Weekend Estimates by Klady
Kind of a dream weekend for the big new movies. Jackass 3D may come up, as Klady estimates, just under $50 million, but that’s 2/3rds of the way to the best gross of the series. This is when 3D works well for a movie… it fits the material, seeming like a cool addition, and has a strong built-in, committed base. This is no more an argument for all cheap movies using 3D than the failure of Step-Up 3D to meet expectations means 3D is dead.
Another example of this is Resident Evil: Afterlife, in 3D, which domestically has had a modest 17% jump from the 2nd highest in the series.. not quite the 3D bump. But internationally, the series exploded to more than double any of the previous films in the series. How much of that was 3D? I don’t know. A significant percentage is likely not in 3D internationally. But something lit a fire and RE:A is closing in on $270 million worldwide.
3D is neither a panacea nor a nightmare. It is a tool. WB seems to be backing off of 3D faster than anyone, dumping the gimmick from both the next Potter and Sucker Punch. And if you really think these were aesthetic calls, you are a sucker, punch. I would suggest that it is more like deciding whether to put the film into the Oscar hopper. Sometimes there are economic benefits… sometimes not. Sometimes it just fits and everyone is on board, sometimes it distracts badly from the one real job… selling a movie.
As for Red, as you can hear in the first moments of the DP/30 with Lorenzo Di Bonaventura, this opening is pretty much their dream number. Of course, as things were looking better for the film, dreams of even higher numbers danced in the heads of some, but good for Summit, good for the film – whose detractors I cannot and will not fight off… only arguing that it’s great fun for a lot of people and if you are turned off by it, shit happens, like a comedy version of Crash, I can see your argument – and good for some older actors who can always use a boost of commercial enthusiasm. And I am looking forward to the series of stories on the film in the NY Times and other media… especially is the film has a 30% hold next weekend.
Meanwhile, another excellent hold by The Social Network. And a better hold by Secretariat. Not quite enough for Big Red to overtake TSN on the Top 5 list, but pretty impressive. Also in a seeming parade of under 40% holds are Life As We Know It, Legend of the Guardians, The Town, Easy A, and It’s Kind of A Funny Story. What gives? Well, it’s October. We haven’t seen a $27m opening since mid-August or a $50m opening since mid-July. And look at the titles… nothing approaching 4-quadrant. I would argue that these films are servicing their niches – of various sizes – effectively and thus, the solid holds.
Hereafter and Carlos had solid limited weekends, heading in different directions. WB is trying to build audience word-of-mouth for the Eastwood, while IFC will be encouraged to widen Carlos a little more than previously planned, but still, they are looking for their money elsewhere. The Conviction opening is okay… lots of work to be done for Searchlight to make this film – which is not an awards movie, sorry – work commercially… and it could. This is one of those cases where the sell got distracted by the awards potential of a 2-time Oscar winner and The Great Sam Rockwell that they forgot to just sell the Southern Chick Flick. Meanwhile, Never Let Me Go, sadly, is on the wrong side of the expansion hump. Pretty much done. Tragic, really. When the story of 2010 at the cinema is written a decade from now, it will be one of the best remembered films. Don’t feel too bad for Searchlight. Black Swan is going to be a hit and most likely, an Oscar nominee, and 127 Hours is going to be a smash hit and likely Oscar nominee.
i love the jackass gang so much. their continued success makes me happy. Almost 50 million? Ridiculous. I love it.
i wonder what those guys make for these movies. i know the budgets have to be microscopic.
“N-Secure” opens stronger than expected. I guess Julius Lewis will get a first-look deal from Screen Gems very soon….
Jackass 3D is the biggest opening for an R-rated film since “Watchmen,” over a year & a half ago….
What a weird year for Paramount. A very lean schedule but every film will either end up being profitable…or lose just a bit of cash with two massively profitable films in three weeks (Paranormal 2) and what should be a nice distribution fee with “Megamind.” It’s like the opposite of Disney which has been wildly hit or miss.
Pretty weak numbers for indies across the board=/
I disagree and think that it’s fairly clear that WB is jumping ship from post-production 3D…which the studio experienced, very badly, with “Clash.” Reactions to converted films like “Airbender” in recent months have reinforced the notion that while 3D has benefits, post-production 3D does not.
Also I think “Black Swan” will outgross “127 Hours.” But that’s me.
Clash of the Titans did $493m worldwide.
You’re kidding, right?
Look at Cats, Dogs, and Owls.
We live in a jackass nation, so no serprize.
the irony is not lost on me that the same company released both Waiting For Superman and jackass 3D
Paramount just do what they should do; a big company should try to release many different kinds of films. (not just focus on big-budget PG-13 franchise films)
David, you are not offering any reason for why else Warner Brothers dropped 3D for their biggest franchise ever.
You used the exact same line when Inception was quoted at a $160 million budget.
Kind of odd that you wanted to compare it to 2012 in the negative, and yet it has since surpassed 2012.
Why would I be kidding? WB openly admits Clash of the Titans’ 3D is crap & has their actors (Worthington being the most recent) going around trashing the post-production 3D conversion in Titans.
You can’t tell me they didn’t have the time to do the same quickie 3D conversion on Harry Potter they did in Clash. The last Harry Potter was released with 15 minutes of 3D footage tacked on at the last minute. Audiences dislike the converted films. Alice & Clash slid by probably because of the novelty/success of Avatar. (Owls is animated…totally different)
Id like to think WB actually researches what audiences like, rather than getting carried away staring dumbly at a $493 mil gross. The last 4 films released using conversion (Airbender, Cats, Piranha & My Soul to Take) performed dismally domestically. For “Green Hornet” they actually re-shot many scenes in 3D because of dis-trust in the conversion process.
As of this moment 7 of the next 10 live-action 3D films are actually filmed in 3D (incl. Jackass). 6 of the previous 8 were converted.
Wait – they dropped 3D for Sucker Punch? WOW.
I get it with Potter because you could have a severe WOM backlash if it sucks. But SPunch needed that tweak, IMO.
Tofu… kinda trying to figure out what you’re after… is there a question in there… some specific accusation?
Comparing Inception to 2012 was never about being negative about Inception. It was always about the hysterical overreaching by some people regarding Inception. It wasn’t enough for it to be good and have a good gross, there had to be some magical thing attached to it. Was the gross significantly higher than I expected, even after it opened? Yes. I’ve acknowledged that before.
2012 did $770m. Inception will stop at, what, $820m? Do you see some dramatic difference in those grosses? Does that 6% prove something? Is Inception 6% better as a film than 2012?
The point is, popularity is used as some kind of standard when people like the popular film and is held irrelevant when they don’t think the film is worthy. The whole conversation about grosses is way out of perspective.
You’ll have to remind me what exact line you’re talking about. Inception was quoted by whom at a $160m budget?
I don’t know what you want in terms of Potter 3D being dropped, for now, for this first of the last pair. I know what they are telling people. Refer to EthanG’s comment. Do I believe that to be the core reason? Not so much.
Have we forgotten that Harry Potter already has played the 3D game, to weak effect, with Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince both sporting segments of 3D in IMAX? It’s not like they have been shy about milking this cow in this series. And it’s not like they don’t know the numbers about how the 3D affected box office in great detail.
I don’t have anyone I trust to give me any accurate insight into the thinking behind this move. But as I wrote above, my guess is that the studio looked at the diminishing returns on 3D, the competition for 3D screens through Christmas (Disney’s Tangled and Tron, Fox’s Gulliver’s Travels, as well as their own Yogi Bear), the harping on 3D in the media, and their own experiences with Potter doing 3D segments and decided not to put their top franchise in the position to come to anything less than a heroic close unless they had a good reason to do so. If Potter 3D did less than $1.2 billion, don’t you think that some would poke at it and claim it underperformed?
And yeah, I think there is a piece of it that is, “If we can’t do it right, let’s not do it.” That’s true of Zack Snyder’s movie also… probably more so there than on Potter, as Snyder is given a lot of room over there.
But more and more, the story of 3D has become about movies chasing something extra and failing to get there. It’s going to get worse in 2011 and then, it will be pretty much over, except for animation and an occasional special film. (I’d put Potter 3D for the finale’ at 50/50 as those prop bets go.)
There are still 27 films set for 3D release next year. I’ll be interested in seeing what Scorsese, Spielberg/Jackson, Bruckheimer, and Miller do with the format. Aside from that, I could not care less if any of those titles were or weren’t in 3D.
How about you?
I just tried to re-tread the issue of Sucker Punch and 3D, Martin. Zach Znyder was on record saying it wasn’t happening in August. The website and trailer don’t mention 3D. And I see nothing suggesting it’s on again, though there are some stories more recent than the Snyder quotes saying the film is in 3D. That may just be bad editing. Mojo still has it listed as a 3D release.
But as best as I can tell, yeah, Snyder bailed on the 3D for Sucker Punch, having made the Owl movie specifically for a 3D release.
So you would have been the guy back in the 30s insulting the Three Stooges? Good to know.
im interested to see what Martin Campbell does with Green Lantern in 3D.
Spielberg not so much. I’m not interested in seeing old filmmakers work 3D into their movies. At all. Maybe Ridley Scott.
Fincher – Yes
Park Chan Wook – Yes
Technically, the first part of the last Potter film does not have to be in 3D. It’s the last part, that a lot of people will want to see just to know how it ends, that needs to be in 3D to add to the bank. Jeff can return from wherever he is at the moment and go on about how it’s statistically impossible for DH pt 2 to break Avatar’s record, but that’s the fence Warners are swinging at with Potter and Disney with Tron Legacy.
Nevertheless, if you shoot a film in 3D, it’s usually worth it. It’s the post conversions that completely crap over something that really does at a bit extra to the films that use it properly.
“Audiences don’t like conversions” is a myth created by the media.
Audiences don’t know which films are converted and which films are not.
Cats & Dogs opened to a little more than half of the original. Do you really think mothers were out there deciding based on whether it was a 3D conversion or shot for 3D?
Do you really think Jackass fans said to themselves this weekend, “Hey… this is shot FOR 3D… it’s not a conversion… let’s go… because if it was a conversion, I don’t want to see them attacked by bees in that inferior format?”
And while you are writing off Last Airbender’s domestic number, maybe you should note that it outgrossed Salt, The Expendables, and Prince of Persia. Yes, expectations were higher. But blaming it on bad 3D is pathetic and should only be done by people trying to keep their jobs (not that the choice wasn’t profitable for Paramount).
5 of the “last 8” were also crap that no sane person would ever have expected to do big numbers. And the ones from Avatar until then were all big movies that did big numbers, the weakest being Airbender… which still did over $300m worldwide.
So… you want to believe that the “last 8” flopped because they were conversions? Great.
I expect Saw to get a nice bump because the ads are so good, even I am curious to see it… and it has a built-in base. Aside from that, let’s talk about “the last dozen” when they have all been released. Let’s see how Proper 3D plays when the movies aren’t Avatar and Alice In Wonderland and even Clash of the Titans.
DP, isn’t Step Up 3D performing the best by far internationally of all 3 movies from the franchise? Only pointing out that when you call out Resident Evil’s intl bump, and then bring up another movie but fail to mention it in the same context…I found it slightly annoying. Not sure why.
Isn’t Green Lantern another conversion? One that’s taking it’s time… but was it actually shot for 3D?
Not by far, Lane. But it is the best overseas performance. And I think I mentioned that more than a month ago. The big leap was from the first film to the second, which almost doubled overseas. This one leapt less than 10%.
I was actually thinking about doing a whole column about the issue of forgetting international. The other big example is Grownups, which is Sandler’s first $100 million international movie and his biggest ever worldwide. And you probably haven’t read a word about that.
Shrek 4, Titans, Robin Hood, Persia, S&TC2, Airbender, Knight & Day, and Sorcerer’s Apprentice are also films that look a lot better when you look at worldwide and not just domestic.
David, you are correct. It was not shot in 3D but much like Captain America and Thor, the FX will be 3D. I have no idea how they will pull that off but that’s what’s going to happen.
BTW, the poster of “Drive Angry” emphasizes that the film was SHOT IN 3D.
http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/topnews.php?id=16884
I guess we will see more posters like this…..
May I ever so innocently ask why it’s so assumed BLACK SWAN is going to be a hit? Full disclosure, I obviously haven’t seen it, and most people who opine this HAVE, so it’s very probable I don’t know what I’m talking about.
But a lesbian-themed Ballet movie doesn’t exactly SCREAM four-quadrant smash, or even “crossover” hit. Again, maybe it PLAYS a lot more “mainstream” or audience-pleasing than the trailer, but from a distance I’m just seeing the usual queasy, provocative, nerve-jangling Aronofsky vibe, a pretty distinctive “descent” narrative where Portman’s madness and (budding?) lesbian look, courtesy of DA’s usual judgmental moralism, to be depicted as the hottest, sleaziest and MOST EVIL TRESPASS ever put to screen.
I don’t know, again, I’ve not seen it. Is a ballerina losing her marbles a MUST-SEE to regular audiences? Are Mickey Rooney, Lou Gossett and the usual veteran academy mainstays gonna be giving STANDING Os for Mila and Natalie eating box while some grinding Clint Mansell score informs us that it is THE DESCENT INTO A HUMAN NIGHTMARE?
It really must all come together when you see it, but the trailer makes it look like 100 minutes of the last act of REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, minus the heroin.
LexG, you are dead-on – Black Swan will not make $20 million and it will be platformed to death by Fox Searchlight to ensure that.
Will it get nominations? Sure.
Not sure about 27 Hours being a hit – it could break out if they market it right. I’m wondering if this will be a replay of ’08 for Searchlight – they aggressivly push the Danny Boyle movie and SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOWLY roll out the Darren Aronofsky movie to the point of absurdity because of fear of how dark it is. I mean wow – Mickey Rourke was doing mass publication interviews in November and hardly any one outside of the major cities could see The Wrestler until well into January.
Sometimes, you just have to strike while the iron is hot, dammit – Dave, you can talk about how the success of The Social Network is a bit overstated, but Sony had the balls to go all out in a way with this kind of movie that most studios have not over the several years.
At this time of year, you had highly acclaimed (and audience pleasing) films that were ready to take off and they rolled them out way too slowly – you can go back to 1994. Quiz Show, Shawshank Redemption, Boogie Nights, Almost Famous – all films that had the potential to be $100 million hits just like TSN is headed towards, but the studios just wussed out in the beginning. Sony deserves some real kudos for that.
Audiences walking out of Clash of the Titans 3D knew the 3D looked terrible. My wife doesn’t know what was converted or wasn’t, but she felt the same way i did – I wish we’d seen it in 2d instead.
I don’t think it’s a myth at all. As Krillian said, audiences may not know the difference between post-production 3D and shot 3D but they know good and bad 3D when they see it, and every bad-looking 3D film out there hurt’s the medium’s chances of being little more than a fad except for “event” movies.
Look at the aweful CinemaScores/opening weekend multiplier for “Clash,” “Cats & Dogs,” “Piranha” “Airbender” & “My Soul” which is a reason WB is backtracking and admitting the 3D conversion went wrong.
Did you see Clash of the Titans in 3D? Half the movie looked like a bunch of disembodied heads floating around in a gray mush. It was AWEFUL. “Last Airbender” was so dark you coudn’t make out which sides were which during most of the action. I have a number of friends who saw both films and who swore off seeing 3D because of them.
Obviously I dont’t think the bad 3D is entirely why recently converted films failed and most recent films shot in 3D worked, but I do think it helped. And obviously there are exceptions like “Step Up 3D” underperforming. I think audiences prefer films that they can actually watch rather than gloopy images taht don’t make any sense.
Let’s see how “Gulliver’s Travels” & “Narnia 3” (both converted) stack up against “Tron” this winter, and how “Jackass 3D” and “Saw 3D” do/hold for more evidence.
Quiz Show. Never understood the love for that movie.
Rob Morrow sounded like Elmer fucking Fudd.
Audiences may not know what films are converted in post-production and which aren’t, but the more crap they’re fed, the more skeptical and cautious they’ll become toward 3-D in general. So it’s in the studios’ best long-term interest to stop churning out inferior, cashgrab conversions and stick to delivering high-quality 3-D when it’s deemed worthwhile and suitable to the material.
AFAIK, Warners only stopped converting Part 1 of POTTER, and still intends to release Part 2 in 3-D–which would seem to confirm their explanation that they couldn’t do #1 PROPERLY and have it ready for the release date.
Plus, as I’ve noted before, the first half of the book is mostly the three kids on the run in a tent, so it’s not like we’re missing out on a lot of fabulous visuals. And as a few cynics have noted, they could still finish #1 and then re-release it in 3-D just prior to #2.
In any event, while the studios are wise to be wary of wholesale 3-D, I believe in this case that WB is on the level.