325 replies to this topic

[Turn]

Old Vin Diesel actually didn't have anything harsh to say against Bond in Wednesday's USA Today life section interview. This time it was his co-star Asia Argento.

In a separate interview, the writer compares her to a Gen-X update of a 007 siren. Argento says she has never seen a Bond movie, adding "They are very sexist. My character is stronger, sometimes smarter."
Now I'm no philosopher, but if she's never seen one, how would she know? Then again, this is a woman who "has a gallery of comely tatoos," the first of which she got while high on hashish in Amsterdam at age 14.

In the Diesel interview, the writer does make a reference to his straddling an airborne Corvette like a skateboard and adds "Funny how James Bond never sky-surfed in his Aston Martin." I don't know if that was meant to be sarcasm or what. But the obvious reply is because it would be stupid. I wonder if this will inspire any copycat incidents.

[PaulZ108]

So the woman has to be "smarter and stronger" for it NOT to be sexist? There have been a few less than competent women that Bond has worked with, but generally the Bond girl has always been portrayed as being Bond's equal, a prime example being Pussy Galore. And I don't think Ms Argento has any room to be speaking if she's not even seen a single Bond film.

And it's also funny how James Bond has done nearly everything xXx is doing, only Bond did it better. And whatever xXx is doing that Bond hasn't, Bond never had any use to do or wasn't stupid enough to do. Bond does it for Queen and Country, not for the thrill of it alone.

[rafterman]

I'm really getting annoyed with this xXx stuff.....keep bringing these comments to my attention...I really like what they say...it's so uninformed and childish...

[Roebuck]

So let me see if I follow the logic here:

We have moved on from criticising a movie we haven't seen and are now criticising an actress in that movie for criticising a movie she hasn't seen.

And what bearing has the number of tattoos she's got have on anything?

[Blue Eyes]

Nah we'll criticise them both now. Stupid slag that she is

[IrishCrown]

I'll type it again. No Vin Diesel, no XXX, it's a perfect world, baby.

[zencat]

They're putting a lot of spin on it, but the truth is xXx opened way below Hollywood's expectations. Conservative estimates had it making 51mil, but I'll tell, you Sony was licking their lips expecting 70 and Variety reported that at the premier the attendees were cooing that it would make "soooooo much money." The truth is for a movie as hyped as xXx it under-performed. Sure, 46mil (and now I'm hearing 44) is a nice opening for a movie without hype, but it hardly signals a mega hit. Heck, SIGNS opened at 60 the week before. They like to say xXx did better than The Fast & the Furious (by 1 million), but FURIOUS was a little movie with very little hype and came out before Vin Diesel was a "star" (if he even is a star?). Even Lara Croft beat this macho turkey.

I also have a feeling BLUE CRUSH is going to knock it out of the number 1 spot next week.

xXx is a catch-the-trend-of-the-minute pretender. It proves people still want their secret agent to where a tux and call himself Bond, James Bond.

[Mister Asterix]

I wonder if it will end talks of a sequel.

[zencat]

I've noticed there's been less sequel talk lately...but I'm sure they're waiting to see what it will do long term. I thought it was really presumptuous to talk sequel before the movie was even released. Everything about the movie just screamed arrogance and I think that

[Blue Eyes]

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot But it's good news to me. I'm glad that they've not got the money they wanted for ripping off another film series, and then slagging it off.

[rafterman]

it's kind of nice to know not everyone wants tattooed, extreme games, beer swilling action movies...

[zencat]

Oh, you're welcome MGM.

Can I keep my avatar?

[Double-Oh-Zero]

Well, in regards to Vin Unleaded and the crew who made the film: Ha ha ha ha ha. All that Bond bashing. For really low results. Except to poor Mr. Jackson. Still can't believe they got him to do it. Anyway, I'm keeping an eye on Entertainment Tonight for xXx, especially on their segments with Unleaded himself. Apparently, he's been talking about how the film is turning out on the show.

[Ry]

It seems to me that xXx is going to fall at the very least 45% this week. If it falls more than 50% sequel talk will be kept at a bare minimum. There will probably be a sequel anyway, but if this doesn't clear 100 mill + in the US, Sony will not be happy.

[Mourning Becomes Electra]

It will clear $100m but probably not as much as TFATF did at $140m with half the budget and a 1/10th of the advertising budget and hype. That still would be great IF xXx makes enough in the international market, as Bond does where it almost doubles it's B.O. But TFATF made only $60m overseas and if xXx budgeted at $70m with at least $50m in advertising, does the same it won't make a profit until it's well into DVD/VHS sales/rentals. A sequel would cost even more with Deisel's $20m contract. Moreover with the lack of momentum or even hold in the B.O there doesn't look to be much excitment for xXx: Part Duh

Zenact, is correct about the attempt to change marketing. I read the marketing guy at Sony said they were going to emphasize the positive reviews it's received (*cough* *cough*) to woo the older demographic concerned about those kinds of things (like quality). Um, too late; 8 months of "this is really stupid, but LOUD and COOL for those who thought TFATF was cool" non-stop advertising (they started at The Super Bowl) has sealed it's fate with public perception.

Anyway the numbers for the first 5 days: all sinking quickly (even on Saturday & Tues where everything usually goes up)

Fri: $17,311,194

Sat: $15,234,194 (-12%)

Sun: $11,960,715 (-21.5% )

Mon: $5,017,652 (-58%)

Tues: $4,806,579 (-4.2%)

It should drop anywhere from 50-60% over the weekend from last.... quite a start to a "franchise".

MBE

[zencat]

I'm doing my part. I going to the movies today...but instead of xXx I'm going to see The Good Girl.

Hey, I like Vin Diesel, but it was all that Bond bashing that turned me off.

Who else thought is was pretty stupid of them to alienate Bond fans? Hey, Sony, Bond fans like to go see spy movies and you made them feel like this WASN'T their kind of movie.

[Mourning Becomes Electra]

I'm going to try and hunt down 24 Hour Party People. As for Desiel, I liked him in The Iron Giant and Pitch Black, but thought he and TFATF were horrendous. So the idea of watching a movie where he worked with the same Director again Rob Cohen with the same tone well pffffftttt. And unlike some women a miniature version of Mr. Clean does not turn me on enough (or at all) to see a film regardless of it's quiality.

All the Bond bashing was silly and as you say in the end counter-productive, it just served to alienate a sizeable fan base. It also came off as Sony sourgrapes over their failure to get their own Bond.

MBE

[IrishCrown]

I was so glad Sony didn't get their hands on Bond. Of course they did try and make up for it with XXX and showed they haven't a clue what Bond is all about. Bond is about style, and XXX has none of that. I like the above comment about Diesel looking like Mr. Clean. He really just looks stupid, to be brutally honest.

[Roebuck]

I agree entirely IrishCrown!
Bond is much better off at MGM -
A studio known for artistic integrity and respect for it's fan base.

(Umm...can anyone tell me if the sarcasm tags still work?)

[boeserzwilling]

I don't care for XXX or xXx at all.
While James Bond has always been a worldwide phenomenon, Vin Diesel is completly unknown in Europe (at least in Germany). He has no star power at all over here. Even Jean-Claude Van Damme is more popular than him and TFATF is long forgotten. It won't work, especially since Goldmember stars in the same month (October).

[rafterman]

if they had simply said, yeah it's like a Bond film, but made for the x games lover.....then I would have been fine, but they rip off Bond and bash it at the same time, just be honest, yeah we're making a bond film for kids and I'd be fine with it....

[Jim]

Forgive the question, but what were the opening weekends of the last three Bond films like?

Genuine question - it's obvious that the first weekend of the new Bond is going to be compared to this.

[rafterman]

lower...TWINE was 35, TND was 25, and I'm not sure of GE, but around there....something like xXx gets hyped and hits it's big time on the opening...Bond opens well with people like us and then we go again, more people go....and on, it's proven element with a large enough base that when it's been out for three weeks someone, say like my father who's not big on jumping to see a film, like a lot of older people, says, hey I'll go see that....it get steady business....

[Jim]

Acknowledged and noted.

But folk do pay an awful lot of attention to the opening weekend figures, don't they. Instant information; if DAD doesn't beat xXx instantly, whatever its long term prospects, it may be "Bond is dead, over, done with, ta-ta" when those figures come in which could well have a marked impact on its longer term prospects.

Which would be a shame.

[ChandlerBing]

Die Another Day has the potential to have a 50 mil plus opening weekend since ticket prices are higher than they were for The World Is Not Enough. MGM has got to do better with their publicity than what they have done before.

[zencat]

This whole opening weekend gross thing is a joke. It all about number of screens. A big movie use to be released on about 2500 screens and it would gross 50mil. That was bigs news. Now studios open their movies on 6000 screens and when they make 51mil the studios scream, "A new record!"

Whenever you hear about a "new record opening" you have to ask how many screen it was on compared to which movie they are claiming to have beat. And, FYI, studios lie about screen numbers as well. The movie can be on 10 screens at the same multiplex, yet studios will only count the theater as 1 screen. That boosts their per-screen average and creates, yes, another record!

Admissions should be the only test of how well a movie is performing. It's about numbers of people, not $$$. But that would make too much sense.
And it you did that Hollywood might discover they haven't had a "record" movie after GONE WITH THE WIND.

And, for the record, THUNDERBALL is still the most successful Bond when you adjust for inflation or measure by addmissions.

[Red Grant]

Originally posted by zencat
This whole opening weekend gross thing is a joke. It all about number of screens. A big movie use to be released on about 2500 screens and it would gross 50mil. That was bigs news. Now studios open their movies on 6000 screens and when they make 51mil the studios scream, "A new record!"......
And, for the record, THUNDERBALL is still the most successful Bond when you adjust for inflation or measure by addmissions.

Good point - THUNDERBALL also only cost $5M and its worldwide gross upon release was $141M. Recent blockbusters may take $50M but may have cost half that to make. You do the maths - surely something that makes many times its cost back is more successful than something that only doubles it cost. Also consider that ticket prices were much cheaper in 1965 and the film was shown in far less cinemas. I understand that GOLDFINGER holds the record as the fastest grossing film of all time. That made its costs back in the UK alone before it even reached the states! Everything is relative and nothing, repeat nothing will match the success of the mid 60's Bond films in terms of admissions related to profits. I rest my case.

[ChandlerBing]

You are correct on that one. I cannot top that on my best day. My hat is off to you.

[Ry]

For anyone that is interested, going into this Friday xXx is at 61.8 million dolllars. We'll just have to see where it goes this weekend.

[zencat]

I really think BLUE CRUSH is going to win the weekend and that's going to crack me up. Girl power!