MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Friday Estimates by Six-Pack Klady


So, class, what does history tell us? Around $140m – $145m weekend. Around $300m domestic. Around $700 worldwide.

It’s Potter math, off 20%. No matter how good or bad the actual film is in the context of the franchise.


Happy Feet 2 started with less than half its progenitor, however it’s not the only kids film to take a beating this Friday. Puss in Boots is also off in a big way for the first time this Friday. Of course, Happy Feet opened against Casino Royale’s $17m, not Twi4’s 70. Time will tell. But not a happy start.

55% is the best hold in the Top Ten… So tough for mon-kid movies as well.

Will a $30k per-screen for The Descendants be seen as a win or a loss? Well, as Sideways expanded, it did a number similar to what Descendants will do this weekend… on about twice as many screens. Then again, Pauly G isn’t Georgey C. So no real way to read it. The news is positive, no question. But is it underwhelming or just another film being vampire sucked this weekend?

Be Sociable, Share!

20 Responses to “Friday Estimates by Six-Pack Klady”

  1. EthanG says:

    Sources I’ve seen have “Puss” closer to 3.5 million which if true, is even worse news for “Happy Feet.”

    Btw last Friday was Veteran’s Day, which probably accounts for as much of the holdovers falling as the Twi-Hard crush.

  2. Rob says:

    Yeesh, brutal starts for Another Happy Day and Tyrannosaur, despite the best efforts of, respectively, Ellen Barkin’s Twitter feed and Jeff Wells.

  3. torpid bunny says:

    Some franchises can do fine with a serial number. I actually think I’d be more interested in Twilight or Harry Potter if they had numbers because I can’t sort them out. I’m fine with Terminator 2. I would be fine with Aliens if it were just Alien 2.

    But I’m unsure “Happy Feet 2” was a good choice. That’s sort of like “March of the Penguins 2”, which doesn’t work. At least go with “Happier Feet” or “Dancing Wings” or something. I feel like G. Miller should know this.
    Happy Feet 2 is the title you give to the direct to video sequel. The direct to video Lion King was even more inventive than this, giving us Lion King 1 and a half.

  4. Krillian says:

    Lion King II: Simba’s Pride came out before Lion King King 1 1/2 but that’s not important now.

    Look at all those jobs Stephenie Meyer created. Both sides should be seeking photo-ops.

  5. bulldog68 says:

    Certainly didn’t harm Toy Story 2 & 3 though Torpid. It can really go either way, and its more about the environment at the time of release than anything else. In terms of animation, Shrek 2 did gangbusters, then they went with The Third, and Forever After to diminishing grosses. Panda 2 and Cars 2 each did approximately $50m less than their predecessors. The Ice Age sequels did almost identical business with no number behind the name. Its a total crap shoot. And for the target audience, I don’t think they really care.

  6. chris says:

    I feel like “Happy Feet Two” has a lot of problems worse than its title: Most of the original cast (including the biggest names and the best voice) is gone, the original one wasn’t very good, this one was too long in coming, it’s not very good either and the marketing makes it look as lousy as it is.

  7. EthanG says:

    Unless your sequel title is “Mannequin 2: On the Move” I doubt it makes much difference.

  8. bulldog68 says:

    The thing is, Happy Feet 2 would have had the chance to recover if this Thanksgiving weekend wasn’t a clusterfuck of family releases. Even with Puss in Boots showing some staying power, HF2 would have had a great hold next weekend and maybe do some respectable numbers, but now, with Hugo, Arthur Christmas, The Muppet Movie, and Puss in Boots all going for the same demo, it’s cannibal season.

    Also, looks like Jack & Jill won’t make it to $100M, and I think Tin Tin may be the last chance to see a computer animated film cross $200M this year. I’ll admit though, I don’t have a clue as to how this will play in the US. It’s getting some stellar reviews, and could be the somewhat unexpected blockbuster that breaks out, or families could just be out of money by then, its coming out 5 days after those annoying Chipmunks, and of course this current crop of family movies will still be playing.

  9. Smith says:

    If this weekend holds any lesson, it should be this: George Miller-directed sequels to hit family films should not be released anywhere close to Thanksgiving.

  10. chris says:

    Not this calendar year, but “Tintin” sure looks good for 200 million to me. I didn’t love it, but that amount of action in a Spielberg movie seems like a hit, especially since it works for kids and adults.

  11. Don R. Lewis says:

    Granted, I only saw the first act of HAPPY FEET 2 but I was pretty unimpressed. It looked like the kitchen-sink kids movie mentality (songs! dancing! kids losing parents! pee or poop!!) and I’m not sure how well that translates into box office any more. I’m sure there are exceptions to that. But HF2 didn’t seem very “cute” and it sure as hell wasn’t funny. Robin Williams needs to retire the gay foreigner character post-haste.

  12. berg says:

    Jack and Jill is the funniest adam sandler film in a long time (Zohan comes close) …. Pacino, Depp, other sports and television cameos were icing on the cake …. “I’m talking to lemon trees”

  13. anghus says:


    just kidding. no one cares.

  14. berg says:

    at one point Jill’s cockatiel has flown into the chocolate fountain on a luxury cruise. The bird is being soaked and covered in chocolate. It was like a scene out of a Dusan Makavejev movie ….

  15. JS Partisan says:

    Jack and Jill, funny? Huh.

  16. film fanatic says:

    JACK AND JILL is actually kind of brilliant. Easily his best vehicle since ZOHAN. I will take silly, absurdist non-sequitur gag-mode Sandler over the bad sitcom-mode Sandler of CLICK, GROWN UPS and JUST GO WITH IT any day of the week.

  17. Joe Leydon says:

    West Coasters, take note: SNL kicks off tonight (after fairly funny opening) with Jason Segel doing a musical number… with The Muppets.

  18. Ivan says:

    I think Klady made mistake with “Puss in Boots” friday estimates. Studio estimates are 3.415.000.

  19. LYT says:

    what the hell is HERO HITLER IN LOVE?

The Hot Blog

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