Weekend Estimates by Kladyweenie
Taken 2 is one of those movies. You know what it is. You can make fun of it being the same movie, probably not as good, all over again. And yet… you just have to go see it.
It’s easily the best Liam Neeson opening as the center of the film, behind only Phantom Menace, Titans, voice work as the Lion in 2 Narnias, and an appearance in Dark Knight Rises. Even if you include his bigger role in Batman Begins, T2 still tops it.
It’s also the 3rd best opening ever in October, behind only Paranormal 3 and Jackass 3D (both phenom franchises from Paramount). Though it is certainly worth pointing out, the only films to get to or past the $120m mark after opening in October are non-sequels (Meet The Parents, Shark Tale, Puss in Boots, Look Who’s Talking, The Departed, American Beauty, The Ring). I expect the same will be true of Taken 2… as in, nothing close to the $145m of Taken, which is Neeson’s best grosser as lead… again, behind those bigger movies that he was not the center of, this time with Batman Begins joining the list.
This is also Fox’s 2nd best domestic opening this year and 4th best dom opening in the last 2 years, behind only Prometheus, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and X-Men: First Class. Of course, the best of those was $55.2 million, so that might explain why “the international guy,” Jim Gianopulos, is now at the top of Fox movies by himself.
After a decent hold this weekend, it’s clear that Hotel Transylvania will be Sony Animation’s 2nd $100m+ domestic grosser after Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs. (Those guys, by the way, are now working on The Lego Movie.) Now you know why DreamWorks is at Fox and not Sony. Fox has had a lot more success in animation overall, but Sony remains bullish on their future in this area, while Fox seems not to quite believe that there’s much life after Ice Age… and with DWA talking about 3 films a year, no room for one. Personally, I am hoping for a Genndy Tartakovsky feature film built from scratch. (He specifically wants to do a Samurai Jack feature.)
Pitch Perfect did well in its expansion this weekend. It didn’t bust out. But here’s the deal. It was inexpensive (under $20m). It didn’t have a “hot” commercial lead… unlike Kirsten Dunst (who’d fronted three high-profile movies in row before Bring It On) and Gabrielle Union (who had a lot of heat, especially with “urban” audiences). And with this expansion, we’re really in what would be a 1st weekend in other situations. So… if it dies off at $35m, it’s not a thriller. If it gets a little leggy and gets over $50m, you have to count it as a real success, both for Universal and the film’s rising producers.
Looper is rolling along nicely, if not thrillingly. But $100m worldwide seems very, very likely at this point and that makes it a hit. The window for the must-see buzz movies for adults out there is closing with Argo opening next weekend.
Frankenweenie opened about 42% behind The Corpse Bride. Why? The pitch. What was it? I don’t know what Disney intended to sell… no log line buzzing around in my head. You also have the basic problems with selling a dark kids movie, as Paranorman also suffered this year. But I am taking that into account… and this one is opening about 15% behind Paranorman, which didn’t have the Burton name to front the film. Which brings me back to… it looked beautiful… adults could fill in the dotted line to Burton’s other animation and even Edward Scissorhands. BUT… if I was going to the movie, what could I expect… aside from a dead dog coming to life with cool creepy stop-motion animation? No idea. Marketing fail.
I am convinced that Clint left $20 million or more in that empty chair on the RNC stage. Regardless of the politics, no studio wants to be releasing any non-doc where the lead is taking clear sides right before release. I haven’t seen the movie. I would probably like this movie. But I will not be seeing this movie until the disc lands on my doorstep. Someone I have revered for most of my adult life has made himself significantly less interesting. Very sad.
End of Watch is the biggest grosser that David Ayer has been directed, so a win for him. It’s a relentless hard-R movie, so $40m domestic or so is pretty good. And it was, allegedly, under $10m to make. But I can’t help but feel that this film hasn’t gotten its due. Critics should be talking about it more… but in the middle of the festival season, it’s been snowed under by higher profile movies and a parade of great foreign filmmakers offering up interesting discussion. I don’t think Open Road did anything wrong. It’s just hard to be this movie right now. Even Looper overshadows it, with Rian Johnson being a geek beloved, heat around Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and a bit more accessibility as a not-too-hard R.
And speaking of disappearances… The Master will be right on top of a lot of Top Ten lists this year. But man, did this epic effort by Paul Thomas Anderson and Megan Ellison and The Weinstein Company hit the wall in a hurry. In some ways, the fact that this film could well be the lowest-grossing film of PTA’s post-Sydney/Hard Eight career might help during awards season, as it will probably galvanize the film’s lovers in pushing it harder when the time comes. It’s now an underdog. Tough business.
I realize that I’m beginning to sound like a Bollywood cheerleader, but I can’t help being impressed by grosses for English Vinglish and OMG Oh My God! Compare their per-screen averages to The Oranges and Butter, two films I daresay received more advertising in mainstream media.
And while we’re talking about little movies that could: The Odd Life of Timothy Green isn’t exactly a smash, but it does appear to have helped along by favorable word of mouth.
I thought that the marketing for “Frankenweenie” was adequate. The name itself is a turn off to many adults and I think there are still significant hurdles to selling a dark and macabre family film. “Nightmare” and The Corpse Bride were never hits, so I’m sort of surprised the studio green lit the film given the production costs.
I don’t really think PUSS IN BOOTS can be considered a “non-sequel.” At the very least it’s a para-sequel, like THE SCORPION KING, but it’s certainly not a “from scratch” film (pun intended).
PERKS should push into 1,000+ theatres in 2 weeks from now. But considering ALEX CROSS is opening that weekend, and Summit has had an absolutely dreadful year, I have no faith it will.
TED is across $450 million worldwide. It should easily pass HANGOVER to become the #2 R-rated comedy worldwide ever behind HANGOVER 2.
I agree TROUBLE WITH THE CURVE probably left $20 million on the table, but Clint’s politics are not present in the movie. (The only thing remotely political about the movie is its anti-MONEYBALL view of scouting.) It’s a formula movie, but the performances are so good that you’rs surprised at how the movie wins you over. Amy Adams gives a really layered perofmrance. (It isn’t until you replay the movie in your head that you realize how heartbreaking it really is.) And Timberlake reminded me of the young Paul Newman in some of his scenes. I think you’re denying yourself one of hte more pleasant surprises of the season. Heck, I loathe Vincent Gallo’s politicis, but I’d still go see his movie in the theater. The same with Bruce Willis, Stallone, Kurt Russell, and Adam Sandler.
@ Aaron: I agree that TWTC was a pleasant movie, though I wasn’t surprised that it was. The performances were also good all around. But watching it, and watching Clint do the same old angry get off my lawn guy again, it felt like he wasn’t breaking any new ground.
Maybe it’s me, but I find these days my most continuous critique with movies is actors and directors doing the same thing over and over again. Tim Burton and his Depp/Helena team ups comes to mind first and foremost. While watching TWTC, I remember thinking just once before Clint occupies that empty chair in the sky, I’d like to see him play a happy go lucky grandpa with a wicked sense of humor. Or maybe a character similar to what Jack Nicholson played in The Bucket List. Anything where he cracks a smile and has a good time.
I’m not saying he should do Grumpy Old Men 3, but there must be some riveting book about Supreme Court Justices, or slice of life comedy about old folks in these upscale retirement communities, or something where he doesn’t have to offer up the line “I just wanna be left alone.”
I just saw THE PERKS OF BEING A WALLFLOWER and it was really, really great. Such a pleasant surprise. I basically forced myself outta the house so I wouldn’t spend another day watching sports and couldn’t be happier that I did. Loved it.
I think the big thing about the drop for THE MASTER is it’s impossible to confidently tell anyone to go see it because it’s such an odd beast AND….I keep meaning to go see it again but the thought of sitting through THE MASTER again is tedious.
MADAGASCAR 3 is on the verge of passing the 2nd film overseas, and is easily the best in the series worldwide. $650 million worldwide has been somewhat lost in the wake of ICE AGE.
Maybe The Master tanked because it really wasn’t that good a movie. The majority of the buzz on the film was about how it was shot or how it was being projected, which doesn’t speak well for the movie itself.
Kudos to the folks at BV for getting THE ODD LIFE OF TIMOTHY GREEN to $50 million domestic despite the fact that it sounded to me like a movie that nobody would ever want to watch, including the filmmakers’ immediate relatives.
Problem with Frankenweenie is the parents of the kids grew up on Burton, so the instant reaction is it’s not going to be light, ala Hotel Transylvania.
I am convinced that Clint left $20 million or more in that empty chair on the RNC stage.
Then Ferrell’s box office slide is directly related to his openmouth politics, right? Can’t be a one-way street.
Otherwise….
Changling, Invictus, Hereafter, J. Edgar – all did the same level of business as Trouble.
Gran Tarino was an anomaly because people were expecting a Dirty Harry payoff that didn’t happen.
Or, go ahead and believe it was some karmic retribution if it helps keep the horseblinds on tight.
Martin S… not saying Clint’s career is over. I’m saying that a few weeks after that blitz of conversation, little of which was complimentary, the movie was too soon. Maybe it would have done better next summer. But right when it came out, it is hard to imagine someone thinking about going to see that film without thinking about the Rep convention.
Never mentioned karma. But I know the right loves playing the victim, now more than ever.
The Right’s karma is pretty instant these days. Brought to you by the letters: Big Bird.
Not sure about the impact of Eastwood’s bizarre speech — and I bet he couldn’t care less — but I have to say “Trouble With the Curve” has one of the most godawful endings I’ve seen in the last year. Going out on that phony, stupid note can’t have helped WOM.
Dave – It can’t cut one direction. That’s all I’m getting at.
You have never been one to buy into the “politics trumps entertainment” meme before.
If your idea behind Curve is right, then the bomb that was The Campaign can be directly attributed to Ferrel’s fundraising, or Zach and McKay’s open-politics talk, because that too was going on during its release and was widely covered.
Re: Karma. You’re the perspective guy. What business has Eastwood done in the past five movies that says Curve should have done more? Curve is right in line with all his others, because it’s a limited theatrical audience.
You’re tacking on another 20M that only his wheelhouse projects – WW2 and Torino – have made. If he had a 50M pattern, and then Curve only comes up with 30, I’d totally agree. But the numbers show otherwise.
If we go down this path, then we need to add a “politically active” metric.
Past five movies he’s acted in, or past five movies he’s directed? He’s only been on screen four times in the last 10 years. Trouble with the Curve just doesn’t look very good, and the character Clint plays doesn’t seem all that compelling. It’s easy for me to believe that it wouldn’t have done all that well regardless of the RNC appearance.
It could be that, like John Wayne and Burt Lancaster and Gary Cooper and many other actors before him, Clint Eastwood has reached the point where he’s just not able to open a movie on his own anymore. Don’t get me wrong: I respect the guy, and I don’t care about his politics. But if you stay too long at the party…
“If your idea behind Curve is right, then the bomb that was The Campaign can be directly attributed to Ferrel’s fundraising, or Zach and McKay’s open-politics talk, because that too was going on during its release and was widely covered. ”
That only makes sense if the cases were genuinely comparable – but face it, Martin – Farrel and McKay didn’t make themselves into a public laughinstock just before their movie opened. I certainly didn’t see any memes about their fundraising ALL OVER the interwebs.
And is The Campaign really an out-and-out bomb? It opened to $26 million and ended up making $86 million. A bit of an underperformer? Sure. But a bomb? The opening and final numbers are both above career averages for Ferrell.
Politics aside (the best I can) I think Eastwood’s GOP routine hurt his latest because people were reminded what a grouchy old man who was once an icon looks like. I agree people may have been duped into GRAND TORINO thinking it was vintage Clint kicking ass but were let down which, if true, definitely lends credence to the idea that his GOP act hurt. His routine reminded them what a let-down GT was for them.
And even if that’s a stretch (it kind of is, sorta, I admit) I think his GOP routine flat out reminded people that he’s lost whatever cultural impact he had for the last 30-40 years. He looked old, out of touch, bitter and wasn’t funny in a way that we were laughing with him and not at him. It’s an issue with American desires to fear/hide age and disability but it’s also an issue of not wanting to see a great American cinematic icon angrily blather on and on like Grampa Simpson.
FWIW, my mom, who is so right wing she makes Sean Hannity looking even-handed, called me to ask if I saw Clint. She thought it was hilarious. I thought surely was being ironic, in the way that I enjoyed it, as a Clint fan who appreciated the ridiculousness, etc.
Nope. She thought it was BRILLIANT, fall-down hilarious, “cool,” and the best thing about the convention.
Just saying, in the “bubble” or whatever, it’s a 100% assumption that everyone on earth hated the speech, even the faithful… But maybe a full 50% of the country was pumping their fists in agreement thinking Clint nailed that shit.
And if so – they still stayed home for his movie.
But we know full well that plenty of conservatives thought he came off badly. So, no, there’s not much chance at all of 50% of the country thinking he nailed it.
Almost NOBODY under 40 has much interest in a logy baseball drama about a 70-yr-old baseball scout on the rural circuit bonding with his daughter. Not exactly like 55-year-old Clint fans and baseball aficionados in Wisconsin MAKE A NIGHT out of hitting the cineplex on opening weekend.
Also when did Poland become this absolutist political firebrand? In years past, up until very recently, he’s made allusions in his writing that some of his views aren’t as 100% lefty as we’d suspect, he always seemed to give a fair shake to “the other side.”
The last six months or so, he’s sort of swallowed the Kool Aid that this is THE MOST DIVISIVE ELECTION EVER, that anything or anyone even mildly conservative is the devil, must be ignored or destroyed, etc. He’s inched into Christian/Faraci/Wells territory. Has there been any explanation for what brought that on? And did DP just learn that his lifelong idol Clint was a moderate Republican in the last two months?
Who was Trouble w/Curve supposed to be for? Was there a clear aud? The trailers make it look like a sappy, “you were never there for me” chick flick. Any 20-, 30- something age male really want to go see that? But then you’ve got hard as nails Clint, baseball and tomgirl lead w/relationship troubles – Woo, sounds like a winner for girls night out, right?!?! Could it have been Sony thought this would be a female driven movie that guys wouldn’t mind tagging along to go see but it came across of a tweener of what neither side wants to see?
I remember talking up Moneyball to people and a lot of the females were skeptical, at best, over a movie about stats & baseball, even with Brad Pitt. Everyone who eventually saw it thought very highly of it. That could be the case with The Curve but it’s got netflix written all over it and w/out heavy pre-awards talk swarming about, I don’t see any real reason why people would rush out to see this film.
Yeah, it won’t upset fans who were already Republican, but for Clint’s fans who don’t swing that way, it was probably distracting from the overall goodness of the movie.
Of course, there might also be the occasional person who goes to see it out of morbid curiosity.
i find it all kinds of amusing that a Hollywood Celebrity made a joke about Romney fucking himself in front of his family to the delight of the FOX/Conservative/Family Values moral guard.
Trouble with the Curve was a date movie that was marketed all wrong. It’s about baseball, so you’ve got the guys. But rather than market it as an Any Adams movie for the women, it was marketed with crotchety old Clint Eastwood.
The trouble with Trouble with the Curve is that it is so average, hits so many familiar notes, that it has no compelling reason to see it.
Justin Timberlake was actually very affable in it and held his own with Amy Adams, but all in all, it was a slew of phoned in performances.
Also, my first thoughts were Clint did the chair thing as an apology for his Chrysler ad which the right viewed as an Obama ad. He needed to fly his red flag high.
It’s a good movie and CLINT IS GOD, can’t even believe the blasphemy I’m reading in this thread.
The rule is simple: A movie has Clint, you go to it, and you like it. He is Clint, the main central figure of your childhood, basically your FATHER, the man you idolized and worshiped as a hero since ESCAPE FROM ALCATRAZ when you were 7 and watched it on HBO every other day. Clint and Cruise are the TWIN TITANS of my youth in terms of being the man I wanted to be.
So naturally as an adult I bear zero resemblance to either one of them in any way.
70 year old? Try 80-plus. And that’s a big issue with the movie, too. We’re supposed to feel bad that baseball teams want a half-blind, 80-year-old to retire? From a job that requires good eyesight?
He’s not playing his age in the movie; There’s a line suggesting he’s around 70 or late 60s. Sort of agree with you about not feeling too bad about OH-SO-EVIL Lillard trying to inch him out.
But, I don’t know, it’s the kind of OLD TIMER movie where if you don’t get a little excited seeing ED LAUTER and CHELCIE ROSS in Clint’s buddy posse, it probably isn’t gonna hit one’s broken-old-movie warhorse soft spot.
I haven’t seen the Eastwood/chair thing, so maybe I’m wrong — but I can’t imagine refusing to see a film in theaters because of the politics of someone involved. Even if it were someone I’d revered and thought their stance had “made them less interesting.”
I happily watch and enjoy the best films of blacklist informers Elia Kazan and Edward Dmytryk. I’ve never found a John Wayne quote that made me think THE SEARCHERS wasn’t worth seeing. And politics aside, Gig Young gave a number of awesome performances that I can still appreciate, even knowing that he murdered his wife before committing suicide.
I understand that not everyone has this attitude, and I can see how it might be hard to go into TWTC “untainted” if you’ve seen the RNC bit. At least Dave intends to see the film on disc, so he’s obviously not too doctrinaire about the whole thing.
Martin… again, you are projecting more onto what I am saying than I am saying.
He fucked with his brand shortly before a movie came out. The same thing happened – quite differently – with Gigli. The couple overwhelmed the movie and any potential it had.
This is not “right wingers don’t do good box office.” This is, “Gee, maybe you don’t want to open that Mel Gibson movie 3 weeks after he was arrested for drunk driving.”
And note to many others in here… the “it’s good” or “it’s bad” thing… really any note of what is actually in the movie means NOTHING to people considering buying tickets, especially on opening weekend. They don’t know what’s the in the movie.
I don’t think people skipped Trouble With The Curve for fear of political content. I think they were ODed and uncomfortable with Clint Eastwood. And this is likely to pass in time… but it can take some time.
Remember how many people rushed out to see the Paris Hilton horror movie that they advertised as promising a chance to see her killed. BZZT! No one went. Too much free advertising can kill your film.
The other *weird* thing about TROUBLE WITH THE CURVE then….if it IS a baseball movie, why release it 2 weeks BEFORE the baseball playoffs start rather than promoting the hell out of it DURING the playoffs?
John August, writer of Frankenweenie, posts his thoughts on the film’s response-
I don’t think people skipped Trouble With The Curve for fear of political content. I think they were ODed and uncomfortable with Clint Eastwood. And this is likely to pass in time… but it can take some time.
Saturation point. That I can agree with. The original remark didn’t read that way because the numbers are in line with his previous. But, I could see a “enough already effect”, which is antithetical to how Eastwood has worked since, what Space Cowboys?
Again: Some people forget that, back in the day, John Wayne tried to remain “relevant” by making a couple of Dirty Harry-style cop movies — neither of which generated much interest. Even when he went back to the well for a True Grit sequel, that movie — originally titled Rooster Cogburn — was re-titled Rooster Cogburn… and the Lady to emphasize that Katharine Hepburn was in it, too. And even that didn’t help much.
And consider this: Wayne was a decade younger than Eastwood is now when he died.
“But then you’ve got hard as nails Clint, baseball and tomgirl lead w/relationship troubles – Woo, sounds like a winner for girls night out, right?!?!”
Change “baseball” to “boxing” and you’ve just described MILLION DOLLAR BABY, which grossed over $100 million domestic and won four Oscars (and had a tragic end). But then, a lot has happened in eight years: pictures that would have been major studio releases are now going the art-house route by indies (most recent example: ARBITRAGE). That TWTC still got a major studio release speaks volumes to the fact that Clint still means something, even if the film itself came up short at the B.O.
And let me put a stake into a certain online idiot’s LINCOLN voice theory.
Daniel Day lewis is doing Scott Wilson doing LIncoln. Which is awesome.
Tone is sometimes difficult to detect in posts but Dave I mean this completely without sarcasm and it’s an honest question.
Reading you over the years, many things have happened in the ‘real world’ that may or may not have affected the box office in a negative way. For the most part your take had been mostly “nothing to see here”, or “it’s the movie stupid”, or “there’s no data to support it.” The last example being the shootings in Aurora where many pundits and everyone with keyboard and working index fingers were surmising that it dampened box office, most everyone except you, who came out strongly opinionated that there was no evidence that there was enough people who decided not to go to a crowded theater at least for a week or two, until some of the heat died down. To me that was a much more saturated event that Clint Eastwood talking to an empty chair.
So my long winded question Dave, is why does a mass shooting in a dark theater not affect the box office one bit, but Clint’s old man musings damage TWTC’s take by $20m? And that $20m represents the difference between what appears to be an endgame of $40m as opposed to $60m, so what you’re saying is that the box office of this film was damaged by 1/3.
Agree with Cadavra and Joe, the fact that Clint is still top billed in a studio release is a tribute to his amazing staying power. What was the last hit that Newman was solo above the title? Verdict? Or Redford? Horse Whisperer? Even though both had more range and talent as actors both of them aged out of the public’s attention long before Clint.
saw end of watch 2012 – 30 minutes too long – i didn’t like the direction much – acting was alright – lots of parts where this could have been a good horror movie …
also – simple story that doesn’t involve dozen crazy cop things that usually happen in cop movies..even though there were a dozen crazy things.
on the bonus thing for me – there were like a dozen people
in the theatre and they didn’t annoy me or actually talk and do annoytng things . this is rare.
pretty sure DP liked it a bit more than i did but DP didn’t get around getting a dp/30 out of it ..
one day the prince of persia will get his due.
Well, Newman eased into character roles and was working right up until near the end. Redford has been mostly directing of late, but he too takes supporting roles now, even in his own films (e.g., LIONS FOR LAMBS).
Harrison Ford’s big mistake was taking leading roles in crap films, losing an awful lot of good will, long after he should have stopped–and by the time he did (MORNING GLORY, COWBOYS AND ALIENS), it was too late. Richard Gere still manages to get leading roles, but they’re in arthouse indies; if Ford hadn’t been so stubborn about his $20 million quote, he could have done the same ages ago.
I find it amusing — and encouraging — that Michael Caine continues to divide his career between supporting roles in big-budget flicks and above-the-tile leads in indies. We’re talking about a guy who has been a star over six decades. As long as Eastwood, actually.
Didn’t mean to diminish Newman or Redford, just point out what an anomoly Clint is, but that can also be attributed to his success as a producer as well, he makes his next project instead of searching for his next project.
Speaking of Harrison Ford: leading man. I had a fellow nerd parent ask about a rumor she ehard that Orson Scott Card’s ENDERS GAME was coming to the big screen. I remember rumblings so looked it up. It’s set for next November and stars Harrison Ford but man, been a tad quiet out there, huh? That book has huuuuge cult appeal too. Or maybe I’m just missing all the set pix, etc.
As for Paul Newman- I thought he pulled away from film towards the end to focus on his food business?
He cut back somewhat as part of the natural getting-too-old process, but he was still averaging about a film a year to the end; he got an Oscar nomination as late as 2002 for ROAD TO PERDITION and won both an Emmy and a Golden Globe in 2005 for EMPIRE FALLS. As for the food business, I’m certain he had the right people running it and just checked in once in a while to make sure everything was running properly.
Maybe folks are forgetting a li’l movie called CARS – Newman’s last.
I’ve stricken all things CARS from my memory…until CARS 3 when their shit merchandise gets crammed down my throat all over again.
For another example take a look at Pacino, easily one of our best actors, yet after Carlito’s Way hasn’t really strayed out into larger projects without a heavyweight, or at least a young and hot, co-star. Clint is still the protaganist in his films, not simply a mentor for Depp or Cusack.
Even when he teams with someone younger like with Million Dollar Baby, the story, journey, emotional arc is still his while in movies like Devil Wears Prada and Julie and Julia the older star is relegated to more of a supporting role.
So yes its common for stars to drift to supporting roles when they hit a certain age, and they still do wonderful work. And I certainly don’t mean to diminish the later work of anyone (I think Nobody’s Fool is one of Newman’s best perfs and one of my favorite all time films). But that is exactly what makes Clint a unique star, refusing to move to the back seat.
Anthony Hopkins still does both leading and supporting roles. He’s about 75.
True, but Hopkins is British; they’re more concerned with the work than actual “stardom” (see Helen Mirren and Maggie Smith, to name just two).
..or is “refusing to move into the back seat” what has made Eastwood a caricature?