MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Friday Estimates by Klady

friest121308.jpg
Not too much of interest this week. The Day The Talent Stood Still was always going to open. We’ll see how long it lasts once people start talking to their friends about it. Nothing Like The Holidays is going to be dead in the midde of the six prior Overture openers, as it is on screen count.
In terms of the high profile exclsuive releases – 2 to 15 screens – Gran Torino was the strongest per-screen, but not by nearly as much as you might expect for a movie that is being sold 100% commercially. About 6500 people saw it yesterday. But almost 1400 folks went to do see Che’. And Doubt, 13,000. Even The Reader scored almost 4700 people per screen on Friday/Shabbat.
There is a real surprise in that Australia, which has been dragged through the mud before disappearing as a point of discussion, will actually be at almost the same exact gross as Moulin Rouge! after both were in 3 weekends fo wide release, with Australia perhaps going ahead.
ADD, 10:45a – I am told by someone with a vested interest that Che’ sold out its entire Los Angeles weekend yesterday afternoon and that the movie, on its second screen, at NY’s Ziegfeld Theater, was sold out an hour ahead of the start yesterday. The two theaters are doing two shows a day, the full movie, for $12.50/$12 NY/LA for the whole thing in this one-week qualifying run.
So doing the math, that works out to better than double the per-screen per-show that Gran Torino did. And keep in mind, this is after a number of promotional events on both coasts, including an AFI screening in a sold-out Chinese Theater a month or so ago, which is about the same size at the Ziegfeld.
I don’t think we’re looking at a massive box office hit here, but as I have been saying for a while, I do thnk there is $7 million or more in this film from people who really care about film. For Che’ to get to $10 million in America would be a triumph for all film. And more importantly, there is a movie here that should be celebrated, for all of its successes and, if you so see it, failures. It is the kind of film that we in the chattering class all talk about wanting to see from American filmmakers. And is so often the case, it looks like the people who buy tickets will lead the critics to the an appreciation of what has been seen through an all-too-narrow lens.
CORRECTION FOR DUMB MATH ERROR, 3:35p

Be Sociable, Share!

17 Responses to “Friday Estimates by Klady”

  1. EthanG says:

    Soft numbers all around in wide release territory…35 million or less for “Day…” let’s see if it can now top “What Happens in Vegas” as Fox’s biggest non-animated hit of the year.
    Poor Anne Bancroft…”Delgo” will go down as the biggest wide release bomb in cinema history. Seriously, “Doubt” did more business in 15 convents than Delgo did in 2,100 fortresses? (Klady terminology)
    And boy people like them some Clint Eastwood.

  2. Nick Rogers says:

    If I’m reading that Delgo number correctly, and I’m presuming five shows a day, that amounts to one guardian and one child at each showing. Wow.

  3. movieman says:

    Hey, Dave-
    Didn’t you mean to say that “Gran Torino”‘s per-screen average was $11,000 yesterday; not that 11,000 people saw it?
    (Ditto the 10,000 for “Che” and 8,700 for “Doubt.”)

  4. movieman says:

    No #s for Schrader’s “Adam Resurrected”?

  5. Chucky in Jersey says:

    Middlesex County, New Jersey has a sizable South Asian community yet “Slumdog Millionaire” has yet to play there. The reason? Some douchebag who runs a “film festival” at Rutgers University decided to schedule “Slumdog” and did so before it opened in New Jersey. (He pulled the same crap with “Brokeback Mountain”.)
    If you wonder why “film festival” is in quotes it’s because the douchebag says all mainstream movies are crap … then goes out and lines up the likes of “Changeling”. Because of him New Brunswick has become a black hole for arty and non-Bollywood ethnic fare.
    BTW, Rutgers is where the athletic director got fired this week for stuff that makes Dick Cheney look like a Boy Scout.

  6. Hallick says:

    “Middlesex County, New Jersey has a sizable South Asian community yet ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ has yet to play there. The reason? Some douchebag who runs a “film festival” at Rutgers University decided to schedule “Slumdog” and did so before it opened in New Jersey. (He pulled the same crap with ‘Brokeback Mountain’)”
    How on earth does a three day/three screening university run IN MARCH OF 2009 prevent Slumdog’s release in the rest of Middlesex County THIS year? It could be on home video before March 09!

  7. David Poland says:

    Sorry… not sure how I execlled my way into the numberical mistakes… apologies…

  8. Aris P says:

    What in God’s name is Delgo???

  9. I think it’s animated. But I haven’t researched anything about it so I’m just recalling something I may or may not have read about it.

  10. scooterzz says:

    apparently, delgo see anything but this movie….
    (and, no, i’m not proud)…

  11. leahnz says:

    sometimes a pun is so bad it’s good, scoot. (maybe not this time, but… ;-D )
    i saw a trailer for ‘delgo’, weird cgi animated alein-type creatures thingies(and i think it said ‘starring freddie prinze jr.’ of all people)

  12. leahnz says:

    alein??? can i spell to save my life? apparently not

  13. martin says:

    Moulin Rouge did not open as wide as Australia, and it didn’t cost even half as much to make, so that’s a silly comparison.

  14. Chucky in Jersey says:

    How on earth does a three day/three screening university run IN MARCH OF 2009 prevent Slumdog’s release in the rest of Middlesex County THIS year?
    AMC and Regal may decide if that douchebag wants to hog a certain title, they’ll hold back on showing it. He also bullies anyone who doesn’t kiss his ass and sends profanity-laced emails to anyone critical of him — stuff that would get me fired from the company I work.
    BTW this “film festival” is listed on at least 5 showtime websites, so it does compete with AMC and Regal.

  15. David Poland says:

    “in 3 weekends of wide release,” Martin.
    The comparison is unfair, if to either film, to Australia, which didn’t have 2 weekends in exclsuive release before going wide.
    Moulin Rouge! was in 2279 venues, then 2283, then 2084 in its first 3 wide release weekends, totaling $36.6 million domestically at the end of that period.
    Australia is estimated at $34.8 million after three weekends at 2642, 2721, and 2703.
    Comparison seems pretty reasonable to me.
    As to cost, obviously not the same. But my point was that the perception of MR! was strong and the perception of Australia is that it smashed into a wall on release. It’s not a happy situation, but it is less the disaster than I think the perception is right now. No?

  16. Hallick says:

    “AMC and Regal may decide if that douchebag wants to hog a certain title, they’ll hold back on showing it. He also bullies anyone who doesn’t kiss his ass and sends profanity-laced emails to anyone critical of him — stuff that would get me fired from the company I work.”
    So AMC and Regal would let some college film nut dictate to them what THEY screen in that area? Are they spineless?
    “BTW this ‘film festival’ is listed on at least 5 showtime websites, so it does compete with AMC and Regal.”
    I still don’t see how three screenings a quarter of a year away of a movie that potentially appeals to a sizeable segment of the local filmgoing market would give two major theater chains pause. I’m not saying that I don’t believe it, since stupider nonsense has happened before, but still…it’s a senseless situation.

  17. The best thing Australia‘s gross represents is where Luhrmann’s budgets should lie in the future what with three consecutive films within the $45m-$55m range.

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