MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Friday Estimates by Klady

No precedent for this one.
The only other $30 million-plus opening day in December was Lord of The Rings: Return of The King, third of a massively successful trilogy

Be Sociable, Share!

18 Responses to “Friday Estimates by Klady”

  1. Whoa! That’s one biiig number for I Am Legend. Frontloaded?

  2. movieman says:

    Nah, that thing is going to have some pretty sturdy legs.
    WOM should be excellent–it’s that rare tentpole movie that actually delivers–and I can see it playing steadily up to February at least.
    In today’s economy (and in today’s super-saturated movie marketplace) that would be a formidable achievement indeed.

  3. Citizen R says:

    Even if IAL is somewhat frontloaded by December standards it’ll still make over $200 mil domestic. It should perform strongly in foreign markets, too, so $500-600 million worldwide looks to be the range. Great performance.

    Alvin looks likely to outperform Bee Movie, even though it had a far smaller marketing push (and a much lower budget to boot).

    With the action adventure crowd flocking to IAL and the family audience opting for Alvin, TGC is set to drop big, especially by December standards. It looks like a drop of 60-63%. Narnia dropped by 51% in its second weekend and ended up grossing 4.4 times its opening. If TGC were to gross four times opening that would result in $103 million domestic, and it may not even manage that. Domestically at least it’s shaping up to be a disaster. Europe has performed strongly so far, but will other markets follow suit?

  4. waterbucket says:

    I Am Legend has a cool title, interesting premise, and a really popular star. What else do you need?

  5. Citizen R says:

    Actually, looking at the numbers for TGC the drop looks likely to be at least 65%, and an Eragon-level drop in the high 60s is possible. Yikes.

    I Am Legend is such a great title that it’s a headscratcher as to why they didn’t use it for the Charlton Heston version.

  6. movieman says:

    I’m wondering if “IAL”‘s Friday’s numbers were inflated somewhat by dire weather forecasts for the northeastern part of the country. Some folks might have gone out of their way to catch it yesterday,
    fearing that they could be snowbound for the rest of the weekend.
    Just a theory. Let’s see how Saturday and Sunday pans out.
    All I can tell ya is that it’s looking pretty grim here in Ohio (snow, ice, the whole winter nine yards).

  7. movieman says:

    “Chipmunks,” though, was a real shocker.
    Like most people, I was thinking “Underdog”/”Fat Albert” biz at most.
    It’s not quite as horrible as I feared, so I’m not going to be unduly bummed when it crosses the $100-million threshold over the Xmas holidays.

  8. Chucky in Jersey says:

    This “Legend” was intended for Ahnold … until the budget got too large and he decided to become the Governator.
    Frontloaded? The Northeast, Midwest and eastern Canada want to see this blockbuster before a major winter storm rolls through.
    I agree with movieman. Given what’s out there and the less-than-stellar Oscar Bait this “Legend” will be around for a long while.

  9. jeffmcm says:

    Chucky, a question: are there any ‘Oscar bait’ movies out there that you approve of?

  10. ManWithNoName says:

    Can you image if they did the whole “I Am Legend, starring Oscar nominee Will Smith”? It would have been the biggest flop of the year I bet!

  11. lazarus says:

    Pleasantly surprised by IAL this afternoon. Much better than it should have been, really (although for some reason I didn’t think I, Robot was that bad–and I’m an Asimov fan). So let’s start the argument right now: Better than War of the Worlds? At least it didn’t pussy out at the end.
    After all the hype, I actually thought the Dark Knight trailer was kind of meh. I understand that the film isn’t going to be as epic in scope as the first one, but aside from Heath Ledger looking like he delivers BIG TIME, there wasn’t much ooh and ahh in it. A semi-truck flipping over? Big fucking deal, like I haven’t seen that before. Perhaps a little more mystique would have gone a long way–there was nothing iconic in that promo at all.

  12. Geoff says:

    It could be quite frontloaded, but it still looks like it will have a bigger opening that Return of the King.
    Dave said on the other thread that he doesn’t think that National Treasure is a $200 million kind of movie, but I am not so sure. The first one did about $170 million, which is about what Meet the Parents did, as well. I could easily see this taking off and grossing a few notches higher, because of the extended holiday, a la Meet the Fockers.

  13. Dr Wally says:

    “Better than War of the Worlds? At least it didn’t pussy out at the end.” No. I feel that Cruise’s puiblic antics have actually led to WOTW being, if anything, rather underrated. And i don’t have any issue with the film’s ending personally. The point is not that Tom Cruise and his son reconcile. The point is that Tom Cruise arrives at the house and that they don’t even invite him in.

  14. IOIOIOI says:

    Jeff; the Oscar bait flicks have been like a bunch of bad halibit this year. I really hope that Michael Clayton racks up because it is that damn good.
    Geoff; Heat may be out to lunch with National Treasure. I have a feeling it may make this week look like piker change next week. Yet, next weekend, will most likely be considered a 5-day weekend, but National Treasure has bank written all over it. Or Disney hope that it does.

  15. Monco says:

    I think The Dark Knight trailer delivers big time. It only got me more amped to see it. Of course I am a huge Batman dork so I could be jaded.

  16. doug r says:

    I think some of the business might be the Dark Knight preview “bundled” with the IMAX presentation. I know us IMAX folks got six minutes of the prologue scene in Dark Knight with about a minute of promo. Did the 35mm showings get a Dark Knight trailer as well?

  17. brack says:

    As much as I loved the last Batman movie, I’d rather pay to see the movie and not the preview. However, if I end up seeing I Am Legend at the IMAX, it’ll be a nice bonus.

  18. In my first reply I asked “Frontloaded” and what I meant was, as people have suggested, a very heavy Friday but much weaker Saturday/Sunday.
    Those Alvin numbers ($40mil+ for the w/e?) are mindboggling. Who knew?!

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