Support NeoGAF

[samus4ever]

1 N Mission: Impossible III Par. $48,025,000 - 4,054 - $11,846 $48,025,000 $150 1
2 1 RV Sony $11,100,000 -32.4% 3,651 +12 $3,040 $31,006,000 $50 2
3 N An American Haunting Free $6,380,000 - 1,668 - $3,824 $6,380,000 $14 1
4 3 Stick It BV $5,522,000 -48.9% 2,044 +6 $2,701 $17,977,000 - 2
5 2 United 93 Uni. $5,211,000 -54.6% 1,819 +24 $2,864 $20,056,000 $15 2
6 7 Ice Age: The Meltdown Fox $4,000,000 -44.5% 2,426 -696 $1,648 $183,274,000 $80 6
7 4 Silent Hill Sony $3,900,000 -58.2% 2,556 -376 $1,525 $40,805,000 $50 3
8 5 Scary Movie 4 Dim. $3,763,000 -51.8% 2,537 -881 $1,483 $83,718,000 $45 4
10 8 Akeelah and the Bee Lions $3,400,000 -43.4% 2,195 - $1,548 $10,663,000 - 2

 

[Nameless]

Hmmm..That wouldn't be TOO bad if they had not spent so much on marketing. With overseas figures and DVD sales, Im sure it will do fine in the end.

 

[Diablos]

MI:3 looks reeallllly dumb.

 

[samus4ever]

Hmmm..That wouldn't be TOO bad if they had not spent so much on marketing. With overseas figures and DVD sales, Im sure it will do fine in the end.

It also shows that Tom Cruise is losing his audience with his crazy behavior. Flight 93 also dropped like a rock.

 

[norinrad21]

Scientology

 

[Here Be Dragons]

It also shows that Tom Cruise is losing his audience with his crazy behavior. Flight 93 also dropped like a rock.

Two reasons to be happy today.

 

[TheWolf]

MI:3 looks reeallllly dumb.

it's actually pretty good.

 

[pxleyes]

48 million is a flop? Damn how times have changed.

Spoiler

if your post was sarcasm, it was a pretty bad attempt, sorry.

 

[mattx5]

I went to see MI:3 at my theater last night and there were bigger line ups than there were for LotR and Star Wars.

 

[Here Be Dragons]

I went to see MI:3 at my theater last night and there were bigger line ups than there were for LotR and Star Wars.

Well that trumps the official figures for me!

 

[Tyrone Slothrop]

i have a feeling tom cruise's blockbuster appeal is slowly fading for good

 

[samus4ever]

48 million is a flop? Damn how times have changed.

Spoiler

if your post was sarcasm, it was a pretty bad attempt, sorry.

yes, it's a flop whent he movie was pegged to open around 75 million dollars.

 

[master15]

Well for memory Last Samurai, Collateral & even Minority Report toa degree were massive hits either?

Mission Impossible was solid, but really nothing spectactular for mind. This coming from a huge Cruise fan.

 

[Andy787]

Well, I haven't seen the previous Mission Impossible movies, but I enjoyed MI3 a lot more than I expected to. I thought it was very entertaining.

Anyway, that weekend estimate is on par with the other two Mission Impossible movies, and the series is one that actually makes more money overseas than in the US, so it should still be quite successful I'd imagine. The previous two did about 500 million each world wide.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

i am entirely comfortable blaming the bad performance on scientology. You used to be cool Thomas

 

[FoneBone]

Major disappointment, but "flop" is probably too strong a word.

Anyway, I wouldn't just blame Cruise, but also some highly questionable marketing decisions. Then again, Cruise has approval over the marketing...

 

[SteveMeister]

It didn't do as well as the first two M:I movies in their opening weekends, despite being shown on more screens. I think it is in part backlash against Cruise's antics, and in part a reduced number of people going to the movies in the first place (for whatever reason).

For what it's worth, it's actually a pretty good action movie. And it has Simon Pegg in it.

 

[Stench]

And to think that we have even MORE useless sequels and high-profile adaptations to look forward to this summer...

MI:3 is a testament for how low peoples' expectations have dropped for action fare. Why was this film made, again?

 

[Nameless]

48 million is a flop? Damn how times have changed.

Spoiler

if your post was sarcasm, it was a pretty bad attempt, sorry.

It certainly is a bit disappointing. They were banking on a VERY strong opening weekend, and the film needed it. I think they wanted the film to be atleast at 100million by May 19th. You have The Da Vinci Code on the 19th, and then X:3 on the 26th--so M-I-3 needed to do big it's first two weeks, because its not going to beat out either of those movies.

It will probably do around 25-30 mill between now and next monday, and then drop really hard after that.

 

[FoneBone]

And to think that we have even MORE useless sequels and high-profile adaptations to look forward to this summer...

MI:3 is a testament for how low peoples' expectations have dropped for action fare. Why was this film made again?

hey let's ignore all the positive reactions from people who have actually seen it and just bash it! I mean, you know it sucks, right?

It at least the advantage of weak competition next weekend as well; as heavily as WB is trying to promote Poseidon, I think it won't make much more in its entire run than MI3 made this weekend. But the movie will get hammered after that, and I don't think it'll gross more than $160 million or so total, domestically. It'll make a profit (albeit far slimmer than Paramount was hoping), but there won't be a fourth one.

 

[davepoobond]

48 million is pretty good...........................................:lol

 

[Archie]

May 19th

What did you say?

 

[Stench]

hey let's ignore all the positive reactions from people who have actually seen it and just bash it! I mean, you know it sucks, right?

As I said, it's a testament to show how low peoples' expectations have dropped.

There was NOTHING in this film that hasn't been done to death a thousand times over.

 

[pxleyes]

It certainly is a bit disappointing. They were banking on a VERY strong opening weekend, and the film needed it. I think they wanted the film to be atleast at 100million by May 19th. You have The Da Vinci Code on the 19th, and then X:3 on the 26th--so M-I-3 needed to do big it's first two weeks, because its not going to beat out either of those movies.

It will probably do around 25-30 mill between now and next monday, and then drop really hard after that.

hmm, thats very true about the upcoming weekends and those huge summer movies. I definately see where it can be a disappointment though.

 

[davepoobond]

As I said, it's a testament to show how low peoples' expectations have dropped.

There was NOTHING in this film that hasn't been done to death a thousand times over.

you're right -- even Tom Cruise being practically blown up by a huge explosion resulting in him being propelled into a large metal object has been done before (in the first one). why couldn't it have been off a bridge instead

 

[Dan]

Anyway, that weekend estimate is on par with the other two Mission Impossible movies, and the series is one that actually makes more money overseas than in the US, so it should still be quite successful I'd imagine. The previous two did about 500 million each world wide.

If by "on par" you mean "on par with unadjusted figures", then yeah. If you adjust the opening weekend of Mission: Impossible for inflation, you get around $65 million. Mission: Impossible II would end up around $67 million. The third film's $48 million is most certainly a disappointment for the studio.

 

[pinkatrophe]

As I said, it's a testament to show how low peoples' expectations have dropped.

There was NOTHING in this film that hasn't been done to death a thousand times over.

I hear this argument being stated over and over and over again in regards to just about every artistic medium and it just gets tired beyond belief.

Most people don't go to see films like M:I:III because they're expecting innovation out the ass or a film with layers of depth so deep they hit Earth's core. They just want to be entertained and watch something that causes physical provocation in some way, whether or not it follows an age-old theme.

Unfortunately, not everyone can conform to one individual's standard of what good and bad cinema is.

 

[FoneBone]

If by "on par" you mean "on par with unadjusted figures", then yeah. If you adjust the opening weekend of Mission: Impossible for inflation, you get around $65 million. Mission: Impossible II would end up around $67 million. The third film's $48 million is most certainly a disappointment for the studio.

Bear in mind that those had the advantage of opening on Memorial Day weekend. Then again, they also opened on Wednesdays, which would theoretically reduce the Friday-Sunday take... so overall, MI3's performance is actually worse by comparison. Shame.

 

[madara]

And to think that we have even MORE useless sequels and high-profile adaptations to look forward to this summer...

MI:3 is a testament for how low peoples' expectations have dropped for action fare. Why was this film made, again?

Aye, just as long we agree no Sin City 2, 3, or more Batman Begins as well to keep it fair. :lol

Seeing this tomorrow finally! Can't wait!

 

[Price Drop]

It made an additional $70M overseas, so it's all good.

 

[Stench]

Most people don't go to see films like M:I:III because they're expecting innovation out the ass or a film with layers of depth so deep they hit Earth's core. They just want to be entertained and watch something that causes physical provocation in some way, whether or not it follows an age-old theme.

Oh, I've definitely heard that argument before, and yet it *still* bugs me to no end how general audiences are completely content with watching the same bullshit, only in a different package...

Besides, there are many other aspects you could fault MI:3 against, excusing the tired action-spectacle cliches:


- A $150 million blockbuster that consists of nothing but congested close-ups, no doubt due to J.J. Abrams' complete and total misunderstanding of what separates film from TV (Besides the whole "more money" angle...)

- Barf-inducing "love" story. Total garbage.

- Extraneous Tom Cruise showboating - extended "running" sequence, anyone?

- Incoherent action sequences, complete with frenetic editing and the still-popular Shaky-Cam. Golly gee, do I love those.

- Humour. Which I'm not sure really constitutes as humour, because it requires the viewer to actually laugh or feel somewhat amused after the joke finishes playing out. Seeing an overly-animated Ving Rhames deliver pandering and predictable banter like that is just inexcusable.


Trust me, I was not expecting much at all, and yet I barely could find anything redeemable or noteworthy about this picture at all. Besides the helicopter shootout.. that was pretty neat, I guess.

 

[Chairman Yang]

I hear this argument being stated over and over and over again in regards to just about every artistic medium and it just gets tired beyond belief.

Most people don't go to see films like M:I:III because they're expecting innovation out the ass or a film with layers of depth so deep they hit Earth's core. They just want to be entertained and watch something that causes physical provocation in some way, whether or not it follows an age-old theme.

I'm equally sick of this tired argument. It's fine for a film to be a "popcorn movie" where you can turn off your brain. The thing is, there are good popcorn movies and bad popcorn movies. MI3 falls close to the latter end of the scale.

Like the other poster said, the action scenes were dull, unoriginal, and poorly directed/edited, the story was both predictable and implausible, and the whole thing (aside from a few neat gadget sequences) just felt flat.

Still, I think people are not seeing this movie for the wrong reasons. Who the hell cares about the craziness of one of the actors? Tom Cruise is no different in this film from most of his others.

 

[FoneBone]

*stuff*

Apologies -- I assumed that you hadn't actually seen the movie. That said, I disagree with you about pretty much everything except for the love story.

 

[The Shadow]

Xenu smiles on this day. All hail lord Xenu!

 

[LakeEarth]

- Incoherent action sequences, complete with frenetic editing and the still-popular Shaky-Cam. Golly gee, do I love those.

Its what happens when they write the action sequences and try to build a movie around them.

 

[siege]

48 million isn't that bad. The hype for MI:3 has been pretty low, so I don't think anyone expected a $100 million domestic opening or anything.

The Da Vinci Code will be the film everyone lines up opening weekend to see.

 

[Mooreberg]

Maybe ticket prices are starting to kill people's interest. I could have bought Silent Hill 4 for what I paid for two tickets to see the movie. Throw in cell phones and 30 minutes of annoying ads and I'm starting to just wait for the DVD release on most movies.

 

[tsp_gatmog]

MI:3 looks reeallllly dumb.

it was great, diablows

 

[Mute]

Haha I hope they lose money. I want to dropkick someone in the face every time I see that stupid preview.
*fat ugly albino guy* "YU DONT THINK ILL DO IT?!?!"

 

[cvkpaladin]

Yeah, I think that gas prices and movie ticket costs are a bit too pricey for your average person nowadays. So, movies people might have seen are going to get passed up. I bet M:I 3 does a lot better as a rental. We'll see if this theory holds up as more movies this Summer get released. Watch Hollywood blame the bad first weekend on piracy or some shit. lol

 

[soundwave05]

I think the other problem with the Mission: Impossible series is its probably the most overrated "film franchise" out there.

It's basically become a huge franchise off the back of Cruise's name and the fact that it's slotted as the first "action" summer movie in both '96 and 2000.

But really ... did anyone really even understand the story to either M: I films? Does anyone care about Ethan Hunt?

The movies don't even have really anything to do with the TV series.

I think that finally caught up to the franchise.

 

[Zen]

I'm equally sick of this tired argument. It's fine for a film to be a "popcorn movie" where you can turn off your brain. The thing is, there are good popcorn movies and bad popcorn movies. MI3 falls close to the latter end of the scale.

Pirates is an example of an outsatnding popcorn movie, there's nothing wrong with them as long they're good.

 

[JPRaup]

MI3 was fantastic, fuck all the haters, I wanted nonstop action and it delivered on all cylinders

 

[RunWhiteBoyRun]

Based on info from stats from Box Office Mojo:

Opening Weekends-
MI:1 - 45.4m
MI:2 - 57.8m
MI:3 - 48m

That has to be disheartening to see a highly hyped sequel do worse than a previously highly hyped sequel..

Shoulda stayed away from the placenta Tom.

 

[soundwave05]

Yeah the irony I guess is, M:I 3 is apparently by far the best of the series ... but again, I think there's just no audience investment in this franchise.

People do genuinely love the Star Wars, Star Trek, Matrix, Lord of the Rings, Spider-Man, etc. franchises and have an emotional investment in them ... even though some of those franchises dip in quality.

But Mission: Impossible?

Ethan Hunt is a poor man's James Bond and not nearly as fun of a character.

 

[BlueTsunami]

MI:3 is a good movie WATCH IT

 

[hooded pitohui]

Flight 93 also dropped like a rock.

inappropriate

 

[Timbuktu]

Tom Cruise can actually be quite good, like in Collateral for example, but I think he did ruin the Mission Impossible a bit with his narcissism. MI should have been based more on intelligence and teamwork, but now that it's centered on Cruise's character, it becomes a also-ran to the James Bond and the Bourne series. A lot of people still prefer the first MI even though MI3 is probably a better popcorn flick because the first did something different that made it quite unique.

 

[Crocodile]

Been hearing this is the best of the series so I it's a shame it didn't do better. I'll probably go see it in a week with my friends to see if it personally lives up the hype.

 

[Escape Goat]

Mission Impossible movies are not Mission Impossible. Its Tom cruise spy flick that copied the name. For god sakes, the MIF team gets killed in the first act of the first movie. There is hardly a team in MI2. If not for Thandie Newton I don't know where the iflm would be.