Hollywood legendary director

Monday, December 12.

The North American box office list has changed again.

The first place in the ranking is "The Magic Kingdom of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" released by Bowei Pictures, with a total box office of 65.55 million US dollars in three days.

Of course, the changes to this list do not seem to be a surprise to those in the industry, but rather unexpected.

After all, the "The Chronicles of Narnia" series is a brilliant masterpiece that came out at the same time as "The Lord of the Rings", but the box office for the premiere seems to be a little far behind.

However, although "Lord of the Rings" is positioned as a magical literature, anyone who has read the original will be touched by Tolkien's extensive psychological description of the scenery and the "hardcore" brushstrokes that are close to traditional literature.

Therefore, the "Lord of the Rings" series established its "high-end atmosphere" text tone from the beginning, and the two are essentially different.

However, the later generations of "Harry Potter" series start from childhood and youth styles, and in contrast, they are more "younger" than "The Chronicles of Narnia".

Looking at it this way, "The Chronicles of Narnia" is actually in a very embarrassing situation. It is higher than "high-end" but not "Lord of the Rings", and younger than "Harry Potter". The audience is completely locked by the two. So although there is still money to be made after the adaptation, and there is indeed no suspense in the airborne ranking, it is a little bit worse than the two adaptations of the same magical type.

You know, it is common for "Harry Potter" to exceed 100 million in the first week. "Lord of the Rings" does not explode or fails, but this "Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe" is nothing compared to the two.

Whether it is word-of-mouth, audience reaction or even market performance.

Of course, the first weekend box office of more than 65.55 million U.S. dollars cannot be said to be bad. At least in this December, when the film is being shown, it is temporarily unmatched.

The second place "Smiths" scored 50.21 million US dollars, but Paramount was relieved.

Attracting industry insiders to cast their attention.

Only on the 9th, 10th, and 11th, "Smiths" basically showed an upward box office curve. Although it could not beat the magical masterpiece "The Chronicles of Narnia", it always lowered its head, but it also put the third-ranked "Smith" "Tong Family" throws off a big chunk.

As for "Goblet of Fire" and "Water Monster in the Lake", the downward trend continues and is very stable.

With a box office of more than 50 million in the first weekend, it is basically announced that "Smiths" will be very easy to break 100 million in North America.

Of course, although the box office of the first weekend can be an important reference target for the final box office, it is not absolute.

For example, the reputation of some first-line masterpieces has plummeted, and after seeing them, they feel that they are not worth the price. This is also a situation.

But "Smiths" does not have such hidden dangers.

The reason for saying this is that "Smiths" has gained a firm foothold. Even during the most intense competition in the American film market during the Christmas season, it still achieved impressive results. This shows that the film type is very pleasing;

The second is the contrasting interpretation of the family relationship between husband and wife, which is fresh to the audience and has a good attendance rate.

"New York Magazine" reported that: "The Smiths" is a movie that continues to cause jokes and does not reduce suspense.

The "Washington Post" said: In the fierce battle of the film, the metaphor of modern marriage can be read.

The San Francisco Chronicle published a criticism: Although the overall look is sleek, it is full of madness and pretending comics. Apart from these two words, there is no other description.

The hot screening of "The Magic Kingdom of Narnia" did not seem to affect the "Smiths" too much. The next week's screening market is still the audience's own choice. Those who like magical and childlike and those who like comedy and want fun are also not. Do not conflict.

Then the time came on December 14, when the global masterpiece "King Kong" was released, and the famous scene "Empire State Building" was dedicated.

When the giant orangutan looked at Naomi Watts and looked at each other affectionately, together with the feat of getting on a plane, I have to say that it was another brilliant version of "Beauty and the Beast."

The drama and viewing of the movie are above the standard.

However, perhaps it is the quality of the "Lord of the Rings" series. The reputation of Peter Jackson's new work "King Kong" is not high, and it is mostly ridicule.

After the premiere, "Philadelphia Weekly" said without evasiveness: "The movie seems to want to pay tribute to the classic combination of "Beauty and the Beast", but in fact, after watching it, you will find that this is just the director Jackson can’t find the North. It’s just a self-expansion."

"The old face is changed to the new one, but the film is not enough to change the style. It can be seen that this film can only be called an energy-efficient entertainment complex. Director Jackson seemed to spend a lot of energy to adapt it, but in the end it was out of his control. ."-"The New Yorker"

"The special effects are good, but the plot is not good. It's hard to make up."-"Seattle Post"

Sometimes, starting too high is also a mistake, because it will make others expect too much of you.

And this kind of expectation is too high, once it fails to meet expectations, there will be more resentment under disappointment.

Strictly speaking, "King Kong" is not bad. If the person directing is a second- and third-line director, the public may be tolerant, encouraging, and admired for him. However, those who prefer the director rely on the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Peter Jackson, who has been extremely successful, is destined to be a less brilliant commercial work that can only be said to pass the line.

Moreover, the work is a monster classic that was turned over by Universal at a cost of 200 million yuan. After Legendary Pictures lost Warner's project, it invested in Universal and began a joint venture.

On the first day of its release, North American theater operators offered 3568 theaters to open the screen, which was a big deal, but the result?

The box office was really unsatisfactory, and only won more than 9.8 million on Wednesday.

It stands to reason that with such a high investment, Global is fully promoting it. How can the overwhelming propaganda offensive and the trust of the theaters before the release?

This also shows that the result is not up to expectations is a terrible thing, and the duration of close to three hours is also a nightmare for watching movies.

In the blockbusters released on Wednesday in recent years, this result can only be ranked 24th in the historical box office harvest. Compared with the investment of 200 million, it is really shabby.

Universal has nothing to do, grit his teeth and have to support it.

After the loss of "King Kong" on the first day, Global CEO Bob Wright publicly expressed some opinions, saying that the company is still full of expectations for the future of the film, and cites the same slow-moving "Titanic", saying With the progress of the screening cycle, it can also maintain long-lasting results.

You know that "Titanic" only cost 28.6 million US dollars in the first week, which is no better than "King Kong".

But the problem is, times have changed, my lord.

The score of "King Kong" just didn't reach the heavyweight of King Kong, which is very inconsistent. With the long-term screening, wouldn't it die faster?

Ever since, "King Kong", which debuted for the first weekend in 5 days, only got 66 million box office in North America, which was higher than "The Magic Kingdom of Narnia" which was not in its peak period, and it was worth the weekly box office champion. .

Compared with other popular first-line masterpieces, this unexpectedly low-key start, and mediocre.

What makes the world heartache even more is that Peter Jackson's directorship in "King Kong" is as high as 20 million US dollars. If the total score in North America is still less than 200 million, it means that the loss can be calculated.

Although the global box office may be very high, as long as it is not ridiculously high, it is difficult to pay back.

Moreover, Disney is also depressed, and good movies are afraid of encountering strong opponents.

"The Magic Kingdom of Narnia" only dominated the theater, and was driven out by "King Kong", followed by "Smiths" chasing after him, and he would be overtaken if he didn't pay attention.

In short, in the latter part of the Christmas stalls, the fighting became more fierce.

In addition, a series of Chong Austrian movies have been released one after another. Although the number of screens is small and the level is small, but they can't bear people's momentum and can always find bright spots.

Whether it is the luxurious cast of "The Stone Family"-"Neutral Queen" Diane Keaton, "Single Nobleman" Sara Jessica Parker, the attraction to specific fans is sufficient.

Moreover, there is "Brokeback Mountain".

After three years of sharpening his sword, director Li Jiao's storytelling after he walked out of the trough, and the subject matter is sensitive enough, a trial screening aroused passionate discussions among film critics, and the future of the film is limitless.

Coupled with November's "Go with the Song" and "Oil Mystery", this year's Olympic films are all very competitive.