MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Klady's Friday Estimates

Borat is up about 4%, Friday-to-Friday. It will be interesting to see what the Saturday number looks like, which should give a more accurate idea of what kind of traction the film is getting with adults who were not stepping forward in tracking a few weeks ago.
Fox has done well, though personally, my fear for them is that they have sold the phenomenon too much, sticking with their EW obsession through most of the week before switching to

Be Sociable, Share!

29 Responses to “Klady's Friday Estimates”

  1. EDouglas says:

    Obligatory “I hate Borat” response.
    Oh, I mean… “First!!!” 🙂

  2. martin says:

    Top of the chart looks very similar to last weeks. Which is not so surprising for Borat, but good news for SC3 and FA. I guess A Good Year bombed?

  3. EDouglas says:

    Good Year bombed BIG time (will make less per theatre than The Return and Harsh Times which were tracking worse)… really, there’s no excuse for it either. Obviously, FOx was too focused on Borat to really give AGY the proper attention even though Russell Crowe did the rounds. It reminds me of this past summer when Fox was releasing a lot of movies and things like X-Men and Prada were doing fine while others (like Reitman’s movie) got lost in the shuffle, probably because they were too difficult to market properly.
    I really didn’t think A Good Year was that bad, and I think in the proper context, it’s actually a fun movie… but going into it expecting a movie like Gladiator, you’re bound for disappointment.
    Maybe this just wasn’t the right weekend to release it with two other stronger comedies and other fare for older adults.

  4. sky_capitan says:

    Isn’t Diane Lane supposed to be in movies like “A Good Year?” She would have made it successful.
    Although it’s a rotten title. Everytime I heard the title “A Good Year” I thought of the Good Year Blimp or Good Year Tires.

  5. Direwolf says:

    I suspect that the SC3 and FA numbers were boosted by the Veteran’s Day holiday which meant school was off in some places. That might limit the usual Saturday bumps for these family films.
    Since I follow Lionsgate stock closely I’ll note that Saw 3 is now running about $2.5 million behind Saw 2. No issues with the profitabilyt but if that franchise has peaked, LGF needs to find something to drive growth.

  6. Wrecktum says:

    Both “A Good Year” and “Stranger Than Fiction” are awful titles. I’ve been calling them “The Russell Crowe movie” and the “Will Farrell movie” because I can never remember the names.
    Expect Santa Clause 3 to beat Flushed Away for the weekend (it plays younger). Great on Borat…$30m is not out of reach!

  7. Tofu says:

    Damn, that iFilms clip keeps crashing FireFox…
    SC3 & FA are still neck and neck, right along with Prestige & Departed. Any chance for a FA break away? Which one will be hurt more by Happy Feet next weekend?
    Ouch for Harsh Times and A Good Year. Two flicks with exact opposite titles, and almost zero reason given to the audience to come out for them. HT was shelved, looks budget and muddy… While A Good Year might have come too soon, and looks haughtily expensive. While HT at least had a under-marketed Training Day vibe, what audience were they aiming for with A Good Year? “Whoa is me, I’m a lady killer in childhood and adulthood who has to chose between the my rich big city life or my rich country estate life.” Ugh.
    Borat hitting $25 million? Stranger Than Fiction staying at only #4? Tomorrow will tell.

  8. martin says:

    Borat is doing very well, but here’s a question: If it had opened wide to the $40 mill or so last weekend, wouldn’t it have done around 25 or so this weekend anyway? Says to me $10-15 mill has been left on the table. If it does close to 20 mill next weekend, some of that money will be recovered, as 40-25-14 would have been likely, and 25-27-19 is I think reasonable.

  9. Tofu says:

    That’ll be the question that simply can never be answered. A loss of $15 million because of lack of theaters? Seems a bit high.
    The next two weeks, however, are packed. Getting as much bank as possible, as quickly as possible, might have worked out better.

  10. martin says:

    My feeling has always been that on pop-culture icons, the faster the better. Austin Powers 2, Pirates 2, you want to open huge to start. I think they underestimated the Borat appeal with the 800, but who knows. It’s still going to make a shitload of money.

  11. machiav says:

    As good as Borat is doing domestically, worldwide numbers should also be hefty.

  12. jeffmcm says:

    You’re not strengthening your case, Edouglas.

  13. Wreck, Stranger than Fiction isn’t a bad title, but A Good Year certainly is. Could it be any more bland? The trailer for that movie was awful, no wonder it flopped.
    My guess for Borat was correct. $35mil seemed like a bit of a stretch.
    The thing with Borat is, I don’t think it would have made $40mil in opening if it opened on 2700 screens or whatever.

  14. martin says:

    Kam, perhaps. Though based on # of sellouts, I’d say $35 was at least a possibility.

  15. marychan says:

    I can’t blame Fox marketing department for the failure of A GOOD YEAR. For that kind of movies, getting mostly negative reviews is a sign of death; on the other word, A GOOD YEAR is already died when it received mostly negative reviews, and no one can save it….
    The only think Fox did wrong is that they released this movie in too many theaters and gave it too big marketing campaign. They should dump it in fewer than 1000 theaters with lower-profile marketing campaign.

  16. JWEgo says:

    Hey so the criminal Joe Drake might lose his shirt on FICTION.
    Thank fuck.

  17. martin says:

    I heard Joe Drake is trying to get into business with Stephen Norrington for the League sequel.

  18. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    Looking forward to seeing HARSH TIMES again and to see if its been altered since its debut Toronto 2yrs ago. I highly recommend it – its flawed but its pretty damn riveting for most of its running time.

  19. Chucky in Jersey says:

    “Borat” killed “A Good Year”, wounded “Babel” and wounded “The Queen”. A lot of upmarket theaters opened “Borat”.
    Not only that, the “Babel” ad in the Newark Star-Ledger on Friday had theaters for … Connecticut. 🙁
    I suspect that the SC3 and FA numbers were boosted by the Veteran’s Day holiday which meant school was off in some places.
    Schools were closed in New Jersey (annual teachers’ convention) but open everywhere else.

  20. Cadavra says:

    Wow, a light romantic comedy directed by Ridley Scott and starring Russell Crowe bombed. What’re the odds?

  21. Lynn says:

    I wonder if Ridley Scott will figure out that Fox has done him no favors in recent years. First eviscerating Kingdom of Heaven (the director’s cut should have been released) and now failing to market A Good Year. Though I think Russell Crowe’s arrogant performance on 60 Minutes the previous week did the movie no favors.
    Oh well, at least they have Denzel to help them open their next movie. As he’s been paid twice for it, hopefully he’ll be enthusiastic enough to do the publicity Crowe can’t pull off successfully.

  22. jeffmcm says:

    How has Denzel been paid twice?

  23. Stella's Boy says:

    I’m guessing that she means Denzel got paid for it the first time back when Antoine Fuqua was going to direct it, before the plug got pulled because of the soaring budget.

  24. jeffmcm says:

    Well if they were concerned about a soaring budget, they shouldn’t have paid Denzel twice.

  25. Lynn says:

    Both Denzel and previous co-star Benecio del Toro had pay or play deals, back when Antoine Fuqua was going to direct:

    and then…

    but nope, back to Denzel, after he was paid out the first time:

    I’m hopeful that Denzel and Crowe will fare better here than the last time they worked together 🙂

  26. jeffmcm says:

    I don’t see where it says that Washington was paid a second time.

  27. Lynn says:

    From Variety:
    Pouring a double – ‘Gangster’ has a second payday
    Universal’s do-over on “American Gangster” has led to a flurry of creative dealmaking, placing Denzel Washington in a lucrative position to get two paydays for the same film.
    “Gangster” was weeks away from lensing when it was scrubbed by U in late 2004. Washington, whose quote is said to be $20 million per pic, was to star opposite Benicio Del Toro, with Antoine Fuqua at the helm. But with the budget threatening to surge past $100 million, U pulled the plug after Fuqua ankled over creative differences.
    Both Washington and del Toro were pay-or-play, and U was forced to settle their contracts for more than $20 million.
    The costs were written off, and when producer Brian Grazer sought to get the project rolling a second time, U wiped the budget slate clean.
    Terry George was brought on to write a new script with plans to direct Don Cheadle, but in February Ridley Scott took over and Washington returned to the cast, along with Russell Crowe, who takes over del Toro’s role.
    But since the “Gangster” redux is being treated as a new pic, Washington had to make a new deal.
    He isn’t collecting his $20 million quote twice, but between the two “Gangster” paydays and his deal to star in “Inside Man,” Washington is taking in more than $40 million.
    Also cashing in for a second time is scribe Steven Zaillian, who penned the last draft when Fuqua was attached. Last month he landed a seven-figure deal to rewrite his old script under Scott’s supervision.
    Date in print: Mon., Apr. 17, 2006
    So, no, he’s not being paid his full quote twice, but $40 million+ for two movies is still a pretty sweet deal. Not that I’m criticizing. If the studio actually paid out on a pay-or-play instead of trying to roll it into a new deal at the time, that’s their business, and I guess they had their reasons.

  28. jeffmcm says:

    Yep, I’m sure it seemed like a good idea at the time. What a retarded business, though.

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