Friday Estimates by Klady Man 2
As obnoxious as it is that Universal’s boss man is still trying to blame Marc Shmuger for all and any of his company’s iffy choices and overfed budgets as though American Gangster and State of Play hadn’t gone down nearly the same exact road and Ron Meyer let this get greenlit anyway (thanks, Nikki, for always being there to tell us what your keepers want us to believe), Robin Hood is not going to be a disaster… not on the Wolfman level, not on the Green Zone level, not on the State of Play level… not even on the It’s Complicated level. (Yes, of course I know that a movie that is primarily shot on a stage with a week’s location shooting in New York and another in Santa Barbara should cost $100 million-plus. Way to take a cash cow and turn it into a marginally profitable film.)
Klady’s estimate of Friday is a whopping $1.7 million off of the studio estimate being pushed out by their Brentwood flack. Expect the weekend final to be more mid-30s than 40. That said, there is still a real chance of this ending up being a $300 million-plus worldwide movie, which would get it – once all the other streams come in – a near breakeven proposition and maybe even slightly profitable for Universal, given that they get their distribution fee off the top and sucked in Ryan “How Much Can He Lose Before The Well Dries Up?” Kavanaugh to eat the losses.
It’s almost sad, but mostly it’s funny. There is one movie that went out looking for outside money late… and had Kavanaugh gotten on that train, no one would have been talking about his losses for a long time. That movie was Avatar. It’s almost like Fox knew – though if they really knew, they wouldn’t have brought in anyone else’s money – and said, “Let’s get some new fish on the hook… after this win, they won’t stop paying for junk until they have lost every dime and mortgaged their future hoping for another one like it!”
But I digress…
In the end, Robin Hood‘s P&L sheet will look a lot like Public Enemies… a very high profile narrow escape.
Iron Man 2 is off 65%, which isn’t bad. That should level off to the high 50s and a second weekend in the mid-40s will have it over $200 million in 10 days and just over $300 million in total domestically, probably short of the first film. But thanks to international markets, where sequels can be explosive even if the movies aren’t as strong at home, I still foresee IM2 in the $700 million worldwide range of the first Transformers, enjoying a similar uptick (about $125m in gross) at the worldwide box office from 1 to 2.
If I were Disney – and God knows, lately, I am definitively not – I would insist on an Iron Man 3 before taking a chance with The Avengers. Let Favreau do it… not do it… whatever. But have a meeting and agree that the IM3 budget will be $150 million with more back end. Limited P&A too… heavy emphasis on partners. And then, just squeeze that payday out of the thing before the reboot with all parties aware that they are simply playing for the easy cash. Use Downey on Avengers in 2014. Or cancel Avengers when Thor stiffs. Avengers could work or it could be Batman & Robin Redux. But let’s not pretend that there is anywhere to go with the franchise they have – other than down – and go steal some candy from some children. They know they wanna.
Letters To Juliet is Summit’s fourth widest release in company history… and will be the company’s #4 opener of all time. Dear John, which opened to at least twice as much as this one will, did 2.7x opening, so projecting that onto this one, look for a maximum $35 million domestic gross (also at #4 for Summit). The hope for this film is that it will be bigger overseas, with Vanessa Redgrave and the little-mentioned-in-the-US Franco Nero doing their best geriatric Brangelina. But Summit only has domestic.
Somehow Fox managed to even miss the Black money in the Queen Latifah franchise with Just Wright. I mean, they weren’t selling it to me. They weren’t selling it to the people who went to go see blonde-haired-blue-eyed Amanda. But even Beauty Shop and Last Holiday opened to $12 million each. This opening is by far the biggest misfire of the weekend, even if there is a lot less at risk.
I was disappointed by Iron Man 2 and Robin Hood lived down to expectations. Summer is off to a pretty weak start. Isn’t there normally a decent horror counter-programmer at this point?
The next few weeks look even worse: Shrek, MacGruber, Prince of Persia, and Sex and the City. Shudder.
Anyone seen Just Wright? Is it any good?
Saw Just Wright. It’s not as bad as I expected (let’s just say that I’m very much not a Queen Latifah fan), but that doesn’t mean it’s any good either. It’s just an utterly generic rom-com, written and directed with absolutely no wit, heart or spark.
Harry Brown is finally opening in Montreal next week. Now that’s a good flick!
I saw Just Wright. It was so generic and rudimentary that it just made me wonder how little respect does Fox have for its audience. It was barely a glorified MoW. A one-hour Living Single w/a little stunt casting. I saw Our Family Wedding that may’ve been a Searchlight release earlier this spring and thought, ‘crap, maybe this would’ve been funny back in 1987??’ At least here I wasn’t citing the obvious joke in my head right before they said it.
But then you know Date Night and My Super Ex-Girlfriend both had the 80’s primer showing underneath. Yes, I realize there’s a reason why they call ’em chick flix and no I don’t particularly care for rom coms but seriously is two dimensions in characters really too much to ask?
It wasn’t to the point of being painful to watch. Not sure I could even buy Common as a baller. Although that just could’ve been because a buddy of mine kinda soured me going in when he said, “It looks awful. I saw that preview of him going in to dunk and you could even see the ladder in the shot.”
Gut feeling says that Macgruber is going to break out big. The reviews have been shockingly great thus far, and Universal wouldn’t move it from late April to late May unless it was pretty darn good. It may not open huge (it only cost $10 million), but expect a very small drop/small rise over Memorial Day as word of mouth sets in about and (respectively) Prince of Persia. After the (relative) disappointments of Iron Man 2 and Robin Hood, if MacGruber actually delivers what it promises, it will be able to ‘sell itself’ as the first truly satisfying movie of summer 2010. We’ll see…
“That Macgruber is going to break out big.”
Yep. Slamming Salmon big. There hasn’t been one critical observation about this film that I trust. Just foaming fanboys yet again. The trailer doesn’t seem to contain a single laugh. Scott, my gut tells me that unfortunately it won’t break out big at all.
It’s got Soul Plane written all over it which is a crying shame as I like everyone involved in the project.
Does this mean “MacGruber” has been pirated prior to official release?
I caught a “work-in-progress” cut at SXSW, and — much to my surprise — it was pretty damn funny.
Joe that’s actually good to hear. So does the trailer do the film an injustice or is it representative in your eyes. Audiences are starving for some good laughs. It’s frustrating when the best laughs in the cinema these days for me are in films like Exit Through The Gift Shop. Hot Shots 3 please.
I think the ‘good reviews’ came from said SXSW screening. Point being, Universal has been testing the heck out of it and felt the movie worked well enough to bump it from ‘safe April 23rd’ to May 21st, against Shrek 4. Personally, I laughed when the trailer first started, after realizing that the filmmakers had the good judgment to cast Powers Boothe in the “Powers Boothe role”. Granted, he doesn’t command millions per picture, but he lends the satire a certain credibility.
Exit Through the Gift Shop IS the funniest film of the year and is likely to remain that way, at least until Dinner for Schmucks which I am a bit skeptical about, given the trailer.
No doubt, Iron Man has underperformed a bit, but expect Paramount to give it a second wave of advertising like they did for Star Trek, last year – it will end up performing like a “three-quel” from a few years back, probably between Shrek 3 and Spiderman 3 and close to Alice in Wonderland.
I have to say that the Robin Hood opening was higher than I thought – I really saw this doing Kingdom of Heaven numbers in the teens. Universal deserves some credit for selling the hell out of this thing – using what they had.
Am I the only one who thinks Prince of Persia could be HUGE? I can see it doing Star Trek numbers if it’s opening doesn’t get muzzled by Sex and the City. If Clash of the Titans could top $160 million, I see no reason this can’t do even more, 3D grosses or not.
And another thing, though I have been wrong two summers in a row – since ’07, I have expected each of the following summers to be a DOWN summer because of seemingly weaker release slates, but it just hasn’t happened based on some unexpected hits – Iron Man and Dark Knight overperforming in 2008, Hangover and the niche R-rated overperformers of August (Inglorious Basterds, District 9) in 2009. I just can’t see that happening, this summer, and do expect it will be a down summer.
Toy Story could be huge, but is it really going to much bigger than Tranny’s from last year? And the last half of the summer just looks kind of weak – nothing with the potential to be a Potter-sized hit. MAYBE The Last Airbender, but I’m just not feeling it. Eclipse is probably going to do significantly less than New Moon and is any one clamoring to see another Cats & Dogs????
Inception is a big wild card and I know Warners is promoting the hell out of it, but I would be surprised if it does much more than Shutter Island.
And August just looks bare – Step Up 3D is the biggest movie, really?? Sure, Eat Pray Love could do good business, but no more than Julie & Julia. Maybe, The Expendables could break out, but I’ll have to see more.
I think Hollywood were due for a downturn summer and this could be it – thoughts?
I think the ‘good reviews’ came from said SXSW screening. Point being, Universal has been testing the heck out of it and felt the movie worked well enough to bump it from ‘safe April 23rd’ to May 21st, against Shrek 4. Personally, I laughed when the trailer first started, after realizing that the filmmakers had the good judgment to cast Powers Boothe in the “Powers Boothe role”. Granted, he doesn’t command millions per picture, but he lends the satire a certain credibility.
Sorry for the double post. Blame a non-napping two year old.
This is the most negative, cranky weekly box office report I can think of in a very long time.
@JBD: Somehow, I’ve missed the trailer so far.
Saw a Red band trailer for MacGruber before Kick Ass. Better than the green band, but it looked like a lot of MacGruber’s naked ass…could just be the scene the trailer focused on. I like the R idea-if it’s going to be stupid, at least it’s raunchy.
Prince of Persia looks like Pirates without Johnny Depp and Kiera Knightley-that Titans women is not as interesting as KK OR Rachel Weisz.
A-Team might do decent business. I like the cast and the trailer seems to entertain most crowds.
I’m thinking Shrek: The Final Chapter might do business close to the original, more if word of mouth catches on.
The #1 movie of Memorial Day Weekend will be…..”Shrek 4.0.”
“S&C2” will do fine, but its demo is a lot narrower. (And is MDW really the right time to open this? Wouldn’t the following weekend, a la “S&C1,” have made more sense?)
“Persia” just ain’t gonna cut it. No way. “Narnia 2” will look like “Avatar” by comparison.
The winner by default will be (grrrrr) another 3-D DreamWorks CGI ‘toon simply because (1) it doesn’t suck; (2) 3-D surcharges, duh; and (3) it casts a much wider demographic net than “S&C2” or “Persia.”
“Juliet” should have opened stronger. (Is there a better, more soulful actress alive than the supernal Vanessa Redgrave?) Maybe Summit should have braved “IM2” and opened last weekend as counterprogramming bait.
…then Latifah could have had this weekend’s chick flick/romcom aud all to herself. A win-win all around, no?
Ah, fuck it. I hate (Hollywood) movies this time of year.
Am I the only one getting “(WAY) Pretentious ‘Jumper’ vibes” from “Inception”?
Just asking.
I’m getting Dark City vibes from Inception. Which ain’t all bad, but doesn’t speak well to Box Office.
McGruber = 5/21 release date… 5/20 only non-junket media screening in LA.
You do the math.
Geoff, August is all about Scott Pilgrim. Get on board now in order to not look lame later.
David, I am so happy you do not run any sort of production for Marvel or Paramount. Seriously, it makes me feel so much better that you do not have any control over the events that are coming, and how you see the Avengers as Batman and Robin redux, demonstrates a real misinterpretation of what’s going in two years. It’s a Universe. Let’s all remember this going into the future.
Thor stiffing? I am going to go with Thor being bigger than Iron Man. Why? Thor.
If I didn’t do better than Iron Man, I’d be “Thor” too!
Scott Pilgrim, seriously? They will be happy to do Kick-Ass numbers for that one.
I looked at the release slate for the last two months and MAYBE The Sorcerer’s Apprentice can break out, but I have to think that after Percy Jackson, Persia, and Titans, audiences will be a little fantasy’ed out by that point.
“Eclipse is probably going to do significantly less than New Moon…”
How much do you consider “significantly less”? It’ll open as huge as NM (more or less), and has summer days to help offset the non-holiday release. Plus its fanbase — while niche — is diehard, and I don’t see it losing fans. I’d think a gross similar to NM is reasonable — which means a low- to mid-range POTTER result.
For PERSIA I see it more in a G.I. JOE range. It looks like PIRATES-lite and Jake G. is no Johnny Depp. But I suppose there’s a chance it breaks out and does better business.
EXPENDABLES is getting all the 80s/90s geeks excited, but they really need a better trailer out there. It’ll be interesting to see how they finish off the marketing push on it.
I can’t see how TOY STORY 3 won’t be huge. At worst, if it performs like a “weak” Pixar film, the 3-D surplus will push it over $300m. If it performs much stronger, it’ll be WAY over $300m and possibly over $400m.
No screening here, either, DP, other than night-before. In fact, one was scheduled and then canceled. So my expectations have lowered considerably. If Universal thought it would get good reviews, they’d surely be showing it and trying to broaden its base.
Thanks for that DP, though I didn’t need to know that MacGruber is being hidden by critics to do the math. I have this inner sense that allows me to view trailers and accurately assess the potential of a film. What I want to know is what planet is someone from that thinks the Shrek audience is a MacGruber audience? Scott it’s called counter programming. You’re a lovely guy on this blog but you say the darndest things.
I’ll stick with the SOUL PLANE comparison for MacGruber though it may edge towards a UNDERCOVER BROTHER in the end.
Telemachos, both Twilight films have had pretty terrible legs – I have to think that poor word of mouth on the actual quality of these films will catch up, at some point.
And seriously, how many franchises make the transition from holidsys to summer and actually improve their box office? I mean MAYBE, you could count last year’s Star Trek, but that was a full throttled relaunch.
Meanwhile: no LexG appearance yet? Should we assume that he read the tabs’ report that K-Stew is pregnant and did himself in?
Only “MacGruber” pre-release screening in Cleveland is Thursday nite at 9 o’frigging clock.
They might as well have the Universal publicist walk around with a sandwich board around her neck that says, “Unclean! Unclean! Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here!”
Because of the press blackout, my editor asked me to do a piece on previous SNL-derived movies. (Lameass idea, but I noticed the NYT is running a similar article in tomorrow’s paper.)
I think my favorite “Not Ready for Prime Time” movies are the first “Blues Brothers” (the less said about the ’98 sequel the better), “It’s Pat” (am I the only one who misses Julia Sweeney?) and “Stuart Saves His Family.”
“Wayne’s World 1” is OK, but my aversion to Dana Carvey (who always made my skin crawl) could have prevented me from loving it like most people (apparently) did.
“Both Twilight films have had pretty terrible legs – I have to think that poor word of mouth on the actual quality of these films will catch up, at some point.”
Among their fans, they don’t have bad WOM at all — those crazy fangirls LOVE ’em. So the rest of the world will be disinterested but the same crowd that flocked to the first two will show up on cue for this one. It’ll have a huge opening and a huge drop-off, no legs at all, like NEW MOON. But it still should easily gross in the $250m-280m range. The TWILIGHT franchise is one that doesn’t really need to expand their base audience — they’re made on the cheap and the fans will show up, guaranteed.
Movieman: You actually liked It’s Pat? Oh, man! Remind me to tell you a story someday about how Disney tried to keep me from reviewing that film for Variety even after it opened in several theaters in regional release.
Oh, and Stuart Saves His Family blows so bad, I really had to push myself to donate to Al Franken’s political campaign.
Telemachos, let’s look at the history: major franchise sequels released less than a year after predecessor almost always drop from their predecessor – Pirates, Matrix, etc.
Think about it – there will have been three Twilight movies released within 20 months of each other, just a recipe for burnout and diminishing returns. I have little doubt that this latest one will open below New Moon and drop even faster.
Team Movieman on this one. “Stuart Saves His Family” is brilliant.
Geoff, I’m saying the TWILIGHT series has behaved differently than most major franchises because its weakness is also its strength: an incredibly dedicated fanbase that will wildly support it. It has little or no cross-over appeal to anyone else, but its fanbase (which definitely won’t desert it now) has proven it can easily sustain it.
PIRATES, MATRIX, etc all were far more traditional franchises — they aspired to multiple demographics and, to some degree, had far more nitpicky and demanding fanbases.
If you are doing a run down of SNL movies I’d like to put in a vote for Ladies Man, actually a fairly funny movie and is the Godfather compared to say Night at the Roxbury or Superstar
At the end of Iron Man 2, Sam Jackson said they wanted Iron Man, but not Tony Stark. That sounds like they will use Don Cheadle in any Avengers film, and cut loose Favreau and Downey Jr. to be free to do their own thing with the Iron Man franchise.
Ladies Man is possibly the worst major studio release I have ever seen. Julianne Moore as a horny clown pushed it over the edge.
Un-freakin-bearable.
No polarbear, they want Iron Man but they will need Tony Stark. That’ his entire character arc of the Avengers: Tony coming in to save the day. That’s how it will work out.
Oh yeah, when did not showing a film to critics almost guarantee a film being crap? Critics are not going to help Macgruber, they really do not need you, and they are just going to hope social networking will ride it to some money. That’s how everyone should roll but be lucky not everyone feels that way.
Geoff, it’s not about the gross dude, it’s about Scott Pilgrim. Scott Pilgrim is tremendous. Get with it now, so you do not seem out of it later.
You are also downplaying the profitability of Toy Story 3 and Eclipse. Each film should do ridiculously well because one of them is the sequel and closing chapter of one of the most beloved film series in the history of cinema, and the other one features a bunch of guys without shirts. Seriously. That’s nothing but bank.
Everything else this Summer will do what they do because some of these films are in 3D and that will help their overall total, and there are always films that come out of nowhere to exceed expectations. Off the top of my head, I could easily see Knight and Day being one of those films and Salt is an Angelina Jolie action film. Those are always good for a couple of sheckles.
IT’S PAT is funny. Can’t help it.
i’m kinda partial to ‘coneheads’, goofy silly beyond all belief but i’m a sucker for dan aykroyd. and jane curtain (and anything with phil hartman in it)
sorry, jane curtin. she’s not a drapery
If your local arthouse has “Letters to Juliet” it’s because of Vanessa Redgrave. Same goes if your local multiplex/megaplex has it in more than 1 hall. Franco Nero is her real-life husband.
FWIW “MacGruber” is a Rogue Pictures release in the US — Universal is only distributing.
The problem with Saturday Night Live movies is that no matter how wretched they get, somebody somewhere thinks they’re hilarious. Sometimes I wonder if staff members at SNL aren’t just high out of their minds in an office somewhere trying to figure out the shittiest skit to turn into the next major motion picture. Looking at the SNL adaptation track record, I’d be gobsmacked if anybody ever told Lorne Michaels “oh HELL no!”
I’d love to hear that story someday, Joe.
Didn’t Jim Emerson from Ebert’s website write (or at least cowrite) “It’s Pat”?
P.S.=Glad to hear there’s another “Stuart” fan out there, Chris.
Is someone coming in to save the day a character arc?
Honestly, I know it goes against the movie-biz-insider-I-pretty-much-know-the-deal-about-this-movie-before-I’ve-seen-more-than-a-minute-of-it grain, but I don’t take the late MacGruber screenings as a bad sign, except maybe that Universal is being overly cautious about reviews that won’t really matter to the target audience. I’ve seen so many movies that didn’t screen or screened way late that were much better than any number of movies with more press access that it can’t make much difference to me anymore. Ignoring anything that doesn’t screen until Thursday would make my moviegoing life way more boring, on the average. It’s a slippery slope from there to assuming that any movie that doesn’t open between 5/1 and 8/15 or 10/15 to 12/31 is a dump and/or not worth reviewing. đ
Universal is probably figuring that a silly, low-brow, probably kind of weird Will Forte movie is not going to get above 50% positive reviews under even the very best of circumstances, so they’re hiding it, even though the SXSW reactions have been totally encouraging. Admittedly, yeah, those reactions have been dominated by a bunch of non-pro geek sites, but if there’s one area where I’d be inclined to trust sources like that, it’s broad comedy, just because the more serious/interesting critics can still have kind of a tin ear for comedy, especially if it’s something sort of specific and strange.
That is, I’m not looking for a MacGruber movie that wins over the New York Times or someone who thinks every SNL movie has been crap. I’m looking for a MacGruber movie that works for someone who finds the character hilarious, likes Will Forte, and loves rambling, crazy comedies like Hot Rod or Step Brothers. A buddy of mine who also likes Forte and weird/silly comedies saw it and really enjoyed it, so I’m pretty excited. I’m hopeful that the movie will serve its target audience, and that Universal just doesn’t think the target audience overlaps much with the press (a silly decision, I think, but then I’ve never understood the point of hiding a movie to that degree, even on absolute junk).
Whether that target audience will cause the movie to break out, I don’t know. But being based on an SNL character does give it an advantage over something like, say, Hot Rod. And at $10 million, it needs to make, what, $30 million in theaters to get well into profit on DVD? And if it makes, what, $40-50 million, it will probably be a pretty big hit by its smaller-scale standards?
The difference between the Twilight franchise and Pirates/Matrix is the books. No “twi-hard” is gonna suddenly bail on the series without seeing how the last two books translate to the screen. Of course, repeat biz might fall off if they don’t like what they see.
Yes Perm, that’s consider a story arc. Watch LOST or something to figure it out for yourself.
Well, I saw the trailer — and the poster — for MacGruber today. And funnily enough — even though the movie won’t be screened for critics, both trailer and poster have blurbs from critics (who presumably saw the rough cut at SXSW). Now, I’m sure some folks here will be quick to dismiss the quote from Ain’t It Cool News. But Cinematical and The Atlantic also weighed in favorably. Go figure.
BTW: Saw the Nightmare on Elm Street remake today, and definitely thought it was an improvement over the original — which I watched again last night. The ’84 version was even sillier than I remembered it. I think you could have a fun drinking game while watching it — every time Ronee Blakley takes a drink, you have one, too.
The question, Jesse… who is the target audience?
It’s small.
I would guess you are right on principle.
They would be happy (thrilled. really) to open to The Geek 14, aka the $14 million or so a geek event can open to without expanding past that audience.
But to me… just wanting that Geek 14 is not the sign of a good movie. It’s a sign of Hot Rod 2. And indeed, some people love that Samberg film.
I disagree with you about Nightmare, Joe. Sure, the acting in the original is pretty creaky, but the remake feels incredibly claustrophobic, both visually and in the sense that no one outside the small group of leads seems to react to what’s going on (a major pet-peeve of mine). It also feels heavily tinkered with and appears to be missing a first act. But, regardless, the mistake for myself and my wife was re-watching Wes Craven’s New Nightmare the night before seeing Nightmare 2010. It has major third act issues, but it’s still an incredibly compelling, genuinely scary, and openly disturbing post-modern classic. I still think it’s Craven’s finest film, but that’s from a guy who thinks Scream 2 is superior to Scream, so make of that what you will.
You’ll get no argument from me about New Nightmare and its place in Craven’s oeuvre. But I can remember seeing the original Nightmare back in the day, and wondering what the hell all the fuss was about. Maybe it’s because I walked in with sufficiently lowered expectations, but the remake struck me as an improvement in every way. BTW: For reasons I can’t entirely explain, it struck me as very funny to re-watch the ’84 original and note that Fred Krueger is referred to as “Freddy” only once, and not in the credits.
That puzzled me too when I first saw the film as a ten-year old. By that time (1987), Freddy Krueger had just entered the mainstream pop-culture, and it amused me that he was billed ‘as Fred Krueger’. He calls himself Freddy once, during the scene where he uses Tina’s face as a mask, but otherwise he’s referred to as Fred. He was billed as ‘Freddy’ in the bad but undeniably fascinating (for the gay subtext, the one-of-a-king pool party attack, and the genuinely scary Krueger make-up) Nightmare On Elm Street: Freddy’s Revenge.
The first NOES is fuckin’ scary. Craven is a master of unease, like early Tobe Hooper, and Freddy is not “funny” in the first one, he’s a perfect monster and you want to see him get his. The shots of Krueger’s arms stretching out or his claws sparking on the wall or the raw awfulness of Amanda Wyss being dragged across the ceiling or the beautiful nightmarish wall appearance of Krueger, etc. etc. Craven has a unique, primal imagination.
The point, IOvs, was not that unscreened movies are automatically crap. It was that the claims that “MacGruber” is being “well-reviewed” are suspect at best, as evidenced by Rogue/Universal’s decision not to have opening day reviews.