MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Friday Estimates by Klady

42 is outperforming every other “baseball movie” opening. But is this a function of historical drama, of great marketing, or of Black audiences coming out in strong numbers? I don’t know. Warner Bros has a good idea of what the composition of the audience is by now, but they didn’t bother their mouthpiece, Ms Finke, with those details. They just handed her a bunch of victory lap stuff celebrating all the nice white people who have the film doing business.

For the record, Tyler Perry movies have out-opening-day-ed this 42 in each of the last 4 years. The final number for the weekend will tell the tale, most likely – though journos will ask WB and the stat will surely be offered before the end of the weekend – with a gross over $25m suggesting more of a mixed audience and under $25m suggesting a more heavily Black audience.

Regardless, this is a nice number on a modestly budgeted picture. I don’t want to take away from the success… just offer some realistic perspective.

Scary Movie 5 is part of an up and down franchise… though this is pretty down. For whatever reason, there was not a clear marketing hook for the film offered, except for the idea of the girl from Modern Family playing a possessed girl, circa the great and 40-year-old The Exorcist. But if that was the hook, where were the funny black priests? I still have a clearer recall of Richard Pryor in an Exorcist sketch on SNL than I do of this film’s offering.

No other happy news to analyze, so I will hold off the smackdowns until tomorrow.

Be Sociable, Share!

17 Responses to “Friday Estimates by Klady”

  1. movieman says:

    Anyone who doesn’t like “To the Wonder” simply doesn’t like–or even
    I found it mesmerizing, hypnotic, haunting, poetic (in a good way), luminous, visually transcendent and exquisitely, profoundly moving.
    In other words, a prototypical Malick film.
    Long may Terry run.

  2. etguild2 says:

    I don’t think “Pines” is in need of a “smackdown.” A $7000 average at over 500 locations isn’t terrible. It was simply a terrible idea to expand Boyle’s “Trance” the same weekend…and open Malick…so “Disconnect” also got lost in the shuffle.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think OLYMPUS is the largest non “Big 8” studio release (other than pre-merger Twilight) since independent New Line’s RUSH HOUR 3 in 2007. (Bond was joint with Sony by then)

    Looks like the EVIL DEAD remake will come close to 2006’s THE OMEN remake which had the benefit of the 6/6/6 opening and was far less gory…

  3. Bulldog68 says:

    Though I think Tyler Perry movies are more of an event for African Americans than this 42 is, hence the bigger openings. In the end I think this will have better legs, with a shot at $100m depending on next week’s drop. White people love to see stories about other white people empowering black people. We had the chick version with The Help, the gangsta version with Django Unchained, and now the sports version in 42. I can’t wait for the superhero version.

  4. etguild2 says:

    We already had it. Charlize Theron convinces Will Smith to abandon laziness and alcoholism in “Hancock.”

  5. Tirithon says:

    I find comments like movieman’s above really irritating. It immediately sets up an either/or dichotomy that offers no chance of middle ground nor discussion. I’m so glad movieman is arrogant enough to make himself judge of everyone else’s movie tastes. (That’s sarcasm in case you don’t know.)

    What happens if I liked some of Malick’s previous films but didn’t like others? Or, God forbid apparently, had mixed feelings about even one particular film? Parts of Tree of Life I thought were fantastic, and other parts I thought were pretentious, film school navel gazing worthy of a gigantic Liz Lemon eye roll.

    I agree with the idea of “long may Terry run.” If he can get the funding for his films, more power to him. But the tyranny of “you must love him or you just don’t get him” isn’t worthy of a grade-school playground fight. How about letting everyone have their own opinions and not being threatened if someone disagrees with you?

    (For the record, I really liked To the Wonder, too. I’m just okay if people have a different opinion from mine and hated it.)

  6. cadavra says:

    42 is simply the latest proof that if you give people over 50 something they want to see they will come out for it.

  7. etguild2 says:

    I don’t think Malick is going to have trouble getting funding given that he has 2 films and a pseudo-documentary already in post.

  8. Bulldog68 says:

    I know it’s art and all, but it’s also show ‘business’. My honest question is, do Terry’s films make money for the studios that put them out?

  9. berg says:

    Malick in the long run is a constant money maker …. I am currently watching PAWN on blu ray … I saw TRANCE this morning and THE SHINING last night … on the big screen ..

  10. Foamy Squirrel says:

    uh.. berg… how is that in any way proof of being a “constant money maker”. Volumes and margins, dude.

    I bought a Blazing Saddles bluray the other day, but that’s nowhere near proof that Mel and his partner studios are sitting back and just letting that sweet Saddles money pay their mortgages this year.

  11. movieman says:

    “To the Wonder” is as pure–and purely beautiful–an auteur statement as Dreyer’s “Ordet,” Tarkovsky’s “The Sacrifice,” Ford’s “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance” and/or Hitchcock’s “Vertigo.”
    Anyone who professes to not “liking” it yet claims to be a Malick fan has clearly misunderstood his entire ouevre.
    Not trying to be a schoolyard bully, Tir; just stating the facts as I see them.
    What were the critics who panned “Wonder” expecting when they walked into the theater?
    A Nicholas Sparks movie along the lines of “Safe Haven” perhaps?

  12. chris says:

    You’re entitled to your opinion, Movieman, but that’s what it is. There isn’t a single “fact” or “clearly” in that argument. Keep pushing out straw men, though. And it’s “oeuvre,” if you insist on using the word.

  13. scooterzz says:

    “Not trying to be a schoolyard bully…”

    the fact that you do it without trying is certainly notable… one of the most annoying “critic” fallbacks ever is the “if you don’t like it, you don’t get it” meme…’s just so lazy….

  14. cadavra says:

    According to boxofficemojo, Malick’s top-grossing film to date is THE THIN RED LINE; despite seven Oscar noms and an all-star cast, it only managed $36.4 million domestic.

  15. movieman says:

    I can certainly understand why laymen w/ no previous exposure to Malick would find “To the Wonder” confounding, frustrating, even maddening.

    But critics who profess to having admired his previous films treating it like some perverse aberration annoy me to no end.
    Haven’t they been watching all these years? Or maybe just not watching closely enough.

    Sorry for the “oeuvre,” typo, Chris. In fact, “Oeuvre” is one of my favorite words! That, “mise-en-scene” and “auteur.” I always make sure that my students learn the meaning of each before the semester ends.

  16. etguild2 says:

    Let’s put the profitability suggestions to bed. Malick is no more or less profitable than Woody Allen (minus Midnight in Paris) or Spike Lee. TREE OF LIFE in fact earned $62 million worldwide (not 54 as reported in some outlets…the film was a hit in Japan but was not tracked by BO mojo by then) and likely broke even with DVD. THIN RED LINE likely did the same. NEW WORLD was a misfire financially…but who the hell cares about Malick’s profitability? Spike would have quit making films long before INSIDE MAN otherwise….as would countless other auteur directors.

  17. Foamy Squirrel says:

    but who the hell cares about Malick’s profitability?

    You’re asking this on an industry blog in a box office thread? Seriously?

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