comment #1

jesse says ...

I've said it before, but I really don't understand how it is that The Interpreter was considered a major underperformer. $75 million for an adult-minded thriller starring Kidman and Penn? How much more was this expected to make? If the movies surrounding it had made more money, it would've been considered another solid hit -- which is why these track-record evaluations get so skewed. Two difficult art-house movies are being thrown in there, too. I'm not saying she's bulletproof, but come on. What happened to careers with some hits, some misses?

comment #2

Noah says ...

This cannot be counted as Kidman's fault, considering she's only in the movie for like 25 minutes. You could also say this is Daniel Craig's second flop in a row (after The Invasion), but his star is not tarnished. Either way, I don't know that Kidman was ever able to open a movie, but she does bring a certain prestige to her films, although after Bewitched and The Stepford Wives, I'm not sure what to expect from her anymore.

comment #3

mutinyco says ...

...except looking like Meg Ryan...

comment #4

js says ...

In all fairness (and I say this, freely admitting to not having yet seen Golden Compass), is Kidman the real blame for this film's box office failure? I'm not her biggest fan, but my own lack of interest in this film has nothing to do with her.

Also, I'm fairly certain "Fur," "Birth," and "Margot" were never expected to be box-office hits; no excuses for the other films listed.

comment #5

js says ...

Beaten to the punch twice!

On her box-office records, am I correct that Moulin Rouge and possibly the Others are her only real moneymakers, of recent years?

comment #6

jeffmcm says ...

Considering that Bewitched and Stepford were both terrible, Kidman deserves the credit for helping them make as much as they actually did.

This movie's weakness has got to ba attributed to not being a title with the same pedigree/long-standing name recognition as Narnia, and that is just couldn't stand out - it looks like a wanna-be because Chris Weitz couldn't bring anything fresh to the table.

comment #7

le corbeau says ...

And even more than that, Jeffmcm, it's one thing to hope that 50 million people will come see a movie of a book that one million read, it's another to do that AND piss off the one million who read it by ending the movie with five chapters including the climax to go!

comment #8

Wrecktum says ...

This movie will undoubtedly make more than $100m in the U.S. and maybe double that worldwide. Is that considered a bomb these days? Should we really take into account the rumored budget when determining the success or failure at the boxoffice?

This movie is the latest in a long line of movies based on children's fantasy books that have underperformed: Lemony Snicket, Eragon, Stardust, Ella Enchanted, Peter Pan, etc. Spiderwick will be the next casualty.

The painful financial lesson for Hollywood is that there are only a few fantasy titles that resonate with movie audiences. Harry Potter is one. Narnia is another. Obviously Lord of the Rings. Not much else.

comment #9

Mr. Gittes says ...

Agreed, Mgmax. What in the hell was New Line and, well, what's the use? And that's that...as they say. - One of my favorite lines from No Country for Old Men by the way.

OT: Mathieu Amalric is playing the bad guy in Bond 22. Craig against Amalric. Awesome.

comment #10

raskimono says ...

Am I wrong but didn't Newline sell off all the foreign territories for this him reducing their risk to a $100m. Also Night of the Museum only opened to $30m 3 day on a four day weekend. You have to wait for the bump on Saturday to see how it plays. And only a fool thinks the Interpreter was a flop; $162m for a $60m budget is no fool's gold and considering the overseas number was bigger than the domestic on the movie, how can she be on the way out. Isn't that what keeps the Brad Pitts, Leonardo DiCaprios, Cameron Diazs and Keanu Reeves on top. Wake up. Hollywood is an International marketplace. Movies are budgeted based on the worldwide audience. If you sell tickets overseas, you stay on top.

comment #11

jeffmcm says ...

Yes, it's failure will be based on how much New Line overspent, not how popular it ultimately will turn out to be.

comment #12

le corbeau says ...

The painful financial lesson for Hollywood is that there are only a few fantasy titles that resonate with movie audiences. Harry Potter is one. Narnia is another. Obviously Lord of the Rings. Not much else.

Yeah, but the quality of the final result could overcome that. New Line had a hit with a director of strong vision who wouldn't take any shit from studio execs (and had the good sense to make the movie half a planet away from the main office). So they tried to make it happen again by watering down the script and butchering it in the editing room. Whatever they lose, they'll deserve to.

comment #13

PerfectTommy says ...

Am I alone in missing Ian Sinclair here?

Come on, bring him back for one last special appearance, Hunter, so we can here how Compass' box office and critical reception is not unlike the reception of Titanic and how you saw nannies in Manhattan leaving the theaters joyously with their charges, texting their network of child care workers which means...

comment #14

Peter T Chattaway says ...

My favorite comment on all this was Variety's observation that The Golden Compass made as much money on its first day as Eragon.

And Eragon -- produced at only half the cost of The Golden Compass -- opened in a fairly crowded mid-December marketplace, up against fellow brand-new releases The Pursuit of Happyness and Charlotte's Web, whereas The Golden Compass supposedly had the weekend all to itself.

Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig cannot be blamed for the movie's failure, but the studio can certainly be blamed for thinking they were "big stars", and for thinking that "big stars" would make a difference at the box office.

The simple fact of the matter is that Nicole Kidman has never, ever appeared in a movie that grossed $100 million apart from 1995's Batman Forever, where she had fourth billing as "the girlfriend" or whatever her name was; and the simple fact of the matter is that no James Bond since Sean Connery has ever been all that big of a big-screen star outside of the franchise.

comment #15

D.Z. says ...

"To hear it from Fantasy Moguls' Steve Mason, the projected weekend gross of The Golden Compass is "anemic" -- worse than disappointing -- with an estimated $9 million earned yesterday and a mere $27 million for the weekend. Those are shattering numbers for a movie that cost a reported $200 million. By comparison, The Chronicles of Narnia made $65.5 million on its opening weekend in December 2005. Obviously no joy in Mudville (i.e., the New Line offices) this weekend."

The irony is it probably would've cost them less to just pay Peter Jackson his money and shoot The Hobbit.

"Kidman is a talented actress with mostly excellent taste in projects, but she doesn't radiate much warmth or empathy"

As much as I like to bash Kidman, I disagree that it's her image which is hurting her. If anything, she's too nice! She needs to come off more aggressive like Jodie Foster.

"But she's had a good run and has a long future ahead of her...just on a lower pay scale. There's nothing wrong with being Meg Ryan."

Actually, Meg Ryan did pretty well until she cheated on Quaid. Not huge, but her name made enough money that her films wouldn't flop. Kidman's more in the Zellweger territory.

Noah: "You could also say this is Daniel Craig's second flop in a row (after The Invasion), but his star is not tarnished."

Bond actors are rarely successful outside of Bond, though. It's part of the "curse" of the franchise.

js: "Also, I'm fairly certain "Fur," "Birth," and "Margot" were never expected to be box-office hits;"

I think the studios were hoping the controversy surrounding most of those films would at least guarantee enough notoriety for them to be profitable. I'm also assuming Paramount Classics was hoping Jack Black would help 'Margot at least cross over better than it ended up doing.

Mgmax: "And even more than that, Jeffmcm, it's one thing to hope that 50 million people will come see a movie of a book that one million read, it's another to do that AND piss off the one million who read it by ending the movie with five chapters including the climax to go!"

I doubt people care about how studios fuck up books. After all, "The Shining, "A History of Violence", and "V for Vendetta" got good reviews...

raski: "Also Night of the Museum only opened to $30m 3 day on a four day weekend."

Night at the Museum had a bigger lead.

"And only a fool thinks the Interpreter was a flop; $162m for a $60m budget is no fool's gold and considering the overseas number was bigger than the domestic on the movie, how can she be on the way out."

But was it because of her, or because of the good will Penn accrued from Mystic River?

"Isn't that what keeps the Brad Pitts, Leonardo DiCaprios, Cameron Diazs and Keanu Reeves on top. Wake up."

Um, Dicaprio and Diaz are finished. They have been for a while, too, since they each only had one hit movie they were known for, and no one cared about them afterwards.

comment #16

Aguirre says ...

dicaprio...washed up? i'm no expert, but i'm PREETTTTYYYY sure that he starred in a rather successful film just last october, and i also recall that said film went on to win the best picture oscar. yeah, he and james van der beek are pretty much eye-to-eye career-wise, at the moment.

comment #17

le corbeau says ...

Um, Dicaprio and Diaz are finished. They have been for a while, too, since they each only had one hit movie they were known for, and no one cared about them afterwards.

Oh D.Z., for cryin' out loud, here are the worldwide grosses for DiCaprio's last few movies:

Gangs of New York: $194 million
The Aviator: $214 million
The Departed: $290 million
Blood Diamond: $171 million

If that's over, we should all be so over.

comment #18

PerfectTommy says ...

DZ - I think that is a great point about New Line spending that Golden Compass budget on The Hobbit instead. It would have been the biggest grossing film this year.

comment #19

D.Z. says ...

Aguirre: But people didn't see "The Departed" for him, as I proved earlier with "Blood Diamond".

Mgmax: Um, Gangs cost at least $100 million, so no one's really impressed. Same with Aviator and Blood Diamond.

comment #20

actionman says ...

you're out of your element Donnie (D.Z.) !

comment #21

actionman says ...

oh yeah, another masterpiece for 2007...the diving bell and the butterfly was unfuckingbelieveable...

comment #22

Noah says ...

D.Z., it really doesn't matter how much money those movies cost because it still proves that people around the world still want to see Leo DiCaprio. The amount of people that showed up for his movies (to the tune of over half a billion dollars for four movies) is enormous, more than most actors can pull in. So why don't you just admit you're wrong for once and not try to change the subject? Really, we'll respect you MORE if you actually just admit you're wrong.

comment #23

le corbeau says ...

D.Z., did you say "He's still something of a draw but his vehicles are so expensive they don't make money?" No, you did not. You said "DiCaprio [is] finished." You said "No one cared about them afterwards." In fact, except for Woody Allen's Celebrity and that documentary he narrated, he hasn't made a movie since Titanic which failed to break $140 million worldwide, making him quite possibly the most reliable and bankable star alive.

Some finished.

comment #24

D.Z. says ...

Noah: "D.Z., it really doesn't matter how much money those movies cost because it still proves that people around the world still want to see Leo DiCaprio."

If that were the case, people would want to see Kidman after Cold Mountain flopped.

comment #25

le corbeau says ...

oh yeah, another masterpiece for 2007...the diving bell and the butterfly was unfuckingbelieveable...

It won't seem like an afterthought when it wins Best Picture.

comment #26

Noah says ...

That makes no sense, D.Z. especially since Cold Mountain did not flop. It made 95 million bucks on an 83 million dollar budget. That means it made money. I know, you'll probably say that marketing cost a lot of money, to which I'll say: Cold Mountain made over a hundred million more overseas, plus it made money on DVD. Look up your facts. Oh, by the way, Nicole Kidman/Cold Mountain has nothing to do with Leonardo DiCaprio and his career.

comment #27

BurmaShave says ...

THE INTERPRETER was an above average film and a hit, no matter how you slice it. Unless it somehow cost 150 million dollars.

comment #28

D.Z. says ...

Noah: Huh? I just checked BOM, and it says it only made $77 million more overseas. And Kidman and Dicaprio have one thing in common: being overpaid.

comment #29

Noah says ...

Excuse me, I meant to say almost a hundred million more overseas. Either way, that doesn't change my point. And you think DiCaprio and Kidman are overpaid? Everyone in Hollywood is overpaid. Admit you were wrong about DiCaprio being finished, please.

comment #30

jeffmcm says ...

I'm vaguely curious as to where it was that 'proved' that people didn't see Blood Diamond for DiCaprio. Are you saying it grossed that much because people really wanted to see Djimon Hounsou or Jennifer Connelly?

In related news, I am so sick of playing the DZ game, which consists of him posting absurd nonsense and the rest of the world reacts to him as if he were merely mistaken and would respond to reality in a sane manner. He never does. He doesn't give a shit about anything outside of his own head. He's a huge egomaniac who sustains himself on the attention we give him. If there was any chance he could be related to on a normal, rational, human level he would have shown it by now, but he hasn't. He's beyond redemption and deserves to be locked in a room and shipped to Antarctica for the rest of his life.

comment #31

Arran says ...

Noah, you seem like a smart guy...and smart guys know to just scroll right past DZ's comments. Or at least just laugh at them and move on.

comment #32

Matthew Lucas says ...

Does anyone think that the conservative Christian hit-job on this film for supposedly being the "atheist's Narnia" had anything to do with its underperforming?

Even if it didn't, they're sure to start gloating soon.

comment #33

Filthy Rich says ...

Dicaprio is soooo 'over' he only has six more big budget movies in the pipeline.

His last five movies averaged what about $243 million at the box office (worldwide) and except for The Departed none are ensemble casts. Besides Jack Dicaprio is the only big star in Departed as well.

$1.219 BILLION at the worldwide box office over 5 movies - You're right: what studio in their right mind would want that kind of box office????

comment #34

Terry McCarty says ...

Matthew Lucas wrote:
Does anyone think that the conservative Christian hit-job on this film for supposedly being the "atheist's Narnia" had anything to do with its underperforming?

Even if it didn't, they're sure to start gloating soon.

If Pullman's Golden Compass trilogy had achieved the level of success of JK Rowling's Harry Potter books in the US, how much greater would the opening weekend be than now?

Or conversely, if the Potter series had sold as much or less than the Pullman books in the US, would HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE been affected by religious-right demonizing six years ago?

comment #35

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "I'm vaguely curious as to where it was that 'proved' that people didn't see Blood Diamond for DiCaprio. Are you saying it grossed that much because people really wanted to see Djimon Hounsou or Jennifer Connelly?"

Um, my point was that people didn't see Departed for Leo. If they did, then Blood Diamond should have done as well as it, and not about as well as Syriana.

Filthy Rich: "Dicaprio is soooo 'over' he only has six more big budget movies in the pipeline."

I wouldn't call them big budget as much as high profile. There's a difference.

"His last five movies averaged what about $243 million at the box office (worldwide) and except for The Departed none are ensemble casts."

So you're saying he's bigger than Hanks and Spielberg?

"Besides Jack Dicaprio is the only big star in Departed as well."

Yes, no one's heard of Mark Wahlberg or Matt Damon.

"$1.219 BILLION at the worldwide box office over 5 movies - You're right: what studio in their right mind would want that kind of box office????"

If they actually got to pocket most of that one billion, I'm sure they'd be even happier.

comment #36

bfm says ...

Kidman may only be in 25 minutes of Golden, but she features heavily in all the promotion for it, so much of the credit for its performance (or lack of it) must rest on her shoulders. Personally, I've always admired and enjoyed her films and she would once have been a draw for me, but I've become tired of her fake persona and mannered performances.

comment #37

jeffmcm says ...

DZ, every one of your arguments in the above post is an absurd straw man, a distraction designed to distract readers from noticing that you've been proven wrong. You're intellectually dishonest and cowardly. The question is, are you lying to yourself or to us?

Here's a question: Is there any reason I should ever read or respond to any of your posts ever again? If you answer this question, I'll give you a gift certificate to Meltdown Comics.

comment #38

BurmaShave says ...

DZ you're beautifully full of non sequiters tonight. Never ceases to entertain.

comment #39

Dzayson says ...

I love how we're lementing the fact that a talented actress like Nicole Kidman may have to "slum it" by lowering herself to a lesser pay scale. Her next five movies could make zero dollars and she'd still earn more for movie six than the average person earns in several years. These poor, poor celebrities...

On the flip side, she is a legit actress with a enormous pile of money to her name- why not just do theatre for the rest of her days? Any actor knows the stage is far more rewarding in every sense(spiritually, artistically, logistically...) than to waste your life on bullshit movies that yeah, pay your bills, but also subract great amounts of time and rarely provide substantial artistic satisfaction. Whatever path she choses, I'm sure as fuck not about to shed tears for the future of Nicole Kidman.

comment #40

Silverscreenvideos says ...

This movie will undoubtedly make more than $100m in the U.S. and maybe double that worldwide. Is that considered a bomb these days? Should we really take into account the rumored budget when determining the success or failure at the boxoffice?

Unless the movie business is somehow different from any other business in the world, you do take a business's expenses into account along with its income in determining if it is a success or failure.

A business that earns $100 million with expenses of $200 million is a disastrous failure. Now, I realize that by the time they finish with DVD and other sales, the film may eke out some sort of profit, but businesses that over a period of years finally manage to eke out a profit aren't too successful either.

And if this film has potentially killed off a lucratie franchise, it's even more of a failure.

Of course, if you make smart, intelligent, well acted films with realistic budgets and don't bankrupt yourself on CGI effects that have become increasingly a matter of diminishing returns, then you can earn a hefty profit on a $100 million film.

It's silly to blame this on Nicole Kidman though. CGI "epics" succeed or fail on the basis of how much bang for the buck they deliver, not who is starring in them.

comment #41

bacio says ...

Of course, Nicole does not radiate warmth or empathy, like Julia Roberts does or used to do. that is why she does not get cast as a romantic lead, in Compass, she is actually cast as the Frosty Queen. So, had she projected warmth, she would not have fit the role. But nonetheless, I do not think she is a box-office magnet at all, just a pretty good actress

comment #42

JBF says ...

I love how DZ proclaims that DiCaprio and Kidman arent Box Office draws and are finished in this businesses and in other posters he bravely defends Jennifer Aniston and the walking bomb that is Scarlett Johansson. What magical Universe he lives I dont know. If Scarlett and Aniston had Leo numbers they would be dancing in the streets of Hollywood, in fact Leo is much bigger draw right now than Pitt, Clooney, Damon, Affleck and other stars

comment #43

romeoisbleeding says ...

It is not that surprising that it did not do that well at the box office. The reviews were hideous and I was hearing on the radio that seeing the movie could turn your kids into atheists. Scare tactics? sure. I know that is absurd.. I know that. But most parents are not going to be thrilled about taking their kids to something that raises questions they may not want to answer or talk about now.

comment #44

le corbeau says ...

This movie will undoubtedly make more than $100m in the U.S. and maybe double that worldwide. Is that considered a bomb these days? Should we really take into account the rumored budget when determining the success or failure at the boxoffice?

Yes, because they spent that money with the expectation of doing far better and will not. It's a different sort of bomb than Redacted, but a bomb nonetheless.

comment #45

Howlingman says ...

Don't forget, according to the studios, even the biggest hits never make any money. That's why they can't afford to pay residuals and the like, the poor guys.

comment #46

D.Z. says ...

JBF: "I love how DZ proclaims that DiCaprio and Kidman arent Box Office draws and are finished in this businesses and in other posters he bravely defends Jennifer Aniston and the walking bomb that is Scarlett Johansson."

Jennifer Aniston's films don't cost $200 million; Johansson isn't stupid enough to take multiple paycheck roles in a row which diminish her appeal.

"If Scarlett and Aniston had Leo numbers they would be dancing in the streets of Hollywood,"

You mean they'd be glad to know that their films only make slightly more than budget and P+A?

"in fact Leo is much bigger draw right now than Pitt, Clooney, Damon, Affleck and other stars"

What universe are YOU living in?

comment #47

jeffmcm says ...

No. DZ, you are the one who lives inside your own head with all your preconceived ideas which are impervious to logic or facts.

Let me offer one last time: why should anyone read anything you write? You have three types of posts: bashing the movies and actors you hate, telling people they're wrong, and spouting gibberish. Give an answer of any kind and there's a $25 gift certificate in there for you.

comment #48

le corbeau says ...

Given a slight change in subject matter above, D.Z. would now be proving that Johnny Depp is over, because The Libertine didn't do well and Pirates of the Caribbean's success is due to the popularity of the pirate genre and Orlando Bloom's appeal to teenage girls.

comment #49

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "Given a slight change in subject matter above, D.Z. would now be proving that Johnny Depp is over, because The Libertine didn't do well and Pirates of the Caribbean's success is due to the popularity of the pirate genre and Orlando Bloom's appeal to teenage girls."

Um, no, because if that were the case, Bloom would have been able to sell himself on Elizabethtown. Also, "The Libertine" did horribly, because Harvey didn't know how to market it; but Secret Window still did decently.

comment #50

jeffmcm says ...

God you're annoying. Stop saying "Um, no". It's pretentious and horrible.

comment #51

Griff says ...

"TGC" is a flop because it's a terrible movie with great effects. So, it doesn't matter if Kidman is in it or not...Jeremy Irons was in Eragon, and he was actually very good, yet the movie sucked, and died a withering death due to that suckage. The same can be said for TGC. It was long, and at the same time thin and spotty. At a certain point in time, the only thing it had going for it was the Polar Bears.

comment #52

le corbeau says ...

This movie will undoubtedly make more than $100m in the U.S.

Actually, it looks like that's very much in doubt, after this weekend.