I am TOTALLY hyped for Cowboys and Aliens...

[moonpie23]

who's up for it?

hooky day...morning of release...

[OldPhiKap]

who's up for it?

hooky day...morning of release...

I laughed when I saw the commercial @ the Super Bowl but saw a trailer this weekend that made me rethink the matter. Curious to see what the reaction is.

[Olympic Fan]

I picked it (probably incorrectly) as one of the five biggest hits of the summer. Still, back in April, I said there were three summer movies I was pumped to see: HP7B, Super Eight and Cowboys vs. Aliens.

Good new trailer ...

[weezie]

Daniel Craig...meyooowww.

[Jarhead]

How does a tornado ripping through your house grab you?

[DevilAlumna]

Daniel Craig...meyooowww.

QFE!!!

Dang, how come I haven't heard of this movie before? Are they not running commercials yet, or am I just not watching the right channels? The cast looks fabulous - Harrison Ford, Olivia Wilde, Sam Rockwell, Paul Dano (great in The Extra Man).

Can I add it to my netflix queue now? (Getting to the theater's a little tough these days.)

[cato]

How does a tornado ripping through your house grab you?

Very like a whale.

[JasonEvans]

Dang, how come I haven't heard of this movie before? Are they not running commercials yet, or am I just not watching the right channels? The cast looks fabulous - Harrison Ford, Olivia Wilde, Sam Rockwell, Paul Dano (great in The Extra Man).

Ummm, not sure where you have been but I have seen dozens of commercials for it. It is getting a major promotional push and marketing campaign, probably the biggest of any non-established franchise this summer.

-Jason "there are no reviews of it yet, so no one knows if it is any good" Evans

[Olympic Fan]

QFE!!!

Dang, how come I haven't heard of this movie before? Are they not running commercials yet, or am I just not watching the right channels? The cast looks fabulous - Harrison Ford, Olivia Wilde, Sam Rockwell, Paul Dano (great in The Extra Man).

Try this clip (90 seconds):

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/cowb...ilers/11127485

[BD80]

Ummm, not sure where you have been but I have seen dozens of commercials for it. It is getting a major promotional push and marketing campaign, probably the biggest of any non-established franchise this summer.

-Jason "there are no reviews of it yet, so no one knows if it is any good" Evans

Uhmmm, it has Olivia Wilde in it. Because of her, I almost made it through Tron Legacy without falling asleep! Put her in an action flick AND cowboys and aliens ... it can't be too bad. Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford pretty much have their picks of projects, I'll bet they chose well.

[JasonEvans]

Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford pretty much have their picks of projects, I'll bet they chose well.

Having nothing to do with the quality of C&A, Harrison Ford has had his pick of projects since the early 1980s and he has consistently picked some TERRIBLE films. I interviewed him once and he was a difficult and prickly interview. He's just not a nice guy, I think, and I am not sure he is all that bright either.

Since he did Air Force One in 1997, Ford has made some awful flicks. Look at this list --

Six Days Seven Nights
Random Hearts
K-19: The Widowmaker
What Lies Beneath
Hollywood Homicide
Firewall
Crossing Over
Extraordinary Measures
Morning Glory
and Indy Kingdom of the Crystal Scull

Blech!! Not a good movie in the lot of them! Seriously, if C&A is good, it will be his first film in 15 years that was worth the price of admission. He is on an amazing run of bad films, most of which were really awful scripts.

Considering this is the guy who made Star Wars, Indy, Blade Runner, Witness, Working Girl, The Fugitive, and Air Force One, it is one of the most remarkable turnarounds from great to gross in Hollywood history!!

-Jason "I hope C&A breaks the streak" Evans

[OldPhiKap]

Having nothing to do with the quality of C&A, Harrison Ford has had his pick of projects since the early 1980s and he has consistently picked some TERRIBLE films. I interviewed him once and he was a difficult and prickly interview. He's just not a nice guy, I think, and I am not sure he is all that bright either.

Since he did Air Force One in 1997, Ford has made some awful flicks. Look at this list --

Six Days Seven Nights
Random Hearts
K-19: The Widowmaker
What Lies Beneath
Hollywood Homicide
Firewall
Crossing Over
Extraordinary Measures
Morning Glory
and Indy Kingdom of the Crystal Scull

Blech!! Not a good movie in the lot of them! Seriously, if C&A is good, it will be his first film in 15 years that was worth the price of admission. He is on an amazing run of bad films, most of which were really awful scripts.

Considering this is the guy who made Star Wars, Indy, Blade Runner, Witness, Working Girl, The Fugitive, and Air Force One, it is one of the most remarkable turnarounds from great to gross in Hollywood history!!

-Jason "I hope C&A breaks the streak" Evans

Tommy Lee Jones stole his mojo after The Fugitive.

[Olympic Fan]

Having nothing to do with the quality of C&A, Harrison Ford has had his pick of projects since the early 1980s and he has consistently picked some TERRIBLE films. I interviewed him once and he was a difficult and prickly interview. He's just not a nice guy, I think, and I am not sure he is all that bright either.

Since he did Air Force One in 1997, Ford has made some awful flicks. Look at this list --

Six Days Seven Nights
Random Hearts
K-19: The Widowmaker
What Lies Beneath
Hollywood Homicide
Firewall
Crossing Over
Extraordinary Measures
Morning Glory
and Indy Kingdom of the Crystal Scull

Blech!! Not a good movie in the lot of them! Seriously, if C&A is good, it will be his first film in 15 years that was worth the price of admission. He is on an amazing run of bad films, most of which were really awful scripts.

Considering this is the guy who made Star Wars, Indy, Blade Runner, Witness, Working Girl, The Fugitive, and Air Force One, it is one of the most remarkable turnarounds from great to gross in Hollywood history!!

-Jason "I hope C&A breaks the streak" Evans

Good points, Jason.

I argued at one point in the early '90s that Harrison Ford had sold more tickets -- or at least appeared in films that sold more tickets -- than any actor/actress in screen history. Think about it -- the three Star Wars films, the three Indiana Jones films (the three GOOD ones), Blade Runner, Witness, the Fuvgitive, two Jack Ryan Films, Air Force One ... and don't forget, he was in American Graffiti and Apocalypse Now.

But as to your point about one of the most remarkable turnarounds (or dropoffs) in movie history, can I suggest another contender? Check out Eddie Murphy's career spiral sometime.

[OldPhiKap]

But as to your point about one of the most remarkable turnarounds (or dropoffs) in movie history, can I suggest another contender? Check out Eddie Murphy's career spiral sometime.

You have to give half-credit for Donkey in Shrek.

[Jarhead]

...
I argued at one point in the early '90s that Harrison Ford had sold more tickets -- or at least appeared in films that sold more tickets -- than any actor/actress in screen history. Think about it -- the three Star Wars films, the three Indiana Jones films (the three GOOD ones), Blade Runner, Witness, the Fuvgitive, two Jack Ryan Films, Air Force One ... and don't forget, he was in American Graffiti and Apocalypse Now.

I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, but that seems to be an exaggeration. The one movie that has put more fannies in the seats than any other is Gone With the Wind. At least one star of that movie, Clark Gable, made tons of movies in his career, so I wonder if there are others that can claim that distinction over a career.

[Olympic Fan]

I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, but that seems to be an exaggeration. The one movie that has put more fannies in the seats than any other is Gone With the Wind. At least one star of that movie, Clark Gable, made tons of movies in his career, so I wonder if there are others that can claim that distinction over a career.

I've had this argument -- and Gable isn't close.

Gone with the Wind IS a phenomena -- the greatest box office draw of all time (paid attendence estimated at 206 million people, an incredible figure for an era when the US population was 150-160 million.

(Note: we're talking actual attendence, not box office which with today's higher prices would make a big difference).

But it's not that much more that the original Star Wars, which is No. 2 (197 million).

And after that, it's all Harrison Ford films -- the four Raiders movies have drawn 94.9, 53, 49.1 and 44 (for the terrible one) millions. The second Star Wars drew 101.7 million, the third Star Wars 102 million. Graffiti drew 64.7 million, The Fugitive 43.9 million, Air Force One 37 million.

Gable doesn't have another movie on the top 200 list. That's not surprising, since he was a big star during an era when 10 million viewers would be a mega-hit.

Now, I'm not arguing that Harrison Ford is the greatest box office draw of all time (he's just a small part of the Star Wars enemble and he's only in a small part in Graffiti -- although he does carry the Indiana Jones franchise).

I'm just saying that more people have paid to see movies that he's in that any other actor in history. If not, it's got to be somebody fairly current -- Stallone maybe (what's he got beyond the Rocky and Rambo stuff?). Sean Connery? Jack Nicholson?

[JasonEvans]

I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, but that seems to be an exaggeration. The one movie that has put more fannies in the seats than any other is Gone With the Wind. At least one star of that movie, Clark Gable, made tons of movies in his career, so I wonder if there are others that can claim that distinction over a career.

Not fannies in the seats, but in terms of total boxoffice, the #1 actor of all-time is Tom Hanks with $3,996 million in domestic ticket sales. He is greatly helped by the success of the 3 Toy Story films as well as Forrest Gump, The DaVinci Code, Cast Away and a slew of others that all made $150+k.

Number two is Eddie Murphy ($3,713 million) on the strength of the Shrek films as well as the Beverly Hills Cop franchise and a bunch of comedies that made $100+k.

#3 is Harrison Ford with $3,455 million. You all know the films he made. He should make up some nice ground on the top 2 with Cowboys and Aliens, perhaps put himself just one more big film behind Eddie Murphy.

Robin Williams ($2,962 mil) is 4th, which surprises me a bit. He get a big boost from the 2 recent Night at the Museum flicks (about $425 mil), in which he only played a medium-sized part. Not really fair, but he gets credit for them.

The guy in #5 will someday be #1, in my opinion. Johnny Depp has sold tickets worth $2,882 million. He's got The Lone Ranger coming this Christmas and Dark Shadows next summer -- each should be locks to make at least $150 million. He will pass Robin Williams in the next 6 months and should continue to climb the list.

#6 is Morgan Freeman at $2,880 mil (Depp just passed him with Pirates 4). He gets Dark Knight Returns next summer, which should add at least $350 mil to his total, perhaps much more.

#7 is Tom Cruise at $2,871 mil. Did you know that the biggest film of his career was War of the World, which made $234 mil. I expect Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol to challenge that number this winter. The trailer for Ghost Protocol looks awesome!

Samuel L Jackson is #8 at $2,812. Sadly, his roles in Thor and the upcoming Captain America are too small for him to get credit for those films. But, he will have The Avengers next summer, which could be huge.

--Jason "Will Smith, at #13 with $2,520 would be a real contender for the top, but he has all but stopped making movies lately" Evans

[Jarhead]

Jason, why is it that for movies that industry talks about total revenue rather than total tickets sold? The Auto industry tells us how many cars they sell, and airlines tell us how many passengers they carry. MacDonald's tells us about all those burgers they have sold, and Duke football tells us how many season tickets they have sold. Nobody talks about the dollars collected for the 1942 Rose Bowl played in Wallace Wade Stadium. They marvel at the fact that about 60,000 fans sat in those seats. When we use the dollars, the figures are inflated by more than a half century of inflation. That's not a fair comparison.

[JasonEvans]

Jason, why is it that for movies that industry talks about total revenue rather than total tickets sold? The Auto industry tells us how many cars they sell, and airlines tell us how many passengers they carry. MacDonald's tells us about all those burgers they have sold, and Duke football tells us how many season tickets they have sold. Nobody talks about the dollars collected for the 1942 Rose Bowl played in Wallace Wade Stadium. They marvel at the fact that about 60,000 fans sat in those seats. When we use the dollars, the figures are inflated by more than a half century of inflation. That's not a fair comparison.

Well, the cost of making films has increased too, so I guess Hollywood feels there is merit in looking at ticket sales, especially because that is what measures if a film will be profitable or not. I honestly don't see why you wouldn't measure by revenues generated (ticket sales) not tickets sold as it is better to sell a pair of $13 3D tickets than 3 $7 matinee tickets.

Frankly, it makes no sense to me that the car industry measures cars sold versus revenues from the sales. I mean, would you rather sell 2 Honda Civics or 1 Porsche 911?

I suspect that the industry has always measured by boxoffice receipts. It is only in recent decades that the public has begun really tracking and paying attention to these things.

I also suspect that pat of it is Hollywood's ongoing effort to generate hype for films. With higher ticket prices we are constantly getting new films that break various bocoffice records. That generates headlines and makes it seem like the movie is a "must see" and a part of pop culture. It si good for business for business to seem to be growing.

--Jason "all the above is just my speculation... if anyone knows a real answer..." Evans

[bjornolf]

Well, the cost of making films has increased too, so I guess Hollywood feels there is merit in looking at ticket sales, especially because that is what measures if a film will be profitable or not. I honestly don't see why you wouldn't measure by revenues generated (ticket sales) not tickets sold as it is better to sell a pair of $13 3D tickets than 3 $7 matinee tickets.

Frankly, it makes no sense to me that the car industry measures cars sold versus revenues from the sales. I mean, would you rather sell 2 Honda Civics or 1 Porsche 911?

I suspect that the industry has always measured by boxoffice receipts. It is only in recent decades that the public has begun really tracking and paying attention to these things.

I also suspect that pat of it is Hollywood's ongoing effort to generate hype for films. With higher ticket prices we are constantly getting new films that break various bocoffice records. That generates headlines and makes it seem like the movie is a "must see" and a part of pop culture. It si good for business for business to seem to be growing.

--Jason "all the above is just my speculation... if anyone knows a real answer..." Evans

Of course, Honda doesn't sell one Civic for every Porsche 911 sold... they sell 30.

Yes, revenue is a better gauge for the financial success of a movie. My wife, for example, just thinks that number of tickets sold is a more fair comparison of movies across film generations. A better way to compare, for example, Gone With The Wind and Titanic. Neither is perfect, of course. There's probably some mathematical algorithm someone smarter than I could come up with that would be better, though still not perfect, taking into account ticket prices, number of tickets sold, inflation, and population growth over the decades of the film era. Of course, this would still fail to take into account random things like the fact that film was one of the main sources of entertainment for many back when GWTW came out (I recently found my grandmother's journal from 1929-1932, and she went to the movies 4-5 times per week back then despite holding down a job and attending UC Berkeley), since nobody had TVs in their homes back then (that came in the 1940s, and weren't widespread until the late 50s), random economic events like depressions or booms, or the fact that now, THANKS to TVs, many people wait for the disc to come out and save money on ridiculous ticket prices, like my family. Or the invention of ticket price inflating technology like 3D and IMAX.

My wife is disgusted by what she calls the inflation of ticket prices, and basically refuses to go to movies now, since we can buy the DVD at Walmart for $15-$20, less than the cost of two tickets at theater. When we were dating, we went to a movie almost every weekend. Now, we go to MAYBE one or two a year, usually movies for the kids. Now, some of this can certainly be explained by having kids and the hassle and expense of going out. However, if ticket prices were what they were when we were dating ($5 for matinee in the late '90s/early '00s), I can guarantee you we'd go to more movies on our "date nights".