MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland


Not much to discuss.
The Sex & The City coverage is interesting. The idea of the film opening to more than $30 million seems to be freaking some people out… particularly the people at WB who just fired the people who picked up the title after the larger studio took a pass on the ol’ TV show.
There is no real history for a film like this, though the question of whether women could open was probably similar – fewer dart-throwing monkeys in the chorus – for Charlie’s Angels… a movie that should have been a cash cow for Sony, but cost way too much. If reports that S&TC cost $65 million are true, that’s kinda crazy as well.
Obviously, the woman niche is, in hard numbers, much bigger than The Geek 8 niche. And they will have to come out in force, though it is probably a mistake to underestimate gay men attending the film in pretty significant numbers (though many gay men would be offended by the very idea… just like straight men).
The ticket sales companies are all in a flutter because shows are selling out in surprising numbers… but I would argue that this is more about the market for the movie, older women, who plan weekend choices more carefully and have the cash to pay the service charge without thinking about it. S&TC could be Tyler Perry for women.

Be Sociable, Share!

41 Responses to “Thursday”

  1. Hopscotch says:

    “Tyler Perry for women”
    BOOM! That’s the analogy, I had been trying to thinking of one this last week when see the “big” number on Monday morning. A very, very high-voltage group of supporters see it out of the gate, then a nose dive the next weekend.

  2. Wrecktum says:

    Am I the only one who works at a place where groups of women and gay guys are planning on sneaking off in the afternoon on Friday to see this film?

  3. Hopscotch says:

    No. You’re not.

  4. doug r says:

    Pardon if this sounds a little like Lex, but my interest extends to…Are there Naked Cougars?

  5. Tofu says:

    Not to discourage, but are gay viewers honestly a large enough segment of the population to sway Box Office in terms of millions of dollars?

  6. Rob says:

    I’m convinced it’s gonna do $50 mil and knock Indy to second. I’m kind of dreading it but I’ll still go.
    And of course the gay audience is large enough to represent millions in ticket sales.

  7. Bennett says:

    They had a sex and the city viewing party tonight in my town. 500 people paid 100 dollars to see the flick tonight at 7:30…There was a party and some other gifts….but a hundred bucks to see a movie a day early…..I think that 50 million is good guess. I wonder if Indy will have bad word of mouth and drop 50-60%????

  8. The Big Perm says:

    I think a lot of people liked Indy. Most of my group did.
    Am I the only one who wants to see The Happening? Although for me, going to see another M. Night film at this point is like battered women syndrome. But I WANT him to knock one out of the park again!

  9. mutinyco says:

    Tyler Perry averages $20-22M openings. I can’t imagine this doing much more. Roger Ebert spends nearly 2 paragraphs of his review discussing the mechanics of canine masturbation.

  10. The Big Perm says:

    This is going to have a bigger opening than Tyler Perry.

  11. mutinyco says:

    Possibly. But not as big as people think. It’s a 2 1/2 hour rated-R chick flick. Fewer show times. Restrictive rating. A large segment of the populous has ZERO interest.
    Indy’ll stay #1. This’ll be #2.

  12. The Big Perm says:

    35-40 million? Maybe?
    Not that I’m a good prognosigator…in fact, I probably didn’t even spell it correctly. But so far I’ve been batting well with Indy and Iron Man.
    The Happening…there’s one that’s hard to guess at.

  13. seymourgrant says:

    I’m thinking SATC will do some surprising numbers.
    As for gay’s having pull, there’s a theater here in Chelsea that has start times as late as 2:45am! With previews you’re not getting out of there till 5:30am! That’s dedication. And to be fair, there’s a 2am showing at Lincoln Center also. The New York numbers will be huge, as for the rest of the country, that’s a toss up, but I think it could surprise.

  14. Cadavra says:

    Only in Hollywood could a demographic that represents 55% of the population be considered “niche.”

  15. I’d direct people to Box Office Prophets’ weekend predictions. I think they have a really good argument for a large opening that, yes, compares Sex and the City to The Passion of the Christ. A barely-targeted audience with a brand name title. The Christians and Jesus, Women and Sex.
    Is it so hard to believe that women are anticipating this movie? Because movies like it don’t come around very often.
    Under $30mil would surprise me, $50mil is kinda what I’m expecting, anything higher would be kind of shocking.

  16. Crow T Robot says:

    Women don’t go to movies with women. Not in the kind of bulk that makes a dent. They go with men. And I can assure you men aren’t going to this one.
    So the Crow-O Meter projects $15 million.

  17. leahnz says:

    too right, cadavra and kam.
    oh how right you are, crow t, us little ol’ women couldn’t possibly get there on our own, no siree, we need you big strong men to decide which movie to see, drive us to the theatre, do that pesky parallel parking thingy, pay for the tickets and explain the oh-so-confusing plot to us, otherwise we’d just be at a loss! 😉

  18. jeffmcm says:

    If ever there was a movie that women would go to see in a group, this is probably it.

  19. JPK says:

    Knowing that anecdotal evidence does not make a trend will not stop me from offering the following anecdote. My wife and her circle of friends (5 in total) are going out for drinks tonight and then to SATC…guess who is watching 4 children tonight? Anyway, in addition to tonight’s festivities, she already has plans for a return trip to the cinema with her mother to see a Sunday matinee showing. Just like a female orgasm achieved from slow and deliberate stimulation, this film is going to explode.

  20. SJRubinstein says:

    Same over here – my wife and her friends are all discussing “what their ‘Sex and the City'” plans are. Women I know who I NEVER figured for “SATC” fans are going.

  21. Stella's Boy says:

    The Chicago Tribune ran an article this week about women and the SATC movie. It talked to a few women who will be seeing it in a large group of women. Granted, it’s only one story in one newspaper, but I don’t think it’s the exception to the rule. I think this is an event movie for women, a 300 for women. I can’t imagine it opening to less than $40 million.

  22. Direwolf says:

    FWIW, I am going with my wife to the 4:45 show in Evanston, IL. The theatre is a very popular and attracts affluent folks. The 6:10, 7, 8, 9:25, and 10:15 shows were sold out when I went to Fandango early this morning.
    And I’ll cop to being a 47 year old married guy who really liked the TV show and is looking forward to seeing another really, really long episode. I will say, however, that if my wife wasn’t heading out of town for ten days on Monday that this would not have been an opening weekend movie for me.

  23. Cadavra says:

    “So the Crow-O Meter projects $15 million.”
    As of 9:30 this morning Pacific Time, one of the two top BO-counting firms already shows over 6 mill in the till.
    Ready to eat crow, Crow?

  24. Rob says:

    As of 1:30 P.M. here in Boston, all shows are sold out at the Regal Fenway (where it’s playing on 3 screens) until 11:30 pm.

  25. LexG says:

    Good to see Roland Joffe is having fun making awesome movies now; Sure his early stuff got all the claim, but would you rather be hanging out in some jungle shooting depressing shit, or rolling with HOT CHICKS?
    SO HOT. Can you imagine being this stuffy old director and suddenly getting to roll in Russian clubs with HOT MODELS and shooting them in a neon glow???
    That movie will be MY Sex and the City.

  26. Crow T Robot says:

    (slides all his chips on number 15, watches the wheel spin)
    Come on, come on, baby needs a new pair of non-designer reasonably priced shoes!

  27. Jeff says:

    Just heard from my friend from WB distrib…..the film is already at 8 million for the day. Indy is going down.

  28. The Big Perm says:

    Lex is right, the things he says ARE interesting and unique and varied and hilarious!!!

  29. LexG says:


  30. Chucky in Jersey says:

    S&TC is playing upmarket/arthouse where possible. Given the current B.O. slump on the arty side that should only help the pic.

  31. LexG says:

    EMBRACE the YOU AND I trailer.
    Embrace it.

  32. djk813 says:

    I thought Warner Brothers wasn’t making movies with women in the lead any more.

  33. The movie is out here next Thursday (June 5) so some friends and I will be going on Friday night (can’t go opening night). Almost all of the gals I’m going with discovered the show in the years since it ended. Only myself and one other watched it in it’s original airings. Even my mother is going to be seeing it and she used to really dislike the show, but since watching it this past year on “cable” she’s found herself enjoying it. She keeps asking me if there are any movies she could see and that’s the only one she wants to see.
    Alas, the boyfriend is embarassed at the mere thought of me going to see it. Needless to say, he’ll be home alone.

  34. THX5334 says:

    So Kam, I guess now we know which one is the husband & which one is the wife… 😉
    (Sorry, it was just too easy)

  35. Well, if we were allowed to marry then sure…
    (Sorry, it was just too easy)

  36. leahnz says:

    kam, do you have legal ‘civil unions’ in aussie (see, i wrote it proper-like just for you!)? just wondering if that’s an option for you…civil unions were legalised here a few years ago

  37. Ugh, I honestly got no idea what our system is. It’s all over the freakin’ map. I think they have civil unions or registry in some states, but not others (and not mine, I believe).
    To quote Margaret Cho:
    “Any country that refuses a gay man the right to bridal registry is a fascist country.”
    or something like that. teehee.

  38. leahnz says:

    or david letterman, who said: ‘why shouldn’t gay couples have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us?’ 😉

  39. leahnz says:

    or david letterman, who said: ‘why shouldn’t gay couples have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us?’ 😉

  40. leahnz says:

    ok i did not post that twice! i’m gonna get medieval on the hot blog’s server’s ass…

  41. Water damage says:

    I enjoyed this movie and thought Sarah Jessica Parker was great. Somewhere along the line, though, it got too much Botox injected into the script, and all the life was ironed out of it.

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