MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Weekend Estimates by Klady


Be Sociable, Share!

94 Responses to “Weekend Estimates by Klady”

  1. Bartholomew Richards says:

    Has anyone else read Ebert’s review for Mongol? I think it’s probably the most negative three and a half star review I’ve ever read. Disregarding the scores, I think he preferred Basic Instinct 2.

  2. anghus says:

    im surprised Get Smart did so well. Not shocked at all by Guru. Mike Myers milked the Austin Powers franchise to death. New character or not, people are tired of his schtick. Especially when even the ads make it look like rehashed schtick.
    Im still trying to figure out how anyone would factor Alan Arkin into the opening of Get Smart. Lovable? Sure. Enjoyed by film people? Of course. But i doubt even 2% of the first weekend gross can be attributed to the fervent fan base of “Alan Arkin completists.”
    June was an interesting month in terms of box office. July should be even more interesting.
    The Dark Knight – A winner with the fans, but will it have crossover appeal like Iron Man? The easy money is on “no”
    Hancock – Will Smith is money, but the trailer and commercials don’t seem to have a cohesive message. Is it comedy? Is it action? Is it Men In Black or Men in Black 2?
    Wall E – I guess when you’re the best in class, the only thing you’re competing against is yourself. It’s going to make bank, but how much?

  3. movieman says:

    “Mongol” is demonstrating some sturdy legs. I really hope that Picturehouse can substantially widen its release in the weeks/months to come. An “Orphanage”-size screen count seems just about right.
    Despite the impressive per-screen average for “Kit Kittredge” this weekend (at, um, $20 a ticket), I’m still not convinced that this thing is the second coming of Hannah Montana. I hope to be proven wrong, of course, but “KK” really is a soggy, lachrymose bore for anyone who dosn’t own an American Doll.
    Maybe co-producer Julia Roberts should have played Kit’s mom instead of the beyond-dreary, shoulda-stayed-retired Julia Ormond. At least then it might have had a little snap and flavor.

  4. movieman says:

    sorry for the typo: it’s “doesn’t,” not “dosn’t.”
    my eye key sometimes sticks.

  5. movieman says:

    my “e” key sometimes sticks…i have no idea what an “eye key” is either.
    duh; sorry again.

  6. Amblinman says:

    So it looks like this Hulk had almost as big of a drop as the last Hulk. Why is this one a franchise-maker and the last one a franchise-killer if the final numbers work out to about the same?

  7. Rothchild says:

    There’s a huuuuge difference between 60% and 70%. 60% is almost traditional in this day and age when it comes to big summer movies.

  8. Filmshark says:

    It is not surprising that LOVE GURU tanked. It was a project that Brad Weston brought in and oversaw the production. His last few movies include DRILLBIT TAYLOR, STOP-LOSS and HOT ROD and the next home grown Paramount proper project shepherded by Weston is CASE 39. Anyone care to guess how that will turn out? So without the outside help of Dreamworks, Marvel, JJ, etc., Paramount would be a total joke. That what you get when you get someone of Brad’s caliber supposedly running production. How much longer should Lesher keep him around for him to take the blame? I suppose Weston will ride out his releases but not given any more authority to make his own movies.

  9. IOIOIOI says:

    Amblinman: this HULK movie is actually good. It also sets up the entire plot of the Avengers movie. So it’s a defacto franchise maker.
    Anghus: are you stating that one of the most popular and iconic characters on earth has no crossover appeal compared to Iron-Man? Really? This is your conjecture?

  10. Dr Wally says:

    It’s notable that Zohan is going to be Sandler’s lowest-grossing comedy since Little Nicky eight years ago. It will limp to nine figures, but it’s too bad, since this is his best effort since 50 First Dates. I know that when we’re discussing Adam Sandler movies any debate over quality is highly relative, but still.

  11. christian says:

    Have to say I got a buzz from the ending of THE HULK.

  12. For whatever reason, Sandler fans seem to recoil in horror at anything that tries to be good or tries to be different. Be it Punch Drunk Love (was never going to be a smash, but the number of rumored walkouts was legendary), or Little Nicky, it seems that anytime Sandler tries to make something a little more original, the fans actively revolt. Granted, I didn’t like Reign Over Me and detested Spanglish (mainly the ending), he does good work in both and you’d think his fans would be curious. Again, I’m not expecting blockbuster numbers for his artier fare, but the limp numbers for Little Nicky and now the allegedly popular Zohan is interesting.

  13. T. Holly says:

    Scott, are you going to admit you liked Mamma Mia, or just hide behind your wife, and go on about boy stuff and super hero nonsense? There’s a inter-national problem brewing. How are men going to deal with Meryl and company in the wake of SATC?

  14. T. Holly says:

    Just went to your sight Scott, I see that you said it doesn’t suck, it is good, and fans like your wife will like it, and that you do analysis, not predictions. I predict Mamma Mia, with its stupid story and catchy tunes, will make more money than Dark Knight.

  15. Rothchild says:

    T. Holly:
    Where do you buy your crack? Clearly, you must buy it in bulk. I’m surprised you can type complete sentences.

  16. In case you’re not making a joke, T. Holly…
    Hairspray was my favorite non-animated film I saw last year. I’ve seen every major musical since Moulin Rouge in a theater, often on opening weekend. I haven’t liked a lot of them (The Producers, Moulin Rouge), loved some of them (Hairspray, Sweeney Todd), but I’m a big fan of the modern screen musical in general.
    So yes, I damn sure liked Mama Mia and if you like the genre you probably will too. The reference to my wife was merely in the fact that she’s seen the show on stage and I haven’t, and thus the fact that she liked it too was relevant for fans of the original show.
    As for how men will ‘cope’, well they’ll either not go, they’ll trade off for The Dark Knight the same weekend, or they’ll go and oogle Amanda Seyfield. She’s been on the fringes for the last four years, delivering quality supporting work (Mean Girls, Veronica Mars, Big Love, Alpha-Dog). It’s great that she finally gets a lead role, and that she knocks it out of the park to boot. That she looks lovely doing it is a bonus.

  17. anghus says:

    yes, that’s exactly what i’m stating. Not that the character doesn’t have that appeal, but Nolan’s take on the character doesn’t have that appeal. He went dark with the material, which as a fan i’m thrilled about, but i can tell you that Nolan’s flicks don’t sell a lot of action figures and don’t cross over well as family films.
    I could just show you Batman Begins’ numbers, and yes, i know that didn’t have the Joker, the most popular character in the Batman universe. I think Dark Knight could get to 250-275 range, but i don’t think it’s breaking 300 million. If it did, i’d be thrilled, but i think Nolan makes fine, entertaining movies that lack a real emotional center and there’s no one in his movies to really root for. Say what you will about Burton’s first Batman film, he did a good job of making an entertaining and bankable movie that had crossover appeal.
    Plus, Iron Man didn’t have the kind of legacy on film that Batman does. It was fresh, and new. Batman has a lot of baggage coming in.
    I stick by my ‘no crossover appeal’ statement. and im talking four quadrant appeal here. Nolan’s Batman does not have that. Just look at the commercials and trailers. Lots of good stuff, hardly an iconic shot or image to wrap the marketing around.

  18. T. Holly says:

    I think she looks like a dog in the trailer. No predictions? It’s not a promise, surely it’s a head scratcher even for you.

  19. jeffmcm says:


  20. David Poland says:

    What keeps spinning my head is that $250 million for a dark comic book movie keeps getting talked about as an underachievement.
    Nolan making good films that make that kind of money is a wonderful, remarkable feat.
    It’s highly unlikely that it will be a $300 million domestic movie, but SO WHAT?!?!?
    And if Iron Man made $180 million domestic… GREAT! That would be very impressive in and of itself.
    This lust for mega-numbers is INSANE! All but movies with grosses over $700m ww mean shit by themselves. Anything less and you really have to look at the profit opportunity to determine anything.
    As for Hulk being a franchise-starter… puh-leeze! Avengers will have to stand on its own. There was NOTHING new in Incredible Hulk that means shit to a future spin-off… just as SLJ at the end of Iron Man isn’t a “franchise-starter” for SHIELD. There is simply no history of any of that working. Audiences aren’t that gullible. (Same with a Silver Surfer movie, btw)

  21. sky_capitan says:

    “Hancock – Will Smith is money, but the trailer and commercials don’t seem to have a cohesive message. Is it comedy? Is it action? Is it Men In Black or Men in Black 2?”
    Well Anghus, whatever it is, it looks fucking awesome. I bought the Men In Black blu-ray at Best Buy (comes with $8 movie cash) and got a free Hancock blu-ray preview disc. I’m loving it. There’s nothing like seeing a movie preview in HiDef. Makes me want to see that much more. We need more of these free preview blu-rays. Plus Charlize Theron in high-def interview is a bonus.

  22. Rothchild says:

    If you put a popular character (Silver) in a dogshit film (F4) it doesn’t mean anything. Of course. You somehow think movies like F4 and Ghost Rider are on the same playing field as the other Marvel movies. The Avengers could be as big as the first Spider-Man if they slowly and methodically set up a team movie with all these characters.

  23. Rothchild says:

    And what do you mean a franchise-starter for SHIELD? Why the hell would someone make a SHIELD movie? Do you even know what you’re talking about? The Avengers is a brand name. SHIELD is an agency in the comic.
    The previous sentences were very geeky.

  24. IOIOIOI says:

    They were also very accurate, Rothchild. Heat is simply playing out of his wheelhouse again. It happens to the best of them. This does not change the fact that this HULK film will have better word of mouth than the last HULK film, and move a lot of ancillary plastic. This is how these things work. This is why the underselling of The Dark Knight’s earning potential is a bit odd in terms of the groundwork established by Begins over the last 3 years.
    It’s not about MEGA-NUMBERS but ACCURATE NUMBERS. You were wrong about Iron-Man. You will be wrong about the Dark Knight because you do not pay attention to the haps.
    Also JeffyMac, you want him to use proper syntax because he is posting in ENGLISH. The thing of it is: English is the only language on earth without any proper form to it. This means T.Holly is typing in English, but not a form of English you like.

  25. Martin S says:

    Poland’s right. Inc. Hulk was a one-shot. It’s sequel will be The Avengers film, if Marvel survives Cap and Thor. Right now, I don’t see the guy involved who can handle productions of those sizes. If a vet like Hurd can’t keep Hulk on budget, how well does that bode for a WW2 or Asgard setting?

  26. Martin S says:

    IO – where the hell you get the nerve to correct someone’s English is beyond me. And once again, it’s “Iron Man”, not “Iron-Man”. He’s not the dry cleaner to superheroes.
    And the toy wager is a loser. Ang Hulk did crazy sales that this one won’t match because Hulk Hands can only be new to market, once.

  27. Rothchild says:

    Here’s going to be the simplest sell ever. A 2:30 trailer that shows you get Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark, the Hulk, Captain America, Thor, and Sam Jackson in one movie. That’s what all of this is building towards.

  28. jeffmcm says:

    “English is the only language on earth without any proper form to it.”
    With all due respect, this is the stupidest thing I’ve seen all day.

  29. IOIOIOI says:

    Jeff; it’s the truth. If you think it’s stupid. You obviously do not know enough about the English language to make any complaints towards any poster on this blog. There are no RULES in the English language, MacMahon. Only recommendations.
    Martin: you stupid arrogant agent jerk-off. Do your clients know that you lack the skills to make rational arguments online? I am sure that they would be curious to know that the jerk-off who steals 10 to 30 percent of their money, lacks reading comprehension, and the ability to read a blog. Jeff insulted T.Holly you roguish piece of scum. Now go help your clients out of another embarassing situation, you unworthy sod.
    Also you repugnant fat wasteoid… SPIDER-MAN. Now use your fingers to type on the blackberry and make sure your female client is not revealled to have a thing for underage girls. You sorry sack of bitch.

  30. Citizen R says:

    Some of the updated worldwide numbers: $683 million for Indy, $302 million for Sex and the City, $160 million for The Incredible Hulk, $107 million for The Happening.

  31. scooterzz says:

    “English is the only language on earth without any proper form to it.”
    only in your posts, io, only in your posts…(sigh)….

  32. IOIOIOI says:

    Let me also add that the first HULK was a TOY LOSER. You can go on and on about the HULK HANDS, but there’s a reason why Marvel no longer has their own toy license. The HULK being one of the key reasons thanks to the huge quanity to product that they had to eat for most of the 2004 financial year. HULK hands mean jack and shit if the figures do not move, and those bitches did not move.

  33. movielocke says:

    English has form, it’s just that a lot of the rules are wonky because it’s not derived from Latin but the people who codified the rules of English grammer used Latin grammer as their basis. So you have Latin rules for a non Latin language. What that means is that the exceptions to a rule can sometimes outnumber the proper examples of said rule. The word “rule” is a good example of another problem with english. It has a silent E, phonetically it’s one syllable pronounced r??l with a short o and a short e inside the consonant sounds, but we don’t spell it that way, rul or ruel would be more appropriat (does that word look better without the silent e or does it offend our well conditioned eyes?).
    Anyway I came here to ask this, if Young People f**king is playing in 34 theatres why isn’t it playing anywhere in los angeles?

  34. movielocke says:

    whoops I meant a short u sound, not a short o sound. doh.

  35. IOIOIOI says:

    scoot… are you fucking high? You have to be on enough special K and poppers to make that statement. Do you even look at your post after you post them? I admit that I could edit mine, but your’s are fucking atrocious. LOLCATS post better than you do. You fucking daffy bitchy bastard.

  36. IOIOIOI says:

    While movieman might find a hot actress to be the anti-christ. He just schooled you folks. Fuck yous, very much.

  37. IOIOIOI says:

    Or movielocke… there’s a lot of movie people around here. Maybe I should be moviescoot? It would be a 90 minute comedy about a boy, his love of chocolate, and the people who kept him from it.

  38. doug r says:

    Back to what Sky Captain was saying a few posts up. The 7 minute IMAX preview in front of I Am Legend was a brilliant marketing move. I was so geeked out for DK.

  39. The Big Perm says:

    I just thought I should chime in and say that a Thor movie will most likely bomb.

  40. T. Holly says:

    I don’t suppose this has ass ownership implications, does it? If so, do I owe or own yet?

  41. YPF is a release only in Canada by Maple Pictures.

  42. Rothchild says:

    Those opening 7 minutes were better than all of Batman Begins.
    T. Holly does this thing that crazy people do, where they think they’re typing something coherent or accessible to the average human brain, but really it’s just word soup. He/She should come with a decoder ring.

  43. scooterzz says:

    io –
    please diagram the above post directed at me and note spelling / punctuation corrections.
    i’m not sure that you can.
    you really shouldn’t try to correct folk on their posts…now, go take your meds and watch ‘extreme makeover’….

  44. Geoff says:

    Ok, I saw Hulk, last weekend – some nice moments, first half was enjoyable, Norton was fun to watch, but it did NOT earn that ending. This is franchising at the most extreme – to actually take the setup for something that 95% of the audience will not even get and make that the capper to a story, it was just silly.
    I’ll be there to see the further adventures of Tony Stark and his growing band of heroes, but sorry, this spinoff stuff has got to stop. It does not work, sorry. That’s why The Scorpion King did not work, why they could never get a Leo Getz movie (Lethal Weapon) movie to never take off, why Evan Almighty bombed, why MGM was smart enough to give up on the idea of a Jinx (Die Another Day) movie – spinoff’s are for TV, not movies!
    Can we make the movies about the movies? Not about a extended version of a DVD that will be “unrated” to include the scenes we couldn’t see so the film could earn a PG-13 rating or a movie that MIGHT come out three years from now with some added characters? This stuff is getting ridiculous. Some of these filmmakers and studio’s are getting a little too clever for their own good. Just make a good, cohesive movie with a satisfying ending – doesn’t have to be a cliffhanger, doesn’t have to plant the seeds of the villian, etc.
    Sorry if I am sounding a little old-fashioned, here, but the way they ended Incredible Hulk just pissed me off, as if the screenwriters could not figure out their own ending, but had to throw in something new from Marvel to cap it off.
    Granted, Batman Begins kind of did this three years ago, but it was just done artfully – Nolan earned that ending, the creation of the Joker went right alongside the third act of that movie. It wasn’t just thrown in.
    Very much looking forward to Dark Knight, but Poland is right – Iron Man has just raised the bar too high. If this film does $250 million, all should be impressed – expectations are just too high. This would have been like expecting the last Bourne Movie to easily clear $250 million, last summer, while it was a true triumph for it to break $200 million.

  45. T. Holly says:

    That means Mamma Mia will do 400.

  46. doug r says:

    152 minutes means DK will do $250 million instead of $280 million.

  47. Aris P says:

    Dark Knight will not do Iron Man numbers, folks. 175 million domestic, if that.

  48. scooterzz says:

    is carlin really dead?…i can’t find confirmation…..this truly sucks…

  49. Geoff says:

    He really is dead – it’s all over wires. Wow, I am truly affected by this – I have been watching his standup routines for over 25 years, even when I couldn’t quite understand the language.
    I have seen live in concert, three times – the man was a true legend, not hyperbole, truly the greatest standup comedian who ever lived. He shaped my worldview, how I look at politics, my sense of humor – this is a big loss. Seeing as he was in his ’70’s and really did outlast guys like Lenny Bruce and Sam Kinison, I am still shocked – he seemed to age pretty well and I really thought he was going to be around for another 20 years.
    If we’re going to relate this to movies, was never a big fan of Kevin Smith, but I still think it’s pretty cool how he tried to utilize Carlin in a way that most directors would not have done – Jersey Girl was hokey, but Carlin was very good in it. He was also a kick as Cardinal Glick in Dogma – really just a fun comedian and actor, knew his place and always enlivened whatever movie he was in.
    If we’re going to talk about the best bits he has done, there are thousands, but honesty, I always loved his rif’s on “bigger dick foreign policy.” To this day, my wife and I are still quoting his routines – Seinfeld always owes him a big debt for pioneering the use of absurdist humor.
    R.I.P. Carlin.

  50. scooterzz says:

    geoff — where does one start?……his ‘hippy dippy weatherman’ killed when i was a kid…. but his later riff on ‘stuff’ is a classic that will never grow old….seven words…pussy farts… the guy used language like a musical instrument…. and drugs actually seemed to work FOR his act (if not for his health)……
    i saw him in vegas a couple of years ago….he bombed but was still funnier than any comic i saw that week…….

  51. Aladdin Sane says:

    Aris, you’re on crack.
    Anghus, you too are on crack.
    Poland, you’ve been wrong on pretty much every major film it seems when it comes to the money this summer, so I think your $275 mill is somewhat off. I think that The Dark Knight will either make $50 more or less than that. Yes it’s dark, but the buzz is pretty loud – which means I go with above $300 mill.
    Sitting in theaters with audiences, its the only trailer that people are talking about audibly when it ends. Hancock can only hope people remember they saw his trailer.
    Everyone knows The Dark Knight is coming. They’ve given more than a tease and I don’t hear too many people saying, “Oh, I’m just not interested.” If this movie makes less than $250 mill, I’d be surprised – especially if Iron Man, who nowhere near has the brand name as recognizable as Batman can make $300+ mill. The only thing that’ll kill TDK is negative word of mouth. And the few words on screenings that have slipped out have all been very positive. Whether that’s just WB marketing or not doesn’t matter at this point. People love this incarnation of Batman. Simple as that.

  52. brack says:

    I’m pretty sure TDK will make more than the last at the box office. as terrible as it is, Ledger’s death will add at least another $50m to the total, and will probably have a even more massive opening than Batman Begins. I’m just hoping it’s great, as that’s going to be the difference at the end of it’s run. Yeah, BB was great too, but that just seemed like a warm up for what Batman can truly be.

  53. brack says:

    pardon the spelling/punctuation errors.

  54. hcat says:

    Dark Knight will do 260, Hancock will do 290.
    And unless they have already stipulated in the contracts an Avengers sequel, wouldn’t a movie be prohibitavly expensive to cast? Downey’s quote had to have tripled due to the success of Iron Man, and I would also assume the same would happen for whomever plays Thor and Cap (not a fan of his acting but I think Ed Burns looks the part)since they would be coming off of their respective hits. So if you figure seven mil each for Jackson, Downey, Thor, Cap and another 1.5 mil for ant-man, 30 million for primary cast, plus a bunch of CGI work for the Hulk and Ultron or whomever they are going to be butting heads with I don’t see this coming in under 250-300. I would think that Iron Man has reached (indeed raised) the ceiling on what you could make on non-iconic characters. Would it be worth the risk on what they would make in ancillary dollars to pursue this massive undertaking that will most likely not be the sum of it’s parts?

  55. Roman says:

    I’m sticking by my $260 ceiling figure for ‘The Dark Knight’. Think about this: will everyone who went to see ‘Iron Man’ go to see this movie? The answer is NO. Will a significant number of people who didn’t go to see ‘Iron Man’ come to see “Batman Begins”? Again, the answer is NO.
    The major difference here is that ‘Iron Man’ played better with families. ‘Dark Knight’ is just too long, too, well, dark to have as wide of an appeal. Plus, it sounds like an “R” rated film. And it’s not.
    Also, the fact that to most people Iron Man was something new (read: didn’t come with a lot of baggage and continuity problems) only helped the movie. That made it more accessible for non comic book fans.
    Also, Hancock will not make $290 million. In fact it will make less than ‘I Am Legend’. Oddly enough the trailers are so Smith centric that they make it seem like his carrying the movie. The fact that there a lot more people in it will only hurt it. This could be another “I, Robot” (times 1.5).

  56. jeffmcm says:

    If an Avengers movie is made that costs $300 million dollars, goodbye to Marvel Studios.

  57. Roman says:

    jeff, Avengers movie = Easy $600-$700 million worldwide.
    And a shitload in toy sales.

  58. jeffmcm says:

    Maybe, maybe not. Do they want to spend that kind of money for something that will break even?

  59. anghus says:

    If Marvel was smart, they’d do the Avengers movie lord of the rings/matrix sequel style and shoot 2 films back to back for 250 million. Release one in the summer and one during the holidays, make them two self contained yet connected movie.
    The first one could be the story of something menacing coming to the surface and initially being blamed on the Hulk. The heroes come together, try to take down the Hulk and as the brutal fight concludes, they realize there is a more sinister force out there that they have to team up against.
    The second film has the entire team w/ Hulk taking on whatever villain they decide to have them take on.
    Financially, it makes sense. You could shoot them back to back and spend 300 million or less, get two films out of the mix yadda yadda yadda.
    That’s my two cents. 300 million for one film is just insane.

  60. jeffmcm says:

    “300 million for one film is just insane.”
    That was basically what I was thinking. Utterly batshit and bad for everyone.

  61. brack says:

    “Also, Hancock will not make $290 million. In fact it will make less than ‘I Am Legend’. Oddly enough the trailers are so Smith centric that they make it seem like his carrying the movie. The fact that there a lot more people in it will only hurt it. This could be another “I, Robot” (times 1.5).”
    Funny, because you could’ve said the same thing about I Am Legend. It’s like he was the only star or something.

  62. christian says:

    In a world where one film can cost 200 million, 300 million is not insane. It’s coming.

  63. Roman says:

    “Financially, it makes sense. You could shoot them back to back and spend 300 million or less, get two films out of the mix yadda yadda yadda.”
    What you are talking about is called wishful thinking. As in, if I could shoot two HUGE movies back to back for $300 million and save money I would. You have to understand that making certain movies for $200 million dollars is often not a choice. It’s a reality.
    And if you want to see Marvel risk that kind of budget on two movies than it’s 2 times the risk (minus whatever money they could save on marketing and signing up stars for two movies in a row – read: non-negotiating)
    In the real world, it’s just not feasible. And it wasn’t feasible 5 years ago either.
    Now, we are talking just hypothetically of course and the actual Avengers movie need not be this expensive, all depending on how ambitious Marvel actually feels. My point was, some (superhero) movies really do cost this much.
    “Maybe, maybe not. Do they want to spend that kind of money for something that will break even?”
    Which brings me to another point, this need not mean just breaking even (there’s still a lot of room here for higher grosses and all kinds of profits from side projects – not the last of which are the comic books themselves). And even if it was, that would also be before the DVD revenues start coming in. And the legacy. Starting franchises is an expensive business but sometimes it’s worth it.
    “Funny, because you could’ve said the same thing about I Am Legend. It’s like he was the only star or something.”
    The only difference is that this time it was actually true.
    Prediction: in a decade will be talking about the exciting new Marvel VS. DC movie, which will take another two decades to actually reach the screens.

  64. Martin S says:

    From the May 6 Quarterly Report:
    Marvel plans to launch its 2010 film slate with the release of the sequel, Iron Man 2, on April 30, 2010, followed by the launch of Thor on June 4, 2010. Additionally, Marvel is planting its feature film stakes for summer 2011 with an Avengers-themed summer

  65. Wrecktum says:

    Will they get Ralph Fiennes for the Avengers sequel or someone else? Is Uma too old? Will it really cost $300m for a teddy bear costume and a few bowler hats?

  66. Rothchild says:

    Pirates 3 cost 300 million.
    Spider-Man 3 cost 275.

  67. RudyV says:

    So why wouldn’t a SHIELD movie work? For those of us (that would be me) who think the Bond movies are becoming too serious and–dare I say it (Dare! Dare!)–too realistic, SHIELD would present a super-secret, gadgeted-up spy agency located on a flying helicarrier, run by and quite obviously centered around the exploits of Nick Fury (aka SLJ these days, and not, sigh, that cigar-chomping white guy).
    Or you could just skip that and make SLJ nothing more than Mon Mothma, trying to use a holographic display to present the location of the hidden entry tunnel into the evil enemy base to a jaded group of Avengers who are too into themselves and the shortcomings of the appetizer cart to care much about this whole group dynamic thing.

  68. jeffmcm says:

    Rothchild: and they were both bloated, mediocre-at-the-very-best monstrosities that had no reason to cost so much.

  69. Roman says:

    “So why wouldn’t a SHIELD movie work? For those of us (that would be me) who think the Bond movies are becoming too serious and–dare I say it (Dare! Dare!)–too realistic, SHIELD would present a super-secret, gadgeted-up spy agency located on a flying helicarrier, run by and quite obviously centered around the exploits of Nick Fury (aka SLJ these days, and not, sigh, that cigar-chomping white guy).”
    Admit it, was it you who bought $39 million worth of “Get Smart” tickets?

  70. Rothchild says:

    I stopped reading your post when I remembred you were the retard that stopped watching Venture Bros. because of a commentary on the DVD. In case I wasn’t clear, you’re a retard.
    I agree about Spider-Man 3. But Pirates problem wasn’t the budget. I really enjoyed the movie but their problem was that they started shooting without a finished script. That happens with every major movie in Hollywood now, but when you’re dealing with a plot that complicated you’re going to be fucked if you didn’t figure out every beat before the first day of principal photography.

  71. Wreck, everytime I see somebody write “the avengers” I show my comic igorance and think about the Fiennes/Thurman/…Connery? movie. Was it Connery? I can’t remember and can’t be buggarooed looking it up.
    Also, Iron Man 2 and Thor within a week of each other in 2010? Huh?

  72. Rothchild says:

    April 30, 2010
    June 4, 2010

  73. RudyV says:

    The biggest problem on PIRATES 3 was that the writers and the director couldn’t stand each other, to the point that the writers withheld pages until the day of shooting just to ensure Verbinski had no time to make any changes. Thanks to that pigheadedness, it’s now abundantly clear which side is responsible for the shittiness of the story and the idiocy tossed up on the screen. Davy Jones standing in a bucket of seawater? (If that’s how the curse worked, then why couldn’t Elizabeth buy a shack on the coast with a flooded basement so Will could live down there for the next ten years?) Davy getting his claw caught in the bars? (Kinda like watching Darth Vader getting his cape caught on a chair.) Will Turner’s heart cut out by his crew for no reason? (Remember that Davy cut his own heart out over a woman–it had nothing to do with him being the steward of the maritime dead.) And The Attack of the 50 Foot Crab Woman.
    As for “retard”, just listen to the commentary tracks on Venture Bros Season 1 and we’ll see who qualifies for that title.

  74. Rothchild says:

    I’m sorry you have no sense of humor and think the creators of a show have to take themselves seriously when discussing their own show. The show is brilliant but it’s certainly not earnest.
    And how would you even know that about Ted and Terry?

  75. jeffmcm says:

    The biggest problem on Pirates 3 is that Bruckheimer and Verbinski were trying to outdo Lucas and Peter Jackson in the mega-spectacular fantasy spectacle arena and decided it was lavishly designed special effect set pieces, not story or characters, that made those movies popular. They tried to cram in every cool visual idea they could think of and ended up with a big sprawling pile of goo.
    Davy Jones in a bucket of sea water is one of the better ideas in that movie – because it’s subtle.

  76. LexG says:

    Jeff, for some reason I’m under the impression that most people of “our” age (20s on up) find the character stuff and plotting in POTC to be plodding and/or secondary…
    but to younger people I think Depp/Keira/Orlando are practically Han/Leia/Luke. I liked the movies but could barely remember plot points or character relationships from one movie to the next, even the two that were a mere 12 months apart, without the benefit of a fucking pie chart.
    But I’m of the belief that the kids absolutely loved the characters and definitely remembered all that nonsense; Otherwise, the 2nd film might as well have gone off in entirely new directions instead of bringing back, say, Jack Davenport and picking up the romantic storyline where it left off.

  77. RudyV says:

    Been searching to see where I read about the animosity on the set of PIRATES 3, but did find something on footnote 46 of the PIRATES Wiki that backs up Lex’s point–the fans commenting on an MTV moviesblog site are obsessed with Will and “Lizzy”, to the point that they might bail on a PIRATES 4 which does not include them. Good riddance, I say (betraying my “20s on up”, I guess), since I thought the pair was the weakest (most boring) part of the movies.
    There’s a difference, though, between subtle and silly, and I thought that turning Davy from a badass villain into comic relief was a bad idea. It also bothered me that #3 was the second movie to present Calypso as black; even if you were to suggest she was from the southern Mediterranean she’d be Arabic, not African-American. This irks me in the same way as those deluded individuals who want to believe that Cleopatra was black and not Greek.

  78. Rothchild says:

    Wait, you have to clarify, are you so stupid that you tried to tell us you understood the relationship between Gore and Ted & Terry, but you were making it up? I knew you were wrong, but you’re saying you acted like you knew what you were talking about based on reading hearsay and PR infused interviews? Where do you buy your crack?! If the they didn’t get along with Gore you would have NEVER read it in an interview. I hate the shit out of most people I work with and no one in this town let’s that out.
    You should stop talking and typing.

  79. RudyV says:

    Prolly read it at, but they have 28 pages of stories about “pirates”, not even including the comment pages. Lots of Disney insiders like to air their dirty laundry over there, anonymously, of course.
    So, no, I did not read it in an interview, but even the quotes from Verbinski make it clear that he burned out on pirates and will not be back unless there is a finished script. I also seem to recall that he had to squash some of the more fantastic ideas dreamed up for members of Davy’s crew (that is, terribly unrealistic and almost Pokemonesque), but here I go again, recalling something that isn’t sitting in front of me, notarized in triplicate.

  80. Rothchild says:

    No, you’re an idiot. His problem wasn’t with the script. His problem was with Disney for forcing him to go into production on the third film without a finished script. Pokeomnesque? So, when he does another film with Ted and Terry will you come out of your D.Z.esque hole and say you were wrong?

  81. Bob Violence says:

    The thing of it is: English is the only language on earth without any proper form to it.
    No natural language on earth has a hard-and-fast “proper form”, regardless of what the bozos in the Acad

  82. hcat says:

    Yes there are movies that have cost the type of money that the Avengers is looking at but what I am saying is that if you get 600 mil worldwide for a superhero movie you are not going to increase the audience simply by adding more superheros to a later film.
    I do think this is a bold experiment since they are attempting to essentially create a franchise that will play every summer(as opposed to two years between Bonds). Both Fox and Warners have tried to create Franchise wheels but stumbled on the third spoke (Star Wars, X-Men, Apes-Potter, Batman, Superman). So the Marvel strategy could possibly re-invent the franchise system.

  83. RudyV says:

    Just because folks work together doesn’t mean they like each other (“I hate the shit out of most people I work with”), especially if the bosses and the fanboys are convinced the franchise won’t work without them. I read and reported that the writers thought Verbinski was desecrating their golden words and they struck back by withholding their work until it was too late for him to make any changes. I didn’t accuse anyone of donkey B&D, I didn’t say that anybody spiked anyone’s brownies with ExLax. Tiffs appear to be rampant in the business, and whether it’s Abbott & Costello or Lewis & Martin, folks will work together for as long as they can tolerate it because it all comes down to money.
    My last word on Venture Bros: If you signed up for a class on small engine repair and the instructor spent half the class chatting about the local school board election, wouldn’t you be a little…ticked? When I sit down to listen to commentaries I am spending my time to find out something about the show that is not up on the screen. Hearing endless chat about Halloween parties that have nothing to do with the show is not just a waste of my time, but an indication that the creators don’t care. Their dismissal of anyone who is actually interested in finding out secrets about the show lets us know what they really think of us.

  84. RudyV says:

    BTW, I have no idea what “D.Z.” refers to.

  85. hcat says:

    it’s fighting words

  86. RudyV says:

    Demilitarized Zone?

  87. RudyV says:

    Wait…Derek Zoolander? Great movie, great character. We should all aspire to be a little bit more like Derek.

  88. hcat says:

    DZ is an immature, stubborn idiot who posts over on the Elsewhere blog.

  89. jeffmcm says:

    Re: Venture Bros., maybe they just didn’t want to share their secrets with you. I’ve heard plenty of commentary tracks with huge gaps between uninteresting comments but that doesn’t mean they didn’t take the work seriously, just that they didn’t want to talk about it.

  90. RudyV says:

    Yeah, sometimes the “secrets” are tedious beyond belief, like the track for THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY where the Farrelly’s are constantly stopping to point out the neighbors and relatives they put up on the screen for a microsecond. Guess you gotta sit through a dozen of these yawners for every THE CELL or BLAIR WITCH 2, where the director is willing to immolate their career just to tell you how movies are really made. Priceless!

  91. Rothchild says:

    Look D.Z.,
    A director or writer’s job is not to educate you. Their job is not to inform you. They don’t have to teach you how to do what they do. Their job is to make the best show or movie they can. That’s it. And if they do a commentary, all they have to do is talk. If you make your entertainment choices based on how much you enjoyed their previous commentaries then just watch Kevin Smith movies until the world ends. And stop posting on message boards.
    I’m going to stop watching Tim Burton movies because he gives really shitty commentaries. Holy Crap.

  92. Rothchild says:

    The worst part of your argument is that this all came from them now telling you who their mother was in the commentary. And if you’re looking for a show with a dense mythology that offers a dozen payoffs with every episode, then Venture Bros. is your best bet on TV. This season has almost taken that too far, and it’s pretty amazing how someone could have a throwaway comment two seasons ago that blossoms into a huge story arc in a later season.
    But no, they were fucking around on a commentary and didn’t reveal a secret of the show.

  93. RudyV says:

    So does Burton “fuck around” on his commentaries or is he just boring? Or perhaps it’s all just performance art, a multi-level attack on our sensibilities that we are simply too dim to understand.

Leonard Klady's Friday Estimates
Friday Screens % Chg Cume
Title Gross Thtr % Chgn Cume
Venom 33 4250 NEW 33
A Star is Born 15.7 3686 NEW 15.7
Smallfoot 3.5 4131 -46% 31.3
Night School 3.5 3019 -63% 37.9
The House Wirh a Clock in its Walls 1.8 3463 -43% 49.5
A Simple Favor 1 2408 -50% 46.6
The Nun 0.75 2264 -52% 111.5
Hell Fest 0.6 2297 -70% 7.4
Crazy Rich Asians 0.6 1466 -51% 167.6
The Predator 0.25 1643 -77% 49.3
Also Debuting
The Hate U Give 0.17 36
Shine 85,600 609
Exes Baggage 75,900 62
NOTA 71,300 138
96 61,600 62
Andhadhun 55,000 54
Afsar 45,400 33
Project Gutenberg 36,000 17
Love Yatri 22,300 41
Hello, Mrs. Money 22,200 37
Studio 54 5,300 1
Loving Pablo 4,200 15
3-Day Estimates Weekend % Chg Cume
No Good Dead 24.4 (11,230) NEW 24.4
Dolphin Tale 2 16.6 (4,540) NEW 16.6
Guardians of the Galaxy 7.9 (2,550) -23% 305.8
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 4.8 (1,630) -26% 181.1
The Drop 4.4 (5,480) NEW 4.4
Let's Be Cops 4.3 (1,570) -22% 73
If I Stay 4.0 (1,320) -28% 44.9
The November Man 2.8 (1,030) -36% 22.5
The Giver 2.5 (1,120) -26% 41.2
The Hundred-Foot Journey 2.5 (1,270) -21% 49.4