the good review acknowledge that it didn't exactly live up to the epic thriller that nearly everyone thought that it was going to be. Or, I wonder how much of the drop off can be attributed to a general lack of interest in the franchise after the awful MI2. Either way, I hope that Casino Royale doesn't share a similar fate.

Maybe it's time for a radical MI re-boot!

[tdalton]

I saw that FoxNews story last night as well, and I'm glad that it was posted here. I wonder how much of the drop off that MI3 is having is due to Tom Cruise's media antics and how much of it is due to much of the negative reaction that it is getting. Yes, I know that it's getting generally good reviews, but even some of the good review acknowledge that it didn't exactly live up to the epic thriller that nearly everyone thought that it was going to be. Or, I wonder how much of the drop off can be attributed to a general lack of interest in the franchise after the awful MI2. Either way, I hope that Casino Royale doesn't share a similar fate.

Maybe it's time for a radical MI re-boot!

Perhaps it is time for an MI reboot. Even without seeing the film, and just looking at the trailers, it looked as though this might have been about as far as Tom Cruise can carry the MI franchise. I would love to see them recast the role (and get someone who is a bit more media "friendly") and bring it back to the general concept of MI rather than a one man show like they have been with Cruise.

[RevolveR]

Just to add on to this debate....

I have been skeptical of Casino Royale as a reboot from the start, but after watching the trailer I have come to realize that this movie will be exactly what I have come to expect and love and James Bond Movies. The only difference is that we will see Bond develop into the cold, fealess agent that he has always been.

On the other hand, Mission Impossible 3 was absurd and very overdone. Yes, Ethan Hunt was more personal and his character had more depth, but it was still a wild action flick and most people (at least on these forums) don't want that out of Bond anymore. After seeing how silly MI:3 came across, I think I agree with them.

[Seannery]

The Wall Street Journal before the film came out had a large article on how Paramount was worried about MI3 box office because of all the Brooke Shields, coach jumping, Scientology antics of Cruise--their polling said that women particularly were being turned away from the film and Cruise. They went on to say that they were trying to overcome this problem that Cruise caused. It could certainly have hurt MI3 some and maybe Cruise's career. That said lets see how word of mouth works on the film thru it's run. CRUISE MAY VERY WELL HAVE SHOT HIMSELF IN HIS SCIENTOLOGY FOOT.

M:I:III just needed some more story. All it had was a paper thin story with lots and lots of action sequences. I walked in expecting a real thriller with a good story that had been kept under wraps and I didn't know much about. I was wrong.

That was the most disappointing thing about the film for me. Early reviews had led me to believe that the script was terrific and full of surprises, but all there was was a ridiculously paper-thin "plot" built around action sequences, exactly the same as with M:I-2. I don't understand how people like Harry Knowles, who blasted M:I-2 because of its nonexistent story, could go so wild with enthusiasm for M:I-3, since it's essentially the same film. And at least in M:I-2 we learned what the Chimera virus actually was!

Well then I agree with the big fat redhead on this film.

[J.B.]

Just to add on to this debate....

I have been skeptical of Casino Royale as a reboot from the start, but after watching the trailer I have come to realize that this movie will be exactly what I have come to expect and love and James Bond Movies. The only difference is that we will see Bond develop into the cold, fealess agent that he has always been.

I just saw the trailer for the first time and I think it is great. The one thing that hit me about it was that Judi Dench shouldnt have returned as M. They should have gotten someone else. This has been said numerous other times in forums but, I never really paid attention to it until I saw this trailer. Her part in the trailer with her dialogue made me instinctively think that she was talking about another "00" and not 007. Like it is a new agent that followed 007 like 008. IOW, a different agent entirely. I guess it hit me this way because I associate her with Brosnan's character.

Did this hit any of you that way?

[Seannery]

Just to add on to this debate....

I have been skeptical of Casino Royale as a reboot from the start, but after watching the trailer I have come to realize that this movie will be exactly what I have come to expect and love and James Bond Movies. The only difference is that we will see Bond develop into the cold, fealess agent that he has always been.

I just saw the trailer for the first time and I think it is great. The one thing that hit me about it was that Judi Dench shouldnt have returned as M. They should have gotten someone else. This has been said numerous other times in forums but, I never really paid attention to it until I saw this trailer. Her part in the trailer with her dialogue made me instinctively think that she was talking about another "00" and not 007. Like it is a new agent that followed 007 like 008. IOW, a different agent entirely. I guess it hit me this way because I associate her with Brosnan's character.

Did this hit any of you that way?

Well according to SNF--that's a clue we have a codename Bond.

[Jackanaples]

I just saw the trailer for the first time and I think it is great. The one thing that hit me about it was that Judi Dench shouldnt have returned as M. They should have gotten someone else. This has been said numerous other times in forums but, I never really paid attention to it until I saw this trailer. Her part in the trailer with her dialogue made me instinctively think that she was talking about another "00" and not 007. Like it is a new agent that followed 007 like 008. IOW, a different agent entirely. I guess it hit me this way because I associate her with Brosnan's character.

Did this hit any of you that way?

No, it didn't hit me that way, and I have serious doubts believing that it actually seemed that way to anyone else either. That's the type of thing that anyone with knowledge of James Bond movies (which means most of the world) has to work at thinking. It doesn't come naturally.

[Seannery]

Comingsoon.net projects $48 million for MI3's opening--below expectations though far from horrible. I think Paramount was correct(as their recent polling has shown) for being worried that Cruise's recent antics have turned off especially women fans. They say especially when he ripped Brooke Shields over the post-partum(sp) depression, it turned a lot of women off.

Another thing Abrams said before the film came out said he was worried about the public being all spied out in recent years with Bond, Bourne, MI, Alias, 24, etc... What do you guys think?

[J.B.]

It could have but I do know that 24 is the hottest thing happening right now so spy themes cant be that overused. I think that Cruise was the issue and he did it to himself.

Did you leave MI3 wondering why they glossed over Hunt's retrieval of the rabbits foot? I couldnt believe they didnt film how he got it back. They showed him swinging off the building and then, bam!, he phones saying that he got the rabbit's foot. To me, that was a big hole. It was like, hey, we are running up on a 2 hour movie time here so, lets skip some parts and get to the end.

[Jackanaples]

I would say it's less to do with people being tired of cinematic spies and more to do with Tom Cruise becoming His Own Worst Enemy in the last year. People just think he's a freak now.

I know lots of people who are digging 24 more than ever. One woman I work with has a standing appointment with her family every Monday night to watch it. It's their fave show.

But if you ask JJ Abrams why he thinks the movie might not do well, what else is he going to say?

[J.B.]

I just saw the trailer for the first time and I think it is great. The one thing that hit me about it was that Judi Dench shouldnt have returned as M. They should have gotten someone else. This has been said numerous other times in forums but, I never really paid attention to it until I saw this trailer. Her part in the trailer with her dialogue made me instinctively think that she was talking about another "00" and not 007. Like it is a new agent that followed 007 like 008. IOW, a different agent entirely. I guess it hit me this way because I associate her with Brosnan's character.

Did this hit any of you that way?

No, it didn't hit me that way, and I have serious doubts believing that it actually seemed that way to anyone else either. That's the type of thing that anyone with knowledge of James Bond movies (which means most of the world) has to work at thinking. It doesn't come naturally.

I guess I'll just have to be in the happy minority on this.

Something else to consider on the box office numbers of MI3 is that it could also be a continuation of the Hollywood slump in general. Last year was so bad for Hollywood that at the end of this year they may look back and say that 2006 overall was a better year in contrast with MI3, Superman Returns and CR having led the way with its take at the Box Office. I am not sure that Hollywood really knows what a good take is on a movie with how bad it has been for them the past year. If you base a good movie on numbers b/f the slump then it is a poor showing but after the slump, it may be the new high mark (if you know what I mean).

[Seannery]

I just saw the trailer for the first time and I think it is great. The one thing that hit me about it was that Judi Dench shouldnt have returned as M. They should have gotten someone else. This has been said numerous other times in forums but, I never really paid attention to it until I saw this trailer. Her part in the trailer with her dialogue made me instinctively think that she was talking about another "00" and not 007. Like it is a new agent that followed 007 like 008. IOW, a different agent entirely. I guess it hit me this way because I associate her with Brosnan's character.

Did this hit any of you that way?

No, it didn't hit me that way, and I have serious doubts believing that it actually seemed that way to anyone else either. That's the type of thing that anyone with knowledge of James Bond movies (which means most of the world) has to work at thinking. It doesn't come naturally.

I guess I'll just have to be in the happy minority on this.

Something else to consider on the box office numbers of MI3 is that it could also be a continuation of the Hollywood slump in general. Last year was so bad for Hollywood that at the end of this year they may look back and say that 2006 overall was a better year in contrast with MI3, Superman Returns and CR having led the way with its take at the Box Office. I am not sure that Hollywood really knows what a good take is on a movie with how bad it has been for them the past year. If you base a good movie on numbers b/f the slump then it is a poor showing but after the slump, it may be the new high mark (if you know what I mean).

Zencat agrees with you on the box office trends--he said so on the MI3 thread in General Discussion(CORRECTION--I MEAN IN SPIES, SPOOFS AND SPIN-OFFS). The new economics in Hollywood may for the most part may disappoint those expecting the high end projections to be met. At least we have seen a trend with that--with once in a while some film suprises. Zencat states if anything can break that streak it will be Superman returns. Will be interesting to see. Still Cruise's antics were really a turnoff--what is he thinking?

So will CR do better or worse than 48 million in its opening?

[J.B.]

I am going to say worse. I will be there though and probably go twice like I do every bond film that comes out. I am excited about seeing it.

I have to say that I saw the trailer of Superman Returns and me, not being a recent fan of the comic book films since the original Batman movie with Keaton and Nicholson, I got excited about seeing it. I looked at my wife and said, believe it or not, but we are there for that film. It looked good.

Edited by J.B., 07 May 2006 - 06:50 PM.

[Seannery]

I'm thinking CR with the first weekend will do a little worse--maybe lower 40's(which is still pretty damn good)--then it will all depend on how the word of mouth is on Craig and the film.

Yeah Superman looks very promising--I also like how they are using Brando footage for "Daddy Superman".

[Seannery]

By the way for those around here right now who are in the USA--For Your Eyes Only has just started on AMC.

[Loomis]

It could have but I do know that 24 is the hottest thing happening right now so spy themes cant be that overused. I think that Cruise was the issue and he did it to himself.

Did you leave MI3 wondering why they glossed over Hunt's retrieval of the rabbits foot? I couldnt believe they didnt film how he got it back. They showed him swinging off the building and then, bam!, he phones saying that he got the rabbit's foot. To me, that was a big hole. It was like, hey, we are running up on a 2 hour movie time here so, lets skip some parts and get to the end.

Maybe they thought it would seem cleverer not to show it (just as they evidently reckoned it would be a really good wheeze

Spoiler

not to reveal what the rabbit's foot was - there I was expecting a few answered questions at the end, but nice going, guys, you really got me

). Y'know, the way you never actually see the heist (or, for that matter, the ear being sliced off) in RESERVOIR DOGS. Or perhaps they did script it but ran out of money. In any case, I'm glad they didn't include that bit since M:I-3 is one heck of an incredibly long haul of a poorly-paced effort as it is (I know it's only just over two hours, but it feels like three, and this even with a movie that boasts perhaps the slenderest, least fleshed-out story I've ever sat through).

[Jackanaples]

I think CR has the possibility of becoming one of the biggest hits of the year:

-It has a screenplay that is apparently the best the series has had since OHMSS, worked on by an Oscar winner.

-The strongest cast for a Bond movie since FRWL.

-A controversial (read: exciting) choice for the role of James Bond. Daniel Craig just exudes cool and has every indication of making James Bond his in the 2000's the way Connery did in the 1960's.

-A story that smartly goes back to the elements that made the character a pop culture icon in the first place AND updates them for the 21st century.

The time is ripe for it. I don't see how CASINO ROYALE can miss really.

[Seannery]

I think CR has the possibility of becoming one of the biggest hits of the year:

-It has a screenplay that is apparently the best the series has had since OHMSS, worked on by an Oscar winner.

-The strongest cast for a Bond movie since FRWL.

-A controversial (read: exciting) choice for the role of James Bond. Daniel Craig just exudes cool and has every indication of making James Bond his in the 2000's the way Connery did in the 1960's.

-A story that smartly goes back to the elements that made the character a pop culture icon in the first place AND updates them for the 21st century.

The time is ripe for it. I don't see how CASINO ROYALE can miss really.

So what it's opening box office weekend then?

[Jackanaples]

I don't know. I'd like to wait for the full trailer before I made a prediction. However, I notice that DAD's opening weekend in the US did $47,072,040. I'd say CR is capable of exceeding that. $55m-$60m sounds about right.

EDIT TO ADD: I'd also say that DAD did that on opening weekend without having all the strengths CR clearly has going into it.

Edited by Jackanaples, 07 May 2006 - 08:07 PM.

[tdalton]

I don't know. I'd like to wait for the full trailer before I made a prediction. However, I notice that DAD's opening weekend in the US did $47,072,040. I'd say CR is capable of exceeding that. $55m-$60m sounds about right.

EDIT TO ADD: I'd also say that DAD did that on opening weekend without having all the strengths CR clearly has going into it.

With the way that the box office has been the past year or so, I don't think that the film will get $55-60m at the box office. But, that's not to say that it won't do well by today's standards of lower returns, though. Casino Royale, even with all of the controversy and all of the talk about it, will be extremely lucky to break the $40m barrier, but most likely will have to settle somewhere around $25-35m because the box office has been so bad. And then, there's also questions about whether the public will flock to see Daniel Craig as Bond, but I'm not even taking that into account with this estimation. The figures could end up lower, but a realistic estimate would be $25-35m on opening weekend, IMO.

[Harmsway]

Zencat states if anything can break that streak it will be Superman returns. Will be interesting to see.

I think SUPERMAN RETURNS will be a hit - but not a megahit. You want to know what I predict to be the huge, megahit of this summer? PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN 2. That movie's a surefire massive hit.

[Leon]

I saw MI3 after reading some of these good things about it...

It's a bit really. Just the usual action/Tom Cruise fest with the usual really unconvincingly forced "depth" in some of the characters.

There was no CR teaser before it either.

[Seannery]

Zencat states if anything can break that streak it will be Superman returns. Will be interesting to see.

I think SUPERMAN RETURNS will be a hit - but not a megahit. You want to know what I predict to be the huge, megahit of this summer? PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN 2. That movie's a surefire massive hit.

I'm really looking forward to Pirates of the Carribean 2--Depp was inspired in the first. It should do very well but i'm not sure about a mega hit.

[Loomis]

I saw that FoxNews story last night as well, and I'm glad that it was posted here. I wonder how much of the drop off that MI3 is having is due to Tom Cruise's media antics and how much of it is due to much of the negative reaction that it is getting. Yes, I know that it's getting generally good reviews, but even some of the good review acknowledge that it didn't exactly live up to the epic thriller that nearly everyone thought that it was going to be. Or, I wonder how much of the drop off can be attributed to a general lack of interest in the franchise after the awful MI2. Either way, I hope that Casino Royale doesn't share a similar fate.

Maybe it's time for a radical MI re-boot!

Perhaps it is time for an MI reboot. Even without seeing the film, and just looking at the trailers, it looked as though this might have been about as far as Tom Cruise can carry the MI franchise. I would love to see them recast the role (and get someone who is a bit more media "friendly") and bring it back to the general concept of MI rather than a one man show like they have been with Cruise.

Much I'm not the world's biggest Cruise fan, and much as I'd agree that the franchise could use more of the "team" approach (allegedly a strength of M:I-3, but they forgot to make the characters played by Maggie Q, Jonathan Rhys Meyers and Keri Russell even vaguely interesting; there's much more personality and chemistry in the team lineup in De Palma's MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE, shortlived though that team is), I don't see the M:I series working without Cruise. It would just seem like a more expensive version of xXx.

OTOH, perhaps the ending of M:I-3

Spoiler

is intended to mark the closure of the franchise, or at least the Ethan Hunt chapter

.

In any case, if M:I-3 is the flop some are suggesting, a fourth film may be unviable, at least for another 10-15 years.

[Leon]

Pirates is just the kind of film that every tom dick and harry go to see for fun, taking all their kids with them too.

That will do very well.

Edited by Leon, 07 May 2006 - 08:28 PM.

[dinovelvet]

I don't know. I'd like to wait for the full trailer before I made a prediction. However, I notice that DAD's opening weekend in the US did $47,072,040. I'd say CR is capable of exceeding that. $55m-$60m sounds about right.

EDIT TO ADD: I'd also say that DAD did that on opening weekend without having all the strengths CR clearly has going into it.

With the way that the box office has been the past year or so, $55-60m is out of the question. Casino Royale, even with all of the controversy and all of the talk about it, will be extremely lucky to break the $40m barrier, but most likely will have to settle somewhere around $25-35m because the box office has been so bad. And then, there's also questions about whether the public will flock to see Daniel Craig as Bond, but I'm not even taking that into account with this estimation. The figures could end up lower, but a realistic estimate would be $25-35m on opening weekend.

Actually thus far the box office is in better shape in 06 than it was this time last year. We won't really know until August whether blockbuster movies are up in terms of box office, but all indications so far suggest The Slump is over.
As for Royale, I'm not going to throw around specific numbers at this early point, but its looking good - it has a cushy release date, and every other film out there at the same time is a comedy or family flick; people will be starving for a movie like CR, and there's no Harry Potter to sap its audience away (Imagine what DAD's opening weekend could have been if it was not up against the 2nd weekend of a Potter movie - $60 million, easily!)
I see people in the forums at boxofficemojo.com predicting a $50 mil opening for CR - granted, these people aren't experts by any means, but we had that post a while back which quoted some "industry experts" or something all putting CR in the 40-50 range.