MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Friday Estimates by Klady – 1/26

Well… the biggest drop in history for a movie opening over $10 million was Star Trek: Nemesis, falling 76.2% in its second weekend from $18.5m to $4.4m in its second weekend.
Cloverfield is on target to had a $10m – $11m weekend (if things go well) and no better than a 70% drop… epic, really.
The worst multiples after an opening in the $40m range belong to the Scary Movie franchise and Batman & Robin, whose opening weekend represented just about 40% of their domestic total.
The good news for Paramount is that the international market tends to fall for this kind of sucker bet even harder than America. So expect massive openings in markets like Japan and significant profits for this monstrous movie. And expect more of the same from JJ Abrams and Paramount until that opening dwindles into the teens.
And before you write off Rambo as #2, note that it will open to more than Rocky Balboa and will also be a cash cow overseas, much more so than RB. At worst, you’re looking at over $100 million worldwide, probably no less than $125 million. And that will keep Sly in HGH for a few more years.
The There Will Be Blood expansion is good… and keeps them pretty much on target to do about half the business of No Country For Old Men domestically. When The Coen Bros’ movie expanded in to 860 screens in November, they had a $7.8 million weekend. TWBB is looking at $3.5m this weekend on 885. Country will pass $50m this weekend.

Be Sociable, Share!

36 Responses to “Friday Estimates by Klady – 1/26”

  1. Wrecktum says:

    “And that will keep Sly in HGH for a few more years.”
    No Country is already the highest grossing COen Bros. movie ever and, with Miramax keeping it on screen as effectively as they are, it’ll go even higher. Nice job, Battsek and the boys.

  2. LYT says:

    I called it on Meet the Spartans, I’m not happy to say.

  3. movieman says:

    Apparently mainstream moviegoers detested “Cloverfield” (hence the “C MINUS” Cinemascore rating) and are spreading poisonous w.o.m. That’s the most obvious reason for its precipitous decline. Plus, all the fanboys have already seen it.
    The opening day figure for “Spartans” is a cause for alarm, however.
    I wouldn’t be surprised if the braintrust (I use that word loosely) behind Fox’s lameass parody flicks are already prepping a “Cloverfield” spoof for release next January. Does anyone with an IQ above 15 even like these things??? Ugh.
    The only silver lining is that “Spartans” and the sickeningly violent “Rambo” are both destined to be one weekend wonders–sort of like “Cloverfield” was.
    Nice to see sturdy legs on “27 Dresses.” I think there should be little doubt that Heigl is indeed the real deal.
    It looks like the tony Paramount Vantage has absolutely no idea how to market an urban dance flick. “How She Move” is better than either “Stomp the Yard” or “You Got Served,” and those opened huge in previous Januarys. Go figure. Even taking into account the much smaller screen count, that’s still a pitiful opening day figure.

  4. Rob says:

    This mainstream moviegoer sure detested Cloverfield. I would have liked it better if they had retitled it The Great Dudebro Massacre.

  5. chris says:

    Care to revisit the discussion on “No Country” box office, Movieman, now that it’s surpassed your inital $30-35 projection and will soon zip past your “The Queen” projection?

  6. martindale says:

    Not that it matters that much, but Cloverfield will make more than 10 or 11 mil this weekend. I don’t see how it finishes with a 2.5 multiplier for the weekend. There’s no football this weekend to soften the Sunday grosses.

  7. Dellamorte says:

    That’ll help Rambo and Spartans, not Cloverfield.

  8. movieman says:

    Hey, Chris- I never doubted that “NCFOM” could top the Coen’s previous top grosser (“O Brother”). What I said was that the film would never cross over with multiplex popcorn munchers and be the sort of mainstream, all-things-to-all-people hit that (for two recent examples) “National Treasure”/”I am Legend” were. And it’s not.
    Miramax did a briliant sales job, though, and I applaud their efforts. Now let’s see whether they can take their winning campaign all the way to the Super Bowl….I mean, Oscar night.
    $70-million max looks perfectly do-able at this point, but that’s still $150 million+ less than assembly line mediocrities like “Transformers” or “Shrek the Third” did last summer.

  9. brack says:

    movieman, you’re pointing out the obvious.

  10. Wrecktum says:

    Huge prediction: Shine A Light will not do as well as Prince Caspian. I know I’m going out on a limb, but with movieman’s daring stance on No Country’s boxoffice, I feel emboldened.

  11. brack says:

    ^^^ LOL

  12. movieman says:

    Hey, Brack!
    Aren’t you the rocket scientist who said that “Cloverfield” was going to be bigger than “Lord of the Rings”?
    Or was that Chrissy? Or maybe Nigel/Nicol/”the English guy”?
    So “NCFOM” is going to do a little better than my initial projection by surpassing “The Queen.” That hardly calls for champagne and fireworks. You missed the entire point of my argument. I said that the Coens would/could never make a film with universal appeal, and that there was a finite ceiling attached (e.g., Tyler Perry’s chitlin circuit programmers) to even their biggest hits.
    If I remember correctly, you (or maybe it was Brackman) boasted that the Coens would skyrocket past $100-million and never look back strictly based on the skewed figures from its initial platform launch in buff-friendly cities like NY and LA.
    Sorry to burst your bubble, but that simply isn’t going to happen.
    And lest you think I’m a Coen basher, “NC” was #7 on my ten-best list.

  13. movieman says:

    Chris, Brack, et al–
    Next you’re going to predict that “TWBB” is going to be a bigger hit than “Alvin and the Chipmunks” because of its huge exclusive openings in NY and LA over the holidays.
    Don’t let your fan/cult-boy enthusiasms blind your eyes to cold, hard economic realities, laddies.

  14. brack says:

    I’d never make such a silly claim about Cloverfield, or about NCFOM passing $100m, you are mistaken.

  15. Hallick says:

    Was I the only person watching Cloverfield getting reminded in a big way of Miracle Mile (the Anthony Edwards one from the late 80’s)? Or was I the only person who saw Miracle Mile? Or am I the only person who remembers Miracle Mile?

  16. Joe Leydon says:

    Hallick: Miracle Mile is a classic. Seriously.

  17. Roman says:

    “And before you write off Rambo as #2, note that it will open to more than Rocky Balboa and will also be a cash cow overseas, much more so than RB.”
    Will Rocky with it’s over-the-top violence, shallow portrayal of minorities and “Amerian Hero” main character hold more appeal overseas than Rocky? We shall see… I certainly hope that it won’t.

  18. Botner says:

    Saw Cloverfield tonight. To take a page from Dennis Green, ‘It was what I thought it was.’ Nothing more, nothing less.
    Not horrible by any means, it was mildly entertaining but ultimately forgettable. The theatre I saw it in was about 2/3 full.
    That drop is really horrible though. I didn’t think the film was bad enough to warrant THAT big of a drop.

  19. chris says:

    No, I’m not going to predict “Blood” will surpass ‘Alvin,” movieman. You’re the only one making silly comparisons between movies that are out-of-the-park smashes if they get to $50 million b.o. and movies that cost two or three times that to make. (And, if you go back to the Novemeber thread, you’ll see that you’ve altered your silly tune, anyway.)

  20. movieman says:

    Hey, Crissy-
    In November I said that it would be a long shot for “NCFOM” to reach the $50-million “Queen” mark. Now that it has–and $70-million is clearly within reach, especially if it wins the Oscar as predicted–there’s little more to say other than I underestimated Miramax’s marketing genius.
    If I recall, somebody on here made the absurd claim that “No Country” was on its way to achieving blockbuster ($200-million-plus) status after its huge platform bow in a few buff-centric big cities. I only pointed out that the Coens (God bless ’em) don’t make the kind of films that appeal to middle-of-the-road, mainstream moviegoers (the type who gobble the latest pre-packaged franchise offering like a box of Goobers).
    Talk to John and Josephine Public and they’ll tell you that “NCFOM” sucked because it “didn’t have an ending.” I’ve gotten enough angry emails from readers complaining about my four-star “No Country” review to know that. Sad, but true.
    I don’t really think there’s a story here, but I resent being baited.

  21. combat_wombat says:

    Not seen Cloverfield yet so no frame of reference but MM was quite an experience when I saw it with absolutely no clue what it was about or what to expect. Reminds me that sometimes no knowledge or expectations can really enhance the moveigoing experience.

  22. movieman says:

    I haven’t seen “Miracle Mile” since its original release in 1989, but was always reminded of its chilling impact whenever I saw Anthony Edwards back in the early days of “E.R.”
    Does anyone know what ever became of the film’s director, Steve DeJarnatt? Amazingly, Leonard Maltin only gave “MM” a 1 and 1/2 star rating in his movie guide.

  23. Chucky in Jersey says:

    “Miramax’s marketing genius” = Oscar-Whoring in the trailer + Buying Awards all around.
    At an AMC near me yesterday the “Michael Clayton” re-release sold out (matinee) and “Mad Money” came close to a sellout (late afternoon). Proof there are movies for older people other than Oscar-Whoring epics.

  24. Noah says:

    Chucky, Michael Clayton was the first movie to pimp out its Oscar nominations. And what do you think the re-release is for? It’s to make money off of the fact that it got nominated for Oscars and more people want to see it because of that.
    So, if you liked it, I guess it makes you an Oscar-whore (or Oscar-pimp?) like the rest of us.

  25. movieman says:

    Now’s as good a time as any to comment on the hottest “older people” flick in current release: Rob Reiner’s “Bucket List.”
    Who needs Oscar nominations when you’ve got a w.o.m. hit that’s turning into the AARP Generation equivalent of “Alvin and the Chipmunks”?
    That said, it’s nice to see Rob Reiner finally have another b.o. success after more than a decade spent squandering his early career goodwill and cred on dreck like “Rumor Has It” and “Alex and Emma.”

  26. I dug CLOVERFIELD….not so much the movie, just the whole marketing/1 hour 10 minutes/1st person POV thing. Eh, the movie was cool too I guess. Here’s the thing though…
    That’s a franchise movie. We can have 4 more movies through different characters POV’s from that same event. We really don’t know much about what DID happen. What happens when you’re bit, where the monster came from, etc. I think it’s a fairly brilliant film and a truly brilliant scheme to make a franchise. Too bad it wasn’t made by some young indie kid who broke in this way.
    The other thing I noted…
    Why, why WHY is every CGI monster this kind of…off white, half baked looking thing with no discernible face? The CLOVERFIELD monster looked like an offspring of the I AM LEGEND zombies. Is it just cheaper to make that “look” or is it supposed to be scarier? I don’t get it.

  27. Bennett says:

    Saw Cloverfield Friday night….shockingly only 12 people in the audience….I loved it… Though for being an incredibly short movie I found the first ten minutes annoying. Maybe I am just an old fart, but I am shocked that this received a PG-13

  28. Bennett says:

    whoops wasn’t done yet. I mean with the blood splattering on the screen, I would say that this was alot more violent than Blair Witch and that received an R. Between this and Beowulf, I am shocked on what passes for a PG-13 anymore.
    What would be nice if a theme park would take 10 minutes of this film and make it a 4D motion simulation ride?
    P.S. I am also hope that Bad Robot makes a sequel.

  29. Hallick says:

    I wonder if the ending of Cloverfield ultimately turned off more word of mouth for the movie than the whole of the film. A slightly less bleak finale might have stemmed the drop off – well that or killing the character holding the camera WITH the camera around the four minute mark. I wouldn’t even need a reason for it to be written into the script. He’s brained -ironically for him- to death and the party just rolls on. Putting HIS head in the middle of the street on the movie poster in place of the statue of liberty’s would probably spur repeat business).
    And aside from Blair Witch Project getting parental props for the format of the movie, what about 84 Charlie MoPic? That’s another forgotten little sleeper I was reminded of here.

  30. jeffmcm says:

    Chucky, are you telling us that Mad Money is movie more worthy of being seen than No Country or TWBB?
    Also, is it possible for a person’s head to be so far upside their own ass that they disappear inside a rectal wormhole?

  31. jeffmcm says:

    Sorry for the grammatical weirdness there.

  32. L.B. says:

    That’s okay. “Rectal wormhole” makes up for any number of grammatical slip-ups.

  33. TMJ says:

    Looks like CLOVERFIELD will dip 68.3%
    Not the record-breaking drop haters were hoping for, and not the healthy second weekend supporters wanted.
    No real winners, and no real losers. Milkshakes for all!

  34. I’d hardly call a drop of 68.3% anything close to a winner.

  35. Hopscotch says:

    Yeah I agree, that dip is horrible.
    I wanted to see it … until I heard my friends’ reaction. two of them liked it, the rest outright detested the movie. So I’ll pass.

  36. 4nkate says:

    I’m sure Rambo is the real number one this weekend. Kids just bought tix to Spartans and Cloverfield but went to see to see Rambo. I’ve heard teens complain about how bad Epic Movie was so even they are probably tired of being taken a third time. Its clear by the number of people who text in theaters that there are no longer users so I’m sure its easier than ever to sneak into a different movie.

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