the balcony fool

serious film discussion. seriously.

Superman, By The Numbers

Posted by Paul Christian Glenn on August 26, 2008

Apologies for having disappeared over the last few weeks. I hate it when personal matters get in the way of obsessing about movies. I know, you do too. Shhhhhh.

Following up on our previous Superman discussion, it appears Warner Brothers has officially decided to reboot the franchise, just two years after the release of the last film. Per this interview with the Wall Street Journal, WB president Jeff Robinov states:

Superman didn’t quite work as a film in the way that we wanted it to,” says Mr. Robinov. “It didn’t position the character the way he needed to be positioned.” “Had Superman worked in 2006, we would have had a movie for Christmas of this year or 2009,” he adds. “But now the plan is just to reintroduce Superman…”

I’m against a reboot, but most of the message boards I frequent have received this news with great rejoicing, so there you have it.

However, I am sick to death of hearing people say Superman Returns was a “bomb.” I’m not usually a numbers guy, but this angle really annoys me so I took a quick trip to The Numbers and did a little research.

Superman Returns had DVD sales of around $81 million. WB sold the television rights for about $20 million, and merchandising revenue was “more than $60 million.” So that’s $160 million dollars that WB is in the clear. Subtract the $40 million dollar advertising budget, and that leaves them $120 million dollars ahead of the game before you even begin counting box office revenue.

So for the movie to be profitable, they needed to bring in more than $150 million. The movie brought in $391 million. Let’s give the theaters a generous 25% of the box office. That leaves WB with $293 million.

In other words, on a film that cost an absurd $270 million dollars, they managed to make a clear profit of $140 million (and, technically, Australia gave them a $28 million tax break, so they actually cleared about $168 million). That’s fairly amazing, especially considering many fans didn’t like the movie.

Could that pot have been sweeter? Sure. WB execs no doubt had visions of Spider-Man revenue dancing in their heads. Unfortunately, the flick just wasn’t as well-received as Spider-Man, and the studio lit a fair amount of their own potential profit on fire. For one thing, $40 million dollars of that budget comes from failed development over the last ten years. Seriously. They paid various parties $40 million to not make the movie. The remaining budget of $230 million is ludicrous for any film. No reason that movie needed to cost more than $180 million (especially given how little of that money was onscreen).

If $168 million isn’t an acceptable profit, they simply need to put the sequel on a reasonable budget, make it shorter, and require more action from the script. The average moviegoer isn’t as discerning as the fanboys. If they’re interested in Superman, they’re not going to stay home just because the last one wasn’t very good. The Star Wars prequels proved that. And The Incredible Hulk proved that a reboot won’t necessarily bring in a bigger audience.

So can we put to rest this nonsense about Superman Returns being a failure? Movies that fail don’t make $391 million. Movies that are mismanaged, however, can sell $391 million worth of tickets and still not meet profit expectations.

Posted in Newsfoolery | Tagged: , , , | 13 Comments »

Tron 2? Yes, please.

Posted by Paul Christian Glenn on July 25, 2008

Cyberspace is afire with news that Tron 2 (aka TR2N - seriously?) is on its way. Not only is the project finally a go after all these years, they’ve actually already shot some footage! Yesterday at ComiCon, Disney screened a three-minute promo, featuring — and this is where the story gets really good — Jeff Bridges, the original party tronster. But is he a villain this time around? And will Bruce “I Was Actually Tron” Boxleitner appear as well? What about the mousy chick? Disney somehow managed to keep this whole thing a secret, and it sounds like they’re going to operate under a veil of secrecy for the foreseeable future. (UPDATE: Peter Chattaway points out that this wasn’t much of a secret, after all.) While we wait for more details to emerge, let’s all take a moment to the thank the Great Spirit (Cecil B. DeMille) that this is a sequel, and not a remake. How lucky are we? Thanks, Hollywood! You’re so good to us.

One other interesting note: apparently the promo was originally going to screen in 3-D, but the process wasn’t ready. Will the movie itself be shot in 3-D? I know we’re living at the dawn of a new cinematic age and all, but I still tend to think of 3-D as a gimmick. Nevertheless, this is one film that could really take advantage of the technology. Imagine an immersive Tron world! My imagination quakes.

The director is some guy called Joseph Kosinski, whose sole credit appears to be the not-yet-shooting remake of Logan’s Run. Nothing against Mr. Kosinski, but why not Steven Lisberger? As co-writer and director of the original film, I can’t think of a reason why he wouldn’t get a shot at the sequel. Last I heard, Lisberger was working on this, but either that project has fizzled, or he just wants to make it an even twenty years between films.

I don’t know about any of you, but for me this ranks just below the Star Wars prequels in terms of anticipation. Let’s just hope this one works out a little better. (Is it even possible for it to work out worse? Or even as bad?) Tron fans have been waiting 26 years to see their heroes on the screen again, so don’t screw it up, Joe. (No pressure.)

Posted in Newsfoolery | Tagged: , , | 13 Comments »

REVIEW: The Dark Knight

Posted by Paul Christian Glenn on July 21, 2008

At long last, The Dark Knight is upon us. I have been somewhat stupefied by the anticipation surrounding this sequel to 2005’s moderately successful Batman Begins. (Quick, which film made more money, the “hitBatman Begins, or the “flopSuperman Returns? It’s all about expectations, ain’t it?) I liked the first movie quite a bit — it was a gritty, well-made flick — but I didn’t find it very re-watchable. Director Christopher Nolan jump-started the Batman mythos, created loads of atmosphere, and adequately mined the material for its inherent themes, but he had no knack for directing action scenes, and the film’s villains were underwhelming.

So how’s the sequel? Better. Clearly, Nolan’s intent was to make this a real film, one that doesn’t fit the already-tired form of comic book blockbusters. To a large degree, he’s succeeded. The Dark Knight is by far the most thoughtful, most adult and most ambitious superhero movie ever brought to the big screen. However, despite the screaming adulation it’s receiving from fanboys and critics, it ain’t perfect. Nolan still hasn’t figured out how to direct a coherent action sequence, characters tend to show up when and where they’re needed, and the third act is a complete free fall.

But first, the good stuff.

To Nolan’s credit, The Dark Knight feels like no other Batman film before it. The director has taken inspiration from elaborate crime epics like Heat and The Untouchables, and woven together a complex and sometimes impenetrable tale of criminals, cops, lawyers, lovers and… well, superheroes. The story sprawls and sprawls, until you really get the feeling these problems are beyond the scope of one hero, even if it is Batman. For the most part, the characters in these plots feel like people, rather than archetypes, which further grounds the film in a tangible reality. And finally, Gotham City no longer looks like Tim Burton’s backyard. The transformation was apparent in Batman Begins, but this time Nolan truly opens it up, placing the action firmly in the real world.

You’ve already heard about Heath Ledger’s stunning performance as the Joker, and this is one time you can believe the hype. Ledger steals every minute that he’s onscreen, worming his way through a room, licking the most delicious bits of dialogue, rolling his black eyes at the very notion of goodness. What’s interesting about this incarnation of the character is that his insanity is played down. Ledger’s Joker is a cunning, manipulative monster who cares nothing about money (his speech about the economics of villainy is priceless), and he really doesn’t care much about Batman, either. He’s a man on a mission, conducting a vast social experiment, determined to expose the darkness in every man, woman and child. A recurrent theme is the lengths to which people will go to save their own skin, or the skin of someone they love.

The Dark Knight’s secret weapon, however, is Harvey Dent, played by Aaron Eckhart. Anyone with a passing interest in Batman already knows that Gotham’s noble District Attorney will eventually become the hideously disfigured criminal Two Face. The screenwriters seem to be aware of this, and instead of rushing to the fateful moment, they spend most of the film showing us the righteous Harvey Dent. It’s a fascinating portrayal by Eckhart, who plays Dent as an aggressive personality with the slightest undercurrent of mania. It’s adds a bit of ambiguity to the character without pandering to the inevitable transformation that we know must take place.

Rachel Dawes, unfortunately, continues to be a prop for the other characters, but at least this time she’s played by Maggie Gyllenhaal, who is far more interesting to watch than her predecessor. Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine turn in wry, effective performances as Lucius Fox and Alfred the Butler, respectively.

And where, and where… is the Batman?

The Caped Crusader doesn’t get much as much screen time as you might expect. With so many characters and plot threads to follow, there simply isn’t time to dwell on every little problem, so we get Batman’s tribulations in broad strokes. He’s feeling overwhelmed, wonders if he’s doing more harm than good, and is still in love with Rachel. Christian Bale continues to be a commanding presence behind the cowl, and in at least one scene he was genuinely frightening. He works more closely with city officials this time, even as his role as Gotham’s guardian comes under fire. It’s all well done, but this is clearly an ensemble piece, and Batman’s personal storyline is one of the least compelling, perhaps because it’s the one thing we’ve seen before.

Now, about that troublesome third act. It’s like the inverse of everything that has come before it. The realistic milieu suddenly gives way to risible science fiction. Thoughtfully-written characters are inexplicably abandoned to improbable speeches, clarifying what their motivations are, just in case we missed it. The philosophical debate between Batman and his new nemesis completely fizzles in a scene that is unsatisfying on both a visceral and cogitative level. There is a much-debated sub-climax that is completely unnecessary from a dramatic point of view, and wastes a terrific set-up for the next movie. The speech that closes the film betrays, for the first time, the cheesier aspects of the source material.

The fact that the film survives these late derailments is a testimony to how good the rest of it really is. Nolan is pushing the bar for this kind of movie, and he deserves credit for getting so much of it right. The Dark Knight is thrilling entertainment, and I’ll be first in line when the next installment arrives.

An Additional Tangient, Totally Free of Charge:

Ladies and gentlemen, The Dark Knight spent the weekend shattering records, including that most coveted title: Highest-Grossing Opening of All Time!

Makes for a pretty great headline, eh? Too bad it’s a meaningless record. Hasn’t anyone noticed that, even as Hollywood tears its hair out over dwindling attendance, these mega-blockbusters seem to set new records pretty much every other summer? The last time this record was “broken” was the release of Spider-Man 3. That was last summer.

Every year, average ticket prices go up. As long as attendance doesn’t drop dramatically, new box-office records are assured. This is why studios don’t brag about how many tickets they’ve sold–they brag about how much money their movie has made. Why should we care how much money it’s made? It’s sleight-of-hand, folks. They want you to believe box office grosses = popularity = quality. Don’t buy it.

Posted in Reviews | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »