MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Christmas Day BO

Someone told Nikki Finke that Avatar and Sherlock Holmes were a virtual tie today with $24 million each and that both would do near $70m for the weekend. That someone, however, is kinda pulling the weekend number out of their ass.
Here’s the deal. There is no real precedent for any of this. A Friday Christmas Day hasn’t happened since 1998. The #1 film that Christmas was Patch Adams, which opened to $8.1 million that Friday/Christmas and did 3.12x that number for the 3-day.
Last year, day-before-Christmas opener Marley & Me had a $20 million Friday and did 2.6x that number for the 3-day.
The previous biggest Christmas Day was Meet The Fockers, which had $19.5 million that day. But it was a Saturday and the fourth day in the run. Christmas Eve is always a down day, so the 3-day isn’t a fair measure. If you start the 3-day with the Saturday, running through Monday, it was $52.9m. The early/premature estimate is that the two films had a 23% better Christmas than Fockers, which would translate into a $65.1m 3-day.
But like I say… this is all completely a guess by everyone. The rules of this week are not consistent with what we’d expect in the rest of the year. And the “it’s tied” thing is pretty much an admission that the estimates are still not formulated terribly clearly. Tomorrow morning’s numbers, whatever they are, will be a little iffy as well.
All that said, two films breaking the record for Christmas Day at once is pretty amazing. Both studios should be very happy. (Nikki’s source is also forgetting – shocker – that the same number for Avatar and Sherlock is advantage Sherlock, which doesn’t have the benefit of 3D pricing.)
Still, this is a bigger deal for Avatar than Sherlock in that this is Day 8 for the film. If $24 is accurate, that’s a 71% increase on the previous Christmas high for a movie not in its opening week. (It was Day 9 for LOTR: Return of the King.
And LOTR: Return of the King is the only standard by which Avatar‘s box office can really be measured at this point. If $24m is an accurate number, then Avatar is about $6.5 million behind King’s 8-day number and about $20 million behind the number as of the end of Christmas Day. Avatar could close that gap this weekend… or not. Impossible to say until it happens or doesn’t.
King’s 10-day was $190m. Avatar will top that. But the end of the second weekend (Day 12 for King) was $222m, which Avatar will not top.
King had $290m domestic in the bank by the end of the New Year’s holiday (Jan 4), about 64% of its final domestic total. Where will Avatar by the equivalent time? And will it have the same, better, or weaker legs in the new year. We’ll see.
And as for Sherlock… one day doesn’t answer much, except that it looks like a $200 million-plus movie. It could be a little lower… could be over $250m. No way of knowing yet.
Anyway… things are still interesting… if you are interested in this stuff. I expect Klady’s numbers in the morning… they should be a bit closer to reality, given that they will include late shows from the west coast tonight (Friday).

Be Sociable, Share!

28 Responses to “Christmas Day BO”

  1. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Saw “Sherlock” during the annual Boxing Day pilgramage to the cinema. Liked it quite a bit. It lags a bit during the second act, although that electric prod/shipping yard fight sequence is a doozy, and Downey Jr can get on the nerves sometimes (that accent and so on), but by the end it was quite enjoyable. I do like a mystery to solve and Jude Law was fabulous.

  2. Tyler Foster says:

    Sorry if this is a double post (can’t tell, because it had an error), but the benefit of pricier 3D showings for Avatar is roughly negated by the fact that Avatar is much longer and there are less showtimes in a day.

  3. movieman says:

    ….not quite the outcome I was anticipating. But I’ve got a hunch that the core demographic for “It’s Complicated” may have been otherwise engaged on Xmas Day. The true test will come this weekend (and beyond) once they’ve ditched the hubbys and kiddies, climb behind the wheel of their SUVs (cell phones and Starbucks’ decaf skim lattes in hand) and race to the ‘plexes.
    I don’t think its an exaggeration to think that “It’s” will have better legs than “Sherlock Holmes” in the long run.
    I was right about “Air” and “Blind Side” running neck-and-neck on Xmas (and probably the entire holiday period), and “Nine” dropping dead in the hinterlands.
    The fact that “Nine” apparently beat “Princess” yesterday was a tad surprising, however. Of course, “Alvin” and “Princess” should both handily rule weekday matinees at the nation’s multiplexes throughout the (wildly extended) school vacation period: “Alvin” more than “Princess” which seems to be have been as hurt by anti-Obama fever/rhetoric as “Blind Side” has benefitted from it. But that’s another story for another day.
    And a hearty bravo to both “Avatar” and “Holmes” for breaking Xmas Day records.

  4. Josh Massey says:

    Looks like The Blind Side will not only get to $200 million, but sail past it. Wow.
    How many football movies will we see in ’10 and ’11?

  5. george says:

    I don’t understand how the box office numbers are really calulated but I do know that Sherlock played in alot of smaller screens than Avatar or The Chipmunks.True maybe it had more screens but they were smaller theaters. Like at my local cinema last night they put Sherlock in a small one. I was also checking out twitter last night and read that alot of people who wanted to see Sherlock were turned away because the smaller theaters were filled. And a few of them saw something else like Avatar. Kind of makes you wonder how much better Sherlock would have done if it was not competing with Avatar and The Chipmunks for the bigger screens.

  6. george says:

    I don’t understand how the box office numbers are really calulated but I do know that Sherlock played in alot of smaller screens than Avatar or The Chipmunks.True maybe it had more screens but they were smaller theaters. Like at my local cinema last night they put Sherlock in a small one. I was also checking out twitter last night and read that alot of people who wanted to see Sherlock were turned away because the smaller theaters were filled. And a few of them saw something else like Avatar. Kind of makes you wonder how much better Sherlock would have done if it was not competing with Avatar and The Chipmunks for the bigger screens.

  7. Geoff says:

    Movieman, sounds like you think It’s Complicated had a disappointing number, but I don’t see that – mid ’20s for the weekend was the high-end of what they could have expected, given the competition and let’s face it…Meryl Streep has been here, before, too many times, think of how many counter-programming openings she has had:
    Devil Wears Prada opened to mid’ ’20’s against Superman and hung in there.
    Mama Mia opened to high ’20’s against Dark Knight and hung in there.
    Julie & Julia opened to early ’20’s against GI Joe and hung there.
    This is what she does, this is her wheelhouse, and there is exactly what Universal expected – the film will likely have good legs (it’s certainly gotten more awards attention than I would have expected) and probably crack $120 million.
    As for the rest of the big players, WOW…..Warners should be proud, they pulled off a great marketing job for a very “British” character and movie, no matter how you slice it. Not sure if it will crack $200 million, but I think $175 million is realistic and a strong number, considering how it’s going to clean up, overseas. I didn’t think Joel Silver had it in him….this is probably his first truly successful franchise launch since….The Matrix, believe it or not. Saw it last night and really du8g it – probably about 15 minutes too long, but fun and a more cerebral film than I would have thought. NO, this is not Basil Rathbone, but for those who were expecting Jack Sparrow rollicks through England, Downdy did not do that at all. Great chemistry with him and Jude Law, McAdams was solid, and I just loved the score by Hans Zimmer. The theater I saw it in seemed a little bored at times, but it was in three screens at the City North in Chicago and was just crazy – it was coming down outside with snow and rain, and the lobby was wall to wall people.
    Avatar, what can you say? Extremely impressive numbers….I can now see it doing $400 million or at least coming close. You look at how those day-to-day numbers (biggest drop so far for eight days is only 30% and that was on Christmas Eve???) are playing out and it’s obvious this film is connecting. It could have a quarter billion banked before New Year’s Day!
    Nine is dead in the water and just as I have been predicting for weeks, the Weinsteins are going to throw their force towards getting Inglorious Basterds a Best Picture nod and good deal – love that film, have watched it twice on DVD, and I would love to see Melanie Laurent get some recognition.
    Disney has really had the most disappointing fourth quarter – both Christmas Carol and Princess & the Frog will probably do about 60% of what I expected them to do. And they have to be nervous about 2010 because it looks RISKY – Alice in the Wonderland, Prince of Persia, Sorcerer’s Apprentice, and Tron. Significant upside for each of those films, but I could easily see them taking a bath, as well.

  8. Geoff says:

    “”Alvin” more than “Princess” which seems to be have been as hurt by anti-Obama fever/rhetoric as “Blind Side” has benefitted from it. But that’s another story for another day.”
    Movieman, where is this coming from? I know, I always take the political bait, but come on…..maybe Princess & the Frog is hurt by the fact that folks are just responding to 2D animation? I have no doubt that The Blind Side is cleaning up in the heartland, but you know, us big city folks also like Sandra Bullock and football movies.
    And if you’re going to make this about anti-Obama sentiment, there is no movie the “Big Hollywood” folks have been railing against more lately than Avatar – for left-wing propaganda, it seems to be doing OK.

  9. movieman says:

    As I said, Geoff, I truly believe “Complicated” will have crazy legs.
    Just thought it might open a tad better on Xmas Day since it’s the only real movie in the marketplace pitched exclusively to a (mature) female demographic. But I hadn’t really taken into consideration the “distraction factor” of December 25th for its core demo.
    No worries, though. The film will make serious bank, and should have no trouble outgrossing “Prada” and maybe even “Mamma Mia” if it can hold onto its screens long enough. Curious that Universal is opening another femme-driven romcom (Amy Adams’ lightly likable and definitely scenic “Leap Year”) into the fray just two weeks hence.
    That doesn’t seem like the smartest move to me.

  10. movieman says:

    Geoff:
    I think it’s a given at this point that “Blind Side” definitely benefitted from Palin-Mania; and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that if the princess in “P&F” had been lily-white middle America would have been more inclined to dutifully trot their own little princesses off in typical Disney ‘toon numbers (2-D or 3-D CGI irregardless).
    My hunch is that Obama fatigue might be playing a subliminal role here (“OK, we gave you a black president, but an animated black Disney princess? No frigging way. You’ll just have to wait for the chipmunks, kids”).
    And I’ve got a hunch that if “Avatar” had been released by a different studio, the Fox News vultures would have been a little more vigilant in dissecting its “left-wing propoganda” in an attempt to scare off their right-wing viewers. “Biting the hand that feeds you” and all that, lol.

  11. Geoff says:

    Movieman, Palinmania????
    Come on now, if all of the people who bought Sarah Palin’s book actually showed (about 1.25 million) up to any one movie, this weekend, it would have been considered s flop.
    Her hype is way overstated and believe it or not, her poll numbers are still well below Obama’s, despite the brownosing that every one in the press has given her the past two months, while Obama’s been savaged by both sides.
    And look, I can acknowledge how influential Fox News ia, as much as any one – but you look at the ratings and it’s still just a very vocal small “niche” – the high end for any of its shows on any given night is maybe 4 million viewers. In its heyday (with much less competitiion), CNN would average over 10 million viewers per night. Not staying that CNN has not died, it has.
    But when every one gets all excited about how hugely popular folks like Glenn Beck are, they forget that these entertainers are really just getting larger shares of a shrinking pie.

  12. Stella's Boy says:

    Has Sarah Palin been promoting The Blind Side via Twitter or Facebook? Can “Palin-Mania” really be given credit for $172 million and counting? That seems like a bit of a stretch. Sometimes a movie just connects and hits all four quadrants. Bullock was hot off The Proposal and America loves football and it was sold well. Plus, people seem to genuinely like it. None of that has anything to do with Sarah Palin.

  13. movieman says:

    I don’t know, Geoff.
    The last time I looked, even the Times had Palin trailing Obama by just one point in “approval” ratings.
    Scary ****, but there it is.
    Everyone likes to mock me for making too big a deal about the “BS”/Palin connection, but even M. Dargis pointed out in a recent Sunday piece how Bullock’s character was a Palin doppelganger.
    And bless those Fox News parasites for fearing Daddy Rupert’s wrath. Glad they’re–for the most part–leaving “Avatar” alone.

  14. movieman says:

    But, uh (throat clearing noises), moving on…
    Am I the only one who thinks that Universal’s decision to open “Leap Year” on January 8th (two short weeks after launching “Complicated”) seems a wee bit shortsighted?
    Or is Streep’s “J&J” costar no serious threat for Mama Meryl?

  15. www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541562892 says:

    Actually, if you look back at that year where Christmas Day fell on a Friday, almost every movie that weekend made 3 times its Friday over the weekend, though more in the 3.2 – 3.6 range. The big difference of course is that these days, more people rush out to see movies and 3X is probably the high point for Sherlock… but Avatar is golden. It’s definitely won the weekend if it’s only a million behind Sherlock for Friday and we’re probably looking at $200 million for the top four movies this weekend which is astounding.

  16. www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541562892 says:

    Hm… not sure that signing in with Facebook is the right way to go… doesn’t include my name? This is Ed Douglas.

  17. Geoff says:

    Movieman, that’s because Rasmussen keeps putting out his bullshit polls that show Palin tieing Obama in a head-to-head matchup.
    Seriously, Palin twitted hard for the Conservative candidate for Congress in New York, last month, and the guy lost in….in a historically conservative district. Just like she “lived” in Pennsylvania, last fall, to campaign hard and…..Obama won Pennsylvania by a larger margin than any other candidate in over 30 years.
    I’m sorry, all of this Obama-fatigue is extremely overstated – if McCain had won, his ratings would be well below 40 at this point and if W was still President….well, we’re takling historical lows.
    And I can guarantee you that if Sarah Palin branched out into acting and played the title role in The Blind Side, it would have made a small fraction of what it has made, at this point. Just how is Sandra Bullock a doppelganger for Palin, at this point? She has blonde hair in the movie, is much taller, southern accent, etc. And wow, she actually RELATES to a minority…yeah, Palin has done a lot of that.
    That’s almost like saying that Avatar has done really well because Zoe Saldana was such a doppelganger for Michelle Obama.
    You do have a point about the folks at Fox News taking it easy on Avatar, but I don’t know….they were very nimble about the almost-OJ Simpson book a couple of years ago….quick to jump on the bandwagon killing the book, but very adept at expressing how Jean Regan’s company waa a separate entity within NewsCorp.

  18. movieman says:

    I was really hoping to put this to rest, Geoff, but since you asked, lol.
    Bullock’s “BS” character struck me as an idealized version of Palin (the “Palin” her fans, and even those who aren’t entirely sure about her, but like her “family values”): smarter, prettier and an unabashedly conservative Republican with “true” Christian values.
    And we musn’t forget both ladies’ propensity for toting firearms.
    If the Palin factor had no visible impact (pro or con) on “BS” box-office, there’s always the subliminal (impact) factor to consider.
    That’s what I’ve been saying since Thanksgiving, and which Dargis pointed in her Sunday think-piece out two weeks ago.
    Hey, what about those “Sherlock Holmes” figures? Is it a holiday flash in the pan, or the kickoff of a new Downey franchise?
    “Leap Year” versus “It’s Complicated” anyone?
    Anyone??

  19. movieman says:

    Could those Xmas Day “Imaginarium” figures be correct?
    An $827 per-screen average in 100+ theaters????
    Nah, that’s gotta be a typo.
    Right?

  20. mutinyco says:

    Ed, from now on whenever I see you I’m going to refer to you as: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=541562892

  21. movieman says:

    It has to be $1.2-million, not $120,000.
    An $8,270-per-screen for “Imaginarium” sounds a lot more reasonable, doesn’t it?

  22. mutinyco says:

    BTW/ What the fuck is “Chirstmas”?….

  23. David Poland says:

    It’s why you hate Avatar, Mut…

  24. mutinyco says:

    I don’t hate Avatar. If my protestations seem constant, it’s pretty much just my minority position in relation to the constant rim job its receiving. But, I’m not vitriolic in any way — my opinions are just based on what I saw.

  25. christian says:

    “if McCain had won”
    Good Lord, can you imagine? And Geoff is correct. BLIND SIDE love got nothin’ to do with Palin outside of the fact she’s female and likes football. Rasmussen is FOX’s favorite pollster.

  26. George is right about the size of Sherlock’s screens. My parents saw it yesterday and their first choice showing was sold out. When they finally got into the theater, they were shocked that it was in the ‘middle-size’ theater. When they exited, the next showing was sold out too. For what it’s worth, neither of them liked the film much at all (and they are both big Downey Jr fans).

  27. Gonzo Knight says:

    Movieman, I’m sure Avatar made as much as it did becase everyone hates Rumsfield and Stephen Lang is Rumsfield.

  28. Martin S says:

    How about – Sandra Bullock has a fanbase, and so does the NFL and NCAA. And it’s football season. And it’s a true story the NFL wants to showcase.
    As for Princess…what’s the last non-CG animated hit? The majority of new cable cartoons are CG now. Princess looked looks like an 80’s leftover they found in a vault. Bigotry my ass.

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