MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Friday Estimates by Klady – 4/18/09

Picture 2.png
State of Play is a couple hundred thousand dollars ahead of the opening day numbers of Body of Lies.
17 Again is right in between the opening days numbers for He’s Just Not That Into You and Bride Wars.
Crank 2 is running about 25% behind the opening day numbers of Crank.
The big 1st-Friday-to-2nd-Friday droppers are Hannah Montana and Observe & Report, neither a huge shock. Hannah’s drop is a little less severe than the Friday-to-Friday for Jonas 3D and about 10% worse than the drop for the Hannah concert film. O&R had a disproportionately large Friday number, so the % drop for the whole weekend should end up significantly lower. Still, the drop puts the film behind Zack & Miri – off just 37.7% in its second weekend – as of today and the space between them will only get wider as the run continues.
Monsters vs Aliens is looking at landing around the original Ice Age numbers, which is first or second best for non-summer/non-holiday/non-sequel animation, assuring sequels.
Fast & Furious continues to chug along towards the domestic numbers of the first film of the franchise and will probably get there just in time to be shut down by the summer wave. But it is already ahead internationally and thus, ahead on the overall gross worldwide. I don’t care much about ticket counters, but the $50 million in additional production costs do matter in assessing the two films and so, the new film is still more than $70 million away from being “as successful” as the original in big picture terms.
(EDIT, 11:50a – Chart error corrected.)

Be Sociable, Share!

40 Responses to “Friday Estimates by Klady – 4/18/09”

  1. Hallick says:

    Love that cume for “17 Again”. What’d they do, Dave? Lose $4.8 million in refunds or somethin’?

  2. Hallick says:

    Or did Scott from American Idol get hired on as your new proof-reader? He can’t feel text on a laptop screen!

  3. doug r says:

    Proofreading? Maybe that’s what is dragging old media down. Factchecking and profredding is so old skool.
    That is so 11th century….
    http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/archives/2009/04/sag_tragedy.html

  4. David Poland says:

    As on point as ever, gentlemen… editing errors that you understand to be mistakes are what really matters.
    I really do appreciate the heads up… I am forever bored and disappointed by the need to snark.
    Anyone actually interested in discussing box office?

  5. Hallick says:

    “I am forever bored and disappointed by the need to snark.”
    Sorry, David. The “what if…” of a “17 Again” showing a net loss was too good to pass on. But your response time here was admirable. Much better than anything in the “Zack and Mimi” era. Bravo.

  6. Hallick says:

    Okay, a box office question: is an adult drama like “State of Play” ever going to open big in its first weekend? Between this one and “Duplicity” and some others of the same sort in the last few months, I get the feeling that so-called “grown up” movies are almost as neglected as the indie films nobody’s going out to see anymore.

  7. jeffmcm says:

    That Crank 2 number has to be considered a disappointment, right? I mean, the producers must have been assuming the modern sequel-bump of a higher opening weekend gross based on the first film’s perceived popularity – it must have done well on DVD since it only made $28m domestic.
    To David: if you can’t get the commenters you love, love the commenters you get.

  8. djiggs says:

    Irony of ironies
    “I am forever bored and disappointed by the need to snark,” sayeth David Poland.
    Except when you need to do it? Right, David?
    Who ya crapping?

  9. NickF says:

    I haven’t seen Crank yet, but that number is very disappointing. The numbers regressed even though theres a cult following for the first movie? damn.

  10. BurmaShave says:

    I think perhaps even die hard CRANK fans, which I’d consider myself to be one of, understand that the idea of a sequel is insultingly absurd?

  11. NickF says:

    I don’t get that. A hardcore fan of Crank should have no issue with a sequel happening.

  12. don lewis (was PetalumaFilms) says:

    I personally enjoyed doug’s misspelling of “proofreading” in his snarky post regarding proofreading. doug r….FTW.

  13. Hallick says:

    So is Seth Rogan a real star or a funny actor whose movies can recoup if you keep the budgets around $25 million?

  14. I’m wondering if Observe and Report will be able to beat the $8m internation number that Zack and Miri made.

  15. Nicol D says:

    As a huge fan of the action genre I must say Jason Statham does nothing for me and I have not seen Crank.
    The poster for Crank 2 with him putting jumper cables on his tongue is one of the more disgusting one-sheets I have ever seen.
    Obviously others must have felt the same way. That one sheet was a major turnoff. Not at all surprised it underperformed.

  16. Wrecktum says:

    People don’t see movies because of the quality of the one-sheet.

  17. Hallick says:

    “People don’t see movies because of the quality of the one-sheet.”
    No, probably not; but damned if I haven’t rented a few because of the quality of the box cover.
    I thought the one-sheet for Crank 2 was kind of cool. Still, I didn’t go see it.
    “I’m wondering if Observe and Report will be able to beat the $8m internation number that Zack and Miri made.”
    Kevin James’ movie did about $24m oversea. Is it too late to retitle the prints “Paul Blart: Observe and Report”?

  18. Lota says:

    Too bad for Crank that it was released so close to F & F and State of Play.
    I never thought Jason S was the Complete Hotness, despite good legs and the rest of his parts are okay too. Something’s missing in the whole package. But I do like him in his movies.
    Crank2 was okay but I also question a sequel, it was cold somehow.
    Crank2 was still way better than F & F…yecch. Flaccid & Fizzling.
    The one major downer about Crank2 is that even more bloody annoying people (than Vin) are in it…like Bai Ling and Corey Haim.

  19. christian says:

    PAUL BLART making overseas bank is like expecting a CARRY ON film to clean up here.

  20. leahnz says:

    corey haim? wow

  21. LexG says:

    BAI LING for BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS.
    MAKE IT HAPPEN. Don’t listen to Lota, that was some awesome fucking acting… that chick is just fearless and a total maniac. So, really, is Amy Smart, for just commanding in this series and shedding her former bland goody-goody persona.
    And Haim was also excellent.
    I’d work myself up into a froth with superlatives about the movie itself, about Statham, about Collins Jr, etc. But face it, anyone here who’s awesome already knows all about it, and the rest aren’t going to be convinced anyway. But those numbers are disappointing.

  22. a_loco says:

    I don’t know how relevant this is, but I’ll say it anyways. As a University student, I would’ve been at Crank 2 opening night at any other time of the year. But because it’s during exam season, I’m waiting a while.
    I also know a lot of smart film-lovers that have a hard-on for Crank, more-so than most other low-budget action movies. I know Adam Nayman from Toronto’s Eye Weekly is probably going to do a seminar on it next year.
    I guess what I’m saying is that you shouldn’t write off Crank. I doubt its box office will pick up to any degree, but it should do well on DVD, again.

  23. a_loco says:

    I meant hard-on in a good way. I get confused sometimes. I still don’t know why having a hard-on for something is a usually a bad thing.

  24. I’ll give Amy Smart as bland, but goody goody? And why do I remember being impressed with her in “The Butterfly Effect”. Not sure I trust my memory on that one.
    Bai Ling wins at life.

  25. LexG says:

    WHOA, credit where due, it must be reverse world night, because amazingly Kamikaze has just clocked in with three — THREE — surprisingly cool and unpredictable opinions in under an hour, all of which I agree with: Liking Transformers, Bai Ling, and Butterfly Effect. All of which own.
    AMY SMART IS GOD.

  26. I never said I liked Butterfly Effect. It was garbage, I just seem to remember being impressed by Amy Smart (the one and only time that has happened, I should add)

  27. LexG says:

    Damn, dude, I try to give you some dap, and you gotta be a stone prick about it?
    You just cost yourself a YouTube link to Aaron’s Party (Come Get It).
    Nah, I’m in a gracious mood. ENJOY:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC1Tx3Iqsmw

  28. Bob Violence says:

    The director’s cut of The Butterfly Effect is awesomely stupid (the original cut is just stupid). Never bothered with the sequels, it’s rare to get that kind of special badness more than once from the same franchise.

  29. Lota says:

    I was impressed with Amy Smart too in Butterfly effect…one of the most awful train wreck movies there ever was in recent years.
    Bai Ling has survived and it is amazing she gets parts in film.

  30. CaptainZahn says:

    I’m on the pro-Bai Ling train as well.

  31. Dumplings – and Bai Ling in it – is absolutely fan-bloody-tastic. But do try and see Dumplings not the abridged version found within Three Extremes.
    I still remember being amazed she was in Sky Captain. If only she and Angelina/Gwyneth had scenes together. Now that would be a set I’d like to be a fly on the wall of.

  32. Ju-osh says:

    Lex: Thanks for the invite to the party at Aaron’s house. He’s quite the host! I would’ve stayed longer, but I felt like the old man casing the schoolyard.

  33. RudyV says:

    More Bai Ling love here. Her performance in The Crow was mesmerizing…more memorable, for me, at least, than anything else.

  34. leahnz says:

    re: amy smart, anyone who does vocals on ‘robot chicken’ is epic in my book

  35. leahnz says:

    my goal in life is to do a vocal spot on ‘robot chicken’ and be epic

  36. Nicol D says:

    “People don’t see movies because of the quality of the one-sheet.”
    Too black and white. People do not solely see films based on a one sheet but it is part of marketing and is a factor.
    Especially with genre films of which Crank is.
    I worked in a theatre for quite a few years during high school and university and you would be suprised at how many people come to the theatre on the weekend with no idea of what they are going to see and only make a final decision once in line.
    Taken made so much money because of Neeson, but also a classy campaign that appealed to older people. When I saw that film, I was the youngest person in the theatre.
    Crank’s one sheet was designed to embrace the extreme sports, Mountain Dew crowd and will make the money according to that.
    I stand by the notion that the one-sheet of Stathan putting car jumpers on his tongue is one of the worst, most off-putting one-sheets I have ever seen. I hope they’re happy with the 7th place finish.

  37. martin says:

    Interesting Nicol. I thought the one-sheet and ads for Crank was fun and over the top. However something about it felt second rate, a solid DVD rental instead of a movie theater experience. I wonder if others felt the same way. I also think that generally people are kind of Statham’ed out, a lot of his stuff looks like same.

  38. Nicol D says:

    I think I go hard on the Crank films because as a major action fan, I feel I am their demo yet they have no connection to me. I have not seen the films, but feel they just really alienate with the marketing. Even the iconic hard-core Seagal films of the late 80’s early 90’s put a bit more class into the one-sheets.
    I agree…something about the Crank ads just seems B-tier…like they are not even trying to be more. That’s why so many commended the ads for the Neeson film which were quite top class even if you did not like the flick.

  39. The Big Perm says:

    B-tier pretty much sums up the Crank movies too. And it’s making b-movie dollars. Seems about right. Statham is weird, I wonder if he just loves these junky movies he appears in…certainly there’s an action movie with a decent script out there he could do?

  40. a_loco says:

    I think that’s the point of Crank, though. That it’s not trying to be more, because if it was, it wouldn’t be, well, Crank.
    And Nicol, the “extreme sports, Mountain Dew” crowd hasn’t had anything marketed in their direction since 1999.
    I will say, however, that the Crank: High Voltage trailer did not play well on the big screen. Something about it was just … off. Didn’t get a reaction any time I saw it. I’m still stoked for it, though.

The Hot Blog

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