Weekend Estimates by Jay Klady
Happy Mother’s Day!
It’s a solid hold for Iron Man Three. Anything under a 60% 2nd weekend drop for an opening of that size—not a very big sampling—is a winner. The world has changed. Moreover, nearing $950m worldwide, it’s running just a bit behind Avengers, and is now looking like a $1.3b movie… at minimum. It’s remarkable how “standard” billion-dollar grossers have become in the last 5 years, when, in 2008, Dark Knight joined Pirates 2 and Titanic as the only first run billion-dollar grossers.
The biggest story of the weekend is Baz Luhrmann’s emotionally-disturbing-to-many-critics-over-40 The Great Gatsby. They stabbed it with their steely knives, but they just couldn’t kill the beast.
Not only is this a couple million short of triple any previous Luhrmann opening, but it is easily the biggest “2nd weekend of May” opening in the last decade aside from the first JJ Abrams Star Trek. In fact, it’s double or better any “2nd weekend of May” opening aside from Trek and Dark Shadows, which was about $20m behind. The slot, on one of the two biggest summer power alleys, is usually counterprogrammed opposite the big “1st weekend” opener. And it was here… to great success. What should really scare critics who hate the film is that Luhrmann’s m.o. is long legs, not big openings. If Gatsby is a $250m+ domestic movie, it will probably be a $500m+ worldwide movie… and then, Baz will actually be quite bankable, even without Leo. Congratulations to him. Even if you don’t like his aesthetic, he is an artist who is very serious about his work and does not deserve mockery. He’s no f-ing Jeff Koons.
Also new, Peeples, the worst opening for a movie with Tyler Perry’s name on it… ever. Terrible title. Cool print and outdoor ads that didn’t make the movie that was being sold clear. And I will be curious to see how much of the “black audience” was sucked up by Gatsby. Could be a big number with the musical push by Jay-Z and others.
Now… go take care of mom.
I’m mostly stunned by the IM3 international performance. It’s already done 75% of the total business that Avengers did, and it’s been out three weeks internationally (?). Incredible.
Quick question probably no one cares about:
Everyone’s gonna harp on the Tyler Perry “brand” or Lionsgate for the “Peeples” numbers, but… Also, what does it say about Kerry Washington’s “star” power? I know she’s been a gigging actress for two decades, but lately she’s been EVERYWHERE, from ‘Django’ to hamming it up on red carpets, Oscars, supporting Jamie Foxx on MTV awards, showing up at DC functions, and her TV show is HUUUUUUGE (albeit not really with geeks or movie guys)…
Seems like in general she’s been getting pushed REALLY hard as a new star everywhere. I realize “Peeples” isn’t really a “star” vehicle for her, but I just don’t know that “movie” people care who she is. Is she like a Danson or Caruso or Heigl that’s a huge deal on TV but nobody cares on the big screen?
I’m confused. You loved “Gatsby?” Anyway, why would critics be “scared” if it’s a smash? I don’t think the movie is very good but I’m delighted it’s a hit — hopefully, that means more movies for adults.
I think Craig Robinson was sold a lot harder than Kerry Washington in the “Peeples” trailers.
It could be a case similar to Seth Rogen’s fanbase not buying tickets for “The Guilt Trip” because they perceived it as a (Streisand) movie for their grandmothers.
Maybe Robinson’s coterie of hipster admirers–think Danny McBride, et
al–stayed away because of the Tyler Perry imprimatur.
One thing that hasn’t been mentioned much about IM3 is the INCREDIBLE Saturday grosses, two weeks in a row now. No doubt AVENGERS is contributing to the domestic gross, by I think parents are also deciding IM3 is a decent option for kiddies–the only option if they’ve seen CROODS (still holding very well).
The Saturday uptick this weekend was the best ever for a summer-opening movie in its second weekend (since the first weekend in May became a thing). It should still hold on well next weekend, because of this, and might play longer if EPIC turns out to be the stinker it’s starting to smell like.
David, you forgot Return of the King. Dark Knight joined Pirates 2, ROTK, Titanic, as the only 4 Billion dollar first run movies.
F**k the haters. Gatsby 100 percent worked for me. Ok, maybe more like 85 percent, but I think it’s a wonderful movie and very much a Baz Luhrman joint. Felt like a sequel to Moulin Rouge in a lot of ways (they’re VERY structurally similar), and I think Luhrman’s aesthetic absolutely works for this material. Also think people are being too hard on Maguire and Mulligan, both of whom have difficult parts and do very good work with them, and DiCaprio kills as Gatsby (his “old sport” sounds completely off until you realize that, oh right, it’s supposed to sound wrong). Easily the best film version of the book so far and a really pleasurable movie in its own right.
I think Peeples is a situation where Tyler Perry’s name hurt the movie. He makes movies for old ladies on Sundays after church. This was an attempt at a mainstream romantic comedy. His name did more harm than good and everyone involved should have known it. Also the name is pretty stupid. Sadly as good as Robinson is I don’t think he has a lot of mindshare with Urban audiences. The Office is a niche show within white folks and he hasn’t been in anything that was a cultural phenomena.
This whole thing was bungled, the should have pushed it as a Kerry Washington vehicle. I was just barely aware she was in it.
I liked Gatsby. But 250 million? A 5x multiplier? Maybe if this was December where films have long legs.
“his “old sport” sounds completely off until you realize that, oh right, it’s supposed to sound wrong”
It’s amazing to me how many reviewers have used Leo’s “off” accent as a reason to bash his performance. J. Wells actually criticized his performance for sounding like somebody who was trying to pretend to be upper-class and not someone who was actually upper-class. It’s kind of like someone pretending to be a film critic.
I liked Leo in Gatsby. I did not like Maguire at all. His narration is grating and his performance isn’t any better. The movie had me for an hour or so, but lost me in the second half. I just didn’t care about any of these people or what happened to them, and I grew really bored and antsy. Glad I saw it on a big screen and have no desire to ever see it again.
Saw Iron Man 3 yesterday. Sort of an awkward and not entirely successful mix of wise-ass one liners and horrifying acts of violence. At a certain point I really felt some comic book movie fatigue. Yeah the effects are great and a few set pieces are thrilling, but I feel like I’ve seen this movie 12 times in the last few years. It’s predictable and more of the same. I lobbied for Mud and lost. Should have seen that instead.
Paul, I had the opposite experience. The first twenty minutes felt like an epic endurance test. Frantic metronome like edits that just assaulted the attention span. Then, once Gatsby showed up, everything settled. I think the second half of the film was far more engaging than the first. Once again the film.suffered because Baz almost beats the film to death with his ridiculous flourishes. It was like watching a filmmaker trying to strangle the movie with a string of pearls. Or suffocating it under a pile of glitter. The film works in spite of Baz, not because of him. And I think the Maguire bashing is a little much. He wasn’t bad. I thought he was far better than some would have you believe.
The unnecessary CG was annoying. At the end of the film when Maguire is on the dock, I kept wondering why they just didn’t film it on a dock instead of this painfully obvious green screen garbage that made it look like a cartoon. Is location shooting that difficult?
I was kind of mesmerized by the parties and the music and the over-the-top nature of the first hour or so. I felt like Maguire’s character, taking this all in and being somewhat hypnotized by it. I found it far more engaging than the second half. I just wasn’t at all interested in these vacuous rich people or their plight. Did not care. And I’ve never really liked Maguire. I found him really bland here, which the narration makes worse. I didn’t hate the movie but left disappointed.
“The unnecessary CG was annoying. At the end of the film when Maguire is on the dock, I kept wondering why they just didn’t film it on a dock instead of this painfully obvious green screen garbage that made it look like a cartoon. Is location shooting that difficult?”
It is for Luhrmann, because it’s simply not what he does. This is kind of like asking why he didn’t shoot Moulin Rouge! on location in Paris – and the answer is because he just didn’t. It’s clear from the outset that this is an entirely created world (a la the Paris of Moulin Rouge), and not in any way meant to be an accurate representation of a real place. I know that seems like a cop-out (like excusing Michael Bay for making empty-headed explosion-fests simply because that’s his thing), but for me the excessive CG is just another component of the Luhrmann aesthetic, and you either give in to it or you don’t, which is kind of the way I feel about the entire film.
Luhrmann knows how to shoot on location though, and do it well. It was practically the only good thing about “Australia.” I think shooting on green screen is actually an aesthetic choice that’s one of the only things he did that’s very much in keeping with the book…it creates the feeling of a gilded facade.
I knew what to expect from Luhrmann. I liked the visuals and had no beef with the excessive CG. For me that is not this movie’s problem.
“I think shooting on green screen is actually an aesthetic choice that’s one of the only things he did that’s very much in keeping with the book…it creates the feeling of a gilded facade.”
That’s kind of what I was going for, except you said it better.
I suppose the “gilded facade” argument could be valid. To me it felt like another filmmaker lost to the digital toolbox.
I’m still struggling with this movie. I love the book. I’m not sure the movie stands up without knowing the book.
The problem I have with the voiceover is that it’s telling instead of showing, which is odd in a Baz Luhrmann movie.
I didn’t see the chemistry between Leo and Carey (and yes, Daisy is a very difficult role. You have to see what Gatsby sees, but in essence, she’s a monster).
I know they cut Wilson going to Tom’s house first for time constraints, but there’s something particularly vicious in Tom pointing him Gatsby’s way after knowing it was Daisy that killed his mistress.
I don’t know. I think some of the elements that make it a great book don’t translate well to film.
I did forget to mention that i think Joel Edgerton was fantastic in the film. It reminded me of what a good actor can do in a role that almost seemed written to be played as a mustache twirling lothario.
It felt like i was watching a far superior rendition of Billy Zane’s character in Titanic.
I remain baffled by THE AVENGERS and these new IRON MAN 3 numbers. Who the hell saw THE AVENGERS that didn’t see the other free standing Marvel movies?? Why is IM3 suddenly so huge when the other IM movies were solid successes? Is it all attributed to 3D and D-Box and those rip-off theaters where there’s “nicer” seats so they charge $20? I got suckered into a screening like that in Boston for PAIN AND GAIN.
To clarify: I don’t see how THE AVENGERS grossed so much more than the other Marvel character movies. Did like, only *specific* Thor fans show up for Thor and then specific Captain America fans ONLY show up for his film and then all these disparate fans of certain characters all came out to THE AVENGERS? Why the sudden surge for IRON MAN? It’s a solid film, I loved it. But none of these money number have or ever did make sense.
More modern cineplexes in countries like Russia, Brazil, China and India help, Don.
Plus, AVENGERS is the #1 most illegally downloaded movie of all-time!Some crazy Chinese Wizardry with the numbers is going on I suspect…
Don, i call it “The Avengers Bump”. People loved the superhero team up. It felt like something new and fresh. Its hard to deny the power of a movie that basically took the dream of so many little kids and put it on the big screen. People want to see Thor fight Hulk more than Thor fight Malaketh the Dark Elf. And no matter how mucn money a Captain America movie makes, put him in a movie with Iron Man and you kick the money print machine into overdrive.
We’re just over ten years into the big superhero movie push, and Avengers showed that a big superhero team up is box office gold.
Iron Man 3 benefits from two things: People still love the character and there was a bump from Avengers. It’s riding the wave of goodwill as i expect most Marvel films will. Not that im thinking Thor 2 or Cap 2 will make a billion, but 500 million worldwide for each seems very attainable.
Loved the new Gatsby. Very true to the spirit of the book. Plus the best lines remained in tact, and well acted. DiCaprio was Gatsby.
Maybe it just comes down to quality…The Avengers is probably the best Marvel film, although Captain America was good too…maybe it made more than Iron Man and Thor because it was better.
“Why the sudden surge for IRON MAN?”
Again, a lot of this has to do with it playing like a kid’s film on the weekends….not a superhero movie. IM3 had the 2nd biggest Saturday ever despite only having the 8th biggest opening day, and the 2nd biggest 2nd Saturday ever despite trailing several films including the original SPIDER-MAN on the 2nd Friday, and TDK and TDKR overall at this point. This obviously has a lot to do with the marketplace and lack of kids films, but who knows if it started with the AVENGERS or will continue with THOR/CAP (I suspect not).
Even the success of IRON MAN is baffling to me….he’s a low 2nd tier or high 3rd tier hero, or was until RDJ made him a top tier. All the stuff you guys are saying makes sense to a point (to me) but I still don’t see where the money really came from.
If anghus’ point is what happened, then why wasn’t X-MEN bigger? Wolverine alone is a bigger “star” than ANY single Avenger in THE AVENGERS. I also can’t see (to Etguild’s point) many return visits to IRON MAN 3 from kids….it wasn’t terribly exciting until the end and was kinda long too. I thought anyway.
I agree it’s gone beyond a level anyone could have envisioned. No one could have imagined all this leading to a Marvel TV series produced by Joss Whedon and starring Clark Gregg on ABC. That sentence alone feels like a geek’s fantasia come to life.
Or even stranger, perhaps, a Disney/Marvel/ANIME film based on a comic no one has ever heard of. We’re in uncharted waters where showers of cash have led to…something?
I’ve noticed a lot of talk about “low tier” heroes on here since they first announced IRON MAN (“Who cares about Iron Man or Thor or The Avengers!”) – but they’re not. These characters have been in the periphery and background of our culture since the 60’s and they’re now modern mythology.
Newsflash: no one gives a shit about superhero movies if you can’t relate to the characters, they’re boring, or you have a stupid script.
RDJ propelled Iron Man to a whole other level. The movies are more or less fun, and that goes a long way.
This idea of whether or not a particular character is a better superhero or a bigger star is meaningless. Outside of comic book fandom, nobody cares about that stuff.
Etguild2, I’m actually expecting another superhero type explosion in the coming decade once they start adapting Manga/Anime properties if James Cameron ever does Battle Angel and the potential money that brings in.
Sensui, you could be right, though I wouldn’t hold my breath for Cameron’s “Battle Angel” at this point…it’s been in and out of development so long….