“Rendition” an atomic bomb at the box office
posted at 2:25 pm on October 22, 2007 by Allahpundit
Ninth place on opening weekend, just behind a 3D re-release of a film that’s 15 years old and was showing in one-quarter the number of theaters. Actually, I shouldn’t say “just behind”: TNBC’s box office was almost 20% better than Rendition’s. Us magazine wonders where it all went wrong. Granted, some of the reviews suggested the film was the cinematic equivalent of its subject matter, but Reese Witherspoon’s likable enough and Gyllenhaal’s got oodles of social-consciousness cred from Brokeback Mountain. You’d think the left would be willing to suffer a little torture for the cause and watch them emote their way to anti-war nirvana.
I’m sure it’ll do gangbusters business overseas. The test of whether this is a fluke or indicative of some larger annoyance with Hollywood’s mindlessly conformist, endlessly predictable politics is coming soon. Can America resist the siren song of Cruise?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
im not surprised it did terribly…i hadn’t even seen/heard anything about it aside from HotAir pointing it out that insane leftwing extremists are trying to destroy America with crappy movies. no commercials…no discussion…no posters…nuthin
ernesto on October 22, 2007 at 2:30 PM
Isn’t this all just clever satire? I laughed anyway…
Ochlan on October 22, 2007 at 2:31 PM
Ah yes, Lions for Lambs. I saw the trailer for that a week or so back. It oozed social consciousness, and actually got a bit of heckling from the audience for the seeming “here’s my point delivered via hammer” approach. I was kind of surprised it didn’t get cheers (being in a very, very blue city).
For all I don’t like about the film’s inevitable drivel, I can deal with it… that said, it dig bug me that this silly movie was being released just in time for Veteran’s Day. Something just extra tacky about that.
Wineaholic on October 22, 2007 at 2:34 PM
Well, for one, I think audiences get the fact that the movie doesn’t appear that realistic on its face by casting a southern blond as the wife of a suspected terrorist. Not that it couldn’t happen, but Hollywood’s attempts at multiculturalism seem a little obvious.
CP on October 22, 2007 at 2:35 PM
Can you hear them?? Staying away in droves?
I will be surprised if the Cruise missle will do any better.
tickleddragon on October 22, 2007 at 2:38 PM
AAAAAAAHAAAHAAAHHAHHHHHAH!!!
RW Wacko on October 22, 2007 at 2:40 PM
That suggests “Rendition” is the kind of turd Hollywood doesn’t think it can sell, even by dipping it in melted chocolate and powdered sugar. Studios are usually willing to aggressively advertise bad movies if they think a good ad campaign will put some people in seats. I think the pre-release backlash made them think “Rendition” wasn’t worth the effort. The action line in entertainment magazines is that America is too stupid and feather-brained to appreciate DePalma’s genius – I saw a couple of entertainment Web sites take that spin on it over the weekend, suggesting the audience is in the mood for lighthearted fun, and didn’t want to do the heavy thinking a challenging movie like “Rendition” requires… which would explain why the top film of the weekend was about an entire town being brutally slaughtered by a pack of vampires.
Doctor Zero on October 22, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Well, I will certainly be able to resist the siren song of Cruise. I haven’t been impressed by much that he’s done lately, acting-wise. He seems to play himself in costume more than trying to be a movie character. I also happen to think that real people (i.e., those of us who are not East Coast Elites or West Coast Elites) have become really tired of the anti-US messages in these movies.
reine.de.tout on October 22, 2007 at 2:41 PM
Yes, but when they all are nominated for Best Picture then the DVD sales will skyrocket. Right!
BJ* on October 22, 2007 at 2:41 PM
Uh, yeah? Dude’s crazy. Not fun crazy, creepy crazy. It’ll tank too.
Doesn’t matter to the producers, they’ll recover it overseas from America-haters in Europe and elsewhere, but it’ll tank here.
Bad Candy on October 22, 2007 at 2:42 PM
did anyone see the trailer for Iron Man? Terrorists kidnap Tony Stark to build a missile for them and he builds the Iron Man suit to escape? It was extremely cool.
(Trivia Note: in the original origin this scene took place during the Korean War)
GogglesPisano on October 22, 2007 at 2:43 PM
I haven’t been impressed with Tom Cruise since Risky Business, and him going all creepy cultist in public in the last few years hasn’t improved his standing with me. Neither has treating Katie Holmes like she’s a piece of property under Sharia. So I will be happy to watch Cruise, Redford, and Streep bomb at the box office with their piece of antiwar crap.
ReubenJCogburn on October 22, 2007 at 2:44 PM
exactly
ernesto on October 22, 2007 at 2:45 PM
‘Lions for Lambs’ will bomb out too. If holierthanthouwood wants to make money on a movie about Afghanistan, they should do ‘Jawbreaker’ or ‘Lone Survivor’ … and DO IT RIGHT. The movie theaters will be packed. If they wanna make money on an Iraq war movie, they should do ‘We Were One’. Hollywierd is out of touch with America and they can’t understand why nobody watches their anti-American propaganda. Isn’t there enough conservative in the movie biz to get together and make a decent movie???
Tony737 on October 22, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Finally —
bombs that Hollywood loves. I knew they’d come around.
Jaibones on October 22, 2007 at 2:47 PM
It’s got Meryl Streep and Robert Redford, too, so obviously has huge financing behind it and will be pushed HARD. Anyone have the lowdown on why the movie is supposed to be so anti-American? Couldn’t figure it out from the plot summary on IMDB.
RW Wacko on October 22, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Clearly there is a video game somewhere to blame for this.
bj1126 on October 22, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Cruise, Redford and Streep? Who can resist the formerly shining stars of 30,40 years ago and the quirky couch- jumper all men loathe? In a film that “tries to make a difference?”(from the commercial)
Sounds riveting.
NellE on October 22, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Oh and Redford as a PRO-war college professor??? Yeah, that happens everyday, professors encouraging kids to join the Army. What planet does these morons live on?
Tony737 on October 22, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Pluto
Rode Werk on October 22, 2007 at 2:54 PM
The Iron Man trailer was awesome. But the Rambo IV rocks!
The suits in Hollywood must think they can recoup overseas. There are alot of places were anti-American stuff will sell.
Lions for Slaughter will tank. I will say that Cruise’s MI series was over the top 007 type fun, but his message films suck.
The first Hollyweird type to make a good unabashedly Pro-America war flick will become a billionaire.
Iblis on October 22, 2007 at 2:54 PM
A season of garbage. Redford climbs out from under the rock where he lives to slime the military — stunner.
Jaibones on October 22, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Since we keep seeing these money losers it’s fairly obvious that these are write-offs that the company is willing to finance in order to enhance – to borrow AP’s phrase – their social-consciousness cred among their own. If these are publically traded companies there should be some pissed stock holders sounding off out there.
mugged on October 22, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Not to worry, these movies will all be nominated for one award or another. The actors and directors will get plenty of “praise” for their “courage” to do films like this crap.
I will protest by not seeing the movies, or any movies from the studios that make these movies, unless I illegally download them from the internet. heh, heh.
saltydogg14 on October 22, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Salty is right, they give each other awards for being ‘braaaaave’. Meanwhile, back here in REAL life, Dubya just awarded Mike Murphy the MoH for TRUE courage.
O/T: Souix City just got a new airport. The code? SUX
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAaaaaaaaaaaa
Tony737 on October 22, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Here is some more feedback on Lions for Lambs from the gents over at the LIBERTAS blog:
Curious Cruise Comeback Vehicle
Lions For Lambs Early Buzz Is Not Good
And here was the LIBERTAS review on Rendition:
LIBERTAS Review: Rendition
Michael in MI on October 22, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Maybe Americans are finally getting sick of being preached to about how bad America is. I mean, the premise of this movie is that some Middle Eastern looking dude married to a blonde gets yanked by the Feds and tortured or something, right? AS IF!!! We all know that’s BS and will never happen. There’s a greater chance of Reece Witherspoon being detained.
Or maybe her mom or grandma.
NTWR on October 22, 2007 at 3:05 PM
The purpose of films like these cannot possibly to make money. The purpose can only be to weaken American resolve and strengthen the leftist/jihadist alliance. So though they may flop at the US box office, internationally they have quite the damaging – and intended – effect. All these hate-America “anti-war” films are viewed as gospel in Europe and are surely appleaded in every al-Qaeda cave (the ones with electricity).
Halley on October 22, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Cool!
Somebody did another cut of Blade Runner?!
Goatta see that!
Rendition, couldn’t pay me to sit though that.
opusrex on October 22, 2007 at 3:06 PM
…cough cough CRAIGGHHH cough…
Sorry, nasty congestion this morning.
see-dubya on October 22, 2007 at 3:14 PM
I too am going to vote with my money pouch. You would have to think that at some point the stock holders of the studios would get upset with the management for putting out politically correct tripe where the profit motive appears to be secondary to the political motive.
jimwesty on October 22, 2007 at 3:15 PM
Meryl Streep is just a tad too ubiquitous lately, and Cruise’s acting ability peaked with Risky Business… and Redford is just plain irrelevant. This, too, shall bomb. (Pun intended.)
D2Boston on October 22, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Yes. Let me repeat that. Hell YES! But then I’ve never been a Tom Cruise fan. Disliked him even more after that deal with Brooke Sheilds. He’s just another somewhat talented hollywood wierdo.
4shoes on October 22, 2007 at 3:23 PM
I really miss Golan-Globus’ Cannon Films. They made some awesome over the top right wing propaganda films back in the 1980′s.
GogglesPisano on October 22, 2007 at 3:23 PM
Don’t be so sure. Look at the receipts for In the Valley of Elah; $6.6 million US, $351,011 foreign. The budget has been reported at about $23 million.
The NYT also reported:
The Kingdom will be lucky to break even worldwide.
As for Cruise, it remains to be seen as to whether he’s jumped the couch. Indeed, his movies have tended to make most of their money overseas, in countries a lot less accepting of Scientology than the US.
Karl on October 22, 2007 at 3:26 PM
My list of actors and actresses who can entice me part with my money is getting shorter everyday as is the list of producers and directors. I have a one strike blacklist policy and it counts for everyone higher than “crowd”. Previous purchases of movies by those I’ve blacklisted are donated to the library in my own small effort to further depress sales.
Two of Reese Witherspoon’s will go to the library this week as will my one Spiderman.
Dusty on October 22, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Does Hollywood have to list these films as in-kind contributions?
see-dubya on October 22, 2007 at 3:30 PM
We’re not in Kansas any more, Tony!
What you can count on is art opposite life.
drjohn on October 22, 2007 at 3:31 PM
Could it be that people are actually becoming more sick and tired of the MSM and Libs bitchin’ and moanin” than they are of the conflicts we are engaged in overseas?
bbz123 on October 22, 2007 at 3:32 PM
I was bored this weekend. Instead of going to the movies like I used to do not too long ago, I watched “My Fair Lady” and “Fiddler On The Roof”, and went dancing at a club. Definitely a better use of my time.
mjk on October 22, 2007 at 3:33 PM
May ALL of these anti-American slime movies tank big time.
infidel4life on October 22, 2007 at 3:35 PM
What happened to Cruise after All The Right Moves
Zach on October 22, 2007 at 3:37 PM
mjk,I watched ” I Just Want Someone to Eat Cheese With” by Jeff Garlin, $5 on pay per view, pretty good little flic, with some great shots of Chicago, my home town.
bbz123 on October 22, 2007 at 3:37 PM
In the Valley of Elaj – Tommy Lee’s Jones’ antiwar-anti troop flick also tanked. It’s only made $6,588,000 so far – which probably only covers his salary, if that – in five weeks. I absolutely love it – not the movie but the fact that nobody is going to see this left-wing propaganda.
Rod on October 22, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Was Al Gore available to play Clooney’s role?
An opportunity lost. Come on Hollywood, wake up already.
fogw on October 22, 2007 at 3:39 PM
You have to understand that most of these actors didn’t go to college so they wouldn’t know.
Kahuna on October 22, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Faerenheight 911 can’t be repeated. That was like the liberal version of Passion of the Christ. They weren’t watching it for entertainment or edification; it was just a way of re-affirming their faith. But now that’s been DONE, and it’ll probably be another thirty years before another Woodstock phenom occurs.
I predict the Lions p.o.c. is going to get aborted when the studio figures out what a box office humiliation it’s going to be.
logis on October 22, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Eeeewww did I write ‘does these morons’?
My apologies!
Another movie I’d like to see made would be ‘House To House’, a great read.
Tony737 on October 22, 2007 at 3:42 PM
Not since Platoon has a left wing drama been successful. Recall the Denzel Washington movie “The Siege” in which a series of bombings by Islamic extremists is the backdrop of the movie. By the end of the movie, the FBI has forced the Muslim community of the New York area into concentration camps where the camera focuses on beautiful Muslim women with beautiful children weeping behind barbed wire. Denzel Washington is the only FBI agent with any scrap of decency. And that movie flopped. Hollywood had nothing to say after 9/11/2001 and Muslims were not forced into concentration camps. Rendition is a replay. The Muslim seized is angelic with no anger within him. The CIA and FBI agents are all insensitive louts. An so this movie will be a flop as well.
Steven Spielberg’s left wing movie “Munich” flopped as well. In that movie, the Israelis were all money grubbing, cheap louts while the leader of the Palestinians involved in the killings is a gentle soul who loves nothing more than to play piano with his sweet daughter. With Brian DePalma he made the leftist movie “Casualties of War” which in addition to being about the rape of a VietNamese peasant woman by vicious US soldiers was so ineptly made that one can watch it for its laugh content. Sean Penn affects a Brooklyn accent that nobody in Brooklym has used for 100 years, replete with “dese guys” and “dem guys”. And to top if off, Michael J. Fox played the lone decent soldier. Incredibly, Mr. Fox played the role as Alex P. Keaton goes to war. The movie tanked quickly, maybe faster than Munich.
Ah for the good ole days of Jean Claude Van Damme! In case you are too young to remember Jean Claude, he was known as “The muscles from Brussels!”
Larraby on October 22, 2007 at 3:42 PM
In contrast to the anti-American films, The Kingdom – an anti-terrorist, kill-the-terrorist flick, has done $59,741,800 world-wide in just 3 weeks, nearly 10 times that of Valley of Elaj in about half the time.
Rod on October 22, 2007 at 3:48 PM
I wasn’t clear in the last post. The dreadful “Casualties of War” was by DePalma. Spielberg was not involved.
Larraby on October 22, 2007 at 3:49 PM
These movies are guaranteed to break even/make money thanks to presold worldwide rights for cable and broadcast TV. Box office receipts aren’t the benchmark and therefore these types of movies will continue to get made and distributed forever.
Seriously, if traditionalists want to see movies with content that reflects their values, then the traditionalist are going to have to invest in movie production and distribution… gotta play in that market rather than complaining about it.
ScottMcC on October 22, 2007 at 3:53 PM
That’s a shame because it was at least a decent look at our involvement in Saudi Arabia even with the very awkward relativism at the end.
bj1126 on October 22, 2007 at 3:53 PM
I’ll say here what I said in the other comments page on this story (found in the Headlines): you know you’re in trouble when even liberal / leftist newspapers like the Washington Post are publishing reviews which stated “Whoa, guys, this film’s pretty heavy-handed even for Hollywood.” I actually was shocked to see a non-inconsequential number of liberal newspapers and media outlets comment on how the subject matter is pretty complex and rebuke the film for presenting such a one-sided argument.
In other words: You’re pretty damn out of touch with America, Hollywood. Cause even firm liberals, who may not LIKE rendition programs, at least recognize that the use of such programs is not without its benefits, and likewise isn’t comfortable with allowing you to portray anyone (and everyone) who employs those rendition methods as villains so dastardly you’d expect to see them twirling their Snidely Whiplash moustaches.
Vyce on October 22, 2007 at 3:58 PM
A candidate for great movie would be an adaptation of “House to House,” the battle for Fallujah in November 2004, written by USMC SSG David Bellavia.
An Amazon review/comment:
But, I doubt it’ll happen, because, you see we won that battle!
georgej on October 22, 2007 at 3:59 PM
George, ‘House to House’ was a great book, if ya like that one, try ‘We Were One’ by Pat O’Donnell. It’s even better. The History Channel filmed a battle scene from it for their show called “Shootout”.
Tony737 on October 22, 2007 at 4:30 PM
I sort of disagree. Look at my favorite one to kick whilst it’s down. “Munich” – it bombed here. It didn’t make much of a blip anywhere else. Even if it’s breaking even or making money, is it making the same money or breaking even as “Schindler’s List” or “Saving Private Ryan”? Nope. Because it was a terribly, moral relavist movie. And even more unforgiveable, it was BORING. My friend who couldn’t care less about the Middle East fell asleep. That ain’t good.
Movies just aren’t fun anymore. Hollywood wants me to sit through a political movie? At least make it interesting or intellectually challenging. But when they make Israeli spies boring, the issues in Hollywood movies are more problematic than they realize. The best movie this year (that wasn’t on TCM or the other classics movie station) was “3:10 To Yuma” which was basically dumped in September and not expected to do well. And look what it did. People in Hollywood are stupid.
mjk on October 22, 2007 at 4:32 PM
Oh and SSgt Bellavia was in the Army, not the Marine Corps. ‘House to House’ is about the Army in Falluja. ‘We Were One’ was about the Marines in Falluja. Both awesome books. Both would make a great movie that would actually sell tickets … but who in Hollywood cares about THAT anymore?
Tony737 on October 22, 2007 at 4:32 PM
mjk – “People in Hollywood are stupid.”
So simple, yet so accurate. Somebody needs to put this on a plaque or something. Maybe add it to the Hollywood sign.
Tony737 on October 22, 2007 at 4:35 PM
A decent movie that would NEVER be made today is Executive Decision with Halle Berry, Kurt Russell and Steven Seagal.
It has Islamic terrorists hijack a plane. In fact, at the end, the Islamic terrorist goes bonkers and starts screamimg Allah Akbar! (if I remember correctly) as he starts shooting his gun wildly in every direction to try to bring the entire plane down.
Michael in MI on October 22, 2007 at 4:36 PM
Why didn’t they just cast Reese Witherspoon as a lawyer, send her off to defend her husband in international court, and entitle the film “Legally Blond 3″? It would have had a better opening weekend.
radjah shelduck on October 22, 2007 at 4:42 PM
Great news. On the other hand, I think the multimillion dollar losses of these flicks only serve as feel-good tax deductions for Soros and Peter Lewis and the other billionaire leftist douches.
Jaibones on October 22, 2007 at 4:48 PM
so I’m looking at the new releases for November 9th, you have your choice of “Darfur Now”, “Jimmy Carter Man from Plains” and “Lions for Lambs”…
Which of them will have a worse opening weekend?
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on October 22, 2007 at 4:51 PM
I go to the movies about 8 times a month. There are plenty of times when I pretty much watched every movie available and have to wait for Friday for new releases. I was in the same situation last week – I watched all the movies out there except this garbage. And despite the talant of these actors, the subject matter disgusts me and I won’t waste my time sitting through 2 hours of moral equivallence.
AlexB on October 22, 2007 at 4:52 PM
These Directors and Producers are digging thier own graves, the polically motivated,hackish and heavy handed anti-war, anti-US, messages they are trying to shove down our throats are being spewed back in thier faces.
Hollywood is a joke.
Can’t even go see a movie anymore, teh US is the bad guy in every last film. Sickening
americaslaststand on October 22, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Micheal, that and “True Lies”. I remember the muslims protesting that film. And that was BEFORE 9/11!
Tony737 on October 22, 2007 at 5:01 PM
OT: I just found out my friend got hit by an IED in Iraq. He’s enlisted Army, and had only been in theater about a few weeks. The only thing the Army has said is that he has severe lacerations. If you all could pray for him and his wife, I would greatly appreciate it.
PRCalDude on October 22, 2007 at 5:06 PM
Doing and will continue to do.
Dusty on October 22, 2007 at 5:18 PM
I mean no disrespect, but I’m not talking about the Easter Bunny that you can dismiss as a myth–presold redistribution rights for Hollywood movies is a fact.
Broadcast and cable TV rights for the majority of Hollywood movies are presold by the producers and the studio before the movie goes into full production. The fact is that a $50 million Hollywood movie like Rendition that will be lucky to make $20 million in combined worldwide box office can still rake in another $40 million or more based off the movie’s presold redistribution rights.
It doesn’t matter if Munich brings in a blockbuster billion-dollar profit at the box office… that movie still made a profit because of the millions that Time Warner paid for rights to show that movie on HBO, Cinemax, TNT, etc.
The bottom line is the bottom line: Movies are an industy driven by market forces. Political conservatives can either keep complaining about how movies suck or they can pony up their cash to play in this market.
ScottMcC on October 22, 2007 at 5:21 PM
Check out my reviews (here and here) of this horrible high quality Bin Laden film. I noted it’s utter failure, this weekend, and was cheering. We are sick and tired of this agitprop. I subtitle it “Legally Dhimmi,” since it stars no longer cute Reese Witherspoon, who has joined the cinematic jihad.
Debbie Schlussel on October 22, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Really? Because it seems that you are being rather disrespectful. The fact is, the budget of most major motion pictures do not include all the advertising. In fact, “Titanic” for all of the enthusiasm about it, only made money once it was out of the movie theaters and watched 18 billion times by 14 year old girls. While that sort of makes your point, it also points out one thing. No matter what the movie industry does, political movies are born to lose. How does the movie industry stay in business? By putting out populist claptrap like “Pirates of Carribbean” and making boatloads of money out of it (pun completely intended). Hollywood is there to ENTERTAIN us first, not tell me simplist stories about how the Middle East is (of course, it would help if I’d not actually been there).
Why do you think Eric Bana was out there crying like a whiny baby about how no one “got” Munich? Why do you think Spielberg stepped back from making movies “like that” for a bit? Because “Munich” was such a gigantic hit? Nope. Because it was a bomb.
Watch – Spielberg is making Indiana Jones movie because he knows people will go see it, no matter what crap it is. Reese Witherspoon will make another legally blonde or Sweet Home Alabama because people like seeing her in those. George Clooney’s only bonafide hits are the Oceans movies and that’s cause he’s surrounded by everyone and the kitchen sink.
Hollywood is heading for another problem like in the 70′s when no one was going to see the movies. Only this time, I doubt that they can pull out another Star Wars. Plus, my money (disposable or not) can be spent in much better places. Like going to Israel or eating a cheeseburger. Movies are too expensive to go to especially when I end up being disappointed. If Hollywood doesn’t pull its collective head out of its, well, you know, there will be one movie theater company going out of business after another. The funniest thing is for some reason no one seems to have gotten the “Passion of the Christ” point – make movies people want to see and they’ll line up around the block.
mjk on October 22, 2007 at 5:42 PM
Movies do operate on market forces… which ultimately determine what TV will pay for those distribution rights, which in turn influences which films get greenlit.
In fact in some cases, the license for TV rights is based on the box office.
Karl on October 22, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Lions for Lambs opens against Fred Claus, the Vince Vaughn Christmas comedy. Look for Fred to beat the snot out of Lions, as Game Plan (the Rock’s cute football-and-little-girl comedy) has beaten Rendition and that Valley of Ewok nonsense.
Every kid who wants to see Fred will bring at least one adult doubling the ticket sales. And that’s one fewer adult who can buy a ticket to Lions. I’m sure it will do better that Rendition, due to star power alone. And ultimately it will make money. But I doubt it will ever top the box office.
Thomas the Wraith on October 22, 2007 at 5:45 PM
srhoades on October 22, 2007 at 5:51 PM
I wonder if the Hollywood myth of overseas revenue requiring anti-American sentiment in their movies will finally be burst this year. This latest crop of bombs isn’t making any money in Europe, either. I wonder if maybe some in the European audience are starting to get a queasy feeling about what will happen to them if America gets demoralized and throws in the towel against Islamic fascism. In spite of all the Hollywood types saying that patriotic sentiment in movies depresses overseas ticket sales, I notice the little pro-America beats in movies like “Transformers” don’t seem to have hurt their success any.
Doctor Zero on October 22, 2007 at 5:51 PM
Is that dirty old man still bankable?
(Don’t know how that strike out happened)
srhoades on October 22, 2007 at 5:52 PM
It’s only surprising if you take what the media reports as anti-war sentiment to heart. Just because many Americans are upset with the direction the war has taken, it doesn’t mean they share the same leftist anti-American dogma of Hollywood.
Opinionnation on October 22, 2007 at 6:01 PM
mjk -true, marketing costs are budgeted separately from the film budget.
As a rule of thumb a film has to earn twice its budget, including marketing, to generate any profit for the backers, in this case New Line. The production budget for Rendition was $27,500,000. I couldn’t find the marketing budget online but it had to be another $10m. In any case New Line is deeply underwater on this. The $4m opening (of which the studio only gets $2m – the rest goes to the multiplex) is loose change. Until this bomb clears something like $65m, the geniuses at New Line won’t see a dime. Sure, eventually, when all the various sources are counted (PPV, cable, etc), it will make money. Even Hudson Hawk made money after enough time. But it was still a bad investment.
Thomas the Wraith on October 22, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Instead of taking Spidey to the library go to http://www.rifftrax.com and purchase the custom made audio commentary by the great Michael J. Nelson (of Mystery Science Theater 3000 fame). It’s the only way I can sit through the Matrix and Raiders of the Lost Ark!
srhoades on October 22, 2007 at 6:10 PM
Rendition is rated R, which means teenagers couldn’t see it.
Hollywoody is suffering from being so liberal that conservatives don’t dare speak up when they work in the industry. What every studio needs is one person more conservative than the rest of the team that they can trust to tell them when they are going off the edge.
I did see an ad for Rendition that called it an “important” movie. That’s how delusional that studio has become.
I love movies, but I don’t want to pay $8.50 to see a bitterfest.
MayBee on October 22, 2007 at 6:17 PM
srhoades-
Nicole Kidman is online, too, don’t forget.
What Hollywood needs to do is remake “Ivan The Terrible“, with a thinly-disguised Chimpy McBushitler in the lead.
Except, in this version, he joins the “crypto-Nazi-helmet-wearing” invaders to destroy his own country.
Sure to make at least $16,108 in rentals.
Go Hollywood!
Larraby-
Multiple Bullseyes!
profitsbeard on October 22, 2007 at 6:27 PM
ScottMcC – Sure the movies you mentioned were (eventually) profitable. But as an investment movies are not about mere profitability. Spending $40m to make 5% after 3 years is, financially speaking, a disaster. The corporations that own the studios need much higher ROI to justify making films. They need Superbad, a $20m picture that cranked out $120m at the box office with tens of millions still to come from DVD, PPV, cable, etc. That’s a good investment. Waterworld, though it may have been ultimately profitable, tied up more than $100m in studio cash for years just to generate dollar 1. A very poor investment.
And I wouldn’t put too much into pre-sold cable rights. If a Time Warner picture makes money with pre-sold rights to HBO, it may look good to the film’s producers, but to the TW corporate executives it’s an eliminations entry, zero sum. It’s moving money from one unit to another without generating any real profit. In many ways it’s how bad films get subsidized on the back end by accountants at the head office.
So after counting the opportunity cost of production and marketing budgets, Rendition will be a money loser for New Line. The best thing for people like me who oppose the film’s message is to not see it, or any of the current crop of message films. Let Hollywood bleed itself out. Sooner or later the suits from corporate will fire a bunch of the fools who green-lighted these things and we can get back to enjoying Iron Man.
And X-Men Origins: Wolverine, due in May 2009.
Thomas the Wraith on October 22, 2007 at 6:27 PM
Smiert Hollywood!
BDavis on October 22, 2007 at 6:36 PM
I thought I was just falling out of the demographic that goes to the movies, but the fact of the matter is that it isn’t just me. Although Hollywood had a boffo summer, attendance has dramatically slipped again.
No matter what Hollywood wants to say, the fact of the matter is this: you make worthwhile films, people will go out to see them. You make crappy films, and people won’t go out to see them. And the additional danger of making crappy films is that you get people out of the habit of going to the movies. And once people get out of the habit of going(and it has already happened), the film industry is in big trouble.
This past summer when things were going so well, Hollywood was saying that they’re finally showing good films. Now however that the Fall has been a bomb (“Heartbreak Kid” with Ben Stiller is another sterling example), Hollywood blames it on everything BUT their inferior product. I think I read somewhere that Hollywood was blaming a video game release for the poor box office.
asc85 on October 22, 2007 at 6:47 PM
George Clooney and Nicole Kidman were in a pretty good movie in which they are agents trying to to stop Muslim terrorists from stealing a Russian nuclear bomb and setting it off in NYC. Complete with a scene in which the terrorist irrationally blames the U.S. for a war it was not involved in. Of course this was made before 911 when Hollywood not doubt considered this fantasy. It was called The Peacemaker
Resolute on October 22, 2007 at 7:13 PM
The interesting thing is that even the left isn’t going to see these movies. Even a leftie isn’t going to pay good money for 120 minutes of propaganda. They want to be entertained just like us. Hollywood is preaching to the choir and the choir snuck out to play Halo 3.
Etain P on October 22, 2007 at 7:25 PM
It’s no fair! My parents had John Wayne and Lee Marvin. We get Cruise and Clooney.
!@#$%^&*
Mojave Mark on October 22, 2007 at 8:17 PM
The bottom line is the bottom line: Movies such as Rendition and Lions for Lambs will continue to be made because the studios know these movies are profitable thanks to the TV redistribution rights. More facts:
*Time Warner–the owner of New Line–has a vast library of movies and TV programs. Time Warner makes billions by licensing their films, shorts, and TV series to the American broadcast networks; many of which are now owned by the corporate parents of the studio.
*Time Warner can count on another few billion from licensing studio films to PPV and premium cable TV. All the studios have an “output” arrangement with pay-per-view TV channels to sell them an entire slate of films at fixed prices. Overseas, almost all the PPV TV outlets are owned or controlled by the studios’ corporate parents.
*Even if Rendition never covers the production/marketing cost at the box office, New Line and Time Warner are guaranteed close to $10 billion this year from library sales of their old content over and over again to cable networks, local stations, and foreign broadcasters–which is why you will see The Chronicles of Riddick ten times on TNT this weekend… and because you’ll watch something at home on TV for “free” rather than pay $10 to see a movie at the cineplex, TNT has presold billions of ad dollars for all that library content.
Studios can count on this income flow from TV no matter what happens at the box office. So it’s not 5% on a $40 million investment in three years and it’s not “another problem like in the 70’s when no one was going to see the movies.” These overtly leftist movies will continue to be made because the studios can still make a profit from them. Yeah, it may be “subsidizing a bad movie on the backend” but it’s still a profit to the shareholders and that’s what the studios care about more than art or prestige.
Again, the bottom line is the bottom line: and this means liberals are better at money management than conservatives because liberals can make a $40 million movie with only a $4 million box office take profitable.
You can moan about the injustice of it all, but your moaning won’t keep dozens of overtly leftist movies from being produced and distributed by Hollywood. The only thing that’s gonna change that is for conservatives to start making and distributing their own movies.
ScottMcC on October 22, 2007 at 8:29 PM
Don’t forget Matt DAMON!!! and Ben A-fleck!
Can’t you get a little more cryptic?
srhoades on October 22, 2007 at 8:53 PM
[srhoades on October 22, 2007 at 6:10 PM]
Thanks, it looks interesting and I’ll consider it.
Dusty on October 22, 2007 at 9:11 PM
Rendition,another hollywood bomb,er dud I mean,
what irritates me the most is that the world opinion
believes that innocent people are being swept off the
street and taken somewhere—————-by——–
the US government,because moonbat logic is if hollywood
makes it,it must be true,but we know its a lie,but once the movies out the world buys this crap.I know Hollywood is
run by the left,but once a movie has that leftest spin to it,I know I won’t watch it,period.
canopfor on October 23, 2007 at 1:40 AM
We must redeploy our forces away from Hollywood. The soldiers we see in there are weak, and terrorists are dropping bombs everywhere.
Send in Murtha! Move Hollywood to Okinawa.
Black Adam on October 23, 2007 at 2:00 AM
Big Hug from Texas.
RushBaby on October 23, 2007 at 2:01 AM
Syriana was a total flop and George Clooney could not carry it. The message of the movie was innocent Muslims wishing to be left alone while rapacious Americans try to steal their oil. If the Muslims sometimes act badly in response, the movie tells us, that is because we Americans are such bad people.
Larraby on October 23, 2007 at 10:50 AM
Oh, come on! Munich was the bomb that sunk DreamWorks which is now a subsidiary of Paramount and no longer an independent studio. No wonder Spielberg has gone back to the Indiana Jones franchise.
aengus on October 23, 2007 at 11:18 AM
DreamWorkds was absorbed by Paramount (part of the Viacom media group) to add content to Viacom’s existing library sales revenue. Munich and every other “bomb” from DreamWorks was profitable–just not as profitable as it could be if it was part of Viacom with an end-to-end content licensing and distribution pipeline.
The bottom line is the bottom line: And Republicans need to understand these economic realities if they want to build their own movie industry infrastructure… the liberals aren’t going to let us play in their sandbox.
ScottMcC on October 23, 2007 at 11:57 AM