Spielberg in July 4 Faceoff with Superheroes

[edonline]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=filmNews&storyID=6252411

Spielberg in July 4 Faceoff with Superheroes
Thu Sep 16, 2004 05:10 AM ET

By Nicole Sperling

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Major fireworks are looming over next year's Fourth of July holiday if two rival studios stick to their plans to launch major sci-fi films on one of the most lucrative moviegoing weekends of the year.

20th Century Fox was first to plant its banner on the holiday. Late last year, it announced that its adaptation of Marvel Comics' "Fantastic Four" would open Friday, July 1.

But Paramount Pictures is now moving onto the same territory with plans to open director Steven Spielberg's "War of the Worlds," starring Tom Cruise. The co-production with DreamWorks, based on the H.G. Wells novel, is scheduled for Wednesday, June 29.

And, so far, neither studio is backing down.

Fox already has withstood one challenge from Paramount this year. Paramount had planned to open "Mission: Impossible 3," also starring Cruise, on June 29. But the sequel's production was pushed back to next year after the recent exit of director Joe Carnahan, who was replaced by J.J. Abrams.

Paramount then gave an urgent greenlight to the "War" remake, which is scheduled to begin production in November. Initially, the studio listed it simply as a 2005 release, but as plans have firmed up, Paramount is now aiming to go head-to-head with "Four" even though it will face a much tighter postproduction schedule than "Four" will.

The only other wide release scheduled for that frame is the Disney cartoon "Chicken Little."

Reuters/Hollywood Reporter

[SkyNet]

i dont think its a bad idea to release all 3 on that haliday:

Fantastic Four will appeal to teenage audience

War Of The Worlds will appeal to an older audience, fans of the original

and of course Chicken Little will appeal to little kids

so there will be something for everyone... all we need now is a major comedy and we'll be set!

[Scarface98.9]

War of the Worlds may target older audiences, but will be PG-13, and will aim to get as many teens in there as possible, so it definitely is a big deal that they share the same release date. Fantastic 4 vs. the Martians. It'd make an interesting comic book

[Squid Vicious]

I believe Batman Begins is out July 1st as well. That's some competition....

[ak]

I think that the combined power of THE WORLD'S MOST POPULAR DIRECTORTM and THE WORLD'S MOST POPULAR ACTORTM will swipe the floor with Fantastic Four, quite frankly.

I'm not sure what the deal is in the rest of world, in particular - America, but Fantastic Four really isn't really well known over here in the U.K, so I don't think it'll do business on the scale of The War of the Worlds.

Spielberg and Cruise have worked together before on science fiction action, with Minority Report, but that really wasn't the same kind of sci-fi actioner that The War of the Worlds will be, so I expect something that will be huge.

[sharkstank]

FF will probably balk

WWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[ilovemovies]

I am MUCH more excited about The War of the Worlds remake than I am about The Fantastic Four. I know little about Fantastic Four so it's going to take a kick ass trailer for me to get excited over it.

Kind of like it was with Sin City. Despite the all star cast, I was particularly excited about it. Then I saw the footage on the internet and it immediately jumped up high on my list of movies I am REALLY looking forward to next year!


Still, even with a kick ass trailer, it's freaking Spielberg and Cruise! Nothing will get me more excited! Only Star Wars Episode III comes close to matching my excitment level with War of the Worlds!

[bob]

Fox would be fools not to move FF either up or back.

Yeah, I know it hurts the pride, but it could cost them millions of dollars easily.

[Scarface98.9]

I've read that Spielberg doesn't want any expense spared, and wants War of the Worlds to be the movie of the decade, one of those great blockbusters. So doesn't it seem to be a little limiting and cutting it close to make a movie as massive as War of the Worlds and have it done in less than 10 months?

[blankpage]

It'd sure make a fun weekend for me, that's for sure :D


But personally, I think one of them will budge. I think it'll be FF. This also reminds me of the GONY/Catch Me if You Can deal back around Christmas time of 2002.

[bob]

Originally posted by Scarface98.9
I've read that Spielberg doesn't want any expense spared, and wants War of the Worlds to be the movie of the decade, one of those great blockbusters. So doesn't it seem to be a little limiting and cutting it close to make a movie as massive as War of the Worlds and have it done in less than 10 months?

That's an excellent point, but you have to remember that Spielberg once had a TV show videotape him watching the Oscar nominating ceremony, and was in complete shock when they picked Federico Fellini instead of him.

In other words, he's kinda competitive.

[Korny]

Originally posted by SkyNet
i dont think its a bad idea to release all 3 on that haliday:

Fantastic Four will appeal to teenage audience

War Of The Worlds will appeal to an older audience, fans of the original

and of course Chicken Little will appeal to little kids

so there will be something for everyone... all we need now is a major comedy and we'll be set!

If only the money grabbing studios thought that way

[DareDevil]

Everyone's saying that Cruise and Spielberg will mop the floor with FF but i beg to differ...

"I think that the combined power of THE WORLD'S MOST POPULAR DIRECTORTM and THE WORLD'S MOST POPULAR ACTORTM will swipe the floor with Fantastic Four, quite frankly."

Why do i disagree?

COLLATERAL
Opening Weekend: $24,701,458
Domestic Total as of Sep. 19, 2004: $96,005,000

THE TERMINAL
Opening Weekend: $19,053,199
Domestic Total as of Sep. 6, 2004: $77,196,021

Many people would love to argue that Tom Hanks is a more popular actor than Tom Cruise....

MINORITY REPORT
Opening Weekend: $35,677,125
Domestic Total Gross: $132,072,926

So lets give you guys the benifit of the doubt here and say that we'll use Minority Report as the best example... Its already been proven that teaming the 2 together doesnt create big numbers, and Minority Report was criticaly praised, there was nothing holding that movie back from doing HUGE numbers, The only other movie to give that movie competition that week was Lilo and Stitch, and Scooby Doo for it's 2nd weekend...

ok now lets look at the other side of things...

X-MEN
Opening Weekend: $54,471,475
Domestic Total Gross: $157,299,717

X2:X-MEN UNITED
Opening Weekend: $85,558,731
Domestic Total Gross: $214,949,694

SPIDER-MAN 2
Opening Weekend: $88,156,227
Domestic Total as of Sep. 16, 2004: $370,825,461

Marvel has had a good streak with movies released in the summer, Even Hulk opened with over 60mil. I say WAR of the WORLDS moves dates before they loose alot of money on a movie people have already called "the most expensive movie ever made"

[DareDevil]

AS it looks now War should be more worried about doing higher numbers than Chicken Little

Cause Minority Report did not even make more than a million more than Lilo and Stitch on opening weekend

[ak]

DareDevil - Minority Report really wasn't sold as a typical science fiction actioner, and even looked slightly off-kilter from the trailers and posters, so I think this turned a lot of people off from seeing it in the cinema.

The War of the Worlds will be Spielberg's return to epic action since The Lost World and will be sold so. It is perfect territory for both director and star.

This kind of material is exactly what people like to see as a summer blockbuster, but because it's Spielberg there's some kind of built-in quality assurance that it won't be 'just another blockbuster'.

There is no doubt in my mind that the film will be huge, and is certainly the most exciting popcorn-blockbuster project in recent memory.

[DareDevil]

i stick with what i said before...


if Spielberg's name brings some built-in quality assurance then Minority Report had no reason to fail....

I don't see much differnce between the 2

[ak]

The 'quality assurance' of Spielberg doesn't automatically attract audiences to the cinema, as a few of his films have proven. It's a number of elements.

I can not vouch that WOTW will be a huge hit, but what I can say is this - It's superb source material, with a huge star and the possibility of great special effects and visuals. As the past has proven, these elements really draw in the numbers.

I don't foresee Fantastic Four reaching as many people as The War of the Worlds, although it will do well.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by DareDevil
i stick with what i said before...


if Spielberg's name brings some built-in quality assurance then Minority Report had no reason to fail....

I don't see much differnce between the 2

RE:

WOTW is a massive sci-fi action war epic. Minority Report was a *relatively* low-key futuristic detective story with quirky premise and just a small amount of action.

So there is a big difference between the two projects.

Once the theatres are showing trailers for massive robot armies destroying the entire world, I think the mainstrem anticipation level for WOTW is going to be much higher for than it was for MR.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by DareDevil
X-MEN
Opening Weekend: $54,471,475
Domestic Total Gross: $157,299,717

X2:X-MEN UNITED
Opening Weekend: $85,558,731
Domestic Total Gross: $214,949,694

SPIDER-MAN 2
Opening Weekend: $88,156,227
Domestic Total as of Sep. 16, 2004: $370,825,461


RE:

Daredevil:
40 / 102 million.

Punisher:
13 / 33 million.

...So it's not like ALL recent Marvel movies have done huge business. It's also worth noting that Collateral was a low-key crime movie. Terminal was a low-key drama movie. They were never big event movies, not even on paper. Collateral was also rated R.

It's shady logic to only pick the most popular movies from the other side, and then only modest successes from the other site. With that kind of logic I could argue that before X-Men all Marvel movies ever made bombed. And Cruise has 200+ million hits and Spielberg has 400+ million hits.

At the moment I see FF performing somewhere between the first X-Men and Daredevil, but I have to say that both the director and the cast don't seem particularly appealing in this film. But if the trailers are big enough, it's guaranteed to bring in the money.

[DareDevil]

I remember saying Marvel movies released in the Summer Tukka

and what do u meen Minority Report did not have much action, did u see the movie?

And Dardevil's numbers wernt bad for a Febuary Release

plus the Fantastic Four is a much popular comic than DD

[ak]

Originally posted by DareDevil
...and what do u mean Minority Report did not have much action, did u see the movie?


It had plenty of action, but it wasn't exclusively sold as a typical summer action film, which is what has been said. Are you reading our posts?

The sight of a semi-naked woman sitting on her back in a pool of water with a transfixed look on her face, sent the message to a lot of people that this was not 'typical' summer fare. And it certainly wasn't. Anybody who's seen the film can say that.

WOTW is in an entirely different ball park, and will be sold so.

A trailer with Tom Cruise. Aliens. Epic action/special effects. Spielberg's name slapped somewhere, and a great science fiction story is what will make this film far bigger than a comic book film. Infact, in my opinion - They just won't compare.

This is Independence Day on steroids, by Spielberg. What a sell.

[Tuukka]

"I remember saying Marvel movies released in the Summer Tukka"

RE:

Which is pretty pointless, isn't it? So are you saying that Marvel movies can ONLY succeed during summer? Movie audiences are the same in the summer as they are in the winter. The real question is, why you didn't include M:I-2, Saving Private Ryan, Indy, etc, in the mix.

and what do u meen Minority Report did not have much action, did u see the movie?

RE:

I saw the flick in theatres. It's been a while, so my memory is getting hazy here, but I recall that the film had only ONE real action sequence in it. I don't call it "action" if someone is holding a gun or someone is punched in the face. You need more than that to qualify as action.

There was only one action sequence in MR. Granted, it was pretty long, lasting for 15 minutes or so. I'm of course talking about the chase in the middlepoint of the movie. It was divided in different segments (The elevator scene, jetpack, car factory), but the film didn't have other action besides it. And by no means was MR an epic spectacle, which WOTW is.

And Dardevil's numbers wernt bad for a Febuary Release
plus the Fantastic Four is a much popular comic than DD

RE:

Daredevil did well. But it wouldn't have fared any better in the summer, against heavy competition. And Daredevil performed like summer movies do: Big opening (40 million), small legs (100 million).

At the moment, I don't see the appeal of FF to be a big enough to make it a huge blockbuster. FF are not as popular as characters as Spidey, Hulk or even X-Men (After the first film brought them to mainstream). Maybe it's different in USA than here in Europe.

My opinion might change, if the trailers rock. But so far, I see it performing good, but not great.

[Tuukka]

The thing that lessens my anticipation for FF a great deal is the director. So far Tim Story has done Barbershop and Taxi (Which looks pretty weak). He's not exactly Spielberg, who could deliver a great looking action epic in his sleep. Story ain't Raimi either (Who was a great match with Spiderman even before the first film was made), and neither is he Singer (Who proved himself to be a talented and dynamic director with Usual Suspects).

Cast looks solid for FF, but it doesn't get me excited either. For a supposed event movie, FF so far lacks the pedigree I would expect from a tentpole picture.

But I don't want to put the film down. I dig this kind of stuff, and I'm hoping it will be a solid action flick. It has a good change to be like that. Early script reviews have otherwise been pretty solid, except that the villain is reportedly weak. But I've heard they are working on that.

But as for FF going on against WOTW... They are silly if they do that. You don't want to challenge Spielberg when he doing his first real tentpole film since Jurassic Park...

[DareDevil]

It had plenty of action, but it wasn't exclusively sold as a typical summer action film, which is what has been said. Are you reading our posts?

Are you reading them? Read below, i see i need to give you directions for this...

Minority Report was a *relatively* low-key futuristic detective story with quirky premise and just a small amount of action.



Which is pretty pointless, isn't it? So are you saying that Marvel movies can ONLY succeed during summer? Movie audiences are the same in the summer as they are in the winter. The real question is, why you didn't include M:I-2, Saving Private Ryan, Indy, etc, in the mix.

Why am i refering to Marvel movies in the summer? cause the studios released those ones (spidey and x-men) in the summer as the studios big summer blockbusters, which Fox is doing once more with FF, THEY HAVE THAT IN COMMON, plus the ones so far that have been released in the summer have been pretty good, receiving good reviews... and they are all adaptations of Marvel comics

Why don't I compare M:I-2, Saving Private Ryan, Well War of the Worlds isn't a graphic WW2 movie and SPR came out in 98 if i remember correctly, and i thought it would be much more acurate to compare recent releases. And next to having Tom Cruise in MI2 i dont't see any comparisons to WOTW

MI2 Domestic Total Gross: $215,409,889

i think FF will be higher than that anyways


And about FF not being mainstream i'm honestly not a comic collector or anything, i do own some vintage FF comics actualy #2 all the way to #150, i was given them to me from my dad when i gradded a few years back, as well as some other valueable ones such as DD #1 from 1963

but i have not bought a comic book in years and years, but i saw a sales chart from last August and FF was Marvels number 2 best seller, sounds pretty mainstream to me




and for the record i own Minority Report on DVD and like it alot, high 8/10 and it has quite alot of action including the kickass spider scene, and the amazing intro... i don't agree with u with them not trying to advertise it as a big summer release though. They probaly would have given it a christmas release if that was the case for Oscar season, and not have given it a wide release of 3,001 theaters in June if they were not trying to make it a big summer blockbuster :confused:

[Tuukka]

Why am i refering to Marvel movies in the summer? cause the studios released those ones (spidey and x-men) in the summer as the studios big summer blockbusters, which Fox is doing once more with FF, THEY HAVE THAT IN COMMON, plus the ones so far that have been released in the summer have been pretty good, receiving good reviews... and they are all adaptations of Marvel comics

RE:

I have to admit that they all ranged from good to very good as films. But Hulk was also a big summer film, and after a big opening it bombed (If we relate the B.O to budget). Hulk is the most well known Marvel character after Spidey.

War of the Worlds isn't a graphic WW2 movie and SPR came out in 98 if i remember correctly, and i thought it would be much more acurate to compare recent releases.

There were sightly less than two years between SPR and X-Men. So they are not THAT far apart. Besides, SPR was an epic war movie with a big star name, just like WOTW. SPR made 216 million (not adjusted to inflation).

And next to having Tom Cruise in MI2 i dont't see any comparisons to WOTW

RE:

With the exception of MR, MI2 is the latest event film with mass appeal that Cruise has made. All his other recent films have been more low-key, R-rated and targeted at adults. MI2 came out in the same month as X-Men, grossed 60 million more.

i think FF will be higher than that anyways

RE:

It's not easy to get north of 200 million. I'm not even sure WOTW can do it.

but i have not bought a comic book in years and years, but i saw a sales chart from last August and FF was Marvels number 2 best seller, sounds pretty mainstream to me

RE:

Being number 2 seller on Marvel offerings doesn't make it mainstream. What was number 1? X-Men? In the 90's there were periods when X-Men was easily the biggest selling Marvel title, but they were still unknown in the mainstream. It wasn't until the movies, that they became famous outside the geek circles. Geeks can open a film pretty big, but the legs won't set in if the mainstream is not interested. Geek flick typically open well, but have terrible legs. Because the core audience sees them in the first weekend.

and for the record i own Minority Report on DVD and like it alot, high 8/10 and it has quite alot of action including the kickass spider scene, and the amazing intro... i don't agree with u with them not trying to advertise it as a big summer release though. They probaly would have given it a christmas release if that was the case for Oscar season, and not have given it a wide release of 3,001 theaters in June if they were not trying to make it a big summer blockbuster :confused:

RE:

It was a big summer release. But it was not an epic spectacle, like WOTW. MR was a rather quirky and personal movie for a big summer event film. Spielberg hasn't made a film designed to be a huge event film since Lost World. It made 229 million, not adjusted for inflation. Spielberg hasn't made an original event film since the first Jurassic Park (Lost World was a quickie project for Spielberg). JP made 357 million, not adjusted for inflation.

The thing is, that since Lost World Spielberg has been making small and big personal pet projects. He hasn't been an intentional event filmmaker in years, like he used to be in the 80's. Despite it's huge success, SPR was on concept level far from a sure-fire blockbuster. The same with Catch Me If You Can.

It should be noted that in recent years Spielberg has made his films cheap (in the 60-70 million range, MR is the only exception), they have opened modestly and had great legs. This not event film making. When you make tentpole pics, you have big budgets, huge openings and lesser legs.

[Tuukka]

You do have a point on MR, thought. The film performed below my own expectations. 35 million opening, 135 million finish. I expected it to open on 40-45 million and end with 165-175 million.

The thing is that people really liked the flick. It had a 4 multiplier, which is exceptionally good for a summer event film. But it didn't open big enough.

My opinion is that it was too quirky to hit a chord with the mainstream, thus leading to a relatively modest opening. It attracted more adults than teenagers, and those kind of movies typically have smaller openings and better legs. Cruise and Spielberg movies have been like that in recent years. Since Lost World and MI2.

An original movie about psychic crime prevention is not as easy to sell as a movie about massive explosions, worldwide alien invasion and huge robot armies in war with earth military.

[DareDevil]

1st off i would not call Hulk a bomb

Worldwide: $245,284,946

Not my definition of a bomb (bomb = Pluto Nash, Thunderbirds, Catwomen)

An original movie about psychic crime prevention is not as easy to sell as a movie about massive explosions, worldwide alien invasion and huge robot armies in war with earth military.

Seems that Matrix had no problem selling the subject matter, neither did any of the Terminators....

since Lost World Spielberg has been making small and big personal pet projects. He hasn't been an intentional event filmmaker in years

MR had a budget of $142 000 000, i would not call that a small, personal project.

buuuuuuut waiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit

i think u have forgoten a smaller indepident film Spielberg tackled a few years back i think it was called....



A.I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Pretty sure that movie had no reason to not do huge numbers, actualy i remember at the time that the studio was saying it was estimated to be the biggest grossing movie of the year, as far as talent did it have Tom Cruise in it? no but they had the much hyped Jud Law coming off the critical success of Enemy at the Gates, and the very popular Haley Joel Osment, who at the time was a very hot item... do those actors equal Tom Cruise, close but probaly not...

But what the movie did have going for it was the dedication to the late Stanely Kuberick, Spielberg finished that movie for him becasue it was his orginial idea, i remember the studio sadly pushing that as a selling point... and still the movie did not do to great :(

Domestic Total Gross: $78,616,689

Budget: over $100 000 000

Was that a smaller project, NO that was that studios big summer release for that year...


Being number 2 seller on Marvel offerings doesn't make it mainstream. What was number 1? X-Men?

No spidey was, FF 2nd, X-men 3rd

[Tuukka]

1st off i would not call Hulk a bomb

Worldwide: $245,284,946

Not my definition of a bomb (bomb = Pluto Nash, Thunderbirds, Catwomen)

RE:

I said "after a big opening it bombed (If we relate the B.O to budget).". Hulk cost 137 million and spent 35 million to marketing. So the breaking point for the film was around 350 million worldwide. It fell 105 million short of that. Maybe it made a profit on DVD, I don't know how well it fared on the home market.

Seems that Matrix had no problem selling the subject matter, neither did any of the Terminators....

RE:

First Terminator made 40 million in USA.

Matrix and T2 were huge, all-out action movies. I mentioned how MR didn't have huge explosions and robot armies fighting against humans. Well, T2 and Matrix did. But it's true that in some ways Matrix also fits the criteria of a quirky arthouse flick. On a concept level, it was not as obvious a sell as T2. It made better than I thought it would.

MR had a budget of $142 000 000, i would not call that a small, personal project.

RE:

I said "in the 60-70 million range, MR is the only exception" and "MR was a rather quirky and personal movie for a big summer event film.". I still stand by both statements, even if the latter one is partially a matter of opinion.

Minority Report cost 102 million. 40 million was spent on advertisements, but they are never counted as part of the budget. 102 million is still a lot of money, but these days big event movies cost on the 120-180 million range.

buuuuuuut waiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit

i think u have forgoten a smaller indepident film Spielberg tackled a few years back i think it was called....

A.I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Pretty sure that movie had no reason to not do huge numbers,

RE:

Have you seen the movie? It had about a hundred reasons not to do huge. It's an arthouse movie. It's long, slow, quirky movie with not much mainstream appeal. It's definitely one of the Spielberg's pet projects. It was eventually a profitable project, thought, with around 220-230 million worldwide.

actualy i remember at the time that the studio was saying it was estimated to be the biggest grossing movie of the year, as far as talent did it have Tom Cruise in it? no but they had the much hyped Jud Law coming off the critical success of Enemy at the Gates, and the very popular Haley Joel Osment, who at the time was a very hot item... do those actors equal Tom Cruise, close but probaly not...

RE:

Pretty much every time a movie comes out, *some* studio executive is predicting it to be a big hit. They have no credibility, whatsoever. Spielberg never made any wild predictions, and neither did any of the other big boys at Dreamworks. At least I haven't heard of such projections.

If you check out B.O credentials for Osment and Law, you notice that they don't have any. Osment got lucky with 6th Sense, but it was sold with Bruce Willis. Law has never headlined a hit movie, he likes to do obscure, "artsy" movies.

But what the movie did have going for it was the dedication to the late Stanely Kuberick,

RE:

Kubrick hadn't been a big B.O fimmaker since 2001. That was huge at the time, otherwise his films have done modestly.

Spielberg finished that movie for him becasue it was his orginial idea, i remember the studio sadly pushing that as a selling point... and still the movie did not do to great

Domestic Total Gross: $78,616,689

Budget: over $100 000 000

RE:

This is where I have made a mistake. The budget indeed was 100 million, where as I recalled it being around 70 million.

Was that a smaller project, NO that was that studios big summer release for that year...

RE:

A high-brow art film, really. There were some high-end projections before the film was released, but once people actually saw it, it was clear that it didn't have potential to be a big blockbuster. Althought the film is epic in visual scale, in the end it's a rather intimate and personal pet project for Spielberg.