comment #1

Ray says ...

Ugh ... I am actually a little surprised that the numbers for THE HAPPENING are even that strong. Audiences must be suffering from some sort of cinematic version of Stockholm Syndrome with Shyamalan.

Meanwhile, isn't it wonderful that Mike Myers is going to bomb horrendously with the hideous LOVE GURU bullshit, which is basically just Myers mugging incessantly without any thought to character building or story writing? I LOVE IT!

Hopefully, the summer of 2008 will go down in history as the year we were rid of M. Night and Myers once and for all.

comment #2

115thDreamer says ...

Is it just me or does "The Happening" look like it might be quite similar to "The Andromeda Strain"? The trailer does seem to show townfolk being overtaken by some mysterious gas or mist or something, resulting in them exhibiting suicidal and possibly homicidal behavior. And what with the recent TV-remake of "Strain" just being on a week or so ago, the similarities are especially evident. If "The Happening" is something totally different, well then, my apologies to the Night-man.

comment #3

dixiedugan says ...

That Myers film looks like chewed up mouse bits that the cat just got done with...yuck. No thanks.

comment #4

Monument says ...

Has anybody else read the responses to The Happening press screening? Doesn't sound too good.

comment #5

BurmaShave says ...

Enough with the fucking tracking.

comment #6

Monument says ...

What the fuck? You guys complain when he harps on politics and now you're bitching about a completely film related post. Why do you read this site, seriously?

comment #7

Rothchild says ...

Tracking is 100% bullshit. It's just people looking for a story.

comment #8

berkguru says ...

Love Guru = worst month of your life

comment #9

ZayTonday says ...

Get Smart should do well. It's an awesome movie that I didn't expect to be as awesome as it was. Incredible Hulk won't do Iron Man numbers, I'm guessing it'll be more like Batman Begins numbers, it's in the same kind of deal: Crappy predecessor movie leaves bad taste in peoples' mouths yet it's supposedly very well done and true to the source material (Marvel is producing, just like Iron Man). It won't have the greatest opening in the world but it WILL have legs. Get Smart will likely have a slightly larger opening than Incredible Hulk but will have legs as well.

Love Guru and Happening are going to bomb HORRIBLY though.

comment #10

thatrader says ...

Monument,

We find it tediously boring when Wells trots out these tracking numbers time and time again, quoting them like their gospel , and yet, time and time again, the numbers are complete failures.

Wells sometimes admits he was wrong, sometimes he doesn't, but despite the groans from all of us who DON'T WANT these numbers foisted upon us, he insists on posting them.

comment #11

D.Z. says ...

Ray: "Hopefully, the summer of 2008 will go down in history as the year we were rid of M. Night and Myers once and for all."

Don't forget Lucas.

Zay: Get Smart has a guy whose only hit on his own has been the 40 Year Old Virgin, and an actress who people generally only watched when she played a schoolgirl. As for Hulk, I'm betting it'll be #1 the first weekend and drop huge the next-possibly even harder, depending on the script and Norton's ego.

comment #12

Ray says ...

@ D.Z. - I'm afraid we failed to get rid of Lucas thanks to the trmendous box office of the latest Indy flick. This will, of course, further embolden him to make a new "trilogy" for Mutt Williams, with the usual digital bullshit, remastered DVD editions, and documentary looks at the special effects starring a cock-sucking Rob Coleman and sniveling Rick McCallum.

comment #13

romeoisbleeding says ...

My 2 cents for what they are worth.. I like the tracking reports so keep them up. This is a site about movies isn't it? and I had to sit through the Love Guru trailer every time I saw Iron Man.. it got more painful every time. I cannot believe how horrible that movie looks. It is just so bad. I cannot understand anyone wanting to see it. It sinks to an all new level of bad.

comment #14

LFF says ...

Did someone at paramount read the guru script and think: yes! Much more profitable than Jimi Mistry's Guru, and miles above Eddie Murphy's Holy Man! Box office gold!

comment #15

Jamie says ...

What would be considered a good opening for The Happening at this point?

comment #16

D.Z. says ...

Ray: Really? I though losing to Sex and the City in the second weekend should be enough to finish him off for good.

comment #17

EDouglas says ...

"The two big-studio comedies opening on 6.20 -- Get Smart and The Love Guru -- are both in trouble as we speak. Smart is now at 81, 35 and 7, and Guru is at 81, 35 and 5"
"Disney/Pixar's WALL*E (6./27), a comedic love story between robots, is looking good. 76, 36 and 7"

Seriously, Jeffrey? This is exactly the kind of bullshit I was talking about with Mason and at least he has some idea how to read and analyze the tracking. While WALL-E is a kids' movie that wouldn't track as well among older people, its awareness is 5% lower than the two "comedies in trouble"... it's definite interest is 1% higher and its first choice is roughly the same so how is that "looking good" and the others are "in trouble"?

I'm going to keep railing against the bloggers who post this confidential data as news until one of you finally gets it through their thick skull that this kind of shit does more damage to the movie biz than anything else out there. You post this and suddenly, everyone's going "oh, it's tracking poorly... it must not be very good. I'm not going to go see it" since MOST PEOPLE have no fucking idea how tracking works, what it's for, etc... they just see it as some information that proves a movie is good or bad mainly thanks to bloggers with an agenda who are coloring it to their own personal means.

So please explain... how one number is showing something "in trouble" almost the identical numbers are "looking good"... you obviously put a lot of time and thought into everything you post here and into your analysis before saying things like that, right?

comment #18

Bob Violence says ...

Ray: Really? I though losing to Sex and the City in the second weekend should be enough to finish him off for good.

Yes, $600 million in three weeks, clearly the man will never work in this town again.

comment #19

Spacesheik says ...

If the GURU was closer to the Peter Sellers' 'Indian' comedies of the 60s (THE MILLIONARESS, THE PARTY) then it would have been a good offering with b.o potential, but as a Western guru brought up in India etc - and then comes to the US - typical fish out of water CROC DUNDEE bullshit, with lots of sexual jokes thrown in, doubt it will find its audience - a few years ago there was a flick with a similar Bollywood motif (Indian in NY, lots of dancing etc - starred Meyer's female costar in AUSTIN II - forgot her name quite frankly)

Meyers should have just put on brownface and remade THE PARTY.

comment #20

JChasse says ...

Funny... when D.Z. made his Lucas crack, my immediate thought was, "Yeah, that Clone Wars cartoon thing looks like a real cash grab."

I wonder if people who don't think about film as much or the way we do even associate Lucas with Dr. Jones, or if their knee-jerk reaction begins and ends with "Star Wars".

comment #21

D.Z. says ...

Bob: "Yes, $600 million in three weeks, clearly the man will never work in this town again."

It technically only made $250 million profit, though. And most of it was worldwide. Plus it had a huge drop for the next two weekends which is abnormal, next to Star Wars, or even the previous Indy films.

JChasse: I can't wait for Clone Wars to crash and burn. You know that sucker's going to get 1-2,000 more theaters than it needs, because they're hoping it'll come close to the success of the prequels.

comment #22

JVD says ...

"It technically made only $250 million in profit."

I doubt that technicality is keeping Paramount's shareholders up at night. Jesus, DZ.

comment #23

Richardson says ...

Keep in mind, DZ predicted that 'Crystal Skull' would only sell $180 mil in the US. Not profit, just ticket sales. So he now has trouble admitting that it was a success. To put it into perspective, he was only willing to belatedly acknowledge that 'Transformers' was a hit a week or two ago, after steadfastly arguing for almost a year that it was a failure.

comment #24

Richardson says ...

"it's definite interest is 1% higher and its first choice is roughly the same so how is that "looking good" and the others are "in trouble"?"

I want to say, I completely agree with you about tracking.

That said, I know the answer to this. It has to do with opening date. There is typically a big advertising push two weekends prior to the release of a summer movie; after a gentle push in May, theoretically, the trailers for 'Love Guru' and "Get Smart' should now be everywhere, because they're opening in 10 days. So, based on that assumption, they're tracking badly. 'Wall-E' still has an extra week, the hard-sell hasn't started yet, and it's already higher.

That said, the flaw should be obvious -- it's assuming that the advertising for these movies is uniform and, therefore, is a constant and, therefore, you can judge one changing factor (tracking numbers) but assume that all other factors are constant.

It's all very circular logic that falls apart pretty easily if you actually think about it, rather than just repeating the tracking numbers as if it's news.

comment #25

D.Z. says ...

Richardson: "Keep in mind, DZ predicted that 'Crystal Skull' would only sell $180 mil in the US. Not profit, just ticket sales. So he now has trouble admitting that it was a success."

It made only slightly more money than I predicted-even though I don't recall saying specifically ticket sales-but I wouldn't call that a success.

"To put it into perspective, he was only willing to belatedly acknowledge that 'Transformers' was a hit a week or two ago, after steadfastly arguing for almost a year that it was a failure."

I didn't argue it for a year. It was just a month, and then moved on, when I was proven wrong. What I've been arguing for a year is that it's utter crap, and that still holds true.

comment #26

Richardson says ...

"It made only slightly more money than I predicted"

you predicted $180 "at the most, being generous". It is at $250+, and still in the top 3 at the box office, so it's still grossing money. It's worldwide profit is higher than the amount you predicted it would sell in the US -- and you also said that, because Rambo failed overseas, Indy would fail overseas, and would have to depend on the US for most of its gross.

"but I wouldn't call that a success."

Of course you wouldn't, because you're even more stubborn than you are stupid.

"and then moved on, when I was proven wrong."

I'm sure I'm not the only who remembers that, in the build-up to 'Indy', you still referred to 'Transformers' as "a Michael Bay movie that failed because he didn't case a movie star in the leading role."

But I love the fact that even waiting a month before you can acknowledge that 'Transformers' was a hit is somehow reasonable in DZland.

comment #27

Howlingman says ...

Richardson, man, just let it go. Even if you win you still lose.

comment #28

D.Z. says ...

Richardson: "you predicted $180 "at the most, being generous". It is at $250+, and still in the top 3 at the box office, so it's still grossing money."

No, it's losing money, since it's sliding down fast, instead of just getting the usual drops associated with similar tent-poles.

"It's worldwide profit is higher than the amount you predicted it would sell in the US"

That's a given. It was expected to huge here, though.

"and you also said that, because Rambo failed overseas, Indy would fail overseas, and would have to depend on the US for most of its gross."

I said that the demand for Rambo 4 would determine the demand for Indy 4. So far, they've both done well, in regards to their genres, but not based on previous successes.

"I'm sure I'm not the only who remembers that, in the build-up to 'Indy', you still referred to 'Transformers' as "a Michael Bay movie that failed because he didn't case a movie star in the leading role."'

I was talking about Prince of Persia.