Hollywood is doing *great*…

What a weekend at the old box office. Two *cough* new redoes of films from the ‘80s tanked, leaving the anemic Real Steel (itself a highly puffed up revamp of an old Twilight Zone episode) to retake the box office championship:

Real Steel garnered $16.3 million for a two week aggregate of about $54 million. It’s made another $56 million overseas. Unfortunately, it cost a hundred million to make, meaning that once the theaters take their cuts, it is maybe halfway to making it’s money back. Not counting prints and advertising costs.

Footloose came in second with $16 million, drawing a pretty lame $4500 a theater.  The budget was about $25 million, so again, it’s about a third of the way to coming within spitting distance of breaking even. Good luck.

The Thing prequel did even worse, drawing a paltry $8.7 million on a $35 million budget. With DVD sales cratering, there’s not much chance of this ever hitting profit, unless it does a hell of a lot better than that overseas.

[Sure looking good for those Top Gun, Red Dawn and Scarface redos.]

Elsewhere on the horror front, the $50 million dollar Dream House, starring Daniel Craig, continues to be a money pit, coming in 11th at the national box office this week and taking in $2.5 million. It’s total take so far is about $18.4 million. Craig really needs to get that next Bond money going, because everything else he does is a bust.

The biggest disaster was The Big Year, though, which despite an all-star comedy cast (or would have been an all-star cast five years ago; see also The Tower Heist) of Steve Martin, Jack Black and Owen Wilson, drew a downright pathetic $3.3 million, drawing about $2100 a theater. Ouch! And that’s with further supporting cast of John Cleese, Joel McHale, Kevin Pollak, JoBeth Williams, Diane Wiest, Anthony Anderson, Brian Dennehy, Jim Parsons AND Angelica Huston.

George Clooney’s Ides of March will probably at least break ever, but barely and solely because of the film’s rock bottom (for Hollywood) $12.5 million budget.  It should make a little money—a little—from TV and home video sales, but like many of the current crop of films—Moneyball, for instance—seems unlikely to travel well if at all overseas.

The most successful out there right now is Courageous, a Christian film from the company that did Fireproof. With a $2 million dollar budget—probably far less than any of the three leads of Big Year made—the film has grossed over $21 million already.

The only real Hollywood hit this fall was been The Help, which has currently socked away $165 million on a thrifty $25 million budget.

  • Gamera

    Anyone seen ‘Real Steel’? The ads make it look ok, but not good enough for me to hit the theater over.

    When I first saw the ads for ‘The Thing’s’ prequel my first thought was ‘gee, Hollywood had to redo the Carpenter version because it didn’t have enough explosions.’

  • marsden

    I wanted to see the new Thing, but I’m not going to the movies. I’d actually like to watch it and then watch the Kurt Russell movie right after to see how it matches up. Really. Plus I haven’t seen that other Thing all the way through and I ought to. In 2 or 3 months when this new thing is out I’ll rent them both, I think.

  • Ericb

    “itself a highly puffed up revamp of an old Twilight Zone episode”

    Either that or it started life a the “Rockem’ Sockem’ Robots” movie until someone got the sense to realise that that would be a really dumb way to market it so they gave it a new title.

  • Ericb

    Oh, sorry, that should read “Rocke’ Sockem’ Robots: The Movie”.

  • marsden

    Thanks for fixing my comments, Ken!

    As per the rockem sockem robots, the movie, there is a Battleship movie coming out, maybe these guys decided to cash in on the game becomes a movie first? After all, Hollywood has pillaged just about every old show, book, movie and you name it for “ideas” Maybe they will be basing movies on household products soon.

  • The new The Thing is butt barf. Nominally a prequel, it’s a remake disguised as a prequel. Same damn plot all over again. As for characters, a Ripley clone plus a bunch of indistinguishables. Not only is the ’82 movie better, but so is the ’51 movie (granted, they were both excellent movies, but still, if you’re gonna be in the francise, you’re gonna get compared to the franchise’s earlier entries).

    Personally, what I missed most was the gender specificity. As a Navy veteran, I know what it’s like to be trapped with a bunch of men, no women in sight, and have to trust each other without quite being able to. So the social tension of the ’82 movie resonates with me. Throwing hotties in the mix as the prequel/remake does just kills that for me.

  • Terrahawk

    Ack, The Help has made $165 million? That’s depressing as it looked derivitive and what I heard of the book on the radio (XM Radio) was…really boring.

    Reel Steel partly suffered from incoherent marketing. Some of the ads emphasized the father/son dynamic. Others were Rocky-esque. If we were back in the $5 matinee era, this would do business. In the $12 buck era, it’s not going to happen.

    Food, I’ve heard lot’s of people comment about throwing a woman in as messing with the dynamic. Hollywood has developed an allergy to male dominated movies. Back when The Hunt for Red October came out, the WSJ had a review. The reviewer made the comment that the war movie wasn’t messed up by including women in any major roles. He would get fired today for saying that.

    Battleship looks horrid.

  • Terrahawk — I don’ know, The Help garnered a 74% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which is pretty respectable. And audience reviews gave it a 92% “liked it’ score. Moreover, as somebody who works in a library, I can state that the book is REALLY popular. It’s been out for years and we’ve like 30 copies and it’s still on a wait list. Doesn’t mean it would be your bag, or mine for that matter, but it seems to have delivered what the audience wanted. And really, Hollywood would be a lot better off if it made more such movies for middle aged audiences, especially female ones. That $25 million budget doesn’t hurt, either.

  • zombiewhacker

    Bear in mind, the period between Labor Day and the Thanksgiving holiday is traditionally the dumping season for movies that even the studios realized didn’t have a prayer.

    Case in point, The Three Musketeers redo opens next week.

  • Terrahawk

    True, just my contrarian nature coming out. Some subjects have just been beaten to death and over-coming racism (and similar themed) films just get an automatic negative reaction from my reactionary self. :-)

    The Three Musketeers is another example of a film that seems allergic to male leads. A woman as the fourth musketeer?

  • fish eye no miko

    @Terrahawk: Yeah, that’s my reaction, too. Look, I consider myself a feminist, but I have NO problem with movies with all male leads (Like the Carpenter version of The Thing, or the LotR movies), especially if they’re set in times and/or circumstances where women wouldn’t be running about doing this stuff. MAYBE if they had her in male drag, I could buy it, but… dear God. There’s also the terrible wire work (can we just have regular stunts, please?). Gyah… it just looks awful.

  • Petoht

    Three Musketeers doesn’t have a woman as the 4th musketeer. d’Artagnan is the fourth. The woman is A) a sorta-kinda antagonist and B) Mila Jovovich in a Paul WS Anderson movie, so of course she’s going to have a lot of ass-kicking scenes, and she’s be topless if it wasn’t PG-13. It’s not a sign of Hollywood hating male leads, it’s a sign of Anderson showing off his hot wife.

  • fish eye no miko

    Petoht said: “and she’s be topless if it wasn’t PG-13.”

    I’ve seen female full frontal in PG-13 movies (yes, more than one). Granted, that was ages ago,and maybe stuff has changed, but I’m always a little surprised when people think PG-13 means no nudity (except maybe butts).

  • alex

    I don’t understand the whole ‘let’s remake films from the Eighties’ phenomena that Hollywood seems to be caught up with. What’s the point? Movies like Top Gun, Footloose, Red Dawn and Scarface play on cable every month at least once. Is there anybody with a TV set that hasn’t seen these films about 10 times already. Who’s gonna pay to see a probaly crappy remake?

    Speaking of crappy remakes I saw the God awful remake (massacre?) of The Taking Of Pelham 123 by Tony Scott last weekend on TV. it destroys everything good about the original. Ken may I suggest you do an review comparing the two versions? It really shows the de-evolution of filmaking.

  • zombiewhacker

    Paul W. Anderson is doing the Musketeers remake? Oh, well, in that case it’s going to be good.

    (rolls eyes)

  • Alex — I can only imagine. I really love the original Pelham, so watching the new one would be a real chore. On the other hand, it probably has more explosions, which means it MUST be more exciting.

    As for the stellar track record of the redos, let’s not forget Conan and Fright Night.

  • Flakey

    The Captain America remake did well

  • alex

    The Taking of pelham 123 remake gets everything wrong. The Direction, the performances, the script, the photography, the musical score, etc.. Everything about it is wrong and atrocious. It’s Van Helsing bad. Robert Shaw’s cold and calculating mercenary replaced by a fat, tatooed, overacting Travolta who uses profanity as punctuation. I could go on and on. Catch it when you can, it’s really that bad.

  • R. Dittmar

    Has anyone seen one of the trailers to Dream House. I almost fell out of my chair when I saw it. In a nutshell, apparently the movie is about Daniel Craig and his wife and two daughters moving into a house in which the previous owner killed his wife and two daughters (hmm?). Craig apparently goes to learn something about the previous owner and – SURPRISE! – the previous owner is actually him and apparently he’s gone crazy and thinks he’s someone else.

    Do you think that sounds pretty spoilerly and wouldn’t be something to tell someone wanting to see the film? If so you are far smarter than the people who made the trailer! The trailer openly gives away the big surprise about Craig being crazy! No wonder the film is such a bomb. Everyone who’s seen the trailer already knows what’s going to happen.

  • Petoht

    I’m always a little surprised when people think PG-13 means no nudity.

    Well, yeah. I mean, there’s nudity in Logan’s Run and that’s PG, but generally speaking, you don’t have the gratuitous nudity in PG-13 movies.

  • Toby Clark

    I’m tempted to stand up for Pelham 123, but this may be down to the fact that I don’t have the original to compare it to yet. (Though I have seen a pretty good TV remake with Edward James Olmos and Vincent D’Onofrio). I’d give it 3, maybe 3 and a half stars.

    Incidentally, while I have yet to see the Fright Night remake, I’m fairly optimistic about it, since I was less than impressed with the original (most of the blame for that can go to William Ragsdale, though).

    I’m also optimistic about the Red Dawn remake, actually, though the fact that two of the leads came from my favourite soap opera may have something to do with that. In any case, I’m more concerned about how it will compare to Tomorrow When the War Began than the original Red Dawn.

  • zombiewhacker

    I never understood the fan luv for the original Fright Night. Ragsdale was a total wuss. Amanda Bearse was a complete ditz. The script was pure idiot plot.

    Keep Roddy and Chris, jettison just about everything else, and start over.

  • Well, milage varies, but I think Fright Night is the best vampire movie probably since Horror of Dracula. My thoughts here.

  • Toby Clark

    For what its worth, I’ve got no complaints about Chris Sarandon specifically – it’s just hard to get behind a movie that relies on its teenage protagonist creating the problem with an act of extreme stupidity before solving it with an even bigger act of stupidity, or at least highly questionable logic.

  • Flangepart

    THE THING: Just to see how all the Norwigans got ‘et? E-yeah…

    REAL STEEL:So, what, the sequel goes into I-ROBOT? Maybe more like ROBOT WARS, with a cameo by Gary Graham…

    Everything else…Zzzzzzzz…

  • Flakey

    “but I’m always a little surprised when people think PG-13 means no nudity”

    I think it what remains of the American puritan streak. Same reason why it fine to show some one being gutted on youtube, or blip, but a real no no for a breast to be shown.

  • zombiewhacker

    That’s cheating, Ken. There haven’t been any good vampire films since Horror of Dracula. ;)