MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Best Picture Candidates At The Box Office Update



Total (As of 1/2/05)

The Incredibles






The Aviator






Finding Neverland






Phantom of the Opera






Million Dollar Baby



Hotel Rwanda



The Woodsman



Be Sociable, Share!

14 Responses to “Best Picture Candidates At The Box Office Update”

  1. bicycle bob says:

    the fact that ray has made over 70 milllion bucks is shocking to me

  2. teambanzai says:

    I’m still sticking to my guns on Avaitor not hitting 100 million till after the Oscar bounce.

  3. Neal says:

    Of course Aviator won’t pass 100 mil before the Oscars. It might not pass that until after the awards themselves, and that’s IF it wins best picture. While critical word of mouth is better than Cold Mountain or Gangs of New York, those two didn’t really come close to 100 mil, and this comparable film will have difficulty doing so.
    Here’s hoping it does though.

  4. Scott Mendelson says:

    Actually, sorry to be a stickler, but Cold Mountain came VERY close to $100 million. Its domestic gross was $95.6 million. If I were a teacher, that would be rounded up to 100. And Gangs Of New York made it to $77.8 million, not quite as close, but far closer than I think anyone was expecting. Ironically, one of the reasons (I think) for Gang’s slow weekend to weekend declines was that Mirimax was sneaking Chicago with Gangs over several weekend Saturday evenings leading up to the Oscar nominations. Thus at least one Saturday evening show (or technically two) were filled to capacity. Random theory for the day.
    Scott Mendelson

  5. Katherine says:

    David I totally agree with you about Phantom. The spin the media has tried to put on its success or failure is APPALLING. Could they wait until the movie out perhaps before making rash judgements?
    Phantom was never fairly given a chance at all, when it DESERVED it. I don’t have much faith left that the Academy will think differently, but they are my last hope.

  6. Katherine says:

    ^^^ Sorry, that was supposed to go under the other blog entry.

  7. bicycle bob says:

    i think a lot of people thought gangs would do well over 100 mill

  8. Nathaniel R says:

    I’m still trying to figure out why ‘The Woodsman’ is listed in this short list of Best Picture hopefuls (in terms of box office). That’s as likely as like, ‘The Door in the Floor’ or ‘Being Julia’ making it to the shortlist.

  9. Mark says:

    The Woodsman won’t even take the Independent Awards.

  10. David Poland says:

    The reason Woodsman is there is that it was there last time… trying to be consistent with updating the list.
    The reason it was on the first list was because it was just opening and people were asking about it.

  11. TheBrotherhoodOfTheLostSkeletonOfCadavra says:

    Okay, screw the nominations, let’s just go right to the winners:
    Linney (for KINSEY)
    ETERNAL SUNSHINE and SIDEWAYS for Screenplays
    Check back on 2/28 to see if I’m right.

  12. bicycle bob says:

    haden church
    eternal and sideways

  13. Mark says:

    Think its coming down to Baby vs Sideways. Haden Church is a lock. Best Actor should be real close. No clue yet.

  14. KamikazeCamel says:

    I HIGHLY doubt Sideways is going to win for Best Picture. I think the race is definitely between Aviator (which is extremely well liked by the academy, critics and audiences… the trifecta that usually leads to a win) and Million $$ Baby. Although, Baby is probably just a smigde too small to win at the moment.
    They may finally want to honour Scorcese with a best picture winner. Especially now that he actually has a legitimately good film in contention. If he had won best director for Gangs it would have been obvious what was happening and it woulda been a joke. But this one looks to win in other catagories as well so, yeah. Aviator…
    Pic: The Aviator
    Director: Scorcese
    Actor: Foxx (i’m actually quite tentative on this one, but for the time being…)
    Actress: Bening (but look for a Staunton surprise!)
    Supp. Actor: Freeman
    Supp. Actress: Blanchett (i doubt they can resist!)
    Screenplay: Eternal Sunshine, Sideways
    although, as always, Eternal may not win.
    One more thing: Hilary Swank? She WILL NOT win. I can almost guarantee it. Do you think the Academy wants Hilary Swank joining the oh-highly-mighty group of 2 time best actress winners? I doubt it. Specially when they can finally reward Bening or acknowledge Staunton!

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