MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Box Office Hell 12/22 (4 days)

Box Office Mojo Friday Numbers
1 | Night At The Museum | $12,250,000 | 3,685 | $12,250,000 / 1
2 | The Pursuit Of Happyness | $5,300,000 | 2,863 | $43,587,000 / 8
3 | Rocky Balboa | $5,000,000 | 3,017 | $14,693,000 / 3
4 | The Good Shepherd | $3,500,000 | 2,215 | $3,500,000 / 1
5 | Charlotte’s Web (2006) | $3,150,000 | 3,728 | $21,959,000 / 8
6 | Eragon | $2,750,000 | 3,030 | $33,246,000 / 8
7 | We Are Marshall | $2,700,000 | 2,606 | $2,700,000 / 1
8 | The Holiday | $1,825,000 | 2,635 | $31,918,000 / 15
9 | Happy Feet | $1,800,000 | 2,565 | $155,756,000 / 36
10 | The Nativity Story | $1,550,000 | 1,824 | $28,235,000 / 22

Be Sociable, Share!

11 Responses to “Box Office Hell 12/22 (4 days)”

  1. EDouglas says:

    Actually, my predictions (ComingSoon) were *supposed* to be three-day but since they’ll probably be closer to four-day (except Night), I should probably keep my big mouth shut this time 🙂

  2. Aladdin Sane says:

    Whomever is behind the marketing for Charlotte’s Web, they dropped the ball big time it seems.
    I have seen maybe two ads for it on TV. Mind you I haven’t been looking that hard, but it seems to me you’d wanna market this one to adults as much as kids, since a lot of adults will have grown up watching the cartoon version.
    Anyhow…I dunno, it seems like perfect family fare. Maybe they should have got Ben Stiller to play Mr. Zuckerman.

  3. martin says:

    Ed, it does look like a slower than expected weekend. Rocky’s # is lower than I expected, but all the #’s are kinda weak except for Night.

  4. sky_capitan says:

    And how many millions were/will_be lost because DVD ‘for your consideration’ screeners of The Pursuit of Happyness and Rocky Balboa were leaked in the last few days? Even “We Are Marshall,” “Blood Diamonds,” etc. I’m guessing “Dreamgirls” and others soon will too.
    The answer once again to this problem? Don’t send the dvd screeners out because it doesn’t matter if these dvd’s are watermarked (and all the costs associated with it), they always leak anyway. Is it really a sound business decision throwing away money like this every year? I wouldn’t do it.
    The only movie I really want to see in the top10 is The Good Shepherd (going this thursday) and maybe Night At The Museum for fun.

  5. jeffmcm says:

    It would also be nice to force voters to see movies in theaters. But nothing will change because the short-term gain (Awards attention) will outweigh the long-term cost (piracy) and people are always worried about their job in the short-term.

  6. EDouglas says:

    I think it’s especially odd that they sent out screeners of Notes on a Scandal *after* most of the early awards had been announced or nominated but still before it hits theatres. Most guild, Academy members are able to get into public screenings for free using their cards, so it seems odd that they’d risk a bootleg of the movie being available before it hits theatres.

  7. Aladdin, there’s been a tonne of Charlotte’s Web ads here still (where it’s been out for three weeks) yet it’s not exactly setting our box office on fire. Although it did only drop 3% in it’s second week, but considering it didn’t really make the earth move in it’s debut it’s hardly that encouraging.

  8. Chucky in Jersey says:

    In the States “Charlotte’s Web” had at least 1 print ad with an Xmas tie-in. Unfortunately the ad ran on Xmas Day when most people don’t read newspapers. “Happy Feet” (which I saw — could have been better) also has Xmas-related ads.
    And I was shocked — SHOCKED! — to see “The Good Shepherd” sell out in a megaplex. A wet kiss to the CIA, released by a studio whose owners are major Bush supporters. (Dubya’s daddy Poppy ran the Agency in the 70’s).

  9. Blackcloud says:

    Yes, it’s an incredible surprise to see a movie with so many no-name actors, a no-name director, and that had trailers running before such obscure films as Casino Royale, hit the multiplexes. Really, what were they thinking?

  10. palmtree says:

    Yeah, and the fact that this phenomenon happened around the opening weekend is equally unprecedented! Must be Karl Rove’s handiwork.

  11. jeffmcm says:

    Chucky, don’t _all_ of the studios have a connection to the Bush administration, in your world? Do you actually see any of these movies you allege to be right-wing?

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