MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Early Friday Estimates by Klady

(Note: A mistake on the Harry Potter estimate was made earlier and has now been corrected. My spologies.)
Looks like Potter will hit $200 million in 10 days… with less than $35 million to go to reach that landmark.
Joaq The Line will be short of $60 million in 10 days, but still solid and likely enough business to lock up a Best Picture nomination, as the perception of business success is an important part of the Oscar positioning.
Chicken Little looks like it will have more like 125 million acorns at the end of 10 days.
Just Friends, on the other hand, will be lower than I thought yesterday, topping out at about $15 million for 5.
Rent is still heading to $20 million over 5… and $50 must feel a long way away. Alexander opened to about the same numbers last year and got to $34 million. A similar opening three years ago, Treasure Planet got to $38 million.
Title / Distributor / Gross* / Theaters / % Change
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire / WB / 23.6 / 3858 / -28%
Walk the Line / Fox / 7.9 / 3138 / +3%
Yours, Mine and Ours / Par / 7.3 / 3206 / New
Chicken Little / BV / 5.5 / 3475 / +55%
Rent / Sony / 4.4 / 2433 / New
Just Friends / New Line / 3.7 / 2505 / New
Pride and Prejudice / Focus / 2.7 / 1299 / +332%
In the Mix / Lions Gate / 1.8 / 1608 / New
Derailed / Wein Co / 1.8 / 2061 / -15%
Ice Harvest / Focus / 1.5 / 1550 / New
Zathura / Sony / 1.5 / 2620 / +2%
Also Debuting
Syriana / WB / 0.13 / 5 / n/a

Be Sociable, Share!

13 Responses to “Early Friday Estimates by Klady”

  1. the keoki says:

    Where are these Potter numbers from? has Potter’s friday at $22 mil….why the $9 mil dif?

  2. Blackcloud says:

    BOM has Potter at $23.7 million.
    Someone is way off.

  3. David Poland says:

    Mr. Klady is in a screening and we will address this issue by 10p tonight.

  4. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Rent should be lucky it’s numbers didn’t decrease again.
    What two movies had the two biggest upsticks from Thursday? Chicken Little and Pride & Prejudice.

  5. jeffmcm says:

    So now I’ve seen Walk the Line. Good movie but…Ginnifer Goodwin as Cash’s first wife? _This_ is one of the actresses that Poland insists will be a star for decades to come? She’s not bad…she’s not much of anything.
    She’s no Rachel McAdams.

  6. Mr. Emerson says:

    If Potter doesn’t reach $200 million in ten days, it will end up being extremely surprising…no idea the film would have done so well.
    Walk the Line should end up topping off at $80-$85 million by the end of the year, then possibly add another $5 million more in 2006, make that $10 million more if the Oscar nods see it make a huge impact. I’m finally going to see it tonight or tomorrow, and then I’ll have a clearer picture.
    Rent will top Alexander and Treasure Planet because a) it has, I think, more of a chance to garner repeat business and b) it is far superior to those films. I DID see Rent Saturday and, interestingly enough, found it a terrific film with only a few minor problems…and yet I agreed with most of what Poland said in his review. It would have been an ultra-terrific film, still with a few minor problems, if the romance had been played up a little more and the rent conflict been played down. (Interestingly, I saw it with my parents, and their complaint was there were too many songs, while I felt that the one bad stretch came in between Seasons of Love’s reprise and Take Me or Leave Me because there was no singing.)
    Lost the thread up there, but the bottom line is that I’m calling $40 million at least for Rent, would like to say $45 million but we’ll see after the final figures come in.
    And all of the people pumping money into Yours, Mine, and Ours…why, God, why?

  7. the keoki says: is giving Potter $20 mil for Saturday, giving it $188 mil in 9 days. I still think $300 mil before Narnia is definately possible. Not quite sure of Narnia’s BO and audience.

  8. David Poland says:

    J-Mc… I’ve never suggested Goodwin was Rachel McAdams or that she will have that kind of career. She is Eve Arden, not Doris Day.

  9. Joe Leydon says:

    David: You might want to watch the Eve Arden references, for fear of being considered an even older fogey than you are. Remember what happened a few months ago when I referred to Debbie Reynolds.
    Come to think of it, you might want to watch the Doris Day references, too. I screened “Pillow Talk” for some college students recently, and most of them had no idea who she was.

  10. James Leer says:

    Doris Day had the misfortune of appearing in some rather dated movies. There’s nothing in her ouevre I’d call particularly timeless, so she’s not a major player in most young people’s film histories.

  11. Cadavra says:

    Not so. Check out three of Doris’ mid-60s classics: THE THRILL OF IT ALL, SEND ME NO FLOWERS and THE GLASS BOTTOM BOAT. Though the clothes may be dated, their respective themes–women in the workplace, hypochondria and industrial espionage–still resonate today. Plus they’re all goddamn hilarious; BOAT, in particular, is an overlooked masterpiece that demonstrates anew what an extraordinary talent Frank Tashlin was.

  12. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Ginnifer Goodwyn has made something like 4 movies and a television series (of which she was about the 10th when it came to screentime) and people are already dismissing her?
    Maybe if she was making movies like Yours Mine & Ours, but it at least appears that she wants a career. You don’t work on a show like Ed, or movies like Mona Lisa Smile (yes, it sucked but I’m sure she loved working with that great cast) and Walk The Line for a quick buck. Give her time.

  13. jeffmcm says:

    I don’t want to dismiss her, I think she’s overhyped, which you also shouldn’t do with someone with only 4 movies.

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