MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Early Box Office Analysis

Early Friday Boxoffice Numbers
1. The Longest Yard – $15.7m
2. Star Wars III – $15.5
3. Madagascar – $14.4m
4. Monster-in-Law – $2.7m
5. Kicking & Screaming – $1.3m
6. Crash – $1.3m
The only real news about Friday

Be Sociable, Share!

226 Responses to “Early Box Office Analysis”

  1. Joe says:

    Star Wars is dropping at an alarming rate, why is that not mentioned. Projected around $46 million for the 3 day off of a previous week of $108. It’s like a 57% drop off!! That’s terrible.

  2. Martin says:

    I agree with every point made, with the exception of the Star Wars box office drop. Definitely looks more like 50% or more to me.

  3. David Poland says:

    The Sith 3-day projects out to more like $55 million… remmeber, holiday weekend. Which, of course, makes the comparison of weekends somewhat moot.
    Spider-Man dropped 37%… against Unfaithful and The New Guy (combined $23 million).
    Shrek 2 dropped 33% and went on to be the second highest domestic grosser (in first run) in history.
    Harry Potter 3 dropped 67%.
    Matrix Reloaded dropped 60%.
    Potter 1 dropped 36%… against Spy Game and Black Knight ($33 million combined)
    That is a complete list of films that have opened over $90 million.
    47%-53% for Star Wars… especially after $42 million this M-Th… hardly a shocker…

  4. Joe Leydon says:


  5. jeffmcm says:

    I fear theatrical exhibition is going the way of the Drive-In. I know that Dave is trying to correct what he sees as shoddy journalism exagerrating the problem, but I don’t think that changes the fact that the problem is there in some degree.

  6. Martin says:

    Home entertainment is definitely growing, but I don’t know if it is really growing at the expense of theatrical. And if it was, last year would have seen the same sort of drops (most people have had DVD players for at least the last few years). I agree with Dave, this yr to yr downturn is simply a reflection of the movies being released. Perhaps the last six months of the yr will reverse that trend. But to say that, suddenly, moviegoers suddenly prefer watching DVDs is downright stupid.

  7. Chester says:

    Dave, your whole “Here is my bottom line…” paragraph only serves to highlight the weakness of your argument. What you do there is dismissively list a hell of a lot of major releases that opened far below expectations. You toss aside solid evidence that audiences are getting more selective. Yes, people will still turn up in droves for the “can’t wait” spectacles like “Return of the Sith.” And, especially with school out, the first films of the summer can still manage to pack them in on Memorial Day weekend. But to say that the rest of the year has not demonstrably suffered, that people’s filmgoing habits and selectivity have not changed, is simply not supported by the evidence you yourself have presented.

  8. Joe Leydon says:

    Jeff: I’m not sure I agree that the drop-off will be THAT extreme. And I suspect that, for a long time to come, many people will still have the urge to occasionally go out of the house and see SOME movies. But you know what? There’s an element to this that isn’t addressed nearly often enough: Many people have stoped going to theaters not because admission prices are too high, or because exhibitors screen too many commercials. They’ve stopped going because too many other ticketbuyers are just plain goddamn rude. They talk during movies. They bring crying infants to movies. They answer their cell- hones — and CARRY ON CONVERSATIONS, FOR GOD’S SAKE — during movies. I’m not sure what exhibitors can do about these cretins without risking lawsuits and/or violence. But, once again, anecdotal evidence strongly sugests to me that, for some former moviegoers, hell is other people.

  9. dfx says:

    “Narci-journalism… it

  10. jeffmcm says:

    Yes, capitalism never did anything wrong.

  11. ecreels says:

    Joe does bring up a good point about moviegoers today being particularly rude, but I’d like to connect the dots here…I think the reason that many people act as they do in theaters is because home entertainment has become so pervasive. In other words, people treat a movie theater as if it’s their giant living room, so they do things they would do in the living room: talk at top volume, answer the phone, leave and return endlessly for concessions, etc. The theater experience is changing, and not all for the better, no question.
    However, I’m not at all convinced, that theatrical exhibition is going to die. It will become someting very different. I don’t care how nice a home theater system is or how rude some people are—by and large, the theater is still the best way to see movies, and I’m sure it will stick in some form.
    We get these kind of “end of the world” talkes whenever something new comes down the pike. We have radio, so live theater will die. Now we have TV, so radio and movies will die. Didn’t happen, did it?

  12. Chester says:

    ecreels, I don’t think anyone here is engaged in an “end of the world” talk. We’re just saying that theatrical attendance is in progressive and increasing decline, something that Dave Poland dismisses. I don’t think any of us are predicting the complete end of the theatrical experience any time soon, but many here are forecasting that its central position as an entertainment hub will continue to markedly diminish.

  13. Joe Leydon says:

    Batman fans, this is priceless:

  14. Lota says:

    I still love going to the Show. Especially the really old ones with built in organs for the silents.
    SOmetimes people are rude but I have found the best way to handle it is to get up and get the Manager and tell them if they don’t enforce the silence/cell phone etc biz, I want my money back. Many people have been escorted from theaters I enter. Now that’s Power.
    Usually though, people are pretty good and despite the high def fancy home ent. systems, many people want an excuse to get out to the Show. My old fella had a high tech screening room, and we still often went to the Pictures because it is just more fun to watch a movie in a real theater.
    What isn’t fun is the $8.50 you pay for a large popcorn (not even real frickin butter either) and a medium ice tea.
    I think the LOUD Adverts and OVERPRICED concessions is what pisses people off. And all the blah movies amongst the occasional stupendous flick.
    My Papa still religiously goes to the flicks once a week and gets a box of DOTS.

  15. Chester says:

    “And strangely enough, combined theater and home sales will be enough to sustain this industry”
    But what about the importance of movie theatres to the rest of the economy, DFX? What happens when more people stay home on a Saturday night and therefore skip going out to a restaurant for a pre-theatre dinner? Or don’t stop off with the kids at Baskin-Robbins after a movie? Or don’t hang out and shop at the mall as part of their multiplex experience? And so forth…

  16. Joe Leydon says:

    Chester, what do you mean what WILL happen? It’s already happening in many areas. I live in Flyover Country, so maybe it’s easier for me to see some of the collateral damage. AMC, General Cinema and Loews have shuttered nearly a dozen multiplexes in Greater Metroploitan Houston during the past few years. (I actually teach at a comunity college branch that took over a shut-down AMC multiplex. Which means my students are attending lectures in an auditorium with seats that have cupholder armrests.) Now, I’m not saying all of these closings, or even many of them, had anything to do with home video. Most closings represented desperate measures by chains that had overbuilt in Houston (and elsewhere), and were facing bankruptcy. But holy smokes: It’s creepy to see the scarcity of customers (and the closed stores) at shopping centers where moviehouses have shut down. And I think: Here, too, is another glimpse at the future…
    I repeat: I don’t think moviegoing as we know it will end anytime soon. But it’s impossible to ignore the distant early warning signs that attendance will continue to drop off, particularly in terms of moviegoers as a percentage of the overall population. (It’s like, compared to 1958, more people might be buying tickets today, but they comprise a much, MUCH smaller percentage of the US population.)Blame of the post-9/11 desire to cocoon, blame it rude audiences, blame it on whatever. But it’s happening.

  17. L&DB says:

    Joe, you just might live in a bad area for exhibition.
    Here in the great Memphis area, we have had new
    theatres popping up for years now. Sure, we lost
    all of our AMC theatres. Yet having one theatre
    chaing with a practical monopoly of this area. Has
    helped exhibition continue to grow, and none of the
    older theatres have suffered. Which is a bit of
    a shock. Thanks to all of the old theatres being
    about 5 to 10 miles away from the new theatres.
    Im with Dave on this one. Lota, you can complain
    about concessions all you want. Guess what? They
    have been expensive for over a decade or more now.
    People still go, and not like you have to buy
    over priced popcorn. Yet they have such wonderful
    pizza, that make suffering through my lactose
    intolerance. Worth it.
    So it’s still slightly off. We still have that
    crap known as ID4 part 2 coming. If the BOX OFFICE
    has not come right by Septemer. We might be doomed.
    If not; then, again, I call forth the BOY WIZARD!
    “DOMINO! *****!”

  18. Matt says:

    Also, even as smaller theatres have shut down, Megaplexes have proliferated. It’s now increasingly hard to find a movie theatre with fewer than 15 screens in “fly-over country.” Those same companies that are shutting down their 7 and 8 screeners in old suburbia and in the “inner city” are contemporaneously building new megaplexes out in the exurbs. Houston and Dallas have both seen a lot of this sort of stuff, and there’s even been a little of it in Memphis. (I’ve lived in and visit each of those places about once a year, so I’ve seen the change).

  19. David Poland says:

    Theatrical exhibition hasn’t been the hub of entertainment for 40-plus years. The average American sees more TV in three days than they see movies in a theater all year… and that stat was true before DVD existed. Please get some perspective.
    This is the same argument about filmed drama being dead. It is dead in exhibition because it doesn’t sustain an audience to cover the P&A. But there is more filmed drama now than ever in the history of entertainment.
    I have been endlessly critical of the movie business for taking theatrical for granted and literally throwing away tens on millions of theatrical dollars on some films. I have been a proponent of reinvesting in second run to reinvigorate the theatrical experience. There are lots of problems that need addressing.
    But the overall argument that DVD is replacing the theatrical experience is held up by almost no evidence. The market for paid filmed entertainment has grown by more than 50% in the last few year. And theatrical is down by less than the gross of one film this year?
    Yeah, Joe… I’m some loony who doesn’t think people want DVDs. A insincere attack not worthy of you, since you know its not true.
    If you want to believe the sky is falling, go to town. And I’m sure you believe that digital projection will be everywhere in a year or two and that HD-DVD will be hot, hot, hot.
    My point it, exhibition has survived everything because it is a form of entertainment that people want. They also want home entertainment and convenience. And the fact that you can’t see that they are complimentary, not exclusive, is your limitation, not mine.
    And let’s look at the “audiences are more selective” argument… right after I finish counting all the money The Amityville Horror made… that would be $8 million less than the groundbreaking Sin City. Very selective. The audience selects what it likes by way of advertising and hype… same as always. Is there any comedy that doesn’t play better on TV than in a theater? Then why does anyone go to comedies (in droves) in theaters? (And if you are going to answer a rhetorical question, try to be imaginative and not literal.)

  20. VGM says:

    “I actually teach at a comunity college branch that took over a shut-down AMC multiplex. Which means my students are attending lectures in an auditorium with seats that have cupholder armrests.”
    I bet there’s at least one kid who spends the whole time moving the armrest up and down.
    I didn’t think it was possible for them to get any more distracted, or, conversely, harder to keep their attention. I’m glad I never faced that situation.

  21. ak says:

    David Poland, why don’t you address theatregoer reactions to commercials which is a real valid point? I agree with you that the sky is not falling in but there is a big change in the moviegoing experience lately, and it has reached a new level this year with the commercials and the late start that they encumber and if you miss them you get crummy seats. Plus I find it offensive. I do have a great home theatre though and I still go to see movies. So far this movie the only good films for adults have been Crash, Upside of Anger and maybe Star Wars 3 just to see it. Am I wrong?

  22. ecreels says:

    Chester noted,”ecreels, I don’t think anyone here is engaged in an “end of the world” talk. We’re just saying that theatrical attendance is in progressive and increasing decline.”
    Point taken. I didn’t mean to infer that’s what some people were saying here. But I think Dave does have a point in that much of the media coverage on this issue of late has had this rather hysterical tone to it. As someone who works in the media, I can attest that once people in my profession latch onto a certain trendy thesis, things tend to get blown out of proportion. All I’m trying to say is, “Whoa…there’s a point here, but let’s not lose the big picture.” (Pun sorta intended.)

  23. jeffmcm says:

    Dave P: I don’t think there’s a lot of disagreement with your basic point. It’s that you seem to have an obsession with discrediting everyone else’s obsessive reporting.
    It seems like film exhibition is dividing itself so that one day it’ll basically be some form of IMAX-like exhibition for the big spectacles, and small arthouses in big cities. Everything else will be piped into your home.

  24. jeffmcm says:

    I mean, far in the future.

  25. Joe Leydon says:

    Excuse me, Dave, but what the hell are you talking about? When have I ever said that “digital projection will be everywhere in a year or two and that HD-DVD will be hot, hot, hot”? You’ve often accused me of taking your words out of context. Well, here you are making up quotes out of whole cloth.
    “My point it, exhibition has survived everything because it is a form of entertainment that people want.” Can’t argue with that. But, then again, the same is true of opera and live theater. But how many opera companies are there in your average city?
    And as for your blanket statement that “the overall argument that DVD is replacing the theatrical experience is held up by almost no evidence” — geez, Dave, do you ever read the postings on your own freakin’ blog? Go back and read dfx’s post, and multiply it several times. Several hundreds of thousands of times. Of course there will continue to be what you variously describe as “filmed drama” (TV?) and “paid filmed entertainment” (presumably, theatrical films, DVDs and pay-cable). In fact, I’ll go one step further than you: I’d be willing to be that, next year, there will be even MORE filmed drama available than is available this year. All I’m saying is there probably won’t be as many people leaving their homes on a regular basis to see it.
    And what the hell does this mean: “Yeah, Joe… I’m some loony who doesn’t think people want DVDs. A insincere attack not worthy of you, since you know its not true”? When have I ever said THAT?
    You know Dave, I hate to say this, but you’re starting to argue like a Republican.

  26. Chester says:

    “Please get some perspective.”
    Dave, I can’t speak for everyone you assailed in your rambling post, but:
    1. My own view is not that “the sky is falling.” Instead, it’s just a matter of observing visible trends and drawing rational conclusions about where things are likely to be heading. And IMHO the industry and the public continue to be heading largely (but not completely) away from theatrical exhibition. Your bitterly defensive posture offers nothing concrete to contradict that conclusion. Towards the end, you said your point is that home entertainment and theatrical exhibition are complementary, not mutually exclusive. Well, sure, but so are hot dogs and mustard. What’s been debated here is not so much whether they can co-exist but whether what everyone expected to be a condiment is steadily evolving into the main dish.
    2. The fact that audiences may flock to certain lousy movies does not in any way mean they are not being selective. Selective people do not always select well. So the success of a popular-genre remake like “The Amityville Horror” represents nothing about the overall health of the industry beyond the loyalty of that familiar title’s core audience.
    3. With all due respect, your last of many tangential points – “Is there any comedy that doesn’t play better on TV than in a theater?” – makes you seem a bit like an alien from another planet. Or am I the only one who thinks that comedies seem funnier in a large, packed auditorium filled with laughter than when watched in the relatively silent solitude of one’s living room?

  27. Chester says:

    Joe, you’re just discovering NOW that Dave comes across like he’s a Republican? This site has been evolving into a Dave Poland-sponsored conservative beehive for months! He’s done absolutely nothing of substance to quell the right-wing hooliganism that has almost completely overtaken this site, and I cannot recall Dave himself taking anything other than a conservative’s position on any topic.

  28. RDP says:

    Since I can’t remember where I saw the story, I won’t vouch for its reliability, but I read somewhere that DVD sales of movies has been on the decline with only TV-on-DVD picking up the slack and making DVD sales seem healthier than they otherwise would be.
    Like I said, I don’t know if that’s true or not, but if there were a drop in DVD sales coming a few months after a drop in theatrical box office, what would that mean? Even more selectivity?
    It seems to me that the solution to whatever the problem is would be to make more compelling movies (easier said than done, I know).

  29. L&DB says:

    Here we go with the whole “Dave is a Republican” crap
    again. If the dude has an political affiliation
    The brother could easily be seen as a moderate than
    anything else.
    Chester, what right-wing hooliganism do you speak of?
    Outside of Mark’s utterly pretentious statements
    the other day. Mark and Bob remain and have always
    been the right-wing clique around here. They are
    not as bad as they were last year. Have shenanigans
    been breaking out when Im not around? Did the
    online poker people declare their love of “anti-
    abortionist, Ann Coulter, and Tom Delay?”
    Your statements about Poland and conservativism on
    this board absolutely make no sense. Unless, again,
    I missed some sort of prevailing “EVIL CONSERVATISM”
    on this blog. Then your statements absolutely come
    across as nothing but rubbish.

  30. Josh Massey says:

    L&DB, you have to realize that Chester is one of those people that are SO fun to hang around – the kind of person who lives, breathes and eats politics, and can’t talk about any other subject without working it into some kind of political angle.

  31. KamikazeCamel says:

    wow… what a boring thread!
    I know it’s been brought up in the past, but if Passion of the Christ hadn’t been made or even released by this time last year would we still be having this discussion?

  32. L&DB says:

    Camel, no, we would not be having this discussion.
    What so bloody ever.

  33. jeffmcm says:

    Chester thinks anyone who doesn’t agree with him is a Republican.

  34. Matt P. says:

    Star Wars came back strong on Saturday with $20. If it takes similar number Sunday and Monday, you’re looking at $75 to $80 for the four-day.

  35. Joe Leydon says:

    Don’t tell Matt Drudge. He’s still running this link on his Drudge Report website: UPSET: ‘STAR WARS: SITH’ SLIPS OUT OF FIRST PLACE IN SECOND WEEK? Trouble is, the link leads to a story with the updated info Matt P. refers to. LOL.

  36. Martin says:

    Madagascar still has a shot at overtaking #1 looks like longest yard is in at #3 though.

  37. Joe Leydon says:

    This may end up being a photo finish — and we might end seeing one No. 1 for the three-day weekend, but another No. 1 for the four-day weekend, you think?
    BTW: Don’t know how much, if any, effect this might have on box-office figures, but: In Houston, several high schools are having graduation ceremonies this weekend. (My son picks up his diploma this evening.) I know school years begin and end at various times throughout the country, but in how many markets might this be a factor?

  38. Joe Leydon says:

    Can I make a loan so I can play poker?

  39. sky_capitan says:

    If this is about whether ppl are spending less on going to movies because of DVD, for me the answer is yes. One of my college classmates brought this up last month, and we all pretty much agreed to the same thing- it costs way too much to go to a movie, so just wait for the DVD instead. I know I do this all the time. I mean, unless you HAVE TO see it right away, why not wait and rent the dvd in a few months for $5 or buy it for $20? I don’t consider seeing a movie in a theater all that special an experience, and if movies came out on DVD even sooner than the 3-4 months it takes now, I would never see another movie in a theater again.
    A friend of mine was dying to see Open Water last fall, and got her sister, brother, and mother, to go to a theater to see it. It cost them about $40 for tix, plus parking. They all HATED Open Water, and then it comes out on DVD for $18 a few months later. Don’t you think that has an affect on how they’ll spend their money in the future?? Well, it did.
    As for me, i buy DVD’s of movies I haven’t seen all the time. On tuesday, I bought The Aviator from Best Buy for $19.99.
    Paying $10 to see it in a theater when you can own it a few months later for $20? Easy choice. Did I see Constantine or Sin City? No. Will I be buying the DVD’s for about $20 when they come out in July and August? Yes.
    Do I think “Second Run” or discount theaters are a great idea? Yeah. Movies I’d never pay $10 to see I’ll pay $2.50 to see. Of course, I remember seeing the horrible movie “Envy” in the discount theaters last fall, and two inbred psychopaths laughing hysterically at everything on screen in the near empty theater, which reminded me of why sometimes I hate going to the theaters.
    Still, I will see The Island, War Of The Worlds, maybe The Wedding Crashers, and a few others in the theaters this summer because I don’t want to wait until november to buy them or rent them on DVD.

  40. VGM says:

    Can I get a loan if I don’t want to play poker?

  41. jeffmcm says:

    If ANYONE is going to the poker or loan links, you’re encouraging them to keep spamming and consequently you are a bad person.

  42. Joe Leydon says:

    Jeff, you’re so…. judgmental.

  43. GdB says:

    I have yet to see one poker or loan link or pop-up. You guys all have some kind of virus or something.

  44. Josh Massey says:

    Let me guess, GdB: you’re using Firefox. Because I am, and I haven’t seen any pop-ups either. Now Drudge’s pop-ups, however, get through even toughest blocker.

  45. L&DB says:

    First off; Im curious why an Australian would care
    about someone being a Republican or not. I mean,
    not like Australia has Republicans or anything.
    Secondly, the only browser I have seen that could
    kill the Drudge pop ups; The MSN browser. Sure.
    It’s just a fancy version of IE6 or what not. Yet
    it sure does kill them pop ups dead. WOO HOO!

  46. KamikazeCamel says:

    “Paying $10 to see it in a theater when you can own it a few months later for $20? Easy choice. Did I see Constantine or Sin City? No. Will I be buying the DVD’s for about $20 when they come out in July and August? Yes.”
    Sky Captain, you just answered your own question. Why would you see a movie for $10 when you can buy it a few months later for $20? Because it’s $10 and the DVD is $20. And what if you don’t like it?
    I could understand waiting for DVD but why buy them when you haven’t even seen them? I’ve only ever done that twice with “All That Jazz” and “Topsy Turvy” but they were, like, $2.99″ each (something like $1.75 US) so that didn’t bother me.
    But, seriously, I’m not getting many poker popups. I’ve gotten all of 2 in the last couple of weeks.

  47. jeffmcm says:

    I’m getting zero popups but every old blog link has Poker or Loan spam links. That pisses me off a little.

  48. jeffmcm says:

    Does anyone here ever look at the other blogs? Movie City Indie or Ray Pride?

  49. L&DB says:

    I thought about checking out the other blogs jeff.
    It would seem, however, that Im partial to you
    assholes ;)—that’s the emoticon of sarcasm!
    Also, did you guys check out the LOAN madness that
    has happened so far? Jesus. That’s just ridiculous.
    Bowienanigans upon them, the bastards.
    The logic of buying a DVD of something you have
    never seen. Absolutely baffles me. Why not
    rent it? Since Blockbuster and every other video
    chain are in a constant struggle against one another.
    There should be copies available. Sure. This kind
    of flawed thinking could lead to many of us finding
    used DVDs of films we like or love at cheap used
    prices. Yet it also screams waste of disposable
    income. The fact that some yokel went and bought
    WHITE NOISE a few Tuesdays ago because it was a NEW
    release. Yet had never seen that high-quality
    B+ quality film just makes no sense what so bloody
    ever. But hey, they can sell those DVDs used one
    day for more than 60 percent less than they purchased

  50. L&DB says:

    Man, Im so glad Tarkin gets blown up real good at
    the end of A New Hope. Blowing up a planet as beautiful
    as Alderran deserves being blown up real good.
    That point aside; jeff might be onto something. We
    all love chatting and discussing things, and Poland
    sometimes goes awol. Like when he has to see 35 films
    in a day or something. So Pride’s Blog and the Indie
    Blog COULD be good places to go chat and discuss
    during times Poland gets all Number 6 on us.
    Especially Pride’s blog which is nothing but reviews.
    I mean, that blog is an argument waiting to happen.
    Indie blog could be even greater for discussion.
    So Jeff, might have a point on the other blogs.
    Good show there jeff. Look at Jeffy thinking outside
    the box!

  51. Joe Leydon says:

    I can’t understand why some of you folks can’t understand why people buy DVDs of movies they’ve never seen. For decades, people have been buying hardcover books they’ve never read — and have you priced hardcover books lately?
    Also, consider this: While the list price for a new DVD might be in the $20 range, it’s easy to find marked-down prices at Wal-Mart, Sam’s, etc. And even at $20 — that’s cheaper than first-run admission tickets and concession-stand goodies for a couple.
    About a year ago, an executive at Universal claimed that, according to his company’s research, something like 60 percent of new DVDs are sold to people who haven’t already seen the movie they’re purchasing. Sixty freakin’ percent.
    Maybe you can’t undertand, guys, but the revolutuion is here.

  52. Lota says:

    I’ve been buying DVDs I haven’t seen since DVDs were for sale even though I see 90+ movies a year on a big screen. Actually it is the norm. Aside from buying old re-issued movies that are childhood favorites on DVD, i would say 90% of the DVDs I buy I haven’t seen the picture.
    If Virgin has not prev-viewed DVDs for 7.99-9.99 hell yeah I buy them if I heard good things about the movie from people of similar viewing tastes. I thought this was normal.
    Also collections are a good deal even if you have seen only a couple of the movies in the group (because who knows when it will go out of print as some titles in a collection are often obscure).
    But then again I’ve bought old reels of films that libraries were getting rid of (that I haven’t seen prior either), so I am extreme.

  53. Martin says:

    maybe i’m just cheap but I haven’t bought a DVD in over a year, and the ones I own are gifts. $5 rental or $20 purchase for a movie I’ll probably never watch again? not a tough decision.

  54. Mark says:

    The blind DVD buy is the only way to go. You can get them for under 8 bucks now. Beats renting.

  55. Terence D says:

    L&DB, do you really have to use profanity in every post? Is it really that neccessary for you to make your point?

  56. Joe Leydon says:

    Mark: Right you are, sir. I love digging through the “Dump Bin” at Wal-Mart for those “2 for $11” DVDs. In recent weeks, I’ve found delights and/or guilty pleasures as Love Story, Beverly Hills Cop, Heaven Can Wait, Funny Face, Vanilla Sky, Silver Streak, Hard Times and Top Secret! To say nothing of films I’ve never seen before, but figured, what the hell, the price is right.

  57. GdB says:

    I completely agree with the idea that it’s more valuable to buy blind, but I’m not really buying anymore DVD’s at all now that a format has been agreed upon between Sony and Toshiba(?) on the whole Blu-Ray/HD-DVD format issue.
    New technology is right around the corner and all these DVD’s are going to be stacking dust like your VHS tapes. That’s why Lucas changed his mind and released the original trilogy before Episode III. To cash in on this format.
    Granted that technology is a year away, but now that they announced that the PS3 comes HD-DVD capable out of the box, that technology will have a very quick user base. That’s less than a year away, so now I feel like I’m wasting dollard buying films blind that may never get watched because I’m using newer technology.

  58. GdB says:

    That’s why Lucas changed his mind and released the original trilogy *on DVD* before Episode III. To cash in on this format.

  59. Martin says:

    well considering that something like 95% of tvs sold are still standard def. I don’t think that something like HD-DVD going to take hold anytime soon. People took long enough to upgrade to a $100 DVD player, you expect them to upgrade to a $500+ tv plus a new HD-DVD player anytime soon? Regular DVDs and regular TVs are here for at least another decade.

  60. GdB says:

    I’d like to see where you got that 95% figure.
    You can get a 30″ tube 480p/1080i 16×9 HDTV for $600. Smaller 4×3 models are even less. The cost of the technology is coming down so fast, it will not be a decade.
    PS3 will have a relatively low price (under $500 for sure. Probably $300-350) and they’ll take a major loss to get the hardware in the homes. Because the profit is in the software and the content.
    2007 will be the year that everything starts to turn over. By then HDTV will be broadcast standard, and the cost of a HDTV tube television will be comparatively affordable to standard TV’s if not so already.
    Like I said in my earlier post, it’s not happening tomorrow. But it’s here in two years or less for sure.

  61. joefitz84 says:

    I refuse to rent. Why rent when you can acually own it for a few dollars more? If you don’t like it, you can always sell it back to Blockbuster or on Amazon.

  62. GdB says:

    That said, I don’t think DVD will be the way of VHS in two years, but it will be compartively viewed as having a cassette vs. a CD, once the PS3 is out and HD-DVD is an established technology.
    The pundits are already predicting the decline of DVD sales. What are they saying now (I’m basing this off another of the boards here), that people aren’t buying movies anymore and it’s the TV series DVD sales that are keeping the numbers up?
    If there’s any merit to that, I’d say that has more to do with people feeling like they’ve been burned one too many times with DVD double dipping
    than anything else. But that’s a whole ‘nother discussion.

  63. VGM says:

    The latest word is that the next generation DVD format war is ON. Talks between Sony and Toshiba broke down last week, and both are pushing ahead with their respective formats. The market will have to decide, both companies said. Of course, the market was supposed to decide between SACD and DVD-Audio. It did, and chose to stick with plain old CD–and downloading.
    There have been persistent rumors, never confirmed, that Lucas demanded a cut of the DVD Forum’s royalties in exchange for releasing the original trilogy in that format at its launch.
    PS3 will support Blu-Ray, not HD-DVD. Latest rumors are that it will be about the same price as PS2. Earlier rumors had it considerably higher.

  64. Martin says:

    well i dont know where you get your numbers from but DVD sales are still huge. what’s dropping off is the “growth” not the profits. Sales of DVDs are stronger than ever, they’ve just peaked, which happens with any new technology. HD-TV will no way be the standard in 2 years, you’re crazy. I don’t know a single person in my neighborhood that has it now, nor any parents, friends or relatives. And no one is asking about it either. Maybe cable providers in big cities will have HD as a standard option by 2007, but when 99% of the population right now has standard def tvs, to say that a large portion of them will put $500 down in the next 2 or even 5 years is crazy. The technology and audience for that technology will be here within a decade. To assume it’s any sooner than that is crazy.

  65. VGM says:

    The thing to watch regarding new technology is the analog shut-off, i.e., the transition from analog to digital transmission of television signals. The latest draft legislation has that happening on 31 December 2008. Which means that on 1 January 2009, every television in the United States will need either a built-in digital tuner, or external adapter, to get over-the-air television signals. Such tuners are mandated for new televisions, but given how many old TVs there are, the transition promises to be difficult and controversial. How this pans out will have considerable influence on everything else with regard to new television technology.
    “To say that a large portion of them will put $500 down in the next 2 or even 5 years is crazy.” Perhaps, but if Congress has its way, they will have no choice.

  66. joefitz84 says:

    It is real easy to say that DVD will go the way of VHS. But VHS enjoyed a very healthy lifespan and DVD’s will enjoy their time too. When the next technology comes, movie lovers will flock to it if its improved over DVD.

  67. Lota says:

    renting isn’t practical for people who can’t remember to return stuff (like me) or for people who travel etc(like me).
    I stil buy VHS for 79 cents if they haven’t been issued on DVD yet.

  68. Joe Leydon says:

    Funny you should say that, Lota: I was in a 99 Cents store this afternoon, and spotted a VHS copy of “A Mighty Wind.” And for just a moment, I was SOOOOOOOO tempted….

  69. L&DB says:

    Terence, you best keep your fingers from hitting
    that keyboard, or that Blau person will show up.
    And he/she does not seem to like you that much. If
    a word gets you that bloody upset. Again, remove
    the stick from your arse, and maybe we can talk
    like individuals and not robots. Syntax dear boy.
    Im sorry. Buying a DVD of something you have never
    seen is just stupid. Comparing a DVD to a book absolutely
    misses out on the two very different audiences of
    each medium Joe. People who read have got to read.
    My mom has to read a book or two a week, and if
    she wants something new. She goes and gets it.
    Unlike with film, where you have pay channels, and
    a chance to see this crap before you buy it.
    Again, Im not knocking buying stuff used. That makes
    all sorts of sense to me. Yet, buying something
    just because it’s a new release and you have not
    seen it. Will always absolutely baffle me. Your
    money however, and not like Wal-Mart has sales worth
    a damn Joe.
    On to HD-TV which lost it’s biggest backer in the
    FCC. When that chimpmunk from hell Michael Powell
    resigned. Even though he became a conservative
    stooly at the end of his term in office. He actually
    had some very pro-technology stances. If he still
    had that seat. HD-TV might be further along than
    it is now. Yet, the FCC has been turned over to
    some yokel. Who will probably spend more time on
    indecency than trying to improve technology in this
    Even if HD-TV takes over. You can get it now in
    cable box form, and you dont even have to have
    an HI-DEF TV. Sure. It might not look as great
    as it would on those crappy plasmas that burn up
    in six months. Yet you can have HD, and that would
    seem to be all that matters.
    Also, VGM, I could have sworn Sony and Toshiba decided
    to create just one future DVD format two weeks ago.
    If they decided against teaming up. They are just
    causing more and more problems. Since no one, outside
    of techheads, seems or wants, another new video
    Yet, it’ HD, and that wou

  70. L&DB says:

    And no, I have no idea what happened at the end of
    that last post. Absolutely no idea.

  71. whahoppa says:

    LDB, your posts are hard to read. Do you talk this way?

  72. VGM says:

    Actually, the studios are one of the driving forces, if not the main force, behind a new DVD format. The ins and outs are beyond my rudimentary understanding of Hollywood, but as always it has to do with money. Something about how the studios will get more money if they own a piece of the technology, which they don’t now.
    As for the format war, this is where it stands as of the end of last week.

  73. Joe Leydon says:

    What never ceases to amaze me on this blog is this attitude some people have about other people’s wants, needs, desires, etc. That is, they simply can’t understand why someone would want to do something — like, not see a “Star Wars” movie, or purchase a DVD of a movie they’ve never seen — and so they proceed to call it stupid, or insist that they would never do such a thing, or claim it makes no sense to do such a thing, or even dispute that such things ever really happen. I fully understand that contentious argument for its own sake is what draws some people to blogs like this in the first place. But, holy smoke! Look, folks, people — LOTS of people — buy movies on DVD they’ve never seen before. And some people have decided — even if they’ve seen every other “Star Wars” movie — not to see “Revenge of the Sith.” If you can’t conceive of such of thing, the problem is with your failure of the imagination, not with their tastes. I mean, it would be like, since I never read a horoscope column, I would think that no one should read a horoscope column, or that everyone who does read a horoscope column is a jerk, or whatever. Or, because I voted for John Kerry, I must assume each and every person out there who voted for George Bush must be a moron. I kid around a lot, but honest, I can understand (though certainly not agree) why some people thought Bush was the better of the two candidates, or at least the lesser of two evils. (In my case, I couldn’t begin to think of doing such a thing — if I ever voted for a Republican, my mother would rise from the grace and throttle me.)

  74. Joe Leydon says:

    Er… that’s rise from the GRAVE.

  75. jeffmcm says:

    I agree that there’s no need for such divisiveness around here. Or bad language, which isn’t a sign that your rear is free of sticks, just that your mind can’t think in polite ways.
    But I do think that people are wasting their time by reading horoscopes.

  76. VGM says:

    Where would life be if people never did things they’d never done before?

  77. G-Man says:

    Joe, go back and read the “Star Wars Opens” thread again. Stella’s snobbery was more complicated than you just implied. I laid out my case over and over again and you never addressed my points. And if we’re going to make long rambling posts…John Kerry was a traitor that used his “service” to further his political ambitions. And no one cares if you voted Democratic.
    Enough people didn’t.

  78. L&DB says:

    Joe, let me clarify something for you. I am baffled
    at people buying CRAP on DVD. Does that work better
    for you? Excuse me for making a statement that I
    am baffled at someone having to rush out to a Best
    Buy and buying White Noise or Boogeyman tomorrow.
    Sure. People try new things all the time. Yet
    what would make them want to try White Noise? Am
    I wrong for being baffled by that? I do not think
    so, but Joe just wants to get all New Hampshire on
    us. Dont tread on ME Joe! DONT TREAD ON ME!
    wharoppa, if you have a hard time understanding what
    I am typing. Then just scroll past it. I do that
    all the time when Mark and jeff post something. Yet
    Jeff screws up this plan by never typing more than
    2 paragraphs per post! CURSE HIM!
    Jeff, being polite has nothing to do with not cursing.
    Before you ever posted here. Poland asked people to
    stop cursing. Which we did. Then all of a sudden,
    it picked up again. A lot worse than anything I
    have ever posted since. You see, people like Terence
    and some other guy, will never understand that cursing
    has nothing to do with making a point. It has to
    do with the way one chooses to use the tapestry of
    the English language. If you think that word is
    there to make a point, then you obvilously are insulting
    my vocabulary skills.
    So, jeff, if you want me to be polite. I will try.
    Yet you seem incapable of any sort of politeness.
    If I try. Why dont you try.

  79. whahoppa says:

    I don’t blame him for not being polite, you can’t even read-or is it spell-my 8-letter user name right.
    Maybe we want to understand your wisdom but we can’t because you right like James Joyce at age 10.

  80. whahoppa says:

    Apparently I have brain damage too

  81. jeffmcm says:

    Sorry if I’ve hurt your feelings LDB, had no idea. I thought the force protected you from all offense.
    I love how the thread about everyone being nicer to each other just devolved into the most divisive political arguments all over again…way to go, G-Man.

  82. G-Man says:

    “Or, because I voted for John Kerry, I must assume each and every person out there who voted for George Bush must be a moron. I kid around a lot, but honest, I can understand (though certainly not agree) why some people thought Bush was the better of the two candidates, or at least the lesser of two evils. (In my case, I couldn’t begin to think of doing such a thing — if I ever voted for a Republican, my mother would rise from the grace and throttle me.)” – Joe Leydon 9:32 pm
    “…John Kerry was a traitor that used his “service” to further his political ambitions. And no one cares if you voted Democratic. Enough people didn’t” – G-Man 10:36 pm
    Defend your accusation Jeff.

  83. KamikazeCamel says:

    1. I can understand buying DVDs of movies you haven’t seen if they are cheap? However, the problem with that still is if you look at those 2 for $15 things the DVD have no extras or there’s a better version available for a couple of dollars extra hidden somewhere else in the store. However, as L&DB said, randomly going out and deciding to buy the latest new releases seems really strange. Especially, considering your line of thinking, that even the prices of these new release DVDs will significantly decrease in ANOTHER few months.
    2. Whoever blind brought “Vanilla Sky”… I FEEL SO SORRY FOR YOU. That horrible trash of a remake needs to die die die. See “Open Your Eyes” instead. Essentially the same movie, yet for some reason it’s leaps and bounds beyond Vanilla Sky. ugh.
    3. On the whole DVD/HD/Blu-Ray thing, somebody said that DVDs are going to go the way of VHS which went the way of Beta, etc. The thing is – DVDs are shithouse. VHS tapes aren’t widescreen, they are in bad quality (visual and aural) and, well, are video tapes with no special features and no ability for scene selection, languages, etc. But what ordinary joe sixpack is going to really care about a few extra pixels per centremeter when watching their “The Longest Yard” DVD? Not many, I would presume.
    4. Stella was acting like a royal holier-than-thou snob on the whole Star Wars thing. It all began with the really random and needlessly aggresive reply to the comment that Kevin Smith had reviewed SW3. It was something along the lines “I don’t give a shit about Star Wars or Kevin Smith. Why should I care?” my simple responce “Don’t.” but he never let up, so neither did anyone else.
    5. If swearing offends Terence so much I suggest he doesn’t talk to his children between the ages of 14 and 21.

  84. KamikazeCamel says:

    “DVDs are shithouse” is meant to read “VHS are shithouse”.
    Or else I just deflated my own argument right there.
    And, also, the whole blind buy thing is maybe just a knee-jerk reaction to the whole “I’m a poor and starving student. Give me money.”

  85. jeffmcm says:

    To be fair, Joe Leydon brought up politics in the first place. But what he said was much less inflammatory than what you said, G-Man. Joe said, with some undertones, that he understands why people would vote for the guy he didn’t vote for. You said the guy you presumably didn’t vote for is a traitor and then gave it a sore-winner cap.

  86. G-Man says:

    “But what he said was much less inflammatory than what you said” – Jeffmcm
    “In my case, I couldn’t begin to think of doing such a thing — if I ever voted for a Republican, my mother would rise from the grace and throttle me.” – Joe Leydon
    The only difference between what Joe posted and what I posted is that I gave a reason WHY I would never vote for Kerry. He’s a traitor whose “testimony” flies in the face of the experiences of hundreds of thousands of other Vietnam veterans. Then I responded to Joe’s nonsensical dead-mother reference by reminding him that the majority of Americans DON’T agree with him.

  87. G-Man says:

    You don’t have to worry about a war between Joe and I. I tried to get him to address my points in the “Star Wars Opens” thread but he backed down.
    But maybe you won’t. You can start by pointing out when John Kerry DIDN’T use his anti-war fame (notoriety) to run for the House of Representatives in 1972.

  88. jeffmcm says:

    Joe’s comments about his mother were a joke. I don’t think she would become a zombie and kill Joe. What you said was something that I’m sure you believe strongly but is not a matter of consensus. Not everyone who voted for Bush did so because they thought Kerry was a traitor. THAT’s the inflammatory part.
    I have no idea about what Kerry did in the 70s. I thought he was a thoroughly mediocre candidate.

  89. G-Man says:

    Joe can Republican-bash as much as he wants in his posts. But don’t expect me to sit here and take it. And especially don’t expect me to take your crap when HE brought up politics in this thread in the first place.
    If anyone wants to come after my points then I’ll have a debate with them. Kerry’s “testimony” is a matter of public record and probably cost him the election. It’s a valid point for me to bring up.

  90. sky_capitan says:

    “Sky Captain, you just answered your own question. Why would you see a movie for $10 when you can buy it a few months later for $20? Because it’s $10 and the DVD is $20. And what if you don’t like it?”
    I don’t feel ripped off when I buy a new DVD for $20, but I do feel somewhat cheated when I spend $10 to sit in a theater for 2 hours. Besides, if I don’t like a DVD, I can get rid of it, but also, it’s not like I’m going to buy something that I know I’m going to hate. You won’t see me lining up to buy “The Pacifier” when it comes out.
    And I buy previously viewed dvds too. I bought Collateral and The Forgotten tonight, 2 for $15 (a little more expensive here in Canada I guess). And I buy the cheap dvds from Wal-Mart, Future Shop, and Best Buy (like Primal Fear, Rat Race, War Games,etc for $7).
    And I agree, enough with the politics! I have no idea why ALL Americans didn’t vote for President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. Maybe it’s just my naive Canadian perspective, but until President Bush and Vice-President Cheney and the Republican Swift Boat Veterans and all Republicans began telling the world how American soldiers like John Kerry shoot thirteen year old boys in the back in Iraq or Vietnam or wherever, I had no idea that American soldiers were so evil (so THAT’S why all those Republican Nashville artists like Toby Keith and Travis Tritt and Gretchen Wilson et al aren’t dropping their careers and flocking to join the military; they’re the REAL heroes). I know Osama Bin Laden has openly criticized the brutality of American soldiers like John Kerry, while publicly praising the President and Vice-President for their “moral courage” for their pacifism in refusing to go to war and shoot children in the back (God Bless Them!). I think it was on FOX News that Bin Laden, speaking from his friend Augusto Pinochet’s vacation home in Florida (or was that Fidel Castro’s home in Havana? I forget), went on to say that he was “very impressed” with President Bush’s “War On Terror” and that all terrorists around the world were “really, really afraid” of the American President and Vice-President and of all Republicans, but not “soft-on-terror Democrats like Ted Kennedy and Hilary Clinton.”
    As for the comments by Jesus on His cable-access show near South Park, Colorado that all American Christians were going to be hellbound because he was “sick and tired of pious right-wing Christian Americans liberating oil-rich Muslim countries half way around the world and never Christian-rich Cuban countries 10 miles from Florida,” well, I think that kind of Anti-Christian, Anti-Americanism speaks for itself. Besides, I think the straight-shootin’ Vice-President Cheney responded well when he said before Congress, “Cubans can go f*ck themselves, they have nothing America wants” (and to you few Chicken Little liberals in Texas, the Vice-President was only showing his good humor when he said “now that we have Iraq, we can give Texas and its’ puny oil reserves back to Mexico”). And if Cuba WAS liberated, what would those PETA-loving liberals do for the American sharks swimming in the Straits of Florida if there weren’t any Cubans falling off their rafts to feast on? And furthermore- oh God I hate liberals- Governor Bush was right for handing Little Elian Gonzalez back to Fidel Castro, and it’s just liberal nitpicking that that he would be criticized for adding that he would have “handed Little Anne Frank back to Hitler too.” I think that kind of honesty and consistency should be admired, not scorned.
    As for Democratic criticism of Governor Schwartzenegger’s recent comments that President Bush’s daughters were “too pretty to serve” and that Jessican Lynch should be sent back to Iraq because it was the “high cost of being poor,” I ask, why do sleazy Democrats hate America so much???
    Hey, that was kind of fun. I think my new goal for this year is to help make America become a “kinder, gentler Saudi Arabia.” Liberals like Ted Kennedy and Hilary Clinton are just going to HATE that. (Oops did I forget to mention that Bin Laden fully supports the Republican-lead FCC’s efforts to clamp down on the sleazy liberal agenda of sleazy homosexual-loving, America-hating liberals? And yes, Bin Laden has indeed accepted Bruce Willis’ offer to become a technical consultant on terrorism for the upcoming Die Hard 4).

  91. jeffmcm says:

    My point is, your intrusion was inflammatory and irrelevant. It would be as if we started arguing abortion on this blog.
    There’s no reason for you to get so touchy over Joe’s very simple statement, which was that while he would not vote Republican, he understands why others would. Obviously you don’t agree the reverse.

  92. G-Man says:

    He was Republican-bashing. Pure and simple. If he’s going to bash – I’m going to respond.

  93. jeffmcm says:

    There, G-Man, see what you and to a much lesser degree Joe have unleashed?

  94. G-Man says:

    Then complain to Dave about it.

  95. jeffmcm says:

    All Joe said was, he would never vote for a Republican and his dead mother would agree with that position. That’s hardly Republican-bashing. You’re WAYYYY too touchy

  96. jeffmcm says:

    Besides, Republicans control all 3 branches of the government. Why not relax and enjoy it?

  97. L&DB says:

    Sorry, whahoppa, but you did come back with a really
    nice come back. Very nice. The same could be said
    with Jeff’s response. Which proves to me once and
    for all that he does have a personality and a sense
    of humour! HOORAY!
    And G-Man started political ranting again? BOO!
    Let us talk about cool Pumas again!

  98. G-Man says:

    1)Vietnam would be a free and prosperous nation today if not for the actions of anti-war protestors like John Kerry. Political leaders on both aisles made plenty of mistakes but we were in absolutely no danger of losing. And after Tet the war was won. But thanks to people like Kerry we pulled defeat out of the jaws of victory.
    2)I actually agree with you on liberating Cuba.
    3)I think we all agree (Dems and Repubs) that Schwarzenegger is a joke. No argument here.
    4)The “Republican-lead” FCC has done nothing to censor our news. You can still write or speak whatever you want. 99% of the news about Iraq and Afghanistan is bad. If the Republicans are really in control they’re doing a bad job.
    5)I also disapprove of Bush holding hands with Saudi Arabia (the real source of terrorism) and Pakistan (why we haven’t got bin-Laden, not to mention ruled by a dictator)

  99. G-Man says:

    “All Joe said was, he would never vote for a Republican and his dead mother would agree with that position. That’s hardly Republican-bashing. You’re WAYYYY too touchy” – Jeffmcm
    I said the same thing – that I would never vote for John Kerry. I can’t help it that you don’t like my reason why or that you think it’s inflammatory.
    Once again, his war record probably cost him the election. If Joe is going to bring up John Kerry then I’m going to bring up his history.

  100. jeffmcm says:

    WHY must you bring up Kerry’s history? It’s completely irrelevant to this blog! Nobody asked!
    Do you agree with Joe that you can understand why people voted for Kerry and not Bush? Because if we can’t agree on simple things like that, things are going to get more and more divisive.
    Damn you Joe for triggering this nutcase.

  101. bicycle bob says:

    its about time conservatives got control back. and anyone that voted for kerry will tell u he was a terrible candidate. its just the facts. the guy has no backbone or integrity

  102. BluStealer says:

    I shudder at the thought of a Kerry administration. Shudder. I put it like this. Any candidate that Hollywood supports? I go the other way. I really don’t need Ben Affleck, Barbara Streisand, Paris Hilton, anyone else trying for cheap publicity and to make like they’re intelligent telling me who to vote for. And if they’re behind someone, I know that person is not worthy of my precious vote.

  103. Joe Leydon says:

    Jeff: I’m at a certain disadvantage here, since I’ve become — well, shall we say, more selective in my reading. So I’m not able to comment about your “triggering this nutcase” remark. But, speaking in general terms: If someone is ranting and raving and frothing in a way you find distasteful, try the tough-love grown-up approach to dealing with a tantrum-throwing child: Ignore him/her. It will save you grief.
    Bob: I disagree with the thurst of your post, but I will give you this much: Kerry was an ineffective candidate. Or, more precisely, an insufficiently telegenic candidate. Like it or not, we live in an age when the only successful Presidential candidates are the telegenic ones. That’s why I think Reagan and Clinton were so enormously popular: They came across so great on TV, and seemed like they really LOVED being president. On the other hand, some of the losing candidates may have been honorable men and/or brilliant minds and/or potentially great leaders (Dukakis, Dole, etc.) but they simply didn’t look “well cast” as President. I mean, look, I’m a Democrat, but if I were a casting director for a new TV series in which a U.S. President would be a key character — I don’t think I would cast Kerry (or, for that matter, Gore). Of course, I don’t think I would cast Bush, either — I’d want somebody with a bit more gravitas. John McCain? Maybe. Harrison Ford? Definitely, but I don’t think he’d do TV.
    Actually, I think Brian Dennehy would be great casting, too. He’s a real-life decorated Vietnam vet with a dynamic personality. He radiates charisma. And he gives you the impression that, if push came to shove, he’d personally kick Osama’s ass.

  104. Terence D says:

    So all it takes to be president is looks and a certain amount of charisma? I don’t think so. I think people vote and look for a guy who is a leader. Kerry was certainly no leader. As his shipmates told us.

  105. Joe Leydon says:

    Actually, according to no less an informed source than Jim Rome, the real reason Kerry lost was, too many people couldn’t stand his wife. Makes sense to me. Like I say: It all depends on casting, because it’s all show business. If Kerry had been married to Laura Bush, he would have won by a landslide.
    One minor correction, Terence: No one who actually served on Kerry’s boat had anything bad to say about him. It was all peole in other boats. Don’t take my word for it. Go back and check. Name one person actually on the swift boat WITH Kerry (as opposed to ALONGSIDE Kerry)who had many bad things to say about him.

  106. joefitz84 says:

    Kerry’s an ineffectual liberal. From the Northeast no less. When will the Left realize that doesn’t play out in middle america? Hopefully, never.

  107. bicycle bob says:

    if u know anything about serving in the military its not just guys on ur boat in ur unit. everyone in the unit knows everyone else. they have to trust each other and just because ur not right next to him doesn’t mean ur not serving with him. and kerry to have almost every single guy in the unit come out against his presidency? that tells me something about what kind of man he really is. a guy who was running for president when he was on the swift boat when he was filming his “recreations’ of battles to look heroic. the guy was a coward. and hes the best the left has to offer this country? u should be ashamed

  108. Joe Leydon says:

    Bob: Kerry willingly placed himself in harm’s way. He volunteered for active duty in a war zone. He didn’t use daddy’s connections to get him a safe spot in the Reserves. If he’s a coward, what does that make George Bush?
    But enough of politics. What I really, REALLY want to know is: Is it at all possible, even conceivable, that “Sith” will make it to No. 1 a THIRD weekend in a row? Or is “Cinderella Man” a lock for the top spot? And if “Sith” does drop to No. 2 (or lower), would this be the shortest run at No. 1 that any “Star Wars” sequel has enjoyed?

  109. SaveFarris says:

    I know we’ve strayed WAY off topic, but…
    –“Name one person actually on the swift boat WITH Kerry (as opposed to ALONGSIDE Kerry)who had many bad things to say about him.”
    Steve Gardener

  110. Terence D says:

    Kerry shot himself in the hand and claimed a Purple Heart for it. He shot himself and wrote up the report claiming he was a hero. And there are plenty of National Guardsman who would take issue with you questioning their service, Joe.

  111. joefitz84 says:

    Lets fact facts here people. Kerry should have been shot for treason after meeting with the enemy and encouraging the enemy. Tell the POW’s who had to hear his voice being played and replayed to them while they were imprisoned. And this guy actually won his party’s nomination? Who did he beat out? Jane Fonda?

  112. Joe Leydon says:

    Terence: Two points. First, I was alive and draftable during Vietnam, so please don’t presume to tell me about how most guys (including many of my acquaintance)viewed a Reserves gig way back when. They moved heaven and earth to get into a reserve unit so they’d be far away from the actual fighting. Anyone who tells you differently is a fool or a liar.
    Second, whenever I hear all this B.S. about Kerry’s war record, I have to ask myself: Why did all of this come out last year? How is John O’Neil getting this info now? I mean, back when Kerry was active with the Vietnam Vets Against the War, he was on Nixon’s freakin’ enemies list. Don’t you think the Nixon Machine would have dredged up all of this and MORE to disgrace him if they could have? This is what filmmaker George Butler (director of “Going Upriver”) had to say about it last year:
    “What I find interesting is that if you go back to 1971, you

  113. Joe Leydon says:

    But seriously: This weekend, what will it be? “Sith” or Cinderella” at No. 1?

  114. BluStealer says:

    Actually Joe, O’Neill has been saying this since the early 1970’s. He has written articles and appeared on television programs. And even debated Kerry during a few tv shows during this time. The veterans always told Kerry they would not come out against him unless he ran for President. When he broke this agreement, they came out with the truth.

  115. Terence D says:

    Joe, I just think you shouldn’t disparage National Guardsmen who serve this country. They are giving themselves up to this country and the freedom it provides. You can say what you want about young men trying to get into it to not be on the front lines of war, but never take away what they bring to this country. Why are you still trying to defend John Kerry? Accept the fact that he was a lousy candidate and not a strong leader and move on with it. And Cinderella Man will open #1.

  116. Joe Leydon says:

    Terence: I meant no disrespect for National Guardsman. You’re right, they do give a lot to the country. And I’ve had freieds who have been in that branch of the service. I simply said that you should be careful throwing words like “coward” around when you’re comparing someone to a guy who used daddy to get a Reserves spot that rightly should have gone to someone else. John Kerry risked more for this country than almost all of his worst critics, on this blog and elsewhere, ever have or ever will. But you’re ABSOLUTELY right: As a candidate, he was a stiff. Not Mondale stiff, mind you, but pretty damn close. Hey, that’s life in the TV age.
    Are you sure about “Cindy,” though? I mean, I can hear some of the whining now: Oh, it’s a period movie. Oh, it’s ANOTHER boxing movie. Oh, it’s too long. Blah, blah, blah. Plus, some people, even people on this blog (hey, I’m not naming any names) just LOVE to dis Ron Howard.

  117. Terence D says:

    From what I hear, Cinderella Man is one of the best movies of the year. Star Wars will already be falling from its peak at that time and people will need something else to see before Batman comes out. And Crowe always comes to play. I’m looking forward to it cause I know the true story of the movie and its a knockout (pun intended?)

  118. Joe Leydon says:

    Hey, the boxer is Irish, so you know I’m there on opening day. (Well, actually, at a screning the night before, but you know what I mean.) But have you picked up what I’ve picked up regarding Ron Howard? That is, some people just HATE the guy, and HATE his movies. Not just some of his movies — ALL of his movies.

  119. bicycle bob says:

    hate ronnie howard all u want but how could anyone hate splash?

  120. Stella's Boy says:

    There is definitely no shortage of hatred towards Ron Howard. I can’t say I’m a huge fan. He tends to play it pretty safe, even if he is skilled at making quality mainstream entertainment. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, and I have enjoyed many of his movies. So please let’s not resort to calling me an elitist. I just think that you pretty much know exactly what you are going to get with a Ron Howard movie. There are no surprises. I really can’t get all that excited when something is “a Ron Howard film.”

  121. bicycle bob says:

    hes a good filmmaker. but hes not great. hes not on that top shelf level. he may be because he generates profits but that doesn’t make him a great director. bret ratner generates profits too and u don’t see anyone saying hes great

  122. joefitz84 says:

    Maybe Cinderella Man is the movie that turns the tide and vaults him into the great autuer list. From the advance notice it just might accomplish that for the Happy Day’s guy. And lets not forget he has a stake in Arrested Development. A huge bonus.

  123. BluStealer says:

    Just because Ron Howard isn’t into fancy camera tricks and loud MTV style editing doesn’t mean hes not a great filmmaker. He knows how to tell a story. And visually he gets better each film.

  124. Joe Leydon says:

    Let’s face it: Some people never get any respect, never get any cred, no matter how many awards they win. I mean, jeez, Sally Field earned TWO Academy Awards — go back and look at those performances, in “Norma Rae” and “Places in the Heart,” she really did EARN them — and she’s still best remembered as the butt of jokes because of that overwrought Oscar speech. (Though she may have been surpassed in that area by Halle Berry’s more recent waterworks.)

  125. VGM says:

    Given all the buzz it’s getting here, I think that movie about the poker loans is going to open at #1 this weekend.

  126. Joe Leydon says:

    Damn you, VGM! I spit Monster Lo-Carb Energy Drink all over my computer screen while laughing at your post!! Now I have to clean up my desk!! Double damn!!!

  127. Sully says:

    Howard has had a very interesting career. I think the worst you could say about him is that he’s stayed in the mainstream, and has no plans to leave. I agree just because he doesn’t use stop-motion, freeze-frame, fast shudder speed and weird camera angles with people Over-dosing on screen doesn’t mean he’s not ‘edgy’.
    But he plays it pretty safe. I think “The Missing” is a very interesting turn in his career. It’s not that great of the film, but for Ron Howard it sure felt out of left field.
    All that said…”The Grinch” is one of the most loathesome movies in decades. His conscious will never be clean from that one.

  128. Mark says:

    I think his conscience is is pretty clear when he checks his bank accounts from The Grinch.

  129. VGM says:

    Don’t scoff, Joe, poker’s all the rage right now. It’s all ESPN shows anymore. (Damn you, NHL!!!) A poker flick could be just the thing to end this box office slump everyone’s talking about. 😉
    Seriously, though, sorry about the desk. I’ll try to be more careful. But I’d be lying if I said my initial reaction wasn’t, “Yes, a spit take!”
    As for the real contenders this weekend, I think “Mad” is more likely supplant “Sith,” not that it will. “Cinderella Man” has the look of a movie that’ll keep finishing top 3/top 5 on its way to over $100M without actually winning any weekends. If I’m wrong, I’ll have Monster Lo-Carb Energy Drink on my face.

  130. Sully says:

    yeah… That check for “The DaVinci Code” should help too. The one person that will probably disappoint the most in that movie is Hanks. I think Hanks is much classier than a lot of his Box Office Beheomoth compadres his projects I think really stem from taste rather than the allure of money, but doing a movie like the DaVinci Code for big bucks…sigh.

  131. VGM says:

    Is there going to be a run on “All the President’s Men” DVDs now?

  132. VGM says:

    Maybe it’ll be one of those rare instances where the movie’s better than the book. Not so hard in this case. They should have done “Angels and Demons” instead.

  133. Kenn says:

    You’re all wrong! Lords Of Dogtown will rule this weekend!!!!
    Just kidding.

  134. Joe Leydon says:

    Of course, if Kenn is right, won’t we all feel like jerks?

  135. Sully says:

    I agree, VGM, on “Angels and Demons” I haven’t read “DV Code” yet, but I thought “Angels and Demon” made the blueprint for a great movie.
    And the book’s undercurrent is the “religion vs. science” argument that is, obviously, hottly contested even today. I’d like to see that movie.
    (Except for the ending, which I felt really sucked)
    Cinderella Man, will finish third behind Sith, Madagascar. But it’ll be veryyyyy close. I think Mr. and Mrs. Smith will be the first to supplant Sith, but a friend of mine saw it and she described it as “wretched”.

  136. Joe Leydon says:

    If “Longest Yard” beats “Cinderella Man” this weekend, does that mean Adam Sandler, not Russell Crowe, will be in line for the long-waited “Gladiator II: Kicking More Ass”?

  137. VGM says:

    “Except for the ending, which I felt really sucked.” Copy that, Sully. The first two-thirds of the book, where they’re looking for the mystery figure, are great. The last third, with all the stuff in the Vatican, just isn’t as good. It gets more and more bogged down, until you get to that ending. Oy! That happens so often, though, the last act not living up to what’s come before. As for “DV Code,” Brown makes a couple of howlers about Constantine and the Council of Nicea which totally took me out of the story, and I just couldn’t get back in after that.
    “[D]oes that mean Adam Sandler . . . will be in line for the long-waited ‘Gladiator II: Kicking More Ass’?” Damn, Joe, don’t give ’em ideas!

  138. Joe Leydon says:

    And just before Sandler kills his opponent in the Coliseum, a voice rings out from the crowd: “You can DO it!”

  139. Lota says:

    Oh dear.
    i really hope any movie by DOug Liman is not “wretched”.

  140. L&Db says:

    Any moving starring WHORE AND SLUT should be wretched.
    Luckily for those two, Adam Brody and Vince Vaughn
    are there to save the day. Outside of the blatant
    ID4 remake, WHORE AND SLUT could almost be seen
    as a really “HIP” remake of True Lies.
    Secondly, boxing, is hated in this country. If the
    Contender proved anything. It proved that people
    have just given up on boxing. While I think Cinderella
    Man will be a good film. I doubt it will open to
    more than 20 this weekend. I usually have no ability
    to predict box office. Yet, a boxing film openning
    against other films that will skew much younger, and
    winning the weekend. That whole idea seems far-fetched
    to me.
    One last thing; Blu, if you hate Hollywood so bloody
    much. WHY ON !^&^!!&^(*! EARTH ARE YOU ON A MOVIE
    BLOG? So entertainers cant have political opinions?
    What total and utter bollocks.

  141. Lota says:

    I’ve already said my piece on CM months ago, and unfortunately you are wrong L&DB, it will do well.
    Boxing is NOT hated in this country (if you mean the US). Like other sports of the poor performing for the white collar boys on Pay-per-View & in Vegas, it just doesn’t feature as a sport for polite discussion/the whole family. It’s still a huge Amateur sport and pro boxing still makes a mint. Several boxers in my family. They didn’t quit because of lack of money, that’s for sure. It’s still a big money sport for live spectator, pay-per-view, and advertisers who support the amateur/olympic competitions.
    whore and slut? My goodness, everyone thinks they know what happened amongst the perfect toothed triumvirate: J-An, B-Pi and A-Jo.
    I have a vested interest in Doug Liman doing well so I hope it more than breaks even, the “talent’s behavior” aside.

  142. Joe Leydon says:

    I’m sorry, but I lost all interest in seing “Mr. and Mrs. Smith” once I heard that Angela Bassett got left on the cutting room floor. Maybe I’ll rent the Director’s Cut on DVD.

  143. ARoomWithAMoose says:

    Lota, I just thought WHORE AND SLUT just comes
    across as catchy. Plus, they had opposing standees
    in theatres. So when I walked by Pitt, “WHORE”,
    then Jolie, “SLUT.”
    I am sorry, but BOXING has not been a ppv earner
    in years. UFC might be more of a money earner on
    ppv. Hell. The perverted Joel Francis might
    have better ppv earners than boxing as in years.
    Sure. It still has a fanbase. Yet no one watches
    boxing outside of that very small fanbase. Cinderalla
    Man is a boxing drama. We might just disagree Lota.
    I just see this film skewing incredibly old, and having
    most of the teen and younger adult audience seeing
    Lords of Dogtown or the Sisterhood of Traveling Pants.
    Let me take this one step further. We have, for the
    second time in two years, a depression era flick.
    Essentially the same as the last depression era
    flick that did not exactly light the world on fire.
    If this flick gets over 20 million. Then Russell
    Crowe easily has some bad ass star power going on.

  144. Lota says:

    even when crowe is in saccharine tepid dramas he has bad ass star power like it or not.
    If it (CM) doesn’t do >20 million in the first week I will be very shocked and apologize. It deserves not to do well IMUHO, but it will do well nevertheless.
    It never was intended to pull in the youngsters and more than a depression era flick or boxing tome it is presented as the Underdog story.
    Boxing folk I know are still pulling in $$$ so maybe it’s under the table, but boxing still garners enough interest to turn heads, especially in the over 30s.

  145. jeffmcm says:

    Seabiscuit did fine financially and was a reasonable critical success, even though I thought it was very mediocre. Cinderella Man will do better than that because it has more starpower and a star director, and they seem to be the same plot. It’s the only Classy Hollywood Movie around, there’s one every summer around this time and they always are successful. Seabiscuit, Road to Perdition, yadda yadda yadda. Very few people aren’t going to see it because it’s about boxing.

  146. jeffmcm says:

    What’s your vested interest in Doug Liman’s success, Lota? Are you his second unit director?

  147. whahoppa says:

    Is anyone else sick of Renee Zellweger?

  148. bicycle bob says:

    who was ever not sick of her?

  149. KamikazeCamel says:

    Doug Liman’s great. I just hope Mr and Mrs Smith is good because Go and The Bourne Supremacy certainly are. Especially Go.
    I doubt Cinderella Man will debut at number one. I think it could open at around $25 mil, but I’m not sure. It IS aimed at an older audience but how many went out on a limb and saw Star Wars 3? Because that crowd doesn’t go to the movies that often (apparently). It’ll have legs though.
    Tom Hanks made a good movie signing on to The Da Vinci Code, because seriously – how bad were The Ladykillers and The Terminal (pretty bad!) and this one will certainly give him another big movie without the appearance that he’s selling out.
    And yes, whahoppa, we will all be very happy when that self-imposed break starts. I still can’t believe she won the Oscar for Cold Mountain… and i LIKE the movie. Just hated her.

  150. Joe Leydon says:

    You’re all wrong: Renee is a great actress. Hell, I thought she was terrific when I first noticed her in “The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre” (a.k.a. “Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation”).

  151. Terence D says:

    Pencil in Cinderella Man for #1. You heard it here first.

  152. Stella's Boy says:

    I think Cinderella Man will do very well. Crowe, Howard, Zellweger (who is an awful, annoying actress) and the uplifting story are a potent combination. But how much will it have to make to open at #1? At least $35 or $40 million? I’m not convinced it will be able to reach that level.

  153. Terence D says:

    I really don’t think people are seeing or not seeing this for Renne Zellwegger.

  154. Sully says:

    Zellwegger was great and charming in that first Bridget Jones movie…just about every other performance has a been a prison sentence to watch.

  155. Stella's Boy says:

    Who here said that people are seeing or not seeing Cinderella Man because of Renee Zellweger?

  156. joefitz84 says:

    Who isn’t seeing it because of hot little Renee? Isn’t that why she married this guy and ended up on the cover of every magazine? Wait. Thats Katie Holmes.

  157. bicycle bob says:

    shes only been good in jerry maguire. thats because she had the weird looking kid with her

  158. Lota says:

    no mr jeffmcm i am not simon crane, I am much prettier than he.

  159. Joe Leydon says:

    Lota: Are you sure? I mean, I’ve heard that Simon is a real cutie. (Of course, the woman who told me this might have been MRS. Crane.)

  160. Terence D says:

    If he looks anything like Jeff, than he cannot be. That’s for sure.

  161. jeffmcm says:


  162. ARoomWithAMoose says:

    First off; I love that Lota has an UNHUMBLE OPINION.
    Wow. What a lady.
    Secondly, I second that “huh” from jeff. Not likt it
    takes that much to get a “huh” out of jeff. Yet
    DAD, might have confused him more than I ever had.

  163. Mark says:

    I think he says “huh” a lot. Like a lot.

  164. Lota says:

    another UHO for ARoomWithAMoose (my dad has a room with a moose. he’s a caveman.):
    Renee was great in BJD (the first one)–she should have been nominated/won for that. She is very good at bumbling comedy (and she looked a damn sight better with the curves). She is VERY annoying in drama. So I will be annoyed by Renee + Ron + scowling Russell and no Joe Louis=CM.
    joe. mrs Crane, if there is a mrs. crane, would say mr crane is a cutie seeing that Simon has two jobs (DP/2u and stunt coordinator) because it = more jewelry.
    Nevertheless, i am still prettier, but perhaps not as rich.

  165. jeffmcm says:

    Saying “huh” is just easier than saying “what are you talking about and why are you making fun of my looks which you have never seen and what did i ever to do you?”
    As opposed to “huh” to L&DB which usually just means “what?”

  166. Lota says:

    btw i really like Ron Howard’s comedies for the most part, just not so keen on the dramas. [he’s too normal a guy, you have to be more F*cked up to be a good drama director IMUHO].

  167. ARoomWithAMoose says:

    Lota, if your dad has a room with a moose, then I
    am rather confused. Since only an Irkan would believe
    that a room with a moose could be SO DIABOLICAL
    that it would disturb all of his or her’s enemy.
    Those crazy Irkans. Im sure Jeff will say “huh”
    to that, but Im not his momma. It’s not my job
    to explain everything to him.
    So Lota, has a man, who worked on WHORE AND SLUT?
    Is that the inclination?

  168. jeffmcm says:

    I don’t think my mom knows what an Irkan is either.

  169. L&DB says:

    I will always support Ron Howard because he directed
    GUNG HO. Anyone who has a hand in giving Gedde
    Watanabe a lead role in a film. Always gets the
    benefit of the doubt from. Except, when he puts
    Galadriel and Tommy Lee Jones in a Western.

  170. ARoomWithAMoose says:

    Jeff, well, I do not know what to tell you. The
    world should know what Irkan means, but those damn
    slacked-jawed yokels at Nickelodeon had more faith
    in a SPONGE than in an IRKAN.

  171. jeffmcm says:

    Invader Zim? Boy, I’m sure glad I found that one out.

  172. Lota says:

    Settle down L&DB
    Moose are important in Northern indian lore as a “sustaining sacrifice”, so my primitive father has save a part of a moose in his house (the head). We call him Bullwinkle and he holds Christmas lights and a hockey stick across his shoulders like Wayne Gretzky. Moose have a Similar meaning as a crucifix to the Catholics, oddly enough.
    Culinary tip of the day. They aren’t as gamey as deer which require marination to be palatable, and the fat marbling is better too in moose. When in the wilderness: leave the deer, take the moose. Rattlesnake is pretty good too if you can find one, but they’re sneaky and if they’re too old…not tasty.
    Early early box office.
    Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants….eh but what else will a pre-teen girl see in the next 2 weeks?
    Cinderella Man….will make alot but EH
    Lords of Dogtown…not interested. Skate punks must die.
    Rock School….FAME for punkers? might be interesting for a docu but won’t make much, audience is too small.
    Mr. and Mrs. Smith….Liman is worth the risk
    High Tension…will bomb
    The Honeymooners…it’s an urban story originally anyway so it could be good; high hopes it wont be cheese
    Adventures of Shark Kid and volcanic chick…eh; everyone got bored with Shark tale who’s gonna see this after MAdagascar exhausted every kid in this country.
    Batman Begins…it will rock; here’s to hoping it breaks the 1989 record and restores the coolness to the kitsch that dragged the Bat franchise DOWN.
    Mr and Mrs smith could end up being #1 just from the gossip/voyeur factor, at least for 1 week. CM will be 1 or 2 if everyone is Sith-ed out.

  173. L&DB says:

    That Bullwinkle comment easily one of the funniest
    things I have ever read on this blog. That’s some
    good times right there.
    will seeing a movie based on the three skaters
    who essentially changed a sport. LONG LIVE DOGTOWN!
    And Jeff, some you will face, YOUR DOOOOOOOOOOMM!

  174. L&DB says:

    soon not some, but jeff will face his doom anyway.
    One of these days when applicable. OR he might
    get gassy from some Cheetos. Who knows. “Doom is
    Doom” as Dr.Doom says.

  175. VGM says:

    What will be the worse TV adaptation, “Honeymooners” or “Bewitched”?
    “Skate punks must die.” At the box office you may well get your wish.

  176. KamikazeCamel says:

    Lola, why did you randomly start talking about movies released in a few weeks time? It’s not like Mr & Mrs Smith is out this weekend, same for Shark Boy and Lava Girl. And, yeah, I’m sure Haute Tension won’t be reeling them in but it’s already made a bundle overseas so it doesn’t really matter whether Americans see it or now. It’s French horror so nobody’s expecting it to be huge there anyway.
    Mr & Mrs Smith will probably be number 1 because it actually looks like a fun movie filled with big action, big stars and attractive people ending up in minimal clothing. Mixing Go and The Bourne Identity was a good idea!
    I have slight faith in Bewitched – not much, but some. It could be decent. The plot is actually kind of interesting (maybe too interesting… er, if that makes sense as a negative), people seem to have forgotten that Nora Ephron has made some good movies, the cast is pretty good. It’s just that god damn trailer that’s so annoying!!
    And I think everyone is forgetting Renee Zellweger’s true best performance ever.
    …it was in a little movie called NURSE BETTY.
    And that also gave us the hilarious moment at the Golden Globes where Hugh Grant thought she was under the table…

  177. bicycle bob says:

    i love how we got guys trying their material out here. “skateboarding isn’t a crime and neither is seeing lords of dogtown” i give u a c for average and lame

  178. BluStealer says:

    The Dogtown film better be much better than the tv spots they have been showing the past month.

  179. Terence D says:

    I didn’t care much for Nurse Betty. A waste of some good talented people on that film.

  180. joefitz84 says:

    It makes my head hurt to even read three sentences from a LDB posting.

  181. Lota says:

    I think Will Ferrel can do a Darren even though the original Darren was priceless. Nicole Kidman. I don’t think she’s comedic/rubberfaced enough somehow. The original show (before my time but grew up on the reruns) worked so well becasue of all the really weird characters. I heart Mrs kravitz.
    I haven’t seen an early screening but Bewitched looks like a snoozer from the trailer.

  182. joefitz84 says:

    He is playing an actor playing Darren. So it is a little different than the show.

  183. bicycle bob says:

    as long as he doesn’t get roped into anymore kicking and screaming crapfests, he’ll be a ok

  184. jeffmcm says:

    I didn’t see it but Kicking and Screaming looked like one of those safe, boring, generic movies. Bewitched on the other hand looks totally retarded and bad in a much more effort-driven way.

  185. bicycle bob says:

    bewitched is let me quote you here so i don’t get it wrong “retarded”. how so?

  186. Terence D says:

    I don’t see how you can bash a movie from a small trailer and one commercial. Especially with the cast they have for it.

  187. jeffmcm says:

    Because they’ve taken a very simple concept – a man finds out his wife is a witch – and turned it into something unnecessarily complicated – a vain actor tries to turn his career around by making a movie about an old sitcom and hires a woman to play a witch who turns out to be a real witch. I would label the studio execs who came up with that to be mentally deficient.

  188. Stella's Boy says:

    Bewitched looks absolutely dreadful. The TV spots are painfully unfunny.

  189. jeffmcm says:

    Oh come on. There have been multiple trailers and TV spots now and the funniest thing in them has been Will Ferrell doing his usual schtick, which I like, but doesn’t really fit into this kind of movie. It looks terrible.

  190. Mark says:

    His comedy doesn’t fit into a comedy? Hmmm. Interesting. Maybe it fits better in period dramas.

  191. jefffmcm says:

    I think we all know that there are many different kinds of comedy. You wouldn’t cast him in every comedy any more than you would cast Hugh Grant in Anchorman 2.

  192. Stella's Boy says:

    jeff, what you said made perfect sense.

  193. Joe Leydon says:

    Oh, I don’t know: I could think of a few period dramas where Will F. might have been a great fit. God knows “The English Patient” could have used a few jokes to punch things up.

  194. joefitz84 says:

    The English Patient could have used a lot to make it more lively. Sorry Stella for ripping into your favorite movie. Wouldn’t want to do that.

  195. Terence D says:

    Actually what Jeff said made some sense. A studio wouldn’t cast Hugh Grant in a Will F comedy. At least to star. But they would cast Will in any Hugh Grant role. Because he brings an audience and his movies make money. So how about we wait until Bewitched opens before we slag on Will F?

  196. bicycle bob says:

    i know i’d much rather see a ferrel movie than a hugh grant movie.

  197. BluStealer says:

    Will Ferrel is nowhere near as handsome as Hugh Grant. But that said I would still rather see Anchorman than Notting Hill.

  198. Stella's Boy says:

    joefitz, what in the hell are you talking about? When did I say anything at all about The English Patient? I have no clue what you are rambling about.

  199. bicycle bob says:

    stella are u saying u haven’t said u love that movie? come on guy. we don’t need another day of lies about what u have said in the past. be honest for once

  200. joefitz84 says:

    So, you don’t like the English Patient now, Mr Stella? Whats next? You love Star Wars?

  201. Terence D says:

    I didn’t really care for The English Patient. My wife loved it. It was a little too long and not enough action for me. Too dreary.

  202. Angelus says:

    The English Patient may be Hollywoods worst oscar winner. Close call between that and Ordinary People.

  203. Joe Leydon says:

    Angelus: Have you ever seen the original “Around the World in 80 Days”? Trust me, that is a Best Picture that wasn’t.

  204. jeffmcm says:

    Hollywood would be foolish to cast Will Ferrell in any Hugh Grant part. They’re apples and oranges. Ferrell is big and broad, Grant is charming and coy. Producers would be dumb to think they would make more money by casting Ferrell in any movie regardless of script. Again I haven’t seen Bewitched and I don’t think I’m slagging Ferrell. I’m slagging its idiot producers.

  205. Mark says:

    Rip on the Will man all you want. But get used to him. He’s box office. And you’re going to start seeing him in many different roles.

  206. jeffmcm says:

    I know he’s a big star but he doesn’t have a big range, like most SNL-starting actors. Did you see Melinda and Melinda? He stuck out like a sore thumb.

  207. BluStealer says:

    Most SNL guys with no range? Bill Murray? Mike Myers? Eddie Murphy? Yeah, they can’t act or anything. How about you give Will Ferrel a chance for at least one role and the movie to come out before you take out the knives?

  208. jeffmcm says:

    I’m not trying to be harsh on Will Ferrell! I love him, but he has his limits. I grant you Bill Murray can do a lot. At the same time, I think he’s given the same performance over and over again lately in Rushmore, Lost in Translation, and Life Aquatic. Mike Myers can hide himself under a lot of makeup but you would never see him playing a Tom Hanks part. Ditto for Eddie Murphy. All good actors, all with strengths in different areas. Is it so hard to accept that not everyone can do everything?

  209. jeffmcm says:

    Let me just ask one more question: Do you think Bewitched looks good? Or at least, worth checking out? And if so, why?

  210. joefitz84 says:

    I think if definately looks worth checking out. Kidman proved she can do comedy. It’s a great old tv show that everyone has seen. And Will F doing his thing. That’s enough to at least get a few people there including me.

  211. KamikazeCamel says:

    And the GREAT Shirley MacLaine, who we haven’t seen in ages.
    And I sort of laughed at the thought that Mike Myers has range! Don’t get me wrong, i LOVE the first two Austin Powers movies but what exactly constitutes as range for you? A(n annoying) scottish accent? The ability to showboat?

  212. joefitz84 says:

    Mike Myers doesn’t have range? I guess we didn’t see Austin Powers. Sorry. My bad.

  213. Mark says:

    Who doesn’t want to see Bewitched with Will Ferrel in the lead role? Ask anyone tht has seen Old School and Anchorman.

  214. jeffmcm says:

    The target audiences for Old School and Anchorman are Ferrell’s fans from SNL, a very young-male demographic. Bewitched seems to be aiming at a broader audience and I don’t think Ferrell’s fans will be as interested since he’s playing second fiddle to the gimmick of the movie.
    And besides, I don’t really care how much money it makes, my point has always been THE TRAILER LOOKS HORRIBLE. Do you disagree?

  215. joefitz84 says:

    Wait a second. No actor ever transformed from out there and young comedies to other fare. You are so right.

  216. jeffmcm says:

    If Ferrell can do it, great. But he’s no Tom Hanks.

  217. jeffmcm says:

    Are you arguing because you actually have something to say? Because it sounds like you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing, Joe Fitz.

  218. Lota says:

    *****warning SPOILERS BELOW for Cinderella Man*****
    WIll Ferrell and Mike Myers have great range for the projects they’ve chosen. Neither is trying to be Mr Darcy. In fact I respect them for picking projects that work for them and are good entertainment.
    And Opie. I’m disappointed in you, boy. You have done Max Baer a great disservice. I have seen many fights start to finish with Braddock, Baer and many other fighters (my family has an extensive collection). CLearly I have seen more Fights than Ron Howard.
    If you are going to make up a story based on recent real life people do some factual context around it. Or f*cking change people names at least. I noticed Ron Howard didn’t mention anything about the cuts to Joe Louis’ purse. Too real life huh.
    Baer was a clown, not a Bum and not an intentional killer. He lost his nerve after killing a couple guys in the ring (it happens, it’s a dangerous sport)as any decent human would–hence title fight against Braddock.
    To build Braddock up into an ordinary hero is okay, nothing wrong with that–he was in many ways; but he didn;t have to make Baer into a demon-schlub. Most of these guys in the 30s were in the same boat.
    reminds me a little of HURRICANE. Might remind the lawyers too.
    movie rating as a fictional story: 8.5/10 as a real life story: 0/10
    How many people came away from JFK believing that it was the REAL story of events? Millions apparently since George Bush sr had a press conference on it denouncing the movie.
    I came away from CM thinking good for Jim Braddock, Poor Max Baer’s family & Poor Joe Louis.

  219. lota says:

    re. Max Baer: i should have said killed a guy directly in boxing and accused of/contributed to another boxer dying as Primo got the direct blame for Schaaf’s death (along with Baer) even though the majority of injury seemed to be from a rough bout with Baer just before.

  220. joefitz84 says:

    Jeff, you are a complete jerk. Posting spoilers for a film that opened on Friday? Get a life you loser.

  221. jeffmcm says:

    Uh, it was Lota who posted spoilers. I haven’t seen the movie. Don’t let your rage blind you.

  222. BluStealer says:

    Who really posts spoilers to a Friday movie on a Saturday? Can we ban these kinds of people? I didn’t know I was on Ain’t it Uncool News.

  223. joefitz84 says:

    Jeff cut out the spoilers. Its beyond low class and its right up your alley.

  224. Lota says:

    I posted an *announcement* so people know to bleep past it and NOT read it in case there were spoilers I thought this is what we were to do re. etiquette, and I beleive that this was requested form a few weeks ago.
    There was very little in the way of Spoilers that I posted anyway re. the movie/plot and far less Spoilers than other people have posted in the last couple days on Cinderella Man.
    but I apologize unreservedly anyway, especially in the light of Blustealer’s comment.

  225. Hi, Neat post. There is a problem with your site in internet explorer, would test this… IE still is the market leader and a good portion of people will miss your magnificent writing due to this problem.

  226. Your blog is nice, unfortunately but for some reason i can’t access your blog on google chrome, thats why i used firefox.

The Hot Blog

Stella's Boy on: BYO Post-JOKER

Geoff on: BYO Post-JOKER

leahnz on: BYOFall

leahnz on: BYO Post-JOKER

Hcat on: BYOFall

Stella's Boy on: BYOFall

movieman on: BYOFall

Hcat on: BYOFall

Stella's Boy on: BYOFall

palmtree on: BYO Post-JOKER

Quote Unquotesee all »

“I really want to see The Irishman. I’ve heard it’s big brother Martin Scorsese’s masterpiece. But I really can’t find the time. The promotion schedule is so tight, there’s no opportunity to see a three and a half-hour movie. But I really want to see it. In 2017, right before Okja’s New York premiere, I had the chance to go to Scorsese’s office, which is in the DGA building. There’s a lovely screening room there, too, with film prints that he’s collected. I talked to him for about an hour. There’s no movie he hasn’t seen, even Korean films. We talked about what he’s seen and his past work. It was a glorious day. I’ve loved his work since I was in college. Who doesn’t? Anyone involved with movies must feel the same way.”
~ Bong Joon-ho

“But okay, I promise you now that if I ever retire again, I’m going to ensure that I can’t walk it back. I’ll post a series of the most disgusting, offensive, outrageous statements you can ever imagine. That way it will be impossible for me to ever be employed again. No one is going to take my calls. No one is going to want to be seen with me. Oh, it will be scorched earth. I will have torched everything. I’m going to flame out in the most legendary fashion.”
~ Steven Soderbergh