MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Klady's Sunday Estimates


Be Sociable, Share!

24 Responses to “Klady's Sunday Estimates”

  1. Chicago48 says:

    (am I first?) Went over to boxofficemojo and waitress was the 2nd best behind Spidey – 9784 per screen on 65 screens. Great beginning.

  2. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    DISTURBIA is quite the anomaly. Is there anything comparable to this films release recently? No stars. Great legs. Non comedy. Impressive.

  3. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    SM3 will take close to a billion worldwide theatrically.
    Dave will you say its a smash hit now please?
    In da Black before ancillaries.
    Take a bow Sony.

  4. harosa says:

    Forget Spiderman 3’s grosses, I was scanning the list and was shocked by what Wild Hogs has done, thats more newsworthy to me.

  5. anghus says:

    Jeffery Boam,
    no one will say it. Welcome to the world of armchair film industry types.
    Average film, taking in gobs of money, but it’s not the second coming creatively or financially.
    The bar is set so high that ‘pretty good’ doesn’t matter much anymore.
    “Only a billion dollars?” they say.
    While the people at Sony are high fiving one another over the massive cash influx from the frontload on a film that they know isn’t spectacular.
    The media drives me insane. A film is on track to potentially take in a billion dollars, and everyone is looking for the spin on how to sell it as a dissapointment.
    Why are people so eager to see failure where there isn’t any?
    Because if they didn’t, there wouldn’t be anything to write about.

  6. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    And that’s exactly why a film like DISTURBIA should really be looked at closely by these ‘armchair critics’. You can’t just brush it off with ‘timing’ – there’s a real reason that film worked beyond its pretty decent WOM factor. And I for one would love to know what it is.

  7. Me says:

    Well, Disturbia is like 300, a little movie no one thought would do well, and ended up making a huge amount of profit. Yeah, it’d be nice to say, why doesn’t Hollywood copy that formula and make hits like that, rather than spending all the money on SM3 or P3 – but who really thought when you first head about either 300 or Disturbia that they would be hits? Either could have easily tanked, and no one would have really been all that surprised. That’s why studios spend all the money on SM3 and P3 – because they are almost sure-fire money makers (with world-wide audiences), even if it isn’t the same ratio of pure profit as the surprise hits.

  8. jeffmcm says:

    Whatever it is about Disturbia that is appealing to people, it sure as heck isn’t the quality of the movie, which is basically on the level of any made-for-cable Rear Window ripoff but with less sex. It can only be explained by (a) a product that feels very specifically suited for a teen market, and (b) it must be tapping into some weird inner mindset in some way that is difficult to explain but that is outside the scope of ‘a good story well-told’.

  9. Hallick says:

    “Well, Disturbia is like 300, a little movie no one thought would do well, and ended up making a huge amount of profit.”
    “300”? That little(?) movie was a guaranteed hit as soon as the first trailer hit the theaters. Almost everybody I talked to about movies after that point was psyched for the thing. The only question was,”How big a hit can it be?”. Even people who hated the idea of this film had to see it just to trash it properly.

  10. “Take a bow Sony.”
    Shame that they greenlit the terrible script. Imagine if Spider-Man 3 was actually good.
    Jeff, even if you’re not a fan of Disturbia (which I totally understand, I gave it a B- though) surely you can see that it’s encouraging that teens have latched on to this one. It’s not a sequel or a remake of a horror movie or filled with fart jokes or encouraging violence/sex etc. It’s just a well-made scary thriller. It has an attractive cast who look like the ages they’re representing and who the demographic is reading heaps about right now.
    It makes me much much happier to imagine that teenagers are spreading the word that they like a movie like this and others are going to see it over pretty much every other horror/thriller entry from 2007. I think teens were finally happy to actually have a film that was legitimately good (it is 67% at RT Jeff) and was fresh (as teen movies go, Hitchcock remakes aren’t exactly en vogue like torture porn or whatever). Sure, we all give that target demo a hard time for seeing so many bad movies, but I think if Hollywood made more movies in the vein of Disturbia (watch them greenlight teen-oriented Hitchcock remakes ala Shakespeare) then the audience would probably go see them. It’s not their fault most movies marketed to them are bad and they’ve got nothing else to do with their desposable income.

  11. jeffmcm says:

    Well, it’s better than The Hitcher or the last couple of Scary Movie’s, and it is ‘suspenseful’ and not gory, and I’m glad Shia LeBeouf looks like a teenager but I wouldn’t call it well-made or scary.

  12. PastePotPete says:

    You want an answer on Disturbia? Shia Lebeouf.
    Holes ended up just slightly under where Disturbia will if you consider ticket price increases(Holes domestic was $67.4 mil). The 12-13 year old kids who watched Holes four years ago were the same 16-17 year olds who watched Disturbia.
    They are also the only two really commercial films he’s been the lead in. The commercial movies he’s been second lead in(I, Robot, Constantine) did better than expected. The kid can draw. Not that I’m giving him full credit for the I, Robot and Constantine success, but I do think he was a factor.
    It’ll be very interesting to see how Transformers does. The robots will probably take the credit but I think Lebeouf is the difference between $180 and $250mil for that film.

  13. Nicol D says:

    Paste Pot Pete,
    Every now and then there are stars who break out who you know have ‘it’. Murphy in 48 hrs. Travolta in Saturday Night Fever. Cagney in the Public Enemy. Hoffman in The Graduate.
    Then there are celebrities (many of the modern era) who get attached to high profile projects that people would see whether they are in it or not. People who the industry favors and they kind of become stars by default. I’d put DiCaprio in that category, perhaps Brad Pitt or George Clooney.
    Shia is in that category. Nobody saw Constantine or I Robot for him. Holes was a hit for the family market and factors that the then unknown LaBeouf could not have accounted for. Until he has a few bad films that are sold directly on his face that are still hits, then I’ll say he’s the big beef, but not before.
    Transformers and Indiana Jones will be huge due to concept, execution and marketing regardless of his presence. Disturbia was sold on concept, not him, as his face was obscurred in the one-sheet. Obviously he has an agreeable presence in that he doesn’t off-put people, but I hardly think he is the draw you are saying (perhaps teen girls like him).
    The comparison to 300 is also incorrect. 300 drew a broad base to make 200 + million. It was a smash by any standard. Disturbia is only a ‘hit’ based on small budget and expectations. In the grand scheme of things, not that many people saw it.
    All of this Spiderman 3 is a disappointment or flop spin while Disturbia is a smash talk that has been so prevalent seems a little bit out of whack.

  14. Spacesheik says:

    “All of this Spiderman 3 is a disappointment or flop spin while Disturbia is a smash talk that has been so prevalent seems a little bit out of whack.”
    Yup, it’s about expectations and word of mouth.
    SPIDEY 3 was expected to be the EMPIRE STRIKES BACK OF THE TRILOGY, the best in the series, instead it barely held its own against its predecessors, swamped by a weak script inundated with laughable coincidences, cardboard villains and a central love triangle that had worn its welcome by at least 1 film; certainly the flick was the most bloated and self-indulgent in the series.
    It will make a lot of money, sure just like DA VINCI CODE, but will leave a bitter after taste in audiences mouths, but does Sony really care? They are raking in cash from big budget idiotic ‘tent-pole’ flicks, dumb comedies (ARE WE DONE YET?) and remakes of 80s horror flicks (i.e. WHEN A STANGER CALLS)…not much to be proud of there, with the exception of CASINO ROYALE, a brilliant film and the best Sony product of the yrea (and even that was a MGM pick up).
    DISTURBIA was the little film expected to draw blank business, instead this teenagers-in-peril-semi-remake of REAR WINDOW went on to become a sleeper hit – although as Nicol stated in the grand scheme of things not many saw it or will see it.

  15. Stella's Boy says:

    If I’m not mistaken, Holes was in immensely popular book. I’m sure that had a whole lot more to do with its success than LaBeouf. And hasn’t Will Smith proven by now that he is a dependable draw on his own? I think he gets all the credit for I, Robot.
    I am shocked by the overall positive reviews for Disturbia. It’s a silly and stupid “thriller” with no thrills to speak of and an ending that goes totally off the reservation. After Taking Lives and Two for the Money, it’s exactly the kind of movie one should expect from D.J. Caruso.

  16. jeffmcm says:

    ^^^See, I liked Taking Lives and thought it was above-average, but not this movie. I didn’t think the ending was ‘off the reservation’ either, if anything I thought it was incredibly mundane, so repetitive of a hundred other films in the lower reaches of the ‘he’s right behind you’ thriller genre.

  17. Stella's Boy says:

    Yeah the ending is that but I also thought it was incredibly ridiculous and dragged the movie down to a whole other level of stupid.

  18. Cadavra says:

    Caruso also did THE SALTON SEA, a terrific film that really took chances and was as close to unclassifiable as anything I’ve seen lately.

  19. Stella's Boy says:

    I think The Salton Sea is pretty good, but after the trifecta of Taking Lives, Two for the Money and Disturbia, it seems like an awfully long time ago.

  20. jeffmcm says:

    I liked Taking Lives much more than Salton Sea.

  21. Stella's Boy says:

    I liked both more than Disturbia.

  22. BUT NONE OF YOUR ARE TEENAGERS! And compared to the tidal wave of crap that is aimed at them these days (When A Stranger Calls and such) it’s refreshing to see teens are actually reacting positively to something like Disturbia, which is much better than most films aimed at that market. The film isn’t just gore and boo-machine scares (a large part of the film is just talking for crying out loud). And the fact that it keeps posting small declines shows that teenagers are telling their friends and I for one am glad they have chosen Disturbia over the glut of terrible terrible movies that we’ve seen so far this year.
    Disturbia isn’t the greatest movie ever made, but do you expect teenagers to go see The Salton Sea? God, be reasonable. Barely anyone around here is the target audience of this movie. The target audiences hasn’t, surprise surprise, seen Rear Window. The audience hasn’t been watching movies like this for 20 years.
    The fact that it has a 67% RT fresh rating and a 62 MC rating shows that some critics don’t hold ridiculous expectations on it’s audience. Get off your high chair. Not every 15-year-old can be as well-scholared in the history of film as people around here.

  23. Stella's Boy says:

    Jesus dude. Take it easy. No one said they expected teenagers to see The Salton Sea. We were talking about Caruso’s previous films and their quality. OK?
    Personally, I don’t think Disturbia is really that much better than When a Stranger Calls. I think it is incredibly overrated. I didn’t expect much from it. I know enough to not expect too much from something like Disturbia. I went to a matinee and just hoped to be entertained. Sorry, but I wasn’t. Why is it that if someone doesn’t like a movie such as Disturbia, to some people they are automatically on a high horse with unreasonable expectations? Can’t I just think it’s a bad movie?

  24. William Goss says:

    For what it’s worth, I’m 19; liked Salton Sea, didn’t care for Disturbia, disliked When A Stranger Calls, and hated Taking Lives.

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