MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Klady's Friday Estimates

Well, it looks like the conflicts amongst predictors ended up reflecting confusion amongst moviegoers, who didn’t go as much as expected.
Ocean’s 13 will be under expectations while Surf’s Up may come in at the lowest of the BO Hell estimates and still be #2 for the week ahead of Knocked Up and Pirates 3, as Surf’s Up should get the biggest Saturday kick by far.
Hostel 2 seems to have gotten a pass by the critics, but not so much by the ticket buyers. It will open to less than half of the original. A big part of that could well be that this one was sold on Eli Roth’s name and though Tarantino was name-checked, it was not nearly as much a part of the push as the first time. Perhaps he was, appropriately, embarrased by Roth’s work. (I really have no idea, so let’s not make that snide aside into anything. If QT says how much he loves the work somewhere, someone please post it in comments.)
The happiest people about Hostel II are probably the team at Fox Atomic, who look to have had a better opening for The HIlls Have Eyes 2… so maybe the conclusion is that we are just at the end of this run of this incarnation of the genre. Couldn’t have squatted on a nicer movie…
Whatever holdover audience there was for Mr Brooks seems to have been eaten by Ocean’s 13 (starring such nice young men) and Knocked Up, which is going to ride high on curiousity this weekend.
klady609.jpg

Be Sociable, Share!

45 Responses to “Klady's Friday Estimates”

  1. waterbucket says:

    First!

  2. Rob says:

    “Knocked Up, which is going to ride high on curiousity this weekend.”
    God forbid we admit that a lot of people like it, and good word-of-mouth is spreading…

  3. David Poland says:

    I don’t dislike the movie… it is very likeable. My point is that the audience is expanding beyond the core… and that starts with curiosity.

  4. jeffmcm says:

    I don’t understand why Fox Atomic would be happy re: Hostel. HHE2 came out in March…what’s the connection?

  5. Cadavra says:

    Bragging rights: “Our shitty sequel opened bigger than yours did, na-na, na-na, na-na!”
    God, remember the good old days when it was only about making money?

  6. jeffmcm says:

    Really? Then DP probably means that they’re happy re: 28 Weeks Later which will probably outgross both of them.

  7. EDouglas says:

    “Well, it looks like the conflicts amongst predictors ended up reflecting confusion amongst moviegoers, who didn’t go as much as expected.”
    Yeah, that must be it. “I can’t figure out if the Weekend Warrior is right or Nikki Finke, so I’m not going to see any movies!” 🙂 (Yeah, I know you were being facetious but I thought that was a pretty funny reason.)

  8. Jimmy the Gent says:

    Doesn’t curiosity stem from word-of-mouth?
    Just curious.

  9. Spacesheik says:

    “Bragging rights: “Our shitty sequel opened bigger than yours did, na-na, na-na, na-na!”
    Cadavra,
    If HILLS 2 has a sequence featuring a flashback from the dog’s point of view, then HOSTEL 2 wins!

  10. bmcintire says:

    My guess is that Lionsgate is in panic mode right about now for CAPTIVITY. It has a month to wash the stink of HOSTEL: PART II off of it (and maybe move their ad campaign away from the same muddied brown that the recent string of gore-laden flops has had), but for a watered-down cookie-cutter genre film (the perception of which even the very good VACANCY couldn’t shake off) it’s still going to smell pretty fucking stale to audiences come July 13th.

  11. anghus says:

    Captivity is in trouble. There’s no denying it.
    I hope everyone gets the memo on this one.
    Don’t open horror in the spring/early summer
    Jan-March
    August-October
    I’ll need to look at the numbers, but every horror film that’s made bank over the past 10 years has probably been released in those counterprogramming months.
    Other than 28 Days Later, i can’t remember a big summer horror film that made a lot of money in the last decade.

  12. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    Perhaps Hostel 2’s polar opposite opening (ne the Saw franchise) is down to the fact that the many of us were told they weren’t as smart as jeffmcm and not to bother because we’d miss all the foriegn policy subtext.
    Hostel 3.
    Coming Summer 08.
    Direct to radio.

  13. anghus says:

    ok, i did some research.
    Some sites consider the Mummy and Van Helsing ‘horror’. But those are blockbusters with big stars, not gritty horror flicks. They also consider The Sixth Sense ‘horror’. So the numbers are all sorts of skewed.
    The only films i saw that made real bank in the last decade that were horror films was stuff like The Others and What Lies Beneath, which is more adult themed supernatural stuff skewed towards an older audience.
    The Haunting and Deep Blue Sea both did well, but again, not really traditional horror fare. More big budget event films with a violent angle.
    I think the lesson here is: if someone is getting hacked to bits, save it for the fall/winter, but not the holidays. If it’s supernatural and aimed towards adults, go ahead and try the summer.

  14. anghus says:

    on the subject of tarantino and roth
    (I really have no idea, so let’s not make that snide aside into anything. If QT says how much he loves the work somewhere, someone please post it in comments.)
    http://movies.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=movies&zu=http%3A%2F%2Flionsgate.arcostream.net%2Flionsgate%2Fhostel%2Fpremiere%2FTarantino_Intros_Eli_Roth_150K.wmv
    Tarantino says:
    “I loved Cabin Fever”
    “He’s the kind of director horror needs”

  15. ManWithNoName says:

    anghus,
    I think Others and What Lies Beneath were both also helped tremendously by star power. If Eli and Lionsgate want to do a Hostel III, they should consider asking Pacino and De Niro to forget that serial killer chase pic and sign on for some torture porn! Just imagine what could have been with H2 if they had been involved.

  16. fnt says:

    David, in the second sentence I think you mean PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN rather than SURF’S UP.
    And yeah, drop the curiosity thing on KNOCKED UP. What’s to be curious about, exactly? People are hearing it’s a good movie and want to see it. If that’s curiosity, then all word of mouth of curiosity. Plus, there’s probably a bit of repeat business. I know I want to see it again.

  17. bmcintire says:

    I think that the curiosity element on KNOCKED UP may have something to do with (aside from the tens of millions spent on publicity) the semi-unknown factor the movie had working against it. Unless you saw 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN (which granted, many did) no one knows who the hell Seth Rogan is. I mean, he went from playing “Eager Cameraman” in 2004’s ANCHORMAN to having his mug dominate the posters for this picture (which has apparently been in the can since 2006). And Katherine Heigl is pretty and all that, but GREY’S ANATOMY is all she’s got behind her. Was anyone even aware that McDreamy was in FREEDOM WRITERS last year (and did it matter at all)? So, all the praise and press for Judd Apatow notwithstanding, last weekend’s great reviews and $30M opening may have gotten a definite “Where the hell did that come from?” response from a number of moviegoers taking the plunge this weekend.

  18. jeffmcm says:

    JBD: I have never made the claim that Hostel had a strong foreign policy subtext. Other people did, not me. Your comment is insulting with nothing to back it up.
    The Haunting was a haunted house movie. Even though it was horrible, I don’t know how one can claim that it was something other than ‘not really traditional horror fare’.

  19. David Poland says:

    Curiosity is word of mouth, yes. But all the great word of mouth in the world does not translate to an expanded base unless there is a tone that suggests, say in this case, adults will like it more than the ads suggested. This works for Knocked Up, especially when it plays even better to an older audience. Basically, B-Mc hit what I was trying to express.
    As for Tarantino, obviously he liked Cabin Fever or he wouldn’t have fronted Hostel. I was refering to the sequel.
    No, I expect Surf’s Up to have the best Saturday kick and the potential to leap to #2, though it may still end up at #3 or #4… it’s not really an either/or thing. One quadrant kids movies play softer on Friday and leap higher on Saturday. Teen movies often shoot their load on opening Friday, which should have Lionsgate even more concerned about H2-OH!
    The reason for FA to be happy about Hostel 2 being soft is that it suggests that this may be a genre issue and not a marketing issue. But I thought I already wrote that once.

  20. jeffmcm says:

    DP: Now that makes sense. Earlier it sounded like the relief about the genre issue was yours, not theirs.

  21. EDouglas says:

    David, could also be a piracy issue… the people who really wanted to see the sequel could have easily bought or downloaded it and then what’s the point of paying to see it in theatres?

  22. Wrecktum says:

    I don’t think it’s piracy. The area that would be most affected by pirated copies (the north-east) is the highest grossing region of the movie by far. Hostel 2’s BO is softest in the south and mid-west, which signifies that the movie hasn’t expanded its base beyond the horror-loving urban youth demo.

  23. Crow T Robot says:

    So were any of you guys serious about enjoying Ocean’s 13? I just got out and I must say, it’s depressingly on par with the other summer Threequels in terms of quality. 12 was crap but at least it was oddballs enough to give off the vibe of being an anti-sequel. This one feels like a shameless remake of the first film. There’s not one surprise in the whole go. (Even the film’s idea of witty celebrity cameo: Vincent Cassel and Super Dave Osborne!)
    The audience I was with was waiting, waiting, waiting for something to happen, some exhilarating surprise you get when smart people dumb themselves down for the sake of having a good time (a big stupid tickle like Death Proof). But no, nada, nothing… just recycled scenes from the previous films.
    Another awful sequel is certainly no big deal. But the thought that standards have lowered to the point of smart critics giving shit like this a pass is.
    It’s gonna be a long summer.

  24. bmcintire, I would say that Katherine Heigl has played quite a big part in getting women on board. It’s tough to sell a man’s comedy (well, made to look like one) to women, especially when you lead male is Seth Rogan and not, I dunno, Hugh Jackman.
    Grey’s Anatomy is one of the highest rating shows on the box and I can feel pretty darn certain in thinking that quite a few ladies thought “That lovely Izzie Stevens is in it!” and gave it a go. Only have Grey’s behind her isn’t a good argument considering more people watch that than go to many “hit” movies and plenty of movies are targetted around a new star who’s had one hit before them.

  25. bmcintire says:

    I honestly have nothing against Katherine Heigl and don’t want to sound detrimental to her contribution – she seems lovely and talented. I have, however (after having successfully navigated my way through current pop culture) yet to see a single episode of GREY’S ANATOMY, so don’t have a great sense of bearing on her resonance. But would this have fared any better/worse had it starred Debra Messing, Rachel McAdams, Elizabeth Banks, or (for the sake of stunt-casting) Ashley Judd? I don’t see her as that big of a blip on the radar. What this means in the long term, I don’t know. I can say, having not yet seen it, I am now curious to do so. Previously, I was hesitant because I was a little wary of all the Apatow love, in light of the fact I found 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN no more or less enjoyable than the so-so WEDDING CRASHERS. That, and the fact that I found Rogan’s entre to film history (the “You know how I know you’re gay. . ?” scene) really pretty abysmally frat-level bad. But I’m pretty sure, from what I’ve heard, that I will like it enough, and nothing but good will come to all envolved. So happy endings all around.

  26. Well, Debra Messing and Ashley Judd are a bit out of the age range don’t you think? I think if Rachel McAdams had co-starred then it may have faired even better because she’s a reliable film star. But I really think that at least some credit should go to Heigl. She probably helped bridge the gap for the date crowd. At least somewhat.
    And if many women had the same thoughts as you about it being a juvenile comedy then I think the sight of Katherine probably made them go “perhaps we could see that movie”.
    Besides, something made at least a sizable difference between the opening for this and for 40YOV. More women perhaps?

  27. waterbucket says:

    I love Katherine because she’s a fag hag but you can’t contribute much of the film’s success to its two stars. The movie is sold as a package all together instead of some star vehicle. I read that Anne Hathaway was originally the film’s first choice so she might have brought in more audience than Katherine did especially after all the success with Diary and Prada.

  28. doug r says:

    Looking at a local 18plex, I see they have Pirates on 4 screens, Knocked Up on 1, Surf’s Up on 2, and Hostel on 2.
    I guess they don’t want to give up their Pirates prints until they have to-I guess it could be playing in the tiny boxes.
    Wonder how many theaters have an extra print of Hostel 2 dumped in the trashcan?

  29. Dr Wally says:

    The Mouse is gonna have to move hell and high water to get Pirates 3 to the $300 million mark. They’ve done this before, anyone remember them dragging Dick Tracy kicking and screaming to $100 million back in 1990? They were actually losing money keeping the thing in theaters but wanted to have the bragging rights to a $100 million movie. Then in 2001 they kept Pearl Harbor going theatrically way past the point that it was viable so they could get it over $200 million, and they still couldn’t quite manage it. This is going to be one of those deals…

  30. Joe Leydon says:

    I know this sounds crass (at best), but I’ve always wondered how much more “Pearl Harbor” would have made if, instead of opening on May 25, 2001, it would have opened four months later.

  31. anghus says:

    When three friends and my wife saw Knocked Up, i asked them why they wanted to see it
    “it looked funny and Izzy from Grey’s Anatomy was in it” was their answer.
    The crossover appeal to women is most assuredly due in part to a recognizable face that women know in Katherine Heigel. She was on the cover of countless women’s magazines this month for a reason. Women know her, and like her. I can’t tell you the number of conversations i hear about Grey’s among my wife, female friends, female co-workers, etc. I can’t say if Heigel’s fame will last long without Grey’s on the air, but for now she’s really popular.

  32. Rob says:

    I thought I read that exit poll data that showed Heigl as the #2 reason people went to see the film on opening weekend, ahead of Apatow and Rogen.

  33. Wrecktum says:

    “…anyone remember them dragging Dick Tracy kicking and screaming to $100 million back in 1990? They were actually losing money keeping the thing in theaters but wanted to have the bragging rights to a $100 million movie.”
    How was Buena Vista losing money by keeping Dick Tracy on screen as long as it did? I just want to know your thought process on this.

  34. Chucky in Jersey says:

    My guess is that Lionsgate is in panic mode right about now for CAPTIVITY.
    Lionsgate is also in panic mode on its arty product. “Away from Her” is an excellent movie but has been badly mishandled. “Sicko” may end up getting dumped — I have yet to see a poster or trailer for Michael Moore’s latest.
    I know of at least 2 arthouses that will open “Evening” instead of “Sicko”.

  35. Joe Leydon says:

    Funnily enough — I saw a trailer for “Sicko” just yesterday on TV. But I agree — it does seem to be going out without a full-court press. Indeed, I was actually shocked to see the opening date on the trailer — I didn’t realize it was coming THAT soon.

  36. Nicol D says:

    I think many of the Sicko posters are just going up now. I’ve seen a bunch of them in the past 48 hours with MM sitting in a doctor’s waiting room beside a bunch of skeletons.
    I have no real interest in seeing it but I give them credit for the poster campaign. They are rightly selling it as a summer comedy with MM as the sad-sac comedy star as opposed to a documentary.

  37. Cadavra says:

    “How was Buena Vista losing money by keeping Dick Tracy on screen as long as it did? I just want to know your thought process on this.”
    The main way to persuade theatre to keep a dying film is to maintain marketing support. If you’re spending more on newspaper ads than you’re bringing in in film rental, you’re losing money. I remember one of the producers of SCREAM 3 being very vocal when Miramax quickly “re-released” the film to drag it over the $100-mill mark: “They’re spending my profits so they can get that stupid plaque,” referring to the award NATO bestows on films that cross that magic line.

  38. anghus says:

    oh man. Nikke Finke’s crack smoking continues:
    “For weeks, I and other Hollywood journalists have been criticizing the disgusting torture porn content of Lionsgate’s Hostel II. Maybe that hurt the pic’s prospects…”
    Wow.
    Why are internet journalists so quick to take credit when a film succeeds of fails.
    My spin on it was this
    Q: How much box office is possible when every website online is sucking your dick?
    A: 8.3 million dollars.

  39. Wrecktum says:

    Newspaper advertising is vary cheap, Cadavra. It’s new TV ads (no doubt what Weinstein paid for with Scream 3) that cost big money.
    Dick Tracy was not rereleased and didn’t stay on screen any longer than most movies back in ’90. The only rationale that I can think of that might have hurt BV was that maintaining Dick Tracy’s screen count late in its run might have cost screens for some of the distributor’s other product. But since the Jungle Book rerelease and Arachnaphobia (the two studio films that followed Dick Tracy) did just fine, I can’t see that argument holding much weight either.

  40. Dr Wally says:

    Wrecktum, i admit i’m not entirely sure how Disney could lose money by keeping Dick Tracy or Pearl Harbor in theaters past their sell-by date, you’d need someone in Exhibitor relations i think! It’s covered in the Keys to the Kingdom book about the Eisner/Katz dispute. Maybe Disney were paying more to theaters to keep booking the movies after audiences had lost interest. It’s a different tactic than, say, Paramount employed a few years back to get The Italian Job over $100 million, when they took the film out of theaters and created a new release after Labor Day.

  41. LYT says:

    Whether or not Lionsgate is sweating over Captivity surely depends on that film’s budget. Most of these gore movies don’t cost a whole lot to make — Grindhouse being the major exception.

  42. Stella's Boy says:

    Even with a $10 million budget, Lionsgate can’t be too thrilled with Hostel II’s opening.

  43. Ian Sinclair says:

    I think SICKO is going to do very well. Everyone I know is keen to see it, and the reviews have ranged thus far(aside from the usual foaming-at-the-mouth from cretinous rightwing nutjobs) from raptuous to, at worst, begrudging admiration. Only a lunatic would not acknowldge that the US has the most fucked-up health care system on the planet, and any picture that draws attention to neccessity for change is the be applauded.

  44. Wrecktum says:

    “Wrecktum, i admit i’m not entirely sure how Disney could lose money by keeping Dick Tracy or Pearl Harbor in theaters past their sell-by date, you’d need someone in Exhibitor relations i think! It’s covered in the Keys to the Kingdom book about the Eisner/Katz dispute. Maybe Disney were paying more to theaters to keep booking the movies after audiences had lost interest.”
    I just looked through my copy of Keys to the Kingdom and I didn’t see any mention of Dick Tracy’s distribution strategy. But thanks for the follow-up post.

  45. Spacesheik says:

    The infamous Jeffrey Katzenberg memo at Disney following DICK TRACY’s release pissed off a lot of peeps including Warren Beatty; basically the Katz stated that star-driven blockbusters like TRACY (which sputtered to $100 million) were not a worthwhile investment for a company like Disney and they needed to focus on stories, not stars.
    Poland covered this briefly in ’99: http://www.thehotbutton.com/today/hot.button/1999_thb/990821_weekend.html: “Messages In The Sand: It was almost a decade ago when Jeff Katzenberg wrote the infamous “Katzenberg memo” about the studio’s film division making its next step from freshman phenom to awkward sophomore. That memo centered around the movie Dick Tracy, which managed to be one of the first films to gross $100 million domestically and show virtually no profit, if not actually taking a loss”

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