Weekend Estimates by Klady (Actuals Will Look Different In Rear View Mirror)
A remarkable 43.7% jump from Friday to Saturday in the second weekend… without a holiday Monday in support. Wow. Very impressive. And it was when iron Man did it two years ago. So imagine my surprise when Iron Man 2 jumped 48.7% from this Friday to Saturday, according to the studio.
After a brief study of the last decade of Mays, the other films I can find that can match this feat are Spider-Man and Star Trek… neither one of which had nearly the Friday-to-Friday drop of IM2.
I guess all I am saying is, look for the “actual” to be closer to or under $50 million.
Well, definitely took it on the chin with the “Iron Man” prediction, though most outlets have it down around 57-58%.
“Please Give” has to be a little disappointing.
“How to Train Your Dragon” is guaranteed to pass Panda now even if it collapses 65% this coming weekend against Shrek.
Gotta wonder how much the euro is affecting Robin Hood and I2 overseas.
Mao is only opening up this weekend in the US? Did they have distributor problems or something, cos it did $15mil in Australia last year.
Please Give is only in 50 theaters, they still have a long run ahead of them. Now Babies has got to be a disappointment. Focus seems to be suffering from the same maladays as Papa Uni.
EthanG, I do remember you promising to eat your shoe, Herzog-style, if the drop was over 50%.
Please post the video on YouTube when you get the chance.
For the first time that I can remember, the Houston opening of a Bollywood film — “Kites,” opening here Friday day-and-date with India — is being promoted with Sunday newspaper ads. And it’s actually opening at 3 mainstream multiplexes. A trend?
Kites will be the third Bollywood my theatre opens this year. But even more strange… instead of playing at the #1 Bollywood theatre in Los Angeles county (the NAZ 8 in Artesia), Kites will be opening about a mile down the road, at a Regal.
Well, for the past 2-3 years, we’ve had Bollywood films — all of them day-and-dating with India — opening at most on two mainstream screens. This looks like the beginning of a crossover.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Kites the Bollywood film that got “remixed” by Brett Ratner?
A-Loco: Well, looks like there will be an eventual release of a version re-cut by Ratner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kites_(film)
I thought that “Letters To Juliet” was going to do better than it did, but then again, it is like the third or fourth American-ingenue-in-Europe romantic comedy in as months after “Leap Year” and “When In Rome” and god knows what else I’m forgetting/repressing. Neverminding that every single ad I’ve seen for the Seyfried movie appears to be the Cliff Notes version of the film.
Kites: The Remix – the Ratner cut without music – will open LA on the same day as the original version. It is not expected to play India, but is expected to roll out across a wider range of US theaters than the original version and is also expected to play in countries that don’t play any Bollywood at all.
It will be interesting to see which version plays here in Houston. The Bollywood movies that have played here at mainstream theaters — Singh is Kinng, Ghajini, 3 Idiots, etc. —
have been the full and complete versions. But, then again, perhaps there haven’t been shorter versions available until now…
And on a tangent, was I the only viewer left a little happier to be seeing Michael Phillips’ time on “At The Movies” come another week closer to a permanent demise after his dismal string of lukewarm approvals of mediocre-at-best films in the latest episode of the show?
Jesus, I miss the ANGER Siskel and Ebert could let loose on a film (and each other) in their heyday. At least they had real, abiding, bone-marrow-deep passion for movies, pro AND con. Scott and Phillips continually come off as if they’re the biggest pair of emotionally healthy, well-rounded adults who don’t take movies too seriously one way or the other. Like that’s a good thing in a film critic! It’s not!
Has anyone mentioned that this is Rusty’s second biggest opening (after American Gangster) and his biggest solo opening (not adjusting for inflation)? Yeah so it will never see the black but all this talk of what a grand disappointment Robin Hood is seems to lack some perspective.
Because no-one wants to spend $225mil to get back $200mil.
Bigger numbers just mean you go broke faster.
While that is true Spencer, I imagine it’s little comfort to Universal. When they hire Crowe & Scott and go ahead with a $155 million (or whatever the initial figure was) Robin Hood retelling, I don’t think a $37 million opening is what they were hoping for. Although you have to wonder if this was money well spent in the first place. Your comment made me go to boxofficemojo and look over Crowe’s track record. There are relatively few really strong opening weekends in his past. Outside of RH, Gladiator & American Gangster, the best is Master and Commander’s $25 million. Then, Cinderella Man at $18 million, and State of Play & 3:10 to Yuma at $14 million. Probably not wise to produce a $155 million summer blockbuster with only his name above the title.
Robin Hood should be a bigger international movie. It seems to have “international box office” written all over it. It still may not break even or slightly better than even, but the international folks will probably eat this film up like an Ice Age picture!
Indeed it has already grossed $74 million overseas. If that continues and two-thirds of its box office is global, maybe it ends up breaking even.
It was Ridley Scott’s third biggest opening (Hannibal opened with $58m in 2001). And, yes, for whatever it’s worth, I mentioned that in my write-up yesterday. Outside budget factors aside, $37 million was a dynamite opening for a grown-up movie that got mediocre reviews and had dreadfully boring trailers and posters. But, as I’ve said a billion times (not just me I’m sure), when you budget so that a movie basically has to break personal-best records for the talent involved, you’re heading toward disaster. Because of the budget, Robin Hood basically HAS to gross as much as Gladiator worldwide in order to break even.
With a PG-13 rating and May 14 release date, did Universal intend to position RH as a grown-up movie? And if not, is $37 million really a dynamite opening (despite the mediocre reviews and weak promotion)?
“Letters to Juliet” went out upmarket/arthouse where it could, so that stole some of the older “Robin Hood” audience. U also practices Movie Promotion for Retards: Slap “Academy Award Winner” above the star’s name(s). Georgia Rule!
@a_loco If only I knew how to upload Youtube vids! I STILL think I2 still can hit 350 million domestic however.
Yes Please Give is only at 50 theatres but the per theatre drop is disconcerting
Chucky, you don’t make any sense (as usual).
Please explain why you think the way you do (without referring to Georgia Rule, and preferably referring to some personal life experience/work expertise).
It is foolish to base expectations on budget rather than the elements. Highest expectations for Ridley and Crowe doing the historical epic thing should have been based on their previous stab, Gladiator, which opened to $34M on a budget of $100M (all unadjusted). Keep in mind Crowe hasn’t opened anywhere near that since his salad days (the exception being AG with Denzel) and $37M looks pretty good.
But Gladiator had limitations that RH did not. It’s rated R and Crowe is quite a bit more famous now than he was in 2000. On the one hand, I can’t imagine Universal is too pleased with a $36 million opening for RH (so basically the same as Gladiator a decade ago). On the other, what should they really have expected?
Sort of a tangent, but: I remember Gladiator having a totally badass trailer. Robin Hood definitely did not.
“It is foolish to base expectations on budget rather than the elements.”
The research says otherwise.
I’ve run the numbers on the last 10 years of US releases, and the biggest predictor of box office is budget – by a long shot. I’ll qualify that by saying that doesn’t mean if you spend more money you’re guaranteed a hit for three reasons. First, each $1 of budget by itself translates about $0.89 back – which isn’t the greatest of ratios. Second, studios don’t hand over the reigns of $200mil budget films to unknowns, so the budget reflects some of the drawing power of the people attached to the project. And third, budget only accounts for around 45% of the variance meaning the film could still skyrocket (like “Paranormal Activity”) or return hardly anything (like “Green Zone”) – which can be attributed to stuff like quality, marketing, and just plain luck.
To put it another way – I wouldn’t call “3:10 to Yuma” disappointing because its opening was significantly smaller than Crowe’s “American Gangster” and Bale’s “Batman Begins”. Basing 3:10’s expectations on those elements wouldn’t be appropriate.
Foamy: That’s really interesting research. But you can’t really say that budget is THE biggest predicator, right? It’s just the biggest predictor out of the various possibilities that were examined.
See, somebody needs to run some numbers on how reliable name-checking and Oscar-whoring are as box office predictors. I think you’ll find they both rise to the top of the list. But which one is better? That’s the real question.
True – I should say that when I ran the numbers I only looked at objective variables, including budget, genre, MPAA rating and source material. There’s a fairly good chance that stuff like name-checking is partially bundled in to “budget” for reasons I mentioned above. But 45% of the variance is a pretty huge contribution, and I think it’s unlikely that even breaking out the portions that can be more properly attributed to name-power and oscar-whoring you’re unlikely to find any other single factor to beat that.
Foamy: Your persuasive and resolutely logical argument smacks of right-wing conspiracy and corporate synergy.
LETTERS TO JULIET POWER.
Seyfried power, you ask?
Yeah, sure, but more importantly:
FRANCO NERO POWER. Hooooooly shit, did anyone else know Franco Nero was even still working? SO AWESOME.
HE IS NO NINJA!!!!!