Moviefone Editorial

Tag: universal

  • ‘Minions’ Becomes Third Animated Movie in History to Hit $1 Billion

    Congratulations, “Minions”! Would you have predicted the “Despicable Me” spinoff to be one of the few animated titles to breathe the rarefied air above $1 billion at the box office? According to The Hollywood Reporter, the little yellow guys just hit that milestone, making them only the third animated movie ever to go above $1B, following “Frozen” ($1.274 billion) and “Toy Story 3” ($1.06 billion). Variety noted that, overall, “Minions” is the 23rd film to gross $1 billion worldwide.

    “Minion” has earned $321.9 million domestically and $682 million internationally so far, THR noted, making it the No. 3 animated film of all time (not accounting for inflation) and the top grossing of 2015 to date. Don’t count “Inside Out” from joining the list. It has earned $701 million so far, but it hasn’t opened yet in many overseas markets. It made more than “Minions” domestically, so we could see a fourth go over $1 billion.

    This triumph for “Minions” is also cause for celebration for Universal, which is having a tremendous 2015 so far. With “Furious 7” and “Jurassic World” also earning more than $1 billion around the world, it’s the first time any studio has had three films hit that milestone in one year. It’s darn pretty impressive, and here are reasons why Universal is doing so well.

    Are you surprised to see “Minions” up there with “Frozen” and “Toy Story 3” or does that sound about right?

    Want more stuff like this? Like us on Facebook.

    %Slideshow-311598%

  • Why ‘Straight Outta Compton,’ Universal Can’t Be Beat at the Box Office

    Nothing can stop “Straight Outta Compton.”

    The N.W.A. biopic smashed expectations last weekend with its $60.2 million debut, and it showed little sign of slowing down this weekend, when it remained on top with an estimated $26.8 million and a ten-day total of $111.5 million. The movie wasn’t hurt by any of the obstacles it faced this week, including the premieres of three new wide releases and several days of bad press over “Compton”‘s airbrushing of N.W.A. co-founder Dr. Dre’s history of abusive behavior toward women.

    Despite all that, the combined total earned by this week’s three newcomers added up to less than what “Compton” earned in its second weekend. “Sinister 2” opened in third place (behind four-week-old “Mission: Impossible: Rogue Nation“) with an estimated $10.6 million. “Hitman: Agent 47” came in fourth with an estimated $8.2 million. And “American Ultra” opened at No. 6 with an estimated $5.5 million.

    Each of these movies opened well below already modest predictions. All probably would have done better if they hadn’t been competing against “Compton.” Still, their failure to draw ticket buyers speaks to some larger lessons — six, in fact — about this summer’s box office:

    1. Late August is Usually a Box Office Dead Zone

    It was hard to look at this weekend’s line-up of new releases and not see it as summer’s last whimper, the last chance for films studios didn’t really expect much from. Certainly, no one opens a movie near the end of August and expects it to make the kind of money that of a May or June release. In recent years, Labor Day weekend has been an “okay” time to release horror movies — only because there’s usually so little to choose from that undemanding horror fans will jump at the chance to see anything scary.

    But that may no longer be true, since…

    2. Horror Is No Longer a Guaranteed Moneymaker

    “Sinister 2” is the latest production from Jason Blum, the producer who’s made a mint from very-low-budget horror in recent years, with successes like “Paranormal Activity” and “Insidious” franchises. The “Sinister” sequel is an attempt to turn the 2012 hit into a similar franchise.

    But that film, at least, had Ethan Hawke as the star; this one had the, um, less prestigious Shannyn Sossamon. Who knows, the movie cost so little to make that Blum will probably make a profit anyway, but even he seems to see the writing on the wall, having diversified over the past year into non-horror fare, including the art-house drama “Whiplash” (which won co-star J.K. Simmons an Oscar) and this month’s thriller “The Gift” (which finished seventh this weekend with an estimated $4.3 million, for a three-week total of $31.1 million. A nice return for a movie that only cost $5 million).

    3. Stop Making Remakes No One Really Wants
    We’re looking at you, “Hitman: Agent 47.”

    This is the second time time Fox has tried to make this movie series happen; like “fetch,” it ain’t gonna happen. The 2007 “Hitman” made just $39.7 million in the U.S., but it made another $60.3 million overseas, for a worldwide total just a hair shy of $100 million. Apparently, that was enough to justify a return to the video game property eight years later.

    Audiences may have short memories, but they have even tighter wallets — especially when the same movie they turned down once before gets waved in their faces a second time.

    4. Kristen Stewart Is Not a Box Office Draw…

    …Except as Bella Swan or Snow White. Kudos to the actress for having quirky indie taste and for reuniting with Jesse Eisenberg, her co-star in the underrated indie “Adventureland,” for the new “American Ultra.” Indeed, it’s admirable that she’s happy to work outside of the realm of would-be blockbusters, especially since the rewards haven’t been that lucrative. In the last 11 years, no movie she’s starred in (except, of course, for the four “Twilight” films and “Snow White and the Huntsman”) has cracked $20 million over its entire domestic run, and seven of her films have earned just $1 million or less.

    So if the filmmakers thought that they’d draw her female Twihard fanbase to “American Ultra” — a stoner action comedy that is pretty much Eisenberg’s movie — just because they cast Stewart as Eisenberg’s love interest, then they were sadly mistaken.

    5. Not All Bad Press Is Bad

    Last week’s smash “Compton” opening brought out of the woodwork a number of women from Dre’s past who noted both his history of violent behavior and the fact that the new movie lionizing Dre almost completely ignored that history.

    By the end of the week, Dre was forced to apologize “to the women I’ve hurt,” and Apple (which paid Dre billions to absorb his Beats empire and make him an Apple Music executive) issued a statement insisting that Dre was a changed man since his N.W.A.days. None of this bad buzz seemed to affect the movie’s audience, which last weekend was evenly divided between men and women and between viewers over and under 30. After all, who’s going to stay home from a movie because of the story it doesn’t tell? Nonetheless, it’s never safe to alienate half your potential audience because…

    6. One Quadrant Isn’t Enough Anymore
    That is, the studios need to stop trying to attract young adult males to the exclusion of everyone else, including young women and older men and women. Look at what’s been this summer’s big success story — indeed, 2015’s big success story — which is Universal’s domination of the marketplace with hits that have earned more than $2 billion since January 1. Not one of these is a comic book movie.

    Some, like “Jurassic World,” are targeted at everybody with a pulse. Some are aimed specifically at women, older and younger (“Fifty Shades of Grey,” “Trainwreck” “Pitch Perfect 2”), some at older men and women (“Unbroken,” which made most of its money in 2015),” and some at younger, ethnically diverse audiences (“Compton,” “Furious 7”). The only movie on the studio’s slate that went primarily after young men, “Ted 2,” was a flop.

    And yet, every studio still thinks young men are the demographic to chase. That’s why they put out “Agent 47” and “American Ultra,” even when “Compton” and “Mission: Impossible” are still strong enough to steal their audiences. At least “Sinister 2” tried to grab older viewers as well as younger women, who are usually horror’s primary audience. And that movie was released by Focus/Gramercy, which is a subdivision of… Universal.

    So again, the question arises: Why is no one but Universal pursuing more than one quadrant? Hollywood may want to find the answer soon, especially if they want Universal’s billion dollar-sized coffers.
    %Slideshow-311822%

  • From ‘Jurassic World’ to ‘Minions’: Why Universal Owns the Box Office

    From rampaging dinosaurs to yellow henchman, Universal Pictures can’t be stopped.

    With “Minions” scoring a $115.2 million opening weekend — the second highest for an animated film, behind 2007’s “Shrek the Third” with $121.6 million — it’s not just another hit for Universal this summer, but for the industry in general.

    The overall take is keeping up with 2013, the best year to date. It’s also part of a stellar year for Universal, which boasted this week that it’s reached the $3 billion mark overseas in record time, thanks largely to such hits as “Minions,” “Jurassic World,” “Pitch Perfect 2,” “Furious 7,” and “Fifty Shades of Grey.”

    But the big box office of these movies points to a larger issue. All of them, save “Fifty Shades,” are spinoffs, sequels, and/or reboots of previously successful films. (And “Fifty Shades,” of course, is based on a huge bestseller.) If Universal had a great first six months of the year, it’s only because it’s managed to execute better than the other studios that strategy of focusing on blockbusters based on familiar brand-name properties.

    So far, Universal has released 10 movies this year. Most of the success comes from the five movies mentioned above. Out of the studio’s $4.6 billion take worldwide from 2015 releases, $4.2 billion, or 92 percent, comes from those five movies. Just $350.1 million comes from the remaining films.
    What are those other five? There’s “Blackhat,” a $70 milllion Michael Mann thriller that flopped in January with just $17.3 million worldwide. “The Boy Next Door,” the Jennifer Lopez thriller that reportedly cost just $4 million to make but grossed $50.2 million worldwide — a modest success. There’s “Unfriended,” a horror film from producer Jason Blum’s cheap-scare factory (much like this weekend’s “The Gallows”), which cost just $1 million to make but returned $46.7 million worldwide — making cheap horror the only genre besides franchise entries that offer a huge return on investment (as a percentage, but not in absolute dollars).

    And then there was “Seventh Son,” a $95-million attempt to launch a young-adult fantasy franchise that bombed big. It earned back just $110.6 million worldwide, which means the movie lost money (once you add in distribution and marketing costs). Finally, there’s “Ted 2,” with a reported budget between $68 and $85 million. So far, it’s made $124.8 million in three weeks, about 22 percent less than the first “Ted” made at the same point in its run. Given its higher budget (“Ted” cost $50 million), the talking-bear sequel has to be considered a stiff disappointment.

    So that’s two costly franchise failures — plus one bargain-priced horror hit, one similarly cheap original thriller hit, and one expensive original thriller flop — against five overwhelmingly successful franchise installments. From a strict accounting standpoint, it’s hard to argue against that strategy.

    Even the two expensive franchise flops were good gambles (well, at least one of them was; which studio wouldn’t have greenlit “Ted 2”?) whose losses were more than offset by the hits.

    And the other studios are behaving largely the same way. Disney is now little more than Marvel, Pixar, “Star Wars,” and live-action remakes of its cartoon hits. It’s one big gamble on an original premise this year, “Tomorrowland,” didn’t pay off.
    Highlights of Paramount’s slate so far this year include the “SpongeBob” sequel and “Terminator Genisys,” still struggling in its second week but also the studio’s second-highest grossing film of the year so far. Coming later this month is the studio’s fifth “Mission: Impossible” film.

    Fox’s big hits so far this year have been franchise launchers “Home” and “KIngsman: The Secret Service,” along with Melissa McCarthy comedy “Spy” and action sequel “Taken 3.” Coming soon are “Fantastic Four” (reboot of a franchise that’s only a decade old), “Hitman: Agent 47” (a reboot of a fairly recent video game-inspired film), a “Maze Runner” sequel, a “Frankenstein” movie, and the latest animated films from the “Peanuts” gang and Alvin and the Chipmunks.

    Sony has barely made a ripple this year; it’s biggest hits have been the “Paul Blart” sequel and the Kevin Hart comedy “The Wedding Ringer.” Its big original movies — Hugh Jackman sci-fi tale “Chappie” and Cameron Crowe romance “Aloha” — went nowhere. Its upcoming films include two Adam Sandler projects (“Pixels” and animated sequel “Hotel Transylvania 2”) and the launch of a franchise based on the “Goosebumps” kiddie-horror books.
    Warner Bros., typically the most franchise-minded studio, gave us new installments of “Mad Max” and “Magic Mike,” as well as the big-screen version of “Entourage.” “Mad Max: Fury Road” aside, however, none of these movies performed as well as the studio’s non-franchise films, including: Oscar-nominated war drama “American Sniper,” Dwayne Johnson action film “San Andreas,” and Will Ferrell-Kevin Hart comedy “Get Hard.”

    Another attempt at launching a franchise, the Wachowskis’ “Jupiter Ascending,” was a planet-sized flop. Due by the end of the year, the relaunch of the “Vacation” franchise after 18 years, the big-screen version of 1960s TV spy series “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.,” and a remake of 1991’s action thriller “Point Break.”

    Even though Warners’ seems to have done better this year with non-franchise movies than with reboots and sequels, don’t expect its strategy to change — and don’t expect the others to change either.

    Yes, horror movies, comedies, and mid-budget dramas and thrillers are a lot cheaper to make than big action spectacles, but every studio would rather have the next “Jurassic World” than the next “Unfriended” because the rewards are so much greater.

    Hollywood still has to take the occasional risk on originality — after all, “Minions” is the stepchild of “Despicable Me,” a thoroughly original animated feature. But originality seems like little more than a means to an end: a repeatable success. The result may make critics despair and doesn’t always please moviegoers either, but it makes studio executives and accountants rub their hands together with glee like Gru or Scarlett Overkill.

    By the way, “Despicable Me 3” is coming in 2017.
    %Slideshow-304261%

  • Universal Studios’ ‘Skull Island: Reign of Kong’ Attraction Is Going to Be Huge

    Skull Island: Reign of KongKing Kong, the legendary ape who has both fallen for and terrorized Fay Wray, Jessica Lange, and Naomi Watts (to name a few), has long been a staple of Universal Studios theme parks. There’s the King Kong Encounter, a section of Universal Hollywood’s tram tour starting in 1986, the updated version of this experience that debuted at Universal Studios Orlando when the park opened in 1990, plus the recent King Kong 360 3D (once again at Universal Studios Hollywood), that replaced the old Kong section of the tour. Kong has certainly been King, at least at Universal Studios.

    So it’s not that big of a surprise that Universal announced an immersive new Kong experience, slated to open in the summer of 2016, called “Skull Island: Reign of Kong.” This huge experience, which will supposedly be one of the longest and most intense attractions in the entire Universal Orlando complex, allows guests to, for the first time, visit Kong on his native turf: the terrifying Skull Island. If you’ve seen any of the movies, you know what this undoubtedly entails: dinosaurs running amok, giant insects and other creepy crawlies, and Kong himself, the king of it all. Guests will board large expedition trucks, tasked with cataloging the island’s vast array of creatures. Things, somewhat predictably, will go horribly wrong.

    Just how wrong? We spoke with Mike West, Executive Producer at Universal Creative, about what guests can expect when entering the spooky world of Kong next summer, what it was like working with Peter Jackson on the project, and why the ride will be housed in Islands of Adventure (over by the Jurassic Park ride) as opposed to Universal Studios proper.

    Moviefone: There was obviously a King Kong ride in Orlando before and there’s still one in California. So my question is: why circle back to King Kong?

    Mike West: It was kind of like why not? Well, there’s a couple of things: we’re getting ready to celebrate our 25th anniversary at Universal Orlando Resort. And King Kong has been such a rich part of Universal’s history from movies to theme park attractions and they’ve always been great stories in the past. We thought that this gave us the opportunity to tell a new Kong story to a whole new generation, in a completely different way, by having you go to Kong’s home instead of having Kong come to the United States.Skull Island: Reign of Kong entranceWhat from the 3D experience at Universal Studios Hollywood either inspired or informed this new ride and what you’re doing to push that technology forward?

    Well, it’s really a vastly different ride than King Kong 360 3D. We’re taking guests to the physical, thematic environment of Skull Island, whereas in Hollywood it’s really about the movie-making process. You’re watching monitors and you’re on the tram and you’re going in and it’s got the cut and action. It’s all very segmented. We’ve gone in and actually created Skull Island. It’s not about a movie. The story is a story all to its own. It really has no relation to the Peter Jackson 2005 and is in no ways a prequel to the 2017 film. It’s its own piece, which is really exciting.

    Can you talk about the ride system? The promotional artwork shows a large jeep-type vehicle.

    Yeah I can talk about the story… The detail of the technology and the ride systems we’ll get into detail with a little bit down the road. But the guest experience entails a rather extensive queue that goes right up the boarding of the vehicles. And when guests come onto the island, they go through a rather dense jungle area, which gives way to some rather complex ancient ruins and that gives you a peek at some of the hostile natives who are on the island, you hear some cryptic messages that reference some of the unimaginable creatures you’re going to encounter on this rather perilous journey. So by the time you get ready to board the trucks, your senses are tingling and you’re ready for a very thrilling adventure. For once it’s not the thing where you are on the ride and something goes horribly wrong; you know from the very beginning that things aren’t going to go right.Skull Island: Reign of Kong jeep encounterIt’s wrong from the beginning.

    Yes. You board the rather large expedition trucks and then part of the ride system is that the outside part is inside. One of the key pieces of key art that you got sent shows the expedition truck approaching the great wall, which is going to be the face of the attraction. It’s 72-feet wide and is really impressive; as you approach flames shoot up and huge wooden doors open up and you drive up in between these doors and things get darker and more mysterious at that point. Your charge, when you go onto this, is that you’re charged with going on and researching and collecting some specimens of unknown origin, which of course carpet this island. But it quickly turns into a fight for survival. The creatures get bigger and badder and eventually you come face-to-face with big Kong himself.

    So you do encounter other creatures from King Kong?

    Oh yes… all of the creatures that inhabit Skull Island.

    Can you talk about working with Peter Jackson? Was this a similar situation to what it was like working with J.K. Rowling on the Harry Potter projects?

    We worked with Peter on the initial development, working with him on the feel and the level of immersion of the island and how to get guests involved. Because you’re in this truck, you play a role in the story of Kong, which is another new experience for guests. You’re not passively sitting and watching him.

    Things seem to move pretty fast at Universal. We started seeing the Kong building go up this year, and next summer it has an opening date. How do things move this quickly?

    Well, thank you for saying quickly. Others might not agree with that. But I think it has a lot to do with the process and the way we approach things. We really try to establish a strong storyline first and once you let that be the driving force first, and as long as whatever you’re doing supports that story, you can move forward at a pretty good clip.

    Why Islands of Adventure for this new ride?

    Well, for one thing there was a large area of Islands of Adventure that had nothing on it. It seemed like a good spot. And again, if you go back and think of past Kong experiences, where it was really New York-based, this is really going to his shores, to his land. It just felt like a better location to the studios, because it would skew it back more to a film-type feel. We didn’t want it to feel like that. We wanted it to feel like an experience on its own.

    Will there be other experiences in this new Skull Island section of the park?

    It kind of defies categorization. We have never really designed something like this, where the attraction is really something in and unto itself. And because it’s Skull Island, because it’s Kong, it’s got the stature and the size to be established as its own locale.

    “Skull Island: Reign of Kong” opens at Universal Studios Orlando in Summer 2016.
    %Slideshow-142537%

  • E.L. James Wants More Control Over ‘Fifty Shades’ Sequel: Report

    BRITAIN-ENTERTAINMENT-CINEMA-FIFTY SHADES OF GREY
    Following a report that director Sam Taylor-Johnson wants out of her “Fifty Shades of Grey” shackles comes word that author E.L. James wants more control over the film series moving forward.

    James, who penned the best-selling trilogy on which the hit film is based, already wielded lots of power over the production of the first flick, scoring casting approval and working closely with filmmakers to give input on the movie. She and Taylor-Johnson reportedly got into numerous heated arguments on set, and the author demanded that the film be more faithful to the book than producers wanted.

    Now, according to Variety, “James is seeking more control over the sequel by writing the script herself.” But, the trade says, studio Universal Pictures is “resistant to the idea.”

    Production on sequel “Fifty Shades Darker” has stalled, Variety says, due to the studio’s negotiations with James. Both Taylor-Johnson and screenwriter Kelly Marcel are doubtful to return, and that creative tumult has put the greenlight of the second film in the series in jeopardy, especially since production would have be delayed to allow for more time for James to pen a screenplay, a medium in which she has no prior experience.

    Variety explains Universal’s problem with James thusly:

    It’s rare in showbiz for an author to exercise the kind of oversight that James has had over the bigscreen journey of “Fifty Shades.” James didn’t peddle the movie rights until her books were already a worldwide phenomenon, and every studio in town wanted to adapt the trilogy, which gave her considerable bargaining power. As a result, she was able to negotiate a deal with Universal and Focus Features that gave her control over how Christian and Anastasia would appear in the film. Not only does she exercise casting approval – she first met Jamie Dornan, who plays Christian, at his audition in Los Angeles (and was a fan of his work on the BBC TV series “The Fall”) – she’s also credited as a producer on the first movie.

    […]

    James was very involved in all aspects of the “Fifty Shades” film, as she attended creative meetings to make sure that the film didn’t veer too far from her book. According to sources, James, who has no prior film experience, would at times hold up the creative process by offering input that wasn’t in line with the filmmakers’ vision. But given James’ contract with Universal, the director and other producers on the film couldn’t go around her.

    It’s unclear how that contract could affect James’s alleged demand to pen the “Darker” screenplay herself, but so far, Universal has declined to speculate publicly about the possibility.

    “The studio had always intended to sit down with the author after the film opened and discuss next steps and that has not yet happened,” a Universal spokesman told Variety.

    Stay tuned to see how this latest “Fifty Shades” drama plays out.

    [via: Variety]

    Photo credit: AFP/Getty Images

    %Slideshow-265048%