MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Box Office Hell – 8/25/06


Be Sociable, Share!

21 Responses to “Box Office Hell – 8/25/06”

  1. jeffmcm says:

    Those Invincible numbers mostly look too high. Why is Disney releasing a broad-market family movie exactly when families are busy getting ready for school?

  2. Colin says:

    I would guess that they are releasing it now because: a) it is the NFL preseason, so football fans are watching those games, which have been supersaturated with ads for it, and b) it is the NFL preseason, so fans will see a football movie as a viable alternative to watching the 2nd and 3rd stringers, as opposed to the NFL regular season, when they would just choose to watch the games.

  3. wholovesya says:

    Boxoffice hell for sure…

  4. EDouglas says:

    I think if Fried Worms beats both Idlewild and Beerfest, it will be the biggest upset of the week. I personally think I might be overestimating Beerfest and underestimating Idlewild (probably Little Miss Sunshine, too…that seems to be the only movie people are continuously talking about)

  5. Colin says:

    I can understand Fried Worms beating Beerfest being an upset, but how would it beating Idlewild be an upset? It’s playing on almost twice as many “screens,” and most of the projections above predict that it will be close between the 2.

  6. Eric says:

    Beerfest looks like one of those movies that will do mediocre business in theaters but will live on forever in dorm rooms and frat houses across America.
    See: Baseketball, Orgazmo, Wet Hot American Summer, etc.

  7. Hopscotch says:

    Club Dread might be one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen in a theater, Dukes of Hazzard I’ve been told his a horror show. These guys are bulletproof funny, I’m not dying to see it.
    “Chicken Fucker!”

  8. Hopscotch says:

    “Aren’t bulletproof funny”… i guess that makes more sense now.

  9. Pelham123 says:

    “aren’t bulletproof funny” is absolutely right. When I saw the tagline on the poster that used the words “comic genius” I reached for my gun.

  10. martin says:

    I don’t know how many theaters Idlewild is opening in, but the estimates seem kinda low.

  11. martin says:

    actually nevermind, it’s opening in under 1,000 theaters, so 6 to 7 mill seems reasonable. Considering the shitty reviews, I’m amazed they didn’t go for a 2,500 release and bring some money in before the word gets out, geez. What could they be thinking by doing a modest roll-out? Or could they just not get the screens?

  12. Joe Leydon says:

    I strongly suspect that “Idlewild” will do better tahn most b.o. prognostigators have predicted.

  13. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    IDLEWILD = harlem nights without the star power. the numbers are probably close. Sorry Joe… 9m at most. INVINCIBLE would do more if released next month. BEERFEST is hopefully the nail in the coffin for Lizard… revoke their membership to the credit line. The only thing they all have in common : weak trailer campaigns.

  14. jeffmcm says:

    Harlem Nights still made $60m in 1989 dollars.
    Couldn’t it also be (and this is perhaps a stretch) an African-American Moulin Rouge?

  15. EDouglas says:

    JBMD: The only thing weak about the trailer is that very few of the gags in it actually appear in the movie…and that’s the fault of the studio more than it is the guys. They made a very funny movie that even some of the harshest critics I know seemed to like.

  16. Spacesheik says:

    Great, another Disney “inspirational” sports flick…
    They should go back to making Dean Jones comedy remakes.

  17. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Edouglas, but there are many more critics who think Beerfest is awful. I don’t understand Broken Lizard. Their movies don’t seem to make money, aren’t good and only Super Troopers is even remotely seen as cultish.
    The Hollywood Reporter really needs to step up it’s game. Week in week out they give piss weak estimates.
    BTW, Snakes on a Plane‘s RT average is now 69% up fromt 62%. 1% below World Trade Center. LOL.

  18. EDouglas says:

    KC: Beerfest is 41% on RT, which is 43 Rotten to 30 Fresh, which really isn’t that many more negative reviews (13)…which for a studio produced comedy is not really that bad. So many comedies this year have ended up with 21% and under, so to get that many fresh reviews isn’t bad. (Super Troopers is at 36%) I judge comedies by whether I laugh and whether I’m entertained and I was very much for Beerfest both times I saw it.

  19. Chucky in Jersey says:

    “Beerfest”: Good trailer which unfortunately was ruined by name-checking. The last Broken Lizard flick tanked.
    “Fried Worms”: Dumped at the end of summer. Much of its target audience is already back in school.
    “Idlewild”: I’m looking forward to it. If this opens well semi-wide, Universal ought to take the pic wide and maybe even upmarket/arthouse.
    “Invincible”: Big push in and around Philly because Vince Papale played for the E-A-G-L-E-S-Eagles. A programmer elsewhere.
    “Little Miss Sunshine”: My projection on this just might come true.

  20. EDouglas says:

    BTW, #s are in… Invincible is #1 quite definitively and should end up with around $15 million for the weekend… neither Beerfest nor Idlewild did that well… probably will end up with around $7.3 and $6 million respectively. (Considering Idlewild was in a third the theatres of the other two means that’s not so bad.) Fried Worms didn’t even make the Top 10 but should end up somewhere BOM’s prediction and mine.

  21. jeffmcm says:

    Chucky, if you don’t think your hated ‘name-checking’ can ever help movies, why do you know believe it can hurt them? Nobody on earth except you noticed it in this case – this movie’s target audience needed to know of its connection to Super Troopers and Dukes of Hazzard because the Broken Lizard actors are all generic-looking and interchangeable (except Jay Chandrasekhar – who they fratted up and de-ethnicized for this movie).

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