Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

A "great and powerful" opening for OZ!

He's a published author, a Yale Ph.D. English candidate, one of the hottest men alive, an Oscar nominee for Best Actor... and now, James Franco can add major box office draw to his zillion accomplishments! OZ: THE GREAT AND POWERFUL made more than $20 million at the box office this weekend, and has already been given the go-ahead for a sequel!

by Anonymousreply 2203/10/2013

OP, anything less than a $60 million opening is a huge disappointment for Disney.

by Anonymousreply 103/10/2013

Actually, the figure at the OP was wrong... it was just $23.5 million just for Friday... it is on track for a $74 million weekend!

by Anonymousreply 203/10/2013

Read it again OP and R1...it made over 20 mill on Friday alone....it is heading towards a 70 million dollar weekend

by Anonymousreply 303/10/2013

Unless you have Disney stock (as I do), who really cares?

by Anonymousreply 403/10/2013

r1/r4 = bitter Anne Hathaway, seething with envy

by Anonymousreply 503/10/2013

Box Office CANDY!!!

by Anonymousreply 603/10/2013

Yeah, people were running to theatres to see Franco. The Oz storyline had nothing to do with the movie's success. You could have put Frankie Muniz in the role and it would have made as much money.

by Anonymousreply 703/10/2013

$80 million domestic, another 60 overseas according to EW this morning

by Anonymousreply 803/10/2013

He can also add the very worst reviews, from critics and audiences, of his career. I'm sure it would be impossible for anyone to refuse this role, but the filmmakers should have realized that Franco, with all due respects to his talents, was not a good fit.

by Anonymousreply 903/10/2013

I can't describe why I don't like him as an entertainer anymore. It's odd and I'm not a fickle person.

by Anonymousreply 1003/10/2013

[quote]but the filmmakers should have realized that Franco, with all due respects to his talents, was not a good fit.

Apparently the general public disagrees with you.

In Hollywood, there's no arguing with $$$$.

by Anonymousreply 1103/10/2013

Please, nobody in Hollywood actually believes the movie was a hit because of James Franco.

by Anonymousreply 1203/10/2013

DL seems to be the only place with this irrational hatred of James Franco. If Franco wasn't already A list, this movie has moved him into that category. He is now an official opener.

by Anonymousreply 1303/10/2013

$80 million

by Anonymousreply 1403/10/2013

[quote]DL seems to be the only place with this irrational hatred of James Franco.

Nope. He seems to be regarded as a douche everywhere. DL is hardly the exception.

by Anonymousreply 1503/10/2013

Given that this is a prequel to 1939's "The Wizard of Oz," how do they make a sequel?

by Anonymousreply 1603/10/2013

R16 There is a whole series of Oz books by the original author that cover the period after "The Wizard of Oz."

by Anonymousreply 1703/10/2013

[quote]'m sure it would be impossible for anyone to refuse this role,

Both Robert Downey Jr and Jonny Depp refused the role. It was actually written for Downey Jr.

[quote]He is now an official opener.

Yeah, he's a regular Adam Sandler. When people line up to see his 'persona' shit, then you can start to brag.

by Anonymousreply 1803/10/2013

Why do so many people rush to watch this movie? Is it because it's a Disney movie, a movie about OZ, for the CGI(monkeys with wings! monkeys with wings!), a movie for the whole family, because it stars Mila Kunis, Rachel Weisz, or Michelle Williams? What?

by Anonymousreply 1903/10/2013

The film is a huge success. I love how DL elders have no fucking clue how the industry works. It also opened on a non-holiday weekend, which makes its current box office record even more astounding.

by Anonymousreply 2003/10/2013

[quote]Given that this is a prequel to 1939's "The Wizard of Oz," how do they make a sequel?

This isn't a prequel to the 1939 film. This is a prequel to the book, "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz." If they make a sequel to that, then off to Book #2, "The Marvelous Land of Oz." There are 14 Oz books. "Oz The Great and Powerful" isn't based on any of them though. "Return To Oz" stayed very faithful to the books, not counting all the pre-1939 films. The 1939 film was simply a musical. It was loosely based on the book.

People need to get it though their heads that the 1939 film was a single adaptation of the first book, and bears little resemblance to the real story. It's like Burton's "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory." The original film, "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory," was a musical. It wasn't the book. It didn't even use the original title like Burton's did. These films are worth redoing, or doing for the first time since the musicals were loosely inspired by the book or books.

The sequel to "Oz The Great and Powerful," "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz," will unlikely feature ruby slippers, as in the book they're silver.

by Anonymousreply 2103/10/2013

r19, why do people rush to see any film? Fantasy productions are all the rage now. It's like vampires, zombies, and shit. The Oz series is much like "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. It's actually pretty dark and disturbing. It'll be interesting how they handle the sequel which will be based solely on the original first book.

by Anonymousreply 2203/10/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.