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

Reagen Sulewski: This is definitely shooting a hole in my long-held theory that recessions hit teen entertainment first, because that's the demographic that's least likely to have money in this kind of time. The only concrete explanation I can imagine is that teens viewed this as an unofficial sequel to The Notebook, because little else makes sense.

Max Braden: "From the author of The Notebook" probably helped, but it wasn't a guarantee for Spark's follow-up Nights in Rodanthe, which opened the same as The Notebook ($13.5 million) but earned a little over half the total gross ($42 million vs $81 million). The key appears to be the younger market, and I think if you compare it to the crazy success of New Moon, you start to see that Romeo & Juliet factor at work.

Kim Hollis: I think that we're consistently underestimating the female demographic. There just aren't a lot of movies that give women and teen girls what they're yearning for, but stuff like Dear John, The Twilight Saga, Mamma Mia! and Sex and the City have all broken out big. I think that smart marketers will realize that there is a big opportunity here ripe for the grabbing.

Can we pick Scott Porter? Please?

Kim Hollis: Channing Tatum's last three films are Public Enemies, G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra and Dear John. Amanda Seyfried has Mamma Mia! and this film on her resume. Which actor do you expect to be more successful moving forward?

Josh Spiegel: Amanda Seyfried, but both actors have the potential for success. Tatum and Seyfried are both well-regarded in Hollywood, it seems; Seyfriend, at least, is a good actress - see Veronica Mars and Big Love for proof. Tatum has a specific type of role to play (and, being fair, he's in about one minute of Public Enemies), and does so well. But Seyfriend has more range, and could be around for a while.





Tim Briody: Amanda Seyfried also has Mean Girls, which I now realize is almost six years ago. Channing Tatum is going to get Paul Walker's hand me downs, but Seyfried has a much longer career ahead of her, I'm sure.

Michael Lynderey: Thinking back to their first films (Mean Girls for Seyfried and Coach Carter for Tatum), I would not have necessarily thought either was going to end up being a lead actor, but here we are. Looking at the near future, it seems like Seyfried is going to alternate big romantic dramas (i.e. her upcoming Letters to Juliet) with somewhat more Oscary fare (Chloe), while Tatum is wed to movies that take advantage of his physicality (Knockout and G.I. Joe 2). In the long run, though, I'd say Tatum may have more staying power, simply because male actors have longer careers than actresses, usually through no fault of their own. In 2019, I could see Tatum still headlining that fourth G.I. Joe movie, but who knows on Seyfried?

George Rose: Both are just beautiful and young enough to keep playing the Hollywood game successfully for another couple of years, but beyond that is tough to decide. Amanda is definitely better at acting, which obviously helps, but Channing is a man and they typically get better looking with age. Each has a benefit over the other which puts us right back at "draw." My personal vote is Amanda, because she has range and has proven herself in the comedy genre (Mean Girls), which is tough to pull off. Channing has all the acting ability of a lead pipe but he's got that stupid G.I. Joe franchise working for him. As of now, it seems Channing is better set up for his future. Amanda has Letters to Juliet coming out later this year, but how many times do people want to see her writing sappy love letters? She may have the range but she isn't using it at the moment. If she can get her agent to stop milking the romantic tit and get her into some upcoming superhero franchise, she could potentially take over the world. Really, though, they'll both be out of the game in three years, having lost out to the next wave of trendy young stars who got thrust into fame too quickly.

Continued:       1       2       3