MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Friday Estimates by Klady – 7/7/7

fri070707.jpg

Be Sociable, Share!

32 Responses to “Friday Estimates by Klady – 7/7/7”

  1. mutinyco says:

    At least this post isn’t about a musical…

  2. EDouglas says:

    Hmm… “Box Office: The Musical starring David Poland” does have a certain ring to it. I think he’ll get nominated for a Tony for his stirring rendition of “There Isn’t a Slump.”

  3. EDouglas says:

    BTW, David, all kidding aside, I’d love to see an update of how this summer is faring compared to 2004… this weekend will be down a lot vs. Pirates 2, but I’m wondering if May was enough to put it ahead. (The late July/early August offerings are much stronger in general methinks)

  4. martin says:

    Overall box office is up, but there was an expectation at the start of the summer that there would be at least one $400 mill domestic movie by this point, and all 3 3-quels have done in the 300s, with TF likely to join soon. I wouldn’t count Simpsons and Supremacy out yet either, they could get at least 300 combined.

  5. anghus says:

    i’ll be interested to see how Saturday shapes up for Transformers. Still looking strong, but it’s starting to feel like everyone has already seen it and those numbers are going to start hitting the dreaded 60% frontload drop next week.
    Knocked Up to make it 150?
    Fantastic Four 2 is already dead in the water. Will it make it to 150?
    Evan Almighty looks to hit 100 mil, but not much more. Possibly the Summer’s biggest cash loser in terms of profit/loss.
    I don’t think Ratatoulie is going to hit 200 million. Maybe it’s way too early to call, but Potter 5 might just take enough of TF and enough of Rat to make both films fall a little short.

  6. martin says:

    They’re both going to get hit by Potter. I think Rat will definitely make 200 and a bit more. Tranformers hitting $300 is still debatable, but the box office history of films that have made $150 in first 6 days strongly suggests at least 300. Dave may have more insight into this, I don’t have access to the box office mojo archives. The fact that the movie is playing very well to families says to me that the Sat # will be very strong – so we could be looking at a 160-170 first 6 days.

  7. Ian Sinclair says:

    Transformers playing well to families? I saw it last night in Manhattan and there were only about six women in the entire audience. My wife could not be convinced to see it.

  8. mutinyco says:

    To make sure women go to the sequel, I understand they’ll be adding a Vibrator Transformer…

  9. doug r says:

    My wife’s still glaring at me for taking her on Tuesday 🙁

  10. Direwolf says:

    Anghus, Rat is tracking just $2 million behind Cars heading into Saturday as the holiday week and good reviews have provided initial legs. Potter will clearly hurt and Cars showed real good legs ending up at $244 domestic. It would seem to me that Potter would have to hurt awfully badly for Rat not to make it to $200. I guess today’s bump, if any, will give a better idea of its strength ahead of Potter.

  11. Aladdin Sane says:

    Even if Transformers has a 60% dropoff next weekend, I think that many guys are gonna see it again…especially 20-somethings, like myself. I know couple people who’ve already seen it twice…which is crazy. Ratatouille I can justify seeing twice in 4 days…Transformers I’ve gotta wait for a week or two. 😛

  12. kell says:

    We just got back from seeing the Transformers, we being 4 women between 37 and 44 and all of us loved it. It was better than we expected, especially with how bad movies have been this summer. It was cheesy in parts and a bit long but it was great, we are going to see it again, all 4 of us. The theater while not sold out was pretty full and we we had to sit way too close that it did cause one of the gals to get a little queasy and no one should have to see Voight that close up.
    At any rate at the end as the credits started to roll the audience actually clapped and quite a few of them at that. I have never been to a movie where the audience clapped so it was kinda interesting.
    So while many of you say women have no interest in this movie I have to disagree. It’s not going to be for everyone but and it’s not going to win for best picture but we were entertained and that’s more than you get from many movies now.

  13. doug r says:

    I’ve heard the new Potter movie is kind of dark, doesn’t lend well to repeated viewings-it may only make $250 million….

  14. Blackcloud says:

    “I’ve heard the new Potter movie is kind of dark . . .”
    That’s a surprise?

  15. frankbooth says:

    Someone please water Kell. Her leaves are looking a bit brown.

  16. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    Anyone else see Eli Roth judge ON THE LOT? His title dropping of obscure films like Demonia to network audiences was baffling.
    I liked the bit where he dissed the guy who made the only serious horror of the night and displayed more storytelling in 3mins than Roth’s last 3 films.

  17. IOIOIOI says:

    Transformers is going to perform better then David thought it would because David was being a tool with his predictions. I am a fan of Miami Heat as much as the next guy, but he clearly thought the film sucked. So he extrapolated his analysis from there. Not like this does not happen with stocks every day of the week, but it should be noted where his predictiom stems from for the blockbuster of the year.

  18. martin says:

    Dave does have a tendency to make his box office predictions off personal preferences – for the film, the filmmakers, anecdotal evidence. Generally he is as good or better than the other box office gurus, but a couple times a year these flaws show up and for no apparent reason he decides to go way out of step with the realities of the marketplace. I would also say that, as a general rule, Dave has become much more pessimistic in his predictions than he was 5 years ago. His accuracy is probably about the same, unless it’s a big commercial film that he has personal issues with.

  19. kell says:

    frankbooth, I guess I don’t get what you’re saying about me, so if it was intended as an insult you failed.
    I registered today to post, never felt the need before because this really seems to be a rather testy place but I wanted people to know that women are seeing this film.

  20. kell says:

    Duhh, I was just informed you’re insinuating I’m a plant. Oh you’re so clever! When people disagree you’re a troll a plant or something else they can dismiss.
    Whatever I know I posted the truth and in fact we’re planning a trip to our local drive in to catch the movie again tomorrow night, cinderelladrivein.com.
    We had worried that the movie would be too dark but after seeing it today we know it will be fine so drive in here we come.

  21. Question: If Transformers hadn’t have opened over the really drawn out weekend that it did and instead just opened over a typical three-day weekend would it have been the first non-sequel to make $100mil in one weekend? That would have been impressive, right?

  22. doug r says:

    I dunno. Looks like 30 million was its ceiling on any particular day.

  23. I too am a fan of MIAMI HEAT….I really don’t like Kobe and to see Shaq win one while Kobe “I wish I was Jordan” Bryant sat home was extra sweet. They are showing their age though.
    Kell-it’s totally cool that you and 3 girlfriends liked the film, doesn’t mean women want to or are seeing TRANSFORMERS. That movie is a DUDE movie though and through and through again…unless you’re in the Shia age bracket of 7-12 year old girls who think he’s “cool” and 13-25 year old girls who think he’s “hot.”

  24. Hoju says:

    Kamikaze: didn’t the first Spider-Man gross $100 million its first weekend? If so, it would be the first non-sequel to open to that figure.
    ON THE LOT is still on?
    My friends and I, all in our 20s, want to see Transformers if only for the nostalgia factor. We’ve all decided that paying to see it this weekend was not an option – it would feel like an endorsement of the studios’ practice of front-loading ticket sales – and there are other, smaller films that we want to give our money to first. (Killer of Sheep is playing at the arthouse theater five minutes from my house — I think I’ll catch that tomorrow.) But the biggest thing about our desire to see the film is the sense of obligation that comes along with it. Everybody seems to be talking about it and as such, we want to have an opinion based on having seen the film. So while I hope I’m entertained, I’m not exactly rushing to the theater.

  25. Oh, yeah. Was getting Spidey and Spidey 2 mixed it.

  26. Hallick says:

    “That movie is a DUDE movie though and through and through again…unless you’re in the Shia age bracket of 7-12 year old girls who think he’s ‘cool’ and 13-25 year old girls who think he’s ‘hot’.”
    Oh come on now, P.F. What woman can’t identify with a film that casts somebody who looks like Miss-freakin’-Norway as the computer nerd of the story? Can’t they feel the empowerment here?

  27. IOIOIOI says:

    Hoju, you do know that no one is judging you, right? You and your friends are just some random people that apparently love overemphasizing their place in the grand-scheme of things. You really all decided that you wanted to wait to avoid FRONT-LOADING? Are there any other weird conversations that you have with your friends, that you might want to share? Because I am curious as to how far you take your bits of business.

  28. jeffmcm says:

    Why not? Front-loading is the devil’s work.

  29. Chucky in Jersey says:

    So are name-checking and Oscar-whoring.
    “From the writer/director/producer/creator of …” in adverts/trailer = Box Office Flop (with few exceptions).
    “Academy Award Winner/Nominee” before actor’s name = Piece of S#!t Movie.

  30. jeffmcm says:

    No, _those_ are useful tools that most people aren’t bothered by, and those who are have never cared to explain why.

  31. Blackcloud says:

    Chucky’s throwing out the baby with the bathwater here, but I think he has a point. Name-checking makes sense sometimes, and sometimes not. A case of the latter is the trailer for “Across the Universe,” which says the movie is “From Director Julie Taymor.” Might as well say, “From a Director You’ve Never Heard Of.” I know who she is, but I have my doubts about how many other people see the trailer do. I wish I could remember which movie I saw the trailer with. As for “Oscar-whoring” as Chucky so colorfully styles it, I find the practice rather embarrassing. It sucks to be the co-star who doesn’t have a nomination/win, and it is also conducive to head-scratching. “S/he was nominated for an Oscar? I’ve never heard of ’em.”

  32. Hallick-True. I also loved how the female love interest for Shia is supposedly a big gear head yet she rolls around town on a frigging scooter.
    It’s really just best not to *think* about TRANSFORMERS…just wallow in the kiss kiss bang bang.

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