Showing posts with label Harry Potter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harry Potter. Show all posts

Saturday, April 18, 2015

Fast Furious to a Billion

"When you're dead, you got it made"
-Jimi Hendrix
That eerily (and tragically) prescient emark may now apply to the cast and producers of  Universal's “Furious 7″ which in the wake of the death od beloved star Paul Walker last year, crossed $1 billion at the worldwide box office Friday, becoming the studio’s first film to reach that milestone.
“Furious 7″ has grossed $735.2 million overseas in 17 days and $273.7 million in North America after 15 days — making it the fastest movie to reach $1 billion. “The Avengers,” “Avatar” and “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2″ had all crossed $1 billion in 19 days. Universal said the seven films in the franchise have totaled $3.392 billion in worldwide grosses.
“Furious 7″ is directed by James Wan and stars Vin Diesel, Dwayne Johnson, Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, Jordana Brewster, Tyrese Gibson, Jason Statham and Ludacris.It is the 20th film to take in $1 billion, with “Avatar” leading the list at $2.79 billion, followed by “Titanic” at $2.19 billion. Paramount’s “Transformers: Age of Extinction” had been most recent addition to the list last year with a $1.09 billion worldwide gross, which leaves it in 10th place.
“We’re incredibly proud to watch ‘Fast & Furious’ take its place as the only original live-action franchise to reach these kinds of results at the box office,” said Nick Carpou, U’s head of domestic distribution. “Our cast, filmmakers and all of our Universal and ‘Fast’ family deserve credit for working so hard to make ‘Furious 7′ a huge success, and we look forward to continuing to watch the film grow over the next few weeks.”
“What started as a small film about the street racing sub-culture of East Los Angeles has become a global phenomenon, with ‘Furious 7′ shattering records in so many territories around the globe,” said Duncan Clark, president of international distribution.
Universal said “Furious 7″ chalked up the record for second-biggest worldwide opening weekend at $397.2 million behind only “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2.” It was the studio’s highest-grossing domestic launch at $147.2 million and international opening at $250 million.
“Furious 7″ also set records as the highest opening weekend in 29 territories and has become Universal’s highest-grossing film in 26 territories. Its $63.5 million opening day in China set a record, demolishing the previous record of $36 million for “Transformers 4.”
Ron Meyer, vice chairman of studio parent NBCUniversal, sent out a congratulatory note to the staff.
“At Universal we have had franchises with strong results at the box office, including ‘Jurassic Park,’ ‘Despicable Me’ and the ‘Bourne’ series, and although we take great pride in these accomplishments, what distinguishes ‘Fast and Furious’ is that it is an original live action concept with an entirely diverse cast,” Meyer noted. “It is the only franchise of its kind to reach a total of more than $3.39 billion and counting.”
Meyer also noted the unique circumstances created by star Paul Walker’s death in late 2013.
“When our friend and colleague Paul Walker tragically passed away in the middle of production, our team, led by Jeff Shell and Donna Langley, and the filmmakers, along with the cast and crew, did what they do best: They focused on family first; then talked to the fans; then got to work on making a great film that we can all be proud of,” he said. “We were all saddened and honored to be a part of Paul’s final career performance and to celebrate his defining role in our live

Sunday, July 31, 2011

Potter's House: is "Deathly Hallows" the end, or a prelude?

It's fitting, I believe, that our final post for July revolves around a finale. Not having screened the conclusion of the wizard series, I will refrain, as I have, from a direct review.

However, as this article implies, the runaway success of the franchise in general (over 10 billion in global grosses) and this movie in particular ( over a billion), certainly raises questions. Mainly, how will the franchise be kept alive, notwithstanding author JK Rowling's Pottermore web enterprise.

I expect that,apart from network TV screenings of the films, there will be special adaptations and iterations for cable and other TV audiences. An animated series must already be in the works, as are more documentary features on the series and the characters.


http://movies.yahoo.com/news/-harry-potter-and-the-deathly-hallows-part-2--hits--1-billion-in-global-box-office.html;_

Monday, May 23, 2011

Did CGI Kill the Mega-movie Star?


This summer, nine sequels will open over twelve weekends, including a second Hangover, a third Transformers, a fourth Pirates of the Caribbean, an eighth Harry Potter, and so on. That's a new record for summer franchise domination.* However, there's something very different about this banner year: Only one of these follow-ups — Johnny Depp's Pirates — features a real live, major movie star. A-listers have been losing leverage over the years, but nowhere is this becoming more clear than in the world of sequels. Familiar titles are more important than ever to studios, but they've decided that they can do them without being weighed down by enormous, gross-gobbling paychecks and profit-participation deals. "In the eighties and early nineties, the movie star was the brand," explains Simon Kinberg, producer of X-Men: First Class. "Then in the nineties, visual effects became the brand. Now, the brand is the brand."
The Rise and Fall of the Megastar Megadeal
Back in the eighties and nineties, the glory days of the action star, if an actor could lock onto a franchise, it could subsidize his family tree for generations. Mel had his Lethal Weapon, Stallone had Rocky and Rambo, and Harrison Ford had three annuities: Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and Jack Ryan. Audiences knew what these stars stood for, and studio executives knew their deals painfully well: high salaries and profit participation that got them paid before the studio got paid, and often earned them more than the studio would make on an entire film.
And these blockbusters kept getting bigger. In the late nineties, every time a new action movie would introduce a groundbreaking special effect (Terminator 2's morphing cyborg,The Matrix's bullet time), studios would scream their mantra, "Raise the bar!" Audiences, already jaded by the last monster they saw, demanded ever more astonishing special effects, and moviemakers raced to outspectacle each other. Paired with big movie stars, such a formula got expensive and risky, fast. Recall that Keanu Reeves was paid a whopping $30 million upfront to make back-to-back Matrix sequels, but that his paycheck ultimately amounted to roughly $165 million, as his deal promised him an astonishing 15 percent of the final two films' $1.1 billion (that’s with a "b," people!) in worldwide grosses.
It appeared that something had to go: Either the big stars or the pricey effects. And while stars have become less dependable at the box office, CGI-packed sequels have not. Yes, they often wind up making less than their forebears, but according to a 2008 study published in the Journal of Business Research, they still tend to do much better than non-sequels, which is why studios return to them again and again.
"I wouldn't even pitch an original idea anymore," says Christopher McQuarrie, who, lest we forget, won the Best Original Screenplay Oscar in 1995 for The Usual Suspects. Most recently, he wrote the Wolverine sequel at Fox. "What [studios] want is — through no fault of their own — a piece of pre-existing material that's survived some sort of a litmus test, like a graphic novel. It's kind of ironic, because the number of copies that a graphic novel has to sell to be wildly successful in no way forecasts what or how a movie is going to open. But it creates a visual template on which the movie is based. Someone in marketing can look at that, and say, ‘We're selling this.’ An original piece of material is a complete gamble."
And if a cast gets too expensive, well, Hasta la vista, baby! Reboot or prequel-ize, refresh the brand, expand its universe, and, most important, bring in cheaper actors who won't gobble your profits.
When You've Got a Brand, Who Needs a Name?
The roots of the idea of star replacement can be found in the James Bond movies. (The series' longtime producers, the Broccolis, have always refused to give their spy-of-the-moment profit participation; when Pierce Brosnan started asking, he was retired.) But the idea really took hold as a profitable solution when Fox wanted to do a fifth Alien movie, but it would cost over $20 million to get Sigourney Weaver. Instead, in 2004 they made AVP: Alien vs. Predator for around $40 million with no stars: Including video sales, the film made some $92 million for the studio. Mind you, that's profit, not grosses — which is to say roughly double what Fox made from 2006’s star-packed X-Men: The Last Stand, which costfive times as much. Yes, some prequels fail on every level (Dumb and Dumberer), but they make a lot more when they don't. As for whether they're better or worse without the original stars, ultimately, that doesn't matter: They're cheaper, so there's less pressure to be good.
Kinberg is seeing this trend happen firsthand with two of his projects. He wrote the 2005 hitMr. & Mrs. Smith, which the Fox-based mini-studio New Regency is in the process of rebooting without Mr. Pitt-Jolie or Mrs. Jolie-Pitt: After all, they would command 40 percent of the gross if they returned, assuming they weren’t already booked up through the year 2047. So Fox's idea is to spin it off as something called Mr. & Mrs. Jones — about another pair of married spies with an ampersand — and if it ever gets made, it will star far smaller, cheaper fish.
Kinberg’s X-Men: First Class is a more tangible case of casting downward while maintaining a healthy brand. It centers around the familiar characters of Magneto and Professor Xavier, which justifies its marketing under the X-Men brand, but it's a prequel, which means it stars all new actors, mostly up-and-coming. They won't strain the budget, let alone take a piece of the gross.
“The reason why they didn’t make another X-Men after The Last Stand is that it would have been too expensive,” insists Last Stand’s director, Brett Ratner. “For that matter, that’s why another Rush Hour 4 probably won’t get made, either: It’d be too much to pay me, Chris [Tucker], and Jackie [Chan] to come back.”
Fox declined to comment on its development, but a studio insider familiar with the development of X-Men: First Class agrees with Ratner's assessment, explaining, “The success or failure of these movies is in the back-end participation.” If you pool the paychecks of First Class stars James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, and Nicholas Hoult, they likely don't add up to what it would cost to get, say, Mark Wahlberg, who usually commands $10 million and 8 percent of the gross.
Okay, so you've cast a talented, gorgeous unknown as your lead. What happens when the reboot succeeds wildly, and the once guppy-sized star becomes a really popular whale? Again, the new Hollywood math favors the house, not the players. One talent agent notes the story of Chris Pine: After appearing as Captain Kirk in J.J. Abrams’s reboot of Star Trek for Paramount, which was the highest-grossing film of the summer of 2009, he became highly sought-after by every studio in town. But Pine’s ability to be considered for even bigger roles, such as the lead in Universal’s reboot of The Bourne Legacy, has been hampered by the contract Paramount negotiated with him to do Star Trek. For example, they wanted him for their reboot of Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan franchise, and per that original contract they had the right to make him do it, and he came relatively cheap. And for a star plucked from total obscurity, such as Thor star Chris Hemsworth, Marvel could easily have demanded four or five such options. These newbies have very few cards to play: Ridley Scott wanted Michael Fassbender for his Alien prequel, and when the actor's agents pressed for a better deal, they were surprised that the director and the studio were more than willing to cast someone else. Suddenly, Team Fassbender was forced to backpedal furiously; the last offer was just fine, thank you. Yes, eventually these actors will serve out their contracts and demand more cash, but by that point the franchise will probably have burned itself out, and, hey, time for a reboot!
Everybody Into the Pool! But This One Isn't Olympic-Size
Now, the studios aren't entirely counting stars out. They can still help a movie: The Fast and the Furious series was stalling until Vin Diesel came back for the fourth installment. And when they added The Rock for the fifth, it became the biggest entry yet. And for all of the money Fox is saving by making X-Men: First Class with a cheaper cast, they're also paying Hugh Jackman movie-star money to do another Wolverine sequel. (Though they're keeping costs down: A source tells us that the targeted budget for The Wolverine was $90 million.) The key to keeping superstars in your blockbuster is something called "the pool," which drastically reduces the profit participation of big stars so that the studio is no longer left paying tens of millions of dollars to an actor for a movie that never made the studio a dime.
The pool was designed about four years ago, when the DVD market started shrinking. Without that afterburner, studios were far more dependent on the box-office gross, of which the stars were grabbing an enormous chunk. The pool is a set percentage of the gross put aside to be divvied up by the film's heavy-hitters after the movie breaks even; this as opposed to the first-dollar gross they used to get, through which they got paid even before the studio did. But neither is it net profit, which became a joke because it never existed: By factoring in everything from marketing and advertising costs to interest and distribution fees, studios claimed there was never a profit to share.
The pool kicks in after the strict physical costs of the production (agreed on by all parties) have been recouped; this way the studio makes sure they won't lose money on a blockbuster. And, the pool never exceeds 25 percent of the gross. One producer familiar with Marvel's dealings says that this is how they can afford to make The Avengers, with its many big names; the actors' claim on the pool is reduced because they don’t work as much. "Maybe a big star like Robert [Downey, Jr.] gets only three or four points of the pool," says our source. "But he only works for three or four weeks.”
As Ratner explains, “Marvel’s model is: We’re not paying gross to anybody. And it’s not just Marvel; it’s all the studios. They don’t want to pay gross. We used to get paid before they could recoup. The studios don’t want to do that anymore. They have these new rules. They were tired of losing money, but seeing an actor walking away with $50 million.”

Monday, March 28, 2011

Yogi Bear and more, from Facebook

Warner Bros. has recently started delivering movies through Facebook at a price of $3 per title, starting out with Cristopher Nolan’s Dark Knight.
Now, the company made available five additional titles: Inception, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Yogi Bear and Life as We Know It.
These new titles are available through each film’s official Facebook Page. To rent a movie, users need to click on the “watch now” icon, pay with their Facebook Credits, and they will get a 48-hour window to watch the movie through their Facebook account.
There’s no official word on any upcoming titles, but we’re sure that Warner will be adding this functionality to the movies in its catalog which have a significant Facebook following. Again, all of this is available only to consumers in the U.S.

Saturday, March 19, 2011

Pointy, But Not Sharp Enough: Red Riding Hood Movie Trailer Official (HD)



Just as pharmaceutical companies need to keep developing new meds - even as existing ones continue to hook millions (keeping the pipeline full); so Hollywood execs and producer types need to keep the new franchises coming.

With the multi-billion dollar Twighlight and Harry Potter franchises now about to head to the Hollywood stud farm, (forgive us the muddled metaphors), the search is well and truly on to find the " next big thing" to appeal to that highly consumptive tri-partite grouping of "tweens" teens and young adults. Thus Catherine Hardwicke, who directed the initial Twilight, has been roped in for what it is hoped will be the latest occult-romance-adventure mix that will bring them rushing into the theatres and buying  the merchandise.

You know the basic story well enough. hardwicke and screenwriter David Johnson (Orphan) take a stretch-to-fit approach that encompasses modern soap opera and teen dram cliches and toss in a bit of religious and mythological mumbo-jumbo in an attempt to thicken the stew. The attempt fails, and largely because none of the actors - Gary Oldman aside - have the goods to pull off that mix of simmering passion and calculating cool.

We've made some heavy weather of Nick Cgae's long meltdown, but Oldman, despite his presence in the aforementioned Potter franchise and Chris Nolan's Batman projects, has had his share of clunkers too. Add this to that list. His Father Solomon, the hotshot priest/warrior called in to help tackle the wolf is straight out of "Melodrama & Overacting 101" slightly reminiscent of his turn as a drug dealer/pimp in "True Romance" but nowhere near as fun to watch. (or maybe we've just grown older). Indeed, Red Riding Hood is an almost spectacular carnage of wasted talent, with the likes of Virginia Madsen, Lukas Haas, and even  - gasp! -Julie Christie (as Grandma) squandered before our very eyes

As an onscreen presence, Amanda Seyfried is hard to pin down. While she's not the dry husk that Kristen Stewart is in the Twilight movies, she never fully engages as an actress. She comes off as one of those kids at the back of the group on a field trip, occasionally catching bits and pieces of the monologue and display but essentially more tuned in to some other world of her own making.

The other star - the wolf - is a major disappointment visually. he producers should have hired the efx crew that worked on Benicio de Toro's Wolfman remake. This wolf looks more like a reject from the Tex Avery files. The use of the voice-over narrative, a dead-ringer for Twilight, is a further detraction.

Will Red Riding Hood become the Twilight of this decade? Hardly likely, but just  as the drug companies have a pill for every condition, and one more for the side-effects, rest assured that there'll be plenty more of these types of adaptations to come.

Monday, December 13, 2010

Nothing to do but wait for the summer (2011)

The above line is from a Leif Garrett song (remember him?), but slogging through this Christmas, and taking note of the gigantic slate of sequels and other massive movies due next year, it could sum up the Hollywood mood right now

Among the expected box-office heavy hitters for 2K11 are:

Pirates of the Caribbean 4: On stranger Tides;
The Hangover 2;
Kung Fu Panda 2
Thor

X-Men: First Class;
Cars 2
Green Lantern

Transformers 3;
Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part II (series finale ?)
Captain America

looks to be an epic summer

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

No More Kid Stuff?: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Trailer Official HD



Of course, it was already more than obvious that iconic wizard Harry Potter and his cohorts Ron and Hermionie had already grown way past their Hogwarts undergrad roots.

But this, the first half of a split final instalment (part II is slated for Summer 2011) essentially confirms that the trio is no longer at the institute of wizardry and witchcraft. They're not on their own; much of the expanding cast that saw them through the last couple of Potter flicks is back, except, of course for the venerable Dumbledore, even though the story's resolution hinges in part on him (or something of his).

In any case, evil takes no rest and the chillingly ruthless Lord Voldemort is gathering his own forces for the final assault on goodness and in particular, on the wizardly boy wonder. Voldemort's growing strength pushes the 'kids' further out into the Muggles world and thus into greater exposure.

This means, among other things, more adult disguises and more hyped-up action (chases, battle scenes, etc). Some posted reviews have cited this new Potter as slow, but from this vantage point, its not the pacing that's the problem; its the soul, or lack of it. There's a 'let's just do it and get it over with' air that pervades the film, particularly in the interactions between Harry and Ron, who make a bit of a Steinbeckian pair (broad-shouldered Ron towers like a Lennie over the more wiry, Lennie-like Harry).

As usual, there are good performances from the repertory players (Alan Rickman, Bill Nighy and helena Bonham-Carter all shine in their respective roles) and Alphonse Cuaron's direction is generally sure-footed.

Simply, the new Potter, as the "beginning of the end" won't disappoint hardcore Harry-philes and won't prove intimidating to the scattered few newbies left.  

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Still Wild About Harry: "Deathly Hallows" opens big

Photo courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures
The Potter Trio: From left, actors Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint.

The first part of the two-part finale to the long-running Warner Bros. film series took in $125.12 million at the domestic box office, according to early estimates from Hollywood.com. Final numbers are due out on Monday.
“These numbers on ‘Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1′ prove that even a decade into the franchise, ‘Potter’ is as relevant and compelling today as it was back in 2001,” Paul Dergarabedian, president of the box-office division of Hollywood.com, said in an email.
The animated film “Megamind” (Paramount/DreamWorks Animation) took the second slot with $16.2 million; “Unstoppable” (Fox), an action-drama with Denzel Washington, placed third with $13.1.
The starting numbers for “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1″ represent the best-ever opening weekend for the franchise.
The new “Potter” movie had enjoyed a mostly positive reception from critics. The next and final installment of the series, due out in the summer of 2011, is scheduled to be in 3-D, which could add to its box office totals.