MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Not Real Early Box Office Analysis

The news of the weekend was somewhere between

Be Sociable, Share!

56 Responses to “Not Real Early Box Office Analysis”

  1. Jeff McM says:

    I missed Hide and Seek (if you can call it ‘missing’) but of the rest of the film, I thought that only White Noise was so bad to not deserve the money they made. All the rest delivered at least mild entertainment.
    However, I expect House of Wax to be a dud on the lines of Wrong Turn. Here’s hoping Romero’s Land of the Dead is a hit, too.

  2. Martin says:

    Why? So they keep churning out more dumbass zombie movies?

  3. L&DB says:

    “Dumbass zombie movies?” Dude. Romero does not
    make dumbass zombie movies. Calling anything associated
    with Romero “dumbass” reveals more about your ignorants
    than anything else. Romero is easily one of the
    greats. It’s that simple. Few people could have
    a career he had with all the problems he has had to
    deal with. Get better educated before you start
    talking smack, Martin.
    Jeff, we agree on one thing; I hope LOTD is a hit
    as well. Romero deserves to have at least one huge
    hit in his career.

  4. Martin says:

    The guy made one movie, about 40 years ago, that was a modest critical and financial success. Fuck him for remaking the same crap again. That’s whats called a sellout. Hell, anyone making a “zombie” movie is basically a sellout by definition.

  5. Stella's Boy says:

    The Amityville Horror, The Forgotten, Resident Evil: Apocalypse, The Grudge, Hide & Seek, The Ring Two, White Noise, Boogeyman and Saw. What do they have in common, other than a strong opening weekend? They all suck ass. Seriously, some of the worst movies of the past year. Not a single decent movie in that list.

  6. Martin says:

    I heard Saw was OK, haven’t seen it though. The rest were awful. As long as people keep paying for this horror crap, it won’t get any better. Plus it’s embarassing that Hollywood is so completely out of ideas that this tripe is either remakes, sequels, adaptations, or sequels to adaptations. They can’t even come up with a decent original idea for a horror movie, its a fuckin joke anymore.

  7. Stella's Boy says:

    I really didn’t understand all of the hype surrounding Saw. It’s garbage. Could have been good, but quickly becomes nothing but cliches and plot holes. Just another generic, idiotic horror flick. Dime a dozen.

  8. Lota says:

    Wrong. not all Zombie flicks are “sell-outs”. Shaun of the Dead was pretty funny and a pretty decent movie.

  9. Martin says:

    Not really, because that’s what is called a “parody”. And typically the parodies start coming along when their targets cease to be entertaining.

  10. L&DB says:

    Martin, come off it man. Night of the Dead has a
    subtext dealing with the racial issues of the 60s.
    Dawn of the Dead deals with the commercialism that
    began to spring up in full force during the late
    70’s. Day of the Dead deals with the problem of
    over militarization and the ramifications of that.
    Which brings up to Land of the Dead: IGNORING THE
    Martin, you are entitled to your opinions, but the
    facts just do not bear them out. Sorry there kid,
    but you know jack and shit about Romero and even
    Shaun of the Dead. Shaun would fall more in the
    line of an HOMAGE to Romero’s films than a parody
    of them.
    Zombie films do not constitute selling out. If it
    does, then what the fuck does SAW constitute? A
    perfectly good waste of Cary Elwes?

  11. KamikazeCamel says:

    THIS is funny.
    “I heard Saw was OK, haven’t seen it though. The rest were awful. As long as people keep paying for this horror crap, it won’t get any better.”
    So… YOU paid to see these movies, right? Or are you just assuming that they’re bad movies because critics didn’t like them (like they do 90% of horror movies). So maybe if YOU stop seeing them they will stop making them. Unless of course you’re not the one going to see them and in which case you’re obviously making shit up.
    “The Amityville Horror, The Forgotten, Resident Evil: Apocalypse, The Grudge, Hide & Seek, The Ring Two, White Noise, Boogeyman and Saw. What do they have in common, other than a strong opening weekend? They all suck ass. Seriously, some of the worst movies of the past year. Not a single decent movie in that list.”
    Again, obviously you’ve seen all of those movies, right?

  12. Chester says:

    Here’s something that will please some, infuriate others: “Million Dollar Baby,” with its $30 million budget, is going to join the $100 million club this week. Right now it’s about $3.5 million short of the gross of “The Aviator,” which had a $110 million budget and hasn’t broken even yet.
    While on the subject of Oscar movies, I think we now have further evidence as to why studios find it necessary to hold up the release of dramas until awards season. “The Upside of Anger,” which has gotten some of the most positive reviews of any movie released since the Oscar nominations and has a fairly high-profile cast, has only grossed $15 million since it opened six weeks ago. That’s not bad for a film that only cost $12 million, but I still think it’s remarkably low considering it’s had absolutely no competition from any other new dramas. You’d think that at least the “Terms of Endearment” types of audiences would have been packing them in.
    Does nobody in Hollywood know how to mass-market a well-reviewed mainstream drama anymore without Oscar nominations/wins attached? Sheesh, even the reviled “Miss Congeniality 2” has done better than $40 million.
    If Kevin Costner no longer has the star wattage to sell even this kind of “Bull Durham”-ish performance, he’d better go shopping for a TV series before it’s too late. Maybe Middle America will rediscover him in something like “CSI: Des Moines.”

  13. L&DB says:

    While I agree that studios do have a hard time
    selling any drama (Just look at the trailers they
    produce for any drama. They get more given away
    than absolutely any other genre–including comedies.)
    to the American moviegoing. However, Upside of
    Anger does not suffer from that dilema.
    The Upside of Anger did not ever open wide. I forget
    who distributed the film, but they killed it before
    release. The limited-releasing guaranteed it never
    had a chance to build on any steam from Kevin Costner
    or Joan Allen being in the film. Why this film received
    this sort of marketing and distrubution absolutely
    befuddles me.
    Hopefully people will find the film on DVD, rental,
    or on cable. If not, it just adds to continuing
    growing list of films that LIMITED RELEASING HAS
    KILLED. Sure it works from time to time, but how
    many films has it just killed? For a group of
    people who have all the accounting going there own
    damn way. The suits and the corps that own them,
    sure know how to throw money away.
    We just do not live in a world…where limited-releasing
    should even be plausible. When a flick gets reviewed
    all over the net, in countless mags, and hyped out
    the ass but ONLY OPENS IN NY AND LA!?!?! Does that
    make anysense anymore? Oy to the vey. This gives
    me a ruttin headache.

  14. jeffmcm says:

    Better a limited release than straight to video.

  15. Chucky in Jersey says:

    “Saw” was a hit — made its money back from the US theatrical run.
    “Sahara” is a Paramount title in the US, Canada, Australia and England. Studio didn’t put any money into proudction; instead it’s taking a fee to distribute.
    “The Upside of Anger” expanded on 3/18 and went semi-wide (~1100 theaters) on 4/1. New Line went for megaplexes on this release; the closest arthouse to me didn’t pick up this film until 4/15.
    FWIW I happened to like “Hide and Seek”.

  16. Stella's Boy says:

    I paid to see some of those movies (some I saw for free) because I am a fan of the genre and when it comes to movies I’m an eternal optimist. They just all happened to suck. I know Costner was upset with New Line over their handling of The Upside of Anger. He held off on promoting it for a while because he didn’t think they were marketing it properly. Said he wasn’t going to put in the effort if the studio wasn’t willing to do the same. I liked the movie. Allen is fantastic. Deserved a wider audience.

  17. bicycle bob says:

    theres a reason some movies don’t get promotion. its because they aren’t good.

  18. Stella's Boy says:

    More astute analysis from bob, who only sees the world in black and white. Could you be any more simplistic? There’s a little more to it than that, whether you realize it or not. Did you even see the movie? It’s a good movie that got mostly positive reviews. Sometimes it appears that you are speaking out of your ass.

  19. bicycle bob says:

    if the money people behind a movie thought they could make more by promoting it, don’t u think they would, mr i see the gray of the world? no. in ur world i guess its not true. the reason costners movie got no publicity is because its NOT GOOD. did they have publicity for field of dreams? bull durham? yea because they were good. so fawn over joan allen all u want thats not bringing people in a theatre.

  20. teambanzai says:

    You know it’s not that they are out of ideas. Hollywood just plays it safe now, people want to see cheesey horror, and since they are cheap to make Hollywood has no problem pushing them out the door, (of course as long as House of Wax doesn’t include the cost of the sound stage they burned down in the final cost of the film), I can’t stand those films so I don’t see them. However there seems to be an audience.
    But then what do I know I watched the film Freaked over the weekend and remember just how funny it was, and I’ll bet most people don’t even remember Alex Winters first attempt at writing producing and directing.

  21. Terence D says:

    As long as people see cheesy horror flicks, the more they will make and remake them.

  22. Spam Dooley says:

    Davey- Go home Now. I mean fucking really.
    SAW a near hit? Gregg, Oren and Mark the producers personally clear $40 m, Lions Gate many millions more and it’s a near hit?
    David you have outdone yourself- the crap film only cost $2.5- it was one of the most profitable hits of 05.
    You really are stupid, says Spam Dooley.

  23. Ethan Edwards says:

    Chester, I’d argue with you about “The Upside of Anger”. I’d say it got mixed-to-good reviews. But not flat out great reviews that “Million Dollar Baby” and “Sideways” received. I read some critics that hated it. I’ve seen the movie. I enjoyed it because it was different than the typical mother-daughter(s) melodrama, but I can’t say I was overly impressed.
    Both Fever Pitch and Sahara fell less than 30% from last weekend, I think that is quite impressive. But The Interpreter will be the big winner next week. The question is how “big” will it be.

  24. jesse says:

    Do you guys think that the slightly depressed overall receipts have actually spread dollars around a little more? It seems like this year so far is sporting, at least, fewer out-and-out flops. Last year by this time we had Club Dread, Against the Ropes, Spartan, The Whole Ten Yards, that Dirty Dancing sequel, The Girl Next Door, Mooseport, and Tad Hamilton all sliding in under the 20 million mark (no reflection meant, of course, on the varying quality of those movies, one way or the other), and The Alamo losing all kinds of money. There have been a few notable flops this year (Elektra, Cursed, Alone in the Dark) but it seems like a lot of stuff — even franchise diappointments like Miss Congeniality and Beauty Shop — will be able to make it to the $40-80 range. Hey, a few of the movies are even inexpensive enough to turn a profit on that. Which is probably how movies released during this time should be working anyway, right
    I’ve never understood this entertainment-biz (or maybe business in general) phenom of how you can’t just be making money — you need to be making a RECORD amount of money. Like the music companies filing lawsuits against downloaders, seemingly founded on the belief that the music industry has a *right* not to experience sales drops (whatever may be causing them).

  25. Stella's Boy says:

    Is Sahara’s decent hold due to its popularity with moviegoers or a lack of competition over this past weekend? Fever Pitch skews more adult and female, so I’m not surprised by its hold. Not really all that noteworthy.

  26. bicycle bob says:

    saw didn’t cost 2 million to make. work on those numbers spammer

  27. Stella's Boy says:

    I believe the writer and director claim that Saw cost only $1 million to make. Filmed it in 17 days.

  28. Spam Dooley says:

    Bicycle Boy
    It was UNDER $2 as per Gregg Hoffman
    Get bent
    I am Spam Dooley and I say you suck

  29. Mark says:

    No matter its budget, Saw has to be qualified as a success.

  30. Stella's Boy says:

    No doubt. Whether it cost $1 million or $5 million, Saw was a big hit.

  31. David Poland says:

    Context Dooley… you are a reactionary… read full sentences… both Saw and Boogeyman are financial hits… both fell just short of $20 million openings…
    Stop looking to rage… full sentences… even if poorly constructed…

  32. Chester says:

    Ethan, I never said “The Upside of Anger” got “flat out great reviews.” I said it “has gotten some of the most positive reviews of any movie released since the Oscar nominations.” There’s a huge difference.

  33. Spam Dooley says:

    Should read “Last graph edited to reflect the truth”
    Everyone here read the posting- you called it a flop.
    Spam Says That is a Spammy No -No!

  34. David Poland says:

    Not what I said, Spammy… just because you are functionally ill-tempered doesn’t change my words or my intent.
    One would have to be ignorant indeed to think Saw was not a big money winner. But that wasn’t the point of the paragraph. The $19 million opening alone was enough to make it a success. And if you can’t figure out that I know that, you need to retire from Spamming.

  35. Martin says:

    I think that Saw is only slightly disappointing per-expectations. I know when I saw ads for it at the time, I thought it would be a breakout hit.. and it was, but I don’t think it reached it’s full potential at theaters. To a certain extent, it was not quite as good as moviegoers expected, and also, it got burnt by another movie, I think it was Grudge, that was playing at the same time. This is similar to what happened to the movie Hellboy, which got hurt by that Rock movie opening the same weekend. $50 mill for Saw is alot of $$, but it could’ve done almost double that.

  36. Spam Dooley says:

    Guys help Davey
    He called it a “near-hit”
    In English this means NOT a hit but ALMOST.
    It was a MONSTER hit if hit means making money.
    It made money and then some opening weekend.
    So please- I agree that you knew- I agree that you are smart- I agree that you are even THE MAN- but what you said was not True.
    And Dooley Goes Round and Round….

  37. jeff mcm says:

    get a life.

  38. Spam Dooley says:

    YOu mean I should run a blog and website about movies that strives to be definitive and then state falsehoods and then say that I never said them?
    That’s a life?
    Come Sail away with Spam Dooley.

  39. Joe Leydon says:

    Speaking of dubious statements about movies: Here it is, three weeks after “Sin City” allegedly changed the face of filmmaking forever. Only thing is, last I checked, the revolution appears to have dropped off the radar, even in this blog. Is anyone, anywhere, still talking about this movie?
    I’m Joe Leydon, and I send out for pizza for my people.

  40. The Interpreter says:

    I am spam dooley and I feed my ego!

  41. Spam Dooley says:

    Yes. SIN CITY has completely changed Hollywood.
    Expect to see the new Hollywood in 2007.
    Change takes time.
    I am Spam Dooley and I FEED my people!

  42. KamikazeCamel says:

    “You know it’s not that they are out of ideas. Hollywood just plays it safe now, people want to see cheesey horror, and since they are cheap to make Hollywood has no problem pushing them out the door, (of course as long as House of Wax doesn’t include the cost of the sound stage they burned down in the final cost of the film), I can’t stand those films so I don’t see them. However there seems to be an audience.”
    1. Horror is cheap and ALWAYS HAS BEEN
    2. Horror is popular and ALWAYS HAS BEEN
    I don’t really understand the lamenting that people are doing over horror movies lately (Not you, i was just pointing out that they ARE cheap and theyARE popular but always have been). I mean, seriously, horror movies were always the cheap double feature and have always been immencely popular.
    They’ve also been lacking in originality since a few decades back.
    But i think the reason that there are no “Texas Chainsaw Massacre”s or “The Last House on the Left”s anymore is because limited release is held specifically for more arty pictures and distributers don’t do the whole Midnight showing/drive through thing anymore.
    Movies open all on one weekend, they don’t open a few hundred and then make their way around the country.
    Plus, can you IMAGINE the outcry if a movie about a bunch of guys raping and murdering two girls and then having the parents go on a murderous rampage was released now? The right would have a field say saying it promoted anti-christian views and that we should see more movies about cute little kids and their dogs.
    Of course the most violent movie of last year was “The Passion of the Christ” and that got shown on 3000 screens and was hailed as a masterpiece.
    …bizarrely, i know.

  43. bicycle bob says:

    i really think spammer is jeff wells and hes still pissed dave has surpassed him

  44. Joe Leydon says:

    At the risk of encouraging Spamster, I almost hope he knows what he’s talking about. No, I don’t want to see a slew of blue-screen movies. (Trust me on this: I’ve seen enough BAD blue-screen movies at film festivals to know that they’re even WORSE than bad traditional-technology film.) But a “new Hollywood” likely wouldn’t be a bad idea. Surely something needs to change in the remake/recycle/retread mentality that apparently has the creative talents and decision makers in its grip. I mean, it seems like every day now I’m reading about yet ANOTHER FREAKIN’ REMAKE being green-lit. (Today’s announcement of a new “Experiment in Terror” is just the latest in a long, long line.) Maybe filmmakers really have run out of new ideas. The good news is, maybe this will boost sales for my book — filmmakers and wanna-bes can scour the pages in search of movies to remake. But the bad news is, we’re all in for some numbingly familiar films.
    I’m Joe Leydon, and since I’m in Nashville this week, I’ll buy Krystal hamburgers for my people.

  45. Lota says:

    Spam is not Jeff Wells. SPam knows what he is talking about, but polite diplomatic talk isn’t his strong point, scrapping is. At least he isn’t a passive aggressive back-stabbing wanker, which is rare in entertainment biz.

  46. Terence D says:

    How does Spam know what he’s talking about? All he does is disagree with David about nonsense.

  47. Spam Dooley says:

    I disagree with WHOMEVER when they are wrong.
    Davey is RIGHT way more often than he is wrong.
    I know what I am talking about because I am in the business and only speak what I know.
    I am Spam Dooley and I FEED my People!

  48. bicycle bob says:

    dave can say the sky is blue and dooley will go on a rant about how its really green and dave is blind.

  49. Mark says:

    Spammer Dooley. The Know It Least is at it again. Props to his feeding people.

  50. jeffrey boam's doctor says:

    regards to SAW. It was the most profitable film for LG – more than Farenheit 9/11. Spam is correct. Who cares about opening numbers in whatever context when a hit is not declared a hit.
    So you can say it was a monster smash of epic proportions for them and the filmmakers who took a sweet backend deal and no upfront.
    Boogeyman is a piece of shit that pulled in young girls who read RL Stine. Wait for his bigscreen GOOSEBUMPS crossover to make some serious coinage.
    pre-teen horror – next big wave. catch it.

  51. KamikazeCamel says:

    I’d be there for a Goosebumps movie! As long as it was better than the annoying tv series.
    Man, Goosebumps were awesome.
    Although they were extremely popular with boys not just girls.
    But, seriously, the Goosebumps books are the greatest thing in the history of the world. Gimme some “Camp Jellyjam” any day of the week!

  52. Terence D says:

    These horror movies do very weel week one. The key is having staying power for the oncoming weeks.

  53. Please check some information about texas holdem texas holdem wsop wsop poker tournament poker tournament free online poker game free online poker game card poker card poker free poker chip set free poker chip set yahoo poker yahoo poker poker rule poker rule online casino poker online casino poker free strip poker free strip poker celebrity poker celebrity poker winning poker hands winning poker hands basic rules of poker basic rules of poker poker players poker players free texas hold em online play free texas hold em online play casino poker casino poker omaha poker omaha poker cowboy poker cowboy poker texas hold em online texas hold em online texas hold em poker game texas hold em poker game texas hold em strategy texas hold em strategy free online poker free online poker poker rooms poker rooms texas holdem strategy texas holdem strategy world poker world poker free texas hold em online play free texas hold em online play video poker software video poker software poker on line poker on line stud poker stud poker poker strip poker strip

  54. Lota says:

    I really miss Spam Dooley feeding his people!

  55. It’s a shame you don’t have a donate button! I’d without a doubt donate to this superb blog! I suppose for now i’ll settle for book-marking and adding your RSS feed to my Google account. I look forward to brand new updates and will share this website with my Facebook group. Chat soon!

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