Industry Analysis

MARVEL ON THE WARPATH
How a Superhero Film Giant                                                                                                                                               Is Shaping the Next 5 Years         by Bennett Campbell Ferguson

 

Above: Ellen Page stars in "X-Men: Days of Future Past," 
one of many forthcoming movies based on Marvel Comic books

If you’ve glanced at film websites such as Rotten Tomatoes and Collider during the last few weeks, you may have noticed that there have been quite a lot of new stories surfacing about movies based upon Marvel superheroes.  Last month, the Hollywood didn’t seem to be looking past 2015 (when J.J. Abrams’ “Star Wars: Episode VII” is set to shred box office records); now, even the 2018 calendar is coming into focus.  In the following debriefing, I decipher some of these developments, speculating what the continuing dominance of Marvel superhero movies (including those made by other companies, such as Sony and Fox) could mean for the film industry as we look to the future.

 

1.       Marvel and Disney Lock Dates and Downey

Over the past few years, the first weekend of May has become an incredibly desirable release date for blockbusters—because it’s the beginning of the summer season, it’s the time when audiences are hungriest for spectacle (as the success of “The Avengers” can attest).  Since 2007 Marvel movies have held that date and it appears that they will continue to do so.  The company (which is owned by Disney) recently announced that they will release untitled films on May 6^TH, 2016 and on May 5^TH, 2017.  This is hardly surprising, but it also means that companies like Paramount which could have nabbed those desirable dates are now out of luck.  As for what those untitled films will be, who knows?  Since the “Iron Man” franchise is likely over, I suspect that new “Captain America” or “Thor” films could be candidates, especially if the forthcoming sequels to those films are successful.  It’s equally likely that Marvel would use the time to launch a new franchise like “Doctor Strange.”  Nothing heats up summer ticket sales-wise than starting the season with a new series (see “Spider-Man” and “Iron Man”).

            Of course, Marvel has a much bigger franchise to deal with—the “Avengers” series, which combines the characters from all its various sagas.  Apparently, one of those will be Tony Stark, since portrayer Robert Downey has officially struck a deal to appear in two more “Avengers” films.  In all likelihood, such a pact was costly for Disney and Marvel, since Mr. Downey made a rumored $50 million from the last “Avengers.”  But considering the fact that his gonzo performance as Stark is so popular, it appears that studio executives are willing to spend money in order to make money.

            With these developments, it became clear that Marvel intends to continue dominating the box office.  But with so much success, one wonders: will it last?  I think it will, at least for now.  But eventually, something will change.  Either Marvel will keep making soulless, fast-talking films and ultimately wear out audiences.  Then again, the company’s continued success might convince executives to be more creatively daring.  This has been known to happen—witness Christopher Nolan’s evolution from the populism of “The Dark Knight” to the zippy and richly satisfying intellectualism of “Inception”.  If such a moment of transition comes for Marvel, they may alienate some viewers, but they will possibly engage some new ones.  Such is life.

 

2.      Sony Spins More Spidey, But Without Woodley?

Despite the animosity I feel towards some Marvel films, there is one I’ve particularly enjoyed of late: Marc Webb’s “The Amazing Spider-Man,” which is a retelling of the tortured vigilante’s origin.  While it lacks the rich romanticism of Sam Raimi’s original “Spider-Man” trilogy, it moves at a blessedly even tempo, emphasizing wittily human drama over violence and satire.  The result was not a great film, but doubtless a good one.  In addition, it was very profitable (worldwide gross: $750 million) which can only explain the recent news that Sony Pictures will soon release not only “The Amazing Spider-Man 2,” but also third and fourth installments as well.  It’s true—even as Mr. Webb films the second film (which is set for May 2^ND of next year), two more Spidey pictures have been scheduled for June 10^TH, 2016 and May 4^TH, 2018.  To say the least, the prospect of Sony looking five years in to the franchise’s future is rather startling.

            There are a couple of things that need to be said about this development.  First of all, it could be a positive one—if the sequels maintain the standard of the original, we could be witness to a great run of humanistic Spidey films.  Yet ironically, making some many movies about this character is only possible because Mr. Webb’s iteration of the character falls on the lower end of the quality spectrum.  Sony actually wanted to make four films with Mr. Raimi as well, but the director balked, likely because he had channeled some much passion into the first three.  By contrast, “The Amazing Spider-Man” is a mild affair.  Instead of encountering a mortal enemy, Spidey battles a hokey lizard; instead of pursuing his true love, he pursues the girl he has a crush on.  Thus, the fact that Mr. Webb’s standards are a little bit lower creates a new opportunity—the studio can make more movies without risking as much creatively. 

            Nevertheless, this may not be as simple as it seems.  While the “Spider-Man” films are based on Marvel comics, they are not actually made by Marvel—in fact, Sony executive Matt Tolmach currently serves as the series’ producer.  And yet several planned films in the series have been scheduled for that coveted and aforementioned first weekend in May, a time usually reserved for films that Marvel produces themselves, like “Iron Man” and “The Avengers.”  I can’t help wondering if Marvel is happy as long one of their characters kicks off the summer season or if they are angry that Sony stole their precious Mayday.

            Considering these details, I feel that Sony should tread carefully.  For there may have made a new enemy—actress Shailene Woodley, who briefly plays Spidey’s future girlfriend Mary Jane in “The Amazing Spider-Man 2.”  While Ms. Woodley is a thoroughly appealing actress, Mr. Webb has already decided to cut all her scenes from the film in order to narrow the film’s narrative spectrum.  In all likelihood, this is a wise decision—with a sprawling supporting cast that includes Jamie Foxx, Dane DeHaan, Felicity Jones, the wonderful Paul Giamatti, and the smashingly cool Chris Cooper, the film could easily become overcrowded.  Yet for many online writers, the deletion prompted speculation that Ms. Woodley was to be replaced by Sarah Gadon.  This prospect was unsettling especially because of recent nasty online comments about Ms. Woodley’s appearance.  The thought that she might be replaced for such a superficial reason is chilling.

            So: not all is well in Spidey’s world.  But at the end of the day, speculation is just that and there’s no reason to assume that Ms. Woodley won’t appear in “The Amazing Spider-Man 3” and “4” (especially since Ms. Gadon recently stated that she’s not playing Mary Jane).  And in the meantime, the current state of the franchise gives us a lot to ponder, from speculation to industry politics to body image and to how it might all turn out in the end. 

 

3.      Swapping Apes for X-Men, Fox Finds Friends

Like Sony, Twentieth Century Fox bears the distinction of running a Marvel film franchise not owned by Marvel: the “X-Men” saga, which is (among other things) a superhero meditation on racism and homophobia.  And while the series has lost some commercial momentum over the years, its creative integrity is unflagging and its production schedule is quickening.  Not only will Fox release a new installment this summer (“The Wolverine,” directed by James Mangold), but they’ve bumped up its sequel, “X-Men: Days of Future Past.”  Despite plans for “Days” to be distributed on July 18^TH, 2014, the film has been switched to May 23, 2014.  And with that one move, Fox has redefined the 2014 season, something which nearly every major studio should be thanking them for.  The date change will likely benefit Fox (especially since the massively profitable “X-Men: The Last Stand” was also released in late May) but it will help other films as well.

            The first distributor indebted to Fox is Warner Bros., who has just been saved from a serious mistake.  Several months ago, the company schedules its “Godzilla” remake for May 16^TH, 2014, a mere week before the planned arrival of Fox’s “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.”  I need hardly mention that releasing two monster movies within one week is a death move for both—even American audiences can grow weary of watching cityscapes demolished by feral beasts.  But now that Fox has pushed “Apes” back to July 18^TH, 2014, Godzilla should have plenty of room to wiggle his spiky tail.  While “Godzilla” and “X-Men” are both blockbusters, they belong to distinctly different genres.  What’s more, this summer has proven that mutants and monsters can coexist peacefully.  Just look at “Man of Steel” and “World War Z”—a mere seven days separated their respective releases, yet both are selling tickets at top speed.  I predict that the same will be true of the merry Marvel mutants and the ever-cuddly green goliath when they take the stage next year.

            Of course there is another stage to consider—July 2014.  With “Apes” debuting on the eighteenth in lieu of “X-Men,” the landscape of that month has also been altered.  But once again, it’s for the better, at least in terms of business.  A July release would have put “X-Men” uncomfortably close to “Guardians of the Galaxy,” another superhero ensemble extravaganza.  Normally, the Guardians wouldn’t pose a threat—after all, they are not nearly recognizable as the X-Men.  But the film is being made by Marvel and Disney, meaning that it takes place in the same universe as “The Avengers,” a film which made almost as much as the first three “X-Men” movies combined (although it was far less artful).  The X-Men could have been scarred in the showdown but now that they’ve moved to May, that potential crisis has been averted.  And like “X-Men” and “Godzilla,” “Planet of the Apes” and “Guardians of the Galaxy” belong to distinctly different genres.  If anything, they will feed each other by stoking the fires of summer blockbuster enthusiasts.

            Being one of those enthusiasts, I am stunned and thrilled that “X-Men” will be delivered to theaters sooner, especially since its being directed by the wonderful Bryan Singer.  Yet there are two caveats.  To begin, “X-Men” now has to share May with the similarly-themed “Amazing Spider-Man 2” and even though the films will debut three weeks apart, Spidey will arrive first, giving the webbed wonder the chance to exhaust the year’s superhero fascination before the cavalry arrives.  What’s more, a July 18^TH release could have been a terrific coup for the “X-Men” franchise.  It was on that same date in 2008 that “The Dark Knight” swept into theaters, smashing the current first weekend record to smithereens.  The May debut of “Planet of the Apes” (with a fantastic “X-Men” trailer) attached could have helped build up momentum to a similar milestone.

            But I must confess, I have more than the potential financial difficulties of major conglomerates.  What I wonder it, how can I justify writing about such subjects when there are so many more important things happening in the world?  Well…I will answer that question to the best of my ability.  I love to write about the box office and the reason behind the release dates—there’s a whole science to it and it’s fascinating why distributors make certain decisions and how they affect us.  I believe the effect is profound.  Remember when J.J. Abrams’ “Star Trek” was scheduled to come out during Christmas of 2008?  If Paramount had stuck to that date, it could have completely altered our perception of the film.  Oh sure, it wouldn’t have changed the nature of the film itself, but it would have change the way we perceived it.  Such a debut would have meant that “Star Trek” would have been tied to snow, Christmas trees, and chuckling mall Santas.  But because it arrived in summer 0f 2009, I will always associate it with sunshine, long hot highways, and even my high school graduation.   

            In the end, the choice of release dates is always strategic—distributors choose dates because they believe they can make more money at certain times of year.  And yet there is meaning in those choices, a kind of destiny.  Because once you walk into a theater to see a movie on a particular day, you feel that somehow, despite financial finagling, it was meant to arrive on that day all along.

****J

Movie Review: "The Bling Ring" (Sofia Coppola, 2013)

HOLLOW BLING: SOFIA COPPOLA'S LATEST IS SURPRISINGLY EMPTY
by Bennett Campbell Ferguson

                                                 Above: Katie Chang and Isreal Broussard

 

Many a disappointment is born to begin well.  Indeed, “The Bling Ring” begins very well—after the credits roll with an electric smash, we see a kid named Marc (played by Israel Broussard) starting his first day at a new high school.  It’s a bright, pale sunny Los Angeles day, but Marc doesn’t look overjoyed.  He walks with his head bent.  “Watch it!” a girl snaps as she collides with his backpack.  He doesn’t respond.

            But Marc does make one friend.  Her name is Rebecca (Katie Chang) and it becomes clear right away that like Marc, she’s something different.  She invites him to the beach a mere thirty seconds after meeting him and as they chat and get high, it becomes clear that they share something—a fascination with fashion and celebrity that is stronger than what many people posses.  From there, they progress from getting to know each other to robbing the houses of movie and TV stars, a journey that will lead their prettily bland lives into effervescent notoriety. 

            As I’ve mentioned before, this is a strong setup.  While the movie is an ensemble piece, writer-director Sofia Coppola allows Marc (and Mr. Broussard to anchor much of the film).  It’s a wise choice—Marc’s fear of being caught makes him relatable, but so does his love for his partners in crime.  The image of Rebecca walking in slow motion while Marc confesses to us that he loves her is at once poetically plastic and wondrously beautiful.  Yet Rebecca is not as relatable as Marc.  Among the characters in the story, she’s the most passionate about stealing from the likes of Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton.  But we never know why; we never understand her motivation.  Marc says it’s because she wants to “be a part of the lifestyle” of those celebrities, but again I have to ask: why?  What’s really driving her need to experience that lifestyle?

            I must confess a temptation to ask Ms. Coppola this question, though I have a feeling she’d ignore it.  “The Bling Ring” is not concerned with personalities or motives—it’s really about the robberies themselves.  In scene after scene, the characters invade celebrity homes, and we watch over and over again as they gasp over jewelry, pairs of shoes, and “hidden” rolls of dollar bills.  In some of these scenes, Marc’s fear of being caught offers an electric jolt, but the others seem perfectly at ease lounging in Paris Hilton’s “night club” room.  As a result, the robberies start to feel strangely repetitive and boring—because they make up most of the story, they impart a feeling of narrative constriction.  Too rarely do we get to see the characters’ own homes and by extension, too rarely do we get to see who they really are.

            I’m not quite sure what Ms. Coppola was going for with this kind of storytelling.  While this failure to develop the characters fully could be seen as sloppiness, I suspect that it was attempt to strip away the trappings of psychology so we could be immersed in the discovery of stolen goods, what Marc calls “so many beautiful things.”  But for me, this just doesn’t work.  Crime is always a good cinematic subject but the cast of “The Bling Ring” doesn’t see themselves as criminals.  “Let’s go shopping,” Rebecca says as they enter Paris Hilton’s house and that’s exactly what these ventures are to them—shopping.  This kind of relaxed approach to theft drains the suspense and other qualities that make thievery dynamic in movies.

            There’s also the problem that most of the characters are unendurable.  As Rebecca, Ms. Chang seeps up the camera’s light to beautiful effect, especially in the aforementioned slow motion shot.  Yet as a person, she’s remarkably shallow.  Yet she’s not just a shallow character—she’s also portrayed in a shallow manner.  We may be permitted to gaze into Mr. Broussard’s eyes, but we never become close to the other characters in the same way.  Then there’s Nicki (Emma Watson), easily the most vapid burglar of the bunch.  I was looking forward to seeing Ms. Watson playing an unabashedly obnoxious L.A. kid, but she turns out to be a stunningly annoying screen presence in this film, something which is best personified during an interview where she keeps telling her mother to shut up.  She does it so many times that like the robberies, her hushing becomes a sort of boring mantra.

            Thus: a shallow movie about shallow people.  In an essence, that is “The Bling Ring.”  Yet there are so many moments when it seems that a better film wants to emerge from the endless cavalcade of shopping sprees.  Think of the black and white scene where Marc dances in his room.  In that moment, he seems to be expressing so kind of genuine exuberance, something he can’t share with the rest of the world.  In a film with so much emotionless fakery, that truth stands out like a jewel, albeit one that can’t be stolen it is as non-corporeal as it is beautiful.

Essay: The Films of Sofia Coppola

THE COPPOLA CODE: AN EXPLORATION OF SOFIA COPPOLA’S 

PASSIONS, THEMES, AND MOTIFS AS A DIRECTOR

by Bennett Campbell Ferguson

Above: Coppola

In all likelihood, you have heard that in the next few weeks, a film called “The Bling Ring” will be released across the United States.  It will be about a gang of teenagers who robbed Paris Hilton, Orlando Bloom, Lindsay Lohan, and Rachel Bilson, accruing a total of three million dollars in stolen merchandise.  Since it is based on a true story, it’s a foregone conclusion how it will end—with the kids being dragged off to jail.

Nevertheless, I feel certain that there will be surprises.  “The Bling Ring” will be the fifth film written and directed by the great filmmaker Sofia Coppola and as such it will be particularly fascinating to see how it will relate to her previous movies, which were “The Virgin Suicides,” “Lost in Translation,” “Marie Antoinette,” and “Somewhere.”  Through those films, certain Coppola conventions have been established—favored themes, recurring images, and scenes reminiscent of each other.  I, for one, am interested to see how those motifs will fit into Ms. Coppola’s latest project.

But that will have to wait for another day.  For now, I thought it would be a good time to write up an exploration of this relentlessly, boldly observant director’s work.  For too long, Ms. Coppola has been known as a director who makes movies about hotels and won an Oscar for screenwriting.  Those things are true, but it is time to move beyond those observations and delve into the rich world that she has created in her already masterful career.   

Without a doubt, one of Ms. Coppola’s favorite themes is the search for freedom.  All her screenplays are filled with characters who are either physically or emotionally trapped by their circumstances, which often include personal limitations but also society itself.  As Charlotte, the heroine of Ms. Coppola’s “Lost in Translation” says, “I’m stuck.”  Those words could have been uttered by almost any Coppola character.

            In “The Virgin Suicides,” the sensation of being trapped is quite literal—at the end of the film, the titular girls are imprisoned permanently in their house by their tyrannical mother.  Similarly, in “Marie Antoinette” (which chronicles the infamous reign of the doomed Queen of France), Marie and her friends trapped by strict conventions of the French Royal court, regulations they can only defy by shopping, partying, and frolicking in the country.  It’s the only thing they can do to keep society from stifling them.

            By contrast, society is not the enemy in “Lost in Translation.”  The film is about two characters, the aforementioned Charlotte and Bob Harris, a washed-up movie star.  In the movie, both of them are staying in the Park Hyatt hotel in Tokyo, where they form a powerful friendship.  While they never experience any literal imprisonment, they are, pun intended, lost.  Charlotte has no real passion or occupation—she can do nothing except wander through the city’s streets and subways.  Bob, meanwhile, is more active, since he’s an actor.  But he’s filming a whiskey commercial, something which he does not have much passion for (shocker).  It is experiences like these that leave both characters are trapped in a bored, apathetic state. 

            For Marie and the girls of “The Virgin Suicides,” a satisfactory escape from that trapped state never materializes.  While the girls have a chance to flee the house, they abruptly choose to kill themselves instead, an actions which horrifies and confuses everyone around them.  And while Marie gets out of the suffocating and pale palace of Versailles, it’s only because the palace is under attack.  The film ends with her departure but, well, you know what happens next.

            Yet Ms. Coppola is not a pessimistic filmmaker—far from it—and in “Lost in” and “Somewhere,” she revives the hope of freedom.  Bob and Charlotte never leave Tokyo during the film, but they adapt—by being together and going on adventures (they have one especially beautiful night on the town that involves a BB gun, an arcade, and karaoke), they find their freedom within the city.  At first, Tokyo seems like a trap—they don’t speak the language so they can’t really fit in.  Yet because it is packed with so many sights and sounds that are new to them, it becomes a kind of heavenly, sweeping Metropolis, a city that they embrace as their playground.

            A similar transformation takes place in “Somewhere.”  The film begins with an impressively monotonous shot—Z-grade action star Johnny Marco (Stephen Dorff) driving in circles in his black sports car, never going anywhere.  It’s a metaphorical image, one that symbolizes his pointless existence.  Yet over the course of the film, his bond with his daughter gives him a reason to do more than lounge around hotels ogling strippers.  Being with her breaks him out of his routine and so the film ends with him driving not in circles, but straight down the highway, away from the city and towards the next phase of his life. 

            Not every Coppola character finds this kind of freedom.  But even though her films sometimes end on a tragic note, they all have soaring moments of escape.  Think of the flirtingly poetic trip to the prom in “Suicides” and the image of Kirsten Dunst running through gleaming green grasses in “Marie.”  They are transcendent images, the kind I always hope for not only movies, but in life.  And yet I don’t think those scenes are worthwhile only as metaphors for human experiences—watching them is wonderful in and of itself.  The rhythm of Sofia Coppola’s movies is one that evokes life at its most beautiful, and to feel that rhythm is to live, to breathe, to veer away from boredom and cliché. 

            To become unstuck.        

Movie Review: "Man of Steel" (Zack Snyder, 2013)

STRIPPED OF STEEL by Bennett Campbell Ferguson

Right:
Even Amy Adams
can't save "Man of Steel"

Who is Superman?  That is a question that has perplexed comic book readers and moviegoers for years.  To some, he is Clark Kent, the alien boy who grew up in Kansas, little dreaming that he would one day become a scarlet-caped superhero.  Yet for others, Clark doesn’t truly come into his own until he adopts the moniker of Superman, setting out to save the world.  At the end of the day, both interpretations have been immortalized in comics and movies which begs the question: to which camp does “Man of Steel,” a cinematic retelling of Superman’s origin belong? 

In my opinion, neither.  This may be a Superman movie, but it feels more like “cipher man.”  Supes (played by Henry Cavill) may dominate the screen visually, but he has no soul—the film offers no sense of his beliefs, personality or eccentricities, a flaw which is merely one of many nails in the coffin of this atrociously bad film.  There are moments early in the film when it seems to coalesce into a dramatic and poetic adventure, but they pass in a chaotic haze of bland explosions, dull dialogue, and jittery cinematography that threatens to give you a headache. 

It is a testament to the film’s failings that even a terrific cast proves incapable of saving it, although Russell Crowe comes close to doing so.  As Superman’s alien father, he commands the film’s opening sequence with grand dignity, leaping into and ocean and standing firm against robots to save his son.  The ploy works and young Supes successfully escapes the devastation of his home planet, destined Earth in a tiny, baby-sized space capsule.  This is all quite familiar (especially to anyone who has seen the original 1978 “Superman” film) but once the hero arrives on Earth, “Man of Steel” engages in a series of flashbacks.  Like a grimy-eyed juggler, director Zack Snyder mixes and matches scenes of his protagonist’s time as a boy, a teen, and ultimately, a stoically bearded adult, wandering aimlessly an immersed in menial labor.

Ultimately, these flashbacks may remind you of another superhero film—“Batman Begins,” which adopted a jumbled chronology to illustrate the mental growth of its tortured vigilante.  Yet while glimpses of the past enriched that film, they do nothing for “Man of Steel.”  They all seem designed to illustrate the same idea, chiefly that Superman can’t behave like a normal person—because of his immense power, he has to let himself be bullied and in order to keep his secret, he has to detach himself from society.  Clearly, these revelations are supposed to increase our sympathy for the man, but they have quite the opposite effect.  Superman is so resigned to his miserable life (he stumbles upon his iconic red and blue costume completely by coincidence, rather than seeking it out) that he comes off as dopily sheep-like.  It doesn’t help that Mr. Cavill is a remarkably weak presence—aside from a few screams of pain, he speaks in a dispassionate monotone.  As the spirited reporter Lois Lane, Amy Adams fights to compensate for her costar’s lack of charisma, by David S. Goyer’s screenplay blocks her attempts by turning Lois into a simplistic damsel in distress who’s main purpose is to stare at Superman adoringly.  God forbid that one of the world’s most talented and likable actresses should be allowed to actually do something.

In many ways, Lois serves as our guide to the film.  It is she, after all, who pursues reports of a mysterious man involved in miraculous rescues and her quest to discover Superman’s true identity allows us to get to know him better as well.  Yet “Man of Steel” is hardly a getting to know you movie—it’s a shadowy splurge of action that’s ignited when the alien tyrant General Zod (Michael Shannon) arrives to annihilate both Earth and Superman.  This setup begs for a depiction of apocalyptic evil, but Zod is hardly menacing—he’s mostly a nasal-nosed lunatic, imbued with Mr. Shannon’s satisfyingly salty viciousness but none of the emotional depth that could have made his battle with Superman compelling.  Even worse, that battle is staged with stunning incompetence.  In his quest to create a sweeping entertainment, Mr. Snyder goes overboard, saturating the entire film with crashing buildings and booming explosions, which are as boring as they are numbing.  The director also displays a striking inability to stage action coherently.  At one point, organic metal tentacles seize Superman but I couldn’t even begin to guess where they sprang from or how they were powered.  All they did was remind of Doc Ock’s mechanical appendages in “Spider-Man 2,” a massively superior film.

Despite this madness, “Man of Steel” works hard to please.  Thanks to Amir Mokri’s cinematography, the film acquires a rich dimensionality and in terms of story, it doesn’t fail to hit the superhero film beats we expect—the hero’s first flight, the hero’s tragic losses, the hero’s first kiss with his love interest.  Alas, that last one arrives with a bit of weariness attached.  “I hear it’s all downhill after the first kiss,” Lois deadpans after being smooched by Supes.  But truly, “Man of Steel” goes nowhere but down.  I don’t think that’s because Superman is irrelevant in a post-9/11—as Bryan Singer’s film “Superman Returns” and the television series “Smallville” have proved, his isolation and painful burdens make him more relatable than ever.   But that relatability is nowhere to be found in “Man of Steel” because for all his elaborate showmanship and command of special effects, Mr. Snyder forgot that there’s only one thing that really matters in a summer movie—characters.  How odd that it is they who the film seems to care the least about.  The cast of “Man of Steel” may walk and talk, but they are limited to mundane philosophical observations, rather than the human qualities that could have given the story of Superman true meaning once more.   

Box Office Analysis

Summer Box Office Predictions!

by Bennett Campbell Ferguson J

Above: With an appearance in “The Wolverine,” Logan could be a summer superhero

Every year, millions of Americans spend their waking hours predicting the outcomes of the Superbowl, the World Series, and the Masters Golf Tournament.  But there is another group of pop culture seers in the midst who merit attention—those who vainly attempt to predict the box office grosses of major Hollywood films.  I must confess, dear friends, that I am one of them.

            This, I freely admit, is a rather frivolous pursuit.  After all, does the amount of money earned by a film indicate how satisfying it is to watch?  Hardly.  “Skyfall,” for instance, may have made more money than “Drive,” but there’s no doubt in my mind about which I would rather watch.  “Drive” is a far better and more poetic film, one whose uniqueness of style will make it far more influential than the collected works of 007 in the years to come (no offense, Mr. Bond).

            Nevertheless, I’ve always been fascinated by box office statistics.  It is always interesting to speculate why one movie sells more tickets than another.  What, for instance, made “42” such a massive hit last April?  There have been plenty of inspirational sports films that tried and failed to connect with audiences.  What made this one different?  Was it word of mouth?  Strong reviews?  Sophisticated marketing?  Something else?  The answers to such questions are always elusive and surprising.

            It is because these questions lead to unpredictable answers that make predicting box office statistics such a ridiculous practice.  And yet it remains irresistible.  On that note, I present to you my financial forecast for summer 2013.  It may come from a man who has already underestimated the appeal of gold titanium alloy and F. Scott Fitzgerald, but being right is hardly the point.  The real thrill is in wondering about what will happen next.

 

MOVIE	DOMESTIC OPENING WEEKEND  (In millions)	DOMESTIC ESTIMATED FINAL GROSS (In millions)
“After Earth”	$50	$140
“The Internship”	$30	$150
“Man of Steel”	$80	$230
“Monsters University”	$60	$200
“The Heat”	$50	$150
“White House Down”	$40	$140
“Despicable Me 2”	$80	$250
“Grown Ups 2”	$50	$110
“Pacific Rim”	$40	$180
“Turbo”	$20	$100
“The Wolverine”	$60	$190
“The Smurfs 2”	$50	$150
“2 Guns”	$30	$150
“Elysium”	$40	$160
“The Lone Ranger”	$70	$200
“Planes”	$20	$100

 

Potential Indie Hits: “Blue Jasmine,” “I’m So Excited,” and “Austenland”

Movies That Will Likely Bomb (Unless They Are Moved to Fall or 2014): “Kick-Ass 2,” “300: Rise of an Empire,” “RIPD,” “RED 2,” “The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones,” and “Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters” (although I intend to see that one!)

And now…let the games begin!