MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Sunday Estimates

As I expected, the dogs moved back up into the 2-spot, W. fell to fourth, though the number is about as good at Lionsgate could ever have expected, Fox had the 1 and 3 slots, and Body of Lies effectively half off… uh… Quarantine.
As you can see, this iPhone entry doesn’t allow for the chart, but it’s on the cover of MCN.

Be Sociable, Share!

22 Responses to “Sunday Estimates”

  1. chris says:

    Well, the chart is sort of on the cover — the numbers need a little editing, though.

  2. martin says:

    I don’t even know where to start. Guys, get your shit together before loading this stuff, it’s amateurish.

  3. Pelham123 says:

    I’m surprised “W.” managed as much as 10M. I dragged myself to see it at the Arclight yesterday. The theater was sold out, but the response to the film was curiously muted. I don’t think the audience had any idea what they were in for (me either) and the film presented certainly didn’t seem to be what they wanted (it’s nowhere near the brilliance of that “Once In A Lifetime”/”W.” trailer.) I thought Josh Brolin was great, but everything else was, um, less than great. Also, Thandie Newton does a real bizarro turn as Condi in a very limited amount of screen time. Did they drug her before rolling the cameras?

  4. David Poland says:

    I’ll have a long interview with Thandie up later today in which she explains the effort in some detail.

  5. LexG says:

    Aaaaaand as expected, wacko right-wing film blogs are championing the “W.” finish as AMERICA’S EMBATTLED HEARTLAND MAKING A STAND AGAINST THE EVILS OF HOLLYWOOD LIBERALISM.
    Instead of the fact that, by and large, most Americans don’t go to many movies and usually don’t give a shit unless it’s an event movie.
    But, nope, the fourth-place finish shows that YEEEEEEEEE-HAW, AMERICANS are tired of THAT THERE HOLLYWOOD MAKIN’ FUN OF THEM!
    (Link to the biggest neocon tool in the world in 3… 2… 1…..)

  6. Pelham123 says:

    I should add that my surprise at “W.” getting to 10M had nothing to do with the film’s quality, but that it is an overtly political film. Good luck getting anyone to any of those in this or any other year. 10M is a great start for “W.” although I don’t think it will have any legs. I would think all the curiousity seekers, like me, came out this weekend and unless it knocked everyone’s socks off there’s not much more of an audience for it. As for the Right Wingers laughing at its perceived failure, well they got a much nicer (& fairer) portrayal of the “Decider” than they or Bush deserved.

  7. martin says:

    4th place and 10 mill seems a little disappointing, but I’d put this film in the “war” movies category and within that, it’s one of the few that has done decent business. It’s also likely to have decent legs and hit 30-40.

  8. SaveFarris says:

    …Thus continuing the “Nothing good has ever come from Shreveport” streak that’s been going since the beginning of time.

  9. Joe Leydon says:

    Hey, SaveFarris, lay off Shreveport. I worked there a couple years in the ’70s. (Of course, you might say that proves your point…)

  10. anghus says:

    I have a friend of mine who works a lot in Shreveport. I’m based out of Wilmington, NC.
    We had a conversation the other day about which town has made the most really awful movies. I thought i had him when i brought up Maximum Overdrive and Black Knight, but he hit back with “Meet the Spartans”.
    Advantage: Shreveport.

  11. Cadavra says:

    W made more in two days than AMERICAN CAROL has in 17, but naturally, THE REAL AMERICA HATES HOLLYWOOD!!!

  12. Aris P says:

    I just saw a tv spot for Zack and Miri on NBC, where the title of their film was called simply “Zack and Miri” No mention of porno. Wow.

  13. David Poland says:

    I am wondering whether this is not a marketing strategy and not an NBC demand… saw it half a dozen times that way in the last couple of days.

  14. Aris P says:

    What kind of marketing strategy is that?? Isn’t porno the sell? “Zack and Miri” alone sounds like a lame CBS sitcom.

  15. Well, the some places won’t even show the poster because of the use of the word “porno” and now they say “Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks made a movie so outrageous that we can’t even tell you the title.”

  16. christian says:

    Does TV have any standards and practices at all these days? They can’t say “porno”?

  17. scooterzz says:

    when philly refused to let them use the word ‘porno’ on the billboards, smith countered by asking if they could just use the stick figures and ‘zack and’….the city refused that too by saying that would encourage people to go to a site where the word ‘porno’ was used…..
    when asked if this didn’t conflict with free-speech rights, smith said the city invoked ‘community standards’ to get around that….

  18. Chucky in Jersey says:

    Ahhh, Philadelphia … where the police firebombed the MOVE compound in a preview of Waco.
    I saw the Zack and Miri ads during the NFL games yesterday. Fox5/NY and WCBS-TV in NYC are airing spots with “Make a Porno”. The networks are running spots with the shortened title.

  19. IOIOIOI says:

    Excluding PORNO from that title, demonstrates the lengths to which this country is babied. WE WATCH PORNO! PORNO IS A HUGE INDUSTRY, BUT WE ARE GOING TO DENY IT? Fuck you Sunday Night Football. Fuck you, fuck Al Michaels for being traded for a cartoon, and fuck John Madden for not retiring. Retire, let Collinsworth take over, and help take one person off of that clusterfuck of a pre-game show.

  20. jeffmcm says:

    I’ve been gone for a few days but had to come back to point out that Chucky is an utter loon. With all due respect to the MOVE controversy, what the F&@^ does it have to do with ANYTHING else that anybody else is talking about?

  21. LexG says:

    Ah, for some quaint reason it always makes me feel good that in Chucky, Jeff has someone who he seems to dislike even more than me. Or at least someone who annoys him just as much.

  22. jeffmcm says:

    Lex, you at least have moments of lucidity where you choose not to be a jackass.
    I’m assuming that one day, Chucky will be revealed as an inmate of some institution and I’ll feel bad for making fun of someone with an actually diminished mental capacity.

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