The L.A. Times describes a "slow burn" feature at the movie box office, and this season's prime candidate for the title.
There are many holy grails in Hollywood, but few as pursued as the slow-burn success -- that film that doesn't blow away audiences when it first comes out but hangs on long enough to become a breakout. Like the Holy Grail, the slow-burn is frequently sought ...
This year's candidate for the slow-burn, "How to Train Your Dragon," isn't likely to hang around for 12 months, or even until August. But there's something "Greek Wedding"-like about it just the same. When it opened last month, the movie debuted at No 1, but with a soft-ish $43 million. Then it fell from the top spot, vacillating between second and third place for the following three weeks. And this week it reclaimed it. ...
Frankly, I couldn't understand why Dragon didn't open bigger the weekend it premiered, but an old DWA hand explained it to me:
"Look, it was about dragons and Vikings. How commercial is that? It took word of mouth to keep it going, but it's now at four times its first weekend gross and still going. Chris and Dean [the directors] came up with separate sequel ideas that sort of tracked each other, and I think they'll have a chance to make one of them ..."
We debated how much Dragon will end up grossing domestically. He wasn't sure it would go over $200 million, I thought it would. (It doesn't have that much further to go.)
Posts
9 comments:
Is he implying a sequel already?... lol Dragons is DW afterall
like Pixar ... like Blue Sky Studios ...
You saying there's some demonstrable difference?
From http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2712178720100427?type=marketsNews
DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc (DWA.O) posted a lower quarterly profit but beat Wall Street expectations and said it would release a sequel in 2013 to "How To Train Your Dragon," which has grossed nearly $375 million at the global box office since late March.
As long as the original crew works on the sequel, I'm happy. :-D
As opposed to what other crew?
As far as I'm aware no one's left the studio since the film's production.
As opposed to what other crew?
As far as I'm aware no one's left the studio since the film's production.
I heard Monsters 2 might not be directed by Pete Doctor. So, I cannot take crews for granted.
Well, even if Monsters 2 isn't directed by Pete you can bet he's going to have a heavy influence on it and after all, he didn't make the first one all by himself in a vacuum.
You guys have to realize that the credit for these films is usually due to more than one or two guys.
You guys have to realize that the credit for these films is usually due to more than one or two guys.
Right. That's why I specified "crew" instead of "director(s)."
So why then did you write this:
"I heard Monsters 2 might not be directed by Pete Doctor. So, I cannot take crews for granted."?
The point is that by this time Pixar has a pretty solid artistic style and identity. I'm sure the people chosen for a Monsters Inc. sequel won't be wildly out of sync with the spirit and tone of the original film whether they worked on it or not.
Does anyone really believe that's something to worry about?
So why then did you write this:
"I heard Monsters 2 might not be directed by Pete Doctor. So, I cannot take crews for granted."?
I wrote that because I consider a director to be part of the crew.
Post a Comment