MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Perspective On The High $eas

Okay

Be Sociable, Share!

50 Responses to “Perspective On The High $eas”

  1. Direwolf says:

    Interesting to look at all-time summer openings. I hadn’t thought of that. I guess the concept is that people don’t need to rush out and see it because they have more time off. Also, there are lots of entertainment alternatives in the summer. Teens would especially be free to see a film at another time but in the case of POTC, teens will turn out. Families and young kids I suppose is where the summer 1st weekend drop off might really exist since they are free during days and might not want to fight opening weekend crowds.
    I do think anything short of $100 million will be viewed as a weaker than expected opening. Especially given the storyline that all the big ones have opened below expectations, however inflated, so far this summer. Of course, first weekend won’t tell the tale on this film.
    I’ll take a guess that it makes it over $100 million. I just think the broad interest across demographic groups is immense for this film making the potential audience unusually large.

  2. Telemachos says:

    As I wrote in one of the other POTC threads, signs are pointing to a massive opening day… one that would virtually guarantee a $100+ million weekend. We all know Depp- and Orlando-lovers see their guys multiple times, so I can’t really see any way it grosses less than, say, HARRY POTTER 1…. and if it ends up “only” in the low 300s, I think it’ll be pronounced the second $300+ million-grossing disappointment (the first being ATTACK OF THE CLONES).

  3. the keoki says:

    This could be a really horrible weekend for everyone involved except for the Prada folks. Someone will spin POTC negatively, that’s what they do almost every weekend. And as far as Supes goes, this is THE weekend. 50%? 60%? 30%?40%? In reality any of those drops will be terrible….even 30% would be “someones” dissapoinment. And on the Pirates front, it seems like anything less than 100mil is shit. No?

  4. palmtree says:

    30% would be a miracle! How exactly could you spin that negatively?
    I’m off to see Pirates. The person I’m seeing it with is incredulous that there could be a line…just to get in! We’ll see how this goes.

  5. jennab says:

    David was absolutely right about Pirates…overlong, overloud, overblown, overdone; predict it will drop like X3 or Superman; but the REAL discussion should now be about Lady in the Water…trailer with Pirates had audiences howling…with laughter…cringe-worthy M. Night book excerpt in EW…great artists are elevated by humility, felled by hubris. Dave, how big a disaster do you think “Lady” will be?

  6. martin says:

    “David was absolutely right about Pirates…overlong, overloud, overblown, overdone” – Jenna B, I’m pretty sure Dave never said that.
    And Lady looks like it could go one way or the other, but I wouldn’t call it cringe-worthy.
    And back to the topic at hand, we’ll have a pretty good idea tomorrow. If it does $40 mill opening day then all bets are off. I wonder if $40 mill is possible for a 2 1/2 hr movie in mid July, but who knows. And it would be crazy to call a $100 mill 3-day anything less than a gigantic success.

  7. martin says:

    Meanwhile, we’re nearing August here and still to be released are a shitload of major mid-low-brow comedies: Dupree, Little Man, Super Ex, Talladega, Clerks 2. This reminds me of last summer’s mid-brow comedy competition of Wedding Crashers into 40 Yr Old mixed in with Deuce: Bomb. Profits get significantly curtailed when there’s a glut like this.

  8. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Can I just make a quick mention of the fact that on Thursday Superman made $5.3mil while Devil Wears Prada made $3.8mil! That’s a difference of $1.5mil. One of the most interesting things about this weekend will be to see how close these two films end up in their second weeks.
    Anyway.
    Spiderman 2‘s first day debuted on 4152 screens with an average of $9741 per screen. Spiderman 2 was 130mins, roughly and made $40mil. Now, Pirates is debuting on 4133 screens (nice for comparisons!) but is 150mins. So let’s cut some off of Spiderman‘s average, say to about $8500 and that equals $35mil opening day. Add in, say, $40mil for Saturday, and about $30mil on Sunday, that equals a three day opening of $105mil.
    That’s my prediction and I’m sticking to it. I know Spiderman 2 opened on a Wednesday, but whatever.

  9. Telemachos says:

    I think a $40+ million Friday is all but guaranteed at this point. The KJ box-office geeks are claiming it’ll be a $50+ million day, but I don’t think that’s a probability (it’s certainly a possibility though). The crowd reports are reporting a ton of sell-outs and extra screens added to meet demand, but theaters even having to turn away crowds of people and/or add early-morning showtimes to cover the spillover.

  10. Stella's Boy says:

    Showed up at a theater last night around 6:30. It’s playing on three screens there. Every show the rest of the night was sold out. I was a little surprised because it was a beautiful summer night, the Cubs were in town and we have a huge outdoor music festival going on now.

  11. RoyBatty says:

    So, before the Friday numbers hit, let me throw in my two cents on the whole “Will PIRATES scuttle SPIDER-MAN’S record?”
    I think the longer run time negates the extra 500 screens PIRATES 2 has over SPIDER-MAN 1. I think the longer run time also negates the higher ticket prices.
    At first I didn’t think it was going to do it – beat SPIDER-MAN’s $114M record – because I thought the zeitgiest (post 9/11 return to Superheros, first big film of the summer, holiday weekend, etc) favored it more. But as I think about it, think about just how truly this summer has been, I have come around to PIRATES becoming either the new number 1 or 2. Certainly has the new July record in the bag.
    It has become the one film this summer that the vast majority of the general public want to see, in many cases it will probably be the only film they see. It knocks down demographics like 10 pins in a bowling alley. It’s a family film, a date film, an older-skewing, a younger-skewing film. It brings in women who can lust after either Depp or Bloom (or both in certain fantasies I’m sure) and it brings in younger males who lust after explosions and all manner of CGI eye candy.
    If it wasn’t for that running time, I think PIRATES 2 would sail right past the webslinger to become the first film to make $120M in a weekend. As it is, it might just have to settle for $116M.
    BTW – must kill the SR fans out there to realize that THE DAY AFTER TOMMORROW made more in nine days than SUPERMAN – DEADBEAT DAD has managed.
    What was that about good word of mouth again…?

  12. RoyBatty says:

    Oh, I guess I’ll also opine that it will hit over $230M by the end of the second week and finishes out with a total cume of around $390-425M.
    Too bad we can’t have a blog “office pool” and everyone chip in $20. Although, I guess with Paypal DP could set something like that up (too late for this though) if he didn’t think he risked a gambling charge.
    How about it, DP – care to start a box office wager tradition at the Hot Blog?

  13. wolfgang says:

    I wonder if $40 mill is possible for a 2 1/2 hr movie in mid July, but who knows.
    Martin, in my market the Regal Cinema chain is offering several showings at or before 10:00 a.m. Here’s the listing for just one location:
    9:15am |10:00am |10:20am |10:45am |11:20am |12:00pm |12:30pm |1:15pm |1:45pm |2:15pm |2:50pm |3:30pm |4:00pm |4:40pm |5:15pm |5:45pm |6:20pm |7:00pm |7:30pm |8:10pm |8:45pm |9:15pm |9:50pm |10:30pm |11:00pm |11:30pm |12:00am
    I think the $40 million is within reach. As Seth Davis said in Boiler Room, “These guys are mackin’ it hard.”

  14. wolfgang says:

    There are two Regal Cinemas in Houston. Here’s the PotC:DMC showtimes for the second one:
    9:35am |10:00am |10:45am |11:30am |12:00pm |12:30pm |1:00pm |1:30pm |2:15pm |2:55pm |3:25pm |3:55pm |4:25pm |5:00pm |5:45pm |6:20pm |6:50pm |7:20pm |7:50pm |8:30pm |9:15pm |9:45pm |10:15pm |10:45pm |11:15pm |11:50pm
    The AMC chain also has several locations with pre-10:00 a.m. showings. Come Monday, according to the current schedule, these early showtimes will be gone. Disney is squeezing every hour of the clock for a $100 million weekend.

  15. Tofu says:

    From HSX
    Pirates 2: $55.06
    Superman Returns: $6.9
    Devil Wears Prada: 4.88
    HOLY COW

  16. Telemachos says:

    Whisper number for PIRATES – $55 million.

  17. David Wong says:

    That’s what boxofficemojo has. So… does that mean Pirates beat Superman’s entire three-day weekend in one day?

  18. Telemachos says:

    Yes. It now has a chance at being the first film to hit $100 million in 2 days.

  19. wolfgang says:

    How about $100 million for Fri/Sat alone?

  20. martin says:

    I’m seeing $55 mill for Pirates friday. I hate to wonder how many were turned away, I personally know several people that went to a couple different showings and were turned away, to make that much money it basically had to sell out every single show.

  21. martin says:

    also, it’s a little early but I think $400 domestic is squarely within it’s sights.

  22. wolfgang says:

    You beat me by one minute, Telemachos.

  23. martin says:

    also quickly looking at the fri numbers, what I see is Superman taking a huge nosedive and not getting much overflow from Pirates sellouts, but Click and Prada picking up that overflow. Crazily, Superman, Prada and Click are neck and neck. Some family audiences definitely headed over to Click, this film still has $120-130 mill. as a good possibility.

  24. anghus says:

    wow. i mean wow.
    congrats to disney and bruck.

  25. Joe Leydon says:

    Martin: Perhaps a rising tide really does lift all boats? It will be interesting to see if the weekend figures indicate that the “Pirates” sellouts caused a dramatic uptick for other films that have been around even longer.

  26. martin says:

    Joe, I suspect that to be the case. Although audiences are more familiar with various reservation systems, the amount of overflow due to sellouts for this film is probably staggering. Honestly, everyone that I know that went to see the movie yesterday was unable to get in, and I’ve seen that here and on other movie boards too.

  27. Ed Helms says:

    Went to see Pirates last night myself only to find out that Pirates was sold out on three screens. The spillover crowd into Prada nearly caused a sellout for that movie.

  28. Chucky in Jersey says:

    We all know Depp- and Orlando-lovers see their guys multiple times
    DVD has killed repeat business in theaters.
    I was a little surprised because it was a beautiful summer night, the Cubs were in town and we have a huge outdoor music festival going on now.
    That city must be Milwaukee. Cubs fans are not as loyal as Red Sox Nation. Also, the Cubs have the second-worst record in the National League and their manager will be fired any day now.
    Disney is squeezing every hour of the clock for a $100 million weekend.
    It is not what the public wants — it is what Wall Street desires. Remember that when “A Scanner Darkly” goes national and your local megaplex has no room for it.

  29. Joe Leydon says:

    Imagine the possibilities. “Well, gee, ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ is sold out, honey. You want to see ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ instead?” “Well, I’d rather see ‘Prairie Home Companion.'” “Yeah, but that’s also sold out…”

  30. martin says:

    The fri sellouts may also play into better Sunday numbers.

  31. Bodhizefa says:

    Stellar opening. Big, hearty congrats to all those involved and to Hollywood in general as a movie opening this well should put smiles on the faces of most people in the business.

  32. Joe Leydon says:

    So, as I read it, the general consensus here is: Love it or hate it, a hit this big has to be good for the movie business as a whole. Can this be true? I’m not being snarky, just curious: Is this a freakish event? Or will it really get some people back into the moviegoing habit?

  33. Jimmy the Gent says:

    I went to the 3:00 show yesterday at out local AMC. One of the managers came in five minutes before showtime and said it looked like a sould out show, and would everyone please move together so there wouldn’t be any single seats floating around. Naturally, nobody moved.
    By the time the movie started the front row was still emptied. There were a few scattered people in the rows behind the first, but the first row never got anyone seated.
    My question is this: Does the movie really sell out, or do people see that the only available seats are in the front row and decide to go to another showing? It seems fair considering they already paid to get in.

  34. wolfgang says:

    “Disney is squeezing every hour of the clock for a $100 million weekend.”
    It is not what the public wants — it is what Wall Street desires. Remember that when “A Scanner Darkly” goes national and your local megaplex has no room for it.
    Chucky, no argument here on Wall Street’s influence re Disney’s marketing plan and push for multiple screen-times.
    What I was alluding to is Disney’s desire to have a $100 million opening weekend take, which I believe would make it the first time that’s happened on a non-holiday summer weekend. With PotC:DMC running 2 1/2 hours, you need more showings, hence the considerable number of 10a.m. (and earlier) showings in this market for opening weekend.
    I am curious. If PotC:DMC continues to draw huge crowds past opening weekend, will chains like Regal rethink dropping those early screen showings and extend some of them for a second week? The consumer demand appears solid based on sold-out showings, though I doubt Regal will do it.

  35. Josh Massey says:

    My question is this: Does the movie really sell out, or do people see that the only available seats are in the front row and decide to go to another showing?
    I don’t know how it works today, but in the old days when I worked in a theater (the early ’90s), we’d “sell out” a 300-seat auditorium when about 30 seats were left on the computer.

  36. Cadavra says:

    Wow. And I thought I was kidding when I said $117 million.

  37. David Poland says:

    Uh, boys… when a exhibitor goes six screens at an 18 multi on a movie, they aren’t bending to Wall Street or Disney. They are maximizing their weekend opportunity.
    This is now the way theaters are designed. Accordian seating. They want everyone who shows up to see Pirates to get a seat so neither the theater nor Disney has to sell them on coming a second time. Doesn’t matter if the movie is good or bad.
    It’s lovely to “blame” Disney wanting a $100 million weekend, but Superman had exactly the same opportunity… in fact more, since there was even more interest in scoring on opening week because Pirates was coming in behind… both sent out around 8000 prints, as did, I believe, Da Vinci and X3.
    This is not all good news for Pirates, since as we saw with X3, a massive drop after giving the hoards every chance to see the movie is a real possibility. Spider-Man’s legs were his, not Sony distribution’s or marketing’s. The same will be true – or not – of Pirates.

  38. jeffmcm says:

    Wall Street, supply and theatrical demand…all part of the same package.

  39. David Poland says:

    Uhhhhhhhhh… no.
    Wall Street is WB trying to keep the cost of Superman Returns down in public.
    Supply and Demand is people wanting seats and exhibitors trying to sell popcorn.
    These are different planets and one of the problems in the industry is when people who run studios confuse them.
    The big picture on SR is that the studio pretty much had to move forward because the stench from their failure to launch Superman and Batman after Spider-Man 1 and 2 was hurting. But not on a stock level. Remember, Time-Warner stock didn’t uptick at all on Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter.
    The big picture on X3 was Tom Rothman’s obsession with hitting that date and beating Singer to the superpunch. As a result, I believe X3 is the most expensive movie Fox has ever made. But he got what he wanted. And the stock market didn’t notice that either.
    A Titanic might move the pin today. But barely in companies with $20 billion a year-plus revenues.
    On the negative side, bad box office talk creates shareholder problems. So Most Expensive Film Ever is bad. Biggest Opening Ever is good. But don’t expect much movement from the Disney stock on Monday… and watch it stablize by Wed if there is any movement at all. The only good part for them is that they have a sequel ready for next summer.
    If Superman Returns continues to dissapoint and there is a major rightdown from it (remember that they sold off half the movie to Legendary), the only reason there may be no firings is that firing is a no confidence signal to Wall Street… again, bigger than a billion dollars in real money.

  40. jeffmcm says:

    They may all be different planets, but they’re all in the same solar system of profit maximization. Like Chucky in Jersey says, it would be better to have small movies in more theaters than for one big movie sucking up 5000 screens.

  41. martin says:

    who would it be better for to have small movies in more theaters? Certainly not exhibitors.

  42. jeffmcm says:

    It would be better for audiences, as Chucky said, to have a greater diversity of options to watch theatrically.

  43. wolfgang says:

    Uh, boys… when a exhibitor goes six screens at an 18 multi on a movie, they aren’t bending to Wall Street or Disney.
    Uh, David, explain this:
    Wall Street expects “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” to haul in plenty of box office booty for the Walt Disney Co, performing at least as well as the $654 million worldwide treasure for the first “Pirates” film.
    http://www.maconareaonline.com/news.asp?id=14459
    Ya think a publicly traded company like Disney isn’t going to pay attention to a little thing like that?
    Are exhibitors scheduling batches of pre-10 a.m. screenings this opening weekend to take advantage of the business demand for PotC? Sure. Will they continue those showtimes Monday, even if there’s a continued business demand for the movie? Nope.
    Does Disney want to be the first to hit $100 million summer non-holiday opening weekend? Betcherass. Does anyone “blame” them? Well, blame is an odd word there, David.
    Of course no one “blames” them. How and if Disney get there depends on strategy, luck, and maybe a little help from your friends.

  44. Chucky in Jersey says:

    When a exhibitor goes six screens at an 18 multi on a movie, they aren’t bending to Wall Street or Disney. They are maximizing their weekend opportunity.
    The 25-screen AMC Empire in Times Square opened 10 prints of “The Matrix Reloaded”. That movie had sellouts its first Saturday — and was burned out by its 3rd or 4th weekend.

  45. David Poland says:

    Like I wrote, Wolf… the only studio were one movie seems to move the stock now is Viacom B, where the company IS the movie and cable biz only. The split was in hopes that box office would move the price… but it really hasn’t. The DreamWorks acquisition was far more of a Wall Street issue.
    The reason why Wall Street analysts speak to this stuff is that it gets them quotes. But watch the stock and see what happens. They are all guessing and trying to look knowledgeable (usually, not so much) and influential (far more than makes sense) and that requires P.R. Just add quote.
    Pirates will inspire mom & pop buyers to buy this week… there will be some minor movement… and then it will settle again in a week or so. Pirates money won’t show up on the books until 3rd quarter reports come out. And though there will be big pictures of Pirates because of the glamour, the bottom line on Wall Street effects will ne negligible.

  46. David Poland says:

    P.S. Opening records are fun for a studio and raise morale. But there is not a single studio in town, including Fox (especially Fox), that would not trade X3 for Wedding Crashers in a second.

  47. David Poland says:

    And Roy… we are chatting about a box office contest for the site.

  48. Cadavra says:

    “But there is not a single studio in town, including Fox (especially Fox), that would not trade X3 for Wedding Crashers in a second.”
    You’re forgetting one thing, Dave. Front-loaded movies benefit the studios; long-legged ones benefit the exhibitor. By week 5 or 6, WEDDING was already down to 35% (distributor’s share of the B.O.) in most markets, so it was the theatres who made out like bandits on that one, not New Line.

  49. Wrecktum says:

    I believe Wedding Crashers film rental was firm terms, so you’re wrong.

  50. Cadavra says:

    Firm terms has nothing to do with percentage; it means you can’t go back after the fact and re-negotiate. Some of the major studios do have special deals on some films where the studio pays one percentage that covers the entire engagement, but I doubt that anyone, least of all New Line, felt that WEDDING merited that kind of deal.

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