This Weekend's Top Movies (& "Osmosis Jones")

[Anthonynotes]

1 (+) American Pie 2 ......... $45.1 million

2 (1) Rush Hour 2 ............ $31.5 million

3 (3) The Princess Diaries ... $14.1 million

4 (+) The Others ............. $13.6 million

5 (2) Planet of the Apes ..... $13.3 million

6 (4) Jurassic Park III ...... $ 7.3 million

7 (+) Osmosis Jones .......... $ 5.6 million

8 (5) America's Sweethearts .. $ 4.6 million

9 (7) Legally Blonde ......... $ 3.8 million

10 (6) Original Sin ........... $ 3.1 million

NOTE: Last weekend's position in parenthesis. ``+'' - new release.
<<<

Looks as if "Osmosis Jones" isn't going to fare too well in the long run (even factoring in the rather lightweight-looking new competition in terms of the films being released over the next few weeks ["Ghosts of Mars" and "Jay & Silent Bob" look to be the strongest "blockbuster" contenders, but it looks to me as if the summer blockbuster season's about to draw to a close, to make way for the Oscar-contender-worthy fall/winter films :-) ]). Guess the public isn't into the perils of single-celled lifeforms...

-B.
Realizes that he's hardly been to the movies all summer....and not (completely) related to a lack of money, either...

[Calhoun07]

I saw Shrek in the theater, I will see Jay And Silent Bob in the theater, but for the inbetween movies...either the reviews let me know I didn't want to see them as bad as I wanted to, or I decided I could wait for the DVD after all. But that's the way it is for me every year. I only go to the theater once or twice a year as it is. It takes something I really really want to see to go to the theater.

Oh, I did see Mummy Returns at the theater. I will not be buying that DVD. Ok, just not as good as the first.

[The Mad Hatter]

Seventh?

Ouch.

I wonder if this setback will affect WB's plans for the new Looney Tunes movie...

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

Waitaminute....Looney Toons movie? Why didn't they show THAT first? I'm sure it woulda been a big seller...

[James Harvey]

The bigger question is will this effect the OSMOSIS JONES animated tv spin off coming. My answer? Yes.

[Sveven Dvorking]

Originally posted by DickGrayson
The bigger question is will this effect the OSMOSIS JONES animated tv spin off coming. My answer? Yes.

The Osmosis Jones series will probably be cancelled. The money hogs at AOL-TW may have made a mistake with that movie. I don't have any plans to see Osmosis Jones in the theater.


No Looney Tunes movie has been planned yet, and they have a million different ideas. As for me, I hope there is never another Looney Tunes movie. If there is, they won't be getting my $5.50!

[bushnader666]

Hey, anything is possible with AOL-TW, now that their CNN people are courting Rush Limbaugh. The guy who said CNN = "Clinton News Network." If someone mentions the "liberal" media again, I'll watch 1-hr of scooby-doo.

But AwOL-TW are penny-pinchers. They fired everyone from CNN and the Braves are downsizing.

[robert]

Guess we should have all expected Osmosis, which I haven't seen, to do bad, especially with American Pie 2 around to rule. One has to wonder how many more animated films other than Pokemon WB will make before they give up, FOX Animation Films gave up after Titan A.E, if WB produces a few more non Pokemon flops, do you think they might do the same thing? BTW, I read that "Osmosis" did yet another Matrix spoof, do you think they thought they could get away with it only because one of the stars of that movie, Laurence Fishburne, was in it and they thought that woud make it funnier? That's pretty much the only excuse they have to work with.
Well in any case, there's not much left to see over the next few weeks until Oscar time, a.k.a fall, kicks in, is there?

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

Actually, I heard that THIS could be the flop that causes WB to give up....sigh. Let's hope it can somehow get back into the ring....though now I doubt it.

Boy, all these Matrix spoofs....(whistles) When do you think they'll give the spoof up?

[Anthonynotes]

bushnader666:
One reason that CNN might be courting Limbaugh (I presume as some sort of commentator) is to give their network some sense of "balance" by courting a conservative talking-head (to counter the centrist/liberal talking heads that conservatives claim make up CNN), and garner more ratings from getting more conservative viewers to tune in (esp. since those viewers are likely watching the more-appealing-to-their-POV of Fox News). All about ratings and money, as you noted, including the staff cutbacks, the changes made to CNN Headline News (which though I haven't seen it, supposedly looks like that Bloomberg Information TV stuff to get more younger viewers). (Plus, I gather from the user ID you're not a fan of Nader? Just curious...though if it goes into some gratuitous off-topic flame war/thread, forget I asked....).

Robert:
John Carpenter's "Ghost of Mars" comes out in a few weeks, and seems to be the last "blockbuster" film to come out, before Labor Day and with it, the fall Oscar contender rush of films, arrive. And I expected "Pie 2" to rule the box office this weekend (esp. if the viewers are anything like my sister, who was ga-ga over Pie *one*....). And I'd also guess that there wasn't room for *two* gross-gag-laden movies (with the "R" rated one naturally being more appealing than the PG, cartoon one...).

BorgeoisBuffoon: I guess they'll give up all those "Matrix" spoofs (or *spoof* given it's always that same "midair 180-degree rotation" thing being done in the spoofs, which as Craig noted wasn't great shakes to begin with) soon enough, or as soon as the next Big Thing to parody comes along...however, the lack of anything truly outstanding in a "Matrix" sort ot way this year so far probably isn't helping much at all.

[The Mad Hatter]

I've seen the new Headline News... there's so much crap on the screen that it's exhausting to try to watch it. Then there's the network's new motto: "Real News, Real Fast." Really. So much for any attempts at integrity...

[The Mad Hatter]

And I probably should resist the urge to comment on the "liberal bias" thing, but there's a common saying among modern-day journalists... newspapers are only as liberal as the conservative corporations that own them. Then again, the "liberal bias" crowd will continue to cling to that perception, facts be damned. In fact, I know of some people who swear up and down the the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette is liberal, despite the fact that they've viciously gone after Clinton for going on 20 years now (and in fact made me a cog in the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (TM), but that's a story for another time...).

[DR. BELCH]

The big-name newspapers may be swinging in a more conservative direction--and I commend them for that--but the college newspaper, the backbone of this nation, is still very left-leaning and steeped in a liberal climate. It seems no one's told the faculty advisors that the liberal media is going the way of the dinosaur (if it is at all; the way they drove Gingrich out of power and did everything they could to give Gore the White House proves otherwise). It's as if they're training them for the mythical day this move to the right ends and the left can retake the newsrooms. They percieve they're losing power, and they respond by screaming louder and fighting harder. To them it's a war.

On Nader: during last year's election my brother and I took to calling him "The 'Nad". It was pretty funny when, on Election Night, Mr. Unsafe At Any Speed took another half of a percent in some state and one of us would shout, "The 'Nad is rising!", or conversely, "The 'Nad has dropped!"

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

Boy, this thing changed topic real fast!

Actually, I call Nader VADER.
He had the best name to make fun off...and, as BELCH made a good example of, the best campaign jokes...I remember this one cartoon....

(Nader holds up sign saying I GOT 8%)

Nader: (monotone) Who's laughing now, Gore?

[Anthonynotes]

Have to agree with Hatter on what he said re: media's biases...they're only biased towards whatever makes money, no matter who's favorite politician/p.o.v. gets slandered (I don't recall Reagan being bashed subjected to much criticism in the 80's, and Clinton [who I probably don't consider to be a true "liberal" given a lot of his policies/attitudes---more like "moderate/middle-of-the-road" (with a few token gestures to the (growing fewer) leftists in the Democratic party)] certainly wasn't treated with kid gloves by the press during his tenure...). And what's put out *is* heavily influenced by whoever owns the paper/TV network in question, rather than the reporters themselves---I don't think I'd have much influence if I went to work for Fox (owned by Murdoch) ;-) And one won't see much badmouthing/critical analysis of Disney on ABC these days, probably...

Originally posted by BorgeoisBuffoon
Boy, this thing changed topic real fast!

Actually, I call Nader VADER.
He had the best name to make fun off...and, as BELCH made a good example of, the best campaign jokes...I remember this one cartoon....

(Nader holds up sign saying I GOT 8%)

Nader: (monotone) Who's laughing now, Gore?

Seeing as I'm probably alone on all this....I must share my deep, dark secret:

I voted for....*Nader*. (gasp!)

There...got that off my chest. And no, I don't regret my "throwing-away-on-a-third-party-candidate" vote...besides, Gore (my other person I was trying to decide between voting for) seemed too
weak/spineless on certain issues to me...

-B.
Won't say any more on this segment of the thread, lest it turn into yet another flame war...

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

Eh, don't worry; I ake fun of ALL canidates! See my H! Around the World 3 fic to see how I think of Bush and Gore....frankly, I was dissapointed with the canidates....I hope that when I get to vote in about 4 years, I'll have some good canidates to choose from...

[Anthonynotes]

Originally posted by BorgeoisBuffoon
Eh, don't worry; I ake fun of ALL canidates! See my H! Around the World 3 fic to see how I think of Bush and Gore....frankly, I was dissapointed with the canidates....I hope that when I get to vote in about 4 years, I'll have some good canidates to choose from...

Saw that story; very cute song bit....

Agreed re: the disappointing candidates for 2000's election, which might explain *why* it was so close---that nobody really liked either candidate.

And now that I think of it, Belch, the media generally always give a new president a "honeymoon period", as it's called, aka the first 100 days in office, a period during which they supposedly go "easy" on said commander-in-chief. Though as I stated before, it doesn't matter which party's in the White House---it's all about making profit for (mainly) TV media, and if said prez does something stupid/incompetent/etc., they'll be all over him like a bad suit analyzing said incident to death...

To me, the main problem with the mass media nowadays is probably the amount of bland, useless information and soundbites dispensed, and the lack of depth of coverage on important issues (especially political policies). CNN's Headline News revamp, as Hatter notes, seems particularly succumbing to the notion of soundbite-itis and not much depth, from the sounds of it. It's apparently getting to the point where Dan Rather in a recent CBS evening newscast told viewers (in an apparently unauthorized moment on the air) to tell them to read a newspaper for more info on stem cell research, since the network (from what I heard) apparently wanted to cut him off early to make room for promos for some reality show or other....he apparently was somewhat upset.

Of course, newspapers are showing some signs of trouble as well (Gannett, the large newspaper chain that owns USA TODAY, has rather McDonald's�-esque ways of running their various papers, and keep buying more and more all the time and insisting the papers run specialized, rigidly defined formats and simplifying the stories' writing. Plus, I've heard various horror stories about how Gannett runs their operations with an iron fist, including various arguments with the individual papers' editorial staffs...). Here in Indianapolis, Gannett bought the "Indianapolis Star", and proceeded to fire various senior members of the staff, and hired less experienced, cheaper workers. There seemed to be particular uproar locally over the sports section's lead writers being axed...

And while I'm at it: I think the Chicago Tribune keeps shrinking the comics in their paper more and more....and I'm not sure I like the idea of colorizing daily black and white strips. :-)

-B.
Not sure where he's going with all this....

[The Mad Hatter]

Ah, Gannett papers. I've seen a few of them in my travels, and they all look more or less the same. And on the front section, just about every page is 2/3 ads and 1/3 news. Any of their papers that want to do sections in a different way, to tailor it to the tastes and desires of the local readership, is out of luck. I remember Gannett dove in and bought the much-revered Arkansas Gazette... and within a couple of years, the paper was ruined and its assets were snatched up by the Arkansas Democrat.

I get the feeling that all forms of media, from newspapers to TV (very interesting Rather anecdote) has decided that more, shorter news stories are better than in-depth pieces that actually get you to think. Unless something big happens like the Condit-Levy thing, in which case they'll obscess about it non-stop.

Oh, and during the Gannett days of the Gazette we got subjected to colorized daily comics too... I never got used to that.