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!
A "great and powerful" opening for OZ!
|by Anonymous||reply 22||03/10/2013|
OP, anything less than a $60 million opening is a huge disappointment for Disney.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||03/10/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 2||03/10/2013|
Read it again OP and R1...it made over 20 mill on Friday alone....it is heading towards a 70 million dollar weekend
|by Anonymous||reply 3||03/10/2013|
Unless you have Disney stock (as I do), who really cares?
|by Anonymous||reply 4||03/10/2013|
r1/r4 = bitter Anne Hathaway, seething with envy
|by Anonymous||reply 5||03/10/2013|
Box Office CANDY!!!
|by Anonymous||reply 6||03/10/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 7||03/10/2013|
$80 million domestic, another 60 overseas according to EW this morning
|by Anonymous||reply 8||03/10/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 9||03/10/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 10||03/10/2013|
[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 Anonymous||reply 11||03/10/2013|
Please, nobody in Hollywood actually believes the movie was a hit because of James Franco.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||03/10/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 13||03/10/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 14||03/10/2013|
[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 Anonymous||reply 15||03/10/2013|
Given that this is a prequel to 1939's "The Wizard of Oz," how do they make a sequel?
|by Anonymous||reply 16||03/10/2013|
R16 There is a whole series of Oz books by the original author that cover the period after "The Wizard of Oz."
|by Anonymous||reply 17||03/10/2013|
[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 Anonymous||reply 18||03/10/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 19||03/10/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 20||03/10/2013|
[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 Anonymous||reply 21||03/10/2013|
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 Anonymous||reply 22||03/10/2013|