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

David Mumpower: Max touched upon the thought process I have had about Cruise as he ages. I absolutely agree with Brett that Cruise's age is beginning to reveal itself in his appearance. There is no escaping that aspect of humanity, at least not until science advances to the point where we can microwave the wrinkles away or whatever. What we have seen with some of the biggest celebrities such as the two Max named, however, is that icons continue to anchor projects independent of age.

A pair of great historical examples are Jimmy Stewart and Cary Grant. The latter gentleman was about to turn 60 when Charade was released, and that movie is one of the best romances of the 1960s. With respect to Connery, he was 68 when Entrapment was released. Catherine Zeta-Jones was (supposedly) 30 in that film, meaning that she wasn't in the "half your age plus seven" category...also I secretly suspect she is a few years older than Connery.

My point is that we phase out our famous lead actors gradually. Rarely are they put out to pasture completely. If Clint Eastwood can portray the romantic lead in The Bridges of Madison County when he is 65, I am not sure why Cruise should be ready to retire. His reputation and name recognition still garner respect despite the Scientology nonsense.

Kim Hollis: As we prepare to enter the lucrative summer box office campaign, do you believe we're through the worst or do you think we'll see continued box office deflation over the summer?

Jay Barney: Interesting question. I have not taken a serious look at the numbers, but the question begs for a couple of things to be defined. If you are measuring things against last year, well yes, we may not get the same numbers. The amount of money must be taken into account, though, and I think 2012 may have been a bit of an enigma. 2012 saw Avengers make over $650 million. The Dark Knight and Hunger Games both drew in audiences for over $400 million, and two films, The Hobbit and Skyfall, both were over $300 million.

If you compare those numbers against 2011 you will find that only two films even attained the $300 million figure. Only one of those, the last of the Harry Potters, was even remotely close to $400 million.

2010 had one $400 million earner in Toy Story 3, and three $300 million dollar earners.

2009 saw Avatar explode for over $700 million, but even that year only two films crossed the $300 hundred million mark. Transformers made $400 million and The Half Blood Prince made $300 million.

I'm not saying the question is flawed, I am just pointing out that last year saw an awful lot of money flow into movie theaters. It is not unreasonable for things to come back down to earth this year.

There are a few other things to take into account as well. Ticket price inflation over the years plays havoc with the real amount of money earned or tickets sold. Global box office matters a lot more than it used to.

It is not like this year won't see films push or exceed the $300 million mark. Even before tickets are sold, Iron Man 3 is probably a lock to do so. There is an awful lot of buzz for the next Star Trek movie. The next Hunger Games film is slated for the holiday season and it will be enormous. Also there is the second of the Hobbit movies. There may be a couple of surprises in there yet.

Continued:       1       2       3       4