MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Friday Estimates by Klady

As noted yesterday, It’s reasonable to guess that an animated opening weekend will turn out to be anywhere between 2.8x the Friday estimate to 3.5x the Friday estimate. In the case of Up, that’s a $15 million potential swing, from a low of $59.9m to a high of 74.9m… or it could be something else. It’s not news until it’s news…
…as Crazy Nikki reminded us by erasing her ill-conceived post that attempted to claim knowledge of the weekend numbers based on east coast matinees… something no one who knows much about box office would ever do. As Wrecktum pointed out, the posted numbers were, indeed, an accurate representation of the matinee numbers at least one studio had for Friday. Those are facts… but are they news… especially when they cannot be interpreted except in the broadest way, in this case off by almost 30%?
But I digress..
Up‘s opening could be right in line with the two big animated movies last summer, Kung Fu Panda and Wall-E… or it could be the 3rd biggest animated opening of all time, behind only the last 2 Shreks. My guess is more the former than the latter. But my point remains… it’s only news when its news. And when civilians are so anxious to narrow down every piece of “analysis” into a defining context, invariably prematurely, it is the media’s responsibility to be responsible about the context in which we present information.
Drag Me To Hell looks to land an opening somewhere between Death Race and The Strangers from last summer’s race. It’s not a bad number… it’s not a great number.
What’s the difference between this opening and what Screen Gems would have done with the film? Women… girls. The much verbally wanked over poster, which does indeed play as much of Ms. Lohman’s sensuality as it does the horrors of the underworld, is a rather talented piece of design. On the other hand, even though Sam Raimi’s Evil Dead series appealed almost exclusively to boys and geek hags, having a woman at the center of this story was a great opportunity to grab the teen girl horror junkies that made so many Screen Gems movies a bigger success (from Underworld to The Exorcism of Emily Rose to Resident Evil to The Messengers). Screen Gems was not alone in working this, as movies like The Ring and The Grudge also took that road.
It’s ironic that this Sam Raimi film ended up at Universal when the last one, Boogeyman, was at his Spider-Man home, Sony. Boogie’s opening will be a little better than this one… a strong piece of marketing. But I think that Universal would have done as well with that film as Screen Gems did. It was a very straight forward boy sell, with its biggest challenge being getting the rating in at PG-13. Drag Me also got the PG-13… though I have no idea how it did it, aside from not stripping Ms. Lohman nude or emphasizing green bodily fluids and not red. But with a woman in the middle of the action, it seems to me that there was a chunk of money left of the table this weekend that could have been mined by emphasizing the woman’s strength and not just the fun house elements. This is a Sony specialty.
In an industry that is all about single-digit margins these days, a movie that does $40 million – $50 million doing $55 million – $65 million makes a big difference. It’s not that Universal did poorly. They didn’t. They delivered the core and pushed a little past it. But it’s always an interesting game to think of what other studio could have done more with another studio’s titles. For instance, what if Sony had The Hangover and WB had The Taking of Pelham 123?
Congrats to Paramount on $200m for Star Trek. $230m domestic seems real – though they are still spending an unusual amount this far out on national television buys – and with much of Asia still untouched, the hope of the slingshot effect of being a big hit here remains in effect. (Foreign is still under $100 million as of this writing.) The film will come out of this weekend about $10 million behind Wolverine, worldwide, but should pass the X-prequel sometime in the next 11 days or so. Star Trek is looking more like breakeven at this point, though DVD estimates for all theatrical films are getting smaller and smaller, which is a danger.
The story of the summer – in spite of the rush to “box office is booming!” stories – is that by this time last year, not the 3 trilogy year, we had two $300m domestic films launched… this year we have none. On the other hand, we will have six $100 million domestic grossers out of this month this year, up from last year’s four. So how do we define success?

Be Sociable, Share!

19 Responses to “Friday Estimates by Klady”

  1. Rothchild says:

    Warner Bros is terrible at marketing comedies. This is an understood fact around town, so I really am amazed, besides the usage of “Who Let the Dogs Out” in a TV spot, by how brilliant their campaign for The Hangover has been. It’s easily going to make 100 domestic, which is a big deal considering Old School didn’t even hit that.

  2. David Poland says:

    I like the movie… but the cult in the media around it is, I think, grossly overestimating its potential.
    Zach Galifianakis is funny in the film, but nothing indicates – anymore now than in the last 5 years – that he is “the future of comedy.” Likewise Bradley Cooper, who is utterly replaceable.
    But the biggest problem with the film is… not great for women. I know there are stories out there about women who saw it and liked it, to thir surprise. But really, boys… none of the sweetness here of Wedding Crashers or Old School.
    I expect the box office to be right around Old School. Niche. A legend on cable.
    And do you really think the outdoor is great? Three beat up faces of guys no one – outside of the media cult – knows?
    Maybe I am dead wrong on this one… don’t really think so, though.

  3. Universal marketing should be hung out to dry for not getting Drag Me to Hell to $20 million. The reviews were great, the poster was terrific, and the film damn well should have capitalized on the ‘girl power’ marketing niche. I have no idea what the TV spots were like, but I can only wonder if they spent their ad dollars chasing the geek demo that was always going to show up. There is no excuse for this not opening at least as well as The Strangers.

  4. Aris P says:

    I see a few reasons why:
    1- Where was the marketing/awareness for this film? I saw no posters in LA, and I saw a couple of commercials about a week before it opened.
    2- It’s a stupid title. For people in the fence, a creepy title might draw them in more than an over the top silly title like this.
    3- Alison Lohan. Sorry.
    4- Sam Raimi’s name doesnt guarantee anything, other than for a small contingent of the fanboy faction showing up at midnight.
    5- Hard horror will always draw way more people than goofy horror.

  5. jeffmcm says:

    I haven’t seen it yet, but I never thought the title was stupid and as far as I know it’s more of a hard horror movie than a goofy horror movie – in other words, it looks closer to a roller-coaster 1408 type movie than an obvious joke like Snakes on a Plane.
    Agreed that the marketing didn’t seem to have the right focus and Lohman and Raimi’s names added little.

  6. ManWithNoName says:

    Wait, jeff, are you saying Chucky is right about name-checking? 🙂
    The marketing didn’t make a lot of sense. Outside of the geek community, who knows what the “Evil Dead” trilogy is? And those who do know don’t need to be told that Sam Raimi was responsible for those movies. Hooking those viewers with the line “a return to true horror” was also unnecessary — what geek Evil Dead fan wasn’t going to attend this?
    A lot of my friends want to see this, but they also think the premise is goofy as hell, which might have turned some people off. I curse you because you didn’t extend my mortgage? It’s fine as a premise, but it got a lot of unintentional laughter during the trailer. I think the trailer should have just noted that the girl was cursed — no need to show us why.
    Aris does have a point, though I wouldn’t label it a hard horror v. goofy horror distinction. It’s more a supernatural v. slasher distinction. Saw, Scream, Friday the 13th, etc., are always going to generate more box office than horror movies that feature demons (Nightmare excluded, though you could argue those are also slasher flicks with a supernatural element).

  7. jeffmcm says:

    I think the distinction is that people want their scary movies to take the business of being scary seriously. The Exorcist and (even though it sucks) The Exorcism of Emily Rose both do, and they’re certainly about demony things.

  8. Hallick says:

    “Outside of the geek community, who knows what the ‘Evil Dead’ trilogy is?”
    For teenagers at least, aren’t the “Evil Dead” movies kind of a slumber party rite of passage like “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” and “Halloween”? One of those scary, messed-up, radiactive with nastiness titles that belong to the home rental pantheon. The geek community would go on to cherish them as part of the creme de la creme of filmgoing; but at one time or another, everybody I knew when I was a kid made a beeline for “Evil Dead” as soon as they got permission or an older sibling with a video store card.

  9. ManWithNoName says:

    Not sure, Hallick. Maybe back in the day, but modern teens? I’m doubtful any that aren’t major film fans know of the trilogy (and any that do probably only know “Army of Darkness”).
    To this day, “Evil Dead” is one of the scariest movies I’ve ever seen. It lacked the over-the-top humor of Part 2 and I love it for that. It was just straight-up horror, trying to scare the shit out of you. I wish we could get more of that — original, scary horror. When it works, there is nothing better.

  10. Hallick says:

    “5- Hard horror will always draw way more people than goofy horror.”
    I don’t think the marketing is selling Drag as a goofy horror film. It’s promising the potential audience that this is going to be a movie that will scare the crap out of you. Yeah, they’re putting Sam Raimi’s name front and forward, but as a “Master of Horror” more than anything else.

  11. Hallick says:

    “Zach Galifianakis is funny in the film, but nothing indicates – anymore now than in the last 5 years – that he is ‘the future of comedy’. Likewise Bradley Cooper, who is utterly replaceable.”
    I think, with profound sadness, that he’s the recent past of comedy. He used to be one of the all-time great one-liner comedians, but somewhere he just decided to turn into his own sight gag and start playing off the visual of a guy with that gut and that beard pretending he doesn’t realize that he’s standing around in his tighty whiteys and grossing everybody out. Which is a tragedy because he’s got the chops under all of this oddness to be a really great actor.

  12. Hallick says:

    “Not sure, Hallick. Maybe back in the day, but modern teens? I’m doubtful any that aren’t major film fans know of the trilogy (and any that do probably only know “Army of Darkness”).”
    If kids back in the mid to late 80’s were looking for Texas Chainsaw Massacre, would it really be so strange if kids nowadays sought out something like Evil Dead; especially when people like yourself are saying it’s one of the scariest movies you ever saw?
    If you’re a teenager, and you’re on the hunt for that iconic horror movie that stands head and shoulders above the rest, what are you grabbing in 2009? “Saw”? “Scream”? “House of 1000 Corpses”? One of the remakes like “The Hills Have Eyes” or Jessica Biel’s “Texas Chainsaw Massacre”?

  13. The TCM remake seems more likely as a modern day slumber party movie than the remake, and the Saw movies are probably a much likelier choice than Evil Dead (sadly). With the internet and such I figure modern day teenagers know the horror movies of today, but have no knowledge and little interest in the horror movies of the ’70s and even the ’80s (although movies like Friday the 13th, Halloween and Nightmare on Elm Street would still remain popular, of course although I’d hazard a guess and say Halloween is still only popular with teens due to its connection to a yearly tradition). They’ve all heard of the Saw films and the remakes and The Ring and so on. They’re not going to grab movies like Evil Dead because it’s “old” and “looks silly” and the CGI isn’t good enough.
    Of course, I could be wrong. :/
    Who is Zach Gali…whatever his name is. I looked at his Wiki page and there’s nothing on there that doesn’t scream “nobody outside of America has even heard of me!” And I can’t say he has much international appeal. We don’t like your fat comedians as much as you do, I fear.

  14. Chucky in Jersey says:

    Next weekend brings a trio of national releases that all scream FAIL
    WB: Name-Checking
    U: TV-Based
    Fox: Name-Checking
    At least arthouse pic “Away We Go” keeps it real.

  15. Hallick says:

    “At least arthouse pic ‘Away We Go’ keeps it real.”
    BZZZZ – the trailer name checks Dave Eggers at the 47 second mark (it also opens with the Focus Features logo, and we all know how much you hate to see studio names being mentioned now). And at 1:26, its “from director Sam Mendes”.
    Sorry, Chucky, but thanks for playing “Who Wants To Find The Most Piddly Reasons Not To Watch a Movie?”. Enjoy your weekend away from the theaters!

  16. yancyskancy says:

    I think trailers should pixelate actors’ faces. Otherwise, audiences will start name-checking on their own. “Hey, isn’t that John Krasinski from The Office? That beard’s not fooling me. If he’s the big selling point, I think I’ll pass.” Pixelation could prevent countless instances of FAIL.

  17. anghus says:

    Is the Terminator franchise officially dead after this weekend?

  18. the keoki says:

    Yes i think that’s it for The Terminator

  19. christian says:

    Another brand bites the dust. Finally.

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