Well, let me fess up. I read the article recently, yes — but in a fifty-year-old copy of the Los Angeles Times. The paper was dated May 6, 1953, and the two-dimensional film being praised for bucking Hollywood’s push towards 3-D was Shane.

It was a time when TV was cutting deeply into movie profits, and studios were scrambling to win back the wandering eyeballs of America. Cinerama, an ambitious, three-projector widescreen extravaganza, debuted in New York in the fall of 1952, with its test film This Is Cinerama garnering front-page fanfare and great acclaim. Bosley Crowther, the Roger Ebert of his time, gasped that it gave the audience “the same sensations. . . felt on that night, years ago, when motion pictures were first publicly flashed on a large screen. . . People sat back in spellbound wonder. . . as though most of them were seeing motion pictures for the first time.” In a single evening, the development of all-new expansive formats had become a fait accompli, and studios immediately began looking for ways to capitalize on the buzz.

At the same time, 3-D movies were another innovation being used to lure your grandparents and parents away from their televisions. Nineteen Fifty-Two, the year before Shane, saw the first flurry of attempts to do for depth what This Is Cinerama did for height and width. By 1955, audiences had seen Vincent Price (eventually christened “The King of 3-D!”) appear in House of Wax and several other horror titles. John Wayne used 3-D for Hondo. The now-famous cult classic Creature from the Black Lagoon crawled off the screen and toward audiences who didn’t know whether to scream or laugh. The great Alfred Hitchcock even toyed with the third dimension in Dial M for Murder.

While the two potential TV killers, widescreen and 3-D, warred with each other for supremacy (one contemporary ad for Cinerama proclaimed “NO GLASSES NEEDED,” reminding audiences of the eye fatigue and uncomfortable headgear necessitated by its rival), these fads spurred frenzied discussions among filmmakers and studio heads. The 1952 movie Singin’ in the Rain was then in theaters, mocking the shortsightedness of many 1920s Hollywoodites caught in the bedlam of the transition from silents to sound. Everyone in modern Hollywood, therefore, was wary of catastrophically missing out on what, for all they knew, could snowball into the 1950s equivalent of that epochal transition.

That is, almost everyone. George Stevens, for his part, looked on these developments with wry amusement. His Shane was in the can, having been filmed a year earlier in the summer and fall of 1951. And he seemed perfectly comfortable knowing that his plain ol’ 2-D picture would be debuting in the midst of all this hoopla. “I’m interested in all the new ideas, such as 3-D and widescreen,” he told one reporter at the time, “but I don’t believe the technical method of presentation is the real important thing. Only the picture matters. It’s what goes on the screen that counts.”

Perhaps that is why, when Stevens was choosing a cinematographer to shoot Shane, he zeroed in on a man named Loyal Griggs. Griggs was a Paramount fixture. Born in 1906, raised in Los Angeles, and graduated from Los Angeles High in 1924, he immediately scored a grunt job at Paramount in their effects department. Beginning at a paltry $80 a month and often logging hundred-hour work weeks with no overtime pay, he persevered for nearly three decades, slaving his way up the Paramount food chain towards the coveted rank of Director of Photography. Finally, in 1950, he became head lensman on a trio of mediocre flicks (a gangster pic and two westerns) for producers Bill Pine and Bill Thomas.

At the comparatively late age of 44, he was at long last a full-fledged Hollywood cinematographer.

Stevens had employed Griggs for some process photography on his last film, the popular and well-regarded A Place in the Sun (1951), and during pre-production on Shane it was becoming increasingly apparent that he needed a cameraman who not only could film pretty pictures, but who could use color, lenses, and composition to manipulate images for serious dramatic effect. The director, you see, had chosen Wyoming’s Teton Range over a slew of other locations (Utah, Idaho, Colorado) after sending a camera crew on an exhaustive 4,500-mile trek around the American West, filming test footage in glorious Technicolor (itself an expensive concession made by the studio only after pressure from Stevens).

But while the awe-inspiring, snow-capped peaks and grand desolation west of Jackson Hole looked perfect, there was also a problem — the scenery filmed too well. New York Times writer Jack Goodman, who visited the Wyoming location while Shane was being shot, laid out the essential challenge in a September 9, 1951 article for that newspaper: “The Teton Range west of the Hole has been widely photographed before this and has become associated with tourism and dude ranching through hundreds of travel-magazine articles. . . Further, as Stevens now explains it, Technicolor ‘tends to glamorize and romanticize,’ its basic weakness being ‘the rainbow quality’ it lends to scenic shots.”

So the question was how to get rid of what Stevens once derided in another interview as the, “Oh, what a beautiful morning!’ Technicolor musical look.” How could one make rich, saturated Technicolor images bend to the will of a director who foresaw his story’s need not only for beauty and majesty, but doom and gloom?

Enter Loyal Griggs. He had worked in the various process, front-projection, and special effects departments of Paramount for three decades. There wasn’t a trick in the book he hadn’t seen. And he brought his full array of talents to bear on making Shane one of the most variegated Technicolor films in Hollywood history.

The goal was to achieve the filmic version of what in art circles is called “Rembrandt Lighting,” a classic, shadowy style filled with dramatic possibilities. To that end, Stevens and Griggs studied the famous photographs and drawings of the Teton Range made by William Henry Jackson, as well as the paintings of famed western artist Charles Marion Russell. Most Technicolor cinematographers were afraid to lose exposure and saturation, but Griggs ruthlessly degraded both when necessary. Early each morning weather stations were consulted, and if rain or clouds were on the way the filmmakers would rush out to take advantage. Many times the sun appearing through the gray expanse would ruin the effect, and so Griggs had such shots backprinted (made artificially darker) in the lab to preserve the shadow-laden, brooding atmosphere.

Back in the Fifties, film stocks weren’t “fast” enough (i.e. sensitive enough to light) to pick up anything during a nighttime shoot. So Griggs used a trick called “day-for-night” — first filming in bright sunlight, then adjusting the exposure in the lab to make it look as if it had been filmed in the evening — to capture some of the most important scenes in the movie, complete with visible mountains and vast plains in the distance.

This particular technique was itself common enough, but Griggs took it to the next level, using optical printing to single out characters in the frame and boost their exposure while leaving the rest of the image alone, giving the actors an eldritch, almost supernatural glow of the kind moonlight makes on Halloween. For the very last shots of the picture, he filmed a graveyard bathed in a severe darkness, then used optical printing to insert Alan Ladd’s character as a ghostly silhouette.

Jack Goodman, viewing the rushes while visiting for his New York Times article, came away most impressed: “[By] not hesitating to shoot portions of Shane on days when clouds race across nearby lakes, Stevens has managed to make this most beautiful of western vistas positively forbidding.”

Careful use of lenses also played a role. Stevens and Griggs show here some of the earliest examples of filming vast outdoor spaces with telephoto lenses normally used for facial closeups. The result was a flattening of the depth in an image, which made the distant mountains in the background seem far closer and more imposing. This is nowhere more effective than in the justifiably famous funeral scene of Shane. “There was the funeral on the hilltop,” Stevens explained, describing the master shot for this key sequence, “and there was the dis­tance where cattle grazed, and then there was the town at the crossing, a western town like western towns were. There were the great moun­tains that rose behind it. This was all arranged in one camera view, one camera view that had to do with a man being put away in his grave with the synthesis of the whole story wrapped around it.”

Stevens wanted to connect 1950s families with a time when “death was a very large part of living.” His inspiration for the scene came while visiting a tiny pioneer hamlet in California:

Bridgeport, on the way to the Sierra Nevadas, is. . . a poor little town. . . About three miles away, in the foothills, there is a graveyard. . . A man comes in his front door from a funeral and perhaps goes out the back door to bring in the pail of milk before he goes to bed that night. If he has just buried his mother, he can look up to where she is on that hillside. While he was at the cemetery, he could look back to those beautiful mountains. This is what the pioneers came for, this vast country, and a little cemetery with a fence around it. It’s there waiting. Mother, all those who have gone before, are there. It will be throughout his time, and the man can look down to the town and see the house where mother came as a bride, and where he was born and where he was raised. There is a convenience in being able to visually associate all of these essential aspects of life in a frontier world; some of it isn’t around the corner or on the other side of town, it’s all right there and it’s all true. I see that, I know what it means.

As Shane was nearing its release, Paramount ran a test of the film on one of the big new screens being developed, to see how it would look blown up to that size. To make the square-ish image fit onto a rectangular screen, they unceremoniously chopped off a portion of the top and bottom of Griggs’ lovingly composed compositions. Some critics noticed this right off and grumbled. (Lord knows what expletives emerged from Griggs’ own mouth!) But most thought it was a decent enough compromise for the treat of getting magnified, IMAX-like versions of Shane’s Wyoming vistas.

On April 15, 1953, the industry trade paper Variety ran an article stating that

Shane was previewed in a process stage on Paramount’s experimental widescreen, to an audience perched on makeshift seating. Despite these abnormal viewing conditions, the picture’s worth was not lessened, and the widescreen projection did contribute, in some measure, to a sense of bigness, although, again for the record, Shane would be a big picture on any size screen. Theaters equipped for widescreen showings should find the extra ballyhoo angle of this gimmick adding to the dollars taken at the box office.

The efforts of the cinematographer were especially singled out for distinction: “Pictorially, the picture has been beautifully photographed in color by Loyal Griggs. Wyoming’s scenic splendors against which the story is filmed are breathtaking. Sunlight, the shadow of rainstorms and the eerie lights of night, play a realistic part in making the film a visual treat.” The Hollywood Reporter chimed in as well, praising the use of “long shots and lovely Technicolor hues to establish mood, some of the scenes emerging like exquisite paintings.”

Soon after that test, Paramount debuted the film in New York at Radio City Music Hall, which had just installed one of the first widescreens in the country. On April 24, 1953, The Hollywood Reporter gushed to an industry town holding its collective breath: “New York Critics Enthusiastic About Shane, Wide Screen.” Frank Quinn of The New York Daily Mirror conveyed the almost futuristic, game-changing aspect of the event: “A thrilling new visual concept of motion pictures unfolds with the debut of Shane on the panoramic screen. The screen is wide, more oblong like a picture postcard.”

In Los Angeles, the movie’s star-studded premiere was equally rapturous. Celebrities like Cary Grant, Ronald and Nancy Reagan, Irene Dunne, Charles Coburn, Mitzi Gaynor, Rory Calhoun, Anita Ekberg, Shelly Winters, and Claire Trevor poured into Grauman’s Chinese Theater as hundreds of fans cheered. “Shane Premiere Gala Fete: Hollywood Turns Out in Panoramic Pandemonium,” was the headline in the Los Angeles Evening Herald Express.

Philip K. Scheuer, longtime film critic for the Los Angeles Times (who had begun his career covering the silents), penned in his own newspaper a thoughtful review of both film and presentation:

When, in the good old days, we called a picture an epic we must have had some reason for it. Later, through misuse and repetition, the word fell into disrepute and we put quotation marks around it to indicate we didn’t really believe an “epic” was an epic any more. With Shane one is tempted to leave the quote marks off. . . .

At the Chinese, where it premiered last night, it is being projected onto what is, by a slight margin, the largest screen in town (about 50 x 25 feet). Shane was not made for magnification, but its detail “blows up” very well in Technicolor, with not too much of the picture cut off at top and bottom. Directional sound, from three speakers, is used sparingly but effectively. . . However, I am quite sure Shane would hold you even on a 17-inch screen.

It wasn’t long before the trades were reporting that — much like today’s twenty-first-century theaters rushing to install 3-D capability — dozens of 1953 theaters were hurriedly converting to widescreen in a frenzied attempt to take advantage of Shane’s theatrical run. Reviewers and audiences alike were almost unanimously hailing it as an instant classic. The Saturday Review honed in on exactly the things that we’ve been discussing here, noting “Loyal Griggs’ handsome Technicolor photography. . . his cameras point insistently to the physical beauties of the place — the play of light on the distant mountains, the golden skies after a shower, the vast expanse of green and coppery fields. But none of this is merely travelogue prettiness. Nature enters dynamically into the development of the story, its moods matching and underlining the dramatic action.”

Conservative Henry Luce’s Time magazine made the distinction between gimmickry and artistry: “Without recourse to tricky 3-D photography and Polaroid glasses, Stevens, with ordinary Technicolor camera and sound track, has given his flat old story a real third dimension of believability.” A grandstanding Democratic politician from Wyoming, Lester C. Hunt, even went so far as to stand on the floor of the Senate and laud the picture’s stunning portrayal of the beauties of his home state.

So although Shane wasn’t a real widescreen Hollywood movie (the first real one was The Robe, a Christian tale shot in Twentieth-Century Fox’s Cinemascope format, which hit theaters later that fall and quickly became one of the all-time box-office champions), it was the first to be presented with much fanfare on a widescreen, and its marvelous cinematography did much to warm audiences to the new format. Meanwhile 3-D, hampered by a variety of technical limitations, would die out by the end of the decade, experiencing only intermittent spurts of life thereafter (time will tell how this latest 2010 revival pans out.)

Loyal Griggs won his first and only Oscar for Shane (the only Shane nominee to take home a gold statue that night), and went on to a distinguished career as a Director of Photography. A few years later, when Cecil B. DeMille was looking for a combined Technicolor/special effects/VistaVision expert, he turned to Griggs, and the result was another classic of gargantuan proportions, The Ten Commandments. That film netted Griggs another Oscar nomination, and in 1975 he received a special U.S. Bicentennial award for his photography on the picture. He died in 1978 at the age of 71, with two great Technicolor spectaculars forever linked to his name.

If I had to turn to one person to sum up the impact of Shane’s visuals, I’d pick the words of Hollywood writer/critic Ruth Waterbury, who’s own review appeared on Friday, June 5, 1953 in the pages of The Los Angeles Examiner. “The glory that God gave to the American West has been captured by it,” she said of the photography. “The strength, the fidelity, the weakness, the insecurity, that God gave man is reflected in it. . . Shane is on wide screen with stereophonic sound, all very fine. But it would still be magnificent if it were the size of a postage stamp. You’ll remember it long, long after you see it. In fact, I think I will personally remember it always.”

Previous posts in the series “Jack Schaefer, George Stevens, and Shane”

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

FURTHER READING and VIEWING

The development of VistaVision: Here’s an informative overview of Paramount Pictures’ own 1950s widescreen format, which debuted a bit too late to be used in Shane. In my humble opinion, it was perhaps the most impressive of all the various permutations of widescreen created during that era. Loyal Griggs used VistaVision for Cecil B. DeMille’s The Ten Commandments (1956), John Ford used it for The Searchers, and Alfred Hitchcock for To Catch a Thief among others.

And check out the rest of The American Widescreen Museum website for even more history on widescreen photography in general.

Order a nifty CD-ROM book on The Making of Shane. Wish I had known about this before starting in on these articles. Compiled by Walt Farmer, it reportedly has a full tour of all of the film’s Wyoming locations, including detailed directions and GPS coordinates in case you want to hunt them down yourself (I love reading about — or performing myself — that kind of historical detective work). He reveals that the only structure still standing from the movie is Ernie Wright’s homestead (the sodbuster played by Edgar Buchanan, whom the Ryker Gang intimidates by running their cattle through his farm and crops). Apparently, the Cemetery Hill still sports a faint depression where Torrey’s grave was dug. Alas, save for a few fence posts and ruins, everything else is gone.

The cost is $20 plus $5 S&H, but if you are a hardcore Shane fan, or simply someone who’d like to poke around the film’s locations the next time you are out Wyoming way, it sounds like an invaluable purchase.

Since Star Wars appeared in 1977, Hollywood has been primarily driven by two factors: the blockbuster film and the star-driven vehicle.   The studio’s portfolio theory economic model requires the blockbuster.  It is these massive revenue generators that push a studio into profitability, to counteract the revenue drag created by other films, which lose money.  

The star-driven film has been around since Hollywood’s golden age.  There is an implicit assumption that audiences will go to a movie with their favorite star.  The reason things got out of whack was because, in the 1990’s, agencies wisely began pushing the asking price of their clients up – way up.  Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Carrey, Cruise – they all became $20 million men.  This was a brilliant strategic maneuver.  Knowing that the industry was driven by fear, the agents knew that the first time a studio caved to an outrageous salary demand, all the other studios would do the same.  No studio wanted to be left out in the cold without a star to drive its latest blockbuster.   So they caved.

The asking prices continued to escalate, with some stars getting a piece of gross revenue. 

Now the market is correcting.  The reason, as I’ve stated before, is that audiences grew tired of the decreasing quality of Hollywood product.  Total movie admissions throughout the past decade have been flat to down year-over-year, with the exception of 2009, when people chose to go to the (comparatively cheaper) movies over other entertainment events.  This trend, combined with the decline of the DVD market (and syndication in television), began to restrict Hollywood revenues.  Meanwhile, production expenses continued to rise, as did advertising expense.  The internet’s fragmenting of consumer attention exacerbated the problem. 

The industry has responded in several ways.   They have drastically shifted their blockbuster model away from original films to branded entertainment.  Consumer brands have equal, if not more, consumer awareness than some stars.  The brand becomes the star.  How else to explain Transformers, which starred the mega-action hero…Shia LeBouf?  The two films have generated $1.55 billion in box-office revenue alone, and far more in ancillary markets.  Why add $15 million or more to the $150-$200 million production budget with a star when you just don’t need one to open the movie? 

A more interesting piece bit of evidence pops up in Arthur deVany’s book Hollywood Economics.  In his survey of dozens of films over a 20-year period, Mr. deVany determined that a star had negligible effect on the total box-office gross, in the aggregate.  Rather, he discovered that a star provided a box-office floor for a movie.  So while a supremely talented actor like Mr. Cruise might assure a certain attendance for a film, he was not the ultimate determining factor in how much revenue the film generated. 

As for gimmicks like 3-D and Imax, that’s what they are.  We’ve seen this before.  3-D was big in the 1950’s.  Oviously, technology has improved the experience since then, but with few exceptions has it been used with particular effectiveness (Robert Zemeckis’ Beowulf comes to mind).  Otherwise… anybody recall Sensurround?  Percepto?  Smell-O-Vision?  Frankly, unless you’ve actually shot a film in IMAX, it’s just a really big screen.  These gimmicks are just an excuse for studios and exhibitors to raise admission prices, to offset the stagnant admissions they’ve been experiencing.  

All of these things – branded entertainment, viewing gimmicks – are simply band-aids.  They are an attempt to mask an underlying problem: Hollywood content has been in decline for some time.  There is a solution, of course, and perhaps someone will see the light.  One hopes that, should Lionsgate take over MGM, that they will institute a new method of creating content and managing talent.  

Meanwhile, Hollywood just continues its unnecessarily expensive ways.  Do you or your kids really care if a star provides the voice of a Kung Fu Panda?  I know a few voice-over actors who would do the job just as well, and for a lot less money.

A shiny new Enterprise is luring in a new generation of STAR TREK fans

J.J. Abrams is officially the Lazarus of movie directors as his all-new Star Trek has gone “Boldly Gone Where No Star Trek Movie has Gone Before.” With a cast of relative unknowns, the 42-year-old has resurrected a franchise that had been killed by insular “nerdyness” and timid imagination. The Gene Rodenberry creation didn’t so much bomb as it died slowly over a period of years. First, the 2002 movie Star Trek: Nemesis starring the Next Generation cast disappointed with a meager $43.3M domestic. Then, the final TV series Enterprise, which starred Scott Bakula, was not embraced by core fans or broader audiences and was canceled after four seasons, ending May 13, 2005.

Director J.J. Abrams will definitely "Live long and prosper"

Now riding a staggering 96% Fresh score on Rotten Tomatoes – that’s 96% of America’s movie critics issuing positive reviews – The Enterprise is riding high again thanks to the creator of TV hits Alias and Lost. Try getting 96% of any group to agree on anything. It’s no small feat. Compare Star Trek’s RT score against the ratings for the last 5 Best Picture winners.

STAR TREK has better reviews than Oscars darling SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE

ROTTEN TOMATOES SCORES FOR THE LAST 5 OSCAR WINNERS
2004 – Million Dollar Baby – 91% Fresh
2005 – Crash – 75% Fresh
2006 – The Departed – 92% Fresh
2007 – No Country For Old Men – 94% Fresh
2008 – Slumdog Millionaire – 94% Fresh

The original STAR TREK cast (above) with the next generation of franchise stars

With the ringing endorsement of tough-to-please critics, Star Trek hit warp speed at the box office last night with lightly-promoted preview screenings starting at 7pm. The impeccably-reviewed feature film seized an estimated $7M or so in Thursday night ticket sales. The idea may have been to get some of the hardcore Trekkies and Trekkers out of the way, clearing multiplexes for mainstream movie audiences today, and they have showed up in massive numbers.

William Shatner (left) with Captain Kirk 2.0 Chris Pine

With Chris Pine (Bottle Shock) in the legendary role of Captain Kirk and Zachary Quinto (NBC’s Heroes) wearing the pointy ears made famous by Leonard Nimoy, Star Trek has soared to a history-making $26M on its official opening day according to multiple studio execs, double the previous-best opening day for any movie in the franchise. That means in the first 29 hours of general release, the re-imagined sci-fi blockbuster has delivered an estimated $33M.

STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT had the previous-best opening day in franchise history

ALL-TIME TOP 5 OPENING DAYS FOR STAR TREK MOVIES
1. Star Trek (2009) – $26M [$33M in its first 29 hours]
2. Star Trek: First Contact (1996) – $13M
3. Star Trek: Generations (1994) – $9.7M
4. Star Trek: Insurrection (1998) – $9.5M
5. Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) – $7.7M

How will the weekend play out? The Thursday night preview screenings will probably make Star Trek a bit less front-loaded. In fact, I’m guessing that, based on word-of-mouth and its family-friendly PG-13 rating, my sources believe that the movie could get a 5% boost on Saturday to a possible $27.3M, followed by an aggressive Mother’s Day drop of 40% on Sunday. That would mean a 4-day gross of almost $77M or so.

The great news for Paramount and Abrams and Pine and Quinto and the rest of the cast is that Star Trek will almost certainly have the best legs of any of this summer’s major tent-pole movies. Rank-and-file moviegoers are likely to discover Star Trek for the first time in coming weeks or, now that Trek is cool again, it may rekindle interest with core fans who rejected the most recent incarnations.

STAR TREK could have "legs" like BATMAN BEGINS

It will not be a surprise to see Star Trek sail past $200M. After all, 2005’s Batman Begins performed that way. The Christopher Nolan Batman reboot opened on a Wednesday with $15M and had banked $72.9M in 5 days. Based on that movie’s Friday-thru-Sunday of $48.7M, the first Batman movie in 8 years reached its $205M domestic total at a 4.2 multiple (4.2 X $48.7 got Nolan’s original to $205M). Anticipating a 4.2 multiple for Star Trek is probably overreaching, but a 3.4-3.5 multiple is possible. That would propel Abrams and company to well past $200M.

Competing studio execs  tell me that X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Fox) took a big tumble as expected. The Hugh Jackman X-Men spin-off only mustered $9.15M or so on its second Friday, but it will still likely top $27.95M for the weekend, down about 67%. Meanwhile, Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (Warner Bros) coaxed about $3M to start the frame, and it will likely be helped by Mother’s Day, grabbing a possible $10M, down a mere 35% from last weekend.

Beyonce continues to sell tickets in OBSESSED

Obsessed, the low budget sizzler from Sony Screen Gems, continues to outperform its low expectations with $2M on Friday, which pushes the Beyonce catfight flick past $50M. The thriller should finish the 3-day with about $6.25M and a spectacular $55.89M by Monday.

The urban-geared comedy Next Day Air (Summit) got off to a disappointing start with just $1.25M (likely #5 for the day), and it will drift down the top ten to #6 for the weekend with a meager $4.1M or so from its thousand or so playdates.

The Zac Efron comedy 17 Again (Warner Bros) will likely spend another weekend in the top five with about $1.15M on Friday and about $4.5M for 3 days. That will give the Efron vehicle a new domestic cume of about $54.26M.

EXCLUSIVE STEVE MASON EARLY FRIDAY ESTIMATES
1. NEW – Star Trek (Paramount) – $26M, $6,755 PTA, $33M
2. X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Fox) – $9.15M, $2,231 PTA, $111.77M cume
3. Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (Warner Bros) – $3.05M, $961 PTA, $22.84M
4. Obsessed (Sony) – $2M, $769 PTA, $51.64M cume
5. NEW – Next Day Air (Summit) – $1.25M, $1,098 PTA, $1.25M  cume
6. 17 Again (Warner Bros) – $1.15M, $396 PTA, $50.91M cume
7. The Soloist (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $1M, $478 PTA, $20.89M cume
8. Monsters vs. Aliens (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $847,000, $388 PTA, $184.36M cume
9. Earth (Disney) – $697,000, $389 PTA, $24.29M cume
10. Hannah Montana: The Movie (Disney) – $690,000, $300 PTA, $72.35M cume

EXCLUSIVE STEVE MASON EARLY 3-DAY ESTIMATES
1. NEW – Star Trek (Paramount) – $69.68M, $18,103 PTA, $76.68M
2. X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Fox) – $27.95M, $6,814 PTA, $130.57M cume
3. Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (Warner Bros) – $10.06M, $3,170 PTA, $29.86M
4. Obsessed (Sony) – $6.25M, $2,402 PTA, $55.89M cume
5. 17 Again (Warner Bros) – $4.5M, $1,550 PTA, $54.26M cume
6. NEW – Next Day Air (Summit) – $4.1M, $3,603 PTA, $4.1M  cume
7. The Soloist (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $3.6M, $1,722 PTA, $23.49M cume
8. Monsters vs. Aliens (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $3.55M, $1,625 PTA, $187.06M cume
9. Hannah Montana: The Movie (Disney) – $2.62M, $1,140 PTA, $74.29M cume
10. Earth (Disney) – $2.44M, $1,361 PTA, $26.03M cume

Steve Mason is on Facebook and now also on Twitter@LAMase.

William Shatner (left) with Captain Kirk 2.0 Chris Pine

Keep in mind that Paramount never changed its Star Trek marketing to promote the 7pm Thursday start, so the opening night audience was likely heavy on Trekkers or Trekkies (not sure which term is “politically correct” anymore). So this was a “soft” opening and what amounts to a night of word-of-mouth screenings. Keep in mind that Transformers premiered during the summer when kids are more available while Star Trek has made its premiere during the school year.

The reviews are through-the-roof at 96% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, and, as a topic, Star Trek is trending at #1 on Twitter. The reviews in the Twitterverse are just as positive.

just got back from seeing Star Trek. I am not typically a fan of sci-fi, but I really liked this movie.

Star Trek was surprisingly good, and even Star Trek newbies like myself could enjoy it.

I saw the new Star Trek last night with my son, who just turned 7. It was great; we both loved it. Next gen of Trekies/SciFi buffs is born.

I’m still pumped up from having seen Star Trek. Looking forward to seeing it tomorrow and Sunday [diff. grps].

still thinkin’ of how f*****’ awesome Star Trek was. now wanting a phaser to set from “stun” to “kill”

Go see star trek immediately. Incredible!

The new Star Trek movie was great when I went in with low expectations. It is what Nemesis was trying to accomplish and succeeded much …

for those of you who were curious. Star Trek rocked my FACE OFF. It was Shamazing! <3 Spok…*droooool*

Star Trek is fresh, funny, exciting and – biggest surprise of all – emotionally engaging.

Now the question is, “How high will The Enterprise fly on its opening day?” Seems like $20M is a lock, but it could be bigger. If the movie does $20M today, the 4-day should be $63M-$65M. $22M or better should send this spectacularly-reviewed blockbuster past $70M. If the day is $25M or better, the number for the opening 4 days could start with an 8.

I’ll be online with my Exclusive Early Friday & 3-Day Estimates as early as humanly possible tonight (Friday).

Steve Mason is on Facebook and now also on Twitter@LAMase.

As of Wednesday night, Star Trek is cruising with 94% Fresh (positive) reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, and critics are slinging some seriously glowing hyperbole.

“Paced at warp speed with spectacular action sequences rendered brilliantly and with a cast so expert that all the familiar characters are instantly identifiable, the film gives Paramount Pictures a new lease of life on its franchise.”
– Ray Bennett, HOLLYWOOD REPORTER

“It’s an exciting, stellar-yet-earthy blast that successfully blends the hip and the classic.”
– Joe Neumaier, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

“Trading on affections sustained over 40 years of popular culture, STAR TREK does what a franchise reboot rarely does. It reminds us why we loved these characters in the first place.”
– Ty Burr, BOSTON GLOBE

“Blasting onto the screen at warp speed and remaining there for two hours, the new and improved STAR TREK will transport fans to sci-fi nirvana.”
– Todd McCarthy, VARIETY

LOST and ALIAS creator J.J. Abrams has successfully rebooted STAR TREK

Let’s be honest. Prior to what, by all accounts, is Abrams’ full-on Lazarus-style resurrection of Kirk, Spock and The Enterprise, Star Trek was dead. Worse than dead, it has been considered “uncool.” That’s what Paramount is fighting in the marketplace, and realistically, even in its peak as a movie franchise, it wasn’t a powerhouse.

The biggest opening weekend for a Star Trek movie was 1996’s Star Trek: First Contact with $30.7M and the top grossing title ever was Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (with that ridiculous humpback whale storyline), which surpassed $109M. Consider this. Here are the top five opening days for movies in the Star Trek franchise.

ALL-TIME TOP 5 OPENING DAYS FOR STAR TREK MOVIES
1. Star Trek: First Contact (1996) – $13M
2. Star Trek: Generations (1994) – $9.7M
3. Star Trek: Insurrection (1998) – $9.5M
4. Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) – $7.7M
5. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) – $7M

Erik Estrada as Ponch & Larry Wilcox as Jon Baker with Chris Pine's dad Robert, who played Sgt. Joe Getraer

When journeyman actor Robert Pine, best known for playing Sgt. Joe Getraer on the late 70’s TV hit ChiPs, appeared as an Akritirian Ambassador named Liria on the series Star Trek Voyager (the TV series with Kate Mulgrew as Captain), he could have never imagined that his son Chris would someday play Captain Kirk, but the 28-year-old is now in the Trek’s most pivotal role. He was excellent in a little movie called Bottle Shock last year, but aside from that, and roles in The Princess Diaries 2 and Smokin’ Aces, he is basically an unknown.

Original Gene Rodenberry STAR TREK television cast above and Abrams' 2009 casting choices below

In fact, the new Star Trek is filled with actors who are more-or-less unknown. Simon Pegg, the brilliant UK star of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz and cast as the colorful Scotty here, is probably the biggest name in the cast along with John Cho from the Harold & Kumar movies, playing Sulu. But these are all talented actors who will wear well as the franchise turns into a steady hit machine for Paramount. Fans of NBC’s Heroes already know Zachary Quinto who gets to don Spock’s pointy ears and Chekov is being portrayed by one of my favorite young actors, 20-year-old Anton Yelchin, who was heartbreaking in the gritty Alpha Dog and showed a lighter touch in Charlie Bartlett. Trekkers are also likely to take to the sexy Zoe Saldana (Drumline, Guess Who?) who steps into Nichelle Nichols’ shoes as Uhura and will appear in James Cameron’s long-awaited Avatar at the end of the year.

The appropriate movie to look to for box office guidance is 2005’s Batman Begins. Great filmmaker (Christopher Nolan), spectacular reviews, but the franchise was dead and uncool after 1997’s ridiculous Batman & Robin. The reboot 8 years later opened on a Wednesday with $15M and had banked $72.9M in 5 days (the Friday-thru-Sunday was $48.7M). That lays the groundwork for an accurate prediction for Star Trek.

My bet is on a possible $65M for 4 days. With Thursday preview screenings starting at 7pm, Star Trek could snag as much as $8M on Thursday night (the Trekkers will be out in full force). Then Friday could be something in the $20.5M range with a slight uptick of 5% on Saturday to a possible $21.6M followed by a standard 30% Sunday drop to about $15M.

Once audiences realize that Star Trek is light year better than previous movies in the franchise (and last weekend’s Wolverine), the picture will play and play and play. I think that, of all of the major studio releases this summer, Star Trek may have the “longest legs.” If the movie opens within 5% of my number or bigger, the multiple (the number by which you multiply the opening weekend in order to arrive at the final domestic gross) could be 3.4-3.5, which would push J.J. Abrams reinvented Rodenberry opus to something in the $220M-$230M range.

I am anticipating a steep drop of 65%-70% for X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and producer/star Hugh Jackman will be forced to settle for a second weekend of $27M-$30M. That would still be a nifty 10-day gross of $130M or so.

Finally, Next Day Air (Summit), a low budget, R-rated urban comedy starring Donald Faison (Scrubs), Mike Epps (Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins), Wood Harris (The Wire) and Mos Def (Cadillac Records), will open in the shadow of the retooled U.S.S. Enterprise and is unlikely to wrap up the weekend with any more than $6M.

FINAL PREDICTIONS FOR THE WEEKEND OF MAY 8-10
1. NEW – Star Trek (Paramount) – $65M (includes Thursday previews)
2. X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Fox) – $30.6M
3. Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (Warner Bros) – $8.8M
4. Obsessed (Sony) – $6.7M
5. NEW – Next Day Air (Summit) – $6M
6. 17 Again (Warner Bros) – $3.8M
7. Monsters vs. Aliens (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $3.7M
8. The Soloist (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $3.3M
9. Hannah Montana The Movie (Disney) – $2.6M
10. Earth (Disney) – $2.4M

Steve Mason is on Facebook and now also on Twitter@LAMase.

Star-turned-producer Hugh Jackman has scored his second-biggest opening ever and, easily, his biggest as a solo star. Wolverine has mauled the competition with a massive $34.75M opening day (including $5M or so in Thursday midnight sales). That could translate to a 3-day of $86.8M, getting Hollywood’s most lucrative season off to a spectacular start.

The stars of WOLVERINE (from the left): Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool, Taylor Kitsch as Gambit, Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, Liev Schrieber as Sabretooth and Lynn Collins as Kayla Silverfox

The X-Men spin-off, which has been made for substantially less than the $210M budget ponied up for to produce 2006’s X-Men: The Last Stand, becomes the all-time fourth-best first-weekend-of-May opening, trailing only Spider-Man 3 ($151.1M), the original 2002 Spider-Man ($114.8M) and last May’s Iron Man ($98.6M). Wolverine has also posted one of the top seven opening days ever for a comic book adaptation.

ALL-TIME BEST OPENINGS DAYS FOR COMIC BOOK ADAPTATIONS
1. The Dark Knight – $67.1M
2. Spider-Man 3 – $59.8M
3. X-Men: The Last Stand – $45.1M
4. Spider-Man 2 – $40.4M
5. Spider-Man – $39.4M
6. Iron Man – $35.2M
7. X-Men Origins: Wolverine – $34.75M (estimated)
8. X2: X-Men United – $31.2M
9. 300 – $28.1M
10. Watchmen – $24.5M

And, as comic book movies go, Jackman’s solo effort has cut and sliced through the pack to become the all-time seventh-best 3-day start.

X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE will not match the opening weekend of last year's summer starter IRON MAN

ALL-TIME BEST OPENING WEEKENDS FOR A COMIC BOOK ADAPTATION
1. The Dark Knight – $158.4M
2. Spider-Man 3 – $151.1M
3. Spider-Man – $114.8M
4. X-Men: The Last Stand – $102.7M
5. Iron Man – $98.6M
6. Spider-Man 2 – $88.1M
7. X-Men Origins: Wolverine – $86.8M (projected)
8. X2: X-Men United – $85.5M
9. 300 – $70.8M
10. Hulk – $62.1M

How does Jackman hold his silverware during dinner?

Jackman himself is getting lots of positive feedback on his personal Twitter page, but there is some real negative feedback in the Twitterverse. Here are some actually Tweets from movie fans that have been posted in the last couple of hours.

if its wolverine dont waste your time

Wolverine sucks!

Wolverine: not too bad. Better than the horrible second X-Men movie. Coolest thing was preview for District-9.

I went and paid for 2 movie tix to see that damn Wolverine movie. I just wasted my money.

Wolverine was ok – too much smooshed into one movie and too many things attempted to be neatly wrapped up and squared away.

Saw Wolverine. It was weak.

What does Hugh Jackman being a hottie have 2 do w/ how crappy the movie is?

Oh my God Wolverine was just as bad as everyone was saying.

out to see Wolverine! Ill let you guys know how bad it is.

“don’t waste your money” unless you’re a huge fan. Like 2nd X-files bad.

So, it appears that fans are as tepid about this movie as film critics. X-Men Origins: Wolverine will likely be very front-loaded both for the weekend and the long haul. I’m guessing that the weekend could play out like this. Wolverine did $5M Thursday at midnight and has added another $29.75M Friday (for a $34.75M opening day). Then Saturday, the movie may drop 9% to $31.6M or so, followed by a Sunday dip of 36% to just over $20M.

Jackman is not just another action star; Here he is in his Tony-winning performance in Broadway's BOY FROM OZ

After speaking with a number of competing studios, the consensus is that Wolverine will have a multiple of less than two. (The multiple is the number by which you multiply the opening weekend to arrive at the ultimate domestic gross.) With a multiple in the 1.8-1.9 range, the summer’s first movie spectacle will finish at $156-$165M. That’s a good, but not great number. Meanwhile, Star Trek (Paramount) has a chance to be this year’s Iron Man, an early May release that plays deep into the summer at a high multiple in the 3.2-3.3 range.

Matthew McConaughey and Jennifer Garner are creating some sparks in GHOSTS OF GIRLFRIENDS PAST

The other wide release in the marketplace this weekend is the poorly-reviewed Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (Warner Bros). With Matthew McConaughey and Jennifer Garner as the romantic leads and an assist from Oscar winner Michael Douglas, Ghosts has performed decently, especially with Females 25 Plus. The Mark Waters-directed rom-com coaxed an estimated $6M in opening day sales and will likely reach about $16.5M for the weekend. That’s would be 12% stronger than last year’s first-weekend-of-May chick-flick counter programming, Made of Honor, which finished second to Iron Man with $14.7M.

Ali Larter (center) and Beyonce (right) come to blows over THE WIRE's Idris Elba in OBSESSED

Last weekend’s box office champ Obsessed (Sony) – the one where Beyonce “tromps a tramp” (played by Ali Larter from Heroes) – took a nosedive with just $4.2M or so on Friday. It seems headed for an estimated 3-day of $12.39M, down 57% from its opening, but the genre pic with a budget of only $20M will still have $47M in the bank by Monday. That’s a very profitable little movie.

Tween are pushing Zac Efron's 17 AGAIN past the $50M mark

The Warner Bros comedy 17 Again, starring tween dream Zac Efron, continues to perform well with about $2.22M to start the weekend and a possible $6.62M for the frame. Zac’s high-concept comedy will have topped $48.7M domestic in its first 17 days of release.

The new nature doc EARTH is really just the Cliff Notes for the extraordinary BBC miniseries PLANET EARTH

Disney’s Earth, a 90-minute version of the BBC’s 11-hour 2006 miniseries Planet Earth, will round out the top five for the first official weekend of summer. The nature doc grabbed $1.45M on its second Friday and is targeting $5.81M and a new 12-day cume of $23.47M by Monday.

The other wide release is the 3-D pic Battle For Terra (Lionsgate/Roadside Attractions). It is on just over 1,100 screens, but has managed only about $300,000 on opening day. I did see a commercial for Terra during American Idol this week, so there was some money spent, but it couldn’t have been much. Despite respectable reviews, this cg animated flick is destined for no more than $1M. That’s a full-on disaster.

EXCLUSIVE STEVE MASON EARLY FRIDAY ESTIMATES
1. NEW – X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Fox) – $34.75M, $8,478 PTA, $34.75M cume
2. NEW – Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (Warner Bros) – $6M, $1,890 PTA, $6M
3. Obsessed (Sony) – $4.2M, $1,671 PTA, $39M cume
4. 17 Again (Warner Bros) – $2.22M, $682 PTA, $44.36M cume
5. The Soloist (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $1.7M, $836 PTA, $14.2M cume
6. Earth (Disney) – $1.45M, $804 PTA, $19.11M cume
7. Monsters vs. Aliens (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $1.41M, $537 PTA, $178M cume
8. Fighting (Rogue) – $1.4M, $608 PTA, $14.73M cume
9. State of Play (Universal) – $1.28M, $527 PTA, $28.51M cume
10. Hannah Montana: The Movie (Disney) – $1.1M, $390 PTA, $67.88M cume
*NEW – Battle For Terra (Lionsgate/Roadside Attractions) – $300,000, $258 PTA, $300,000 cume

EXCLUSIVE STEVE MASON EARLY 3-DAY ESTIMATES
1. NEW – X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Fox) – $86.8M, $21,194 PTA, $86.8M cume
2. NEW – Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (Warner Bros) – $16.5M, $5,197 PTA, $16.5M
3. Obsessed (Sony) – $12.39M, $4,928 PTA, $47.19M cume
4. 17 Again (Warner Bros) – $6.62M, $2,034 PTA, $48.76M cume
5. Earth (Disney) – $5.81M, $3,221 PTA, $23.47M cume
6. The Soloist (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $5.7M, $2,804 PTA, $18.2M cume
7. Monsters vs. Aliens (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $5.65M, $2,152 PTA, $182.25M cume
8. State of Play (Universal) – $4.31M, $1,765 PTA, $31.54M cume
9. Hannah Montana: The Movie (Disney) – $3.96M, $1,405 PTA, $70.74M cume
10. Fighting (Rogue) – $3.76M, $1,630 PTA, $17.1M cume
*NEW – Battle For Terra (Lionsgate/Roadside Attractions) – $1M, $878 PTA, $1M cume

Steve Mason is on Facebook and now also on Twitter@LAMase.

Look at these numbers.

X-Men – estimated budget – $75M
$20.8M opening day – $54.5M opening weekend – $152.3M domestic – $296.3M global

X-2: X-Men United – estimated budget – $110M
$31.25M opening day – $85.5M opening weekend – $214.9M domestic – $407.7M global

X-Men: The Last Stand – estimated budget – $210M
$45.1M opening day – $102.7M opening weekend – $224.4M domestic – $459.3M global

It’s pretty clear that, with no cost-containment on budget (especially the big cast), the X-Men franchise had reached the point of diminishing returns. So, X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Fox), debuting Friday, is a sequel, but, technically, a spin-off, without costing as much as a true sequel would.

A very different Hugh Jackman won the Tony for Best Actor for his performance in Broadway's BOY FROM OZ

I’m guessing that Hugh Jackman is working for a great price, also serving as a producer with a healthy backend participation. The rest of the name cast is essentially limited to Liev Schrieber (The Manchurian Candidate, The Omen), Dominic Monaghan (The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, ABC’s Lost) and Ryan Reynolds (Blade: Trinity, The Amityville Horror), and there is no Bryan Singer (X-Men, X-2) or Brett Ratner (X-Men 3) to direct. Instead, Fox and Jackman settled on the much less expensive, but still Academy Award-winning director Gavin Hood (Tsotsi). Now with a scaled-back story and cast, the movie comes in at a much more studio-friendly price while, hopefully, still packing an X-Men-style box office punch.

Aussie director Gavin Hood accepting his Oscar for TSOTSI

Fox has smartly positioned Wolverine as the first movie into the summer fray, and that is important because this is the one May huge release that may not have long legs (I believe that J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek will squash it like a bug on the all-new Enterprise windshield next week). I am told that pre-release industry tracking is in the stratosphere for this X-Men spin-off – Un-Aided Awareness, Total Awareness, Definite Interest and First Choice are all through the roof. When the tracking data gets this heated, predictions are dicey at best, but I am calling for $92M domestic. That would be just a tick lower than last year’s first-weekend-of-May starter Iron Man, which was $98.6M.

Without claws: Hugh Jackman as host of the 2009 Academy Awards

For those of you who may be reading my column for the first time, that $92M figure is my “prediction.” That means that based on my experience, conversations with sources at competing studios and interpretation of pre-release industry tracking, I am making a well-educated guess as to how X-Men Origins: Wolverine will deliver in opening weekend US sales. (The road is littered with other well-educated guessers, and I have missed substantially on a few predictions in the past.)

When I start writing on Friday, it will be based on early ticket sales. That will make my numbers “projections” instead of “predictions.” My Early Friday and 3-Day “projections” are historically off by no more than 5%-8%.

For the record, I believe that Mr. Jackman and the folks at Fox will be quite happy with anything north of $80M, but they are definitely working to keep expectations lower. In the end, I think they’ll be in the $90M-$95M range for 3-days.

Over the long haul, WOLVERINE will be no match for last year's IRON MAN

Ultimately, Iron Man performed like a monster deep into the summer. It was followed by the box office misfire Speed Racer on the following Friday, giving the Jon Favreau-directed comic book adaptation basically 17 days alone in the marketplace. Wolverine doesn’t have that luxury with the aforementioned Star Trek, arriving next Thursday starting at 7pm.

Additionally, Iron Man was jet-powered by spectacular reviews (93% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes)
and excellent word-of-mouth. It’ll be more of a mixed bag for X-Men Origins: Wolverine, standing at 41% Fresh on RT as of Wednesday night. The multiplier for Iron Man was 3.22 (the number by which you multiply the opening weekend figure by to arrive at the ultimate domestic gross). Wolverine is more likely to finish with a multiplier of 1.8-1.9. If the picture hits my opening weekend number, that multiplier will put the final US total at something in the $165M-$175M range.

In addition to my final weekend prediction, I also believe that Wolverine may scratch and claw its way to one of the top five or six opening days ever for a comic book movie. That could make it the 2nd-biggest opening day ever for a film from the X-Men franchise, trailing only the first day for X-Men 3.

ALL-TIME TOP 10 OPENING DAYS FOR COMIC BOOK ADAPTATIONS
1. The Dark Knight – $67.1M
2. Spider-Man 3 – $59.8M
3. X-Men: The Last Stand – $45.1M
4. Spider-Man 2 – $40.4M
5. Spider-Man – $39.4M
6. Iron Man – $35.2M
7. X-2: X-Men United – $31.25M
8. Watchmen – $24.5M
9. Hulk – $24.2M
10. Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer – $22M

There is always room for an inspired piece of counter-programming, and Warner Bros is apparently executing just that. The Matthew McConaughey-Jennifer Garner-Michael Douglas rom-com Ghosts of Girlfriends Past could reach a very solid $18M by appealing to Females 25 Plus.

The only other wide release is Battle For Terra (Lionsgate/Roadside Atttractions), a sci-fi 3-D release unluckily sandwiched between Monsters vs. Aliens (Dreamworks/Paramount) and Pixar’s Up (Disney) on the 3-D release schedule. Despite essentially decent early reviews (70% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes), Terra will not be putting up much of a Battle. The 3-D screen count will be low, and there has been no real marketing money spent on getting this one launched. I’m predicting about $3.4M, which might be enough to “sneak it” into the top twelve for the frame.

FINAL PREDICTIONS FOR THE WEEKEND OF MAY 1-3
1. NEW – X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Fox) – $92M
2. NEW – Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (Warner Bros) – $18M
3. Obsessed (Sony) – $10.2M
4. 17 Again (Warner Bros) – $6.5M
5. Earth (Disney) – $5.6M
6. Monsters vs. Aliens (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $5.5M
7. The Soloist (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $5M
8. State of Play (Universal) – $4.3M
9. Hannah Montana The Movie (Disney) – $3.9M
10. Fighting (Rogue) – $3.8M
11. Fast & Furious (Universal) – $3.5M
12. NEW – Battle For Terra (Lionsgate) – $3.4M

Steve Mason is on Facebook and now also on Twitter@LAMase.

James Cameron, Oscar-winning director of “Titanic” and self-proclaimed “King of the World” has found a new planet to conquer.

His next picture is “Avatar,” due in December. It’s the story of an ex-marine who is sent to settle and exploit an incredibly bio-diverse planet and ends up leading its indigenous inhabitants in a fight for survival.

(Leaked supposed early concept drawings may hint at why the marine feels attracted to the cause – or may just represent a fanboy’s fantasy.)

Very few details about the $200 million film have been released. ”Avatar’s” first teaser (which is probably a fanboy creation) gives away none of the groundbreaking 3-D effects Cameron has reportedly developed for the film. 

But a piece in this weekend’s New York Times collects some new intelligence from reputable sources as well as the blogosphere.

A writer from Time magazine describes the 15 minutes he saw:

“It was like doing some kind of drug,” he said, describing a scene in which the movie’s hero, played by Sam Worthington, ran around “with this kind of hot alien chick,” was attacked by jaguarlike creatures and was sprinkled with sprites that floated down, like snowflakes. 

“You feel like the little feathery things are landing on your arm,” said Mr. Quittner, who remained eager for another dose.

The web is also rife with postings from people who say, somehow, they’ve seen the film (which isn’t likely to be finished anytime before Fall).

From NYT, again:

“The special effects were mostly drawings and cartoons, but they looked 3-D still,” wrote one “planetshane,” whose particular dream involved a pirated copy of an early version.

“It was the best movie I had ever seen,” the post continued.

That type of hype is nearly impossible to live up to, acknowledges the director.

“It can’t possibly meet expectations,” said Cameron in December. “I went out, got drunk over that. 

But he still has a film to deliver. And it may be well worth seeing, given the film’s budget, the technological leaps and the fact that Cameron has pulled off the impossible before.

Shooting has been taking place in the old Spruce Goose hanger at Playa Vista where Cameron also filmed parts of “Titanic.” Visual effects are being done by Peter Jackson’s Weta Digital in New Zealand.

The NYT hints – and I think rightly so – that the first look the public will get at what Cameron’s been working on will come at next month’s Comic-Con in San Diego. How could he pass up such a perfect audience?

I, for one, hope to be there.

Beyonce does battle with the sexy Ali Larter (HEROES) in OBSESSED

OPENINGS FOR BEYONCE MOVIES
1. Austin Powers: Goldmember – $70.3M opening
2. Obsessed – $27.5M opening (projected)
3. Pink Panther (2006) – $20.2M opening
4. Dreamgirls – $14.1M wide break (after a platform start)
5. The Fighting Temptations – $11.7M opening
6. Cadillac Records – $3.4M opening

Now a million-selling solo artist with ubiquitous hits like Irreplaceable and Single Ladies (Put A Ring On It), she is beginning to cash in at the box office. She parlayed supporting roles in Mike Myers Austin Powers: Goldmember and Steve Martin’s Pink Panther into the showy Deena Jones role in the film adaptation of Dreamgirls, which topped $100M domestic (although the most of the awards hardware was ultimately taken home by Jennifer Hudson, winning Best Supporting Actress at both the Golden Globes and the Academy Awards). Beyonce received generally good notices for her turn as Etta James in Cadillac Records in December, although the movie was a box office dud with just $8.2M domestic. Now she has managed a surprise hit on her own with Obsessed.

By all accounts the movie is not very good. Sony didn’t screen it for critics, and the early reviews trickling in decidedly negative (25% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes). Perhaps the excellent Pete Hammond from Hollywood.com sums it up best saying, “It’s strictly a generic thriller, perhaps the 105th blatant rip-off of Fatal Attraction, but not without its own guilty pleasures.” My hunch is that there is some trashy fun here with a “girl-on-girl smackdown” (Geoff Berkshire’s words from his review on Metromix.com), and the other girl is the stunning Ali Larter from NBC’s Heroes. Still when all is said and done, Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine (Fox) and Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (Warner Bros) starring Matthew McConaughey, both due next Friday, are certain to make Obsessed a one-week wonder, and it may get a speeding ticket on its way to home video.

X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE kicks off the summer next Friday

Even if Beyonce’s “movie legs” aren’t as long as her real (and shapely) legs, Obsessed has set a new opening record for the last weekend of April, traditionally a studio dumping ground for schlock and tough-to-sell movies.

ALL-TIME TOP 10 OPENINGS ON LAST WEEKEND OF APRIL
1. Obsessed (2009) – $27.5M (projected)
2. Mean Girls (2004) – $24.4M
3. Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Universe (2005) – $21.1M
4. Baby Mama (2008) – $17.4M
5. RV (2006) – $16.4M
6. Identity (2003) – $16.2M
7. Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay (2008) – $14.9M
8. XXX: State of the Union (2005) – $12.7M
9. Driven (2001) – $12.1M
10. United 93 (2006) – $11.5M

Former A&F model Channing Tatum is flexing his box office muscle this weekend in FIGHTING

Aside from the monstrous upside surprise for Obsessed, the strong performance of Fighting (Rogue) ranks as the biggest box office upset of the weekend. This Channing Tatum vehicle from his A Guide To Recognizing Your Saints director Dito Montiel didn’t seem to have much traction in pre-release audience tracking, but the PG-13 street fighting yarn has actually delivered the second-best Friday gross with about $4.46M. It will be pretty front-loaded, but should still reach a better-than-expected $12M by Monday, enough for second-place.

Zac Efron is proving to be a little less durable among the teen and pre-teen set than I would have thought. 17 Again (Warner Bros), also starring Matthew Perry and Mrs. Judd Apatow (Leslie Mann) has delivered a second Friday in the $3.85M range. The weekend could hit $10.83M or so, second for the 3-day, for a new 10-day cume of $39.13M, but that represents a deeper-than-expected 54% drop.

Next comes the long-delayed Robert Downey Jr./Jamie Foxx project The Soloist (Dreamworks/Paramount). Originally slated for December with hopes of a Best Actor nomination for Downey, Jr., the Joe Wright-directed tearjerker was first moved to March before settling into this unfriendly last weekend of April slot. Reviews are respectable (61% Fresh on RT) and Downey, Jr. and Foxx both have real drawing power. At just over 2,000 playdates, the movie has managed a tuneful $3.43M (#4 for the day) to start the frame, and opening weekend could reach $10.29M, good for fourth place. The 25 Plus appeal, especially with women, gives this one a chance to do respectable business over the next couple of weekends as counter-programming to the first few summer blockbusters.

A Great White Shark lunging out of the ocean to snatch a seal in Disney's EARTH

Rounding out the top five, and a bit of a disappointment, is Earth (Disney). The studio’s calculated use of Earth Day to release its Cliffs Notes version of the BBC miniseries Planet Earth has, however, paid some dividends. The 11-hour miniseries has been boiled down to the cutest and scariest animals along with the most fascinating images and picturesque landscapes in a tight 90-minute package, and the re-purposed result generated just over $4M for Wednesday’s Earth Day celebration, adding another $1.6M or so on Thursday. Now the nature doc, which is running at 83% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, has slumped to an estimated $2.9M in Friday sales. It will play big with family audiences on Saturday and Sunday (the kids will be unable to resist baby polar bears sliding down a snowy arctic slope), but I am penciling in Earth for a 3-day of only $10M. That still gives it the biggest 3-day opening ever for a nature doc, although this is also the widest opening ever for a movie of this type.

ALL-TIME TOP 3-DAY OPENINGS FOR NATURE DOCS
- total domestic cumes included -
1. Earth – $9.39M (projected)
2. March of the Penguins – $7.1M opening – $77.4M cume
3. Two Brothers – $6.1M opening – $19.1M cume
4. Winged Migration – $470,000 biggest weekend – $10.7M cume
5. Arctic Tale -  $207,000 opening – $830,000 cume

2004’s Two Brothers, a story of tiger cubs from director Jean-Jacques Annaud, was a wide release like Earth, but the other 3 films listed above were platformed. Disney’s abridged version of Planet Earth has no chance of reaching the staggering success of 2005’s March of the Penguins, but Earth could get to the $30M range even with summer’s biggest guns blazing starting next Friday.

EXCLUSIVE STEVE MASON EARLY FRIDAY ESTIMATES
1. NEW – Obsessed (Sony) – $11M, $4,375 PTA, $11M cume
2. NEW – Fighting (Rogue) – $4.46M, $1,932 PTA, $4.46M cume
3. 17 Again (Warner Bros) – $3.85M, $1,183 PTA, $32.15M cume
4. NEW – The Soloist (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $3.2M, $1,581 PTA, $3.2M cume
5. NEW – Earth (Disney) – $2.9M, $1,608 PTA, $8.54M cume
6. State of Play (Universal) – $2.08M, $741 PTA, $20.31M cume
7. Monsters vs. Aliens (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $2.05M, $579 PTA, $168.34M cume
8. Fast & Furious (Universal) – $1.93M, $541 PTA, $141.09M cume
9. Hannah Montana: The Movie (Disney) – $1.77M, $548 PTA, $60.98M cume
10. Crank: High Voltage (Lionsgate) – $850,000, $382 PTA, $9.96M cume

EXCLUSIVE STEVE MASON EARLY 3-DAY ESTIMATES
1. NEW – Obsessed (Sony) – $27.5M, $10,939 PTA, $27.5M cume
2. NEW – Fighting (Rogue) – $12M, $5,197 PTA, $12M cume
3. 17 Again (Warner Bros) – $10.83M, $3,327 PTA, $39.13M
4. NEW – The Soloist (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $10.29M, $5,084 PTA, $10.29M cume
5. NEW – Earth (Disney) – $10M, $5,543 PTA, $15.64M cume
6. Monsters vs. Aliens (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $8.5M, $2,531 PTA, $174.79M cume
7. State of Play (Universal) – $7.1M, $2,529 PTA, $25.33M cume
8. Hannah Montana: The Movie (Disney) – $6.65M, $2,058 PTA, $65.86M cume
9. Fast & Furious (Universal) – $5.79M, $1,625 PTA, $144.95M cume
10. Crank: High Voltage (Lionsgate) – $2.8M, $1,259 PTA, $11.91M cume

Steve Mason is on Facebook and now also on Twitter@LAMase.

The 4 new wide releases and 1 major specialty release set to debut this weekend will face an onslaught of mega-hits over the next month. How can Obsessed (Sony), Earth (Disney), The Soloist, (Dreamworks/Paramount), Fighting (Rogue) and The Informers (Senator) possibly find an audience with X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Fox) and Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (Warner Bros) arriving next weekend followed by, in successive weeks, Star Trek (Paramount), Angels & Demons (Sony), the combo of Night at the Museum 2 (Fox) and Terminator: Salvation (Fox) and Disney/Pixar’s Up?

X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE starring Hugh Jackman will be unleashed next weekend

End of April starters have tended to be genre pics like 2003’s Identity and The Invisible (2007), mid-budget messes that have fallen short of expectations like the ridiculous Next (2007) starring Nicolas Cage and XXX: State of the Union in ’05, and tough-to-sell pictures like the excellent United 93 (2006) from director Paul Greengrass and the good-hearted 2006 movie Akeelah & the Bee. Tina Fey is the unofficial queen of the last weekend of April, writing and starring in Mean Girls and mugging her way through Baby Mama with Amy Poehler last year.

30 ROCK's Tina Fey has starred in 2 of the 3 biggest last weekend of April openers ever

ALL-TIME TOP 10 OPENINGS ON LAST WEEKEND OF APRIL
1. Mean Girls (2004) – $24.4M
2. Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Universe (2005) – $21.1M
3. Baby Mama (2008) – $17.4M
4. RV (2006) – $16.4M
5. Identity (2003) – $16.2M
6. Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay (2008) – $14.9M
7. XXX: State of the Union (2005) – $12.7M
8. Driven (2001) – $12.1M
9. United 93 (2006) – $11.5M
10. Stick It (2006) – $10.8M

The likely weekend winner will be either Obsessed or Disney’s nature doc Earth, which opened Wednesday to about $4M, but I am giving the nod to recording superstar Beyonce despite the fact that Sony has kept its exploitative-looking thriller completely under wraps. Under its Screen Gems banner, Sony knows how to squeeze one good weekend out of movie like this regardless of how bad it is. Last year, Screen Gems scored excellent 3-day starts for sub-par movies like Prom Night ($20.8M), First Sunday ($17.7M), Lakeview Terrace ($15M), Quarantine ($14.2M) and Untraceable ($11.3M). Industry tracking suggests that Beyonce could drive the certain-to-be-forgettable Obsessed to a decent $15M opening weekend, and it will likely play very well at inner city theatre properties.

That would push Earth to #2 for the frame. The Earth Day opening was successful, and critics love the film (83% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes). Family audiences love cute baby animals so Disney has excerpted the amazing BBC miniseries Planet Earth to fashion their own March of the Penguins-style narrative nature doc. It’s hard to imagine anything cuter than baby polar bears sliding down a snow bank, and it’s hard to come up with anything scarier than a Great White Shark lunging out of the water after its prey. I have seen the full length miniseries, but not Disney’s movie. Still it’s hard to imagine this not being unbelievably compelling stuff, even in its 90 minute theatrical version (although I still recommend tracking down the full BBC series instead). I am forecasting a possible $13.2M for 3-days, which would mean a 5-day start of just over $19M.

Last weekend’s champ, 17 Again (Warner Bros) starring ‘tween heartthrob Zac Efron, should hold up fairly well. The word-of-mouth is very positive, and that could mean a drop of only 46% or so to about $12.7M and a new cume of just over $40M by Monday.

Oscar nominee Robert Downey, Jr. (TROPIC THUNDER) and Academy Award winner Jamie Foxx (RAY) star in THE SOLOIST

The Joe Wright-directed The Soloist has been juggled around the release schedule with abandon, but it has been very well marketed with a heavy TV campaign, especially during shows geared for the 25+ crowd. The reviews are a mixed bag (54% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes), but there will be some business in this title. Some of my sources are saying $12M-$14M, but I am calling for a possible $11.6M.

The well-reviewed Russell Crowe journalism thriller State of Play (Universal) will almost certainly hang onto a spot in the top 5. The dip will be gentle (maybe 35%-40%), and this very good adult film could generate another $9M in ticket sales.

FINAL PREDICTION FOR APRIL 24-26
1. NEW – Obsessed (Sony) – $15M
2. NEW – Earth (Disney) – $13.2M
3. 17 Again (Warner Bros) – $12.7M
4. NEW – The Soloist (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $11.6M
5. State of Play (Universal) – $9M
6. Monsters vs. Aliens (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $7.9M
7. Hannah Montana: The Movie (Disney) – $7.4M
8. NEW – Fighting (Rogue) – $7M
9. Fast & Furious (Universal) – $5.8M
10. Crank: High Voltage (Lionsgate) – $2.8M
11. Knowing (Summit) – $2M
12. NEW – The Informers (Senator) – $1.7M

Steve Mason is on Facebook and now also on Twitter@LAMase.