MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Screen Bleed

Who is paying the price for four new films hitting the mulltiplexes wide (2000 screens minimum) this weekend, according to Box Office Mojo?
Title (Distributor) / Theater Count (Change) / Week #
The Lake House (Warner Bros.) / 603 (-1107) / 6
Nacho Libre (Paramount) / 505 (-996) / 6
Click (Sony / Revolution) / 2,312 (-984) / 5
Superman Returns (Warner Bros.) / 2,826 (-939) / 4
The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (Universal) / 397 (-743) / 6
Cars (Buena Vista) / 2,410 (-593) / 7
The Devil Wears Prada (Fox) / 2,248 (-562) / 4
Waist Deep (Rogue Pictures) / 175 (-464) / 5

Be Sociable, Share!

27 Responses to “Screen Bleed”

  1. Tofu says:

    The answer? Not Pirates.
    Hasn’t had a theater count change in three weeks now.

  2. martin says:

    not quite on topic, but interesting interview from Monday with Shyamalan, gets pretty deep into the Disney stuff:

  3. Direwolf says:

    Better than I thought for Cars.

  4. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    “Superman Returns (Warner Bros.) / 2,826 (-939) / 4”
    I figured it to be more, especially considering it’ll make about the same as Prada this weekend.

  5. Joe Leydon says:

    And how many screens will “Inconvenient Truth” hold on to? You know, that movie only white wine sippers and hybrid drivers were supposed to like.

  6. David Poland says:

    The movie that still has fewer viewers than an episode of Pimp My Ride is on 440, losing 130.

  7. Joe Leydon says:

    Yeah, but how many times has “Pimp My Ride” been on the cover of Entertainment Weekly?

  8. Joe Leydon says:

    In fact, come to think of it: Looks like the domestic gross for “Inconvenient Truth” will wind up supassing the worldwide gross for “Win a Date With Tad Hamilton!”
    (Sorry, Dave: Couldn’t resist. Feel free to make any snarky remarks about my calves that you want.)

  9. Josh Massey says:

    Magazine covers or no, I would be surprised if “An Inconvenient Truth” has changed a single mind.

  10. Joe Leydon says:

    Josh: No offense, but I suspect you are wrong.

  11. David Poland says:

    I think you are tearing your case down there, Joe. How could your baby do so badly with that powerful EW cover?

  12. jeffmcm says:

    Is it not the highest-grossing documentary of the year? According to Boxofficemojo, it’s also the 4th highest-grossing of all time, probably to pass Bowling for Columbine eventually. Sounds successful to me.
    I don’t think it’s anything special as a movie, but sometimes art can take a back seat.

  13. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    An Inconvenient Truth isn’t out here yet, but boy the trailer has been in front of some major movies! The two I’ve seen it in front of are Superman Returns and Jindabyne – very major films.
    And boy is that trailer a doozy.

  14. Joe Leydon says:

    Speaking of documentaries: There is a terrific ad in today’s New York Times (and elsewhere?) for “Wordplay.” First, there’s the visual allusion to “March of the Penguins” (with one penguin doing a crossword puzzle on another penguin’s tummy). And a wink-wink, nudge-nudge reference to “An Inconvenient Truth” — “Just like the glaciers, ‘Wordplay’ won’t last forever.” Funny stuff. Glad to see IFC continues to push this very deserving movie. (BTW: Even if you don’t usually like docs, you likely will enjoy this one.)

  15. martin says:

    it’s amazing to me how poor the documentaries this year have been. Wordplay looks like a big nothing and inconvenient truth is beside the point. The up and comers have nothing on Morris or even Moore, it’s pathetic.

  16. Eric says:

    Does anybody know what Errol Morris is working on these days?

  17. jeffmcm says:

    Martin, can you elaborate on ‘beside the point’?

  18. Chucky in Jersey says:

    The Clairidge Cinema in Montclair NJ dropped “An Inconvenient Truth” today. As the Clairidge is the biggest arthouse in Northern NJ that tells me the pic is all but played out.
    Speaking of “Wordplay”, the AMC Neshaminy megaplex outside Philadelphia picked it up this week. I assume it’s because the theater can’t get “A Scanner Darkly” until next week at the earliest.

  19. jeffmcm says:

    And yet, on a day-by-day basis, Inconvenient Truth is still grossing more than Scanner Darkly. Granted its on more screens, but that doesn’t sound like ‘played out’ to me. It was in the top ten until today, as well.

  20. palmtree says:

    Inconvenient Truth was not designed to convert minds but to mobilize the converted (hence the unnecessarily partisan focus on Gore). I think if you don’t agree with its premises and its conclusions, you will be able to find ways to refute it. And it does not offer any real solutions.
    But what it does it does well…which is to codify the existing science behind global warming and make it part of the national debate. After this current heat wave and current gas price explosion (thanks to another war), the issue will probably play well for a while.

  21. jeffmcm says:

    Well, if you consider one of its premises ‘the scientific method’ then yeah, you’re going to be able to find ways to poke holes in it.

  22. Joe Leydon says:

    “Inconvenient Truth was not designed to convert minds but to mobilize the converted (hence the unnecessarily partisan focus on Gore).”
    Palmtree: Have you actually seen “Inconvenient Truth”? I mean, dude, Al Gore is on screen for something like 90 percent of the movie. How could they NOT focus on him? That would be like writing something about “Monster in a Box” and not focusing on Spalding Gray.
    “Wordplay looks like a big nothing and inconvenient truth is beside the point.”
    Martin: I can’t argue with you if you saw “Wordplay” and didn’t like it. I mean, everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. But if you haven’t — for all you know, it could be the best doc of the past decade.

  23. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Joe, did America have the posters for An Inconvenient Truth that showed a line of penguins walking through the desert? I’ve seen that one down here at a few different cinemas.

  24. jeffmcm says:

    To my knowledge that poster has not been used here. We’ve primarily gotten the one with the hurricane coming out of the smokestack.

  25. Joe Leydon says:

    Camel: I don’t know about posters, but I have seen that image in ads in the NYT and other papers. Gee, maybe the makers of the next Iraq War doc should put penguins in battle fatigues?

  26. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    You see, March of the Penguins was only released here in April and was fairly successful and these things go (made the top 10, but wasn’t as big as in America) but when I saw that poster I thought it was definitely a great way to publicise it. I have yet to see the hurrican/cyclone poster here, only the penguin one.

  27. palmtree says:

    “Have you actually seen “Inconvenient Truth”?”
    Yes, with Gore in the audience no less.
    “How could they NOT focus on him?”
    By focusing on the issue of global warming. What I meant was all the asides about Gore overcoming things to become a great man. It pulled me away from the immediacy of the issues at hand. And easily I would have enjoyed having more than one voice dominate. The only other people you heard speak in the entire thing were some Chinese people mumbling things. And if Gore is in 90% of the movie, why didn’t they put him on the poster? Because he’s not the reason people are watching it.

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