MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Early Box Office Analysis

Based on Friday estimates…

1. Ocean’s Twelve – $14.7m – WB’s Target For The Weekend? $38.2m, which is a hundred thousand more than the first film did.  It doesn’t look like they’ll quite get there.  But more important is hitting $33.7m, which keeps it ahead of What Women Want and thus puts the Ocean’s franchise and the Rings franchise in control of the Top Five all-time December openings without any other titles.

2. Blade: Trinity – $5.5m – This represents a step backwards for the franchise, back to the first film, before the name “Blade” had value beyond the comic cult.  The assumption is that these movies are inherently critic proof.  But maybe not so this time.  Slotting against the grain, it could be that a big group of Blade Trinity goers were dragged to Ocean’s by their Friday night dates.  Or we could be looking at a $50 million gross.

Be Sociable, Share!

14 Responses to “Early Box Office Analysis”

  1. Pauly D says:

    Yes, but where does The Life Aquatic fit into that? Probably based on it’s two city release, not too close to the top 10.

  2. Barry says:

    Aquatic is sunk. It’s one of those critics movies and the critics hate it, look at rottentomatoes. Unless Mr. Anderson makes a pact with the devil before the end of the year his movie is DOA.

  3. Matt says:

    Not quite. BOM shows Life Aquatic as having done $36,518 yesterday on two screens for a Friday PSA of $18,259. Especially given that there were probably a large number of comped guild admissions, that’s a DAMN impressive figure. Anderson is critic-proof for up to about 10 million now, especially when paired with Murray.

  4. Filipe says:

    The last time I looked at RT it was with 59%. Thats not that off from Anderson previous films, which did got around 1/3 of negative reviews. And it got positive reviews by most of the more read papers/sites. So it probably didn’t got hurt much.

  5. Dave Fresco says:

    I just looked and RT got 80% positive and Rushmroe 83%. I’d hate to base the success of a film on a tomato meter but in this case it looks like it will kill this film. No one is saying it will do under $10 mill., but since it cost around $60, a $30 mill. gross will not be seen as a hit. Lack of awards will put it as one of Anderson’s worst. Haven’t seen it myself, but when an art film like this gets panned its pretty much bad news all around.

  6. PeppersDad says:

    Life Aquatic is not necessariy DOA. Its prospects will very much depend on continued careful marketing and an appropriate national rollout. So far I think they’ve done a good job. But I think they should have gone with a somewhat broader release since there are no other comedies out right now (unless you regard Ocean’s 12 as a comedy) and it will be suicide to compete in the coming weeks against Lemony Snicket.
    Still, the trailers, commercials and promos have been pretty damn funny, and in a commercially appealing way. They give the impression of a bigger budget comedy, perhaps even a family friendly one, and not a precious indie. That plus the cast may ultimately push the film to decent box office heights despite the obviously disappointed critical response.

  7. SirCritic says:

    The Life Aquatic may not exactly be DOA, but it is going to sink at the BO, I think. What happened this week, and what will happen in limited release, is that Anderson’s fans will show up, and that’s it.
    I’m one of those fans, but I, too, was disappointed in the film. Some inspired ideas and moments, but I felt like I was watching a bunch of people cracking an in-joke and I was never let in on the joke. The movie simply doesn’t have the heart that made Royal Tenenbaums and Rushmore more than merely clever. I think Aquatic will be lucky to post Rushmore’s numbers, which totaled at about $17M.

  8. LifeAndDeathBrigade says:

    The Life Aquatic does seem like a film for just
    Wes Anderson fans, but not like critics are picking
    the HITS this season. Shenanigans have broken out
    and nothing the critics like in mass will probably
    get any serious noms. A guess, but think about
    the flicks they are standing behind right now.
    It’s all happening…

  9. Barry says:

    well you obviously missed the point, which was that bad reviews will kill an arthouse movie. That people aren’t seeing well-reviewed movies is another issue entirely. It doesn’t matter if it’s Xmas w/ the Kranks (which has 4% positive on RT), because the crowd for that movie doesn’t typically read reviews. Anderson’s crowd does, that’s all I’m saying.

  10. Sandy says:

    Next weekend, we’ll have Million Dollar Baby, The Aviator, Spanglish, and Lemony Snicket all opening. Think LA will be lost in the shuffle.

  11. PeppersDad says:

    True enough that bad reviews typically kill an arthouse movie, but I’m not sure the studio has been marketing Life Aquatic for the arthouse crowd. It’s got a fairly big budget with recognizable stars and a prominent amount of CGI, and the marketing has conveyed the impression of a large-scale comedic romp. Here in Los Angeles, a city with plenty of arthouse theatres, the only venue it is playing at is run by Pacific Theatres (a major chain) at The Grove (a major high-traffic mall). If it was truly targeted at the arthouse audience, the movie would likely be playing less prominently at a Laemmle or Landmark theatre, or maybe the ArcLight.

  12. Chucky in Jersey says:

    WB estimates a $40.8+M 1st weekend from “Ocean’s Twelve”. This film will be playing well into January — and yes, I’ve seen a rave review (Village Voice). “Ocean’s Eleven” opened around the same time in ’02 and became a big hit.
    BV is estimating $114K from its NYC/LA exclusives on “The Life Aquatic”. It’ll go national on Xmas Day, semi-wide if not full wide. This movie looks to be critic-proof — and BV doesn’t jerk around theaters the way Miramax does.
    Also, “House of Flying Daggers” gets its first expansion this Friday; 3 megaplexes near me are picking it up.

  13. Pauly D says:

    Well, now having seen Life Aquatic — I can tell you that I’ll be surprised if it does more than any of Anderson’s previous films. I hate to say it (I am a HUGE W. Anderson fan) but this movie was really a letdown.

  14. moo says:

    at the end of the day some people will love it others wont….andersons films are an aquired taste.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon