MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Klady's 4-Day Estimates

Not many surprises this weekend

Be Sociable, Share!

38 Responses to “Klady's 4-Day Estimates”

  1. leocharney says:

    Wassup with LK saying We Are Marshall “received top marks from the critics”? Is that the critics in the Twilight Zone?

  2. mutinyco says:

    Deja vu is in awards play?

  3. EDouglas says:

    Borat’s more amazing because it did that number in the middle of the fall (or early holiday season depending on how you look at it). Dreamgirls had a full week where no one was in school and few people were working every day. I think we’ll know if this is truly a phenomenon next weekend as it loses people to work Friday/Sunday evening. Not trying to dis it.. I loved the movie and I’m glad it’s doing well. STill trying to find the time to see it a second time myself.

  4. martin says:

    Mutiny, I think Dave includes the Razzies in his list.

  5. martin says:

    I agree Borat was a bigger phenomenon to start, but Dreamgirls # is interesting because it’s not as pop-cult as Borat, and thus is likely to have longer legs. I have to say though, these DG #’s are not really that surprising to me. It’s been called the Oscar front runner for at least 6 months now and is at least a 3-quadrant with many popular faces.

  6. mutinyco says:

    Big difference between Borat and Dreamgirls. Dreamgirls has been a well-known property for 25 years and it stars 3 huge names. Borat was pretty much sold from scratch.

  7. EDouglas says:

    “Borat was pretty much sold from scratch.”
    Only if you don’t count the two seasons of Da Ali G Show on HBO and the years the character was around in the UK.

  8. jeffmcm says:

    And if you overlook the fact that plenty of people like myself had never heard of Dreamgirls (the show) before it was turned into a movie.

  9. mutinyco says:

    So well known, Ed, that in your review of Borat you called it “The Ali G. Show.”
    Anyhow, you’re both overlooking my other point. Which was the star sell.
    Either way, no way can these two movies be considered playing on an even field.

  10. David Poland says:

    Mutiny… kinda silly to say there is a ton of equity from 25 years ago when no more than a couple of million people (a BIG number, probbaly well overstated) ever saw the show. And it was tightly held and not revived in a big way (non-high school) in all that time.
    Of the 3 huge names, only Murphy has ever opened a movie in a big way.
    Borat was sold from scratch… screened widely for five months… same EW cover… much more actual hype going into the opening. And it was sold primarily to the biggest theatrical ticket-buying market, males 16-24, the weakest area of Dreamgirls’ game.
    I think both films made a good choice in how they released. Both had advantages going into thier opening weeks. But very different plays. And the idea that Borat was, at time of release, a less likely hit than Dreamgirls… no.
    Of course, I would still argue that Borat left tens of millions on the table because of its November release.
    And the box office story of Dreamgirls will really be written when it goes wide in a couple of weeks.

  11. jeffmcm says:

    You are correct. Apparently DP’s Dreamgirls-love trumps his Borat-mania.

  12. jeffmcm says:

    I was responding to Mutiny, not DP above.

  13. mutinyco says:

    I know I like my dreamgirls wide…

  14. Blackcloud says:

    “And if you overlook the fact that plenty of people like myself had never heard of Dreamgirls (the show) before it was turned into a movie.”
    Count me in that group.

  15. Who else is surprised that Night at the Museum could end up with $200mil. I thought it’d be a hit, but not like that.
    And even though it’s not going to recoup it’s budget, I’m impressed that The Good Shepherd has gotten as far as it’s got with zero awards.

  16. Tofu says:

    Casino Royale is now ahead of Die Another Day.
    Bond in his heaven.
    All is right with the world.

  17. klenches says:

    er, that Happy Feet cumulative is wrong. Mojo has it at $178m. Klady himself has the preweekend total at $168m. And Casino Royale still has about 5 mil to beat Die Another Day domestically.

  18. Rob says:

    Did anyone even know that Tiger and the Snow was opening this weekend? And can we all just be done with Benigni now?

  19. Wrecktum says:

    “And Casino Royale still has about 5 mil to beat Die Another Day domestically.”
    It’s ahead on the day-to-day numbers and will easily pass Die Another Day’s total gross.
    To me, this is the the most interesting boxoffice news of the season.

  20. Rob, we got that movie a few months back and I didn’t know it was opening here until I read a review in the paper. Same goes for in the US. I didn’t know it was opening until I saw the review rundown at IMDb.
    It pretty much died here too.

  21. martin says:

    Casino Royale #’s are huge, way bigger than I expected. And yet… I’m still not sure the public really likes Daniel Craig. To some extent I attribute the big #’s to the novelty of a new Bond – as well as good reviews/good word of mouth for the film in general. Whether Bond will catch on like Brosnan did 3-4 films in is a real question mark. People did like Brosnan as Bond, in spite of some really lame scripts in the middle there.

  22. Chicago48 says:

    To Marin, Re: Casino Royale. As someone who considers themself the “general public” – Generally I don’t follow Bond, but went to Casino because of curiousity; I like Craig as an actor, he has a certain flair about him; and it was just a darn good story.

  23. Stella's Boy says:

    But doesn’t Craig have a whole lot to do with those good reviews and good word of mouth? If people didn’t like him as Bond, would the WOM have been nearly as good?

  24. martin says:

    Stella: maybe, maybe not.

  25. Wrecktum says:

    Seems to me that Martin’s personal POV is getting in the way here. There’s no evidence to show that the public’s reaction to Craig is negative.

  26. Ian says:

    Martin is just pissed that his favorite website now has fewer recent hits than Stephen Seagal.

  27. martin says:

    On the contrary, I think Craig was an excellent choice. I’m just suggesting that his success as a popular Bond in not cemented from this one film. If Brosnan was in the part, it would have done similar #’s if perhaps 50 – 75- mill WW less. I simply think a lot of people went to see this because it was a new Bond, people liked the last ones and generally trust the franchise. If another actor was in the part, it probably would have done similar #’s. Really, Craig’s personal success in the role will be determined by his next 2 outings.

  28. Wrecktum says:

    OK…got it. When you said “I’m still not sure the public really likes Daniel Craig” I thought you meant that you didn’t think that audiences were fond of Craig’s performance. What you’re actually saying is that Craig has yet to prove himself bankable as a leading man. That I agree with. If Bond 22 ends up sucking as much as Die Another Day, will Craig’s star appeal push the final gross to $160m? Impossible to tell at this point.

  29. Lota says:

    I like Daniel Craig and I think he’s more masculine than Brosnan who never seemed tough enough to me to a ‘real’ successor to Sean Connery. I loved Brosnan in The Matador, but not as Bond.
    I am really pleased that the Bond franchise is still running despite major suspension of disbelief at the situations and I wasn’t happy with the last 3. lame Lame and LAME.
    I was fond of DC’s perf although I am just one sexist female.

  30. martin says:

    Brosnan’s 2nd and 3rd ones were pretty awful. That people kept showing up and in even great force for Die Another Day goes to show, at least to me, that people really liked him in the role, and his take on the character. Craig’s a whole other beast and time will tell whether he’s a hit or a miss.

  31. Lota says:

    ***SPOILER for SIn City***
    DAD for serious Bond afficiondos seem to be the worst for all, yet we still turned out in force because it’s BOND. I would always pay to see Bond, sometimes even twice because it’s Bond.
    You don;t see the same loyalty for Mission Impossible because it isn;t so deeply ingrained in Coolness over several generations. My dad was so bored with MI II he wouldn;t go to MI III (I did. mistake), but we would always go see Bond.
    If another MI is made it will lose money guaranteed. There is no spirit to ‘recapture’–the brand wasn;t bigger than Cruise.
    Bond is bigger than who is playing the lead and because the lead didn;t suck, it is cause for optimism. If they make another Bond I predict it will be bigger since the non-diehards will be attracted to it too.
    The IMDB, as flawed as it is, has more than 40,000 votes for the new Bond movie and from the comments it seems most were “pleasantly surprised”. 7.9/10 is the rating, which quite good for any movie made in the last 5 years, and that’s a lot of votes too. MI III in comparison got about 29K votes and the rating was 6.9. MI II was even worse. Borat also has the rating of 7.9 but not as many votes cast.
    for future Bonds I suggest Marv from Sin City somehow ends up in it, pre-death of course (and not a villain, since he “doesn’t hurt girls”).

  32. Tofu says:

    The next Bond will be a $50 million opener, no question. Here’s to hoping $600 million is in the works next time.
    MI:3 is most admired of the the series, and it can continue on without Cruise, but I couldn’t blame anyone for trying to stay away from that challenge.

  33. Just like the discussion we were having the other day about musicals, Casino Royale may be good, but if the next one, two or three are all shitty then it’s back to square one. The quality doesn’t merely rest on the shoulders of who plays Bond.
    Also, for those interested (ie; maybe two people) Happy Feet nearly made $10mil in 7 days down here. That’s like making $100mil in America. So, uh, it’s a big giant hit.

  34. Oh, I was looking at the box office numbers in American Currency. It actually made $12mil in Australian dollars, which would transfer to $120mil in American box office terms.

  35. jeffmcm says:

    I don’t know how anyone could suggest a Mission: Impossible 4 without Cruise. The ‘franchise’ as begun in the television series was never really followed except for the occasional appearance of some rubber masks; it was always just a way for Cruise to have his own action-movie series with some built-in name recognition for marketing purposes. It’s become a series purely about its star/producer, and without him it’s nothing, unless they go back to the TV roots and make an actual ensemble twisty spy thriller.

  36. I remain steadfast in my opinion that Tom Cruise didn’t turn loopy just recently, but that it was with Mission: Impossible 2 when he kept yammering on about how did all those stunts himself including hanging off the grand canyon (or the actual location that I can’t remember the name of, obviously) and that everyone was telling him how dangerous it was but he was so brave.

  37. Cadavra says:

    I would love to see MI:4 revert to an ensemble a la the original series. Batman and Bond reinvigorated themselves by going back to basics, so why not this?

  38. They can’t do that for at least 10 years.

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