Lionsgate Hopes For Hit With 'Transporter 3'

The first Transporter movie made about $45 million worldwide. It was a silly action movie with homoerotic overtones so obvious they can barely be called overtones (Come on: A group of guys fighting in oil?). The second, an equally illogical but slightly more accomplished silly action movie that seemed to get by without the homoeroticism, made $85 million worldwide. So I guess we're hoping the third one can almost be classified as a "box office smash." Yes, for reasons that escape me, there will be a third Transporter movie, in which, amazingly, Jason Statham will play a man of few words who drives incredibly fast. The news that we're getting a third film in the series is not, by itself, terribly newsworthy...unless they're making another fatal stab at the uncomfortable homoerotic stuff again. Nor is it a headline that the movie was written by Luc Besson, whose career isn't what it was a decade ago. Ditto the fact that Jason Statham is back again. If there's a story here, it's who's distributing the film, hoping against hope that it makes a considerable amount of coin. Lionsgate has acquired the U.S. and Canadian rights to the film, which is the second big news item of the week for the studio. The first? That they'd lost $74 million in its most recent financial year. Not "lost" in the way the old New Line regime did it, by simply misplacing money for years and years at a time. Lionsgate reported the losses, but added that revenues were up, over a billion dollars for the first time. Of course, that means nothing if expenses were also up, which they were. So much so that the company lost money. Clearly, then, Lionsgate is looking for slam dunks to distribute, movies that don't cost them a lot to release (the cost of distribution in particular was cited by the studio as a primary reason for the financial woes) and that can generate instant audience. They do a great job of using this model with the Saw franchise, so they're crossing their fingers that this November release can do the same thing. Or close to it. The only problem here is, as we outlined, Transporter movies haven't ever made much money. The second had a $32 million budget and it made $10 million more than that in domestic box office. The Canadian grosses couldn't have amounted to much more. Add in marketing costs and suddenly, this is not a movie that's printing a lot of money. Lionsgate has to hope that the distribution deal, which doesn't include any production costs, brings them a windfall after all the producers and filmmakers earn their money back. I can't see how it will pull that off, because you'd have to pretend Transporter 3 has momentum for it to have some momentum. I mean, if these these were fountains of gold, Fox would still be distributing them, right? But if it's not a great risk, I guess it makes sense to latch onto something simply because it has name recognition. I just don't see a great reward, either, unless Lionsgate has a piece of the home video rights. And those would be through the roof if they brought back that unsettling homoeroticism that forever charred the first film into a back room of my brain.

Comments

[Jen]

First of all, you couldn't have found a better photo. The real news is you not only saw Transporter 2 but can actually remember the images from #1. That's impressive. Aside from Jason Statham with no shirt... (required pause & sigh), Jason Statham looking angry, Jason Statham's monosyllabic dialogue, and Jason Statham in a car, I'm drawing a complete blank. Guys fighting in oil? I'll look past the obvious political jokes. Hmm, overtone-wise, it sounds like it's right up there with Goose, Mav and the gang from Top Gun!

[Orinn]

Really the second one made that much? I couldn't see it, I wanted too but then my friends told me he jumps a car, off of a pear, while spinning it, knocks the bomb off, and lands the car. My point is they forgot to include the shark swimming underneath the peer.
Secondly yes homo erotic, dont know how some people missed that part.