New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Scott Lumley: I think they should be thrilled. Exactly how often does a TV show made into a movie find ANY success? Thinking back, the only TV shows that had any real success at the box office have been The Simpsons ($183 million) and Star Trek (billions) and possibly the Fugitive ($183 million again), and those are very special cases. If you look at other non-standard shows, say, The Dukes of Hazzard ($80 million), or Starsky and Hutch ($88 million) or... God Help us... Bewitched ($62 million), you can see that it's a perilous slope adapting what was successful on the small screen to the larger one. As a matter of fact, the only riskier theme for any film genre would be the video game genre. And I'm not entirely certain that's even a fair statement as Uwe Boll can claim the majority of those bombs on his resume.

At any rate, the majority of TV-to-film movies are one shots and then gone. From what I'm seeing from Get Smart, there's a very solid chance that we might get a sequel or two. What studio doesn't love a sequel?

Daron Aldridge: They should definitely be pleased, considering the stink of Speed Racer's failure still lingering. With an $80 million budget, almost half has been made back on the first weekend. Three other recent TV adaptations released in the summer season (Bewitched, Dukes of Hazzard, and SWAT) ended up with grosses between 2.67 and 3.13 times their opening weekend. With the same trajectory, Get Smart could land with between $104 and $122 million, which is respectable enough for the very unpredictable business of TV adaptations. Even following the worst case scenario (in every sense of the phrase) of 1998's Avengers gives Get Smart with over $90 million. It's hard to believe it has been a decade since that abomination plagued theaters.

Sean Collier: $38.7 Million may not seem like the biggest opening imaginable, but it's more than respectable in a weekend of comedy overkill. If you count Kung Fu Panda as a comedy, six of the top twelve films this weekend were comedies, making up about $89.3 million in total box office. Moviegoers had plenty of (supposed) laughs to choose from, and Get Smart still finished with $18 million more than Kung Fu Panda at number 3, and a full $25 million more than The Love Guru. The intense marketing campaign might've pushed internal hopes closer to $50 million, but given the circumstances and so-so reviews, Warner Bros. should feel just fine with the result.

And you thought Michael Scott was having financial troubles.

Kim Hollis: If we include Get Smart as a likely $100 million earner, Steve Carell has quietly accumulated six $100 million movies on his resume since 2003. Is it time to think of him as a box office draw or has he been lucky rather than good for the most part?

Tim Briody: I'm a big fan, but it's kind of a loaded question as in one of those films, he was far from the main draw, two were animated and a third was Evan Almighty. Only The 40-Year Old Virgin crossing $100 million could be attributed to his presence. He's picture perfect casting for Get Smart so that certainly helped a great deal, too.

Dan Krovich: Carell has definitely become pretty reliable. Though I don't usually count actors as much of a draw for animated movies, he has also done well with smaller movies as he was the biggest draw in Little Miss Sunshine and Dan in Real Life, and they grossed $59 million and $47 million respectively even though neither one was ever on over 2,000 screens.

Joel Corcoran: That's a tough question to answer, but I don't think Steve Carell himself as an actor is what brings people into his movies. Personally, I couldn't come up with a good way to describe a "Steve Carell movie," but I could very easily define a "Will Ferrell movie" or an "Adam Sandler movie." In Carrell's case, the movies don't seem to be vehicles for his particular talents or styles of comedy, it's more like he's very good at picking good projects that he can readily adapt to.

Jason Lee: Yeah, and Ewan McGregor has three $300 million films. To me, Carell's accomplishments have been the result of the project and not the person.

Eric Hughes: I'm in agreement with Joel in that Steve Carell knows how to pick good projects. But I think because of that, we in effect know what we're getting with a "Steve Carell movie." Though here it works a bit different than say Will Ferrell, who seems to play the same loud-mouthed, obnoxious character over and over again, but in a different environment. With Steve, you just know you're getting something "good," whether its comedy that is smart (The 40-Year Old Virgin), subtle (Dan in Real Life), or more physical (Get Smart).

Continued:       1       2       3