MI3 didn't do too bad, basically on the level of T3 but considering the really high expectations, the Cruise media blitz, and the fact that this is really the first test of his drawing power after his antics last year, this will be spun into a big old disappointment Monday morning.

Not at all! IMO this film will be pushed by its international numbers, and the fact that it will still be 150% + over Kingdom of Heaven's opening. If anything, I think it will have its numbers spun quite a bit, as it likely will top 100 m internationally this weekend I think...I hope that they do go in depth into the domestic numbers a bit though...

T3's first Friday was only 4m off of MI3 and it opened on a Wednesday.

People are waiting for superman.

I wouldn't get your hopes up -- people are even more tired of half-assed superhero movies, than they are of half-assed action movies...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column ... umnID=9550
With ridiculously wide availablity thanks to over 4,000 venues, there are plenty of good seats available for the rest of the weekend. We'll give Mission: Impossible III a weekend multiplier of 2.7, for a weekend tally of $45.9 million and a whole summer's worth of discussion over whether Cruise's erratic behavior was to blame.

Summer's going to suck for Cruise fans.

It disgusts me that people won't see a movie because one of it's stars needs to be instituitionalized.

First of all, I agree that it disgusts me that people don't want to see a decent film just cuz of the star and it has nothing to do with politics but just because they are "annoyed" by him. What a cheap excuse, but to say he needs to be institutionalized essentially for his beliefs is stupid as well. Did he act differently than normal with his is affair with Katie holmes? Sure he did. Is he pretty single minded in his belief of the merits of psychiatry? Sure, but none of that makes him Crazy. That ranks as one of the dumbest thoughts ever.

It is apparent that people have been turned off by him, but I'm sure Cruise will rebound just as he did after MR with WOTW not he has to fix this issue which has one easy cure. Think before he speaks.

Nice improvement for BOP. :up:

Are you demented? Seriously I feel like scratching an Alanis Morisette CD.

Cruises's antics did not affect Mission: Impossible III. It they did, it affected less than 5% of its audience. Mission: Impossible III didn't open to expectations because one) the premise was uninteresting and indifferent from others in the genre and two) people had the assumption that they couldn't see this one if they hadn't seen one or both of the previous sequels. No other recognizable cast members hurt as well, no one knows Philip Seymour Hoffman, let alone he is an appeal.

I'd say we just had too high of expectations. A $50 million weekend for M:I:3 at the start of the summer just seems right. It didn't seem like the kind of movie that opens over $60 million.

17 million for MI:3?

Wow, pretty disapointing considering all the high expectations. Not that suprising though, if you look at how poorly Kingdom of Heaven performed during the first weekend of May last year.

Yeah, because its not like the American media is all consuming and that we are being subjected to the same annoyingness of Tom Cruise as you guys are or anything!

Who knew one of the box offices biggest historic pulls would finally start to falter because he is insane?!

Antics did have an effect, and I'd say much more than 5%. The premise was the exact same based on the trailers as MI1 and MI2, so I don't think that was the issue. People didn't have the assumption that they couldn't see this one if they hadn't seen the rest, because I think at least to me this is summer fluff where its pretty obvious one can go right into the third film and still enjoy it. Also, the other films didn't have recognizable cast either, and as was the case, overlapping casts across the films...

What didn't help:

-Katie Holmes lookalike in the trailer (just what the audience needs!)

-This film is Cruise image driven, WOTW was not IMO.

-WOTW came out after 3 months of TomKat, MI3 did after close to 15 months of TomKat. That's clearly too much for audiences!

- 6 years

People laughed during the Inside Man to the MI3 trailer, which having just looked back, I read that I wrote in an Inside Man thread 2 months back. The TomKat effect is much more evident now as we've endured this for 15 + months, and now with a Cruise image driven film.

what a joke.

I'd say if there is one single factor to blame for this film's failure It's Tom Cruise. Average Joes even identify him as being fucking crazy. Out of all the people i've spoken to about this movie, every single one of them have immediately said something about Tom Cruise's personal life. Tom Cruise is Mission Impossible. Hes the one constant for this series, So it is him we go and see the movie for.

MI1: $67.76 m adjusted (3day), and that was w/ the Wed opening, its 5day would be $94.7 m, with total $270 m.

MI2: $70.74 m adjusted 3day, 5day $96.433 m, total $263.4 m

Its hard to blame the franchise, as its clearly been quite bankable. The only major changes between the first 2, and the third is that 2 extra years have passed between films, and Cruise's antics...

For the film to drop to $50 m/$150 m, when the first two adjust to $260 m/$270 m, clearly is a sign of concern.

I think a BIGGER focus on Hoffman in advertising would have helped greatly, boasting him as an oscar winner. Too much focus on Cruise in the trailers and posters and not enough on action/villian/supporting players. It would have distracted people from saying "Oh I HATE Tom Cruise!" and replacing it with "Oh I LOVE Mission Impossible movies!" ...Too image oriented this time around; they knew a lot of people hated him now, so why would they base marketing solely on Cruise? Stupid move. Still not a flop, it should have decent legs even with the big films coming in and hit 150-175 million.

I still dont get the high expectations. I think this went good. WOTW also had Speilberg and 4th of July, other than that cruise opens in the 20 million range. Yest Mission Impossible has been higher, but the 2nd almost killed the franchise, not financially of course, I think it did just about right and should still do pretty good. Tom Cruises biggest domestically hit outside of WOTW since Mi2

To be honest, aside from Tom Cruises annoying personal life overshadowing the movie, again, I think Mission Impossible 3 might turn off people for not really understanding the point of the series.
Its supposed to be super campy, super fun and super dumb.

I really want to see this, but I get why it doen't have as much appeal as the first two. Theres no vain shots of Tom Cruise hanging off of cliffs here.

DP's instincts were very good on all openers this week. Congrats, buddy!

I did repeatedly say Hoot's signs were trouble and would have gone lower than $6m if the theater count wasn't over 3,000, but in the end no way I imagined this low.

I don't think his antics turned that many people off either, but they certainly drew attention away from the movie. People always say that there's no such thing as bad publicity, however when an actor's personal life overshadows the movie he's trying to promote, there's a problem.

People don't want to support someone they detest. Plus, the movie was good, just not special ENOUGH to draw in those that didn't even like Cruise to begin with.

this could recover. Batman and Kong last year had dissapointing opening weekends and still recovered very nicely. This isn't the Island or Stealth. I think this will cross over $150M easy.

Kong was EXPECTED to have good legs though due to its release date and expected competition. Its legs were in the range of how long most predicted them to be, but probably on the lower end of these expectations.

MI3 doesn't have the fantastic WOM that Batman did nor the holiday season that Kong did. This will struggle to get to $150 million. Unless it increases (a lot) on Saturday, I don't see it recovering. $140 million.