MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Box Office Hell – 7/20/07


Be Sociable, Share!

22 Responses to “Box Office Hell – 7/20/07”

  1. doug r says:

    Hairspray a little higher. Transformers a little lower.

  2. ployp says:

    Go, Go Ratatouille. I’ll finally get to see it next weekend!! 🙂

  3. doug r says:

    So how does an entertaining cool film like The Last Mimzy make $25 million and Transformers make $250 million?

  4. Doug, who the hell did you come up with that?
    Anyway. I really hope Hairspray does well.
    Nikki(‘s pals) sure do like to get involved with this don’t they? Completely vague guesses on only the new releases. You’d think she wasn’t told estimated grosses or somethin…

  5. LYT says:

    “So how does an entertaining cool film like The Last Mimzy make $25 million and Transformers make $250 million?”
    The former had a terrible title, no big name stars, and marketing that didn’t make it clear what the movie was about. The latter is based on a successful brand more than 20 years old.

  6. jeffmcm says:

    Marketing marketing marketing. Transformers didn’t have any big name stars either.

  7. who = how
    I love it when I realise typos incredibly late.
    Also, Tranformers attracted at least some teenage females due to Shia LeBeouf.

  8. EDouglas says:

    We’re all WAY low on Hairspray (which will end up between $26 and 30 million this weekend) and slightly high on Chuck and Larry, which will be Sandler’s lowest opening mainstream comedy since Little Nicky (but not nearly that bad)

  9. Josh Massey says:

    I don’t know. I went to a 9:40 show of Hairspray last night. It was playing in a smaller theater, and still not close to full. I was surprised.

  10. Nicol D says:

    I will be surprised of Potter is not #1 again for the weekend. I don’t think the book release will impact the box office as much as people think it will.

  11. MASON says:

    Saw Hairspray last night. Fun — definitely not my thing — but fun. But the theater was nowhere close to full — curious to see what the numbers are. Sorry Dave and Toby Emmerich — it definitely isn’t going to do Wedding Crashers numbers.
    Simpsons tracking at 50 mil opening. Wow.

  12. Wrecktum says:

    “Simpsons tracking at 50 mil opening. Wow.”
    Says who?

  13. Direwolf says:

    Says Nikki. FWIW.

  14. Rothchild says:

    So how does an entertaining cool film like Star Kid make 7 million and Transformers make $315 million?
    Oh, wait. His question was serious?

  15. Rothchild says:

    To answer his question, because Transformers is a director tackling the genre he was born to dominate. The “photogenic vehicles that turn into giant robots and beat the shit out of each other” genre. The Last Mimzy is what happens when someone that has no right bossing around directors decides to direct himself. And not only does he decided to direct a movie, he picks a movie with an awful title, script, and cast (sans Rainn Wilson). But even if Mimzy was good and had a different title, it never would have made it out of the gate with New Line marketing. Period.
    But what a stupid question. That’s like saying, “I like peanut butter and turkey sandwiches. Why doesn’t the whole country?”

  16. jeffmcm says:

    Boxofficeguru is predicting Chuck & Larry and Harry Potter very close, and Hairspray not far behind.

  17. Chuck & Larry: 12.4
    Hairspray: 10.9
    Harry Potter: 10.3
    For the record, Wild Hogs debuted on Friday with 11.6 on its way to 39.7. I don’t expect it to do that good on it’s 10.9 but I think we can say that Hairspray is a hit and I am happy as (no pun intended, it’s just the phrase) Larry.
    I really don’t think the book’s release on Saturday will hurt Potter. All the diehards who will be out buying the book saw it last weekend. The rest of it’s run is about repeat audiences and the stragglers (like me).

  18. jeffmcm says:

    “Happy as Larry” is a phrase?

  19. doug r says:

    What’s wrong with peanut butter and turkey sandwiches?
    I liked the Wrinkle in Time vibe from Mimzy, it was better than that dreary TV adaptation of Wrinkle.
    I love stories like He Built A Crooked House and All You Zombies and The Unpleasant Profession Of Jonathon Hoag.

  20. EthanG says:

    I hate Sandler, but might sneak into the movie just based on Nathan Lee’s really reaaaally bizarre review of the film.,lee,77246,20.html
    Any numbers for Sunshine?

  21. Jeff, obviously not in America then.

  22. jeffmcm says:

    Sunshine is dreadful, as all of Danny Boyle’s movies. Good setup, awful third act.

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