MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Box Office Hell – 09/01/06

bohell0901.jpg

Be Sociable, Share!

15 Responses to “Box Office Hell – 09/01/06”

  1. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Wicker Man‘s numbers look right, but I think Crank could reach $15mil. Bored teenagers with no Snakes anyway. Wait… that came out wrong.

  2. jeffmcm says:

    Crank is getting surprisingly good reviews.

  3. EDouglas says:

    Wasn’t on my chart cause I think Crossover will make less than $4 million all weekend.

  4. Direwolf says:

    This flap over reviews of not yet completed theatre productions in Chicago seems to fit in nicely with some of the discussion on this blog:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/31/theater/31crit.html

  5. Direwolf says:

    Cruise works on image repair:
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/sns-ap-people-shields,1,2783987.story?track=rss
    I still look forward to the articles based on the box officeof his next few films.

  6. Direwolf says:

    Sorry to be so chatty this AM but accoding to the following URL, The Hot Blog is worth $136,000. Way to go, DP. In my business, the next question is how do you monetize it?
    http://www.business-opportunities.biz/projects/how-much-is-your-blog-worth/
    OH yeah, my blog is worth just $1,100 🙁

  7. EDouglas says:

    Not sure if David’s around today or in Telluride but:
    1. CRANK UNIVERSAL 2,515 3,265,000 1,298 n/a 3,265,000
    2. INVINCIBLE BVI 2,921 2,988,000 1,023 -44% 25,628,000
    3. WICKERMAN, THE WARNER BROS. 2,784 2,743,000 985 n/a 2,743,000
    4. LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE FOX SEARCHLIGHT 1,602 1,821,000 1,137 -11% 27,919,000
    5. ILLUSIONIST, THE YARI FILM GROUP 889 1,588,000 1,786 230% 5,569,200
    6. TALLADEGA NIGHTS: THE BALLAD OF RICKY BOBBY SONY 3,001 1,515,000 505 -40% 132,192,000
    7. ACCEPTED UNIVERSAL 2,819 1,266,000 449 -40% 24,792,000
    8. CROSSOVER SONY 1,023 1,162,000 1,136 n/a 1,162,000
    9. STEP UP BVI 2,553 1,156,000 453 -41% 54,007,000
    10. WORLD TRADE CENTER PARAMOUNT 3,021 1,075,000 356 -40% 58,978,000

  8. Chucky in Jersey says:

    (1) Is Mr. P’s table based on 3-day or 4-day estimates? This is a 4-day weekend in the US and Canada.
    (2) “The Illusionist” in the Friday top 5 — whowoulda thunkit? The Clairidge arthouse in Montclair added it yesterday — one week AFTER the AMC megaplex in Hamilton.
    (3) “Crank” is a Lionsgate release.

  9. EDouglas says:

    Chucky, those are copied directly from Showbizdata (probably should have provided a link: http://www.showbizdata.com/dailybox.cfm…my bad).. and they do make errors like that one.
    I believe that most of those predictions are based on 4-day.
    Yeah, I’m very impressed with The Illusionist… It’s definitely a success for the Yari Film Group, one I don’t expect them to repeat with Haven.

  10. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Direwolf, mine is worth $17,500.74
    http://kamikazecamel.blogspot.com/
    Go me!

  11. EDouglas says:

    Someone had to do it:
    hollywood-elsewhere.com is worth $210,573.42
    deadlinehollywooddaily.com is worth $387,274.44
    Then again, I’m sure moviecitynews as a whole is worth more than both those combined.

  12. David Poland says:

    Actually, I doubt MCN is so valued by whatever crazy system they are using on that site.
    The reality of MCN on those sites is that we don’t use ad servers and therefore, for reasons I don’t know but have been told about by web pros, we don’t register anything but a small fraction of our numbers. I imagine our Alexa ranking is similarly inaccurate.

  13. Blackcloud says:

    Those numbers are probably based on click-throughs, that is, people clicking on the ads generated by the ad servers. The more people click on the ads, the greater a site’s value. At least, that’s how I think it works.

  14. EDouglas says:

    This place is a bit more accurate than Alexa for web rankings:
    http://ranking.websearch.com
    Never quite figure what it all meant, because having a lot of traffic doesn’t always mean making money… but I’m just glad I don’t have to deal with any of that stuff. 🙂

  15. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Technorati (the system that the original link was using) is a page that monitors how often your blog/site is linked from other blogs/sites and ranks it.
    …so… i dunno. Technorati has nothing to do with ads. I don’t have ads on my 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