5 Reasons Why Salt Will Be Bigger Than Inception
Can you feel the excitement? In a mere four days, Inception will hit theaters, melt your face and take its rightful place as the biggest non-animated film of the summer. At least until Salt comes out next week and blows Inception out of the water. Wait, what? Ahead, Movieline dissects why Angelina Jolie's summer action spectacle is poised to win the box office war with Christopher Nolan's pedigreed mind-bender.
· Angelina Jolie
While Leonardo DiCaprio is forced to share the Inception marketing campaign with a cadre of character actors -- he didn't even get Russell Hammond status in the movie poster! -- Angelina Jolie is the marketing campaign for Salt. And you know why? She's the biggest actress in the world and probably behind only Will Smith and Johnny Depp on the worldwide-fame scale. People love Jolie; they like Leonardo DiCaprio. Don't believe me? DiCaprio only has one $40-plus million opener on his resume (Shutter Island), Jolie has three.
· The release date
After Salt gets released on July 23, the summer might as well be over from a four-quadrant standpoint. To wit: The remaining releases are niche films with specific target audiences like Eat, Pray, Love, The Other Guys and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. It just feels like Salt could be the one film that not only has legs, but will appeal to a wide variety of demographics. Inception probably will too -- if only it didn't slam into Salt seven days after its release.
· Running time
As Salt Fan Club president Jeffrey Wells revealed, Salt runs 95 minutes without credits; Inception runs for 148 minutes. Based on simple time telling skills, that means theaters will be able to squeeze more showings of Salt into a single day than Nolan's epic. And that means a greater potential for dollars that even Inception's IMAX screens won't make up for.
· Accessibility
Without even seeing Salt, you can describe it to your friends in three words: Jolie as Bourne. Try using three words for Inception: Leo's dream heist? Matrix with dreams? Bond as Matrix? Leo Ocean's Matrix? Critics love it? Um, yeah. Inception might be better than Salt, but it certainly isn't as straightforward.
· Expectations
The killer: With a sprawling cast, the "From the director of The Dark Knight" tag and maximum ubiquity, people are just plain expecting Inception to be the greatest movie of all-time (something critics are stoking with the comparisons to Stanley Kubrick). If/when Inception predictably falls short of all this hype, the backlash will begin fast and hard. Meanwhile, no one is expecting Salt to be anything other than a good-time action film with a major star doing crazy stunts. Advantage: Angelina.
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
"And to the other commenters here, I apologize for being the first person in history to make a reasonable prediction and have it be wrong. How dare I, right guys?"
Therein lies the problem - you didn't make a reasonable prediction. Calling your reasoning weak is a gross understatement - "People love Jolie; they like Leonardo DiCaprio" - give me a break.
I didn't make a reasonable prediction? So you're saying what I wrote is so completely out of bounds that it deserves to be ridiculed for being wrong? Because it doesn't. But that's OK: the cult of Inception states that if anyone says anything even remotely negative it needs to be destroyed. Granted, I didn't say anything remotely negative, still thought it would be a huge hit and liked the film -- but that's not the point of this narrative, of course. Break given.
It's not reasonable to assume that Jolie is well-loved and only behind Will Smith and Johnny Depp on the fame scale. Who's fame scale is that?
Jolie is widely reviled as a homewrecker and a child hoarder. Her personal life is arguably as toxic as Tom Cruise's. Pair that with a mediocre action vehicle and you get a ho-hum opening which any reasonable person could have predicted.
It's got nothing to do with Inception, which is a bunch of horribly edited gobbledy gook.
"It's got nothing to do with Inception, which is a bunch of horribly edited gobbledy gook."
Going and slamming the initial poster regarding the prediction is fine but then coming up with a more delusional statement just detracts everything you said and will say.
There's neither the time nor the space to delve into all the ways that Inception is a pile of gorgeous images assembled into an incoherent mess of a genre flick with a just enough slapdash pseudo-philosophy thrown in to hoodwink suckers into thinking it's some kind of cinematic miracle.
Wow Chris, you should have listened to me. I told you mark my words, "Inception will have legs" and here it is, Salt's opening weekend and Inception still beat Salt! Next time you shouldn't write such ridiculous articles! Man you were way off! Remember next time, there is no such thing as star power anymore. You have to have a good story to make a good movie now, people are catching on. Salt doesn't have a good story at all and Inception did. Lesson learned I guess, better luck next time Chris.
Sincerely,
Blah
oh my goodness, are you guys serious? Inception was pretty good. Just saw the confusing mess that is Salt last night and it was awful, poorly acting, confusing plot with huge holes in the storyline, Jolie always looking bad a blonde (sorry Angie but stick with your brunette roots for the love of hair and fashion sensibility!). Inception had some holes and was a little hard to follow sure, but it's definitely Avataresque in that it's worth seeing again to fully figure it out. Salt is just... flavorless.
Chris, I think where some people might feel compelled to rub these results in comes out of the fact that it was designed to be provocative. There was something more to it than getting a "reasonable" prediction wrong: The prediction you made was bold, and if "reasonable" projections based on this box office are right, then it fell flat. It wasn't out of bounds, but it was bold.
Also, some might argue the reasoning wasn't sound. Scott Mendelson wrote up this weekend's returns saying, "Some might crow about the disparity between number three and number four on the list (of Jolie's openings), but ‘Salt’ didn’t have much to sell besides Angelina Jolie kicking ass and jumping off trucks. ‘Mr. and Mrs. Smith’ had the tabloid-frenzy surrounding it, ‘Tomb Raider’ was based on a popular video game, and ‘Wanted’ had that whole ‘curve the bullet’ bit to sell in the ads. ‘Salt’ was more of a throwback to the mid-90s star vehicles that director Phillip Noyce is known for (‘Patriot Games,’ ‘Clear and Present Danger,’ ‘The Saint,’ and ‘The Bone Collector’). Point being, from a modern marketing perspective, all the picture had was Angelina Jolie, so she gets credit for every dollar earned this weekend."
This is just opinion and analysis, but you presented "Salt" as a compelling and simple tagline, so it's somewhat surprising that someone would wind up saying that it didn't have much to sell it.
Chris, if your total box-office prediction for Inception is off by 100%, which it looks like it will be, the term "reasonable prediction" is no longer appropriate.
Many of your arguments, Chris, are also disingenuous. Leonardo doesn't do summer block-busters, prefering to look for good stories and work with good directors. Angelina does low-brow trash like Tomb Raider.
The running time of a movie is completely irrelevant. Box office successes: Avatar, Titanic, The Lord of the Rings, The Dark Knight, etc, all exceed 2 hours. In fact there are more movies in the top 30 box office successes of all time that are over 2 hours than under.
Your argument about accessibility are frivolous at best. There is no drill where we are required to describe a movie to our friends in 3 words. I know you were just trying to make a point, but we're not inarticulate, monosyllabic cave men who can't express ideas to our contempories.
You dismiss criticism of your article as rabid fan-boy ire. For the most part that's not the case. Your article was simple poorly reasoned.
Angelina does lowbrow trash that has won her one Oscar and got her nominated for another. And clearly working with directors like Philip Noyce, Clint Eastwood, Oliver Stone, Michael Winterbottom and Doug Liman means that she's just scraping by on crap. Ahem.
Nowhere did I say that long movies can't make plenty of money -- my argument was that if Salt were to top Inception at the box office, running time would be a factor. (It wasn't.) But please, put words in my mouth and tell me what I mean.
And yes, saying that the American public likes movies that are easily accessible is a totally frivolous argument -- the box office list is littered with thought-provoking movies and not popcorn munchers that appeal to the masses. Good point.
Again, for the 100th time: I love Leo, I liked Inception and I thought Salt would gross more. (For reference: even the first Matrix "only" grossed $170 million; I had Inception a $165 million -- apologies for being so irrational!) I was wrong: the end. But last time I checked, making a wrong box office prediction didn't make someone unreasonable. Unless we just have different definitions of that word.
Fair enough, Chris, some good points. But I think Inception is a popcorn movie and not nearly as profound as people seem to think.
My point was that you won't find Leo doing a piece-of-crap, paycheck franchise like Tomb Raider. Leo does have the presence and charisma to open summer fluff, he generally chooses not to; so yes, your comparison of both star's opening weekends isn't particularily pertinent.
And Angelina's work with Oliver Stone was Alexander - a critcally reviled, financial flop.
Wow! Angelina won an Oscar! That doesn't mean she doesn't slum it at times. Cuba Gooding Jr. won an Oscar, does that make him a fantastic actor or validate Boat Trip?
I would like you to produce any data correlating shorter running time with box office success. Theatres could show Salt 100 times per day but it will still only attract people who were interested in the first place.
No the box office list isn't littered with high concept, thought provoking movies, but it is littered with good, well crafted movies that had box office legs because of good word-of-mouth - movies like Inception.
Like you say, it's just a box office forecast. You went out on a limb and provoked a discussion. I look forward to your next prediction.
"I didn't make a reasonable prediction?"
No, not at all. And most certainly not on your given reasons.
"So you're saying what I wrote is so completely out of bounds that it deserves to be ridiculed for being wrong? Because it doesn't."
Yes, yes it does. You make a prediction based on weak arguments. Your prediction turns out to be wrong. You could have gracefully accepted this, and tried to have used it as a learning experience for future analysis. Instead, you continue to argue your reasoning was sound, when it clearly and demonstrably isn't, because it didn't lead to the outcome you predicted. On the basis of this case, you've demonstrated that you're an unreliable commentator, and your commentary entirely deserving of ridicule.
"But that's OK: the cult of Inception states that if anyone says anything even remotely negative it needs to be destroyed. Granted, I didn't say anything remotely negative"
Yes, you did. Your last point makes it clear that you didn't like the hype building up around the film. You wanted to symbolically take it down a couple of pegs back to reality. Still, that's a separate issue (beyond the bad argument contained within), and it's not something I think you deserve ridicule about.
No, you deserve ridicule because you cobbled together some very poor reasons for why Salt would be a much more successful film, and you still defend them as reasonable and sound.
Of course everyone makes bad movies -- I'm just saying people seem to act like Jolie is a charlatan when she's a talented actress and probably the biggest female star in the world. The girl is famous, talented and popular.
But you bring up the best point yet -- a point that everyone seems to have missed. In the end, Inception wasn't some profound treatise on dream logic. It was a big, giant popcorn film with big giant close-ups of its big stars and lots of special effects. I'm speculating, but it feels like the word of mouth isn't "this is the greatest movie ever!" it's more like "this is a movie you can totally understand and it's fun!" Very good observation.
"Of course everyone makes bad movies -- I'm just saying people seem to act like Jolie is a charlatan when she's a talented actress and probably the biggest female star in the world. "
We're not talking about her making critically reviled films or her acting abilities, we're talking about her box office weight. Examining what she's done, it's clear that she doesn't pull in as much as you and other commentators attribute to her. She may be the biggest female star in the world, but that doesn't (demonstrably) translate into a huge moneymaker, and you need to stop insisting it does.
"But you bring up the best point yet -- a point that everyone seems to have missed. In the end, Inception wasn't some profound treatise on dream logic. It was a big, giant popcorn film with big giant close-ups of its big stars and lots of special effects. I'm speculating, but it feels like the word of mouth isn't "this is the greatest movie ever!" it's more like "this is a movie you can totally understand and it's fun!" Very good observation."
I'm sorry, are you actually complimenting yourself?
And given that you've been completely wrong and uninformed thus far, maybe you should cease speculating, especially since you're now crossing over from any pretense of analysis into an actual personal judgement about what kind of movie Inception was. And you yourself have relentlessly attacked those who have been saying it's the best movie ever, so please don't turn around now and say that's not what a lot of people are saying.
I was actually complimenting Johnny, not myself. And Johnny was actually talking about her acting choices when I brought up Alexander and Oliver Stone. But please feel free to jump into that conversation with little-to-no-context.
As long as we aren't name-calling -- oh wait, there you are calling me uninformed. Wrong. There's a difference between being uninformed and incorrect. In this case, I was incorrect. But nothing I wrote was uninformed. It was speculation based on certain facts -- her box office muscle vs. Leo; the length; the idea that people like easy-to-digest movies over more impenetrable ones -- but believe what you like since obviously nothing I write will change your mind and you'll reply to this with another lengthy paragraph pull quoting me and saying how ridiculous I am.
My point about the word of mouth: Internet commenters -- a very vocal minority -- are the ones who mostly say it's the "greatest movie ever." The average filmgoer, the one who doesn't bother commenting on a film website, is not. Happy now? No, probably not.
"I was actually complimenting Johnny, not myself. And Johnny was actually talking about her acting choices when I brought up Alexander and Oliver Stone. But please feel free to jump into that conversation with little-to-no-context."
You're obligated to provide context in that case. You made a point that wasn't your own but said nothing to clarify it. Very unprofessional.
"As long as we aren't name-calling -- oh wait, there you are calling me uninformed. Wrong. There's a difference between being uninformed and incorrect. In this case, I was incorrect. But nothing I wrote was uninformed."
Yes, it was. Because not one thing reason you gave was valid. It wasn't valid when you made the predicition, it isn't valid now. And I'm not name-calling, I'm pointing out that you're uninformed - which you were, because otherwise you wouldn't have been wrong.
"It was speculation based on certain facts -- her box office muscle vs. Leo; the length; the idea that people like easy-to-digest movies over more impenetrable ones -- "
As myself and others have repeatedly stated, her box office muscle isn't particularly impressive, either for her popcorn fare or for her more 'serious' films.
"but believe what you like since obviously nothing I write will change your mind and you'll reply to this with another lengthy paragraph pull quoting me and saying how ridiculous I am."
They're only lengthy because I'm quoting particular sections of your writing. And I'm perfectly willing to change my mind - if I'm persuaded about something. But the whole problem is that your arguments aren't very persuasive, particularly when they've been shown to have no basis in reality.
Now that you're nitpicking the way I responded to someone else's comment -- and arguing that I needed to put context there, when I did by saying, "You bring up the best point yet" -- I think it's time for us to part ways. Thanks for the conversation! It's been enlightening.
"My point about the word of mouth: Internet commenters -- a very vocal minority -- are the ones who mostly say it's the 'greatest movie ever.' "
Except that it's getting excpetional word of mouth from those commentators. It is holding up as the #3 all-time on IMDB's list. This will drop over time, of course, but its a strong indicator of success. Also - those internet commenters actually can seriously effect a movie's success. Point in case - I have brought multiple back to a 2nd showing and might influence as many as 10 - 20 people to see the movie who wouldn't have otherwise or might have waited until it came out on DVD.
And I'm not trying to brag - I'm just trying to say that people tend to trust the opinions of their "movie buff" friends.
At the end of the day - you got your prediction utterly wrong on both sides of the case (in terms of Salt positioned to limp across the $100MM barrier and Inception now expected to blow past $250MM with an outside shot at $300MM domestic).
It accomplished the intended effect - you are in some ways now an Armond White. Especially to anyone who followed this article. So - that's good, right?
You're right, Chris, Angelina can be very good. I've got nothing against her. I just wanted to take a free shot at Alexander - it was terrible.
Something we can all agree on: The worst.
If only Armond White or even Rex Reed fed the trolls like you do Mr. Rosen, THAT would be some summer popcorn entertainment 🙂
Come on people, get a grip. It's an article about projected box-office for frivolous summer entertainment. It was a fun debate. There's no need to call for his head.
🙂 If only Rex and White knew how to use a computer!
Chris... I think it's fair to say that your prediction/opinion really represents the worst in Hollywood executive thinking. When I think of 'Salt' that classic scene in Robert Altman's "The Player" comes to mind... where they are pitching the movie.... 'well it's Bourne Indentity meets MI except instead of Tom Cruise we use Angelina Jolie... BRILLIANT!!!'
Personally I feel as though Inception is a bit overhyped. However, in decade of sequels, reboots, rip offs and retreads, Inception feels (as flawed as it is) like a tall cool glass of water inthe middle the Mojave desert.
Next » « Previous