comment #1

MilkMan says ...

JJ Abrams is the new Spielberg.
Or, rather, Spielberg was the old JJ Abrams.
They are the same person.
Except JJ seems a little more go-go, rah-rah than Spielberg.
Abrams is going to want his Oscar in five years.
His bid to be taken seriously will be a war movie.
It will be taken seriously because he's made a lot money.
Steven Spielberg used to tell Amy Irving what a dumb bitch she was.
Used to tell her he was sick and tired of hearing her talk about her uncles.
All you do is fucking drone on and on and on.
This is what he said to Amy Irving.
You know what Amy Irving said to Spielberg?
Righghghghghghghght.
That's what she said.
Righghghghghghghght.

Nothing from nothing leaves nothing.
You gotta have something
If you wanna be with me

R.I.P. DFW - I'm going to miss you.

I

comment #2

btwnproductions says ...

If the culturally insignificant ALVIN AND THE CHIPMUNKS can make $$$, G.I. JOE can make megabucks.

comment #3

D.Z. says ...

"A franchise that has not had the cultural significance of Transformers in recent decades, yet greenlit at $170 million."

No excuse for it costing that much, since it was never as big as Transformers, and it'll probably remind people too much of "Toy Soldiers" and "Thunderbirds". It sounds like they've already blown all that Bay dough the way they blew their Viacom dough a few years ago.

"The Curious Tale Of Benjamin Button -- It may win best Picture, but with a $150 million-plus production budget and WB taking foreign, it will need Troy or Mr. & Mrs. Smith or Ocean's domestic numbers for Par to get close to it being a money maker."

Yeah, that price tag is the most ridiculous of the bunch, considering Zodiac just bombed a year ago. This is gonna be Fincher's "Heaven's Gate", guaranteed.

"Iron Man 2 - Not owned by Paramount. Once again, a distribution fee only. But this too will be insanely expensive."

Plus it's at least two years down the road.

"Transformers 2 - $200 million-plus budget, co-owned by DreamWorks (without investment) and big dollar one gross points to exec producer Steven Spielberg."

If Paramount is lucky, this won't end up being a Tomb Raider 2 for them. If *we're* lucky, this will finish the job that "The Island" started.

Milkman: Stevie's dumb to try to ditch Grey, when no one really cares about Rin Tin Tin, and it'll probably bomb worse than Underdog.

"Star Trek -- No Star Trek film has ever cracked $150 million worldwide. There is a good chance that this new, JJ Abrams, fun and gun Trek will break that number. But the film reportedly has gone past the $150 million budget mark, meaning that $300 million worldwide is about the lowest worldwide gross the film can do and get to profit. Double the best ever for the franchise. But hey, Batman did it."

As for Abrams, he's going to have to make sure his Star Trek isn't just another Serenity, if he wants to make the big bucks.

comment #4

D.Z. says ...

btwn: Chipmunks was a kiddie flick released during the holidays, thus canceling out any need for nostalgia. G.I. Joe is gonna need some serious jingoistic love to succeed.

comment #5

Chapman Carruthers says ...

A blurb from Sam Shepard's Motel Chronicles that's been stuck in my mind since I heard the news of DFW's death It means nothing. Take it for what it is.

There's a dead Monarch butterfly on the sidewalk of Ozana. The breeze flops it back and forth. All day they've been exploding into my windshield leaving pink and gold splashes across the glass. I saw one drop vertically from the sky and crash into the blacktop of Highway 10 East. It must be their time of year to die.

10/16/80
Ozona, Texas

comment #6

ScottMendelson says ...

Re - Long-ass Star Trek rant (from a different thread, but on the same subject)

I have no idea if it’ll be any good, but I have to question the logic. Paramount is spending $150 million on a series that has never topped $109 million and has averaged $75 million. Does anyone else think it’s hilarious that Paramount is basically spending so much that it’ll have to triple the highest-grossing Star Trek movie in order to just break even?

Even if it grosses as much as JJ Abraham’s previous picture, the slightly overrated Mission: Impossible III, it’ll still struggle to stay in the black. That also cost $150 million, but topped out at $135 million and $398 million internationally, a solid hit but well below expectations and cost (although I assume Cruise won’t be taking his zillion-percent of the gross cut on this one).

And, that’s probably best case scenario. More likely we’re looking at Cloverfield numbers, a boffo $40 million opening followed by a quick exodus of all non-geeks and non-fans to the final tune of $90 million. And remember, Star Trek doesn’t do diddly overseas. At the end of the day, Star Trek is still Star Trek and the fan base is limited. To put this in perspective, the 1996 $30 million opening weekend of Star Trek: First Contact (the biggest opening in the series) was still $6 million less than the opening weekend for Star Wars: Special Edition, the 20th anniversary re-release just three months later.

I always say that you should never spend more on a sequel than the original made domestically (comparatively, Live Free Or Die Hard cost $110 million, about $10 million less than part II grossed back in 1990). I guess I should make a new rule: never spend $150 million+ on a sequel/prequel to a series where the highest grossing, by far, of ten films was $109 million.

Nothing would make me laugh harder if the film makes the same $90 million that Star Trek: First Contact made in 1996. It’s one thing to take a risk and spend $150 million on an unproven property that you hope can break out (Lord Of The Rings, Transformers, The Golden Compass). It’s quite another to spend $150 million on a series that you know doesn’t have the track record to deliver on that investment.

I like the franchise and I can’t imagine the movie will be any worse than Nemesis, The Search For Spock, or The Final Frontier. But even if it measures up to The Wrath Of Khan and The Undiscovered Country, that doesn’t mean Paramount should have spent Star Wars money on Star Trek.

Star Trek, like most franchises, has a specific fan base. Unless it can find away to build on that fan base, to draw in people who otherwise wouldn’t care, you have a ceiling. For Trek, that’s about $100 million max, even if it’s better than Wrath Of Khan. Now, if you want to toss in JJ Abram’s fan base, then go for it. But Cloverfield, sold more or less completely on his name, tapped out at about $90 million. Quite impressive for what it was, but not a number that Paramount would be happy with.

Basically, what you’re dealing with is a situation of Paramount needing JJ Abram’s Star Trek to basically triple the global business of any previous Trek film. On top of that, you have completely new actors taking on characters made iconic because of the performances of very specific actors in the first place. This isn’t Batman or James Bond, where the characters are legendary by themselves.

This would be the equivalent of Paramount spending $250 million on Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull, but recasting all the main characters (say, Paul Rudd as Indiana Jones, Pierce Brosnan as his father, Rachel McAdams as Marion, etc).

Like I said, I’m a fan of Star Trek and I’m a fan of Abrams, but something needs to happen to make this more than just a Star Trek film, just like the stars aligned last summer to make The Dark Knight more than just a Batman sequel (hopefully, John Cho won’t OD on cocaine before the Oscars). Unless Paramount makes this a must-see film for people who don’t know Romulan Ale from Romaine Lettuce, they may be in for a world of financial hurt.

comment #7

MilkMan says ...

That was a very nice passage, Chapman.
I have no idea what it has to do with DFW, but its beauty if evident nonetheless.
But then again, I have no idea what Spielberg mental abuse of Amy Irving has to do with DFW, other that I'm sad that DFW is dead and I'm sad that I yelled at my wife this morning, especially now that she is gone.
But no, really, It's a shame about Sam Shephard's teeth.
I think with some grill work he could've been what everyone always wanted Kevin Costner to be.
Because I doubt Sam Shephard is the type of guy who likes to spray his juice on hotel masseuses when the don't let him achieve proper release.
That's another rumor I heard.

comment #8

D.Z. says ...

Scott: "At the end of the day, Star Trek is still Star Trek and the fan base is limited. To put this in perspective, the 1996 $30 million opening weekend of Star Trek: First Contact (the biggest opening in the series) was still $6 million less than the opening weekend for Star Wars: Special Edition, the 20th anniversary re-release just three months later."

That might actually work out for Abrams, since people are tired of SW, and they might want sci-fi with more substance. [But then they made Transformers a hit, so what do I know...?]

"Now, if you want to toss in JJ Abram’s fan base, then go for it. But Cloverfield, sold more or less completely on his name, tapped out at about $90 million."

I thought Cloverfield sold more on the viral marketing featuring teaser ads which didn't reveal the monster until opening day. Abrams has gotten lucky by attaching himself to projects with general appeal. Being able to successfully reboot ST is his first real test. Still, I think I have slightly more confidence in him at least making the studio's money back than I do with Cameron doing the same with Avatar.

"This would be the equivalent of Paramount spending $250 million on Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull, but recasting all the main characters (say, Paul Rudd as Indiana Jones, Pierce Brosnan as his father, Rachel McAdams as Marion, etc)."

They did sort of recast the characters with actors who were shells of their former selves, but I assume that's not what you meant. ^_-

Milkman: Sorry about the domestic problems.

comment #9

YRG says ...

Scott-- great analysis. I have no investment in this either way, but I could see this doing well overseas, especially if the new actors make it their own. I see it doing even better if it pisses off the Trekkies/Trekkers by not being as true to the world as they're used to. There is so much history to the characters, etc. that JJ is bound to upset some diehard fans for screwing with the universe to make it his own and make it salable. I've read that Chris Pine, who plays Kirk, isn't much of a fan. It's likely that he won't ape Shatner's performance, and this will truly be a re-imagining of Star Trek.

comment #10

markj says ...

The difference between Abrams and Cameron is that Cameron is the most talented blockbuster director post-Spielberg and JJ Abrams, well, isn't...

Abrams is aiming this new Trek at today's numbskull teen audience - I think you can safely predict Trek's philosophy and storytelling to be chucked out the window and replaced by CG battles and the usual crapola Kurtzman/Orci script. Those guys have yet to write one memorable line of dialogue.

comment #11

MilkMan says ...

Thanks for the kind words DZ

A thanks to you Yves for keeping us up to date on the latest fresh hot buzz of the day.

Next time on Hollywood Elsewhere:

Diane Lane talks about losing her virginity at age 13 to Adam Ant.
Ray Winstone tells someone to piss off.
David Clennon in the battle of his life with throat cancer.
Christopher Lambert, homeless and living on the streets of Monte Carlo.
Long lost diaries that may implicate James Dean in bestiality.
Why Terri Garr is a miserable old bitch, according a to young Marine who recently lost both legs in a roadside bombing.

comment #12

MilkMan says ...

Markj hit it on the button.

Orci and Kurtzman are the hacks du jour, good little worker bees who take dictation from whatever crap director they are whoring themselves out to.

I bet Michael Bay used to wave his dick around in front of those two.

I bet Bay had a meeting with the two of those jokers at his house, in the back yard, Orci and Kurtzman sitting on chairs while Bay is in the pool, fucking a Playmate while telling jokes that he wants incorporated into the script.

And those two just sit there, laughing and nodding like nothing weird is happening.

And then they go home and lock themselves in the bathroom.

I want that job.

That's the perfect job for me.

And I can type fast too.

comment #13

D.Z. says ...

mark: "The difference between Abrams and Cameron is that Cameron is the most talented blockbuster director post-Spielberg"

You mean "was" the most talented, until he actually took Alba seriously, and then had to hide out for the better part of the decade as a result of the backlash.

comment #14

D.Z. says ...

Anyway, I keep wondering why Spielberg still thinks he can call the shots. He endorsed a guy who embodies the complete opposite of his approach to film last year, and then let Lucas ruin his legacy with the latest installment of Indiana Jones, but only puts his foot down, when it comes to Grey. The guy only saved DW from being viewed as a has-been in the vein of Revolution. And what does Grey get for it, but some egotistical power-trip from a director who hasn't had any name-power since "Saving Private Ryan"?

comment #15

ZayTonday says ...

Wait, Benjamin Button cost $150 MILLION? Who the hell was the genius that signed off on that? How in the holy fuck do they expect to make that back with such an artsy type film? I'm hyped to see it myself, but damn.

comment #16

ZayTonday says ...

Oh also in regards to the aforementioned $150 million art film, I just had to add: LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

comment #17

Breedlove says ...

James Cameron hid out for a decade to hide from the backlash resulting from his taking Jessica Alba too seriously? Is that a joke?

comment #18

markj says ...

MilkMan - it is strange anybody hires those talentless hacks but I guess once you've had a hit nobody (especially the coked-up ogres running the studios) really cares about script quality anymore, as evidenced by a quick rundown of the Kurtzman/Orci oeuvre - The Island, Mission Impossible III, The Legend of Zorro, Transformers. These guys don't write scripts, just blueprints.

A.Z. - I haven't seen anything Cameron has done post-Titanic to be honest. But Cameron can't be beat at sci-fi and when Cameron says Avatar will "blow you through the back wall of the theater" i'm inclined to believe him, based on the quality of The Terminator, Aliens, The Abyss, T2 and True Lies. Cameron understands this kind of movie like no-one else.

comment #19

MDOC says ...

"You mean "was" the most talented, until he actually took Alba seriously, and then had to hide out for the better part of the decade as a result of the backlash."

Great analysis, you definately hit your head on the nail.

comment #20

TheCahuengaKid says ...

...and Sir William Shatner isn't even in the Abrams STAR TREK!!!

comment #21

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

To shamelessly steal from a posting on Poland's blog, the adjusted box office take of Wrath of Khan and Trek Saves The Whales was $190M and $209M respectively.

Paramount will definitely market the shit out of this as a totally new franchise, so non-fans can feel like their getting in on the ground floor. Don't forget, they own MTV so you better believe you're gonna be seeing so much of this new cast you might as well call it Real World: Starfleet There will also be whole cast appearances on Leno, Kimmel and Letterman.

So I guess judging from the short-sighted response, there's gonna be many a shorts to be cleaned when the haul gets past $300M. If rumors of giant space battles turn out to be true, that kid sector that pushed Transformers could very well put it over $400M.

MDOC kudos, brother, kudos. D.Z's ADD and OCD fueled mumblings wouldn't be so consistently annoying if they were also accurate.

comment #22

D.Z. says ...

Breed: "James Cameron hid out for a decade to hide from the backlash resulting from his taking Jessica Alba too seriously? Is that a joke?"

No more of a joke than his show.

mark: "But Cameron can't be beat at sci-fi and when Cameron says Avatar will "blow you through the back wall of the theater" i'm inclined to believe him, based on the quality of The Terminator, Aliens, The Abyss, T2 and True Lies. Cameron understands this kind of movie like no-one else."

How come you didn't add Dark Angel? Anyway, if Avatar was that good, he wouldn't have chosen to start on it only a year ago after dropping Battle Angel...

comment #23

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

"How come you didn't add Dark Angel?"

Perhaps because he's not an idiot and recognizes the difference between a TV show and a film?

We know, we know - you never did recover from the trauma that was "Put the correct shapes into the right hole." It's sad, I seriously think my kids could win a debate with D.Z.

comment #24

D.Z. says ...

Deathtongue: The guy never said film, just sci-fi.

comment #25

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

Now I know my kids could wipe the floor with D.Z.

Not only did the guy say he hasn't seen anything post Titanic (uh, that would mean "Dark Angel"), but the string of Cameron titles were all films.

But keep banging away, I'm sure one day you will finally get that square peg into the round hole if you try hard enough.

comment #26

D.Z. says ...

Deathtongue: That actually makes *his* comments look less reliable, since he claims that Cameron is good at sci-fi, even though he clearly hasn't seen anything from him after Titanic. Oh, and your kids are probably wondering why you're not spending more quality time with them.

comment #27

Chapman Carruthers says ...

Not only his teeth, but his voice too. Everything about Shepard screams leading man except for those two features. They seem almost incompatible with the rest of him. It makes me wonder if his parents were of such diverse ethnic or racial backgrounds that his DNA folded on its head when it was being pieced together.

But the guy has great hair. Like a cross between a shire horse and a portugeese porn maiden.

I wonder what it would be like to be a wallflower in New York during the sixties, watching the production of his plays, no matter how absurd.

comment #28

MilkMan says ...

I can't really picture what a Portugese porn maiden is, but it sounds like something I would like. Is that an animal, or is it exactly what it sounds like?

But you're right. It's a good thing Shephard didn't have coarse, curly hair. That's maybe the thing that separates him from being an Off-Off Broadway Cutting Edge Artiste and a guy who stars in stag films, like Party at Kitty's, the kind of movies Stallone started out making. You're a young man, you come to the big city, and people take one look at your hair and decide whether to let you into the club. I think it might be that simple.

comment #29

Richardson says ...

I was thinking that 'Benjamin Button' would fail, but if DZ is sure that it will fail, then i'm now 100% convinced it will succeed. DZ has never predicted anything that turned out to be even remotely correct. He's a stone cold idiot.

comment #30

TL says ...

"GI Joe - A franchise that has not had the cultural significance of Transformers in recent decades, yet greenlit at $170 million.

This doesn't make any sense -- what "cultural significance" did the Transformers have in the 21st century until they got an expensive (and terrible) movie made about them?

comment #31

wenwen says ...

ed hardyed hardy

Gucci HandbagsGucci Handbags

Louis VuittonLouis Vuitton

Columbia SportswearColumbia Sportswear

Links Of LondonLinks Of London

comment #32

love says ...

In a trice, the links of london Christmas is approaching links charms this year.From the Ed Hardy TopsTiffany BraceletI wore the the north face Borealis ugg boots online and hope to find a suitable Abercrombie and Fitch Jeans.links of london I decided to search links londonlinks bracelet,sweetie bracelet

comment #33

niuniu2012 says ...

You can use DVD to MP3 Converter to select target subtitle and audio track according at your will. DVD to MP3 Converter also provides you with fruitful options to set audio properties of audio bitrate, Sample Rate and so on.

comment #34

janee says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of virtualization high availability