MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Box Office Hell – March 30, 2007

Updated – Friday @ 11a
The Earlier Chart

Be Sociable, Share!

25 Responses to “Box Office Hell – March 30, 2007”

  1. I have a feeling Meet the Robinsons will do quite well. G-rated Disney computer animation. Plus they’ll have extra from the higher-priced 3D showings.
    I’m seeing TMNT tonight. I wish they’d released the original movies on DVD so I could watch them instead.

  2. Me says:

    3D, about the only reason I want to see it, will only be available in about 600 theaters, so it is unlikely to make that much of a difference for this weekend’s box office take.
    The real question is whether 3D is a trend or a blip in the future of exhibition (as a recent story suggested). People will pay for the premium now, but are they going to want to see every movie in the future wearing those annoying glasses? Or just for event movies? Or will it go the way of… well… the original 3D?

  3. movielocke says:

    those MTR numbers seem low, I imagine it’ll have a broader appeal than TMNT.
    “I have a big head and stubby little arms!”
    It just feels more like Pixar in the ads (Lassetar’s touch?) and I think that’s going to benefit it tremendously.

  4. Cadavra says:

    A friend of mine went to an early 3-D screening and said the program includes the classic 3-D Donald Duck cartoon WORKING FOR PEANUTS. Shocking that they’re not mentioning this in the ads, as it might bring in old fogies who appreciate the classic Disney shorts.

  5. jeffmcm says:

    I agree MTR should do better than expected, it feels like it’s been a while since there was a younger-kids movie out that was fun and light, and even though it’s no Ice Age it should do fairly well.

  6. Lota says:

    If all those numbers are right, including the other movies still in release, this will be a big BO weekend. Many are traveling for various spring breaks this weekend and next, I think it’s all overestimated.
    The MTR trailer I saw was met with a stony silence, Rattatouille a big bang. Rattatouille will do great.
    to the calcified man (yeah that’s You Cadavra): Advertizing D-duck might pull in a few oldies, but Old fogeys in my big family (like my Dad) buy DVDs mostly. I can get him out for something like The Departed but he won;t go once a week anymore since he’s seen so many bad movies this last year.
    I’ll go just for Donald duck but that’s about it–the MTR trailers were really uninspiring.

  7. LexG says:

    I’m no doubt way off on this, but anyone else getting a vibe that BLADES OF GLORY could be one of those rare, inexplicable disappointments that big comic stars seem to have and then bounce back from immediately, with no particular reason why one arbitrary comedy tanked when the one before and the one after did boffo business?
    It just has kind of that rushed, slightly low-rent vibe that afflicted Sandler’s surprise flop, “Little Nicky,” and Stiller/Jack Black’s “Envy,” to name just a few. Though it’s not far off in terms of subject matter and style from “Talledega Nights,” it seems (though I’ve not seen it) more along the lines of his kiddie soccer movie in terms of it being a slap-together made by other hands.
    Watch it make 60 mil now.
    And hey, there hasn’t been a good place to ask, but is April officially POTBOILER MONTH? Seems like EVERY weekend next month there’s at least one and sometimes two completely bland, 1996-style suspense movies.

  8. What I don’t get about Blades of Glory is how shoddy it looks technically. The closeups of Ferrell and Heder on the ice look like a shoddy 1940s rear projection job.
    Did America get those weird Meet the Robinsons ads where it was a band of frogs singing to the tune of “Heard it on the Grapevine” all about turning you phone off and not eating too loudly. They were bizarre. But the “I have a big head and little arms” line always kills.
    You’d think the print ads at least would have in the corner “Featuring the classic Daffy Duck cartoon Working for Peanuts” or something. It’s not like that would deter people, right?

  9. Wrecktum says:

    That’s Donald, not Daffy, Kamikaze.
    The Working For Peanuts short is the best piece of 3D in the whole Meet the Robinsons presentation. Definitely worth advertising.

  10. Skyblade says:

    I don’t think Little Nicky and Envy were abritrary failures. The former was a special effects comedy, which go awry more often than not because spending massive amounts of money on something that’s supposed to be silly can often be very ugly looking. And depicting the Prince of Darkness in a sympathetic light might not have gone over so well with a lot of Sandler’s audience (or namely the parents that take them).
    Envy was a black comedy, which tried to mix stupid humor with the main character doing awful, awful things. Dark comedies have a hard enough time doing business when they’re good, but a psychological exploration of man’s sinister side doesn’t go well with dumb comedy.

  11. jeffmcm says:

    I think those two movies were primarily poorly marketed, plus they just both looked like stinkers. I would like to blame the special FX-heaviness of Little Nicky before anything else.
    LexG, I think you’re right: between Vacancy and Fractured and Perfect Stranger there’s a lot of melodramatic thriller gunk coming out all at once.

  12. movielocke says:

    I saw Blades of Glory several weeks ago, I thought it was Dumb and Dumber/Tommy Boy good (that’s high praise for me). It’s by far the most on point consistently funny broad comedy Farrell has made (Anchorman has really funny bits followed by acres of running time when it’s incredibly dull, Talladega not as bad, but similar problem).
    Then again, I’ve had Cutting Edge inflicted upon me several times as it’s one of my Mom’s favorites, so I especially loved Blades of Glory because of that experience.

  13. Direwolf says:

    Showbizdata has 12.5 million for Blades and 7.5 million for MTR. MTR will get a big bump of 60-70% today and probably head to $32 or so for the weekend. I guess Blades probalby goes to mid 30s and wins the weekend.

  14. Direwolf says:

    Bad math. MTR more like $30 for the weekend.

  15. jeffmcm says:

    Whoops, I guess MTR wasn’t as exciting to the family audience as I was thinking. And I guess Blades is not the Kicking & Screaming-esque flop some were expecting.

  16. Cadavra says:

    Yo, Lota: if you’re gonna go just for Donald Duck, then you just classified yourself with the Old Fogies! 😀

  17. Lota says:

    Bonehead! Sorry Cadavra, that just slipped out.
    I stayed for the entire show, so that subs a decade of my age, ok?

  18. Lota says:

    OFF my age. 😛

  19. LexG says:

    April = The Reaping, Fractured, Disturbia, Perfect Stranger, Vacany, and Next.
    All of them SO 1996. (Except maybe Next, which is SO Novemeber 2006, if you get my Deja drift.)

  20. jeffmcm says:

    The Reaping is probably closer to that slew of films in 1999-2000 that included End of Days, Lost Souls, Stigmata, etc.

  21. LexG says:

    Good call on The Reaping.
    Why is it coming out on a THURSDAY?
    Also, anyone predicting some fallout from releasing GRINDHOUSE (and maybe THE REAPING) on Easter weekend? Didn’t SIN CITY come out the same weekend the last pope died, and there was some to-do about Americans going to see this ultraviolent movie on such a tragic weekend.
    Then again, I’ve not read to prognostications. Is GRINDHOUSE even going to hit Number One next weekend? Given that it’s a yee-haw WILD HOGS/flyover kinda year, I wouldn’t be surprised if FIREHOUSE DOG or ARE WE THERE YET? takes the pole.

  22. “The Reaping is probably closer to that slew of films in 1999-2000 that included End of Days, Lost Souls, Stigmata, etc.”
    Let us never speak of those movies ever again. I predict The Reaping to be just as terrible.
    I think Grindhouse will make #1 pretty comfortably, because the excitment seems to be pretty legit and not so much of the “it looks so silly” Snakes on a Plane variety.
    I know it’s sort of silly, but the worst thing (I’m sure there’s many bad things) about Are We Done Yet? is that the house they purchase is ridiculous. That should be condemned! I’m sure it’s illegal to misrepresent a house that is that faulty. I mean, the ceilings are paper thin (or, how else to explain people falling through them so much?) My brain is too logical for that movie.

  23. Cadavra says:

    Interesting: the ad for REAPING in today’s L.A. Times drops all the religious references and now sells it as a straight horror movie. Methinks they’re starting to sweat that initial decision to chase the Bible-thumper dollars.

  24. jeffmcm says:

    At least in a big-city market.

  25. Cadavra says:

    Good point.

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