Wolf Creek prediction; Kong, Munich updates.

I'm tired right now and have more pressing things to be doing, so this will be very quick.

Wolf Creek advertises itself as one of those "based on true events" movies, which means it's actually not. "Based on a true story" is what you're looking for, those are real. Based on events mean if the director saw a bird take a crap on his windshield in the studio parking lot, and he put that in a movie where aliens invade the Earth and destroy all human life, it's still technically "based on true events". Give me a break.

This movie is based on not one, but what appears to be three different events that happened in Australia. Totally unrelated and happening in different locations at different times, and probably even those are different than what actually happened.

Estimated budget: $1,000,000

What's Working

• Someone figured out you can make a movie just with the money often found in Britney Spears couch.
  

What's Going Wrong

• Written and Directed by the same person. Unless you're one of a few elite people talented at both, this is never a good thing.
• The Writer/Director only has one previous credit to him, a short. How the hell does that happen?
• Based on multiple unrelated events patched together and sold as if it were one. Outright lies are bad, mmkay?
• Written by a neophyte.
• A horror movie released in between Christmas and New Years. Retarded. Simply retarded.
• Weak cast. Only one actor has significant experience, while two have a moderate amount, several more are making their debut in this movie.

Results

Profit. With a supposed budget of $1 million, it's already made back it's production costs after just 3 days, pulling in almost $14 million world-wide. It was never possible for this movie not to make a profit given it was produced on slave-labor wages. This is one of those rare occasions where a movie should fail, and fail badly, by all rights. Let this be a lesson to the major studio's however, sometimes when it comes to budgets, smaller is better.

Kong, Munich
After two full weeks, Kong is still fighting for it's life to stay on top of Narnia, a film that's been out a week longer and with a lot less hype. At $128 million domestic, it's still got a long way to go towards showing a profit here at home. Overseas plus domestic brings the total closer to $280 million, leaving the epic at least $120 million away from showing a profit. It may yet make it into the black, but if it does, it'll be by a short margin. This is a long way away from setting the record for biggest take ever, which Universal arrogantly claimed it would. That $280 million is a far cry from the $1.8 billion that Titanic ended with.
Munich is not yet in wide release, showing in only 532 theaters. It's 5-day take so far is around $7 million domestic, with a production budget running about ten times that number. That's pretty pathetic for the first 5 days, but it's not unexpected with that few theaters showing it. Yet, at the same time, with those kinds of numbers, it's not exactly enticing more theaters to show it either. My prediction stands, it's a flop. I'll put in one more update on it in the next week or two when it opens wider.

Quickies
Memoirs of a Geisha: More like Memoirs of a Flop. $85m? Should have bought a jet or something.
Aeon Flux: Theron goes from Oscar to flop twice in the same year. Incredibly hot girl that can do splits no substitute for a good story.
North Country: Only mentioned because Theron was also the star of this, and that's not the only thing they have in common. Cost: $35m, Revenue: $18.1, Profit: $-25.95m. They both bombed.

Next time I'll do Hostel and Bloodrayne (that should be amusing), and later Munich, since I see it's expanding to 1800 theaters on the 6th of January.

Munich predictions.

Estimated budget: $75,000,000

The script was adapted from a book by George Jones by Tony Kushner and Eric Roth. Kushner is a well regarded playwright who adapted his own play into the highly acclaimed "Angels in America" mini-series, and may be the one saving grace of the project. Though his lack of experience -- he has only 3 screen credits to his name -- raises questions about his ability to adapt others material.

Eric Roth's big credit comes from penning the script for Forest Gump, and that too was an adaptation, though a very well done piece. But the fact it's an adaptation means that at best, you can expect the best screenplay possible from the existing material, and that can't do much if the source fails to impress, or translates badly to the screen format.

The large budget will mean the film must take in somewhere in the neighborhood of $150 million to break even. Israeli discontent with the accuracy of the film (as not surprisingly the book it was based on) could badly curtail overseas take, and I don't see this film being much of a domestic hit.

What's Working

• It's an event that the entire world remembers.
  
• Stephen Spielberg's name will draw people no matter how bad the movie is.

What's Going Wrong

• It's an event the entire world remembers, if you're in your 40's. Maybe.
• It's not a happy movie.
• The lack of big special effects that seem the staple of movies these days makes a strong script absolutely critical.
• The seventy-five million dollar budget is excessive.
• Really stupid time of the year to open a movie like this.
  

Results

Failure. A weak domestic showing for a story the US audience cares little about, coupled with a sad story released over Christmas means the producing studio won't be seeing a profit from this one.

Kong post mortem.

The industry guesses were "based on ignorance," he added, since there are few precedents for a film like "King Kong," which is neither part of a franchise nor based on a literary property.

One wonders if Marc Shmuger, Vice chairman of Universal, is even cognizant of what business he's working in. A remake, taking little creative effort, is par for the industry over the past few years. It's hard to imagine just what would qualify as a precedent if that doesn't. The budget isn't a consideration, with other bank busters abounding this year doing well.

What went wrong.

• As critics have noted, this is not a film for children. Word of mouth is good, word of mouth that says keep your kids away from this film is not.
• Too long. What were you guys thinking? Did the last 40 years of cinema teach you nothing?
• Special effects are no replacement for a good story.
• A high profile director, even a very talented one, is no replacement for a good story.
• There's no such thing as a sure bet, so stop being so liberal with budgets. This fiasco would hurt a heck of a lot less if studios showed some fiscal responsibility.
• Never, under any circumstances, believe your own hype.
• Don't remake a movie just because you can (that goes for you too, Steven.)
  

What went right.

• It'll probably break even with costs when it hits DVD.
• It's probably a good flick, just not stellar.

This blog didn't exist until right now, so I can't claim credit for calling this failure in advance. I did, but it's not here so it doesn't count. I'll check the slate of upcoming films and see where the industry is headed.