MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Box Office Hell

bohell0608.jpg
This is the most wildly varied set of projections I recall seeing this year. There’s a $13 million split on opinions regarding Ocean’s 13, $16.4m on Surf’s Up, $7.6 (or more than a third of the highest projection) on Hostel II, and a pretty even split on calls for whether Knocked Up or Pirates 3 will be on top of the other.

Be Sociable, Share!

60 Responses to “Box Office Hell”

  1. xiayun says:

    Here is our analysis (the weekly feature was started again in May):
    http://www.worldofkj.com/articleIndex.php?tid=30444

  2. ployp says:

    Nothing against Knocked Up, but I really, really want Pirates to top that film. Just because…

  3. jeffmcm says:

    Just because what?

  4. doug r says:

    Here’s my riff:
    O13-35
    SU-26
    KU-20
    P3-19
    H2-17
    S3-15

  5. Wrecktum says:

    I’m surprised the third Ocean’s film is tracking so high, considering how universally disappointed people were with the second film.

  6. Joe Leydon says:

    I’m not trying to rile you Wrecktum, but be careful when you say “universally” disappointed. I thought “Ocean’s 12” was a harmless, humorous doodle, well worth the price of admission and filled with pleasantly amusing inside jokes. (I have to admit: I laughed out loud when I recognized that Soderbergh had used music from a 1969 guilty pleasure, “Candy,” during the closing sequence.) Will I go see “13”? Well, as Robert Mitchum once said, in an entirely different context: If it’s a hot night, and the theater’s air-conditioned, what the hell?

  7. Wrecktum says:

    I haven’t polled every person on earth, Leydon, but the people I know and the reviews I’ve read were very lukewarm on Ocean’s 12. I was admittedly very disappointed in the movie, being a big fan of the original.

  8. Joe Leydon says:

    But Wrecktum: Jeff Wells liked it. Doesn’t he count?

  9. Wrecktum says:

    No.

  10. Cadavra says:

    I thought 12 kinda blew, but they’ve been very vocal about saying this is a make-good, and just the fact that Pacino and Barkin are on board is good enough for me.

  11. EDouglas says:

    well, going by early FRiday estimates, the reaction to Ocean’s 12 definitely hurt the opening of 13… definitely not going to be in the $50 million range, probably won’t even make $40 million…probably more like $35 million.

  12. jeffmcm says:

    I liked 12 better than 11 but I am cognizant that I do not share the tastes of Mr. & Mrs. America. I think it’ll open well primarily because it feels more adult than the last three threequels (god it’s depressing to write that).

  13. Geoff says:

    I think people are underestimating Hostel Part II – I really have absolutely no desire to see it, especially after reading Dave’s review, but I can see it doing in the mid-20’s. It would be nice to see “torture porn” start to die, though.
    Ocean’s 13 should be able to clear $40 million and I think Knocked Up will drop a bit – sorry, the film is not going to have the legs of 40 Year Old Virgin, that film opened in late August.
    Of course, I will probably be proven all wrong, within the next hour, when Nikki the Fink posts her early numbers. 🙂

  14. Stella's Boy says:

    Friday’s Estimates:
    1) Ocean’s 13 – $12.4 million
    2) POTC3 – $6.2 million
    3) Knocked Up – $6.2 million
    4) Surf’s Up – $5.8 million
    5) Shrek the Third – $4.4 million

  15. Stella's Boy says:

    6) Hostel II – $2.3 million

  16. Geoff says:

    Ha-ha, victory for Dave! Hostel is going to open at less than half the first one – Eli Roth is going back to the C list. Remember the director who did Sky Captain and how hot the geeks were for him, a few years ago? Exactly, I don’t either. 🙂 That’s where Eli Roth is going – to being slated for unproduced projects with Harr Knowles. Give the audiences SOME credit, Dave – they would rather watch Ocean’s 13. I know what you’re going to say about quality not being measured by the opening weekend, but the fact is Lionsgate was marketing EXACTLY what this film was about and the audiences didn’t buy.
    Wonder if Ocean’s is going to top its predecessors, it will be very close.
    The big threequels are stabilizing, will all break $300 million, but with Fantastic Four and Transformers coming, they are going to be losing their screens very fast.

  17. Lota says:

    a friend of mine is saying more like 3.3 but that’s off the record, for Hostel pt II. STill that is below expectations and it has LITTLE to do with Dave, but the pirate copies. Dave isn;t responsible for pirate copies and how many people in the average moviegoing group read this blog?
    And Rather than Roth join that annoyance Griffin on the D list, it would be nice if the horror people who really have the faith in him that they claim to, convince him to adapt some MR James or remake a movie that could use a modern day makeover like Carnival of SOuls or something.
    Horror is in a bad way the last few years, so boring, and what is calling “pushing the envelope” is merely unimaginative meanness or poor taste.
    and not scary.

  18. Lota says:

    actually after the Grindhouse disappointment as well, it would be nice if Quentin gets back to some Jackie Brown type fare. Class it up gentlemen, please.

  19. Lota says:

    Ocean’s 12 WAS a universal disappointment but I will pay to see 13 soon.

  20. Ian Sinclair says:

    Fabulous news about HOSTEL 2 doing such lame business. A triumph for intelligence, good taste and self-respect.
    Last night at the bar of a Sushi restaurant some guy told the bartender he had just seen it and the two women at the end of the bar looked at him like he’d just farted.

  21. Geoff says:

    Lota,
    I was not giving Dave credit for the low opening – just saying that he must feel vindicated the audiences agreed with him. Dave’s great, but I doubt this blog has much effect on box office.
    I REALLY don’t think Ocean’s 12 was THAT bad. The whole Julia Roberts episode was very silly, but there was some genuinely funny moments with Damon.

  22. anghus says:

    so much for ‘riding the controversy all the way to the bank’
    we’ll have to see how it holds up next week.
    it does seem to support the general idea that early/mid summer is no place for horror. it’s niche programming that doesn’t belong anywhere near April-July.

  23. Wrecktum says:

    If Hostel 2 were held back for a Sept opening it would have doubled its opening Friday.

  24. anghus says:

    wreck, i totally agree. marketing violent horror in the summer months is almost like counterprogramming.
    imagine this level of controversy when nothing else was on the horizon.
    not sure what they were thinking

  25. MASON says:

    I can’t wait for the “piracy” killed Hostel 2 spin. Yeah, just like it did Soul Plane. LOL.
    I’m curious to see what Eli Roth does next. Does he go the Kevin Smith route and fall in love with being “Eli Roth” or does he push himself and try to make something good?

  26. Lota says:

    Hi Geoff–
    I know what you meant, I just meant to say that I don;t want Dave getting the blame by others who stand from financially losing from the poor opening! The damage was done by 29th May where it was evident that in the US & abroad that copies are out.
    I just expected more from O12 after O11 so it felt very disappointing but even if 13 were crap I’d go just to see the hot old dude, George.

  27. Jimmy the Gent says:

    Eli Roth will be fine. I agree Hostel: Part II should’ve been held back until September or October. This seemed like a no-brainer. Yeah, the first one knocked off Narnia, but people forget how quickly it fell the following week. Also, it was released in January, normally a good time for genre movies.
    But I do believe Roth has talent. I look forward to his adaptation of Stephen King’s Cell. It would be very hard for him to fuck up a sceenplay by Scott Alexander and Larry Karazewski.
    Dates are everything. Studios seem to think that their BIG movie will prove everyone else wrong. It’s all about who has the biggest dick in town.
    Pirates 3 should’ve been given a couple of more weeks of editing. A mid-June release would’ve been better, I think.
    I’m still surprised Warners decided to release Ocean’s 13 during the first week of June. Why would they release the third one now when the other two have proven to do very well during the Holidays? If you wanted to release during the summer, then do it late July or early August. The same goes for Mr. Brooks. It should’ve had the mid-August Open Range date.

  28. Joe Leydon says:

    Apparently, there is a God.

  29. Thank christ for the dead weight of Hostel. Probably won’t even make $8mil. Lucky us. Even if piracy did hurt it, I ain’t complaining.
    I’d laugh for the studio if anyone actually picked up Roths idea of a movie made entirely of fake trailers. I mean… really?

  30. anghus says:

    which wasnt even Roth’s idea. He was just riffing on Grindhouse, the unoriginal bastard.

  31. jeffmcm says:

    Wrecktum is right: if H2 had opened in September, or January as originally scheduled, Hostel would have doubled its numbers.
    Claiming people didn’t see it because of a sudden outbreak of ‘good taste’ the same weekend as the media frenzy over Paris Hilton is extraordinarily silly.

  32. Cadavra says:

    There already is a movie made up entirely of fake trailers: COMING ATTRACTIONS, aka LOOSE SHOES. A lot of them were quite funny.

  33. Joe Leydon says:

    OK, I am being sincere, not snarky, here. (I’ll save the snark for my own blog, when I post “The Top 10 Reasons Why ‘Hostel 2’ Under-Performed”)Why do some of you think “Hostel 2” would have done better if it had been released at another time of the year? Seriously. I mean, what is out there this weekend that you think is cutting into its potential audience? Wouldn’t the folks really primed to see it be willing to see it any time, any place, anywhere?

  34. jeffmcm says:

    Joe: your question seems to originate from the assumption that those who would go to see Hostel are single-interest moviegoers. If you assume that the audience is mainstream and youth-based, then clearly they simply had a greater range of other moviegoing options right now. When Hostel 1 opened, it was competing with the 5th week of Narnia and the 4th week of King Kong. The combined total of the top ten that weekend was $97 million. This weekend, moviegoers can see the opening weekend of Ocean’s 13 and Surf’s Up, the second weekend of Knocked Up, and the third weekend of Pirates. The combined total of the top ten will be over $130 million.
    Greater competition.

  35. Joe Leydon says:

    But that’s it: I might assume many things about an audience for “Hostel 2,” but “mainstream” sure as hell isn’t one of them. Indeed, I cannot imagine anyone in his right mind thinking “Hostel 2” was a “mainstream” movie. Seriously. Just as, for example, I couldn’t imagine anyone in his right mind saying “Chalk” (a movie I dearly love) is a “mainstream” movie.

  36. jeffmcm says:

    Depends on what you mean by ‘mainstream’. It’s obviously less mainstream than Pirates or Knocked Up, and as such is attractive to a younger and more specific niche audience. When Hostel 1 was released, it got both the niche horror audience and the more mainstream audience that was just looking for something new in theaters. That same audience would have shown up in September as well.

  37. Lota says:

    New Line did alot of counterprogramming with horror/thriller titles and niche titles in the 90s and that was successful if I remember correctly.
    the firrst Hostel maybe got “lucky” and it didn;t hold up since it has a low rating on IMDB (hey 30,000 people voted).
    gore hounds thought it wasn;t gory enough, but gore hounds aren’t the majority of horror folk, are they?

  38. Joe Leydon says:

    Or: That sliver of the mainstream audience that saw “Hostel 1” was repulsed, and avoided the sequel. Seriously. I mean, a lot of the “mainstream” audience showed up for “The Blair Witch Project.” But where were they for “Blair Witch 2”? (And BTW: I really liked the first “Blair Witch.”) Set aside for a moment the question of whether “Blair Witch 2” was a great big steaming turd. Surely if a large number of people really liked the first film — which, based on the angry reaction I received to my review of the first film, I don’t think was the case — they would have flocked to a sequel, at least on opening weekend. Right?

  39. Ian Sinclair says:

    The reason Hostel 2 didn’t make as much money as Hostel is because the mainstream audience who were sickened by the first didn’t want to sit through an even more obnoxious sequel, especially after reading the lousy reviews (Hostel 2 now boasts a pathetic 40% Cream of the crop score at RT) Hostel 2 is therefore no longer a mainstream movie at all: it’s market is homevid, where the creeps who get their jollies watching people more attractive than they are being tortured to death can masturbate to it in private.

  40. jeffmcm says:

    Ian Sinclair, your comments here and elsewhere are consistently bullying, obnoxious, and antithetical to polite discourse. You are the person in this discussion who seems likely to me to be a sociopath.

  41. Joe Leydon says:

    Gee, I dunno: Ian sounds pretty rational to me. Maybe he’s hitting a little too close to home?

  42. jeffmcm says:

    Joe: I really liked The Blair Witch Project too, but I think the sequel failed because (a): it was marketed as a completely generic horror sequel with teenagers getting killed in the woods and thus had the stink of quickie cash-in all over it; and (b) a lot of people who came to see Blair Witch once it hit big didn’t like it all that much, considering it to be overhyped and hollow, thus leading to a backlash. The same thing kind of happened to My Big Fat Greek Wedding. It happens.
    I can certainly imagine that plenty of folk were drawn in to see Hostel 1 and didn’t want to see Hostel 2; it just makes you wonder why Saw 1 opened to $18m and its two sequels both opened in the 30s. Their being released in October probably had a lot to do with it.

  43. jeffmcm says:

    Joe, don’t insult your own intelligence by giving Sinclair praise just because he happens to agree with you. He’s a single-issue bully looking for a platform on which to spew bile.

  44. Joe Leydon says:

    I can see your point about “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” — indeed, the fast flop of the TV spin-off probably PROVES your point. (Truth to tell, I never could understand why that movie took off the way it did, while so many similar yet better indie comedies aimed at older audiences that I see every year at second- and third-tier festivals vanish without a trace, never to get past the festival circuit.) But, then again, I think it also reinforces my point: Just because a movie makes a lot of money doesn’t mean everyone who bought a ticket actually liked it. I mean, we haven’t seen “Hook 2” yet, have we?

  45. jeffmcm says:

    I would never argue that point, I think the relatively quick dropoff of Pirates 3 is further evidence.

  46. Ian Sinclair says:

    jeffmcm: You sound more than a tad belligerent and uncivil yourself. It’s not my fault the sordid little movie you championed with such rabid ferocity has bombed with auds and critics. Instead of letting the personal insults fly, why not chill by sliding that suspiciously-stained copy of HOSTEL into your DVD player and pop open a fresh carton of kleenex? Hugs and kisses.

  47. jeffmcm says:

    Ian: thanks for proving my point.
    Also, I have never championed Hostel 2. I still have not seen it.

  48. Ian Sinclair says:

    Well, don’t worry about my kicking Hostel 2 around any longer. My sword is back in its scabbard. My assault on it might have been zealous, but as Burke has it, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

  49. jeffmcm says:

    I agree completely. That’s the same reason I thought it was necessary to provide a description of your most apparent attributes.

  50. Ian Sinclair says:

    Well, quite. I also apologize for my creation of your new, secondary sphincter; however, be reassured: I am firmly of the opinion that it will serve you well in future, considering the numinous volume of your posts.

  51. jeffmcm says:

    ‘secondary sphincter?’ Does not the human body contain at least five?
    Since this is now officially a totally personal exchange and not a constructive dialogue about film or art, I see no reason to continue. If you would like to send further abuse my way, I will provide my email address.

  52. Wrecktum says:

    Leydon, moviegoing habits are different in different parts of the year. Early-summer audiences are a completely different demo than spring and fall. School is out in most places right now and weather is mostly warm, so teenager entertainment options are different now than in, say, September.
    Studios learned a long time ago to tailor certain movies for certain times of the year. You don’t release Transformers in October. You don’t release The Hours in July. And you don’t release Hostel 2 in Hune. Apparently Lions Gate lost the memo.

  53. MattM says:

    Well, there’s also another factor. When I was at the theatre today, two kids behind me in were debating which movie they should buy tickets to so that they could sneak in to “Hostel II.” I think they settled on “Shrek,” but were reluctant to do so because they thought it sucked.
    (“Ocean’s 13” was about half as good as the original, which made it twice as good as the sequel. It also reminds you of just how perfectly constructed the first one is–there’s not a loose or squeaky gear in the plot, while here, there’s all sorts of bizarreness, like why, exactly, Bernie Mac’s character needed to be on the casino floor.)

  54. “Hostel 2 now boasts a pathetic 40% Cream of the crop score at RT”
    As much as I’ve liked making Hostel 2 a big ol’ punching bag for abuse, a 40% mark on RT is better than many many films from 2007 already.
    Matt, I’m sure there are plenty who snuck into Hostel 2, but it’s not like the movie lost $8mil worth of customers due to it. Let’s wait to see what Lionsgate has to say about the matter on Wednesday.
    Let’s also wait to see what Eli Roth does next. If Hostel 2 makes even less than Cabin Fever? He won’t have a single film gross over $50mil. It seems strange that a studio would have such strong faith in him.

  55. jeffmcm says:

    Not if his budgets stay low.

  56. What was the budget on Hostel 2 btw? Did they keep it low?
    (I ask that just out of pure interest)

  57. Chucky in Jersey says:

    You don’t release The Hours in July.
    “Evening” opens on 6/29 and, per the trailer, it’s “From the writer of ‘The Hours’.”

  58. Joe Leydon says:

    And of course, because it’s name-checked, you’re already inclined to hate it, right? (Sorry Chuck — couldn’t resist.)

  59. Krillian says:

    Boxofficemojo lists Hostel 2’s budget as $10.2 million. Its marketing campign had to be another $10-15 million. Factor in that theater chains get about 50% of the gross, then you look at overseas gross, DVD rentals and sales… Hostel 2 will not lose money, but it’s not making enough to justify a third. Same thing with Hills Have Eyes 2. It didn’t gross as much as the first, but it’ll at least break even.
    I’m thrilled it flopped too. Let torture porn go back to being a straight-to-DVD business, and I hope Captivity flops too. Then maybe we can get a new wave of horror that tries to actually scare people.
    As for Ocean’s 13, 11 was good, 12 was not, and I’m still curious about 13, largely because Al pacino’s the bad guy this time. Meanwhile most critics are saying it’s better than 12, so the $36 million opener makes sense.
    Surf’s Up relative flop means a more likely big opening for FF: ROTSS and Ratatouille.

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