Master s on "Spider-Man 3"

email this story
read comments (32)
post a comment

DreamWorks Animation chief Jeffrey Katzenberg has said that "everyone" will see the Spider-Man, Shrek and Pirates three-quels, "but the key will be which one gets the most multiple viewings," writes Slate's Kim Masters. "His argument, not surprisingly, is that Shrek will prevail because it's only 81 minutes long. The math, at least, is on his side: Pirates is a butt-numbing 170 minutes [and] Spider-Man is 140 minutes.

"A distribution executive at a studio that has nothing to do with any of the films just mentioned predicts that Spider-Man 3 will open huge, at about $120 million," Masters continues. "The film is an event with a following, and there is nothing in theaters right now that anyone wants to see, according to this executive. But the question is the strength of the movie's eight legs.

"Shrek and Pirates have broad, broad appeal," this executive says. "With Spider-Man, the word is out that it's dark." Taking into account the movie's cost, our veteran believes that could mean trouble."

So we've got the numbers game set up now. Anything less than $100 million in earnings this weekend means Spider-Man 3 is a short-faller and $120 million will be regarded as somewhere between pretty good and par for the course. Is that fair, or should box-office handicappers be jumping up and down if this happens? If the columnists and critics keep pissing on it and the "dark" word-of-mouth continues unabated, we could be looking at a very signficant (45% to 50%) second-weekend drop.

Video of Ebert speaking<< previous | next >>Concentration camp skinny

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on May 1, 2007 at 2:48 PM

comment #1

JD says ...

"DreamWorks Animation chief Jeffrey Katzenberg has said that 'everyone' will see the Spider-Man, Shrek and Pirates three-quels."

I don't know if I agree with this premise. I see several movies in the theatre every week and I didn't see either POC movie or Shrek 2 in the theatre... and I have no plans to see the "three-quels." I guess I'm in the minority, but I know lots of twenty-something males who share my excitement about Spider-Man 3 and no interest whatsoever in those other two "three-quels." Among people I know (ie. grown-ups), interest is also far greater in Ocean's 13 and The Bourne Ultimatum than POC or Shrek 2. Then again, grown-ups stay away from movies in droves these days so this may be irrelevant.

Posted by JD at May 1, 2007 3:12 PM

comment #2

Geoff says ...

Has David Poland written about this yet?

Posted by Geoff at May 1, 2007 3:13 PM

comment #3

le corbeau says ...

Spiderman, probably about 30% chance, depending on how bored I am.

The other two, under 5% chance, unless my air conditioning were to completely break during a prolonged heat wave. Then, 10% chance.

Posted by le corbeau at May 1, 2007 3:15 PM

comment #4

PanTheFaun says ...

It's actually, surprisingly, not dark at all. What little there is of Peter Parker/Spider-Man being overtaken by "evil" is almost entirely played for laughs.

The problem with the movie isn't that it's dark, it's that it's shit.

Posted by PanTheFaun at May 1, 2007 3:21 PM

comment #5

jeffmcm says ...

I actually expect Pirates to be hurt the most because of its longer running time, third-in-the-lineup release, and fatigue with the franchise.

Posted by jeffmcm at May 1, 2007 3:27 PM

comment #6

D.Z. says ...

Shrek 3 won't really open as big as its predecessors, because audiences are tired of cg talking animals and it's an even bigger cash-in than Spidey 3. POTC 3 could go either way, depending on how effectively Disney's been milking and promoting the franchise: It could have a big opening and subequent drop, or a moderate opening and a large total.

Pan: "What little there is of Peter Parker/Spider-Man being overtaken by "evil" is almost entirely played for laughs."

So it's basically like Sith?

Posted by D.Z. at May 1, 2007 3:44 PM

comment #7

Craig Kennedy says ...

Am I the only one who would like to see at least a handful of these movies completely tank? There just seems like such a lazy smugness and a stand pat attitude about the releases this year that I'd like to see a couple of bombs drop to get Hollywood's attention. Let them know they've got to earn our money.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at May 1, 2007 3:59 PM

comment #8

actionman says ...

Pirates will be the biggest I am betting...the 2nd did over a billion dollars worldwide and ended in such a way that people really want to see how it all comes together. over $400 million domestic means the average joe saw it more than once or twice. the long run time won't help, but Pirates 3 will keep bringing in people throughout the summer. All 3 of these movies will do just fine though...this summer is going to be insane in terms of total box office...i can't find a guaranteed flop in the mix to be honest.

Posted by actionman at May 1, 2007 4:19 PM

comment #9

Rich S. says ...

I dunno. I once heard that Katzenberg was heard to have chuckled under his breath when Nixon did that "sock it to me" line on Laugh-In. Anyone who would lend that kind of support to someone so obviously evil and depraved clearly cannot be trusted.

Plus, the talking cat isn't new any more.

Posted by Rich S. at May 1, 2007 4:20 PM

comment #10

WJ says ...

The only movies I look forward to this summer are Knocked Up, 1408, and The Bourne Ultimatum. If it was 2001, I would have eagerly awaited The Simpsons Movie, but now it just seems like a cash grab. I'll probably end up seeing it, but I'll have low expectations.

I was never into the comic book flicks, Shrek 2 soured me on that franchise, and I'm apathetic toward POTC. I'm in the demographic which isn't old enough to remember the first Transformers, but not young enough to get suckered into a shallow reboot.

The slate of movies this summer must've been devised by Rupert Murdoch-types who have no appreciate for film or even entertainment. I hope we get to see some massive bombs drop at the box office this summer. But with DVDs and international markets, it's almost impossible to flop, opening the door for Shrek/Spider-Man/POTC 4...

Posted by WJ at May 1, 2007 7:27 PM

comment #11

D.Z. says ...

WJ: "The only movies I look forward to this summer are Knocked Up, 1408, and The Bourne Ultimatum."

1408 looks pretty mediocre, even for Dimension.

"I'm in the demographic which isn't old enough to remember the first Transformers,"

So I assume you're under 25?

"But with DVDs and international markets, it's almost impossible to flop, opening the door for Shrek/Spider-Man/POTC 4..."

True, but if certain films cost too much, it could take a year to recoup their losses.

Posted by D.Z. at May 1, 2007 8:18 PM

comment #12

MovieBob says ...

I'm inclined to see it precisely the opposite way. You get repeat business on these things because of stuff you "have" to see again. Pirates supposedly has a hugely-impressive naval battle, so maybe. Spidey's final everyone-goes-at-it battle is, I'm told, possibly the best "super-powers battle" scene since Superman 2, so that could be it. Also, if there's ANY kind of major character change (if they nut-up and kill MJ, for example) or dropped-in "fanboy" hint about what might happen in #4 (Dylan Baker becoming The Lizard, Venom lays Carnage's "egg," Doc Ock's arms woke up and dragged him back to dry land, etc.,) then that cinches the deal right there.

But Shrek? I liked `em, but at this point the Shrek franchise is so committed to undermining the whole idea of dramatic-pretense in fantasy movies what the HELL can they do to make it "matter" to people? The original film had just enough sincerity slowly built-up that, by the end, the actual "drama" of Shrek storming the castle and Fiona's final transformation actually had a certain "impact" to them - the same way "Princess Bride" works even when it's not being funny. For better or worse, people CONNECTED with "Shrek" on a deeper level than just the pop-culture swipes. A certain lack of that was already noticeable and missed in #2, and I doubt it's going to improve for #3.

Posted by MovieBob at May 1, 2007 8:51 PM

comment #13

Undercover Brother says ...

81 MINUTES!?! That's it? The sequel to one of the most successful movies ever runs a whopping, provactive, soul searching 81 minutes? Christ, what a tilt of the hand. If anything could show before the fact that another Shrek movie was clearly just a soulless grab for cash it's that. I know animated movies don't run long, but 81 minutes is insulting. It says, 'We don't care. We aren't trying. We aren't going to try. This is a bare minimum effort. Give us $10, smile and leave the theater chump.' I've been kind of shocked at the lack of over-exposure for Shrek 3 until now. I figured they were waiting for the Spiderguy to collect and then swoop in. But now I see that any real exposure would give away the movie in its entirety. I'm about to guess that Shrek 3 will be the first $300 million grossing flop in history. Because anything less than that and the franchise becomes damaged goods.

Posted by Undercover Brother at May 1, 2007 9:45 PM

comment #14

christian says ...

given katzenberg's support for guvn'r ahnold enron, i'm sure SHREK 3 will be as sincere as the others...

Posted by christian at May 1, 2007 9:53 PM

comment #15

Dellamorte says ...

Wait. 81 minutes with or without credits? If that's with... they could only get about 70 minutes of story out of it. That's pathetic. I mean it'll still make money, but if they literarly only have 70 minutes of animation... it'd better be out of the park.

Posted by Dellamorte at May 1, 2007 10:07 PM

comment #16

D.Z. says ...

For some reason, I'd be more satisfied if Bee Movie flops than Shrek 3, not because I prefer Shrek, but because Jerry was a real prick to defend Richards.

Posted by D.Z. at May 1, 2007 10:38 PM

comment #17

bacio says ...

isnÃ‚Â´t the trailer for Shrek 3 one of the worst ever? I only saw a dubbed version of it, but not one of the jokes worked and the audience remained quiet throughout. it was the long version trailer, and it seemed like we saw the entire film already

Posted by bacio at May 2, 2007 2:16 AM

comment #18

Edward Havens says ...

Hey Wells, did you ever apologize to me for doubting my report on the Pirates 3 running time? Once again, just because YOU cannot immediately confirm something doesn't mean other journalists are reporting unsubstantiated information.

Anyway, the final running time for Shrek 3 is 93 minutes, and this Slate interview is basically the same thing the Los Angeles Times had when they interviewed the Golden Retriever a couple weeks ago.

Posted by Edward Havens at May 2, 2007 2:28 AM

comment #19

le corbeau says ...

No apology needed, he couldn't confirm it with the studio, hence unconfirmed. Get over yourself!

Posted by le corbeau at May 2, 2007 5:18 AM

comment #20

le corbeau says ...

Wow, based on all this (I haven't paid any attention to Shrek buzz) I'd say Katzenberg is desperately fearful that Shrek's gonna bomb and is trying to spin it as a must-see when previews and tracking surveys are telling him it's not.

Posted by le corbeau at May 2, 2007 7:09 AM

comment #21

Rob says ...

Yeah, Spider-Man 3 is so "dark" that it's really going to alienate people.

I hear that, 2/3 of the way through, Mary Jane is paralyzed in a musical theater accident, and eventually Spider-Man disconnects her breathing tube. It's a real downer.

Posted by Rob at May 2, 2007 7:09 AM

comment #22

The Big Snake says ...

If your business plan as a film executive is to make movies that are so freaking expensive that the only way they can turn a theatrical profit is if people see them multiple times - while at the same time you keep narrowing the DVD window and undercutting any incentive for people to go to the theaters more than once - then I would say you have no business plan and your skills as a film executive are clearly lacking.

Posted by The Big Snake at May 2, 2007 8:24 AM

comment #23

christian says ...

as much as i'd love to see SHREK 3 crash and burn, the studio knows that parents will be dragging their kids to see this cynical post-modern committee crap because it's in their dna now.

i wonder how many AMERICAN IDOL references they can throw in there to keep the lame SHREK pop cultural "humor" up-to-date...

Posted by christian at May 2, 2007 9:10 AM

comment #24

D.Z. says ...

christian: If Pixar can't cut it anymore with kids, I doubt Shrek 3 will fare any better. The fact that the home video release of the last film underperformed is also telling of the next one's prospects.

Posted by D.Z. at May 2, 2007 9:38 AM

comment #25

christian says ...

do you consider CARS a failure? it made over 250 million in america alone. sad if that's considered underperforming these days...

Posted by christian at May 2, 2007 9:44 AM

comment #26

corey3rd says ...

The question of what movies will garner repeat business is tough. Why spend another $10 to see the movie when you can wait a few months and buy the DVD with all the bonus crap for about the same price? Also what about the films that will attract the "Double Feature" crowd. Why pay full price for Shrek when you can watch it after another film?

While Shrek 2 was a box office hit, people didn't want to take it home at the studio predicted rate (thus the massive returns from WalMart).

Posted by corey3rd at May 2, 2007 10:20 AM

comment #27

DarthCorleone says ...

I will see Spiderman 3, there's a 50/50 shot I'll see Pirates, and I absolutely won't see Shrek. The odds of my seeing any of them more than once at the theater? Zero.

Posted by DarthCorleone at May 2, 2007 12:38 PM

comment #28

le corbeau says ...

"Why spend another $10 to see the movie when you can wait a few months and buy the DVD with all the bonus crap for about the same price?"

Exactly. The last new release I saw twice in a theater was Return of the King. And it probably WILL be the last. Theatrical release is just a momentary blip before the eternity of home video.

Posted by le corbeau at May 2, 2007 2:04 PM

comment #29