Tuesday
03Jun2008
Lionsgate Hopes For Hit With 'Transporter 3'
Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 12:48AM
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.
Reader Comments (2)
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!
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.