weekend box office: how to ‘fail’ in Hollywood, ‘MI3’ style
Only in America could a three-day paycheck totaling $48 million be considered a disappointment, but there we are. Mission: Impossible III failed to meet “expectations” at the box office during its opening weekend — it took in $10 million less than Mission: Impossible 2 did over its first weekend, and failed to rake in as much cash as Tom Cruise’s last outing, War of the Worlds, when it opened.
And so of course now the handwringing and excuse making begins. Brandon Gray of Box Office Mojo, quoted in the Los Angeles Daily News, says:
Everybody says the debut was low and everyone is right. Beyond the hype around Tom Cruise’s antics, which I think most people don’t care about, is that people didn’t care enough about Ethan Hunt’s antics. They didn’t build a compelling character, not like James Bond or Jack Ryan or Jason Bourne.
Or are we all just tired of Tom, as People magazine wonders?
Hollywood tongues are wagging over the weekend’s less-than-expected box-office tally for Mission: Impossible III – and asking if Tom Cruise’s image may be to blame….
Traditionally tight-lipped about his private life, Cruise suddenly shifted gears last year and starting posing for paparazzi while kissing his then-girlfriend Katie Holmes. Other public displays included jumping up and down on Oprah Winfrey’s couch while professing his love for Holmes and also spouting his Scientology beliefs on the Today show.
Or was the marketing of the flick so wildly out of control that we were sick of everything MI3 before the movie even opened, as Erik Davis at Cinematical moans?
Why, when the town is literally plastered in MI:3 advertisements (Yes, there is a banner hanging across the entire length of Madison Square Garden), do they insist on bombarding us with MORE promotional nonsense? Honestly, I don’t want to see the movie anymore. I’m sour. That’s right, I’m so sick of seeing Tom Cruise and hearing about the super-human moron that I just can’t shell out the money to sit and watch his ass for another two and a half hours.
Or perhaps it’s as The New York Times inadvertently predicted, in an otherwise clueless article about how the rising price of gasoline is not really impacting the economy overall or consumers’ individual wallets:
The difference in spending on gasoline from 2004 to 2006… is an extra $10.62 a week, about the cost of going to a movie.
There you go: Hollywood execs can blame Exxon and Mobil for the “disappointing” performance of their newest “flopbuster,” and keep telling themselves they’re not doing anything wrong.
[box office results via Yahoo! Movies]
Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/flick/public_html/wptest/wp-content/themes/FlickFilosopher/loop-single.php on line 106