MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Posted Sunday, October 8th, 2006 - 10 Comments »
Be Sociable, Share!

Sunday Estimates by Klady

Weekend (estimates) October 6 – 8, 2006
Title | Distributor | Gross (average) | % change | Theaters | Cume
The Departed | WB | 26.5 (8,790) | new | 3017 | 26.5
Texas Chainsaw: The Beginning | New Line | 19.1 (6,780) | new | 2820 | 19.1
Open Season | Sony | 15.9 (4,140) | -33% | 3833 | 44
Employee of the Month | Lions Gate | 11.7 (4,550) | new | 2579 | 11.7
The Guardian | BV | 9.7 (3,000) | -46% | 3241 | 32.5
Jackass: Number Two | Par | 6.4 (2,120) | -56% | 3007 | 62.7
School for Scoundrels | MGM | 3.5 (1,170) | -59% | 3007 | 14.1
The Gridiron Gang | Sony | 2.4 (1,060) | -48% | 2228 | 36.7
Fearless | Focus | 2.3 (1,400) | -55% | 1617 | 21.7
The Illusionist | YF/FS/Odeon | 1.8 (1,600) | -33% | 1149 | 34.1
Little Miss Sunshine | Fox Searchlight | 1.3 (1,540) | -36% | 824 | 55
Trailer Park Boys | Alliance | 1.2 (6,680) | new | 181 | 1.2
Flyboys | MGM | 1.1 (730) | -55% | 1471 | 11.9
Facing the Giants | IDP | 1.0 (2,250) | -27% | 435 | 2.7
The Science of Sleep | WIP/Seville | .74 (3,290) | -34% | 225 | 2.8
The Black Dahlia | Uni | .56 (600) | -74% | 931 | 22
Also debuting/expanding
The Queen | Miramax | .39 (35,270) | 132% | 11 | 0.62
The Last King of Scotland | Fox Searchlight | .29 (9,770) | 105% | 30 | 0.53
Love’s Abiding Joy | Bigger Pics | .13 (720) | new | 185 | 0.13
Alex Rider: Operation Stormbreaker | Alliance | .10 (900) | new | 115 | 0.1
Little Children | New Line | .10 (20,640) | new | 5 | 0.1
ShortBus | Thinkfilm | 77,300 (19,330) | new | 4 | 0.08
Not a lot more to say.

Be Sociable, Share!

10 Comments »

10 Responses to “Sunday Estimates by Klady”

  1. Monco says:
    October 8, 2006 at 3:51 pm

    Happy to see The Departed do so well, it’s a great film.

  2. austin111 says:
    October 8, 2006 at 5:13 pm

    Hmmmm….not bad for a 2.5 hour relatively hard R-Rated Flick. But it’ll be even more interesting to see how it holds up over time. I’m betting it’s still in a fair number of theaters up to December or so.

  3. AH says:
    October 8, 2006 at 5:26 pm

    I said it before and I’ll say it again; this thing will only do Inside Man business which, given its cost, means it will be much less profitable.
    Regardless of the box-office, it’s a pretty damn good movie.

  4. T.H.Ung says:
    October 8, 2006 at 5:32 pm

    20% more studio releases this year than last (303 vs. 251) because there’s more money in the market. Studios have used that money and put their own elsewhere. The rates of return aren’t materializing, so the money may go away. If it does, will the studios bring their own money back in? Marketing wants less movies because they can’t handle so many campaigns and distribution wants more because they want to hedge their bets and exhibitors do better with movies coming and going quickly. The multi-plexes were supposed to widen the offerings, but it hasn’t happened, the movies disappear fast or occupy multiple screens. (Paraphrased from Sunday Morning Shootout.)

  5. tfresca says:
    October 8, 2006 at 7:09 pm

    I’m very disappointed that Gridiron gang didn’t hang on. At this rate it won’t even limp to $50 million. A lot of studio folks are going to be disappointed. Nothing seems to be getting much traction. I stand by my previous statements that this will probably be the end of Jessica Simpson’s career as an actress.

  6. Argen says:
    October 8, 2006 at 9:20 pm

    Your mouth to God’s ear, tfresca. Hopefully she’ll take Cook down with her.

  7. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:
    October 9, 2006 at 12:12 am

    What happened to Little Children? A debut average of just over $20,000 is not what you want for a film gunning for Oscars.
    However, it’s interesting to note that In the Bedroom opened with very similar numbers on the same amount of screens. But that was from a newcomer, had only minimal buzz at the time, and didn’t have Kate Winslet and Jennifer Connoly in it.
    I still don’t understand why the producers went out and publicly stated they wanted a $30mil opening.

  8. Krazy Eyes says:
    October 9, 2006 at 12:48 pm

    What were the specifics of the Alex Rider: Project Stormbreaker release? 900 per screen average from 115 screen. Ouch! That’s pretty bad considering the popularity of the books and some of the actors appearing in the film.

  9. David Poland says:
    October 9, 2006 at 2:28 pm

    I never saw them suggest anything like that, Kami, but New Line didn’t advertise much. Up against two major films for adult audiences (The Queen and The Departed), low awareness of the release made it a sitting duck. They were lucky to do what they did.

  10. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:
    October 10, 2006 at 12:43 am

    Sorry, the $30mil comment was about the producers of The Departed. Or Warner Bros. One of those two came out and said they’re really looking for a $30mil opening.
    Lol, it was impossible for Little Children to do that.
    Krazy Eyes, Stormbreaker (which seems to go by a different title in every new country it opens in) also debuted horribly here in Australia, but when the school holidays started it eventually made it into the Top 10, maybe when it’s released into actual wide(ish?) release it’ll do better.
    Not that it looks any good mind you.
    Still, what’s with the titles? I’ve seen five different titles 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