The Morning Watch is a recurring feature that highlights a handful of noteworthy videos from around the web. They could be video essays, fanmade productions, featurettes, short films, hilarious sketches, or just anything that has to do with our favorite movies and TV shows.
In this edition, listen as stuntmen react to the incredible fight sequences from the groundbreaking action movie The Matrix, as well as sequences from Raya and the Last Dragon and Terminal Velocity. Plus, find out how the Oscar-nominated drama Sound of Metal evolved for 10 years before it got produced, and see how Jackass madman Steve-O deals with the spiciness of Hot Ones on his return to the series. Read More »
Rush Hour star Jackie Chan has posted the following unflattering entry on his blog:
“When we finished filming, I felt very disappointed because it was a movie I didn’t appreciate and I did not like the action scenes involved. I felt the style of action was too Americanized and I didn’t understand the American humor,” Chan said “Rush Hour 3” was no different from the first two installments for him.
“Nothing particularly exciting stood out that made this movie special for me … I spent four months making this film and I still don’t fully understand the humor,” he said, adding the comedic scenes may be lost on Asian audiences.
See, even Jackie Chan knows that Rush Hour 3 sucked. Now, If onlyÂ Chan would realize that Brett Ratner is a hack director, Chris Tucker isn’t funny, and that most of the good action scenes are being filmed back at “home.”
My name is Steve Mason, and I’m the guy who wrote that $50M was slightly disappointing for Rush Hour 3 (Editors Note: The comment thread spun off into an editorial written by Peter Sciretta comparing the film’s box office to Mission: Impossible 3). I’ve got nothing against Brett Ratner or Chris Tucker or New Line. In fact, I opened RUSH HOUR 3 at my theatres across from USC in Los Angeles (where the film did very well).
The movie business is really just an expectations game. People expected a number in the $60M-$65M range. It didn’t get there.
Also, New Line is reportedly paying 40% of the domestic gross to Tucker, Chan and Ratner. Tucker was paid $25M (against 20% of the gross) and Chan was paid $15M (against 15% of the gross). That’s not all. Ratner gets $5M (against 5% of the gross) and screenwriter Jeff Nathanson was paid well over $1M.
If the picture grosses $150M domestic, which is very possible, Tucker gets $30M, Chan gets $22.5M and Ratner gets $7.5M. That’s $60M right off the top.
Now, here are 2 other amazing caveats. New Line does not have distribution rights in China and Hong Kong where Chan is huge. Jackie has the right to distribute RUSH HOUR 3 in those territories. (Good for Chan!)Â Â Also, New Line made a 2 picture deal with Chris Tucker. The 2nd film has yet to be determined, but he will be paid the same price of $25M vs. 20% of the gross.
All of this adds up to a “slightly disappointing” weekend. You decide how “slight” that disappointment is at New Line.
Last year CNN published an article titled “Mission: Impossible III opening disappoints.” The $150 million movie starring Tom Cruise made a whopping $48 million at the box office on it’s opening weekend, but was somehow considered a “disappointment.” That Monday, the same type of article ran in almost every newspaper on the planet. In one giant swoop, M:I:III was declared a financial failure by almost every major media outlet. I theorized back then that may-be the supposed “failure” was just part of the (at the time) growing media backlash against Tom Cruise. I mean, $48 million in one weekend can’t really be considered a disappointment, can it? Everyone took the story and ran with it.
CUT TO: One year later. New Line spends a reported $150 – $180 million on a third Rush Hour film, which most studio insiders hoped would make $60 plus million on opening weekend. The film ends the weekend with around $50 million, which should be very comparable to the “disappointment” that was M:I:III. Let’s see how the media reports on this one:
Wait a second. Didn’t Variety publish an article last year titled Par’s ‘Mission’: Impossible? Cruise spark sputters ? Same numbers, different movie. One a success, the other a disappointment? So let me get this strait:
- Rush Hour 3 fell $17 million short of Rush Hour 2.
- M:I:III was only $10.5 million short of Mission: Impossible 2.
It should also be noted that Tom Cruise films do big foreign ticket sales. Rush Hour 3 will probably take in a little more than half of what Mission: Impossible III made overseas. According to my math:
- Rush Hour 3 took in 28% of its Production Budget on Opening Weekend
- Mission: Impossible III took in 34% of its Production Budget on Opening Weekend
Yet, Brett Ratner’s movie is somehow considered a success. Can anyone please explain this to me?
New Line’s re-teaming of Chris Tucker, Jackie Chan and director Brett Ratner has proved worth every penny of its investment as RUSH HOUR 3 is officially a blockbuster. The action-comedy has grabbed an estimated $17.8M on its opening day, and that should translate to a 3-day haul of approximately $49.8M. That’s less than RUSH HOUR 2’s opening weekend of $67.4M back in 2001, but it’s considerably stronger than the original 1998 RUSH HOUR opening weekend of $33M.
Read More »
Apparently there is a scene in Rush Hour 3 where Chris Tucker has an angry homophobic reaction (played for laughs) to a transsexual who removes her wig after a “sexual interaction”. I haven’t seen the movie so I may be getting this wrong as the contents of the scene are not completely spelled out. When The Advocate questioned Brett Ratner about putting homophobic jokes in his film, the hack director responded by saying, it’s okay because he’s also had the same experience. Um, what?
“No, no! That’s from my personal experience. My first blow job was from a man, but I didn’t know it was a man. That’s where that comes from. It’s based on personal experience. It happens to a lot of people,” claims Ratner. “I’m not homophobic or uptight about it. That happens to a lot of heterosexuals. You meet a girl in a bar, and it turns out she’s not a girl. I think a girl should tell you if she’s a girl or a man–that way it’s your preference. It’s comedy. Look, in this movie we don’t pull any punches. We make fun of black people. We make fun of Chinese people. We make fun of French people. We make fun of gay situations. We make fun of whites. It doesn’t matter. It’s the type of movie it is. It’s a fish-out-of-water comedy. You have to have those types of situations to have the comedy. That specific idea was because it’s happened to me. It’s happened to my friends. We’ll get together with a girl, and it’ll turn out to be a guy. The reaction is “Oh, shit!” if you’re not gay, which is funny, I think. Getting into the situation is funny. I laugh whenever I see one of my friends talking to a girl, and I’ll ask, “Is that a man or a woman?” It’s funny, especially if you don’t know about it. If you know about it, fine. If that’s your preference… “
I’m not homophobic. I live in San Francisco and am am very liberal, yet at the same time, very politically incorrect. Personally I don’t see the problem with a scene where a strait character has a post-homophobic response to gay sexual contact. Many gay advocate groups also had a problem with that Snickers superbowl commercial. When it’s played for laughs and not hate, then I see no problem (at least in the situation as it was described to me). I could understand if people were upset in another situation, say… when a lead character reacts angrily to two gay men kissing or something to that effect. That’s blatant hateful homophobic behavior which does not deserve screen time. Again, I have not seen Rush Hour 3 yet, so I shouldn’t even have a right to defend the scene in question.
But what shocks me the most about this is that Brett felt the need to deflect the situation by saying the same experience happened to him personally. How does that help your argument? You’re not homophobic but the character in your movie is?
Talk has already begun about a possible fourth Rush Hour movie, further proving that their must not be a God, or at least one who cares about good movies. Director Brett Ratner introduced Rush Hour 3 at the Mann’s Chinese Theater premiere on Tuesday with a joke: “I’d like to welcome everyone to the first production meeting of ‘Rush Hour 4.'” But after the laughs subsided, and the film played, New Line Cinema Co-Chairman and Co-Ceo told Variety that he’d “love” to do another “Rush Hour”. That’s never a good sign, considering he’s one of the big wigs that greenlights the production slate.
But another sequel will depends on how well Rush Hour 3 does at the box office. But considering a movie like Wild Hogs was able to sucker the American public out of $168.2 million, I’m sure Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker will have no problem. Unfortunately, mediocre movies that appeal to the lowest common denominator, while remaining family friendly, tend to make lots of money. It’s a surprise to me that Tim Allen isn’t the highest paid actor in hollywood.
It took three years for Rush Hour 2, and six years for Rush Hour 3 – let’s hope that it takes at least 12 years for a Rush Hour 4 to hit the big screens. Actually, let’s hope that a Rush Hour 4 doesn’t ever hit the big screen. That’s probably the best possible scenario. On a good note, if we can keep hack director Brett Ratnerbusy with the Rush Hour franchise, that at the very least means he won’t have time to ruin any more X-Men films.
I’ve never really cared for the Rush Hour movies, or director Brett Ratner for that matter. I mean, the first one was fun, but did we really need two sequels? But someone, somewhere is contributing to the series’ box office success. For those people, I bring you this post (it probably helps that it’s also a slow news day). After the jump you will find over 20 new photos from Rush Hour 3.
Read More »
Cool Posts From Around the Web:
Â In a summer full of big blockbuster movies, adaptations, sequels and threequels, you would think that Hollywood would have made some record scratch. Not so! According to the AP, attendance is running behind last summer’s and has even fallen below that of the summer of 2005. According to Media By Numbers, 279 million tickets had been sold thus far compared with 315 million at this same point in 2002.Â But this is not what was supposed to happen. Industry analysts predicted the first $4 billion summer in history,Â but we’re at the midway point and it’s not looking probable. As of this past weekend, Hollywood has made $1.9 billion since the first weekend in May. And $945 million of that number comes from just three movies (Pirates 3, Spider-Man 3, and Shrek the Third).
And there are a few biggies waiting in the bull pen: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, The Bourne Ultimatum, Rush Hour 3, I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, The Simpsons Movie and Hairspray. But as you might notice, most of them are medium sized majors, not on the same level with a Spider-Man 3. Potter is likely to make $300 million domestically, but the rest probably won’t come close.
May-be the problem is that none of the huge releases really connected with the audiences. Most of the films resulted with bad reviews and bad word of mouth. And the good flicks (Ratatouille, Once, Sicko) got buried in the mix.
New Line has released the movie poster for Rush Hour 3. Yawn.