MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Box Office Hell

Coming Soon | Box Office Guru | Box Office Prophet | EW | Box Office Mojo
Epic Movie | 20.6 | 14 | 19.4 | 16 | 14
Smokin’ Aces | 14.1 | 8 | 11.9 | 7 | 10.3
Night At The Museum | 8.1 | 8 | 8.1 | 8 | –
Stomp The Yard | 7 | 7 | 6.3 | – | –
Catch & Release | 5.7 | 7 | 6.8 | 11 | 4.6
Dreamgirls | 5.6 | 6 | 8.7 | 8 | –
Blood & Chocolate | 3.3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 1.7

Be Sociable, Share!

11 Responses to “Box Office Hell”

  1. LYT says:

    Dear lord, are there actually people who want to see Epic Movie? I was paid to see it, and feel like I really earned my money the hard way.
    Smokin’ Aces has its flaws, but I can at least understand what people get out of it.

  2. MattM says:

    SBD has:
    Epic Movie–6.7
    Smokin Aces–5
    Catch and Release–2.7
    Night at the Museum–2.2
    Stomp the Yard–2.1
    Looks like the experts lowballed Smokin’ Aces (unless it melts down today and tomorrow), highballed Museum, and, especially if Catch and Release skews older and gets a bump, substantially underestimated it.

  3. Stella's Boy says:

    I don’t think Catch and Release was “substantially underestimated.” The average of the predictions for it is $7 million, and it will make about $8 million.

  4. Chicago48 says:

    This is a pathetic boxo – especially the BP noms, thought at least DG would be top 5, with Pan’s 6 and others following behind. What does this say about the future of movies? Are we relegated to CGI-big budgeted slab? If the BP noms can’t get people in the door, I am afraid for the future.

  5. jeffmcm says:

    Now that I’ve seen Smokin’ Aces, I can say that it’s okay, good craft (cinematography, editing) at the service of a pretty mediocre script that feels out of date. It’s definitely mired in a post-Tarantino mindset. But it’s better than Domino.

  6. EDouglas says:

    ‘But it’s better than Domino.”
    But couldn’t one say that about every single movie ever made?

  7. Cadavra says:

    You didn’t see MARIE ANTOINETTE, did you? 😉

  8. James Leer says:

    I did, and it’s far better than Domino.

  9. Cadavra says:

    O-o-o-o-o-kay…

  10. Lota says:

    Marie Antoinette was as dull as Domino was bad. They both were bad extended commericals really and didn;t seem like feature films at all.

  11. jeffmcm says:

    Domino was worse. But it was still better than Flyboys (now on DVD! Don’t rent it!)

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