MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Sunday Estimates by Klady – August 20

The battle over the weekend

Be Sociable, Share!

26 Responses to “Sunday Estimates by Klady – August 20”

  1. EDouglas says:

    Seems much more reasonable than BOM… I think Sony is overestimating to try to get that three week #1. Talk about greed.

  2. Joe Leydon says:

    A trifling point, I admit, but: Considering that “Accepted” is about young people trying (and failing) to get into college, I wonder if the movie should have opened a few weeks later or earlier. I mean, in my part of the world, college resumes Monday. Isn’t this a period when many members of the “Accepted” target audience are too busy preparing for clases to see a movie about — well, students preparing for classes?

  3. Lota says:

    i can’t believe SoaP is so low. everyone clearly thinks they “saw” it already.

  4. EDouglas says:

    Joe: I was thinking the same thing. Might have been a better March/April release because that’s when kids are going through the stuff in the movie…but maybe Universal hoped that it would get good enough WOM to sustain through Labor Day and early September ala Without a Paddle. One thing I liked about the movie is that it’s really more of an “anti-college” comedy that says…screw the universities and do your own thing! 🙂

  5. Eric says:

    Accepted wouldn’t be the first movie to suffer from its arrival at the start of a new school year. I remember people thinking that “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back,” a movie targeted at frat buddies if ever there was one, had a weak opening for the same reason. It kind of makes sense– I never made it to the theaters within two weeks of the start of any semester when I was in school.

  6. EDouglas says:

    Hm… that could hurt Beerfest, too, which is being released in a lot more theatres than the Broken Lizards’ last few movies.

  7. Eric says:

    Beerfest seems exactly like the sort of movie that would suffer from the timing. It really should be an October release.
    On the other hand, as I’m thinking about it more, I really don’t know if the college-students-returning-to-campus is really a large enough segment of the audience to make a truly substantive difference to the bottom line. I was just more inclined to think it based on my own experience. Oh well. This is why I’m usually silent about this stuff.

  8. Direwolf says:

    While SOAP will probably make money given a low production budget and potentially a better home video window than the box office would suggest, it is worth remembering that New Line is owned by Time Warner and is corporate sibling to Warner Brothers. This has been one lousy summer for that conglomerate as far theatrical releases are concerned. Poseidon, Ant Bully, Superman Returns, SOAP.

  9. Wrecktum says:

    “A trifling point, I admit, but: Considering that “Accepted” is about young people trying (and failing) to get into college, I wonder if the movie should have opened a few weeks later or earlier”
    Universal had the same idea initially. Remember, the movie was supposed to open last weekend but was moved (at the last moment) to the 18th.

  10. jeffmcm says:

    I think there’s a couple of other reasons why World Trade Center didn’t become the phenomenon that DP thought it would – like United 93, there weren’t that many people who wanted to see it in the first place, and word of mouth has turned out to be middling, like the movie itself. (Unless this is what DP means when he says ‘phenomenon like Talladega Nights’, aka a movie that people actually like).

  11. David Poland says:

    And J-Mc, you’re basing this on….

  12. jeffmcm says:

    The relatively soft opening that was below tracking, the relatively unimpressive 7.1/10 cumulative rating on IMDB (compared with United 93’s 7.9) the okay-but-not-great 70% on Rottentomatoes (compared with United 93’s 90%), the not-bad-not-great 43% weekend decline.

  13. jeffmcm says:

    My point is that you seem to be insisting that World Trade Center’s gross figure can be attributed to external factors of other movies and a late release date. My point is, you’re conveniently ignoring the quality of the movie itself, which is not a popular bomb by any means, but I see no reason to consider it a quality, beloved piece of work undone by surrounding circumstances.

  14. Wrecktum says:

    Hey Poland. I had a dream about you last night: you wrote a book detailing your secret and passionate romance with Scarlett Johansson. I know, it has nothing to do with boxoffice (or reality, for that matter) but it amused me no end when I was startled awake. Made me jealous, too.

  15. Cadavra says:

    Come on, people! Why was the TALLEDEGA drop so low? Howzabout all those kids who bought tickets to it and then snuck down the hall and saw the R-rated SNAKES? This ain’t rocket surgery, to quote Mr. Roth.

  16. Tofu says:

    … I’m going to use that as an excuse for Barnyard’s drop too.
    Please don’t correct this theory. My opinion of the viewing public is already low enough as it is…

  17. Josh Massey says:

    So ALL kids who wanted to sneak into “Snakes” bought tickets to “Talladega” – likely the only other movie that would be sold out? Why wouldn’t it have been spread evenly over “Talladega,” “Accepted,” “Material Girls,” “World Trade Center,” “Step Up,” “Pirates,” etc.
    The theory doesn’t hold aqua.

  18. jeffmcm says:

    Teenage kids are not going to buy tickets for World Trade Center. Talk about a red flag for ushers.

  19. Eric says:

    Talladega Nights is “a true phenomenon?” Methinks that’s tossing the word around a little too easily.

  20. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    I reckon the Talladega theory may be good for a couple of million perhaps, but nothing majorly substantial.
    But just as Jeff said, no self-respecting teenage boy is gonna buy a ticket for something like Material Girls.
    Can I also point you to this:
    73.4% voted SoaP a 10 and only 5.8% rated it a 1 with not much going on inbetween. Makes me think that the film did reach all those people who have been obsessing over it for months, but not many others.
    Also, why don’t they have “comedy” as one of it’s genres. It seems pretty obvious that it’s meant to be.

  21. EDouglas says:

    “Teenage kids are not going to buy tickets for World Trade Center. Talk about a red flag for ushers.”
    Good point… wonder how much of that Barnyard money was actually kids/teens buying tickets to sneak into Snakes on a Plane. 🙂

  22. Sam says:

    I’m sure a lot of the IMDb ratings for Snakes are from people who are in love with the idea and haven’t actually seen the movie.

  23. Cadavra says:

    Teens aren’t going to buy a ticket for BARNYARD, either. I didn’t mean to imply that TALLADEGA was the only one they were buying tickets for, but to explain why its drop was lower than expected. Yes, some kids might have bought tickets for, say, ACCEPTED and then gone to SNAKES, but I’d think the majority that bought ACCEPTED would want to see that and had already seen TALLADEGA. It’s very common for teen-oriented PG-13 movies already in the marketplace to take a much-lower-than-expected dip the same week a must-see R-rated pic opens.

  24. martindale says:

    I’m sure SoaP will suffer a hefty drop this coming weekend, but this will be its best shot at a decent hold. Beerfest is the only competition for its target audience, and I doubt that one will open strongly.

  25. Chucky in Jersey says:

    Mojo has posted the actuals:
    S.O.A.P. — $13,806,311
    Talladega Nights — $13,755,387
    Add on the estimate from Thursday night and the clear winner is slithering toward you.
    FWIW the New York Post front-page headline today is “Snake On A Plane”. Clever way to tie in the flight back to the US by the prime suspect in the JonBenet Ramsey murder.

  26. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Lol, that’s funny (the headline, not the case itself. That’s weird and creepy)

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