MI:3, Flopping like dying fish?

As is my want, I was perusing the liberal blogs yesterday and I noticed that there was several squealing with glee at the complete and utter failure of the latest Tom Cruise vehicle, Mission Impossible 3.

Now first of all, I don't know why they care so much. Cruise isn't really a political issue unless you are interested in how much influence the Church of Scientology has on politicians (I wonder if the mere mention will lead to a CoS search engine flagging this essentially unread page... shudder). In fact, I imagine conservative blogs are taking the same cold joy in the demise, although I don't really feel like dipping into that cesspool to find out (Egads! Secret political leanings revealed!). People are just suffering TomKat fatigue, don't like Tom Cruise (smug little prick), and/or like it whenever Hollywood Blockbusters fail.

My question is whether it is really fair to call a movie that made 48 million dollars in 3 days a flop. Yes, the powers that be were promised...Promised!...That MI3 would make 50-70 million its opening weekend.

OK, we will ignore for the moment that 48 million is for all intents and purposes identical to 50 million. When you tell an exec a movie will make 50-70 million, I am sure anything less than 60 million is a failure. Ending up technically less than the low end is certainly nothing to write the stock holders about.

My question is whether the estimate makes any sense. MI:1 (which had the audacity to be simply called Mission Impossible) made 45 million opening, 180 million total in 1996. MI:2 made 58/215 million in 2000. While there has been some inflation over the past decade, the 48 million opening appears to be about as good as the first film. The reviews have been solid, so it would probably not be crazy to guess MI:3 will hold well enough to get back to ~180 million dollar territory. [Granted: 1996 was a different era in terms of number of opening day screens. MI:1 was a bigger success than MI:3]


Is it so crazy to expect the THIRD movie in a less than thrilling franchise (Honestly, tell me anything about the characters from the Mission Impossible movies. I dare you.) to not do any better than the first? How about those spaced 5-6 years apart?

Using opening day grosses only (all we got so far for MI3), what is the history of blockbuster 3rd sequels?

Harry Potter (Azkaban/Goblet;94mil/103mil), Lord of the Rings (73mil), & Star Wars (108mil) opened bigger with each film, with some of the biggest weekends of all time. As cultural phenomenon these movies can't even be compared to MI. How many Star Wars fans saw the 3rd film out a sense of obligation? Obligation! No other franchise has power like that.

Goldmember (73mil) opened huge. I got to give you that one. I am fairly certain AP:4 would not do anywhere near as well.

As 3rd movie openings go that drops us all the way down to #48, Jurassic Park III (51 mil), which made 20 million dollars less than II and could end up being very comparable to MI:3 in total money.

Then we have Scary Movie 3 (48mil), the unexplainable franchise, and Matrix:Revolutions(48mil) which SUCKED and made 43 million less than its Reloaded brother.

Rounding out the top 100 we got a Bond film (Die Another Day; 47mil), Terminator III (44mil;There is a big franchise that did not exactly pop), and Scary Movie 4 (40mil), which defies all logic yet again.

Not included is EVERY OTHER 3rd+ movie ever made! Lots of sequels do better than the original. It takes an exceptional 3rd movie and/or franchise to outdo the 2nd film. Again I acknowledge both inflation and the way Hollywood releases films changes money totals upwards with time, but come on. Someone at Paramount fooled themselves into believing Mission Impossible is the uber-franchise that it is not. That doesn't mean you can't make a hundred more of them, a la Bond, but don't expect Harry Potter numbers.

I predict X-Men 3 makes less money only 20 million dollars more opening weekend than X2. In no way can I alter this blog entry later to make me seem prophetic.

So sadly, while I think the storyline is that Tom Cruise killed this film, I think it will really be killed by its own over-expectations. And still gross a half billion dollars when all is said and done.