Blue Moon Aurora

On May 7th Iron Man 2 opens and it may be the biggest movie of 2010 so where better to begin my annual box office guesstimates!   

The first Iron Man did remarkably well with a $98 million opening weekend (-48.1% drop in second weekend) and a very impressive $318 million domestic run with an additional $266 million foreign take for a grand total of $585 million.   Of course it wasn’t the biggest superhero movie of 2008 – that was The Dark Knight.  But now it is 2010 and Iron Man is no longer a lesser known superhero and the question is not if Iron Man 2 will do well, but how well will it do?

So here is the challenge - you need to guesstimate the following:

1.    Opening weekend domestic take. 

2.    The percentage drop to the second weekend. 

3.    Domestic run total. 

4.    Foreign take.

For some reason this is one of the most posted pictures from Iron Man 2 - I guess it appeals to some target demographic or something.

As always I’m going to give you some numbers to compare and consider:  

Spider-Man (2002) & its Sequels 

Spider-Man was a big, big movie eight years ago. 

It started with a $114 million opening weekend (only a -37.8% drop in second weekend, which is very impressive). It had a $403 million domestic run, and an impressive $418 million foreign take. 

If Iron Man 2 can do as well as the first Spider-Man movie then it will have done very well.  However, there is a caveat…Spider-Man 2 (2004) didn’t make as much domestically as Spider-Man and Spider-Man 3 (2007) didn’t make as much domestically as Spider-Man 2.  The potency of the franchise has diminished not strengthened.  This is not the case with Iron Man, as I think Iron Man 2 will better demonstrate the limits of the franchise more than the first movie, but with the Spider-Man franchise the first one was the strongest.  

Spider-Man 2 had an $88 million opening weekend (-48.7% drop in second weekend), a $373 million domestic run, and a $410 million foreign take. 

Spider-Man 3 had $151 million opening weekend (a big -61.5% drop in second weekend), a $336 million domestic run, and an impressive $554 million foreign take. 

So Iron Man 2 has a villain who has a white parrot and wears black...that's something.

Batman Begins (2005) & The Dark Knight (2008)

Batman Begins was a respectable success.  It had an opening weekend of $48 million (-43.4% drop in second weekend), a domestic run of $205 million, and a foreign take of $167 million.  It was a reboot of a dead movie franchise and it did its job and set up its sequel for greater success, though how much greater no one could have guessed. 

The Dark Knight was a phenomenon driven in large part by the death of Heath Ledger as well as the solid foundation laid by Batman Begins and the widespread popularity of the Batman franchise.  It brought in a monstrous $158 million in its opening weekend (-52.5% drop in second weekend, but this was a movie that had legs and kept racking in the money for weeks).  For comparison its opening weekend is about half of what Iron Man made during its entire domestic run.  It continued bringing in the money and had a huge $533 million domestic run and a very respectable $468 million foreign take.  It ended up with just over $1 billion.  

My opinion is that Batman Begins underperformed and that The Dark Knight overperformed at the box office.  Batman Begins was going against the last few very negative Batman movies and The Dark Knight was driven in large part by the sensationalism of the death of Heath Ledger.  That is the nature of movies – stuff happens. 

Can Iron Man 2 compete with The Dark Knight? I don’t know.  There is a lot of hype with Iron Man 2 as it has a pretty impressive cast and Robert Downey Jr. has proven to be box office gold the last few years, but the success of The Dark Knight was sort of like a lot of planets coming into alignment. 

Don't worry Iron Man 2 promises to have lots of things blowing up. 

Transformers (2007) & Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

Transformers had an opening weekend of $70 million (-47.5% drop in second weekend), a domestic run of $319 million, and a foreign take of $390 million.  These numbers are pretty similar to Iron Man and it’s a movie about robots so it makes a good comparison. 

Transformers’ sequel Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen had an opening weekend of $108 million (-61.2% drop in second weekend), a domestic run of $402 million, and a foreign take of $434 million. 

I think Revenge of the Fallen makes a good target for Iron Man 2 and that would put it in the range of the Spider-Man movies, but there is a lot of hype and excitement for Iron Man 2 so anything can happen. 

So here is the challenge - you need to guesstimate the following:

1.    Opening weekend domestic take. 

2.    The percentage drop to the second weekend.  The typical for most movies is a 50% drop. 

3.    Domestic run total. For most of the movies I cited their opening weekend was 22% to 44% percent of their entire domestic run with the average about 30%.

4.    Foreign take. As you see with most of these movies the foreign take is about the same as the domestic take. 

See Iron Man 2 isn't about robots blowing each other apart - it's a romance!

Now of course we aren’t going to know the last two for a few months from now, but I’ll put up updates and I might even give a prize to whoever is closest on these four categories. 

The Democratic Party needs to take some lessons from James Cameron’s Avatar if they want to make sure that what happened in Massachusetts stays in Massachusetts.  Avatar has pulled in $1.6 billion with more on the way, won the Golden Globe’s Best Picture award, and is considered a cinematography phenomenon.  Sequels are in the works and James Cameron is once again “King of the World”.  It's 3-D CGI change we can believe in. 

The Democratic Party on the other hand, has lost a special election in Massachusetts over the late Ted Kennedy’s seat and with that its filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, healthcare reform is in the balance (possibly dead), and public opinion towards the Democratic Party is plummeting.  The irony is that at the 2008 election it was Senator Barak Obama and the Democratic Party that were “King of the World” and what a difference two years makes.   

Now the Republicans are claiming that Americans are fed up with the Democrat’s liberal agenda centered on a watered-down healthcare reform bill that is neither liberal nor probably that significant of a reform.  It represented change we can accomplish – which isn’t a catchy slogan.  It’s not liberalism that is bringing down the Democratic Party, but something more insidious – a lack of a message.  The only good news for the democrats is that the Republican Party doesn’t have a message either besides the typical oppositional rhetoric.  However, “the party of no” will always beat the “the party of whatever” and that is why the democrats are going down. 

Avatar had a liberal bent.  No let me rephrase that – Avatar was an angry call for revolution.  The military is evil, capitalism is heartless, scientists are well-meaning but politically ineffectual, and it would all be better if we loved mother earth and ran through the jungles naked.  I’m fairly progressive, some might call me liberal, but Avatar was way out there – it made the Green Party look mainstream.  However, it’s popular and everyone is watching the movie, the only haters are those of us who are picky about our science fiction movies and that transcends politics.  If climate change legislation happens this year it won’t be because of the Democratic Party.  No, it will be because of Avatar and its glow-in-the-dark-computer-like trees.   

Avatar does touch on healthcare - if it wasn't for our horrible healthcare system then Jake Sully wouldn't have had to go to Pandora to earn new legs and the blue-skinned aliens would never have been saved by the white guy.

The Democratic Party has no message and this is why they are struggling.  The message has to come from President Obama and he just hasn’t delivered it to either the American people or the Democratic Party.  It doesn’t matter what the message is as long as it is sparkly and simple enough to resonate.  For Avatar the message was nature good and Republican values bad.  That’s not a bad message.  Healthcare, welfare, and all that stuff deals with people.  When you deal with people you have value judgments.  A homeless person is something unclean and contemptible, but the stray cat or dog evokes pity.  Nature is free of value judgments, we are more generous to other species than we are to our own.  That however is a political reality, but it can be overcome and you can tackle real issues like healthcare IF you have a message, a strong narrative, something to communicate a vision to people.  If you don’t have that then the opposition controls the narrative and all you are doing is trying to hold on to power, which you will definitely lose. 

The only thing that matters in politics is that you stand for something.  Okay it helps if you are good looking and eloquent, but if you don’t stand for something then people can’t pin their hopes to you.  The Democratic Party needs to stop talking about all the problems created by President Bush and tell us what their vision for the United States really is.  Honestly, anything will do as long as there is true commitment to the vision.  If Americans can accept blue-skinned aliens with USB ports in their ass then they will accept anything as long as it represents the Democratic Party standing up for something besides winning more elections. 

A new movie is coming out titled Orphan and is part of the 'evil kid' genre of horror movies and apparently involves an adopted orphan doing horrible things. Sure it's not the most original idea, but apparently it has angered various adoption groups and even members of Congress to protest the movie. Apparently, there was a line in a trailer which really irked some parents: "It must be hard to love an adopted child as much as your own".  The studio did yank the line from the trailer due to the protest, but there is a call for a boycott by some groups for this movie's portrayal of adoption.  As an adoptive parent I have to just say - are you all out of your frelling minds? 

Let me break this down for people to understand - you idiots just increased the opening weekend gross for this movie by giving it free publicity. Controversy generates interest, which generates tickets when it comes to movies. Yes, there are groups out their 'boycotting' the movie, but come on, it's not like a bunch of middle-aged adoptive parents were going to see this movie in the first place. Seriously, it's a movie titled Orphan and all the posters/trailers show this cute, but obviously evil little girl. I suspect that those who are sensitive about adoption issues weren't going to see this movie in the first place.  

Yes, judging by the poster I suspect that this will be an accurate and insightful movie about adoption and the difficulties experienced by adoptive familys...

--

I would also point out that there is another movie about an orphan who does really bad things that is also out right now: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Yes, I know Harry Potter is a 'good' orphan, but the movie (I haven't seen it yet, but I have read the book) has a strong focus on the life of Voldemort who is the 'bad' orphan of the Harry Potter series. To J.K. Rowling it's all about blood. Harry had good bio-parents and Tom Riddle had bad bio-parents. Both had a horrible childhood, but Harry turned out better. It's all about blood and genetics. Interesting, isn't it - you can tell that J.K. Rowling isn't an adoptive parent herself. Of course, adoptive parents don't boycott Harry Potter, because at least Harry is a 'good' orphan, though this has nothing to do with parenting but some inherent pure goodness that flourishes at Hogwarts, while for Tom Riddle it's his inherent pure evil that flourishes at Hogwarts. I like the Harry Potter books and movies, but if you are riled up about Orphan then you should just go ballistic about Harry Potter.  

Though let's give Hollywood its due -it actually loves orphans. Besides Harry Potter there was also the orphans Frodo Baggins, who saved Middle Earth, Bruce Wayne, Peter Parker, and Clark Kent (who is also an illegal alien...literally).  Also what about Luke and Leia?  Sure, their father wasn't really dead, but from a certain point of view they were clearly orphans.  Disney loves orphans - they kill off parents with ruthless abandon, though that's because nothing quashes an adventure like a parent. "I don't care what the Fairy Godmother says you aren't going to the cursed castle where the dragon lives and that's final!"  You want some more orphans? How about Worf from Star Trek, not only was he orphaned, but he was adopted and raised by Russians. How cool is that? You know the main characters of the Mummy series (Rick, Evelyn, and Jonathan) - they're all orphans! It is a Hollywood staple to kill off a hero's parents to both engender sympathy from the audience and to give a concrete example on how the hero is self-reliant. So really Hollywood loves its orphans; despite an occasional 'evil kid' movies now and then.  

Now I'm not going to go see Orphan, mainly as horror movies aren't my thing, but I do understand what they are all about: fear. It's not fear of death despite appearances, but other fears than makes horror movies so potent; fears of violation, isolation, corruption, disease, and why not a fear of children. For example, are zombie movies about the fear of death? No, they are about fear of disease. That is what makes them so potent, yes, people are dying all about, but the disease affects people turning them not only into monsters but even death is no escape from the disease. That is horror at its best, tapping into a primal fear, but from a different angle to catch you unawares. 'Evil kid' movies often use orphans, but they are about all kids and the basic fact that parents, biological and adoptive, just don't really know what their kid is truly like on the inside. You never really know and that is the primal fear tapped by this sort of movie, though often the evil orphan isn't quite what she seems, maybe she's a demon, an old woman in a kids body, an android/alien, witch, or just psychotic genius.  Judging by the reaction of some adoptive parents - this movie actually is striking that chord quite well just through its marketing.  

Despite what the critics are saying this is not a movie that is exploiting orphans, this type of movie is empowering to orphans (they love attention - good or bad), what really is being exploited are the parents, which is why people are really get rankled. However, let's face it - all horror movies encompass a high degree of stupidity. The government creates a disease which escapes the lab and turns the world into zombies, the teenage girls decide to go skinny dipping in the lake while a murderer is on the loose, everyone walks backwards into a dark room, and so forth. The difference between horror and action/adventure is that in horror the protagonists are stupid and in action/adventure the protagonists are smart. I imagine it's the same with Orphan. I bet the parents don't get a full psyche evaluation done when they adopt or an IEP until after the kid has started killing people or something.  By then it's usually too late.  They probably don't even try therapeutic holding or other methods for dealing with an attachment disorder, which I am guessing is probably the main problem in addition to whatever twisted plot hook they came up with for the movie. Basically, they are just walking backwards into a dark room and kind of deserve what happens to them.  Event the antichrist can be raised to be a good little boy or girl with the proper techniques and good parenting, despite what a movie trailer might say. 

Last movie analysis we will do for 2009.

Coming out this weekend is the next Harry Potter movie, which is on track with three more movies (the last book will be two movies) to surpass Star Wars as the most successful movie franchise of all time. There is no question this movie will by #1 this weekend and there is no question this movie will bring in the money, but the question as always is how much money this new installment in the franchise will bring in? 

Hm...me thinks Harry Potter might, just might, have an epic run this year.  This is probably the only movie left that can dislodge Transformers 2 from the top grossing movie of 2009.

The first movie, Sorcerer's Stone (2001) pulled in $317 million with a $90 million opening weekend and remains the highest grossing of the series. Chamber of Secrets (2002) dropped to $261 million with an $88 million opening. Then the worst performing, Prisoner of Azkaban (2004), brought in $249 million, but still had a phenomenal $93 million opening. Then something weird happened, the franchise started doing better. Goblet of Fire (2005) pulled in $290 million and had an incredible $102 million opening weekend. The last one, Order of the Phoenix (2007) grossed $292 million, making it #2 in the franchise, but had the weakest opening weekend with $77 million. However, this opening weekend was against Transformers (which had opened the weekend before) and Ratatouille (which had opened two weeks before), both of which overlap in demographics. 

The franchise has an average gross of $282 million and an average opening of $90 million. So with that in mind what is your prediction of this movie's opening and also how much it will gross during its run? Will this movie be the one to knock Sorcerer's Stone off the #1 for the franchise by beating $317 million? Will this movie tank as the life is out of the franchise with no new books coming and will perform worse that Prisoner of Azkaban's $249 million? Will we have an opening weekend bigger than $100 million or will the fans be staying home the first weekend? Make your predictions and let?s see how you do!

As always the tallies provided are from domestic receipts. These movies have been huge overseas and this is big part of their revenue stream, but as always the domestic gross is still the biggest part of the success of these movies.  Also this movie opens Wednesday, but we are only looking at its weekend's take, though the extra two days will help its overall take.

16 years ago today, Michelle and I started dating. Thus I have been inspired to do a few blogs on love and marriage this week. Today, I am starting with three classic love stories and my thoughts on them: 

Romeo & Juliet  
I hate Romeo & Juliet and am strongly of the opinion that this was a play that’s sole purpose was to help William pay the rent. This is considered by many as the greatest love story ever, but really it’s a pile of garbage set on fire by teenage angst and fueled by melodrama. Did I mention I really hate this play? It’s not about love. Seriously, how much of their ‘attraction’ to one another was simply because it was forbidden, this was the original teen and vampire romance, though instead of vampires it involves overly verbose Italians – though the two aren’t as dissimilar as one might suppose. Duels are fought, people die, convoluted plots are concocted, and in order to show their love they commit suicide in quick succession. If anything Romeo & Juliet is more about stupidity than love.  

Yes, I know, I know, love is supposed to make you mad, fail to see reason, and do the stupid, but in reality, not so much – at least not to the extent of Romeo and Juliet who are two severely emotionally challenged kids. Personally, I think Romeo was also severe ADHD and Juliet was the bright shiny object. At the end of the play, it’s obvious – Romeo and Juliet are selfish little brats who are willing to sacrifice friends, family, and then to take the ultimate chicken shit solution (i.e. suicide) to get out of their sad teenage angst. Personally, I suspect that Romeo & Juliet was William’s way of mocking teenage love. Don’t get me wrong, the whole moral lesson against feuds, vengeance, and a family standing in the way of love has a place and this is the good stuff of the play, but the central story of the romance between Romeo and Juliet is pretty much a pile of excrement.  

Now if you want to see Romeo & Juliet done properly then you need to go to Bollywood with Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge (1995). Every time I have seen a Romeo & Juliet clone I just don’t believe they are in love, sure one might kill for the other or even kill themselves, but what’s the big deal? Killing is easy. Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge is all about faith in love and doing what’s right even when it’s very hard and very dangerous. Yes, it is very melodramatic, but that is a requirement for a Bollywood movie. It also has music which helps, just like West Side Story, which is better than the original Romeo & Juliet, because the gang and ethnic issues are more grounded and it also has music, though it still is overrun by teenage stupidity and angst. I just wasn’t stupid enough as a teenager to really relate to these stories, but apparently most people were so the story works.

King Arthur, Guinevere, and Lancelot 
Boy loves girl. Girl loves boy. Boy becomes king and is too busy to be good husband. Girl gets lonely and hangs out with Boy and Girl’s Best Friend Forever, who Boy probably thought was gay, but turns out was at least bi-sexual. Accusations fly. Boy kicks both Girl and BFF out of castle. Bad things happen and when it is too late everyone forgives one another as Boy and usually BFF die after kicking some serious ass.  

Interestingly, there are a lot of versions of this story and a good number of them are actually vague about whether Guinevere and Lancelot actually did anything, but most reasonable adults assume something probably happened. I personally am fond of the movie Excalibur (1981) as it really captures the story from start to finish. Let’s face it, King Arthur is a great king, but he was probably a pretty sorry husband. Excalibur does this well showing that at the end of the day, Arthur put his responsibilities as king above his responsibilities as husband. He is really as much to blame as Guinevere and Lancelot. The story is also complicated by the love everyone shares with one another. I’m not talking sex, but all three of them share a bond forged by the trials they have gone through together and their friendship. It’s a mess. The problem is that Guinevere and Lancelot put their love for one another, or more accurately their needs, above the love and needs of Arthur.  

Arthur loses his girl, his best friend, his kingdom, his sword, and his life by the end of the story, but he does it all with dignity. He still loves Guinevere; in fact, if their final scene together in Excalibur  doesn’t make you tear up you don’t understand love. He still loves Lancelot, Merlin, hell, Arthur probably still loved his bastard son Mordred, but Arthur’s duty was part of his love and the most important part.  

Odysseus & Penelope 
Odysseus didn’t want to go to Troy. He had a pretty wife and a baby boy and was quite happy with the simple life he had as a king and a farmer. However, he made a promise to Menelaus and Agamemnon back when he was courting Helen so he had to go to war and thus spent 20 years away from home. No offense to Helen, she may have been quite pretty, but when it comes to wives and true loves, Penelope is the gold standard. The reason for this is simple – she had complete faith in her husband and his love. Yes, yes, Odysseus did sleep around on his way home, but never once did Penelope doubt he would come home.  

Now let’s tackle the sleeping around, okay, yes, Odysseus slept with a sorceress and goddess or two, but come on…who wouldn’t? It was 20 freaking years! Yes, yes, I know King Arthur wouldn’t have, but you can sure as hell bet that Romeo would have, and most of us are like Odysseus somewhere between Romeo and Arthur. Still, Odysseus never gave up trying to get home. I can guarantee that Romeo would have curled up next to Calypso and stayed there till the end of his days and forgotten all about Juliet. Odysseus tasted the nectar of the gods, just like he heard the harpies song, and realized that his love with Penelope was sweeter by far.

Okay, I’ll admit I’m making a lot of excuses for my man, Odysseus, but I think it’s safe to assume he made up for his dalliances by clearing out the suitors from his hall, I’m pretty confident that Penelope was the type of wife who would really appreciate that gesture. Anyone can bring you flowers, but how many can clear your hall of deadbeat suitors and also make sure someone else cleans up the mess? A lot of husbands might clear out the suitors but leave the mess for Penelope - not Odysseus.  

Still, let’s face it the Odyssey is about the trials of Odysseus and Penelope. Both of them are facing dangers and difficulties. For Odysseus his trial is to get home. For Penelope her trial is to keep the home. Odysseus has his strength and cunning. Penelope has her faith and cunning. Both faced 20 years of challenges and Homer put them as parallel stories, because the difficulties faced by Penelope were equal to the monsters and trials faced by Odysseus. Yes, the adventures of Odysseus are more exciting, but Homer understood that the battle being faced by Penelope was just as great. Even separated by 20 years and countless miles, the love between Odysseus and Penelope got them through it all. They both believed in each other and that made all the difference.  

A good article about how movies are distributed and where the money from ticket sales goes.

Alright, let's look at the movies we have been watching this summer movie season:

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (May 1, 2009, Fox) began the summer movie season with an impressive $85 million opening weekend.  Then it dropped -69% (ouch) and continued to plummet and after six weeks grossed $174 million.  The movie supposedly had a budget around $150 million, but we should note it has grossed $170 million on the foreign side.  This certainly isn't a flop, but it certainly isn't a mega-hit either.

Star Trek (May 8, 2009, Paramount) began with a $75 million opening weekend, and considering it was competing with Wolverine's second week that?s not bad at all.  Then it dropped only -42.8% (remember 50% is the standard) and has performed well on good reviews and lots of positive buzz and after five weeks grossed $222 million.  The movie supposedly had a budget around $150 million, and we should note it has grossed $101 million on the foreign side.  For a reboot this movie has outperformed Batman Begins, Casino Royale, and Superman Returns.  However, let's put some things into perspective on this movie.  First, when adjusted for inflation Star Trek: The Motion Picture pulled in the equivalent of $240 million domestically, which Star Trek will surpass, but not by as much as the hype seems to indicate.  Second, Star Trek is not performing nearly as well as Iron Man, which was last year's big surprise and in its fifth week had $276 million! Still of all the movies that have come out this summer, Star Trek is the one which has the most promise for a sequel and it's sequel, if done properly, could put up some big numbers in 2011.

Ron Howard and Tom Hanks win even when their movie doesn't do that hot domestically - because they understand the new audience goes beyond the U.S. 

Angels & Demons (May 15, 2009, Sony/Columbia) began with a $46 million opening weekend, but it was enough to beat Star Trek's second weekend performance.  Then it dropped -53% and after four weeks grossed $116 million.  The movie had a budget of around $150 million (which as you see is standard for a summer blockbuster), but here is the ringer on the foreign side this movie has grossed $252 million!  When you combine domestic and foreign this movie is outperforming both Wolverine and Star Trek and it came out after them! 

These first three movies really show the three strategies for major movies nowadays.  You have Wolverine, which has equal appeal on the domestic and foreign fronts.  You have Star Trek which is mostly a domestic movie.  Then you have Angels & Demons which is much stronger overseas.  They are all performing similarly when you combine domestic and foreign results, but the three movies clearly have different distribution strategies and demographics which they are targeting.   

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian (May 22, 2009, Fox) took the #1 spot on Memorial Day weekend with a $54 million opening weekend.  Then it dropped -55% and after three weeks grossed $127 million.  The movie had a budget of $150 million and has grossed $106 million on the foreign side of things. The performance of Battle of the Smithsonian has been solid, but underwhelming compared to the original Night at the Museum, which started smaller, but kept growing with momentum.  Still it will be a profitable movie, though I don't think there will not be any sequels to this movie ? there just isn't a financial justification for it.  

Terminator: Salvation (May 22, 2009, WB) took the #2 spot on Memorial Day weekend with a $42 million opening weekend.  Then it dropped -61% and after three weeks grossed $105 million.  The movie had a budget of $200 million!  It has grossed $25 million on the foreign side of things, but just hasn't been fully released overseas yet.  As it opens more overseas it might do a little better, but this movie was clearly a lackluster performance and with the biggest budget of any movie so far this really is shaping up to be a failure.  

Nice movie, but let's face in Pixar can do no wrong.  There isn't a studio out there with Pixar's track record for producing hits.

Up (May 29, 2009, Buena Vista) had a $68 million opening weekend, which was very solid for a Pixar movie.  It dropped only -35% and after two weeks has grossed $137 million.  Up is also the first summer movie to be #1 in two weeks in a row.  It is unclear what the movie's budget was, but likely between $175 and $200, probably closer to $200 as Pixar spends a lot to make its movies.  On the foreign side not much is happening yet as the movie will open in later months, but Pixar movies usually do about 150% what they do domestically with their foreign distribution.  

As for further summer blockbusters, we will be looking at down the road Transformers 2 and Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince which open up at the end of June and July respectively. Transformers 2 will be distributed by Paramount, which is hoping that it can follow up Star Trek with another hit, and Harry Potter is Warner Brothers which no doubt hopes to offset the underwhelming Terminator: Salvation.  Beyond that is G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra in August, which is also a Paramount release.  Thought I have a suspicion that G.I. Joe might not perform as well as some are expecting, but we?ll see.  As of this weekend Warner Brothers' movies have grossed $735.9 million and Paramount movies have grossed $715.8 million, and the two studios are outpacing all the other major studios.

Termination: Salvation (2009) is coming out with Christian Bale playing the iconic John Connor.  This is the fourth in the Terminator franchise and is a reboot of sorts after the underwhelming Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003).  The first Terminator (1984) had a budget of about $6.4 million and in its first weekend brought in $4 million and in its second weekend brought in $4.2 million!  Its total domestic gross was $38 million this made the movie quite a profitable return on its investment.  Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) was the biggest in the series with a $31 opening weekend and only a -34.7% drop to $20 million in its second weekend and a domestic gross of $204 million.  Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003) started strong with $44 million and then started plummeting beginning with a 55% drop to $19 million in the second week.  Interestingly, this is pretty similar to another machine versus man movie the same year, The Matrix Revolutions (2003) which had a $48 million opening weekend and then dropped 66% to $16 million in the second weekend.  

Blah, blah, blah...Christian Bale fights robots in post-apocalyptic Earth.

So what does the new Terminator: Salvation have going for it? This is the first Terminator to be rated PG-13, the others were R, but I suspect the older ones if released today would be PG-13 as well ? violence has become far more tolerated by the MPAA. But the lower rating helps broaden the market for the movie.  Now this is the first Terminator movie to not star Arnold, but he has been traded in for Christian Bale to provide the star power.  Bale in turn has generated buzz with his potty mouth on the set of the movie.  Director McG has generated his own buzz by trading insults with Michael Bay who brings out Transformers 2 (2008) later this year.  Transformers (2007) brought in $70 million its opening weekend, dropped only 47% and pulled in $37 million in its second weekend on its way to an impressive haul of $319 million.  I suspect McG and Bale are hoping for a Transformers-like run, but there are a lot of question marks on that happening.  However, it has an estimated budget of $200 million, which shows that at least the studio thinks it will do well.  

It takes place at the Smithsonian! This is the first and only movie the Smithsonian has allowed to shoot at its museums.  Why? Because the Natural History Museum in New York had a 20% increase in visitors after the first one.

On the other side of the coin is Night at the Museum: Battle at the Smithsonian (2009) which is the sequel to Night at the Museum (2006) which was a December release and an opening weekend with $30 million, followed by a second weekend of $36 million, a third weekend of $48 million, and then it finally started dropping to $23 million in its fourth weekend.  This is a phenomenal performance and shows the power of good PG movies.  It had a great run to a domestic gross of $250 million.  So how well will the sequel do? It?s hard to say.  The best comparison might be National Treasure (2004) and its sequel. National Treasure was also a December release and generated $35 million and then only dropped about 8% its second weekend to $32 million on its way to $173 million.  National Treasure: Book of Secrets (2007) was also a December release and had a $44 million opening weekend and only a 20% drop its second weekend to $35 million on its way to $219 million.  Family movies like these don?t pull in typically as much money in the opening weekend as fan-driven movies, but they have more staying power and can have several strong weeks in a row with good reviews and word of mouth.  However, Night at the Museum was a phenomenon in 2006 and if it still has that magic this year it could put up some incredible numbers this year as well.  It also has a $150 million budget which is a modest increase over the original?s $110 million budget.  

So who is going to come out on top? Will it be Christian Bale and Terminator: Salvation or will it be Ben Stiller and Night at the Museum: Battle at the Smithsonian? 

Also keep in mind that this Memorial Day weekend is filled with big movies - Wolverine (last week's #3), Star Trek (last week's #2), Angels & Demons (last week's #1), Night at the Smithsonian, and Terminator: Salvation.  There is also a comedy spoof, Dance Flick hitting wide release as well.  So take a guess at what will be the top five grossing movies and in what order?

Note: Terminator: Salvation comes out Thursday and has an extra day, but we'll compare the Friday to Sunday results of the two movies.  As always we are only talking about domestic gross. 

Our last installment compared Wolverine and Star Trek, which opened in the first and second week of the Summer movie season.  Wolverine has an opening weekend of $85 million compared to Star Trek's $75 million, but Wolverine dropped 69% to $26 million whereas Star Trek only dropped 43% to $43 million.  In other words, Wolverine started strong, but it is Star Trek which has the mutant healing factor to become a big hit.

10. Don't wait till after the birth of your child to pick a name. You never know if you might be rushed into a bad decision by an attack by disgruntled miners from the future.

9. Star Trek is now just like D&D - all adventures begin in a tavern after the obligatory barroom brawl, there will be random encounters, and the climax will be a dungeon crawl.

Apparently, all the cool kids in the future hang out in Iowa.  I have criticized this movie for a lack of vision, but this fact alone is pretty visionary.

8. If you are going to cheat on an exam you might as well violate the "no eating in the simulator" rule while you're at it.

7. At Starfleet Academy it is completely acceptable for a cadet to have a relationship with an instructor, but don't even think about messing with that instructor's simulation or you are in for a world of trouble.

6. Exposition is always better when the person giving it is an attractive female who just happens to be undressing at the same time.

Okay there is an argument this is how you should always do exposition.

5. If your homeworld is about to be destroyed you need to rescue all the elders past their breeding years, because it's the logical thing to do.

4.  However, in the future old people aren't allowed on starships, because they just get in the way.

3. If you bring a sword to a fight you will always get a chance to use it, but if you bring a phaser it probably is going to get knocked from your hand.

2. To promote better linguistic skills among the crew in Starfleet you have the guy whose accent the computer can't recognize do the ship wide announcements with critical instructions for the crew.

1. Never, never try to get an emotional reaction from the halfbreed, because there's a reason he's trying to hold it together. If you do get a reaction, then get ready for your face to be rearranged into a bloody smear.

Just for the record most of the bruises on Kirk came from Spock, remember #1: don't mock the halfbreed; still look - it's young people saving the galaxy!

Well I saw Star Trek this morning and judging by reviews it appears that once again I am in a minority.  It was a fine light and fluffy movie, but it suffered from poor writing and the story was woefully weak.  It was a typical super blockbuster.  I was underwhelmed, much like I was with Dark Knight, which suffered from similar problems - poor story and execution of the plot. I really wanted to like Star Trek, but I walked away just thinking it was okay.

Anyway, here are the top ten reasons Star Trek was a disappointment, there will be spoilers, so be prepared:

1. Budweiser and Nokia are still around in 2257.  Apparently, in J.J. Abrams future utopia product placement is alive and well.  I half expected Sulu to have to turn on Windows to start up the Enterprise.  Everyone accepts warp speed, transporters, and aliens galore...but a post-capitalistic society is just too unfathomable.  This really turned me off the movie and convinced me that J.J. Abrams has no idea what Star Trek, or really science fiction, is about. 

2. Do you remember that movie, Armageddon, in which a group of oil drill workers save the Earth...this is the reverse of that story - a group of miners are trying to destroy the Earth.  I kid you not.  Disgruntled spice miners might not have been behind the assassination attempt of Senator Amidala, but they are to blame for this movie.   

3. I haven't seen a plot as idiotic as this movie since Star Trek: Nemesis or Star Trek: Generations, at least on this front J.J. Abrams really respected the tradition of Trek movies and honored the odd numbered ones in creating his story. Also as a origins story it was lacking, it was too hurried and too sloppy in its story telling. 

4. When all else fails, to show you're serious kill off someone's parent and blow up a planet, wait - that's Star Wars.  No, this is Star Trek so you have a lightsaber duel and a wampa attack - no, wait, sorry Star Wars again.  Hm, actually, I have no idea what I was watching, maybe it was Star Wars.

5. You know Vulcan? You know that world where dozens of Star Trek episodes and movies have taken place...well, it's gone. Destroyed by disgruntled miners and gone from continuity.  The only good news is that this eliminates Tuvok and probably Voyager so that's a win-win.  

6. If you can create a black hole with a drop of red jello why do you need to drill a hole to the center of a planet to use it? Answer: you don't.

7. If a villain attacks once and then disappears for 22 years don't you think he might have had time to reconsider his plan.  You know like try to save his world as it hadn't been destroyed yet as he came from the future instead of sitting around at the same location waiting.  Sure he lost his wife, but 22 years? Seriously, Spock got over the lost of Vulcan in about 30 minutes. 

8. Apparently, if you are disobedient, disliked by your fellow cadets, and really are rather annoying you are ideal for leadership in Starfleet.  In fact, all you have to do is save one out of two planets, as long as that one is Earth, and you'll be a hero and everyone will cheer.  I mean I guess if Virginia was destroyed by Romulans but Maryland was saved it would be cause to celebrate in some corners.  You know, call me old-fashioned, but the death of six billion should mean something.  But this is very much like Star Wars which was the model for this movie. 

9. If you have only one female character she is obviously going to be a object of sexual desire as her main contribution to the story.  Star Wars is sexist and so was this movie.  The main women characters are mothers giving birth and/or dying or girlfriends of the main characters in supporting roles.  Instead of updating Star Trek this was really going back and embracing all the problems with the original series. 

10. Apparently, if you need transporters to be able to work between star systems and to reach a ship moving at warp then all it takes is a few tweaks with an equation from the future and there you go.  Of course, while this may be possible you have weapons which function as glorified pop guns in battle.  This was what was wrong with Star Trek - techno babble to solve a problem that the writers ended up creating by their monstrosity of a script. 

Okay, now don't get me wrong.  This movie had a few good moments and some of the performances were good enough, but it was a fluffy sci-fi movie more than anything else.  It was a lot weaker than the better Trek movies and episodes, and instead of updating Star Trek for a new generation it was really creating a fairly generic sci-fi movie (with really poor science and plotting) with no message of a brighter future or esposing humanism.  I think the popularity of this movie is more to do with a desire for science fiction movies with stereotypical characters than a return to Star Trek and its vision of an utopian future. The future painted by J.J. Abrams is pretty much exactly like today, 150 years and things are the same - even with Nokia and Budweiser still being around.  Vision is what this movie needed, but there was none to be had.

On May 1st X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) comes out and on May 9th the rebooted Star Trek (2009) comes out.  It is an interesting back-to-back and despite appearances the two are fairly similar.  Both are prequels of franchises with big fan bases, involve iconic characters, will be heavy in action and character growth, and I suspect have budgets around $150 million.  Both also have a lot of angry diehard fans who dislike the changes in continuity and how characters have been handled, but the truth is that diehard fans will see the move anyway and it's the broader audience that matters.  Still both have some problems coming into their opening days. X-Men Origins: Wolverine was leaked online a month or so ago, which no doubt will hurt it.  Also the movie moves away from the X-Men group dynamic to focus on one character Wolverine, though it does have Hugh Jackman.  Star Trek is stymied because it is mostly a cast of unknowns and is - well, Star Trek, which has been bled dry as a franchise.  

Notice the 2008 date...the movie was postponed from a December release to a May release.

The first two weekends is critical for the success of a movie.  With May releases, at least 30% of your entire domestic gross comes from the first weekend.  If you have the standard 50% drop then another 15% comes in the second weekend.  Last year during this same time period it was Iron Man which dominated the first two weeks of May pulling in $98 million in the first week and $51 million in the second week (-48% drop).   I don't think either Wolverine or Star Trek is going to pull in Iron Man numbers.  A more reasonable estimate would be $55 million on their first weekend with a 55% drop to about $25 million the next weekend.  The two movies I think are pretty evenly matched.  

Now the last movies in both franchises aren't that helpful as predictors.  Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) was a December release and pulled in $18 million the first weekend and then dropped -76% to $4.4 million.  Ouch.  X-Men: The Last Stand (2006) was a May release and brought in $100 million and then had a -66% drop to $34 million in its second week.  X-Men is clearly the stronger franchise on the movie front and this is where Wolverine has all the advantages over Star Trek. 

I sense a lot of angst and tragedy.

The most comparable movies are probably Batman Begins (2005) and Superman Returns (2006) which were both prequels and reboots of struggling franchises, of course, X-Men really isn't struggling that much compared to Star Trek.  Batman Begins pulled in $48 million on its first weekend and then $27 million the next weekend, which was a pretty good -43% drop.  Superman Returns pulled in $52 million on its first weekend and then had a -58% drop to $21 million on its second weekend.   Another possible comparable is Watchmen (2009), which was released earlier this year, but was R-rated unlike our two PG-13 movies.  It grossed $55 million in its first weekend and then plummeted -67% to $17 million in its second week.

So who do you think will win Wolverine or Captain Kirk?  Which will have the higher opening weekend, and take a guess how much, and which will have the lowest percentage drop to the second week?