dudalb

I suspect,after Friday's numbers,that Crimson Peak and Goosebumps will end up in a close tie.Both will make a profit, but will not be runaway sucesses. The Martian' s drop seems to be more then predicted. Bridge of Spies seems to be the loser for this weekend. "The Last Witch Hunter" next weekend seems to be a classic case of dumping....studio just seems like it wants it to bomb and get it over with. And it's not like Vin Diesal is a draw anymore outside the Fast and Furious franchise.

Dracula and Interview are period horror movies, but NOT Classic Gothic in the way that Crimson Peak is Gothic. "Victorian" and "Gothic" are not the same.

Forgiven. But is has only opened in a few big citeis in the US. Does not open nationwide until next weekend. I know, because I am dying to see it, and have to wait until next weekend....

Ironic that of the biggest Sixties icons, James Bond and Peanuts, open on the same weekend.

Uh, I would not call "Steve Jobs" NOTHING,since it does not open wide until next weekend.

Probably won't happen since Goosebumps it still projected to take the second spot.

That Goosebumps only cost 65 million seems to have passed you by. And,despite Crimson Peak winning the previews,Goosebumps is still projected to duke it out with The Martian for the 1st and Second spot. Interesting that though they have budgets in the same general area (55 to 65 million) you are not screaming about Crimson Peak being flop...

Looking at 80 Million dollar opening. What is interesting is we might have another Inside Out/Jurrasiac World scenario.Two films bring in big bucks on the same weekend. Granted, it was JW's second weekend, but still I think both are going to have a big weekend.

If it's faithful to the classic comic, it will do very well. We might have another Inside Out/Jurassiac World situation where do movies do extremley well on one weekend. And although SPECTRE will win the weekend, would not be surpised if Peantus give them a run for their money. People forget that in 2006 Casino Royale and Happy Feet ended up close to each other.

And I have to root for anything with Chastain, since she is a Local Girl Makes Good. Born and raised in Sacramento, went to El Camino High school,just a few blocks from where I live. Went to Sacramento CIty College for her first two years until she won a scholarship to Julliard.

That is not a high standard. And I am one of those who thinks that Del Toro should stop making popcorn when he has shown himself capable of turning out great Gourmet Meals......

Given that is follows the classic Gothic Thriller format,it should come as no surprise it has a big appeal to a female audience. ON the other hand, that it is a Gothic thriller might well turn off the Horror Genre fanboys. They are trying hard to sell it as a Stright up Horror movie but can't hide the fact it looks like Jane Eyre with Ghosts. I am looking forward to this,but have lowered my expectations. From the reviews, it's good but not another "Pan's Labyrinth".

Dalton is probably the closest of any of the Bond actors to the Bond in the Ian Flemings books. Dalton's main problem was he never had a really good script. The Living Daylights was a pretty good one,but badly flawed,and Licence To Kill was just poorly written,and tried to turn Bond in a 1980's Arnie/stallion style action hero..which was a huge mistake. They had begun work on a script for the third Dalton film when some severe legal problems sprang up,and the series was in legal limbo for Six Years. Dalton withdrew because he felt he was too old for the role in 1994,when the legal problems were settled. Irony is that Dalton was considered for Bond way back in 1968, after Connory left, and Dalton was considered to be one of the most promising young British actors. He took himself out of the competition by saying he wanted to play Bond, but felt he was too young for the role. He was offered it nearly 20 Years later after Piece Brosnan had to withdraw as Moore's replacement because NBC refused to let him out of his Remington Steel contract. THere is a history of actors who for various reasons have to pass on Bond being given a second chance.Roger Moore was one of the finalist for being the first Bond back in 1962,but they went for an Unknown Sean Connory instead.

Brosnan himself says one of the problems he had with the scripts after Goldeneye was the writers could not make up their mind if they wanted a more serious Bond film or a over the top one. They tried to both and ended up suceeding in neither. Bond's ex in TND is a good example. If you are not going to take the film in a dark direction and make revenge Bond's main motive, don't even bother with a storyline like that. But TND's worst mistake:At the last minute, taking the excellent K.D. Lange song "Surrender" and put it over the end credits,and replacing it with a mediocre Sherlye Crow song . It was done in such a hurry that the main theme from Surrender is used often in the actual score of the film,but the Crow song is never heard after the opening credits.

TWINE also blows it in the final battle....the fight between Bond and the Man Who Can Feel No Pain is confused and totally lacking in excitment..still amazed that a Bond film would blow the climatic action sequence so badly. Agreed that Richards was a waste of time...you did not need her in the film.

Jinx was a horrid fail. Frankly, Rosamund Pike's Femme Fatale was a lot more memorable,and one of the few good things about DAD.

I agree Bond should not be a Bourne clone, but DAD went way too far in the direction of Campiness. It became just plain totally silly. Eon films was absolutely right in taking the series in a much more serioius direction with Casino Royale,but agree they went too far with the Bourne "rogue agent" concept in QOS,but they got back on track with "Skyfall". Bond films can be tongue in cheek and work,but you can.t go full blown camp and silly the way that DAD did.

I guess I am wierd; Roger Moore was my first theater Bond, but he is not my favorite. He got the charm and the wit right, but he always had problems with the tough,ruthless side of Bond. Bond is somebody who,underneath the Charm and the Martinis Shaken Not Stirred,is a Tough S.O.B. who will do what it takes to Get The Job Done. There are a couple of scenes where Moore get this right...pushing the car over the cliff in For Your Eyes Only....but not enough to make him a really good Bond. He took Bond way too much in the direction of comedy.

My first encounter with Bond was watching "Goldfinger" on one of it's ABC showing back in 1975,so Connory remains my favorite. I think Brosnan got off to a great start with Goldeneye,but after that he was done in by crappy scripts. For the record,I think the worst Bond films are : A View To A Kill Moonraker Die Another Day Diamonds Are Forever.

That press release is amusing, given that Warners and Legendary execs do not like each other very much. They will work with each other, but don't expect them to party together.....

Agreed. Warners will make a profit off of it, only question is how much.

CP is tracking in the mid teens, and seems to be out of the running for a top 3 spot. But between BoS,Martian,and Goosebumps it's a toss up for thier place in the first 3.

The reviews for CP are mixed;a lot of people were expecting this to be on the level of "Pan's Labyrinth" and apparently, it's only pretty good, not great.

Which is the kind of budget you should have for this kind of family oriented fantasy.Warners was crazy to budget "Pan" at 150 Million.

Creed cost 35 Million dollars, a low budget nowdays , so I think it chances of losing money are low,not sure how big a hit it will be.