No. If Sam Raimi was directing Rush Hour 3, it wouldn't make a difference. Maybe Peter Jackson, as he's sort of a celebrity director.

The six year absence is going to hurt it, just like Mission: Impossible III. Plus, the two players have been missing in action.

It wont be as bad as MI3 because it didnt get bad WOM from the previous installment nor are people staying away from the movie because of the star. The 6 year gap hurts but not as badly as MI3

But does Rush Hour 2 have signifgantly better word of mouth than MI2? They were both dumb movies that gave the audience what they wanted. It hlps you have a hit, but distlls loyalty.

RH1 has 6.6 at imdb
MI1 has 6.6 at imdb

RH2 has 6.4 at imdb
MI2 has 5.2 at imdb
so yes its significantly better than MI2 and MI2 grade dropped by 1 from the previous installment

Differences between MI:3 and Rush Hour 3

1) Rush Hour 2 was very well received, MI:2 was poorly. 3.36 multiplier for a big sequel opening, with American Pie 2 in it's second weekend. That's excellent.

2) Rush Hour 3 will be a comedy, MI:3 was part of the "shit blowing up" genre which is DEAD AS FUCK right now.

3) Rush Hour 3 will have Chan and Tucker, who people still like. MI:3 had Cruise, who single handily created a backlash towards the film.

Also, the competition won't hurt it that much guys. Looking at the schedule, it's one of the two big movies of the month. Bourne Ultimatum, and Rush Hour 3. Bourne has similar action, but it's also deathly serious. This should still be able to coincide with it as the one-two August punch. It's also the only really big comedy of the month, it'll be fine. As for AvP2, it will do 20-25 mil opening weekend at best, which isn't enough to hurt it anything significantly.

71/210

Come to think of it, Bourne should probably be one worried about MI:3's performance, not Rush Hour. What's more similar? A buddy-cop comedy, or a big budget spy/action movie where things continously blow up. I know which one I'd pick.

I dont see why this wont do well - it will be a huge hit. Biggest thing going against it is probably competition from Bourne 3 - but otherwise $72m opening and $190-$210m finish.

One set i the US, Two set in Asia and now Three set in Europe - i think the change in settings bodes well for it - keeping it fresh.

It was rell-receieved in a "That's what the doctor ordered" kind of way...but there's "well receieved" and "people have the hungering for more".



Please. Mr. and Mrs. Smith was a total shit blows up movie and that did fine--blaming Mission: Impossible III's performance on its genre is right behind saying it was because of a Mercury Retrograde.



It's hard to tell whether people like them, as the two's output has been scarce to nil over the years--Chan hasn't had a hit since the last Rush Hour, and Tucker hasn't done anything.



The last Bourne came out three years ago, (a perfect spacing) and the movies have much more of a loyal following.

There's an A at cinemascore which happens 3 or 4 times a year at best.

Same as X2 actually.

Stuff keeps blowing up in Bourne? You have like one big explosion in each movie. It's more similar with Da Vinci and National Treasure then MI3 and the like I'd say. This is the type of action thriller that's doing well.

I'm at 80m/245m. I don't see why the delay will affect it any more then Lethal Weapon 4, as people loved both movies.

Lethal Weapon 4 will have come out almost ten years ago--the market was a lot different back then--for one, it was what, the only sequel then?

Yes, the market has changed; sequels now do better.

Sequels to well received movies.

Well yes, being well received is the most important factor, but Big Momma's House 2 certainly beat expectations.

Big Momma's House probably had great WOM to its demographics. But it was quite unexpected to see such a gross after a 6 year wait.

Big Momma's House 2 made less than the last one. I'm not saying Rush Hour 3 will flop...but I'm saying right here, right now, it will not make 200 million. And there's the possibility of a sequel clusterfuck that hit 2003.

Rush Hour 2 ended up SECOND for the summer, which literally no one in the industry expected. PH, Mummy 2, Planet of the Apes, Jurassic Park 3, all of these films finished below Rush Hour 2. The second one would adjust to a bit under $300 m by the time it comes out, I don't think considering it had among the best legs for summer $65 m + openers, that it'll drop below $200 m. And remember, it opened to $67 m the weekend after a $68 m opening, with direct overlap in quite a bit of the demographics (action). It is a very devoted fanbase. Adjusted for inflation, this is the equivalent of Planet of the Apes, a film pulling in action crowds and opening to $81 m, being followed in its 2nd weekend by Rush Hour 2, which pulls in comedy/action crowds, and opened to $80 m in adjusted prices.

Well I for one didn't expect most of the 2003 sequels to do better then they did. It was unrealistic expectations for many of those films.

Why do you say that?

Nevermind that comment. I just realized it barely attained half of its original audience.

Just to put this too long for a sequel thing into perspective, Ive listed some movies who have a 5 year gap between installements and how it compares with their last movie. These are only for movies where the same star is attached so no Batman,James Bond, Star Wars,Jack ryan or Exorcist

Die Hard 5 year gap
Die Hard 2: Die Harder $117,540,947 OW$21,744,661
Die Hard: With A Vengeance $100,012,499 OW$22,162,245

Mission Impossible 6 year gap
Mission: Impossible II $215,409,889 OW$57,845,297
Mission: Impossible III $133,501,348 4,059 OW$47,743,273

Terminator 7 year gap, 12 year gap
Terminator 2: Judgment Day $204,843,345 OW$31,765,506
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines $150,371,112 OW$44,041,440
Terminator $38,371,200 OW$4,020,663

Santa Clause 8 year gap
The Santa Clause $144,833,357 OW$19,321,992
The Santa Clause 2 $139,236,327 OW$29,008,696

Rocky Balboa 16 year gap, 5 year gap
Rocky Balboa $60,642,611(to date) OW$12,158,168
Rocky V $40,946,358 OW$14,073,170
Rocky IV $127,873,716 OW$19,991,537

Beverly Hills Cop 7 year gap
Beverly Hills Cop II $153,665,036 OW$26,348,555
Beverly Hills Cop III $42,614,912 2,748 OW$12,426,169

Bad Boys 7 year gap
Bad Boys $65,807,024 OW$15,523,358
Bad Boys $138,608,444 OW$46,522,560

Lethal Weapon 6 year gap
Lethal Weapon 3 $144,731,527 OW$33,243,086
Lethal Weapon 4 $130,444,603 OW$34,048,124


The Godfather 16 year gap
The Godfather Part III $66,666,062 OW$19,558,558
The Godfather Part II $47,542,841

Aliens 7 year gap,6 year gap,5 year gap
Alien $78,944,891 OW$3,527,881
Aliens $85,160,248 OW$10,052,042
Alien 3 $55,473,545 OW$19,449,867
Alien Resurrection $47,795,658 OW$16,474,092

Dirty Harry 7 year gap,5 year gap
The Dead Pool $37,903,295 OW$9,071,330
Sudden Impact $67,642,693 OW$9,688,561
The Enforcer $46,236,000

El Marachi 8 year gap
Once Upon a Time in Mexico $56,359,780 OW$23,424,118
Desperado Sony $25,405,445 OW$7,910,446



And my point? That probably a 6 year gap isnt anything uncommon as seen with the Aliens movie and the drops for some of them arent that drastic. I guess in some cases the drop probably has to do with the diminishing star quality like Eddie Murphy in BHC and Arnuld in T3 but it didnt affect Tim Allen's Clause movies or Lethal Weapon that much. Besides Jackie Chans Shanghi Surprise had no bearing on Rush Hour 2 or that he really has had any american hits besides RH. Im not saying RH3 will gross the same as RH2 but I dont see it going below 150 million either

Yeah that says it all really. There is no real pattern either way and its not the time gap alone that effects final gross.

Im sticking with my original prediction posted last year - $70-$72m opening and $190m-ish finish. Thats in line with the Die Hard 2 to die Hard 3 difference.

And the point about Alien movies still doing fine despite Sigourney Weaver who last played the heroine was in her late 40s(an equivalent of Jack Palance playing an action hero in Hollywood terms for female action stars)

I don't think we should count the sequels from the 90's (or earlier!) either way. The market changes. Musicals and Westerns used to mean big business, they don't now.

Bad Boys II made sgifigantly more money than Bad Boys, but come on...Smith was hardly the star in 1995 he was 2003. He can make Bad Boys II money out of anything, the movie didn't need, or benefit from, the franchise moniker. The same thing with El Mariachi on a much smaller scale. Banderas and Hayek were much more well known. Not to mention Johnny friggin' Depp being in it. Jackie Chan has done flop after flop, and Tucker hasn't done anything at all. If either has a huge, out of nowhere hit--or at least one of its second string cast members breaks out in the intrim, then yes, [b}Rush Hour 3[/b] will make anything. rocky Balboa is doing alright for itself, but it isn't making 100 million, and if Rush Hour makes 70 million, it'll be considered a disaster.

The last movie to make more than any previous entry in the franchise after a gap greater than five years was Hanniba. And we're talking a sequel to a film much more iconic than the Rush Hour series, and squeaked in just before the sequel explosion. (Well, I guess you could count Superman Returns, but the first Superman made something like 120 million. How could that not be topped?