Weekend Estimates by Klady
While Friday The 13th will not be anywhere close to being the biggest 4-day R-rated opening ever, it will easily be the best start in the series. (Freddy v Jason did $40.1 million in its first 4 days.) There is an outside chance that it will break Ghost Rider‘s President’s Day record $52 million 4-day start of 2 years ago… but it’s unlikely. Based on Sunday estimates, the film is running about $3 million behind that record.
If Friday manages to get to $100 million, that will break the tie between WB and the deceased Shaye/Lynne New Line for $100 million movies in the last 12 months, with NL taking the lead with 4… which, obviously, WB will match in a few weeks with Watchmen. But Old NL is batting .500 (4 of 8 with Friday) while WB rolled out 14 to get their 3 so far… and the sticker price comparison… well…
The big difference between this year
Maybe its just me….but I saw no intrigue in seeing Taken and did not see it becoming the hit it has. It honestly looked terrible….but then again so did Paul Blart….and look what that has done. I guess I’m just wondering if I missed some marketing for Taken or did it just happen to blow up out of nowhere?
Off topic, but LEAH! You might like to know about this if you didn’t already:
http://www.if.com.au/2009/02/16/article/NZ-Feature-Film-Goes-Online/BSPNRYSLBX.html
Try not to gloat Poland. You are not exactly me when it comes to predictions.
Benjamin Button: Money loser?
Australia: Money maker?
Albeit a tiny money maker, but a money maker nonetheless, apparently.
Button will make money. Flicks like Button always make money. That’s why declaring things like Poland does is silly, because something can be an EARNER. If they want it to be an EARNER.
If I were exactly you, IO, I wouldn’t know much outside of my own opinion.
“Benjamin Button: Money loser?
Australia: Money maker?
Albeit a tiny money maker, but a money maker nonetheless, apparently.”
Not only will Australia NOT be a money maker, it will loose more money than Button.
And what are you basing this on, Roman?
“Not only will Australia NOT be a money maker, it will loose more money than Button.”
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2008/AUSTL.php
Even if you waive off the adjusted production budget due to this tax rebates thing, the movie seems to have done well enough internationally to challenge that claim. Globally speaking, the two movies are almost in a dead heat (not that they’re competing with each other).
Though Australia still has Japan to open, in the end, there is little doubt that Button will make $30 million – $70 million more worldwide.
But Roman
Poland: all you seem to know are your own opinions, and you try to preach them like gospel every bloody minute you get. Do not play with me. Now go groom your chest hair, and make yourself look pretty for your lady.
The Gospel of IO… if you have no clue, try hurling insults… what passes for discourse in 2009… and I’m the idiot to engaged you… my bad.
If you think that Australia cost $78 million, then I have an outback to sell you.
Poland: your response — unlike mine — is mean and insulting. This seems to be the point you and your bloggers miss. One person is being funny, then you respond like a total cunt.
You are also not a man for discourse. If you were. Half the bloggers on the internet would not hate you. These are the facts of the matter. Please do not act as if you are better than me or anyone else, when you are the one who loves playing in the mud.
Oh yeah… I have more clue more of the time than you ever do. Your lack of comprehension is astounding, David. Absolutely astounding. I’m Ben Linus. You are John Locke. Remember this for future discussions between the two of us.
Now go Salvador Dali that chest hair, get the banjo ready, and have yourself a happy President’s day.
DO NOT PLAY.
IO, are you drunk. Be honest.
Tough Friday to Saturdat drop for Friday the 13th, but impressive opening all the same.
Mall Cop has now lasted five weekends above $10 million.
mrbortman, Australia received a 40% tax rebate on it’s budget from the Aus government so it’s budget is “technically” under $100,000,000. Whether it’s $80mil like Fox says I’m not sure because I can’t be bothered to do the maths, but yes Fox will get a big hunk of change back from the government.
Yes, Button will make more, but it also cost more and I can’t help but imagine its Oscar campaign cost a helluva lot more.
“Poland: your response — unlike mine — is mean and insulting.”
IOIOIOI, can you honestly say that you haven’t been the same way yourself on occassion here? The chest hair remark was rude and pointless in its own right; not to mention unfair, since people here don’t exactly get to see what you look like in the flesh here and start zeroing in on your own particular physical attributes they might find amusing themselves.
Simmer down people, simmer down…
hey, thanks for posting that, kam! i’ve seen ‘a song of good’ but perhaps others here might like to check it out, it’s a terrific little film – a slice of kiwi life, quite challenging and bittersweet, to say the least – well done all around, i highly recommend it. (plus my lovely friend danielle from ‘the price of milk’ plays the sister! go danny) auckland is putting out some very decent productions, giving wellywood a run for its money.
“And what are you basing this on, Roman?”
First of all, I am not basing this on thenumber’s reported budget of $78 million for Australia. BOM and other sites list it as $130 million (American) which sounds a lot more realistic as I’ve seen even higher figures being thrown around. So I hope we are all on the same page with regards to the movie’s actual budget.
(When I’ve made my post I was thinking of Australia as a $150 million movie). Still…
Australia already entered most of its major markets, except for Russia (which it technically entered less than a week ago) and Japan. I don’t think anyone seriously expects Australia’s total to be dramatically lifted by its performance in these two territories (at least not to the point where the movie will become profitable or would even break even).
“But Roman
Tofu: No, you are. Seriously; the stuff taste like gasoline, and it’s not my thing.
Hal: how is referring to a man’s stylish chest hair being mean? It’s not mean, and the man has rocking chest hair. If you think that’s mean. You sir are out of bounds.
Again: if you think the chest hair comment was rude and pointless. You need to get a thicker skin. I surely do not have one, but I make up for that with gatling gun comebacks. Sort of like responding to a guy in kind when he insults my intelligence, and acts as if he’s better than me.
David Poland is going to have to figure out one day, that he’s a dick online. The sooner he figures this out. The sooner Nikki Finke will invite him over for pie again. She makes wicked pie.
“I’m Ben Linus.”
Don’t you mean Ben Lyons 😀 ?
“mrbortman, Australia received a 40% tax rebate on it’s budget from the Aus government so it’s budget is “technically” under $100,000,000. ”
Not unless you conisder the Assy goverment to be investors, which is what I did in my comment above. Makes sense since they’ve put actual money into the movie, some of which will be lost.
This may not make much sense from the point of view for the movie industry but good enough for this discussion and the broader point I was making (e.g. this is how much the movie actually cost to make).
And yes, I did type “Assy”, hope it’s not a subconsious thing.
For a guy so quick with insults, IO sure acts like a bitch when he gets one in return. I’m better than you but still stupid enough to engage you!
By the way, please tell your father that I’m breaking up with him. I’m tired of him whining constantly about how my penis tastes like your mother’s vagina. Like he would know.
10 ways to insult a fat queen.
1) You went by THE BIG PERM? Who knew that your pet name for your pubic region was so clever.
2) Does your family know about your being a fister, or are they still under the delusion you are just a Bear?
3) Big Perm? More like BIG FAT DOUCHE WITH A TINY PENIS! HIYOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
4) Do you need a pit axe to help you find your penis? Or do you strictly use duct tape?
5) Duct tape follow up: is it still your preferred way to create a mangina?
6) Do you use body oils or body sprays to cover up that smell, that fat and hairy fucks like yourself normally have?
7) Have you ever asked yourself; “Lord; I know you made me gay and fabulous, but what did you also give me more hair on my asshole than a Kodiak bear?”
8) Do the twinks refer to having sex with you as; “a pork mountain”, “Mr. Wimplett’s Smelly and Hairy Arousal Pike”, or “Jerry The Porn Deer Experience”?
9) Did you ever fuck a bear just to see what it was like to bump uglies with a creature as furry and smelly as yourself?
and finally 10) Have you ever sexually assaulted anyone? You seem like the sexual assaulting type.
You know that type? Mr. Furry? Or should I call you Captain FURISTAN? Maybe the lord of the Furries? Do they have a lord? Does someone run that orginization of animal fuckers?
“Hal: how is referring to a man’s stylish chest hair being mean? It’s not mean, and the man has rocking chest hair. If you think that’s mean. You sir are out of bounds.”
No. Nor disingenuous.
“I am also ignoring the fact Australia’s producers supposedly got a lot of money from the Australian government when the movie was used in the large cross promotion of the country’s tourism.”
How come? A $52 million rebate doesn’t really fall into the category of pocket change. A 40% return right off the bat isn’t too shabby. And since we are discussing a movie’s profitability, that $52 million can’t be ignored. Challenge it, prove it wrong or right, but setting it aside is nuts.
In addition, the ultimate cost of both “Australia” and “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” is obviously higher since the production budget is just the beginning of the investment in a film. What are the post-production expenses so far?
Disingenuous my ass. Go and search my post about his silver chain rocking on G4. IF you think that’s disingenuous. You sir are out of bounds.
“Disingenuous my ass. Go and search my post about his silver chain rocking on G4. IF you think that’s disingenuous. You sir are out of bounds.”
To quote your own words:”Now go groom your chest hair, and make yourself look pretty for your lady.” You yourself wouldn’t sit still for a remark like that. You’d fire one back. And you certainly know why it would call for it. If you come back and say it wasn’t meant in a insulting way, I say you’re disingenuous.
Like Santonio Holmes left toe (if not his right), I stayed in bounds on this one.
“Poland: your response — unlike mine — is mean and insulting.”
I’ll just come out and say what everybody else is being too polite, or too apathetic, to say: IOI, you’re either a liar, or a fool, for stating this position. No other option is possible.
Hey, Poland was on some REELZ CHANNEL shit today with CHRIS “I’M NOT GREG BEHRENDT OR TY PENNINGTON” GORE, and that DOROTHY LUCIE lady from some local TV news.
LUCIE was all complaining about the violence in THE WRESTLER and Dave was being class all the way cuz he seems like the nicest guy in the world, but seriously D-PO how do you keep your composure and not THROTTLE a panel full of know-nothing tools who complain about film violence?
P U S S I E S.
Lex – it’s not like David’s a hugely pro-violence guy either. All it takes to raise similar hackles in him is for Eli Roth to stage an Elizabeth Bathory reenactment.
But speaking of which — why isn’t Friday the 13th listed on the MCN critics roundup as of this posting? Considering it’s the #1 movie and all.
None of the regulars like slashers? Maybe you could use one who does…
Fuck yeah, Lou, get on that roundup and show them how it’s done. Somebody hire this awesome motherfucker:
LOU Y. CADDYSHACK, most awesome critic in L.A. Guy fucking rules. Give this guy a spot on the Times reviewing all the COOL AND AWESOME MOVIES that Betsy Buckley and Ken Doucheran don’t wanna review with their snob asses.
The Paul Bart numbers crack me up but aren’t surprising. Many people loved the King of Queens and there aren’t many movies on the top there that will appeal to mixed audiences–older and younger people.
Coraline is awesome…I hope it will keep marching on.
Wish Bashir would do better.
Jeff, IO is a liar. That’s been proven.
And no IO, I’ve never sexually assaulted nayone. Your father came willingly, because he said he was tired that you always taste like a mixture of old Twinkies and syphillis.
Oh, joy. Another day on the Lex/IO blog.
Sometimes, I wonder what it might be like for an older industry insider or journalist — say, someone in his/her 60s, who’s still getting the hang of this Internet thing — who logs on to this blog for the very first time, and starts reading a thread like this one. I wonder how they react. I wonder if they’ll come back. (Peace, DP, I don’t meant that as a dig at you. Just wondering about, well, you know, first impressions… Kinda-sorta like Jim Rome always warns new listeners to give his sports talk show a while to grow on them.)
The interesting thing about coming into a thread like this a bit late is that one has the perspective of reading through the entire mess and not getting caught up in the heat of the moment. So, starting from the top and working my way down:
Derek: You had the most interesting observation on this thread re Taken, which no one really responded to once IO hijacked the thread with inanity. As I was doing the box office chart yesterday, I looked at the numbers for Taken, and in particular its impressive second-place holdover, and wondered where the hell it came from.
I’m a bit behind on screening the box office openers due to too much travel lately, but I may fork over the cash to check Taken out, both because its box office performance intrigues me, and because it’s written by Luc Besson. I’d be interested in hearing if it was heavily marketed through tv ads in particular areas, because I don’t recall seeing it marketed heavily in the Seattle market.
IO: I noticed in reading through this thread that you’ve not made a single salient argument with regard to box office, which is what this post was about. You leapfrogged right over what might have been an interesting discussion and directly into insult territory. And entertaining though that may occasionally be for livening things up around here, I’d really be more interested in hearing any ctual opinions based in reality that might filter through your constant output of blowhard insults.
For instance: “Oh yeah… I have more clue more of the time than you ever do. Your lack of comprehension is astounding, David. Absolutely astounding. I’m Ben Linus. You are John Locke. Remember this for future discussions between the two of us.”
See, your argument would be more interesting if you actually made one rather than just tossing around schoolyard insults like a 10-year-old boy learning how to street talk for the first time. What do you actually have to say about any of the points David made with regard to box office numbers? If you do, in fact, have “more of a clue” than he does, please enlighten us with what your clue actually is. If you comprehend with much greater clarity, please share with the group.
I realize it’s much easier to toss out insults and try to stir up the pot than to actually make assertions that others could turn around and challenge, but if you’re going to assert that you have the biggest balls in the wolfpack when it comes to your opinion on anything around here, you need to start backing it up with posts that are more based in sound argument than in tossing out random insults and trolling for arguments.
LYT: “why isn’t Friday the 13th listed on the MCN critics roundup as of this posting? Considering it’s the #1 movie and all. None of the regulars like slashers? Maybe you could use one who does…”
No, that is mostly my fault for not including it. We didn’t, so far as I know, have anyone who’d seen it to give it a rating, so including it on the chart with no ratings seemed rather pointless. Whether any of us like slashers or not is irrelevant, though, we probably should have reviewed it or at least rated it regardless, and that is my bad for not making sure we had it covered. Nonetheless, I’d be interested in hearing what people thought of it in comparision to the original.
And Joe: I’m not an older industry insider or journalist (well, not THAT old, anyhow) but when I first started reading here several years ago (four? five? it all blurs together after awhile), I was rather taken aback by the level to which some of the discussions quickly disintegrate.
It didn’t scare me off, though … I used to write for parenting sites too, and let me tell you, those stay-at-home moms can be a scary, vicious group that makes the guys on here seem tame by comparison. I’d far rather dodge barbs from IO or put up with Lex’s drunken rants than deal with some uptight new mother who has to justify every parenting decision she makes by attacking anyone who doesn’t agree with her. Those parenting sites can be terrifying.
“Derek: You had the most interesting observation on this thread re Taken, which no one really responded to once IO hijacked the thread with inanity.”
To be honest (and without taking anything away from Derek for staying on point), that was a question that’s already been turned over here in other threads; which might explain the subsequent silence in this one. Not to mention the fact that similar astonishment at the success of “Paul Blart: Mall Cop” – which at face value is the quintessential movie you dump on a January weekend – kind of took some of the “WTF!?” thunder away from “Taken”.
“How come? A $52 million rebate doesn’t really fall into the category of pocket change. A 40% return right off the bat isn’t too shabby. And since we are discussing a movie’s profitability, that $52 million can’t be ignored. Challenge it, prove it wrong or right, but setting it aside is nuts.”
Hallick, I’ve specifically addressed this concern above. You probably just missed it. Here’s the summary: for the purposes of this discussion it seems fair to consider all of the money that was spent on the movie, no matter the source.
Kim: I saw Taken opening weekend, and it’s success doesn’t surprise me one bit. It’s a rescue-and-revenge fantasy that goes straight for your solar plexus, the same way Liam Neeson goes after the Algerian sex traders who kidnap his daughter (actually, he probably goes more often for their tracheae, but you get the idea). Besson and company make an effort to lay some emotional groundwork (nothing deep or original, but more than we usually get) before propelling you into a far-fetched but exciting thrill ride. The combination is a surefire recipe for strong word-of-mouth, hence the impressive holds.
Oh, and it really helps to have a solid actor in the lead instead of a generic action guy. It might have worked anyway, but not as well.
“Hallick, I’ve specifically addressed this concern above. You probably just missed it. Here’s the summary: for the purposes of this discussion it seems fair to consider all of the money that was spent on the movie, no matter the source.”
I don’t disagree with you on that point. But also staying within the bounds of the conversation, you still have to consider all of the money that the filmmakers got back since then, whether it came from tickets sales or not, if we’re going to talk about how much money either movie lost.
For me, the discussion is based on your two pronged statement: “Not only will Australia NOT be a money maker, it will loose more money than Button”. On the second point, I’m not even sure if either of them wind up losing money once all is said and done with the post-theatrical business.
But “Australia” has advantages of its own in profitability, because its original budget was reputedly $20 million less than Button’s; and thanks to the tax breaks giving the filmmakers $52 million back, you’re looking at a new cost disparity somewhere in the neighborhood of $72 million at the starting line. After that, you’ve got the marketing budgets to deal with; and with that, “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” has probably outspent “Australia” there by a decent margin too.
Kim: people in here are assholes. I will return the bullets with more of my own. Perm has step over the line. Unfortunately he is such a fat fuck, that he cannot see the line or his toes for that matter. So he would not know. Nevertheless; did you read Jeff’s response? That’s the problem we have here. We have iceholes lacking a sense of fucking hunour. Until… chugafuckinglug Kim.
Humour, and I did refer to freakin box-office. One more time… KENNY FUCKING POWERS IS A WINNAH!
You bemoan a sense of humor and use fat jokes? Does anyone in real life ever laugh at anything you say, or do they just look sort of vaguely disturbed and back away from you, hoping you don’t have a knife? How bad do you smell?
As for stepping over the line, let me say that I hope you get hit with a dump truck but don’t die…because I’d rather see you paralyzed for life…which wouldnt affect your social life, I’m sure, but at least then you couldn’t type!
“I don’t disagree with you on that point. But also staying within the bounds of the conversation, you still have to consider all of the money that the filmmakers got back since then, whether it came from tickets sales or not, if we’re going to talk about how much money either movie lost.”
Correct. Which is why any conversation that doesn’t take into account post theatrical revenues, advertising expenses, etc is premature. There are simply too many variables to keep track of and we don’t even know what all of them are.
What we can do however, is make some certain conclusions based on the data we do have, which is what most news outlets are doing anyway.
“For me, the discussion is based on your two pronged statement: “Not only will Australia NOT be a money maker, it will loose more money than Button”.
Now that you better understand the assumptions and considerations that went into this post (e.g., looking on it from the point of view of its total cost and not how much the producers have spent – yes it’s somewhat limiting but frankly I just don’t have the exact data to do it any other way anyway), I have to say that I made the best case I could for point 1.
Same goes for the second point: “because its original budget was reputedly $20 million less than Button’s” I think that the huge difference in domestic performance coupled with the solid perfromance oversees would be more than enough to make up for this difference.
By the way, I will not be shocked if Button makes around $310-320 million worldwide and I don’t see Australia coming close to that figure (even if the producers of the film end up making their money back or make a profit, someone will have to pay for the fact that the picture didn’t break even be it the Australian Goverment or other such benefactor).
“Kim: I saw Taken opening weekend, and it’s success doesn’t surprise me one bit. It’s a rescue-and-revenge fantasy that goes straight for your solar plexus, the same way Liam Neeson goes after the Algerian sex traders who kidnap his daughter (actually, he probably goes more often for their tracheae, but you get the idea). Besson and company make an effort to lay some emotional groundwork (nothing deep or original, but more than we usually get) before propelling you into a far-fetched but exciting thrill ride. The combination is a surefire recipe for strong word-of-mouth, hence the impressive holds.”
Maybe if David Mamet’s “Spartan” was sold not as a heady talky affair but as a straight up action kidnapping flick, it would have raked in a fortune too ;). I haven’t seen “Taken” but Kim’s description sounds suprisingly close.
Then again, that kind of promotion didn’t do much for “Redbelt”.
They were Albanians, not Algerians.
I love Spartan. Seriously. In fact, I always encourage my scriptwriting students to watch it, to see just how little expository dialogue you can get away with.
Perm: really? This is the best you can do? Really? You need to go elsewhere. It might suit your demeanor more. Seriously; you can try, but you know what happens to those who try? DNP. DNP.
I like it here fine, thanks!
One of these days, somebody will finally play too insistently, and IOI will finally do whatever it is that he’s constantly vaguely promising to do in such a case.
How come nobody is at all angry that IO thinks Big Perm is a small-dicked rapist who likes bestiality. People have sued for much less. I would have no qualms calling Lex a sexual deviant since he obviously wants everybody to know about his penis and where he wants to stick it (no matter the age), but isn’t there a line, David? Do you think it’s acceptable for people here to call others sex fiends and say stuff like “You seem like the sexual assaulting type.” Fuckin’ hell. Accepting that is as good as condoning it and no amount of “I don’t want to police” bullshit will fly.
Jesus Christ, this place is like a bad cross between a respectable movie forum and Perez Hilton. And Joe Leydon is right, ya know. There has been no new blood here for a long time (at least none that have stayed around for longer than a week).
Whoa– and it shocks me to have to give credit here, but– score one for jeffmcm:
“One of these days, somebody will finally play too insistently, and IOI will finally do whatever it is that he’s constantly vaguely promising to do in such a case.”
I don’t know, maybe it’s because I find IO’s DNP war cry so awesome, and heard this retort in kind of a dry voice that pointed out the absurdity of it all, I got a pretty big laugh out of this.
Albanian, yes. Brain fart. Thanks, jeff.
Kami, I care.
“evil flourishes when good men do nothing”
Please Dave, many other valuable talk-about-movie contributors tire of wading through Abuse to find discussion
Don’t worry about me, Kamikaze. Whiny baby IO could never offend me, no matter what he says. I mean, I offered to bash his head in with a baseball bat. The offer’s still open too!
Well if you say so. 🙂
Kamikazee i can’t read every thread on here–have you seen Let the Right one In?
be interested to hear what you say–I say WOW personally but most people will never see this film