MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Friday Box Office Estimates – 12/10/05

There is little doubt now, The Chronicles of Narnia will be the biggest December opening in history, and is likely to be surpassed next weekend by King Kong. A monster month.
It is possible, remotely, that Narnia will for short of LOTR: Return of the King, but given the youth appeal, it seems more likely that Saturday will have a significant upswing. The other question will be whether Sunday suffers for the half-day loss of the presumed Christian audience.
Syriana

Be Sociable, Share!

28 Responses to “Friday Box Office Estimates – 12/10/05”

  1. Lota says:

    everyone I know read LW&W when they were ten–don’t know why so many naysayers on the board assuming it would bomb–whether it is good or not it will be big simply becasue so many will want to see a favorite childhood read. i am not religious, and even if the movie is heavy heanded with the allegory, I’d still go pay to see it.
    my goodness Syriana seems to be doing well. George seems to be involved in two decent movies this year.

  2. MattM says:

    Well, the other thing this weekend does is basically lock up the actress win for Witherspoon, right? “Mrs. Henderson” is a disaster, and that’s going to kill Judi Dench, and the bitter taste of box office failure is likely to hurt Charlize (though, honestly, “Aeon Flux” is not that bad). Can Huffman give Witherspoon a run for her money?
    “Brokeback” will get to a 100K PSA almost assuredly, which is impressive, but the question mark is does it have a broader audience, because “Geisha” almost certainly will.

  3. grrbear says:

    Box Office Mojo is saying the estimate for Narnia is $23.9 – is he lowballing the figure because his weekend prediction (53.9) was uhhhh…. low?

  4. Angelus21 says:

    That figure might be for Friday alone. Just a guess.

  5. Wrecktum says:

    The Narnia numbers will be all over the map due not only to midnight screenings, but also special churchgroup screenings all over the country on Thursday (which, I believe, will be added to the weekend gross).
    Ruchard Pryor died! Boy, that sucks.

  6. Wrecktum says:

    ^ Richard, obviously. Wish this had an edit feature.

  7. PandaBear says:

    RIP Mr Pryor.

  8. martin says:

    not sure why P&P and Rent are comparable. P&P is some arty, modestly-budgeted, dull-looking costume affair that got ok reviews and had very little heat. $30 mill finish seems good to me. Rent cost a ton, major director, lots of awards heat, supposed teen appeal, and will finish with same. Rent – loser. P&P – winner. Plus Pride did a ton overseas which Rent is unlikely to do.

  9. martin says:

    henderson looked awful from the trailers and dench is hardly box office, why would anyone expect it to make money?
    A british, costume-drammy looking tranny movie? Did I miss the groundswell for these sorts of things?

  10. martin says:

    a poorly-reviewed movie about old-style japanese whores making money? since when?

  11. jeffmcm says:

    Wow, never underestimate the power of the family audience. This definitely wipes away the failure of Walden’s Around the World remake.

  12. Wrecktum says:

    Around the World was a head scratcher. Why Anschulz and Granat thought that would sell (at a $100m budget) will remain a mystery.

  13. PandaBear says:

    One thing Judi Dench is not is Box Office.

  14. jeffmcm says:

    They could have made some money if Mrs. Henderson was more of a Full Monty-style crowdpleaser, but it’s not…fairly rambling and pointless and only mildly entertaining.

  15. James Leer says:

    For some reason that box office declaration about Judi Dench is making me laugh.
    I don’t think anyone thought Judi had the pulling power of, say, Tom Cruise, but I’m sure the Weinsteins counted on the total package of an older-skewing, veddy English comedy being somewhat potent. And maybe they’ll be able to salvage that ship, but they didn’t send it out very auspiciously.

  16. EDouglas says:

    Wow, if Mrs. Henderson tanks, does that rule out any chance of it getting into the Best Picture race?

  17. James Leer says:

    I’m not convinced it had a strong shot at that in the first place. Best Actress, yes — it’s a thin year, and a small earner didn’t stop Dench when she picked up a nomination for “Mrs. Brown,” which played well to the Academy.

  18. Wrecktum says:

    Don’t underestimate Harvey’s ability to get Dame Judi on the final ballot.

  19. lindenen says:

    “A british, costume-drammy looking tranny movie? Did I miss the groundswell for these sorts of things?”
    This really is hysterically funny. I’d love to live in a world where granny trannies are in high demand. Actually, no.

  20. joefitz84 says:

    Granny tanny’s. Just eat my own puke. Gross.

  21. Mr. Emerson says:

    Narnia’s success just goes to show how many people either read the book or had it read to them in elementary school. I never found the series that special, but when you get it out to a mass audience you find a lot of people who do see it that way. A brilliant showing for a film with no major stars except Neeson’s voice.

  22. Sanchez says:

    I really never even heard of the books til the movie. And I read a lot. Maybe not enough. I thought the movie was good so I’m going to read the collection.

  23. Adam says:

    Henderson is playing in the Laemmle Sunset (by the director’s guild) and another Laemmle’s Royal in LA.
    That’s it.
    Really incredibly terrible booking job by the Weinstein company.
    Brokeback Mountain went on three screens at the Grove for all of LA and is pulling in massive money.
    I think the lesson here is open your exclusive engagement at the Grove or at the Arclight if you want to make any money.
    charming movie, one of my favorites of the year, shame to see it so mishandled.

  24. martin says:

    Dave, no comments on this ridiculous box office analysis of Kong, etc.?
    http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/10/051210172832.h0mbgvu2.html

  25. jeffmcm says:

    The fact that they think Waterworld came out in 1999, and not 1995, is enough to make it suspect. I also find it incredibly hard to believe that the original Kong only cost $10m in 2005 dollars.

  26. martin says:

    basically all the #’s in that article are wrong. Makes you almost wonder – is the story a plant? One thing that story does directly is state that, contrary to popular opinion, Kong is not the biggest budget of all time. Which for some in the studio might be a good idea to get out in the press in case it underperforms.

  27. PastePotPete says:

    the original Kong film was made fairly cheaply, they shot it simultaneously with The Most Dangerous Game to save money. Same sets and some of the cast.

  28. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Isn’t King Kong the 6th most expensive? That’s what my MSN Today is telling me for some reason (apparently it’s news?)
    Anyway. Damn shame about Mrs Henderson Presents – another movie that could so easily have been an Oscar favourite going down the tube.
    Dench and Hoskins will get in the race of virtue of their stature alone, but now it has just gotten much much harder to get anything else. Sigh.

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