<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Loaded Couch Potatoes &#187; Pixar</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/tag/pixar/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2011 05:17:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Box-Office Review: September 25-27, 2009</title>
		<link>http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/2009/09/28/3183/</link>
		<comments>http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/2009/09/28/3183/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:47:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Honk Mahfah</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Box-Office Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Movies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bruce Willis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inglourious Basterds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pixar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Surrogates]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/?p=3183</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Can&#8217;t stand hot weather, but boy, do I wish it were July again&#8230; (1)  Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs  ($24.6 million, $7887 per screen, $60 million total):  Dropping only 19% from a decent opening weekend, it appears that people actually like this movie and are on the verge of turning it into a legitimate [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can&#8217;t stand hot weather, but boy, do I wish it were July again&#8230;</p>
<p><span id="more-3183"></span>(1)  <em>Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs  </em>($24.6 million, $7887 per screen, $60 million total):  Dropping only 19% from a decent opening weekend, it appears that people actually like this movie and are on the verge of turning it into a legitimate hit.  That&#8217;s good news for the box office, which otherwise is in shambles right this moment.</p>
<p>(2)  <em>Surrogates  </em>($15 million, $5083 per screen):  I was convinced this was going to do okay, but looking back on it, I&#8217;m not sure <em>why </em>I thought that.  I guess I&#8217;m stuck in the early &#8217;90s, when Bruce Willis was actually relevant as a box-office star.  No more.</p>
<p>And I&#8217;d guess that those silly shots of him with a full head of blond hair may have cost the movie millions of dollars in ticket sales.</p>
<p><em>Surrogates </em>was positioned to be the 2009 version of 2008&#8242;s <em>Eagle Eye</em>, a mildly successful sci-fi/action thriller, and it won&#8217;t end up being even as successful as that.</p>
<p>(3)  <em>Fame  </em>($10 million, $3241 per screen):  A remake of a movie people below the age of 35 don&#8217;t remember, starring nobody the paparazzi would break into a trot to photograph, opening in late September&#8230;?  That equals non-starter, and that&#8217;s exactly what MGM got.  All things considered, this movie probably overperformed.</p>
<p>(4)  <em>The Informant!  </em>($6.9 million, $2760 per screen, $20.9 million total):  Holding up reasonably well from last weekend, this movie still has a long way to go before anybody will be calling it a success.</p>
<p>(5)  <em>I Can Do Bad All By Myself  </em>($4.7 million, $2241 per screen, $44.5 million total):  Continuing to slow down, which is typical for Tyler Perry movies.</p>
<p>(6)  <em>Pandorum  </em>($4.4 million, $1759 per screen):  As predicted, nobody cared.  I&#8217;m surprised it made as much as it did.</p>
<p>(7)  <em>Love Happens  </em>($4.3 million, $2280 per screen, $14.7 million total)/(8)  <em>Jennifer&#8217;s Body  </em>($3.5 million, $1278 per screen, $12.3 million total):  Last week&#8217;s pair of high-profile duds got no solace this week, as the chances of either of them becoming slight word-of-mouth successes flew out the window.  Both will bedistant memories in another couple of weeks.</p>
<p>(9)  Appropriately enough, <em>9  </em>($2.8 million, $1399 per screen, $27 million total):  The movie is now close to earning back its stated budget of $30 million, so it&#8217;s not all bad news for the studio.  Still, this was a dud.</p>
<p>(10)  <em>Inglourious Basterds  </em>($2.7 million, $1389 per screen, $114.4 million total):  Continuing to do relatively well on a week-to-week basis, this is the last week we&#8217;ll be hearing from Aldo and his Apaches in this column, but they had a good run, and will be fondly remembered.</p>
<p>Next week finds five new movies going into wide release, including <em>Capitalism: A Love Story</em>, which performed quite well in its limited opening this weekend, averaging $60,000 on eahc of its four screens.  It won&#8217;t do as well when it hits 1000 screens, but look for it to pull in no less than $5 million.</p>
<p>Pixar will possibly get its first taste of defeat when it rereleases <em>Toy Story </em>and <em>Toy Story 2 </em>as a combo double feature, this time in digital 3D.  Now, I can see this doing as well as $15 million, but I can also imagine people mostly looking at it and shrugging.  After all, do you know anybody who wants to take their kids to a three-hour movie?  I didn&#8217;t think so.  But I will say this: if I&#8217;m wrong, and the box office take is considerable, then it means next summer&#8217;s <em>Toy Story 3 </em>is going to be absolutely ginormous.</p>
<p>Also opening: Ricky Gervais&#8217;s <em>The Invention of Lying </em>(nobody cares), Drew Barrymore&#8217;s <em>Whip It </em>(good for $7 million), and Woody Harrelson&#8217;s <em>Zombieland </em>(good for $10 million now and every pothead in the world claiming it as their favorite movie five years hence).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/2009/09/28/3183/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Oscar to Begin Honoring Ten Best Picture Nominees</title>
		<link>http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/2009/06/24/oscar-to-begin-honoring-ten-best-picture-nominees/</link>
		<comments>http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/2009/06/24/oscar-to-begin-honoring-ten-best-picture-nominees/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:40:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Honk Mahfah</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Movies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bad Robot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oscars]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pixar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Star Trek 11]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Hangover]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transformers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Up]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/?p=1735</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to Variety, the Oscars will, beginning in 2010, begin nominating ten movies for Best Picture.  This will be the first time since 1943 that the Academy has nominated that many films for its top prize; that year&#8217;s winner was Casablanca. The move toward more nominess seems to be specifically engineered to include more popular [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118005322.html?categoryid=13&amp;cs=1" target="_blank" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/www.variety.com/article/VR1118005322.html?categoryid=13_amp_cs=1&amp;referer=');">According to <em>Variety</em></a>, the Oscars will, beginning in 2010, begin nominating ten movies for Best Picture.  This will be the first time since 1943 that the Academy has nominated that many films for its top prize; that year&#8217;s winner was <em>Casablanca</em>.</p>
<p>The move toward more nominess seems to be specifically engineered to include more popular films, and, I suspect, to boost ratings for the telecast of the show.</p>
<p>So, what box-office champs will benefit from the decision this year?  Could we be looking at the first-ever Best Picture-nominated <em>Star Trek </em>movie?  Or could Pixar finally get their due?  I&#8217;ll go ahead and put my bet on <em>The Hangover</em>, and I make to you this promise: if <em>Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen </em>is nominated for Best Picture, I will never watch the Oscars again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/2009/06/24/oscar-to-begin-honoring-ten-best-picture-nominees/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Box-Office Review: June 19-21, 2009</title>
		<link>http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/2009/06/22/box-office-review-june-19-21-2009/</link>
		<comments>http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/2009/06/22/box-office-review-june-19-21-2009/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:12:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Honk Mahfah</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Box-Office Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Movies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bad Robot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pixar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ryan Reynolds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sandra Bullock]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Star Trek 11]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Hangover]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transformers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Up]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Woody Allen]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/?p=1709</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So &#8230; did the three dudes with headaches hang over to a third weekend at the top of the box office? Hah-hah-heh-hah-hah!  Get it?  Hang over?  Ooh-eeh-hooh-hah-hah!  (EDITOR&#8217;S NOTE: Ting-tang, walla-walla bang-bang&#8230;?) You know, like the movie The Hangover!  Is big hit!  You like! (1)  The Proposal ($34.1 million, $11,163 per screen):  No, they did [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So &#8230; did the three dudes with headaches <em>hang over</em> to a third weekend at the top of the box office?</p>
<p>Hah-hah-heh-hah-hah!  Get it?  <em><strong>Hang over</strong></em>?  Ooh-eeh-hooh-hah-hah!  (EDITOR&#8217;S NOTE: Ting-tang, walla-walla bang-bang&#8230;?)</p>
<p>You know, like the movie <em>The Hangover</em>!  Is big hit!  You like!</p>
<p><span id="more-1709"></span>(1)  <em>The Proposal </em>($34.1 million, $11,163 per screen):  No, they did <strong>not </strong><em>hang over </em>to a third consecutive #1 performance.  Top of the heap this weekend belongs to Sandra Bullock (having a career-best opening weekend) and Ryan Reynolds (possibly cementing his status as an A-lister).  The writing was on the wall for this one when sneak previews did extremely well last weekend, and while <em>The Hangover </em>&#8211; a de facto date movie &#8212; might have hurt it in Spock Prime&#8217;s universe, in this one it doesn&#8217;t seem to have hurt it a bit.  Legs could be long, because they usually are for romantic comedies.</p>
<p>(2)  <em>The Hangover </em>($26.8 million, $7575 per screen, $152.9 million total):  Down a measly 18% this weekend, this movie is starting to look less like a word-of-mouth hit and more like a word-of-mouth phenomenon.  For stinging red fuck&#8217;s sake, Hollywood, please pay attention to this: a movie that isn&#8217;t a superhero flick or a remake <strong>CAN </strong>still be an enormous hit.</p>
<p>(3)  <em>Up </em>($21.3 million, $5568 per screen, $224.1 million):  Speaking of which &#8230; please take notice of <em>Up</em>.  Actually, don&#8217;t.  Unless you actually <em>are </em>Pixar, you ain&#8217;t Pixar, and I&#8217;d truly hate to see what Hollywood aping Pixar would look like.  It&#8217;s down 31% this weekend, and will likely take some abuse from both <em>Transformers </em>and <em>Ice Age </em>over the next couple of weeks, but its status as a classic and as a big old fat hit is already in the bank; everything from this point on is gravy.  And there may yet be a lot of gravy.</p>
<p>(4)  <em>Year One </em>($20.2 million, $6684 per screen):  Not nearly as bad an opening as it might have had, when you consider how bad the reviews were, and how well the considerable competition (specifically, from <em>The Proposal </em>and <em>The Hangover</em>) did this weekend.  Where will the movie go from here?  My inclination is to say straight to the $5 bin at Wal-Mart, but I didn&#8217;t think it would open this well, so maybe I&#8217;m not the best judge of <em>Year One</em>&#8216;s appeal.</p>
<p>(5)  <em>The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 </em>($11.3 million, $3672 per screen, $43.3 million total):  Yikes.  Down 52% this weekend; not good for an adult-centric movie.  Unless this thing levels out quickly, it&#8217;s not going to make even $75 million.  And if that gets Tony Scott to stop making movies, then I&#8217;m all for it.  People: go see <em>The Hangover </em>or <em>Up </em>instead!</p>
<p>(6)  <em>Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian </em>($7.3 million, $2465 per screen, $155.9 million total):  With summer in full swing, parents are getting desperate to get their children out of the house &#8230; so desperate, in fact, that they&#8217;ll stoop so low as to take them to see this movie.  It&#8217;s down only 24% this weekend, which is really quite good.  Fox is doing extremely well with this movie in its later weeks, and while it&#8217;s still not going to get close to the performance of its ancestor, it&#8217;s doing okay.</p>
<p>(7)  <em>Star Trek </em>($4.7 million, $2037 per screen, $239.4 million total):  Ah, yes, <em>Star Trek</em>.  This movie is doing extremely well at this point in its run.  This weekend, it dropped a best-in-the-top-ten 14%(!), and managed to sneak past <em>Star Trek: The Motion Picture </em>to become (arguably) the most successful Trek movie of all time.  Until somebody does a better job, J.J. Abrams has set the bar for how to properly do a remake, or a reboot, or a reimagining, or whatever you want to call this.  I can&#8217;t wait to see where it goes from here (not just for the franchise, but for the director and his new superstars).  Here&#8217;s hoping Chris Pine can avoid Shatner&#8217;s mistakes, and that Zachary Quinto&#8217;s agent can get him out of that <em>Heroes </em>contract, stat.</p>
<p>(8)  <em>Land of the Lost </em>($3.9 million, $1350 per screen, $43.6 million total):  Fading fast, the Will Ferrell-led sci-fi comedy is going to go down in history as a grave misstep for all involved, except for composer Michael Giacchino, who&#8217;s got <em>Star Trek </em>and <em>Up </em>to keep him warm at night.</p>
<p>(9)  <em>Imagine That </em>($3.1 million, $1030 per screen, $11.3 million total):  Somehow, this movie managed to add three screens this weekend.  Seriously&#8230;?  Who looked at its performance last weekend and said, &#8220;Yep, better get me some o&#8217; that&#8221;?  Regardless, it&#8217;s a huge dud for Murphy and Paramount, and will be long gone two weeks from now.</p>
<p>(10)  <em>Terminator Salvation </em>($3 million, $1599 per screen, $119.5 million total):  Continuing to slink off in disgrace, McG&#8217;s magnum opus spends one final week in the top ten in America.  No word yet on how it did overseas this weekend; it&#8217;s been doing admirably outside the states, though, so maybe all is not yet lost for the franchise.</p>
<p>(17)  <em>Whatever Works</em>:  Opening on nine screens and averaging $31,222 per, Woody Allen&#8217;s latest comedy got mostly good reviews and did standard opening-weekend Woody business.  It likely won&#8217;t go much further from there, but hey, you never know.</p>
<p>Next week &#8212; Tuesday around midnight, in fact &#8212; brings us the much-anticipated <em>Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen</em>.  Yawn, says I.  &#8220;Sure, we&#8217;ll be <em>thrilled</em> to part with our $175 million,&#8221; says America by the time Monday has arrived.</p>
<p>Also opening, for some unknown reason, is <em>My Sister&#8217;s Keeper</em>, a Cameron Diaz/Abigail Breslin movie.  It hits on Friday, and I&#8217;ll be surprised if it cracks the top ten.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/2009/06/22/box-office-review-june-19-21-2009/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Box-Office Review: June 12-15, 2009</title>
		<link>http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/2009/06/15/box-office-review-june-12-15-2009/</link>
		<comments>http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/2009/06/15/box-office-review-june-12-15-2009/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:58:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Honk Mahfah</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Box-Office Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Movies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drag Me to Hell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pixar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terminator Salvation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Hangover]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Terminator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Up]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/?p=1447</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Hangover spends a second consecutive weekend at the number one spot, barely staving off a blockbuster opening by Eddie Murphy&#8217;s Imagine That. To find out which part of that is bullshit, keep reading. (1)  The Hangover ($33.4 million, $9960 per screen, $105.3 million total):  Dropping a mere 26% from its excellent debut weekend, the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>The Hangover </em>spends a second consecutive weekend at the number one spot, barely staving off a blockbuster opening by Eddie Murphy&#8217;s <em>Imagine That</em>.</p>
<p>To find out which part of that is bullshit, keep reading.</p>
<p><span id="more-1447"></span>(1)  <em>The Hangover</em> ($33.4 million, $9960 per screen, $105.3 million total):  Dropping a mere 26% from its excellent debut weekend, the Vegas-themed comedy is opening cans of whoop-ass every day.  Box-office analysts &#8212; the amateur ones (like me!), at least &#8212; tend to be a bit myopic, paying attention only to weekend numbers.  Anybody doing that would have missed the fact that after its opening weekend, <em>The Hangover </em>grossed just under $27 million from Monday through Thursday; word of mouth was strong, and so were ticket sales.  You&#8217;d have to be a retard to think this wasn&#8217;t going to translate into a phenomenal second weekend.  The movie&#8217;ll have no trouble whatsoever hitting $200 million; I&#8217;d wager that the film&#8217;s key creative personnel both in front of and behind the camera are going to be getting big raises &#8230; as will everyone at Warner Bros. responsible for greenlighting and marketing the movie.</p>
<p>(2)  <em>Up </em>($30.5 million, $7853 per screen, $187.1 million total):  Everybody at Pixar deserves a raise too &#8230; but Christ, when <em>haven&#8217;t </em>they?  Speaking of solid weekday totals, <em>Up </em>brought in nearly $19.5 million between last weekend and this one.  The movie is on pace to be Pixar&#8217;s biggest hit since <em>The Incredibles</em>, and it&#8217;s got a shot at topping even that one.</p>
<p>(3)  <em>The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3</em> ($25 million, $8133 per screen):  The box-office allure of both Denzel Washington and John Travolta has sometimes been overestimated; the truth is, neither of those guys has ever been a name that would drive a truly blockbuster opening.  What they both <em>have </em>done is been fairly consistent at at least getting people to notice their movies.  And that&#8217;s basically what happened here: nothing grand or notable, but big enough that in a few year&#8217;s time, people will still be at least aware that such a movie exists.  If that seems like an uninteresting way to describe it, well, you&#8217;re probably right, but that don&#8217;t make <em>me</em> wrong.</p>
<p>(4)  <em>Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian</em> ($9.6 million, $2853 per screen, $143.4 million total):  Down only 34% this week, the sequel has done fairly well for itself after a somewhat disappointing opening.  Unquestionably hurt by <em>Up</em>, I wonder if it&#8217;s begun to benefit from sold-out shows of Pixar&#8217;s hit?  Possibly.  I doubt we&#8217;ll see a third film in this franchise, but if we do, I&#8217;ll betcha it opens at Christmastime.</p>
<p>(5)  <em>Land of the Lost </em>($9.1 million, $2590 per screen, $34.9 million total):  The Will Ferrell flick dropped 51% this weekend, which isn&#8217;t great &#8230; but I&#8217;ve seen far worse.  Can it be that people who saw it last weekend didn&#8217;t hate it quite as much as I predicted they would?  I don&#8217;t know, but it now appears that the movie will at least be able to make it to the $50 million mark.  It&#8217;s still a bit of a hemorrhoid for Universal &#8230; just maybe not a bleeding one.</p>
<p>(6)  <em>Imagine That </em>($5.7 million, $1895 per screen):  No, the Bleeding Hemorrhoid award for the week goes to Eddie Murphy, who has opened his second straight comedy beneath $6 million.  And I use the word &#8220;opened&#8221; loosely.  Come to think of it, I use the word &#8220;straight&#8221; loosely, too.  This guy&#8217;s career as a leading man is all but finished.  I&#8217;m sure there&#8217;ll be another sequel to <em>The Nutty Professor </em>or even <em>Beverly Hills Cop </em>to aim at reclaiming his place in people&#8217;s wallets, but if whatever that comeback role is fails, then Murphy is well advised to hang on for dear life to the check he&#8217;ll be getting for <em>Shrek 4</em>.</p>
<p>(7)  <em>Star Trek </em>($5.6 million, $2123 per screen, $232 million total):  Down 32% this weekend, <em>Star Trek </em>continues to hold well.  It&#8217;s going to be a hard road to $250 million, but the <em>Enterprise </em>might yet make it.</p>
<p>(8)  <em>Terminator Salvation </em>($4.6 million, $1772 per screen, $113.8 million total):  One weekend to go before <em>Transformers </em>opens and makes more in five days than this movie will make in its entire run.  Poor McG; all that bluster, wasted.  I don&#8217;t feel sorry for the guy, though, partly because he made a weak movie, but also because that weak movie is doing much better business elsewhere in the world than it is doing here in America.  Its international total is up to $165.5 million; if it can manage to double that, then I&#8217;d be willing to call it a hit.</p>
<p>(9)  <em>Angels &amp; Demons </em>($4.2 million, $1724 per screen, $123.3 million total):  <em>Angels &amp; Demons</em>, on the other hand, is definitely a hit.  It&#8217;s up to $315 million internationally, which is pretty darn good.  It&#8217;s been an underperformer stateside, but in this instance, it doesn&#8217;t much matter.</p>
<p>(10)  <em>Drag Me to Hell </em>($3.8 million, $1700 per screen, $35.1 million total):  If you are a horror movie fan and you haven&#8217;t been to see this movie, then go fuck yourself.  Some of the pure shit you were willing to shell out for, and you won&#8217;t support a genuinely <em>good </em>horror movie?  Yep.  You should go fuck yourself.</p>
<p>(14)  <em>Away We Go</em>:  The Sam Mendes dramedy expanded to 45 theatres, and averaged $12,311 per.  That&#8217;s not spectacular, but it&#8217;ll probably warrant further expansion and result in the movie being added to a lot of Netflix queues.</p>
<p>(20)  <em>Moon</em>:  Sam Rockwell&#8217;s sci-fi flick debuted on eight screens and averaged $18,125 per.  Please see the second sentence of the <em>Away We Go </em>results.</p>
<p>Opening next weekend: <em>The Proposal </em>and <em>Year One</em>.</p>
<p><em>The Proposal </em>had a sneak preview this past Saturday night, and played to 88% capacity, <a href="http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118004934.html?categoryid=10&amp;cs=1" target="_blank" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/www.variety.com/article/VR1118004934.html?categoryid=10_amp_cs=1&amp;referer=');">according to <em>Variety</em></a>.  That probably means the movie is going to be a hit; I&#8217;m a-gonna say &#8230; $29 million opening.</p>
<p><em>Year One </em>may be lucky to earn half that.  I&#8217;ve been wrong before &#8212; shocking, I know &#8212; but I don&#8217;t get the sense that anyone wants to see this movie.  Jack Black and Michael Cera will pull in a few hipsters while they&#8217;re not busy ironing their t-shirts and Febrezing their cabbies, but I&#8217;m guessing the rest of the country is going to be entirely unmoved.  Also, the hipsters will still be busy seeing <em>The Hangover</em>.  I&#8217;m going to say $11 million for <em>Year One</em>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/2009/06/15/box-office-review-june-12-15-2009/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Box-Office Review: June 5-7, 2009</title>
		<link>http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/2009/06/08/box-office-review-june-5-7-2009/</link>
		<comments>http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/2009/06/08/box-office-review-june-5-7-2009/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:04:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Honk Mahfah</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Box-Office Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Movies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drag Me to Hell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Land of the Lost]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michael Giacchino]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pixar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Star Trek 11]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terminator Salvation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Hangover]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Terminator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Up]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Will Ferrell]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/?p=1411</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Who won the weekend?  Was it Will Ferrell, Ed Asner, or Mike Tyson? Here&#8217;s a hint: it wasn&#8217;t Will Ferrell. (1)  The Hangover ($44.9 million, $13,759 per screen):  In a surprise upset, Sunday estimates pegged Up as the number one film for a second consecutive weekend.  However, in a Shyamalanesque last-scene plot twist, Variety broke [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Who won the weekend?  Was it Will Ferrell, Ed Asner, or Mike Tyson?</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s a hint: it wasn&#8217;t Will Ferrell.</p>
<p><span id="more-1411"></span>(1)  <em>The Hangover </em>($44.9 million, $13,759 per screen):  In a surprise upset, Sunday estimates pegged <em>Up </em>as the number one film for a second consecutive weekend.  However, in a Shyamalanesque last-scene plot twist, <em>Variety </em>broke the <a href="http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118004657.html?categoryid=13&amp;cs=1" target="_blank" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/www.variety.com/article/VR1118004657.html?categoryid=13_amp_cs=1&amp;referer=');">news</a> today that <em>The Hangover </em>had rallied and reclaimed the #1 position thanks to stronger than expected grosses on Sunday.  Man, that&#8217;s excitinger than NASCAR!</p>
<p>No matter which position <em>The Hangover </em>occupies, it had a <strong>terrific </strong>weekend.  In fact, the entire industry seems to be fairly stunned by the movie&#8217;s success.  R-rated comedies simply don&#8217;t open this strongly very often, and every time they do, it&#8217;s big news; everyone loves a surprise.  I&#8217;d have to say that if there&#8217;s one element of this film&#8217;s success that deserves the credit, it&#8217;s the trailer campaign.  Those trailers were outstanding, delivering a steady stream of unexpectedly weird (yet totally relatable) humor that got progressively weirder as they went along.  And thus it is that Mike Tyson became one of the deadliest secret weapons unleashed so far this year.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s how to interpret that greater-than-expected Sunday gross, by the way: people are flipping right the fuck out about how much they like this movie.  Personally, I wasn&#8217;t quite as impressed, but hey, that&#8217;s just me; the rest of the country had a blast, told friends, and will possibly be responsible for this movie having a second weekend at the top of the box-office heap next weekend.</p>
<p>(2)  <em>Up </em>($44.1 million, $11,561 per screen, $137.2 million total):  Okay, sure, <em>Up </em>might not actually have been number one for the weekend &#8230; but don&#8217;t let that make this film&#8217;s second weekend seem any less impressive.  It&#8217;s down only about 35% from its excellent debut, and for a movie doing blockbuster business, that&#8217;s outstanding.  The word of mouth seems to be fantastic, which is great news for Pixar&#8217;s long-term prospects.  Those more-expensive 3D tickets are helping, and the lack of any direct competition until <em>Ice Age 3 </em>opens on July 1 means that <em>Up </em>has an entire month with the family-film field more or less all to itself.  This movie may turn out to be Pixar&#8217;s highest-grossing since <em>Cars</em>, and given how ambivalent certain segments of the industry seemed to be over <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/business/media/06pixar.html" target="_blank" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/www.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/business/media/06pixar.html?referer=');">the movie&#8217;s commercial prospects</a>, that would be a major success.</p>
<p>(3)  <em>Land of the Lost </em>($18.8 million, $5350 per screen):  Ouch.  For as high-profile a movie to open this poorly is disastrous.  Unmitigatedly, career-devastatingly disastrous.  We&#8217;re in an era in which a big-business film can easily make twice as much <em>on its opening day</em>; an opening weekend this miniscule is simply not acceptable.  Will Ferrell is likely to find his salary lowered, and his ability to instantly have a project greenlit damaged; director Brad Silberling will have a hard time getting another large budget; and the director of the marketing campaign, if there&#8217;s any justice, will be working at a Target.</p>
<p>Part of this seems to have been simple bad luck.  There were two ways the movie could have been sold: as a family-friendly sci-fi adventure or as a satirical absurdist comedy for hipsters.  The latter approach would have been much more accurate to the actual content of the film, and might have at least made the film seem more interesting (with a bit of editing to downplay the plot in some scenes, the movie itself might have been successful on those grounds) &#8230; but even then, <em>The Hangover </em>would have annihilated it.  Sold as a family action film, the effects and sets and makeup looked like garbage, and the few bits of humor clean enough to preserve the illusion of family-friendly fun were feeble and unfunny; what family would opt for this over <em>Up </em>and <em>Night at the Museum</em>?</p>
<p>Expect the dropoff next weekend to be in the 70% range, if not more; exhibitors are going to dump this thing as quickly as they are contractually allowed.  The final gross will be less than $50 million, which is possibly even more disappointing a performance for Universal than Warner Bros. had last summer with <em>Speed Racer</em>.</p>
<p>(4)  <em>Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian</em> ($14.6 million, $3844 per screen, $127.3 million total):  Down only about 40% this weekend, the Ben Stiller comedy had a fairly good third weekend.  This is proving to be a strong summer for family movies at the box office &#8230; which makes <em>Land of the Lost </em>seem like even more of a bomb.  The museum sequel has still been hit hard by Pixar, but not quite as hard as it appeared last weekend.</p>
<p>(5)  <em>Star Trek </em>($8.3 million, $2595 per screen, $222.7 million total):  Spending a fifth consecutive weekend in the top five, <em>Star Trek </em>is doing terrific business.  It&#8217;s on track to become the highest-grossing of all the Trek movies even with inflation taken into account (adjusted to 2009 dollars, <em>Star Trek: The Motion Picture </em>made roughly $239 million).  That has to be considered a major success for Paramount.</p>
<p>The news isn&#8217;t quite as rosy for the movie&#8217;s grosses outside of America: internationally, it&#8217;s made only about $112 million.  However, the franchise has traditionally performed poorly overseas relative to its domestic performance; the previous high earner in the franchise was <em>Star Trek: First Contact</em>, which earned a mere $57.4 million (or $78 million adjusted).</p>
<p>What does all that mean?  Well, it means that Trek is primarily an American phenomenon.  However, consider this: using the adjusted totals, <em>Star Trek </em>(2009) domestic box-office gross is currently 92.8% as much as the gross for the previous top earner in the series &#8230; whereas its international gross is 43.5% <em>more </em>than the previous top earner.  In other words, compared to the previous benchmark for the franchise, the international grosses are actually outpacing the domestic grosses by a substantial margin.  What that says to me is that Paramount has succeeded not only in rejuvenating the series at home, it has succeeded in greatly boosting its international appeal.  From that perspective, the international grosses begin to look rather impressive, which is probably great news for the sequel, provided they can maintain the quality level.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s also worth noting that composer Michael Giacchino has three films in the top five this weekend (<em>Up</em>, <em>Land of the Lost</em>, and <em>Star Trek</em>), a significant achievement for anyone working in Hollywood.</p>
<p>(6)  <em>Terminator Salvation </em>($8.2 million, $2496 per screen, $105.5 million total):  Down 50% this weekend, the slide is easing a bit, but it&#8217;s too little, too late.  A bit of good news from the overseas markets: its opening weekend brought in $67.5 million internationally.  It&#8217;s at slightly more than $100 million internationally, and great international grosses are the one thing which could potentially save the franchise; if the worldwide total can get to, say, $400 million, then there might yet be another sequel.  Hopefully, it will be without this film&#8217;s writers and director.</p>
<p>(7)  <em>Drag Me to Hell </em>($7 million, $2805 per screen, $28.2 million total):  Down nearly 54% this weekend, which puzzles me a bit.  I felt sure this would be a big word-of-mouth success; after all, what horror fan wouldn&#8217;t have had a blast watching this movie?  Can it be that the circa-2009 horror movie audience is composed of idiots who wouldn&#8217;t know a good horror movie if it vomited bugs onto their faces?  That&#8217;s my theory.  How dreck like <em>The Haunting in Connecticut </em>could post better earnings than <em>Drag Me to Hell </em>is a mystery to me &#8230; or is it?  I wonder if this might have something to do with the release date?  Horror films are largely attended by high-school students, and since school is currently out for everyone except those too retarded in their progress to advance to the next grade, might it be that reduced lunchroom gatherings have translated into reduced social planning, and reduced ticket sales for Sam Raimi&#8217;s triumphant return to his stomping grounds?  I&#8217;m not sure, but it makes as much sense to me as any other theory.  Either way, it was an inexpensive production, and its life on Blu-ray and DVD will be a long one.  The per-screen average is better than both <em>Trek </em>and <em>Terminator</em>, so screen count appears to be an ongoing downside.</p>
<p>(8)  <em>Angels &amp; Demons </em>($6.5 million, $2239 per screen, $116.1 million total):  Another decent weekend, but it&#8217;s close to being played out in America.  It will be hurt by <em>The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 </em>next weekend.  Internationally, though, the movie is up to $293 million, so there&#8217;s no question that Sony has produced a hit film worldwide.</p>
<p>(9)  <em>My Life In Ruins </em>($3.2 million, $2769 per screen):  Opening on less than 1200 screens, the Nia Vardalos romcom was certainly no <em>My Big Fat Greek Wedding </em>(not that that one had a giant opening weekend, either), but its per-screen numbers were better than several of the movies ahead of it on this list.  Fox was crazy to open this movie during the first weekend of June; according to reviews, it&#8217;s a shite movie, but if it had opened on some other weekend (preferably not one smack dab in the middle of the summer), then it might have done decent business.  As it is, it&#8217;s going to fade fast.</p>
<p>(10)  <em>Dance Flick </em>($1.9 million, $1147 per screen, $22.6 million total):  Yuck.  I can&#8217;t stop writing about this one fast enough.</p>
<p>Elsewhere in box-office news, <em>The Brothers Bloom </em>has now officially failed to find traction in limited release, grossing only $2457 per screen in its fourth weekend (it&#8217;s at a bit more than $2 million total, which is weak).</p>
<p>The news might be better for <em>Away We Go</em>.  The Sam Mendes/John Krasinksi/Maya Rudolph dramedy opened on a whopping four screens and averaged $35,750 per; expansion might turn this one into a small-scale summer sleeper, but the slightness of the selling makes that a slippery slope to &#8230; climb.</p>
<p>Next weekend: <em>The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 </em>and <em>Imagine That</em>.  I think <em>The Hangover </em>will be #1 again, but Denzel Washington and <em>Pelham </em>might be able to eek one out.  I think it&#8217;s going to make $20-25 million, and that <em>Imagine That </em>will be good for only about $11 million.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/2009/06/08/box-office-review-june-5-7-2009/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pixar&#8217;s Luxo Jr. is coming to Disney World</title>
		<link>http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/2009/06/02/pixars-luxo-jr-is-coming-to-disney-world/</link>
		<comments>http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/2009/06/02/pixars-luxo-jr-is-coming-to-disney-world/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 18:10:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>MadWatchStudios</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Disney Parks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Movies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disney Hollywood Studios]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pixar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theme Parks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/?p=1291</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Disney has confirmed that a 6 foot animatronic version of Luxo Jr. will be coming to the Pixar Place section of Disney&#8217;s Hollywood Studios theme park in Disney World. Luxo Jr. is the star of Pixar&#8217;s first short film, but most guests will recognize the hopping desk-lamp as the &#8220;i&#8221; in the Pixar logo. You [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Disney has confirmed that a 6 foot animatronic version of Luxo Jr. will be coming to the Pixar Place section of Disney&#8217;s Hollywood Studios theme park in Disney World.  Luxo Jr. is the star of Pixar&#8217;s first short film, but most guests will recognize the hopping desk-lamp as the &#8220;i&#8221; in the Pixar logo.<br />
You can read the full article at <a href="http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/business_tourism_aviation/2009/06/its-official-luxo-jr-is-coming-to-disney-world.html#trackback" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/blogs.orlandosentinel.com/business_tourism_aviation/2009/06/its-official-luxo-jr-is-coming-to-disney-world.html_trackback?referer=');">Orlando Sentinel</a>.<br />
I&#8217;m interested to see what kind of movement Disney will give the animatronic Luxo, since his most common movement is hopping.<br />
<img src="http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/pixarlogo.jpg" alt="Pixar logo" width="317" height="77" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/2009/06/02/pixars-luxo-jr-is-coming-to-disney-world/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Box-Office Review: May 29-31, 2009</title>
		<link>http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/2009/06/01/box-office-review-may-29-31-2009/</link>
		<comments>http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/2009/06/01/box-office-review-may-29-31-2009/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2009 21:57:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Honk Mahfah</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Box-Office Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Movies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drag Me to Hell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pixar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sam Raimi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Star Trek 11]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terminator Salvation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Terminator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Up]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/?p=1277</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Honk Mahfah reports on the weekend box-office, which finds Pixar going ten-for-ten at the bat. (1)  Up ($68.1 million, $18,085 per screen):  Has any company in Hollywood history ever had ten box-office hits in a row?  It seems unlikely, but Pixar specializes in making the unlikely get up and walk.  And you might as well [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Honk Mahfah reports on the weekend box-office, which finds Pixar going ten-for-ten at the bat.</p>
<p><span id="more-1277"></span>(1)  <em>Up </em>($68.1 million, $18,085 per screen):  Has any company in Hollywood history ever had ten box-office hits in a row?  It seems unlikely, but Pixar specializes in making the unlikely get up and walk.  And you might as well go ahead and mark it twelve-for-twelve, since the company&#8217;s next two films are <em>Toy Story 3 </em>and <em>Cars 2</em>.  As for <em>Up</em>, a $68 million debut is phenomenal.  Sure, sure, I know; 3D tickets are more expensive, so the attendance isn&#8217;t as impressive as it looks.  However, the fact that people are more than willing to pay that premium ticket price says something, and the fact that this many of them paid to see a movie about a 78-year-old man says that they were there for Pixar, not for the concept.  You might recall this writer suggesting a weak debut ($35-40 million) was in the cards; well, I was full of shit on that count.  If the box-office follows the pattern of most of Pixar&#8217;s films, <em>Up </em>will end the summer with anywhere from $225-275 million.  And on the toy store front, not since Obi-Wan Kenobi back in 1977 will action figures of elderly people have had this much demand.</p>
<p>(2)  <em>Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian</em> ($24.3 million, $5939 per screen, $104.1 million total):  Down 55% from its debut last weekend, Ben Stiller&#8217;s effects comedy held up reasonably well considering the big guns Pixar was hoisting.  Still, it&#8217;s got another major competitor this week, and since it is going to finish well below $200 million (the original made $250 million), I think this sequel has to be considered a disappointment.</p>
<p>(3)  <em>Terminator Salvation </em>($16.4 million, $4562 per screen, $90.9 million total):  <strong>This </strong>sequel, on the other hand, has to be considered an outright failure.  It&#8217;s not even going to make as much money as <em>Terminator 3 </em>made six years ago &#8230; and <em>that </em>one was a disappointment.  Down 61% this weekend, which is par for the course for big mediocre summer movies at this point, the McG flick is going to need to make three times as much money overseas in order for the franchise to not be dead after this.</p>
<p>(4)  <em>Drag Me to Hell </em>($15.8 million, $6310 per screen):  As wrong as I was about <em>Up </em>in my predictions last weekend, I was even more wronger about <em>Drag Me to Hell</em>.  I said I thought it could go as high as $45 million over the weekend, and it only made a third of that.  I, clearly, am dumb as &#8230; hell.  So, clearly, are moviegoers.  How many vastly inferior horror films have opened better than this one?  With a PG-13 rating and great reviews lending a hand, <em>Drag Me to Hell </em>ought to have done way, way better than this.  One bright side: the per-screen average, which was the second-best in the Top 10 this weekend.</p>
<p>(5)  <em>Star Trek </em>($12.6 million, $3597 per screen, $209.3 million total):  Down 45% this weekend, the Bad Robot production continues to impress.  It now seems very likely that it will become the highest-grossing of all the Trek movies even if inflation is taken into account (<em>Star Trek: The Motion Picture</em>&#8216;s $82.3 million would look like about $235 million in today&#8217;s dollars).  Go ahead and pencil it in: the sequel will be even more successful &#8230; unless it&#8217;s an adaptation of &#8220;The Alternative Factor.&#8221;</p>
<p>(6)  <em>Angels &amp; Demons </em>($11.3 million, $3278 per screen, $104.9 million total):  Down 47% this weekend, the Dan Brown/Ron Howard/Tom Hanks flick is doing moderate business at best.  With no other adultcentric movies in wide release, it really ought to be doing better than this.  Is it possible that adults were instead opting to see what the fuss is over <em>Star Trek</em>, or to see why critics are raving over <em>Up</em>?  Either way, Sony is raking in the bucks overseas, so <em>Angels &amp; Demons </em>will go down in the books as a big hit no matter what it ends up making in America.</p>
<p>(7)  <em>Dance Flick </em>($4.7 million, $1929 per screen, $19 million total):  Down 55% from its debut, the spoof is fading fast.</p>
<p>(8)  <em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine </em>($3.8 million, $1712 per screen, $170.8 million total):  Probably one more weekend in the top ten for this one.</p>
<p>(9)  <em>Ghosts of Girlfriends Past </em>($1.9 million, $1318 per screen, $50 million total):  Finally making it to $50 mliion, this movie won&#8217;t be an embarrassment on anyone&#8217;s resume, but it&#8217;s also not going to be much or a bargaining chip, either.</p>
<p>(10)  <em>Obsessed </em>($0.6 million, $968 per screen, $67.5 million total):  You never want to see a movie in the top ten making less than a million.</p>
<p>Next weekend brings <em>Land of the Lost</em>, <em>The Hangover</em>, and <em>My Life In Ruins</em>.  I&#8217;m going to predict $45 million for <em>Land of the Lost</em>, $25 million for <em>The Hangover</em>, and $WhoCares for <em>My Life In Ruins</em>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/2009/06/01/box-office-review-may-29-31-2009/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Box-Office Review: May 22-25, 2009</title>
		<link>http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/2009/05/25/box-office-review-may-22-25-2009/</link>
		<comments>http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/2009/05/25/box-office-review-may-22-25-2009/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2009 21:11:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Honk Mahfah</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Box-Office Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Movies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Angels & Demons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Christian Bale]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[McG]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pixar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robert Langdon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ron Howard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Star Trek 11]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terminator Salvation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Terminator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tom Hanks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Up]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[X-Men]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/?p=1097</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Honk Mahfah analyzes Memorial Day weekend at the box office, with two major franchise sequels duking it out for the top spot. (1)  Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian ($70 million, $17,090 per screen):  A solid debut, but I can&#8217;t help thinking that Fox would have done themselves a favor by releasing this [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Honk Mahfah analyzes Memorial Day weekend at the box office, with two major franchise sequels duking it out for the top spot.</p>
<p><span id="more-1097"></span></p>
<p>(1)  <em>Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian </em>($70 million, $17,090 per screen):  A solid debut, but I can&#8217;t help thinking that Fox would have done themselves a favor by releasing this one at Christmas.  That&#8217;s where the original made the $250 million it ended up with; this movie will struggle to make it to $200 million.</p>
<p>(2)  <em>Terminator Salvation </em>($53.8 million, $15,248 per screen, $67.1 million total):  Perhaps foolishly, industry expectations were that this movie would make somewhere close to $100 million from Thursday-Monday; instead, it got nowhere near that mark, and goes down in the record books as a major disappointment.  Unless the week-to-week audience retention is strong, this one isn&#8217;t going to get close to $150 million, and both director McG and star Christian Bale will have bruised careers to show for it.  Consider this franchise terminated.</p>
<p>(3)  <em>Star Trek </em>($29.4 million, $7254 per screen, $191 million):  Weathering the Stiller/Bale storm quite admirably &#8212; especially considering that it lost all of its high-grossing IMAX screens to <em>Night at the Museum </em>&#8211; the franchise reboot continued chugging along.  At this point, it&#8217;s probably seen its last genuinely impressive weekend, but it will probably cross the $200 million mark before Friday.</p>
<p>(4)  <em>Angels &amp; Demons </em>($27.7 million, $7854 per screen, $87.8 million total):  This one is going to top out at about $150 million domestically, but it&#8217;s already up to about $200 million internationally.  Both of those numbers represent declines from the performance of <em>The DaVinci Code</em>, but are still pretty solid.</p>
<p>(5)  <em>Dance Flick </em>($13.1 million, $5247 per screen):  Given that practically nothing was expected from this movie, $13 million isn&#8217;t too shabby.  It will get slaughtered by <em>Drag Me to Hell </em>next weekend, though.</p>
<p>(6)  <em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine </em>($10.1 million, $3171 per screen, $165.3 million total):  Old Wolvie has been saving face a bit the last couple of weekends, and it looks increasingly possible that the movie could make $200 million.  As poorly-reviewed and as widely-pirated as this one has been, it&#8217;s actually performing rather well; it may be benefiting big-time from the lack of other superhero movies in the marketplace.</p>
<p>(7)  <em>Ghosts of Girlfriends Past </em>($4.8 million, $2144 per screen, $46.9 million total):  Another relatively decent weekend for the romantic comedy, which, like <em>Wolverine</em>, may be benefiting from the lack of similar movies.</p>
<p>(8)  <em>Obsessed </em>($2.5 million, $1560 per screen, $66.4 million total):  An awesome total gross for a movie with a $20 million budget.</p>
<p>(9)  <em>Monsters vs. Aliens </em>($1.9 million, $1325 per screen, $193.5 million total):  With <em>Up </em>arriving next weekend to drive away most of the 3D screens, this one is pretty well done for.  Second-run screens might yet get it to $200 million, though.</p>
<p>(10)  <em>17 Again </em>($1.2 million, $1156 per screen, $60.5 million total):  It&#8217;ll be interesting to see where Zac Efron goes from here.  He recently dropped out of the <em>Footloose </em>remake, possibly wanting to build on his success here in a non-musical.</p>
<p>Next weekend has two major debuts: Pixar&#8217;s <em>Up </em>and Sam Raimi&#8217;s <em>Drag Me to Hell</em>.  Of the two, I think it&#8217;s entirely possible that the scary movie will win out.</p>
<p>Even though horror films tend to have a ceiling in terms of how big their opening weekends can be, every now and then one of them will cross over into the mainstream.  I think <em>Drag Me to Hell </em>has a shot at it.  Sam Raimi is a big name, reviews have been strong, and the PG-13 rating is a big help.  I think it could go as high as $45 million.</p>
<p>As for <em>Up</em>, I&#8217;m not entirely sure what to expect.  It&#8217;s opening on a post-holiday weekend, which is never an ideal time to be hitting theatres.  It&#8217;s also got the second weekend of <em>Night at the Museum </em>to contend with, which means that Pixar will probably find more success with adults this weekend than it does with kids.  I think this one is primed and ready to debut at only about $35-40 million and have people wondering if the golden reign of Pixar has ended.  It will end up making nearly $200 million and answering that question with a &#8220;no.&#8221;  Winning the Oscar next spring will put an exclamation mark on it, and then <em>Toy Story 3 </em>opens next summer; so nobody needs to be too worried about Pixar, they&#8217;re doing just fine.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/2009/05/25/box-office-review-may-22-25-2009/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ratatouille star making appearances at Epcot restaurant.</title>
		<link>http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/2009/04/07/ratatouille-star-making-appearances-at-epcot-restaurant/</link>
		<comments>http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/2009/04/07/ratatouille-star-making-appearances-at-epcot-restaurant/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 17:00:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>MadWatchStudios</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Disney Parks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pixar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epcot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theme Parks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/?p=191</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Remy, the main character of Pixar&#8217;s Ratatouille, is now at Epcot in the form of a rat sized animatronic character. He is at the France Pavillion&#8217;s Chefs de France restaurant making appearances around lunch and dinner hours Monday through Friday. Remy originally made his animatronic appearance last year at Disneyland Paris.  He is due to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Remy, the main character of Pixar&#8217;s Ratatouille, is now at Epcot in the form of a rat sized animatronic character. <span id="more-191"></span> He is at the France Pavillion&#8217;s Chefs de France restaurant making appearances around lunch and dinner hours Monday through Friday.</p>
<div class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 345px"><a href="http://www.mousesteps.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=270&amp;Itemid=65" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/www.mousesteps.com/index.php?option=com_content_amp_task=view_amp_id=270_amp_Itemid=65&amp;referer=');"><img src="http://www.mousesteps.com/images/stories/Updates%202009/Update%20March%2014/Update/IMG_9102.JPG" alt="Remy at Chefs de France" width="335" height="250" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Remy at Chef&#39;s de France</p></div>
<p>Remy originally made his animatronic appearance last year at Disneyland Paris.  He is due to leave Epcot in mid-September.</p>
<p><a title="More pictures here." href="http://www.mousesteps.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=270&amp;Itemid=65" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/www.mousesteps.com/index.php?option=com_content_amp_task=view_amp_id=270_amp_Itemid=65&amp;referer=');">More pictures here</a></p>
<p><a title="and video here" href="http://jefflangedvd.com/2009/03/remy-living-character-initiative-at-epcots-chefs-de-france-photos-video-epcot-flower-and-garden-festival-pre-opening-part-4/" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/jefflangedvd.com/2009/03/remy-living-character-initiative-at-epcots-chefs-de-france-photos-video-epcot-flower-and-garden-festival-pre-opening-part-4/?referer=');">and video here</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.loadedcouchpotatoes.com/2009/04/07/ratatouille-star-making-appearances-at-epcot-restaurant/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

