Linky-linky
Jul. 16th, 2006 08:47 pm'Pirates' becomes year's top-grossing film. More importantly, it prevented Little Man (#2 with $21M) from achieving box-office domination. Bolding is mine: "Already a record-shattering blockbuster, Johnny Depp's sequel 'Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest' dug up $62.2 million in its second weekend, raising its 10-day total to $258.2 million, according to studio estimates Sunday. The movie has quickly become the year's top-grossing film, rocketing past "X-Men: The Last Stand," which has taken in $232 million in eight weeks." God, I wish the Hollywood Stock Exchange was real, because I totally just made $3.3M in fake money off that movie. Although, the article also says this:
"Huge expectations. 'Pirates 2' is maybe the toughest act in box-office history to follow," said Paul Dergarabedian, president of box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations. "'Pirates 3' is the definition of a predestined blockbuster."Which is true. At the same time, third/last installments tend to be better liked than second installments, barring any Ewok jubilees, because if nothing else, they have an ending. I had a whole ramble about second installments vs. third installments here originally, but after two paragraphs I forgot what I was trying to prove, so suffice it to say, however well the second movie does or doesn't do, the third movie in a continuous storyline (not, like, the second pointless sequel they brought everyone back for fifteen years later) tends to make as much or more money because people just want to see how the story ends, and because a series almost never ends on a note of despair, you get to leave feeling all happy and triumphant. What I'm saying is, they will have to screw up Pirates 3 really, really badly to lose money on that one. Like, the entire cast and crew drowned at sea and someone's dentist pressed into service as Ersatz Captain Jack after the first reel. Shadow puppets instead of CGI, wardrobe courtesy of buycostumes.com, Brett Ratner instead of Gore Verbinksi: it could be done, but it would take an absolute talent for destruction to do it. I'm not saying that Pirates 3 is clearly going to surpass Pirates 2. I'm just saying, you might want to pre-order tickets now.
Trailer for The Prestige ("Based on Christopher Priest's 1996 novel, Batman and Wolverine play rival magicians in turn-of-the-century London who battle each other for trade secrets." Also, David Bowie is there). (High-def screencaps, if you want them.)
A Beginner's Guide to Faking Your Death on the Internet. A must-view, particularly if you followed that pseuicide story last week.
This first link is also from
>> Wyrd Sisters get their ass handed to them for frivolous lawsuit against Warner Bros. You'll remember, this is the Canadian folk band that got all pissed off that Goblet of Fire would dare feature a band called some variation of "Wyrd Sisters," except not actually called anything in the movie, because they were (apparently) afraid people would come to their shows to stalk Jarvis Cocker and/or do the Hippogriff. (Nooooo! Not people COMING TO OUR SHOWS!!) Well, now they have to pay Warner Bros.' legal fees... to the tune of $140,000.
>> Man claims, three years after the movie's release, that Disney stole "Curse of the Black Pearl" from him. And he is so angry that he is only suing now, after a second movie is all but printing its own money. So angry that he wants "a permanent injunction against the [first] movie or 'other infringing works,'" such as a sequel that features a ship called the Black Pearl prominently. A movie whose poster was, by the way, the cover of the Disney stockholders report this year (apparently we have stock in Disney? We got one, that's all I know). Disney is going to liquidate this guy.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 01:56 am (UTC)SHHHHHHH. If we don't say his name, maybe he'll go away
no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 01:58 am (UTC)And succinct.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 01:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 01:59 am (UTC)OMGBWAH!
Love this, seriously. Internet wank is the best.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 02:03 am (UTC)I have this feeling it's going to be vaguely hilarious from a history major's perspective (mostly because, hi, I saw Elizabeth), but it does have Jeremy Northam as Sir Thomas More, and I just can't pass that up.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 02:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 02:15 am (UTC)Lawsuits as far as the eye can see
Date: 2006-07-17 02:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 02:22 am (UTC)I think Disney is really going to want to move Pirates to July. It worked for them twice far, and they're running a risk by placing it May for three reasons
1. Spider-Man 3 and Shrek 3 are being released in May. Besides having three huge franchises, it's three massive franchises with the letter 3. This is going to bite someone in the ass.
2. They keep saying they don't have time to edit/trim the movie. So why not give them room when they can?
3. Keep your sequel at a reasonable distance. It's good to keep the demand up, and if you deliver it too soon, that might end up being a problem.
We've seen three franchises this decade make more and more as each entry comes in; Austin Powers, Lord of the Rings and X-Men. What happens with sequels nowadays is, the audience expands, but the repeat viewing declines. For instance, were the Pirates and X-Men sequels the first time your mom saw either franchise? That's what happens in this DVD age. Especially in a blockbuster era dominated by genre films, which have to win over the movie patrons who are little more reluctant about them. So I think if End of the World is going to make more than Dead Man's Chest (Which might not even be big deal at this point. When you're on your way to making 400 million, the studio can lose 25 million without worrying about it) it's going to have expand its audience even further. Which, if they want to do, I think they should push the third movie to July.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 02:28 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 02:22 am (UTC)As a jeweler, I'm slightly offended by that. I could probably produce a smaller version in 14K gold for not much more than that, and one in sterling silver for significantly less.
*ahem* Excuse me.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 02:30 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 02:26 am (UTC)Good lord.
The best presentation of an actor as Henry Vee Eye Eye Eye in recent years was Ray Winstone, who covered all bases. Kinda hot, kind of a glutton, kind of syphillis crazy (http://www.compleatseanbean.com/henry.html). Yeah, the movie kinda sucked a bit of butt here and there, but! Sean Bean in black leather!
no subject
Date: 2006-08-01 12:59 am (UTC)I've only seen tiny clips of that one, and it looked pretty good -- I was greatly looking forward to seeing the whole thing. Ok, partly because of The Bean, but mostly because I just love historical drama... *goes to corner to sulk*
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 02:28 am (UTC)um. omg. cuz it said I had to put that in EVERY post.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 02:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 02:46 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 02:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 02:48 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 02:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 02:50 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 03:16 am (UTC)What's your trader name on HSX?
Date: 2006-07-17 03:23 am (UTC)Re: What's your trader name on HSX?
Date: 2006-07-17 03:26 am (UTC)H$49 million? How discouraging! =(
From:no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 04:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 04:24 am (UTC)All Disney-branded stuff is always a little more expensive than similar items of comparable quality, though also impressively durable. WDW is full of really astonishingly expensive collectibles that you rarely see anywhere else, even in the Disney Store.
I'm not surprised POTC2 is the year's top-grossing film so far (though I am kinda surprised that the previous winner was X-Men 3, which was mostly pretty bad). I just want to see how it does throughout the year... is there anything on the horizon that might beat it? I can't think of much until next year (Spider Man 3, Harry Potter 4, POTC3) - though I honestly think, from what I've heard, that the May release date for POTC3 is optimistic. They still have a lot to film!
no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 04:26 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 04:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 05:37 am (UTC)Re: the dude suing Disney. I almost feel sorry for him. Does anyone really deserve the legal whuppin' he's about to receive?
no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 05:41 am (UTC)And serve him as smoothies at the stockholders meeting.
*sits back and watches for Disney to summon the legal version of the kraken*
no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 05:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 08:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 09:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 12:05 pm (UTC)And the story of Overstock and Patrick Byrne that you mention in another entry is absolutely fascinating. I'm following Wall Street for more than a decade now and I can't recall something like that. History suggests that if a CEO focuses so much on sueing people instead of the operations of his company, his company is in deep trouble. But so far he's hell-bent on winning his case and even welcomes an investigation by the SEC.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 12:10 pm (UTC)Of course, this does kind of depend on people being happier with the third movie, which they very well might not end up being.
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 12:15 pm (UTC)Thirds tend to be crowd favourites, seconds tend to be critical favourites. At least, I think that's how it goes.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 01:41 pm (UTC)