Predicting the Box Office, Part I

Nobody knows nothin'.

Well, not exactly. Prognostication in Hollywood is best left inside the movies, but even it fails there. The Studios look at films as investments; supposedly, one "blockbuster" makes up for 20 movies that "lose" money. Talk about putting all your eggs in one basket...

Steven Spielberg was interviewed in 1982 after he had made "E.T.," and basically said that every time a film is released the Studios want it to be the "tied-game, last of the ninth homerun hit; the basketball slam-dunk during overtime..." 26 years later and the Studios still expect the same, albeit with an edge of cynicism.

Part of what's hurting the Studios are their choices for summer releases. Ten years ago (summer 1998) the choices were "Deep Impact," "Bulworth," "Godzilla," "The Truman Show," "Can't Hardly Wait," "Six Days Seven Nights," "The X-Files: Fight the Future," "Doctor Dolittle," "Armageddon," "Lethal Weapon 4," "There's Something About Mary," "The Mask of Zorro," "Disturbing Behavior," "BASEketball," "The Negotiator," "Halloween H20," "Air Bud: Golden Receiver," "Blade," "54," and "Wrongfully Accused." Just looking at this list (I've seen all but 4 of these movies) the selection runs the spectrum: kid movies, action/adventure movies, comedies, scifi movies, romantic comedies... it's across the board.

And that's the problem of late: lack of variety at the Studios. Anyone remember last year? We had "Pirates of the Caribbean 3," "Shrek 3," "Bourne 3," "Spider-Man 3," "Rush Hour 3;" anything that could have the number 3 attached to it was sent out to do box office battle against original fare, as well as the rest of the 3's. The audience got sick of it. Sure, this "3" may have been better than "2," but neither were as good as "1" but was any "3" better than any other "3?" Did Studio execs ever get to hear or eavesdrop on these conversations?