Box Office News

Box-Office Oracle: Jul. 10 - Jul. 12, 2009

It's going to be Bruno on top, wipe that smirk off your face.

#1 movie predicted correctly: 0 Weeks in a Row
Last weekend's victory was stolen from me on Monday when the actuals revealed Transformers: Revenge of the Bay had triumphed. Luckily, this weekend is much easier to call. It's going to be Bruno on top, the only thing left to predict is the margin.

Borat opened at $31,607 per theater, but didn't even hit 1,000 theaters. It expanded in its second weekend and did a more reasonable $11,017 per. Which is about where I have it. Though it's not great, people are going to watch it. I feel like I've been saying that for a month.

Estimate: $33.1 million
Here is precisely where it gets interesting. The first Ice Age barely dipped in 2002. The second one dropped the industry standard 50 percent. I've gone a little softer on this title, I'm thinking 45 percent, if only because no genre competition is being released against it.
Estimate: $22.9 million
This film has caused an awful lot of conversation here on Rope, eh? I'm treating it much like Terminator: Salvation, another film that saw a 61 percent dip on its second weekend. However, just so you can't accuse me of punishing films I dislike, I'm only knocking it 48 percent this weekend. Terminator: Salvation dropped 49.8 percent. See? I can be nice.
Estimate: $22.0 million
I'm bullish on this title. My theory depends largely on two million adults making their way to the theater this weekend. Something has to sell tickets this weekend.
Estimate: $15.7 million
It's gaining nearly 60 theaters because Beth Cooper and Bruno aren't appealing in some markets. So that's like $300k of the damage right there.
Estimate: $9.8 million
I've heard they are talking sequel, and you can't really blame them. They could fund three or four more efforts just like this without taking in another dime. It's almost as if plot and quality matter when the sixth weekend at the box-office rolls around.
Estimate: $8.0 million
I'd urge every young filmmaker to see this as a cautionary tale. It's a murderer's row of what not to do. Unlikable and illogical characters, unexplainable arcs, weird pacing, forced dialogue. Truly an achievement. Fox continues to knock it out of the park. On the monetary side it doesn't have enough theaters or awareness. Seriously, everyone involved should just take a bow here.
Estimate: $4.7 million
8. Up
Up has made $303m worldwide, but it still has tons of international dollars to collect. Terminator: Salvation has made $351m worldwide and is about done. So what I'm saying is this: Up could end up beating Salvation by a couple hundred million. I wouldn't have called that coming into this summer.
Estimate: $3.0 million
Anyone up for seeing a film about a kid with cancer in the midst of the worst recession of our lives?
Estimate: $2.9 million
Yep, that's a .9. It won't even take a million dollars to crack the top ten. Night at the Museum will end up 11th if you need a bonus projection. If my numbers hold this will be the worst box-office weekend in ten weeks.
Estimate: $.9 million

So am I low on Bruno? Can Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen grab second? Am I underrating the teen appeal of Beth Cooper? Weigh in now, I read 'em all, even the mean ones.

Thanks for Reading! Join the Community!
Support the Site! Make it Faster! No Ads!

Your support goes a long way in ensuring RopeofSilicon.com stays stable. For less than the price of one small popcorn, you can can help support RopeofSilicon and, in turn, visit the site every day without ads! Including this one!

Subscribe Now!

  • Bustray

    I think all of the projections sound about right; but I think you may have been a bit to nice to Transformers 2. Spider-Man 3 dropped 61.% in its second weekend; then 50% in its second. Pirates of the Caribbean 3 dropped 61.% as well in its first weekend as well; then dropped 52% in its third. The Simpsons Movie- 66% drop in its second weekend, and still a heavy 55% drop in its third. What I'm trying to say is, blockbusters that don't have very good word of mouth usually drop heavily in their second weekend, and then drop heavily again in their third, but to a lesser extent. So I think Transformers 2 may make a bit less this weekend, and will probably not hit the $400 million mark. Also, word of mouth has not been very good for Public Enemies- nearly no one I know liked it, and I would have to agree... it was tedious and failed to build any level of suspension by failing to make us care about any of the characters. So I would expect a drop over 50% for it. Predictions:

    1. Bruno- $33.6 million
    2. Ice Age 3- $24.2 million
    3. Transformers 2- $19.8 million
    4. Public Enemies- $12.3 million
    5. The Proposal- $7.7 million
    6. The Hangover- $6.4 million
    7. Up- $5.9 million
    8. I Love You, Beth Cooper- $4.4
    9. My Sister's Keeper- $3.0 million
    10. The Taking of Pelham 123- $1.1 million

  • BR

    Bruno- $ 29.3 million
    Ice Age -$ 25.6 million
    Transformers - $22.1 million
    Public Enemies - $ 10.3 million

  • tony

    I would love to see Transformers make under 20 million this weekend. The new Trailer for District 9 is out today. I know that it's still more than a month away, but I could see tha doing over 70 million the weekend that it opens. At least I hope.

    1. Bruno: $35 million
    2. Ice Age 3: $22 million
    3. Transformers 2: $18 million
    4. Publice Enemies $15 million

  • Gophers Attack!

    Looking good for the most of it Laremy. I'm personally going a little higher on Bruno just because it looks like it could break out a little.

    1. Bruno: 38.7m
    2. Ice Age: 25.3m
    3. Transformers: 22.5m
    4. Public Enemies: 13.1m
    5. Proposal: 8.9m

  • Steve

    Still say 40M+ for Bruno. Ouch on Beth Cooper. At my theater, it's got five showings tomorrow, the same as titles like "Cheri" and "Moon" and only one more then "Kambakkht Ishq" and "Short Kut-The Con is On"

    Bruno picked a great weekend for release, even if it drops big time next weekend.

  • connor

    Bruno is gonna be much bigger than the hangover. Both funny movies. well i havent seen bruno yet.
    Bruno-$50.5
    Transformers 2-$33.2
    Ice age-$30.5
    Public Enemies-$20.7
    Proposal-$9.2
    Hangover-$8.7
    Up-$3.0
    My Sisters Keeper-$2.2
    Pehlam 123-$1.1
    Beth Cooper-$0.7
    Beth Cooper is in 1900 theatres and nobody is goin 2 see it.rry
    I know next week's #1
    Harry Potter 6-$105.6

  • http://ropeofsilicon.com Tim

    Can't wait for Bruno, seeing it in 5 Hours!

  • kdogg

    I'll catch this one. But I'm gonna buy an extra ticket for Transformers 2. LMAO...this is too good. Critics want to pan Bruno outright for being to gays what a minstrel show must seem like to African-Americans, but they MUST see Tran2 fall!!! OMG this is getting funny.

  • Chuck Bartowski

    MY PREDICTIONS

    #1. BRUNO - $35.4 million
    #EAST JESUS NOWHERE: BETH COOPER - dead on arrival. the only people who will see it are tween girls who need slut lessons by hayden panettiere.

    thank you very much. come back next week.

    :]
    haha

  • JImbo

    I'm thinking 50mil for Bruno.

    According to the news it did 1.4mil in AUS on a wednesday.

  • JM

    I predicted $4.7 million on BOM for Beth Cooper, too. I originally calculated $3.7, but I was comparing it to another Chris Colombus film ("Rent") and another recent film with a similar-looking premise and a similar lack of appeal ("Miss March"), neither of which opened in the summer.

    "Up" has tons of money to make. Pixar always staggers their overseas releases. We can't be sure of the final worldwide total until after Japan's December release, because you know that it could easily make another $40-50 million in that country. "Finding Nemo" made almost $100 million there. And the UK doesn't get it until October. And "Ratatouille" topped the overseas market four or five weeks in a row in September or October (I forget which), whereas the film found a stateside release in June.

  • Sharon

    @Chuck Bartowski
    What makes you think that Hayden Penettiere will give girls slut lessons Chuck? What makes her a whore or at all permiscuous? Just curious.

  • Raichu

    1. Bruno=40mil
    Will tap the Hangover audience.

    2. Ice Age 3=26.1mil
    Will probably top out at 210-220mil domestic.

    3.Transformers 2=21mil
    With it's opening 5-day gross of 200mil, I thought this would manage to eke out 400mil inspite of mixed to leaning negative word of mouth. Now, 400mil seems less likely especially with Potter just around the corner. I'm predicting a 50% decline this weekend, but I'll do cartwheels if it dips another 60% like last week.

    4.Public Enemies=13.3mil
    The only film out there for those seeking refuge from sci-fi fare, animated fare, and raunchy comedic fare. Can't help but think a late Sept/Oct release would've been more beneficial box office-wise for this one.

    5.The Proposal=10.5mil
    Solid hit for Disney. They need this since outside of the "Pirates" films, Pixar has been the one supplying the hits for them.

    6.The Hangover=6.5mil
    Will take the largest dip in it's stellar run this weekend since Bruno taps directly into it's core audience. Nevertheless, will finish with around 235mil domestic.

    7.UP=5mil
    Will probably double Terminator Salvation's worldwide gross when all is said and done. The movie has defied expectations given it's premise. Bound to finish with around 285-295mil (with a slim chance at 300mil). Nemo can rest easy for now, but it's going to lose it's title as top grossing Pixar film next year to that impending behemoth known as Toy Story 3.

    8.Beth Cooper=4.2mil
    Most of the money this will make (which isn't going to be much) will be from the underage bunch who will buy tickets to this one but will go to the auditorium playing Bruno...or even Hangover.

    9.My Sister's keeper=3.3mil

    10.Pelham 123= 1.2mil

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/VincentCollateral Eli

    Hope Bruno doesn't suck, it comes out on my birthday and I hate it when I choose a release to see the weekend of my birthday and it blows. I was thinking $32m earlier but I'm thinking bigger things for Bruno at this point.

    1. Bruno - $39.1m
    2. Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs - $26.m
    3. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - $24m (GO TF2!)
    4. Public Enemies - $16m (dropping less than Miami Vice but more than Collateral)
    5. The Proposal - $7.8m
    6. The Hangover - $7.2m
    7. I Love You Beth Cooper - $6.5m (sorry Hayden)
    8. Up - $4.5m (At the theatre I work at, a lot of families came back down to Box Office asking me for refunds for Ice Age 3, then purchasing tickets toward Up in a later show. Word might hurt that it's too frightening for the youngest ones, but then again so is supposedly the last action bits of Up.)
    9. My Sister's Keeper - $2.6m (drop, damn you, drop!)
    10. The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 - $1.7m (I liked it, but still don't know where the $100m budget went.)

  • Nick

    1. Bruno - $35.0M. Borat went wide with $11k per theater, I predict $12,7k for Bruno.
    2. Ice Age 3 - $22.3M, that's 46% dip. But I won't be the least bit surprised if it does better.
    3. Transformers 2 - 47% drop and $22.3M. Yeah, that's photo finish again, but I put IA on top just cause I liked it better. But if Transformers hadn't gained 60 theaters, it sure would fall harder.
    4. Public Enemies - $14.6M. 42% drop sounds right to me.
    5. The Proposal - $8.5M. A nice 30% dip.
    6. The Hangover - $7.4M. It may only lose 68 theaters, but that doesn't really matter cause Bruno will kill it. We just should be happy that it's not going to drop 50% like Up last week.
    7. Up - $4.7M. That's gonna be the last great weekend for Up. Not much theaters lost, and absolutely no competition. So, 27% drop. But it will fall hard for at least two weekends with HP and G-Force coming out, and by August, it will be in much less than 1000 theaters.
    8. I Love You, Beth Cooper. $4.6 M and $2,5k per theater. And I'm being nice here.
    9. My Sister's Keeper - $3.2M. Um, who wants to see this movie?
    10. The Taking of Pelham 123 - $1.1M.

    I pretty much agree with your predictions, Laremy, but $3M for Up? Seriously? Cause that means 54% drop in a week with no competition and a loss of 450 theaters. No way.

  • Adam

    1. Bruno - 35.4M
    2. Transformers 2 - 25.7M
    3. Ice Age - 19.9M
    4. The Proposal - 12.1M
    5. I Love You Beth Cooper - 10.5M
    6. Public Enemies - 8.6M
    7. Hangover - 62M
    8. Up - 5.6M
    9. My Sister's Keeper - 2.3M
    10. Taking of Pelham 123 - .9M

  • Adam

    Haha oops, 6.2 on Hangover

  • http://thecheckspot.com TheCheckSpot

    1. Bruno - $40.6M It's going to be huge, but since Universal decided to only release it in 2900 theaters, it's not going to quite get to Hangover's $45M or even beat Sex and the City R-rated comedy opening record. Strong per theater average.

    2. Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs - $29M I don't see this one dropping too much. It's having a solid week so far, beating T2 by $2M on Wednesday. I think it will bounce back as the only kids movie out there right now, and make up for the loss it took since its Saturday was on 4th of July

    3. Transformers 2 - $22.3M Will drop, but not as bad as last week. But seriously, who's going to remember this movie in August. Our arguments on its merits on this site will last longer than this film will in theaters.

    4. Public Enemies - $14M Missed this movie. This is the movie for adults who want serious entertainment.

    5. The Proposal - $9.2M I saw this movie. Has more character development than all of Transformers 2. No offense, but Michael Bay should be ashamed of himself with that comparison.

    6. The Hangover - $6.8M

    7. I Love You, Beth Cooper - $6.2M Wow, this movies reviews have been horrid. If only Hayden transformed into a car before hitting the lead, then $200M open.

    8. Up - $4.1M Okay, no T2 bashing on my comments here. I did like Up a lot.

    9. My Sister's Keeper - $2.3M
    10. The Taking of Pelham 1,2,3 - $1M

  • kdogg

    I'm pulling for Trans2 to threepeat. Yeah, I know, but at this point, it's becoming personal. I'm more interested in seeing Blood: The Last Vampire than I am Bruno honestly (I've already declared myself one of the group who finds this movie offensive in a hate crime kinda way, and I like Martial Arts and Horror Movies). Also, it'll give the net a lot more to discuss next week! :-D

  • Chuck Bartowski

    @Sharon

    i think she's in the same squad as megan fox - meaning she influences and encourages girls to do slutty things and dress in a way that shows their whole body off to the world. i'd say that's pretty promiscuous and slut-encouraging? dunno if you've seen the trailer for Beth Cooper, Sharon (or Transformers 2), but that's what they're doing. gosh, what happened to girls in that they're allowing themselves to sink this low? honestly, i think hollywood needs to be dosed with a legion of wholesome young ladies. wouldn't that be pretty darn refreshing? i honestly don't care for the megan foxes or hayden panettieres of the world.

    i mean, does any truly smart guy really want a girl who has shown it all and done it all? how would that girl's body be exclusive to her guy anymore? in my honest opinion, i think it's waaaayyyy better if the girl saves her body for one guy and doesn't flaunt it off for the whole world to see. and girls might think "well i have to attract them over somehow" - listen, if you're using only your body to win a guy over, then you're winning over and looking for one heck of a shallow guy that won't last.

  • Chuck Bartowski

    *girls'

  • http://thecheckspot.com The Check Spot

    Chuck, you're going to make facebook pics a lot less interesting for us.

  • Athar

    1.) Bruno - $32.5 mil
    2.) Ice Age 3 - $ 24.0 mil
    3.) Transformers ROTF - $ 23.5 mil
    4.) Public Enemies - $ 17.5 mil
    5.) The Proposal - $ 9.8 mil

  • Chuck Bartowski

    @ Check Spot

    hahaha. sorry pal. it's true though. for example, if you're married i'm sure you wouldn't want your wife parading around everywhere in megan fox attire, 'cause then every horny guy is checking her out and her body isn't exactly exclusive to you anymore since everyone is seeing what is special. sure maybe around the house in privacy she can walk around in whatever since she is indeed YOUR girl and made for your eyes, but not everywhere else she goes. she's your girl to admire and love, not everyone elses girl. get it? and trust me - there is a way to dress modest yet still look insanely gorgeous. believe me 'cause i've seen it with my own eyes. and it is classier too. and completely refreshing.

  • Chuck Bartowski

    and the more girls that miss hayden pantettieres apparent antics in Beth Cooper, the better. i'm positive i'm relieving the stress off of a lot of dads who don't like seeing their daughters dress trashy, and somewhat keeping the girl world a smarter, classier, more unique universe.

  • Steven Kar

    HOW MANY $100MM HITS WILL THERE BE THIS SUMMER?

    1 X-Men Origins: Wolverine
    2 Star Trek
    3 Angels & Demons
    4 Terminator: Salvation
    5 Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian
    6 Up
    7 The Hangover
    8 The Proposal
    9 Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
    10 Public Enemies (?)
    11 Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs
    12 Bruno (?)
    13 Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
    14 G Force (?)
    15 The Ugly Truth (?)
    16 Funny People
    17 G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra
    18 Julie & Julia (?)
    19 District 9 (?)

    Any others that I'm forgetting?

  • Sharon

    Well if you think that the way they dress influences "slut-mongering" or "permiscuity," I think that's more a of a problem with your perception than how they behave. I'd be more worried about them viewing a television show like Secret Life of the American Teenager which promotes a level of ignorance as well as unrealism to what a persons youth actually is or Gossip Girl which frankly could make a young impressionable girl fundamentally hate someone for there appearance or based on a number of other things. What bothers me is that the second a woman shows and incling of sexuality at all they are automatically dismissed as whores or sluts or liars based on some fear that they might grow up and not always be so wholesome or innocent as others would like.

  • Chuck Bartowski

    @Sharon

    maybe "slut" was too strong of a word but it's still an eventuality. i should explain more. lemme explain and keep your mind open, okay? don't count me out just yet.

    and before i continue, please don't ask "well what do you know about being a girl?". i'm not saying i know everything about girls and how they react to things, but i can at least take some guesses based on what i've seen girls actually do.

    a lotttttt of guys promote and publicly shout how hot they think girls like Megan Fox and Hayden Pantettiere are. that's very pathetic to me, and it makes all us guys look bad (even so that movies like the upcoming "The Ugly Truth" portray all guys like that and although a lot of guys ARE like that, i hate how that's what they say basically EVERY guy is like). case in point: whenever it showed megan fox in super skimpy clothing in Transformers, i heard tons of obnoxious whistles and hollers in the audience.i have to wonder what girls think when they see how many guys dig the look of megan fox. do they think "oh wait, so is that what guys like? maybe i should try dressing a little like that and also drenching my face in orange makeup and glitter", because we all know they aren't hollering at how much positive personality is exuding off the screen from her. with so, so many guys seemingly promoting megan fox and her look, i have to wonder what's running through girls' minds.
    guys want a girl. girls wants a guy. duh. so how they can attract a guy? figure out what guys find attractive. what do the majority of guys constantly publicly let everyone know what they find attractive? girls who dress like and are like megan fox and hayden panettiere. so girls will follow suit and fit in with that look. does that mean girls don't have a mind and personality of their own? no, but pressure and identity crisis certainly does, of course, exist. it's natural. and if guys are promoting this kind of stuff, then the girls can easily easily be swayed to do just that (they already are in fact) - not even thinking/knowing that it will direct them into a dead end with a broken heart. and if it wasn't bad enough that guys promote that kind of look, megan fox is promoting it too.

    ''I've always been ├╝bersexual, wearing the smallest clothes I could find. I would go to the mall in a short, short skirt and giant heels. I think all women in Hollywood are known as sex symbols. That's what our purpose is in this business. You're merchandised, you're a product. You're sold and it's based on sex. But that's okay. I think women should be empowered by that, not degraded''" - Megan Fox in an EW interview.

    are you kidding me? she's fine with being sold? that's disgusting. and she's encouraging girls to do the same. don't you find that wrong and insulting? so girls should be known only as sexual products (and usually also just disposable sexual pleasures)? where do you think that kind of style leads to? why do you think it's labeled "SEX symbols"? she's encouraging girls to be "empowered" by that (hell no) and it's so twisted. it's not even funny. that's screwed up in every way imaginable. if you're dressing like that, then so many shallow, pervy guys are gonna look at you like that and want you. and you'll end up either getting into bed with a guy (or guys) for meaningless sex and feel empty and useless the next morning (and then eventually ditched), or even worse, being raped/attacked on the street, thanks to the dangerous style of clothing.

    can anyone be perfect? no. everyone knows that. but we shouldn't let ourselves be bound by knowing that we can't be perfect. we don't have to be perfect, but we can still try to be good and wholesome and actually have morals. is there anything wrong with wholesomeness? no. not at all. in fact, wholesomeness and intelligence and self-respect in a girl is a girl worth sticking with. like i said before, if girls dress like that to attract the opposite sex, then all they're gonna attract is a shallow dimwit who'll sleep with them and then leave them soon after. they'll only attract the lowest common denominator. if it's only about sexuality, then it won't last. it won't and that's something you can bet on.

    sorry, that was REALLY long, but hopefully you read it. if you want an easy example between a wholesome girl and a loose, sexualized girl, then let's use movies as metaphors. it's like UP and TRANSFORMERS 2. which one do you think will be remembered the most for it's substance and it's uniqueness and it's true beauty and creativity? one will last long and be memorable and cherished, the other is just all style with no substance. just there for eye candy and nothing more. that's what it's like. i think that should get it across.

  • Sharon

    Again, the guys cheering and hollering is more about perception. I know of plenty of women who would respond in there own way to seeing Brad Pitt in his prime. In todays world it's more likley to be someone like Robert Pattison. Yet no one ever really complains about men in that industry as being oversexualized or used inappropriatley as sex symbols.

    The Beauty Myth that you just described has been around for years. Women have always wondered how to please or make a man happy. There were plenty of other actresses and celebrities well before Megan Fox or Hayden Penetierre who were sex symbols that girls envied and boys fanatasized about (Farah Fawcett ring any bells).

    As short-sighted as Ms. Fox's comments might seem to be, they're actually much more honest and direct than most would admit. Selling or marketting yourself is the key being successful in that business. You have to be a product if you want to succeed, Man or woman. You have to know how to market yourself, she knows that she's an attractive girl and she uses what she has to be successful. If she has any real talent than she will either last for a long long time (Jane Fonda) or she will fade away or burn out into nothingness (Lindsay Lohan). If there is any woman or celebrity that I would worry about being a negative unfluence on young women it would've been the Paris Hilton's and Nicole Richies of the world, who contribute nothing to society except self-destructing at parties and events and making sex tapes. Though fortunatley they seem to have become increasingly irrelevant. Aside from that, there are a number of other actresses who have bared much, much more than either Fox or certainly Penteirre have. Some of whom are amazing actesses who get praise and accolades for doing such things

    For every "slutty" "role model" there maybe, there are also plenty of conservative, squeaky clean, family friendly types that can influence children just as well as Fox or Penteirre can. I believe though that the ones who you've labeled as strictly being sex objects are actually much smarter, open minded and far less repressed than you might think. And as far as style and substance, there are alot more films that feature women or men in sexual situations that will be remembered for much longer than either UP or Transformers.

  • Chuck Bartowski

    for one, i'm glad you're actually game enough to discuss this and aren't just like "nope nope, i'm right. F you. bye". very cool. :]

    anyway, since only Beth Cooper was coming out this weekend and not New Moon, i decided to keep it focused on the girls. but i have as much a problem with guys like Robert Pattinson as i do Megan Fox. I do see the appeal in Brad Pitt - I'm man enough to say that he is indeed very good-looking, and is also an extremely charismatic, talented, intriguing actor. Robert Pattinson though, I truly cannot see the appeal and I'm afraid he won't last long after the Twilight series is done with - his acting is very stiff and bland, his life outside of acting is loser-ish and disheveled, and am I the only person who thinks he looks like a scary druggie? I mean really. Girls only like him to lust after him. Not something I'd say is good and would last. He is literally only existing for girls to fantasize and get sexually charged over. And sure, the mutual answer is usually "oh let the girls like what they like", and so I'm not bashing Twilight (although IMO, it is very silly) - I just don't think he's exactly a very positive role model or a talented person.
    As for the guys being sex symols, there are some that are only that (Pattinson, Efron, etc..) but mainly, guys aren't completely sold only on looks. Sure it definitely does help but they make their first and lasting mark through acting. It isn't only through looks and sexual appeal (like Fox, Pattinson, and Panettiere). Damon, Crowe, Bale, LaBeouf, Depp - although girls swoon over them, they are actually solid actors. They don't take off their clothes in every single movie and aren't only recognized just for that, ya know?

    Anyway - I dunno, is being the celebrity other girls got jealous about and other guys masturbated to, the kind of person you want to be remembered as? Farrah Fawcett wasn't talented. She was just eye candy and that's about it. To be really really brutally honest, and I'm not trying to be mean - after the memoriums at the Awards ceremonies in 2010, no one will mention her again and she won't exactly be missed. That's not exactly being very memorable and not someone a lot of people will aspire to be. She wasted most of her life.

    Megan Fox isn't really contributing anything special to the world. For guys, she's the top girl to lust after and that's it. For unwise girls, she'll be someone to dress like. Everything about her is just very sexual and not anything significant, ya know? It doesn't exactly get me mad as much as it just disappoints me - that the world is stuck in this shallow muck. Guys will lust and get off to her but how far will that go? It'll end in realization at how lonely they are. Girls who dress like her will end up with shallow boyfriend after shallow boyfriend until they realize it was dumb to aspire to be like her. Not much different from Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie. All three are all about sex. And all three probably won't be remembered or liked very much in another year or so, until their direction is rearranged. The only difference between Fox and Hilton was that Fox managed to not be THAT dull in the head enough to make a sex tape - otherwise, both have the same sex-filled mindset and are really just darn trashy. I think if she was legit, she would've already been smart enough to do her best to prove herself by now. If you're TRULY a long-lasting talent, you'll catch attention with your chops right off the spot.
    The problem with Fox is that she's marketing herself solely on her body and through sex and that's it. Really, there is nothing else she has going for her. Wanna know why I say sexualized girls get ditched by shallow guys? Because those guys get bored fairly fast. And they're gonna get tired of Megan Fox. And they won't know why. But the reason is because she didn't have anything else to offer, and the guys might even figure out that she just disrespected her body and herself completely. You want self-destruction? Just watch Megan Foxs' soon-to-be short-lived career. People will soon realize Fox is basically just another Hilton or Richie (remember that they used to be popular once until they ran themselves into the deep end).

    Ooh, can you tell me who the conservative ladies are? because family-friendly types like Hannah Montana and Vanessa Hudgens look to be going the way of Lohan and Fox too.

    And really, who wants to be known as selling yourself based solely on sex and appearance? that's just wrong. looks fade, but beauty and true talent truthfully last forever.

  • Vik

    I belong to the target demographic Megan Fox claims she is "merchandised" towards. The thing about Fox and all these tramp-stamp "actresses" that puts me off isn't really their oversexualization(which IS extremely insulting to everybody involved) but the fact that they clearly don't have any talent or any personality whatsoever. I mean, you could be sexy and sassy AND have talent, self-respect and be personable(I think Leighton Meester is a good, if not the best, example of this inspite of her "sex" tape scandal and overexposure this year).

    @Sharon: You say Fox's moronic comments are direct and honest. You know WHAT would be direct and honest? If she flat out admitted that she is devoid of any personality, talent and intelligence and that her physical appearance is the only thing which keeps her around. This nonsensical defence that she made falls flat on its face. Ubersexual(read "slut") doesn't constitute a personality or talent, Megan, that is just something your redneck uncle did to you.

  • Sharon

    @Chuck
    True. But most of the actors that you mentioned above were considered to be talentless pretty-boy hacks who couldn't act and would go nowhere, similar to how you negated Pattison just now. They ultimatley grew as actors because of the opprotunities they were given during there careers. I remembering during the whole leo mania craze about 10 or 15 years ago people backlashed against him and thought he would end up fading, many said the saem thing about Johnny Depp on a 21 Jump street and how he would be nothing but a pin up teen idol. Many claimed that Matt Damon never even wrote Good Will Hunting and he still couldn't act. What's to say that an actor like Pattison cannot do the same that those men have.

    As for Rciky and Hilton, at least Fox has become known as an actress as opposed to Hilton and R

  • Sharon

    As for Richy and Hilton at least Fox has become know as an actess as opposed to the other two who became know for only there private lives. As far as the whole shalow guys get bored with dating someone good looking, guys can get bored by alot of other things and you sometimes need those bad experiences to grow as a person. There are far worse thing your kids can go through aside from having a bad relationship or two. And like it or not Farah entertained and left an impact and will always be a huge icon of her era, as I'm sure either of the afore mentioned women who we've been talking about.

    As for finding new conservative wholesome family friendly entertainers. You've got Raven Samone, Britney Spears little sister, and probably the best one if you're that hung up on body image, America Ferrara from ugly Betty. But, can the Hannah Montanas really sing or act or exhibit any more skill or talent than fox or penetierre can? Not really from what I 've seen. thise wholesome girls grow up and eventually become sexual being then men fear.

    @Vik
    I think Foxes comments are much more honest than what you will find from a number of Disney channel teen stars who say that they'll always be with one person. At least Fox isn't as repressed as other girls are due to an insecurity that men have about woman becoming sexual. That's not something that your "redneck uncle" does. And if a man had made the same comments would you have been that bothered by it. Probably not. The fact that you want her admit to something that you claim to be true shows more a or less a problem with your perception as opposed to what she's doing.

  • Vik

    @Sharon: Well, you can't deny the fact that she made those statements only in a poor attempt to defend her image. And no, I don't have a problem with overtly sexual women(see my example of Leighton Meester). But the reason I find Meester appealing is because there is more to her than being a sexpot. Could the same be said for Fox? No, her "acting" doesn't count! Really, the point being made here isn't about repressed/overt sexuality at all. The problem here is what Megan Fox is letting herself succumb to. I may be young and a little over my head regarding this issue but seriously, I don't get how you find Fox's "women should find THIS empowering" message anything other than sick, pathetic and twisted. Why? Who finds it empowering to be humped on the leg by animated scrap metal? Who respects her? Who IS she trying to fool? I wouldn't have had a problem with a guy saying such a thing because 1)A guy wouldn't have meant it in all seriousness like she did and 2)WHY would a guy say such a thing in the first place?

    And it is extremely sad when "Britney Spears' little sister" is what you come up with when you think of alternative young women entertainers.

  • Vik

    *Just wanted to clarify that that last sentence wasn't an attack on Sharon but sad in the sense that what does it say about our society when trailer trash Juno is the alternative to Megan Fox?

  • Sharon

    If a guy made that statement in that context he would have no repercussions due to a double standard. If a man had said that he would've gotten more praise or respect for other men instead of criticism. I wouldn't talk about degradation when Meester gave a guy a foot job on a home movie while working on a show like Gossip Girl that doesn't exactly bode much substance and takes itself too seriously. As opposed to Fox who grinded up against a CG robot that wasn't real in a movie thats sole purpose was to provide entertainment and nothing more than it needed to. And while Spears may not be one of the better examples, at least she can take responsibility for something that she's done. There were also a few other good examples of young role models that you could look at. Even if they grow up, get pregnant have sex do thing that most women at some point in their lives will likely do, there will still be another cycle to replace them soon.

  • Sharon

    So I wouldn't worry too much about seeing another public figure that becomes a sex symbol in this country.

  • Vik

    I really can't imagine a single context in which a guy would say a similiar thing. I guess somebody like Robert Pattinson could go out and say that it is empowering for men to be sexualised but I highly doubt it would be "praise and respect" he'd be receiving from other men for saying such a thing. Infact he'd be ridiculed ten times more than Fox or any other woman. Regarding Meester, yes she has a tacky videotape loose on the internet but that was made in private years ago and right now she is trying her hardest to disassociate herself away from it instead of capitalizing on it. And yes, she is on Gossip Girl and while not exactly award-material, her work on that show is a thousand times more substantial than anything Fox has ever done(which says a lot about Fox's work). Plus, she can also sing and not in just-a-Hannah-Montana-way(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44RiDOHJKc0) so I think it is safe to say that she is immensely more talented and substantial than Fox.

    It isn't even Fox's oversexualization which annoys me. It is the fact that she is an egotistical jerk living in complete denial(unless she secretly hates herself too) and her inconsideration to actually promote her nonsense for younger girls which gets to me. It is laziness at horrific levels to just go with the "cycle". I can't wait for her to fade into nothingness, which will probably happen sooner than any of us think.

  • kdogg

    Bruno made 30.4 mil according to IMDB. Ice age got 28.5 and Tran2 24. You nailed the top 3, but is anyone else suprised Bruno did so little? I mean, 33 was a conservative guess, and word of mouth is worse than anything since Wolverine, earlier this year. I think it'll drop to 3 or 4 next week.

  • kdogg

    And Tran2 didn't drop as far as you'd guessed. Once again, my little movie keeps on truckin' (Optimus Prime joke there...heh).