MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Box Office Hell Clashes In 3D

Picture 123.png

Be Sociable, Share!

11 Responses to “Box Office Hell Clashes In 3D”

  1. Eric says:

    Saw a Clash of the Titans matinee and it wasn’t so great. I was pretty excited, too, based on the trailer. But everything interesting is already in the trailer itself.

  2. LexG says:

    Is this the first Tyler Perry movie that WON’T open #1? How’d they settle on this date?

  3. LexG says:

    I want to be Miley’s friend.
    Her special friend.
    YEP YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP. Since she guest-mentored on Idol last week I am A HUGE FAN.

  4. Stella's Boy says:

    Daddy’s Little Girls opened at #5 in Feb. 07. Meet The Browns was #2 in March 08. The Family That Preys was also #2, in Sept. 08.

  5. Chucky in Jersey says:

    LexG must be a perv. Ms. Cyrus and her movie are obvious contenders for the Razzies. Even the right-wing quote whore Peter Travers doesn’t like it.
    BTW those estimates look awfully high. Theaters jacked up ticket prices across the board last Friday … and forgot that Easter is this Sunday.

  6. tfresca says:

    I think the tracking may be off. WTIGM 2 will probably finish second. I was at a theater in a pretty non-multicultural area and the 3 screenings were slammed.

  7. My favourite thing about The Last Song is how eternally confused Miley Cyrus looks on the poster.
    I’m so confused myself, actually, my Finke’s site atm. She seems to have forgotten that Janet Jackson appeared in the first Why Did I Get Married (“The fact this new one also stars Janet Jackson … will help it at the crowded box office.”) and the image she uses for Clash of the Titans is so lo-res that I can see pixels the size of Laurence Fishburne. She also has to remind everyone that Scary Movie 2 was not in 3D “Clash Of The Titans is certain to record the biggest Easter weekend ever helped by higher 3D ticket prices (2000’s 2D Scary Movie did $40M)”
    Are we really at the stage where movies that’s aren’t in 3D get a 2D tag? :S

  8. Geoff says:

    Finke is an outright idiot – she called The Bounty Hunter opening disappointing two weeks ago and is insistent (as many others are, surprisingly) that the Dragon opening was disappointing, last weekend.
    Sure, it could have done over $50 million, but the movie still made $63 million in its first week and looks to hold very well, this weekeend – I can see it coming close to Monsters vs. Aliens numbers.
    Big opening for Clash – I know some were expecting $70 million, but if this thing does in the ’60’s, that’s a huge marketing win for Warners. Seriously, how many other fantasy epics open to these kinds of numbers outside of Potter or LOTR? I could have easily seen this thing flopping. Maybe the next time, Sam Worthington will get his name above the title.
    Speaking of Ava-stars trying to prove their box office mettle, we have two Zoe Saldana vehicles over the next two weeks, though surrounded by solid draw casts – Death at a Funeral and The Losers – any one think both of these will hit?

  9. Cadavra says:

    She’s also got a third picture this summer: TAKERS. I saw the trailer, and it billed eight cast members–but not her. Very odd.

  10. Triple Option says:

    I think Death at a Funeral will hit pretty big. I don’t know much about The Losers. It seems like it shoulda come out in late Feb or early March. I’m hoping for something original but it seems like it’d be a movie that would have a better shot of developing legs than one to do gangbusters on its opening w/e.

  11. And Finke had the wrong Scary Movie. It was 2006’s Scary Movie 4 that opened to $42 million over Easter weekend (Scary Movie in 2000 DID opened to around $42 million… in July 2000).
    As for her calling the Dragon opening disappointing, I have to agree with her (for once) on that one. But I must acknowledge that my expectations were skewered because I liked the movie so much, so I (stupidly?) presumed that others would follow suit. I still think the opening could have been bigger, but the film’s quality is what is giving it legs. Whether it’s 3+1 or 2+2, either way gets you to 4.

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