MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Friday Estimates by Klady – Oct 12

What’s the most interesting thing about the Top Five from Friday? They are exactly in reverse order of the number of theaters in which the films are playing.
That and that releasing three movies with the same demographic in the same weekend isn’t the best idea. It looks like the winner of the Serious Trio will be the one sold most as an action film with the most consistent box office star in the group, Wahlberg, and a popular actress showing cleavage.

Be Sociable, Share!

28 Responses to “Friday Estimates by Klady – Oct 12”

  1. Andrew says:

    Wow, good for Tyler Perry. I know Michael Clayton pretty much did what they were expecting, but is Clooney even considered a box office draw? He can’t seem to open anything on his own. So is he like an Angelina Jolie? Media loves him, but audience gets so much of him for free via said media that they don’t care to rush out and see something with him in it?

  2. Blackcloud says:

    Any reason for the missing question mark in “Why Did I Get Married” esides the usual illiteracy of people who forget to put question marks in titles?

  3. NickF says:

    I see that Tyler Perry in this Tyler Perry movie written by Tyler Perry and directed by Tyler Perry.
    Good opening for him. It should win the weekend outright, as opposed to a slight win over the other newcomers.
    I liked Syriana, though I had to watch it twice to understand everything. For Michael Clayton, I’ll do the same thing with Syriana and watch it when it’s on HBO a year from now.
    We Own The Night had a good marketing campaign so it should have performed well this weekend. Sony’s purchase of it looks like a smart one.
    Everything else is as expected.
    About George Clooney. I was reading on another site 😉 that he potentially has an open door at Warner Bros. for his movies. Looking at this Box Office History that would appear to be the case.
    If that didn’t work, here’s his history again:

  4. The Carpetmuncher says:

    Hey Poland, Good Lookin’ Out on that Lars recommendation!
    Saw it. Loved it. Totally loved it. Just a sweet, beautiful film. As much fun as I’ve had at the theatre in a long time.
    It seems Mr. Gosling can do no wrong. And Mr. Gillepsie has a wonderful, light touch.
    If anyone hasn’t had a chance to see LARS or INTO THE WILD, you should be very happy, because you’ve got two great times at the movies ahead of you.

  5. Fishermansfriend says:

    Is the friday numbers good for Lars?

  6. aframe says:

    There is actually a question mark at the end of the title of WHY DID I GET MARRIED? It’s just that most of the key art (one-sheets and bus stop posters) have the question mark upside down with the wedding bands. On the actual film’s opening titles and on the bus billboards the question mark is there.

  7. Spacesheik says:

    I was looking forward to seeing the SLEUTH remake with Michael Caine until I saw the trailer, looked like it was shot in someone’s high tech apartment, seemed closer in spirit to Michael Douglas’ A PERFECT MURDER than the original, which was shot in a lavish Brtisih estate and manor – that manor with all its embalmed animals, coats of armor, theater goodies etc was brilliant, a star in its own right.

  8. David Poland says:

    It’s Len… who gave us Spider-Man 2 numbers all summer… sorry… will check for it next time…

  9. seattlemoviegoer says:

    you know…
    i just read Nikke Finke’s piece on the Friday box office and now yours. is it really fair to put down Clooney (or Jolie, for that matter) when their films draw low numbers at the box office in spite of good reviews? what hard-core dramas really pull in the big numbers? these aren’t “opening weekend” movies. there is no CGI, nor rampant violence, nor Adam Sandler, a comic book character, nor a tentpole in sight. Hollywood has itself to blame for marginalizing the most common of genres…the smart, adult drama. they ALWAYS have to praised to the skies and treated with kid gloves to make any kind of profit.

  10. David Poland says:

    Your first mistake was reading Nikki.
    Second mistake was mistaking her for someone interested in the truth.
    Third mistake is to assume that this is a bad number… truth is, the number is about what was expected, but the Tyler Perry was bigger than most thought it would be although it was expected to be #1 by many and the Wahlberg audience showed up for the very commercially sold We Own… hardly a disaster for Michael Clayton.
    Opening is never about the quality of the film… adults show up in weeks 3 and 4… Clooney IS a draw overseas… and unspoken is that Michael Clayton didn’t cost nearly as much as either of the big summer flops at WB.

  11. I saw WE OWN THE NIGHT today and it’s bad. Real bad. Totally frustrating too because Gray does some super cool stuff with the subjective POV but he should’ve done some really cool stuff with the script. As in, make it not suck.

  12. Chicago48 says:

    there’s a glut of movies being released….way too many and not enough screens for all the movies….to the point where a lot of good movies (Talk to Me, Eastern Promises) are totally being lost, not seen, buried….good movies that should be seen, but Hollywood is like cannabilizing itself.
    Not one movie on that list has shown to have legs (except Yuma) and that’s a big problem that Hollywood has to solve.

  13. Aris P says:

    They’ve been canabalizing for the last 6-7 years I’d say. Too much pressure to get Oscar pushes for their films, regardless of the fact that they lower their odds by releasing 12 movies a weekend. They don’t care as long as some of them are lucky enough to get the noms.
    I saw WOTN a while back and I agree it’s not good, though I wouldnt say it’s horrible. It’s just doesn’t cover anything new and there are giant plot holes throughout.

  14. I’d say a $10mil opening weekend for a George Clooney legal thriller (unfortunately, Tilda, Tom and Sydney aren’t names) is pretty good.
    How strange that Elizabeth 2 debuted on exactly 2000 screens.
    Not sure what to make of that number for Control. Sam Morton ain’t gonna get that Oscar nod without some minor hit status, I imagine.

  15. Hejla says:

    I don’t expect a movie like Michael Clayton to do big numbers its first weekend. Having said that, I think Hollywood and the media like to paint George Clooney into a bigger star than he actually is. He does ok overseas, but I don’t think he’s the huge draw he’s often made out to be. Looking at his Box Office record outside the US, he’s certainly no Brad Pitt.
    I can’t say that I’m surprised Tyler Perry’s movie did as well as it did. But I’ll be most interested in seeing what happens to Michael Clayton and Elizabeth in the coming weeks.

  16. Andrew says:

    Yeah, I get what you all are saying about dramas not usually doing big numbers, but still I thought the whole point of a “movie star” is to guarantee that a certain # of people will turn up for a project regardless of what it is especially one in wide release with arguably one of the most high profile actors out there and regardless of what the movie cost to make.
    Or is it time to admit that besides Will Smith, it’s time to admit not the “movie star” that attracts people, it’s the movie, stupid.

  17. Andrew says:

    Yeah, I get what you all are saying about dramas not usually doing big numbers, but still I thought the whole point of a “movie star” is to guarantee that a certain # of people will turn up for a project regardless of what it is especially one in wide release with arguably one of the most high profile actors out there and regardless of what the movie cost to make.
    Or is it time to admit that besides Will Smith, it’s not the “movie star” that attracts people, it’s the movie, stupid.

  18. Andrew says:

    Yeah, I get what you all are saying about dramas not usually doing big numbers, but still I thought the whole point of a “movie star” is to guarantee that a certain # of people will turn up for a project regardless of what it is especially one in wide release with arguably one of the most high profile actors out there and regardless of what the movie cost to make.
    Or is it time to admit that besides Will Smith, it’s not the “movie star” that attracts people, it’s the movie, stupid.

  19. Andrew says:

    Sorry about the posts! Don’t know what happened, my apologies.

  20. anghus says:

    the major problem is that Michael Clayton was marketed poorly, and on Clooney, and i think this is the perfect example of verifiable proof of a star’s box office draw.
    It’s called Michael Clayton. The title is of a character (i’m assuming, haven’t seen it), and that character is played by Clooney. The ambiguous marketing means that the studio was hinging the success of the film squarely on his shoulders.
    I saw two different 30 second spots that told me nothing about the film other than Clooney was in it, and it has something to do with a lawsuit.
    Look at last year’s Pursuit of Happyness, in comparison. A movie about a character, all the ads and marketing placed on Will Smith’s shoulders and the thing just kept making money because people like Will Smith.
    The kicker is this:
    Will Smith stays out of the tabloids.
    I don’t care what people say about the press being good for you, but if you start looking at the most bankable stars in the world, the ones that stay out of the tabloids do better, because you don’t get burnt out hearing about their name.
    You don’t see Tom Hanks in the tabloids. Or Matt Damon. Or Will Smith.
    The latest smart one to do it is Shia Lebouff. He’s not out partying. You get shots of him walking down the beach. Smart kid.
    Four quadrant success comes from staying out of the tabloids.

  21. NickF says:

    Matt Damon had his fair share of tabloid stuff in the early part of this decade. I think that was the time when he was still tied to Ben Affleck hip.
    Shia has been in some of the rags, but that’s only for a drug gaze while partying with the singer Rhianna.

  22. NickF says:

    DRUNK, not drug.

  23. anghus says:

    Shia. Damon. Hanks. Will Smith.
    These guys aren’t in the tabloids all the time.
    Compare the box office on them (i know, it’s too early for Shia), but when you compare them to Pitt or Clooney, or the other actors who are constantly smeared across the tabloids and websites…
    You know when Tom Cruise’s box office started to suffer?
    When he divorces Kidman and everything became about his ‘new’ love affair and his scientology.
    People have a tolerance for celebrity, whether they know it or not. The worst thing a celebrity can do is overmarket themselves. Jennifer Lopez comes to mind.
    her movies don’t make money. her records don’t make money. but her fragrances do.
    if you overmarket yourself, you better have something to sell other than the movies.
    It seemed a few years back that celebrities started getting smarter, like selling their exclusive wedding photos to the highest bidders, but a lot of them still haven’t figured out that every photo snapped, every little scandal that the tabloids manufacture, it diminishes your value.
    There is an exposure limit. The really smart celebs have realized that.

  24. The Carpetmuncher says:

    Is Clooney in the tabloids that much? I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make about the tabloids, but outside of falling off his motor cycle and just being famous, I don’t see how Clooney courts that stuff. It’s not like he’s hanging out at Hyde every night.
    The thing people forget is that Michael Clayton was not a super-expensive film, so putting big studio expectations on it is misleading people as to what the film is about.

  25. anghus says:

    Clooney is oft mentioned. Not as much as Pitt, but his every move and his single lifestyle has him painted sometimes as a lothario. He’s also very political, and the shouting matches with guys like O’Reilley gets him unfairly bashed.
    It’s not that anyone courts it. It’s limiting your exposure.
    Tom Cruise is the finest example, in my opinion. Someone who could do no wrong until the door was opened and people started to see what insiders had been saying for years. Then he went on that infamous PR run of bizzaro appearances.
    being a successful celebrity is like being successful in dating. You have to be likable, but you can’t give too much away. You have to limit what you say, and where you say it.
    Clooney spent the last half of the nineties in dreck, on the cover of every magazine, being the sexiest man alive, etc. etc. By the time he realized that his film choices were, at best, pretty bad.
    And let’s think back to a time where Clooney was holding press conferences after the death of Diana to condemn the papparazzi. He has done a great job of picking roles since then, spending most of the 21st century picking quality projects. However, there was an initial period where he was in the media all day, every day.
    Back when Clooney was on ER, he was groomed by the media for success. The problem was, none of his films were making money. He was lik McGregor or Jude Law, talented guys who were suddenly headlining 100 million dollar films even though they had no foundation to expect that kind of audience to show up and see the films.
    And there’s no point to this, other than my theory that celebrities who avoid over exposure are far better box office draws.

  26. But Michael Clayton seems very adult-oriented. Other celebrity-court-dramas like Erin Brockovich were very mass-audience oriented. The other day I saw a trailer for Clayton in front of Superbad (wtf?) and it just doesn’t feel suited for mass audiences. And if they were marketing it in front of Superbad in America then perhaps that’s a sign as to why the results weren’t as high as expected.
    Still, it probably should have made more money than Runaway Jury

  27. Chucky in Jersey says:

    Recipe for box office disaster:
    Transplant “The Departed” to New York.
    ID the stars with “Academy Award Nominee”, “Academy Award Nominee” and “Academy Award Winner”.
    Result: “We Own the Night”.
    That sound you heard is a MAC-10 going rapid-fire.

  28. jeffmcm says:

    Chucky, the information you are trying to pass on to us is stuff that you learned in a class or from some valued mentor, right?

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