MCN Columnists
Leonard Klady

By Leonard Klady Klady@moviecitynews.com

Ring In The New …

January 7, 2007
Weekend Estimates
Domestic Market Share

Night at the Museum exacted a cinematic hat trick, remaining the weekend top grosser with an estimated $24.1 million. The New Year arrived with a trio of freshmen releases that scored good to fair openings while holdover titles generally withstood the transition well. Overall it added up to a slight increase from 2006 revenues.

The biggest of the new entries was Freedom Writers, a distaff To Sir with Love repping a genre that generally has sure-fire appeal. Its $9.8 million tally ranked 4th overall. Two rungs down the animated Happily N’Ever After – a Cinderella spoof that follows in the steps of Hoodwinked’s jab at Little Red Riding Hood – had passable returns of $6.7 million.

Yet to make a smooth transition from comedy stages to the screen, Cedric the Entertainer inCode Name: The Cleaner eked out $4.3 million to finish 12th on the roster. The session also bowed Thr3e a thriller targeted at the niche Christian market that passed on a warm embrace with a tepid $770,000 gross.

The weekend also saw a bold stepped up expansion of the critical hit Children of Men that worked effectively. It slotted third with $10.3 million and an $8,530 screen average. More modest expansions were accorded such award contenders as Notes on a Scandal, Perfume: Story of a Murdererand Miss Potter.

While the jury’s still out on the unconventional strategy of Dreamgirls (it adds 1,000 theaters next week), industry insiders are making noises about how millions were left on the table as a result of its limited exposure during the holidays. The sense is that it didn’t require critical acclaim to establish its wide popularity.

The final numbers of 2006 (see attached chart) rang up $9.23 billion for a modest 3.8% boost from the prior calendar and no more than a flutter of difference in actual admissions. Sony enjoyed market share bragging rights but arguably third ranked Fox had the most impressive year with two very big over-performers in The Devil Wears Prada and Borat.

Last summer there were good indications that all six majors would each record $1 billion in domestic ticket sales but Paramount just missed the cut (the Dreamgirls factor?) and Universal had a final quarter that proved to be a commercial bust.

The studio specialty wings with the exception of Fox Searchlight were struggling to make a difference and most fell well below a 1% market share. While that has worked well for Sony Classics, it doesn’t fit the template for Warner Independent, Miramax or the future aspirations of Paramount Classics.

Lions Gate continues as the sole independent with better than niche status. The prospect that the Weinstein Company would rise out of the ashes of Miramax certainly has not occurred in part as a result of its distribution marriage to MGM. However, even when one incorporates that slate into the equation the picture fails to brighten or suggest the feisty qualities of shrewd acquisitors and adroit marketers of its past legacy.

Overall, the numbers and what they represent fall short of conveying anything other than stasis. Whatever the lessons of 2006, both the successes and mistakes of its reign appear doomed to be repeated.

– Leonard Klady

Weekend Estimates – January 5 – 7, 2007

Title
Distributor
Gross (averag
% chang
Theater
Cume
Night at the Museum
Fox
24.1 (6,470)
-34%
3730
164.2
The Pursuit of Happyness
Sony
13.2 (4,370)
-32%
3027
124.3
Children of Men
Uni
10.3 (8,530)
1209
11.9
Freedom Writers
Par
9.8 (7,210)
1360
9.8
Dreamgirls
Par
8.8 (10,370)
-37%
852
54.5
Happily Never After
Lions Gate
6.7 (2,820)
2381
6.7
Charlotte’s Web
Par
6.6 (1,990)
-44%
3303
66.9
The Good Shepherd
Uni
6.6 (2,920)
-40%
2250
48.5
Rocky Balboa
MGM
6.3 (2,080)
-41%
3018
60.9
We Are Marshall
WB
5.2 (2,070)
-36%
2502
35.5
Eragon
Fox
4.5 (1,730)
-45%
2625
66.7
Code Name: The Cleaner
New Line
4.3 (2,490)
1736
4.3
The Holiday
Sony
4.1 (1,510)
-39%
2698
59.1
Happy Feet
WB
3.9 (1,530)
-49%
2565
185.3
Blood Diamond
WB
3.8 (1,980)
-22%
1920
43.9
Casino Royale
Sony
3.1 (2,420)
-33%
1266
159.9
Black Christmas
MGM
1.9 (1,240)
-50%
1504
15.3
Apocalypto
BV
1.6 (1,730)
-52%
903
47.1
Notes on a Scandal
Searchlight
1.1 (11,830)
163%
93
2
The Queen
Miramax
1.0 (3,190)
10%
323
29.9
Thr3e
Bigger Pic
.77 (1,680)
458
0.77
Pan’s Labyrinth
Picturehouse
.72 (16,360)
27%
44
1.8
Volver
Sony Class/S
.61 (4,840)
-2%
126
6.5
Perfume
Par
.59 (2,110)
280
0.7
The Painted Veil
WIP
.51 (7,080)
40%
72
1.3
Weekend Total ($500,000+ Films)
$130.10
% Change (Last Year)
5%
% Change (Last Week)
-17%
Also debuting/expanding
Curse of the Golden Flower
Sony Classics
.36 (5,480)
-19%
66
2.2
Little Children
New Line
.35 (3,240)
123%
103
3
Miss Potter
MGM
.12 (4,540)
1080%
26
0.14
The Good German
WB
81,000 (4,050)
-30%
20
0.63
Letter from Iwo Jima
WB
78,000 (15,600)
-11%
5
0.47

Domestic Market Share: Jan 1 – Dec 31, 2006

Distributor (releases)
Gross
Percentage
% Chang
Rank ’05
Sony (33)
1718.1
18.60%
87%
5
Buena Vista (25)
1474.4
16.00%
60%
4
Fox (28)
1398.6
15.20%
3%
2
Warner Bros. (25)
1065.9
11.60%
-23%
1
Paramount (18)
949.9
10.30%
15%
6
Universal (21)
816.6
8.90%
-19%
3
Lions Gate (18)
333.8
3.60%
17%
10
New Line (13)
253.2
2.70%
-40%
7
Weinstein Co. (14)
226.5
2.40%
383%
17
Focus (13)
184.8
2.00%
15%
12
MGM (11)
166.8
1.80%
-9%
11
Fox Searchlight (14)
165.6
1.80%
62%
14
Sony Classics (23)
59.3
0.60%
-6%
15
FreeStyle (9)
56
0.60%
N/A
N/A
Other * (290)
361.6
3.90%
-9%
9231.1
100.00%
3.80%
* DreamWorks ranked seventh; Miramax ninth in 2005
Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Klady

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