On the Money: Previous installments in the series don’t really have much bearing on this as it’s been so long since we had a new Die Hard film, but for the record; Die Hard = $138 million, Die Hard 2: Die Harder = $239 million, Die Hard With a Vengeance = $361 million. Predicted worldwide gross: $350 million.
Personal perspective: I’m a little excited about this one, but only a little. The trailer has its moments but it also shows far too much CGI. Wiseman is definitely no McTiernan, but then neither is McTiernan these days.
Transformers
US Opening: July 6
Budget: Unknown
The Upside: Robots in disguise! Michael Bay making the kind of big dumb movie he was born for. Shia LaBeouf, currently as hot as Angelina Jolie in Tabasco-flavoured edible underwear after Disturbia, headlines. Plus it’s based on a much-loved animated series.
The Downside: It won’t stimulate your mind (but then who expects that from a summer blockbuster?) and audiences may have had their fill of big special effects extravaganzas. It also doesn’t have an established star with proven pulling power.
On the Money: If audiences have had enough of comic book heroes and the Fantastic Four flounder, this could pick up the slack On the other hand, if FF does well, this could pay the price. Predicted worldwide gross: $270 million.
Personal perspective: I’m not a Michael Bay fan, I’ve yet to see a film he’s directed that I can say wholeheartedly I’ve enjoyed. The trailer looks good, but you can say that about any of Bay’s films. But… BIG ROBOTS! The kid in me can’t wait for this one.
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
US Opening: July 13
Budget: $150 million
The Upside: The most established franchise in the summer release schedule this would seem like another guaranteed hit.
The Downside: An untried director in David Yates, whose background is in British TV, a far cry from mega-budget Hollywood epics. Was the failure of Eragon last year a sign that audiences are tired of the epic fantasy genre? And is opening so late in the summer a wise move?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ty
"On the Money: Shrek grossed $485 million, Shrek 2 grossed $921 million, so if the third film follows the same trend it should come it at about $1.5 billion. Somehow I can’t see that happening and while I think this will do well, I think it will fall well short of Shrek 2’s figure and finish behind Spider-Man 3. Predicted worldwide gross: 750 million."
I think you are off. Shrek 2 is the highest grossing comedy OF ALL TIME. It pulls in adults and kids, which is why it will shatter it its own record.
I'm not the biggest fan of this "Franchise" (I hate this overused word in movies now!), but to think that Pirates will out draw it is laughable. The market is just so much bigger for Shrek than Pirates, they will spend their money on Shrek.
Mark my words. The Ogre gets the last laugh (although Donkey is still NOT funny!!!)
2 - Ian Woolstencroft
Thanks for the comment Ty.
You're right about Shrek pulling in both adults and kids but so does Pirates (although not quite such young kids). Still Shrek 2 didn't leave audiences with the need to see the next film. Pirates 2 did amazing business (more than Shrek 2) and it left audiences with a strong desire to see the conclusion, something they've only had to wait twelve months for.
I'm a big Shrek fan and as I said in the article Pirates does nothing for me, so I'd love to see the green dude knock Captain Jack on his arse. I just can't see it happening.
And I hate the term "Franchise" as well (although I've used it). It does seem to fit with the way Hollywood markets its movies - having more in common with McDonald's i.e what's advertised always looks nicer than what you end up with on your tray.
3 - Phillip Winn
Pirates of the Caribbean was a great movie; it's a shame they never made any sequels.
What's that? I can't hear you. Nope, still can't. No sequels at all. That made sense and didn't suck, anyway. I won't be seeing At World's End, for sure.
Then again, I probably won't be seeing Shrek the Third, either. I'm in for Spider-man 3 and 28 Weeks Later, though. And yeah, that last one didn't make your list. Too bad it won't be a "big" movie, but it'll be better than many of these.
4 - Ian Woolstencroft
28 Weeks Later will be in the next list Philip, namely "10 Films to see this Summer if all the Blockbusters have sold out" (or maybe "10 Films to see this Summer if you don't want to leave your brain at home").
It's more than a little worrying that so many of this summers films are sequels but looking on the bright side, at least they're not remakes.
5 - El Bicho
"Added to that they’ve messed with Spidey’s origin, which may piss off the comic book geek contingent."
They already did that with the first movie by giving Peter a reason not to help the promoter out.
I am baffled by the Shrek franchise. I thought the first one was lame. Maybe I had had my fill of poop and fart jokes the day I saw it.
HP will certainly get a boost from the release of the final(?) book.
6 - Ian Woolstencroft
You're right they did but not to the same extent. This is a BIG change, along the lines of Tim Burton's Batman, where Joker killed Bruce Wayne's parents. It also seems more than a little lazy.
You obviously feel the same way about Shrek as I do about Pirates, Bicho.
As for Harry Potter, they are clearly hoping for a push from the final book, hence the summer opening, but I'm not convinced it'll work. With so much competition and a frankly bizarre choice for director, I think it will be a disappointment at the box office, at least by HP standards.
7 - Movie News
Spider-Man 3 actually costed around $500 million to make.
8 - Watch Live TV Online
You forgot the Simpsons which is out in June 26th I think..it's going to kill the competition.
9 - El Bicho
I thought the first Pirates was fun, but the second was a nonsensical bore.
Watch, The Simpsons jumped the shark at least 10 years ago. People might go, but it will most likely be lame.
10 - Bob Sagat
lol, "costed"
11 - VanJoe
I'm puzzled why Stardust is even considered for your list. I think it will be lucky if it gets close to $100 million worldwide, and I'm saying that being a fan of Gaiman.
As for the movies you missed, Ratatouille from Pixar is pretty much guaranteed to be one of the biggest of the year just because its Pixar. Evan Almighty has a good chance of being up there and after Madagascar, how can you not include the Surfing Penguins movie?
12 - nick
American movies are becoming into a great great great sequel (x3) at least 9 of the movies are sequels of sequeles of sequeueleles.. pathetic!
hollywood had good stuff before... now its just crap!
13 - subcorpus
i like the personal note... hehe... check out my list of ten movies as well...
14 - Pat Evans
With the omissions from your list noted by others above, I think you have called it more or less right. Pity that American producers feel that Jackie Chan needs a US sidekick to appeal to the American moviegoing public; Chris Tucker is an absolute disaster and even Owen Wilson wasn't 100 percent successful. However Jackie is getting a little past it to hack it on his own and his recent Hong Kong movies, where he is trying to stretch his acting chops, are really no great shakes.
15 - guru
Ratatouille is surely big one. Surely will make 500 and above
What i can say this is just a list of Sequels of some big hits
16 - Mike D
You are wrong about Harry Potter. The buzz is currently extremely positive and given that the seventh book comes out a week later the hype going into the opening will be tremendous. It has a good chance of beating Goblet of Fire and certainly will do better than Prisoner of Azkaban.
17 - Mike D
Just read your comment,
Based on what has been shown so far, Yates seems to have handled it well. Also, as not being a fan of the franchise yourself, I think you are discounting the massive fanbase which has only grown since Goblet of Fire.
18 - Riddle
Nice listing, but you should know how to use headings (h2, h3) because movie titles are completely unnoticable in that stream of letters, I had to use Firebug to make them stand out (and really see which movies you're describing)
19 - Ian Woolstencroft
Thanks for the comments guys.
To the people who think I forgot the Simpsons, I didn’t forget it I just think that, in a summer full of epic blockbusters, audiences won’t want to go and see something they’ve been able to watch for free on TV for almost 20 years. But I could be wrong.
VanJoe, I think Stardust is going to do well because it will work as a date movie; it’s a fantasy rom-com. I think it would have done better if it wasn’t following Harry Potter though. In fact I think the film should have been held over until Christmas when it could have cleaned up rather than fighting for Harry’s scraps.
Pat, I think you’re spot on about Jackie Chan. It’s a pity he never really got a chance at Hollywood when he was in his prime.
guru, Ratatouille is I think going to see Pixar finally fall from grace. Cars underperformed, more so at the international box office than the US, and is generally regarded as the weakest of the studios output and I think they have lost their knack for picking winners. Plus will audiences want to go and see a film when they can’t pronounce the title? “An adult and two kids for Raty..Ratatat..Rataloo…Shrek 3.”
Mike D, I’m not discounting the massive Harry Potter fanbase, in fact I’m counting on it to the tune of $730m. It’s the more casual viewer I think will waver towards Pirates, Spider-Man and some of the others. I think this is the stiffest competition Harry’s had to deal with and I think he’ll survive but the best he can hope for will be finishing third, he may get past Shrek but not Spidey and Pirates.
If I’ve let my personal taste affect any of the predictions it’s the Fantastic Four. It may be wishful thinking that puts it at number 5 with $450m but as I said in the article it could go either way. If it fails then Transformers will fill the void and the places will be reversed. We’ll have to wait and see.
And Riddle, I’ll keep that in mind for next time.
20 - Jon
I would put Pirates at #1, and Rush Hour 3 #2. The Rush Hour movies are a great time, and that's what we want at the movies.
21 - Charlie
You don't even mention the movie that is the top of my must see list - "The Simpsons"
22 - Ian Woolstencroft
No I don't, and I just said why in the comment right above yours.
23 - Dan
Are the predicted worldwide gross figures from marketing research sources or are they just off the top of your head?
24 - Ian Woolstencroft
Well off the top of my head sounds like I just picked a numbers out of a hat but they are my figures.
I tried to take into account the general buzz about the film, studio hype (which can sometimes have a negative effect)including the trailers, and, most importantly in a summer so full of sequels, how previous parts fared.
25 - Phillip Winn
Movie News (#7), you really should read the Radar Magazine article to which you linked before quoting from it. All sources connected with the studio claim the film's budget was *less* than $300 million, so Ian is already a bit high from their perspective.
I've seen other claims that the $500 million figure includes marketing and promotion and such, which aren't normally included in a film's budget. In other words, none of the other films on this list include those costs, so neither should Spider-man 3.