Friday Estimates by Klady – Grand Old Flag
Both top films had a slightly lesser Friday than I expected. But the last time we had a July 3 on a Friday was a decade ago (Wild Wild West), so it’s not exactly standard.
The question of whether Paramount, not known for playing the estimates, is “going for it” is an interesting question. On one side, you have a daily lowering of the amount off of the first weekend, from 80% to 60% to 50%. Will their Saturday estimate be off just 40%? If so, the film will win the weekend. If not, Ice Age 3 will, assuming it gets the normal family film bump.
The addition of Public Enemies to the mix means that yesterday was a new record for the start of the July 4 weekend, which will probably continue. Universal spent too much on the film, but this will be Johnny Depp’s 2nd or 3rd best non-Pirates opening. #1 is Charlie & The Chocolate Factory with $56.2m. Much closer is #2, Sleepy Hollow with $30.1m. But Sleepy had the opening number advantage of a 3-day weekend, so really, this will be Depp’s #2 non-Pirates opening, even it it doesn’t hit $30.1m. How much more could anyone have expected? Depp’s worst domestic multiple-of-opening is about 2.4x. He is pretty strong there. But overseas, where Universal will be looking for some make-up on money, is more of a mixed bag, Depp is not a clear overseas winner either. He’s had some films that have done 2/3 of their business there… some less than half. Will this film be Donnie Brasco or Blow?
Up clearly took a hit with the opening of Ice Age 3. The Hangover hits $200m today. Star Trek is out of the top 10, but will get close or pass $250m domestic today.
…a July 3…
…On on side…
…Ice Age 2…
…the July 4…
…a maxed bag…
…Ice Age 2…
=)
How much of a factor is Imax for Transformers? I suspect some who saw it regularly might return for Imax, in which some of the robot fights are easier to follow…and Imax costs more, too.
I thought I heard Fox was eating the cost of the 3-d glasses for Ice Age…but at least at the Arclight, the 3-d version is still higher-priced.
Man Pelham is a BO letdown to say the least. Travolta and Washington can’t get a summer flick to even $60 million? Denzel, not counting The Great Debaters or Antwone Fisher, hasn’t done this poorly since The Hurricane topped out at $50 million almost a decade ago.
Yeah, “Pelham” has been a major b.o. disappointment, Boy. Still trying to wrap my brain around why/how this film failed to reach $100-million.
It’s vastly more enjoyable than “Transformers 2,” “Terminator 4” or just about any other summer tentpole so far this season. Plus, it features two of the most well-liked actors in the biz with Denzel and Travolta.
Very odd.
Of course “PE” will clobber “Brasco” and “Blow” in the Depp ouevre.
For starters, it opened on several thousand more screens than either of those non-summer movies did…and it’s the beneficiary of a mega-bucks Universal marketing campaign.
Despite my “ehhhh” reaction to the film—already well-documented on this blog–I’ll probably wind up buying the DVD. The film’s hardiest advocates (particularly Ms. Dargis) have convinced me to give it a second look. The exact same thing happened a few years ago with Mann’s “Miami Vice,” although I still haven’t gotten around to giving the “director’s cut” dvd a spin on any of my dvd players.
With the success of movies like Fast & Furious, T4, and T:RotF, it seems audiences are saying that the lousier the script the better the film will do. Whatever you may think of Pelham, there’s no argument that it is far and away the most “mature” of recent big-budget action films. Audiences’ tastes are shifting to “less character, more sensation.” It’s almost as if the success of Taken is saying that the Bourne movies don’t need to try to be so “smart.” I mean, what is Taken but a Bourne movie minus the intelligence.
Pelham wasn’t expected to exceed $75 million even a month before release. The marketing was uninspired, and the title dated.
T4 cannot be considered a success.
F&F found a surprise opening a release dead zone, and produced a less than ideal multiplier.
Transformers is Transformers. For it not to be a success would fly in the face of every factor. A blackhole opening up in Korea would be more likely.
Lastly, between the highly impressive legs of Star Trek, The Hangover, and Up, this summer has proven audiences still pay attention to word of mouth.
If they thought Pelham was only good for $75 million, I doubt they would’ve given it a greenlight. No one greenlights a Washington-Travolta action movie thinking it’ll do less than $100 million.
Yes, Fast & Furious found a niche, but look how out-of-whack that niche is. A $70+ million opening is more than people going to the movies because there’s nothing else to do.
The same thing with The Hangover. It’s a moderately funny comedy, with moments of “safe” raunchiness. It doesn’t go out of bounds with its “tastelessness.” The fact that audiences are claiming it to be one of the funniest movies they’ve seen in a long time tellse they are doing the final edit in their heads. Also, saving the “biggest” laugh for the closing-credit sequence has the audience leaving with the best gag fresh in their minds.
I finally succumbed to T:ROTF this afternoon (even after a very painful refresher course through ARMAGEDDON yesterday on Starz) and Holy Christ you guys weren’t kidding! The first one was bad in an almost (limitedly) enjoyable way, but this one is really, really, inescapably awful. A friend I saw it with summed it up as “like watching burning garbage tumble down a staircase while people shout at it. For two and a half hours.”
I found much to like in PUBLIC ENEMIES, but I can’t say I am surprised by PELHAM. Even the word of mouth wasn’t very strong on that one. I’ve had more than a handful of people react with disbelief when I told them I went to see it, telling me they had been warned it was bad.
I haven’t seen Taking of Pelham 123 yet — probably will catch it on DVD — but I wonder: how much was it hurt by a perception that, somehow, it was about terrorists in NYC? I know: It’s a little late to be playing the “It’s too soon after 9/11!” card. But then again, I remember how the original Pelham was hampered by the perception that it was “just another disaster movie” at the tail end of that particular cycle.
I don’t know if movieman will check back in again, but after two viewings of PE (one digital, one projected via film), I’m pretty sure that is NOT a Marlboro Light that Stephen Lang smokes. There is a small gold decal near his lip, but it is the not the three gold ringed filter of a Marlboro Light, and in fact the cigarette appears to be unfiltered. In later shots of his cigarettes, there are no designs or decals at all, but I’m fairly certain in the shot in question it’s some golden leaf or camel or insignia on an unfiltered smoke.
(I’m sure that was riveted to all, but movieman was crusading about it last week, so thought I’d throw that in…)
Pelham is very solid, but as others have said, despite the two huge stars (who skew older, audience-wise), might’ve done better in the spring or fall. It IS one of those dual-star matchup movies, BUT it doesn’t really have the “scope” or spectacle of a P.E. or American Gangster. Again, I liked it a lot, but neither the ads, nor the movie itself, are “HUUUUGE” (TM Paris Hilton) enough to make it appointment viewing for most…
Even with Scott’s pyrotechnics and the big stars, it probably looked to audiences like one of those minor-key, terrestrial action flicks Bruce Willis usually drops in the off-season, like “Mercury Rising” or “16 Blocks” or “Hostage.”
@LYT: Any theater showing a 3-D title will charge extra for the 3-D shows. More than likely it’s written into the master contracts that studios have with theater chains and indie bookers.
Pelham 123 had a major problem. It was a film for adults sold in a way that alienated that audience. It had a schizo ADD marketing campaign, trying to make it look intense and hip. The ads were more frenetic than those for Transformers. It looked like a movie aimed at 15 year olds starring actors that appeal to 40 year olds.
Interesting Lex and Roth postings.
Not Marlb Lights, Lex? Really? Sure looked like that insidious “three gold ringed filter” to me in my non-digitally projected screening.
But, for fear of inciting the wrath of my MCN enemies ….whatevah, right? I definitely hope to check it out a second time at some future date. After all, every movie looks better on the high def TV in my bedroom. Hey, I might even have more patience for Cottilard’s N. Kinski vocal stylings, Christian Bale (period) and Mann’s meandering curlicues.
I’m intrigued by Roth’s reading of the “Pelham” trailer. Whenever I saw it–roughly 20-30 times before opening day–my first (and pretty much only) thought was, “That thing is gonna make a shitload of money.” How ironic, or not (again, whatevah), that it wound up being as much of a b.o. underperformer as the ’74 original.
And yes–for anyone who cares–I still hate “The Hangover.”
The characters are every bit as despicable as the cretins in Tucker Max’s “I Hope They Serve Beer in Heaven” (soon, God help us, to be a “major motion picture” starring Logan from “The Gilmore Girls”). But I’m still glad to see it cross the $200-million threshold. Does the industry proud….certainly more so than the knee-jerk $180-million accorded an utter non-entity like “Wolverine.” My only hope is that it doesn’t confuse anyone into believing that Bradley Cooper is, gasp, a “movie star.” Frat boy manque gives “smarm” a bad name.
I think Rothchild put his finger on the Pelham problem. Well said.
The other problem with PELHAM was that it was wasn’t that great. It was OK, but nothing memorable… nothing that made you walk out of the theater going “Wow, I gotta tell someone about that!” It was…. meh. Denzel did his thing, Travolta chewed scenery, Tony Scott did his flashy wacky graphic design stuff, and then the movie was over.
Movieman, what Dave meant was that while Donnie Brasco and Blow had similar US grosses, internationally Brasco DOUBLED the American gross, while Blow came in at two thirds of the US gross.
Biggest trouble for Public Enemies internationally will be that it is comes of as a very American tale. Road to Perdition came in under internationally, whereas Mann’s Collateral and Miami Vice came in on top. Really, it’s a flip of a coin scenario. Could go either way. Will Depp or Bale be doing international press though? Doesn’t appear likely.
That number for Ice Age 3 is disappointing, right?
I think another reason PELHAM failed is that it was simply unnecessary. The original was a classic, the second version wasn’t much, but at least it was free–why go to the well a third time? Kids consider Denzel and Travolta “old dudes,” boomers didn’t want to see Scott run a favorite film through the Cuisinart–who was left?
I am trying to think of other movies that were theatrically released remakes of movies that had already spawned made-for-TV remakes. Could only think of two: Diabolique (which actually had spawned TWO made-for-TV remakes before the ’90s theatrical update) and Meet Joe Black (which actually was longer than the ’30s original and the ’70s TV-movie version of Death Takes a Holiday combined). Am I missing any others?
A Christmas Carol?
Also, Alice in Wonderland, Pride and Prejudice, Great Expectations, Othello, Adventures of Huck Finn, Swiss Family Robinson. There are a bunch of others, but many of them had obscure TV-movies.
“Yeah, “Pelham” has been a major b.o. disappointment, Boy. Still trying to wrap my brain around why/how this film failed to reach $100-million.
It’s vastly more enjoyable than “Transformers 2,” “Terminator 4″ or just about any other summer tentpole so far this season. Plus, it features two of the most well-liked actors in the biz with Denzel and Travolta.
Very odd.”
Simple. Pelham, more than any other movie, got well and truly ‘Hangover-ed’. The stars and director are well and truly in their wheelhouse, and while the movie is no ‘Crimson tide’ or ‘Man on Fire’ (both of which i think are pop classics), it’s a heck of a lot better than ‘Deja Vu’. It would have cleaned up in August. Too bad.
Oh, and Kamikaze – yes, Depp and Bale have been working the room internationally for PE. I saw the movie yesterday – like many Mann films, it’s rep is going to grow on repeat viewings over the years (from this distance it’s hard to fathom, but remember that even ‘Heat’ received lukewarm notices and no Oscar nominations in 1995.)
I still remember seeing Collateral and Miami Vice with large groups of mates and being the only one who liked either of them. Collateral, I was basically orgasming out of the cinema and none of my friends could quite understand what I was going on about. I hope I like Public Enemies half as much as that one.
Also, wasn’t there an Amityville Horror TV movie? I seem to remember there being one.
The original Pelham was a box offic disappointment upon its initial release. The majority of the audience going to the new version don’t even know it’s a remake. (MGM didn’t even bother to put out a special edition DVD to cash-in on the remake.)
The original Pelham is a terrific piece of NYC 70s filmmaking, but it is NOT a French Connection classic. It simply has a rabid cult following. It was a good candidate for remaking.
Box Office Mojo has Ice Age 3 and Transformers 2 tied for Number 1.
Everyone is freaking because while the Friday & Sunday numbers were OK, the Saturday numbers were “severely low”. Now folks are going on about how Transformers won’t hit $400 million, and PE won’t hit $100 million, blah blah blah.
The release calendar for July, outside of Potter, is weak from this point on. Bruno could surprise, or it could falter. Either way, some serious legs are in store for most everything out right now.
Pelham would have hit $100 million if Washington and Travolta had switched roles.
And is Night at the Museum 2 the first $170 million disappointment?
“Everyone is freaking because while the Friday & Sunday numbers were OK, the Saturday numbers were ‘severely low’. Now folks are going on about how Transformers won’t hit $400 million, and PE won’t hit $100 million, blah blah blah.”
“Public Enemies” is a movie that was never, not ever, nor in any other single word ending in a -ver going to hit $100 million in North American theaters in this slot (and probably not in any other slot). If you’re freaking out about the fact that the obvious thing that was going to happen went ahead and happened here, you’re not really qualified to be talking about film grosses in the first place.
“(from this distance it’s hard to fathom, but remember that even ‘Heat’ received lukewarm notices and no Oscar nominations in 1995.)”
“Heat” didn’t score any Oscar nominations, true, but the critical reception wasn’t on a lukewarm level and people like me were coming out of the theaters in a state of nirvana. The bank robbery sequence alone was well on its way to immortality from the word go.
I think there’s a palpable swell of disappointment here which is also coming from some die-hard Mann lovers now who were otherwise instantly on the bus for “Collateral” and “Miami Vice” (not to mention “Ali”). The movie has some GREAT stuff in it (like Stephen Lang’s texas ranger and Marion Cotillard’s goosebump-bursting interrogation scene), but it has some nasty faults as well. None of the bank robberies are the least bit memorable or interesting; the prison break scene at the beginning DIRECTLY rips off the pivotal Waingro moment from the armored car heist in “Heat” to no great effect; and almost every male character in Dillinger’s sphere (with the exception of Baby Face Nelson) has all the personality of a terse three word sentence. I really doubt if this one’s gonna rise from the ashes in the long run or just be considered an interesting failure in Mann’s body of work.
I think the title THE TAKING OF PELHAM 123 doesn’t necessarily inspire a mad dash to the theaters. I love it, but it does seem redolent of another era. And what does it mean to people who have never heard it?
MGM and Fox were definitely asleep at the wheel on a S.E. DVD/Blu-Ray release of the original PELHAM. And they couldn’t get it together for a tie-in to the new version’s home video release either. With a new HD transfer sitting unused (aside from MGM’S HD Channel), that is a sad, sad thing.
Most of the movies mysteryperfecta mentioned are famous novels that are re-adapted all the time.
Two less well known examples are ‘Miracle on 34th street’ which had a tv remake in the ’70s and a 1994 movie remake. Also Disney remade ‘Freaky Friday’ for the Disney Channel in the ’90s, before doing it a third time with Jamie Lee Curtis & Lindsay Lohan.
Most of the movies mysteryperfecta mentioned are famous novels that are re-adapted all the time.
Two less well known examples are ‘Miracle on 34th street’ which had a tv remake in the ’70s and a 1994 movie remake. Also Disney remade ‘Freaky Friday’ for the Disney Channel in the ’90s, before doing it a third time with Jamie Lee Curtis & Lindsay Lohan.
Public Enemies is already at $41m after five days, surely $100m is well within grasp if it gets some good legs.