MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Friday Estimates by Elkadium

Friday Estimates 2013-08-10 at 8.31.51 AM

Be Sociable, Share!

20 Responses to “Friday Estimates by Elkadium”

  1. Jack1137 says:

    I don’t know if this is correct Protocol but i would like to thank Mr Klady for his numbers each week i check the most known place but trust his numbers.

  2. BoulderKid says:

    Disappointing for Elysium, as the studio must have considered District 9’s $37m opening the floor for what was acceptable for a significantly higher budgeted film. I saw that it got a B on Cinemascore. Kind of an odd rating as it seems like everything is either in the “A” range, or gets an “F” when it turns out to be some “Drive” style offering that isn’t what audiences thought it would be based on the marketing. It doesn’t bode well for its staying power.

  3. BoulderKid says:

    I didn’t realize “Millers” was a Wednesday opener. Odd given that it wasn’t a holiday weekend. A 25m weekend after taking ten or so on Wednesday and Thursday is pretty solid for a film that I thought could have opened in the single digits. What is it with comedies with actors like Sudekis, Aniston, Bateman, Rudd, and others in that general troupe where there films either hit solidly or totally bomb? “Horrible Bosses” and “Millers” are solid triples, but stuff like “Wanderlust”, “Admission”, “and “The Switch” were completely DOA. None of these movies occupy a middle ground where they open in the teens and then do 60m or so. Strange.

  4. anghus says:

    i thought Millers was funny when it was being a gleeful crass comedy, but every time they tapdanced back across the line into heartwarming i started to wince a little.

  5. Amblinman says:

    Elysium was good, not great. I’ll wait for a spoilers thread to go into a few things that made no sense.

    Jody Foster sucked though. What the hell happened there?

  6. jesse says:

    BoulderKid, to be fair, that $60 million middle range for comedies was hitting quite consistently for a while. I Love You, Man; Forgetting Sarah Marshall; Baby Mama; Get Him to the Greek; Role Models. Even This is 40 got in there more recently.

    But it does seem to oscillate lots harder lately. Those Seth Gordon comedies are the weirdest ones to me: Identity Thief, Horrible Bosses, and Four Christmases ALL did in the 120 range? (Horrible Bosses was funny enough, but still.) Weird. And I was surprised that Segel’s Five Year Engagement didn’t do better, along with Wanderlust (which I liked) and even Admission (which I didn’t so much, despite loving Fey and Rudd in general). In fact, looking at these, it seems like the main difference is that Segel and Rudd got a cluster of decent comedies into decent grosses a few years ago… and now they don’t seem to have quite the same touch.

    Also, I don’t want to get into a whole CinemaScore thing but “F” movies are actually super-rare. “B” is pretty much the normal rating… which has come to mean (by people who take CinemaScore seriously at all, and that these people exist is also strange) “mediocre” for some reason. Pretty much nothing below an A- is considered much good at all in CinemaScore terms, which is madness (I’d say any movie I’d “give” a B- or more is something I basically liked).

    I feel like a “B” CS used to be treated as par for the course but now you get guys at Box Office Mojo talk about a “middling” grade of B or an “unspectacular” grade of B+ and how that augers poor word of mouth — which seems ridiculous because we’ve seen plenty of movies this summer get A- CinemaScores that don’t show exceptional staying power (I believe Man of Steel and Star Trek into Darkness both got this reaction) (and nothing against those movies; they just had very normal front-loaded geek-heavy box office trajectories).

    Instead of concluding that maybe CinemaScore is useless outside of extreme circumstances (the A+/F divide you refer to), I think this just means we’ll get Box Office Mojo articles talking about how some movie only received a “mediocre” A- CinemaScore and will likely drop hard second weekend as a result. Then again, Box Office Mojo also quotes IMDB average ratings so obviously analysis isn’t their strong suit.

  7. celluloidkid says:

    Yeah Elysium was okay. I liked the first half a lot more than the second half. In many ways it reminds me of Prometheus. Visually cool, but don’t think about x and y plot points too much because there is no answer. I can certainly appreciate and admire what Blomkamp was trying to do though.

    While I think none of the acting was especially great (would that have something to do with Blomkamp’s directing?) I disagree, I thought Foster was kinda fun. Blomkamp gave her nothing to work with as the Delacourt character was just a mustache-twirling villain. I’ve got no basis for this as again – they’re one dimensional characters– but my theory is that Delacourt and William Fichtner’s Carlyle were both these almost inhuman weirdos because they’d been Elysians for so damn long that they’ve got no clue how to be human.

    Personally, I think Copley’s Kruger was just ridiculous especially in the last act. Damon was mostly okay though some of that dialogue…Blomkamp really needed to do a few more passes to the script.

    Honestly my thinking on Blomkamp after this is: pretty strong visual director, not a very good writer, not good with actors.

    By the way did anyone else notice how out of sync some of the dialogue was?! It was a little shocking considering it’s a big budget movie. I swear I saw Delacourt’s mouth say 49 minutes and her voice said 49 hours!

  8. Etguild2 says:

    I think people may actually underestimate Sudeikis’s appeal. Other than fringe stuff like “A Good Old Fasioned Orgy,” which was great btw, he hasn’t really had a front and center role that did poorly (“Hall Pass” kind of hit that in between money spot). “Relanxious” will be a great test of his commercial viability if they ever finally get it off the ground.

    Is it weird that I like most of the 8 “F” CinemaScore films? “Silent House,” is masterful “Wolf Creek,” “Solaris,” and “The Box” are very solid….”Killing Them Softly” and “Bug” weren’t terrible. I agree with “Devil Inside” being an F…

  9. Bulldog68 says:

    Someone, I don’t remember who, mentioned that Sudeikis may be this generation’s Chevy Chase, and while the obvious similarities between Chases’s Vacation series and Millers may have played into that, I could see that.

    Sudeikis has a very likeable on acreen personna, and his comic ability to deliver those deadpan obvious truth one-liners works. He played well off of the over the top Will Ferrell in The Campaign, and audiences can easily identify with him and his brand of comic honesty.

    I don’t think he will ever be the box office that Ferrell, Murphy, Sandler, Myers and some other top SNL alumni were/are. But he is already building a pretty good resume of solid hits. Thus far he’s way ahead of Andy Samberg anyway.

    Also didn’t realize that this is his third and not second pairing with Anniston. He was also in The Bounty Hunter, which I have never seen. Are they trying to be the Depp/Bonham Carter combo of the comedy world or what?

  10. Amblinman says:

    @Celluloid, we’re on opposite ends, I thought Copley was pretty awesome. You could be right that ultimately it’s Blomkamp’s fault. I don’t even know what the point of casting Fichtner and Foster was, their screen time is minimal and they’re given virtually nothing to do.

  11. anghus says:

    Sudekis is a more likable version of Chase. He lacks that dark edge, that well of insanity that Chevy seemed to have. Sudekis comes across like a nice guy, even when he’s dickish. When Chevy loses it at the end of Vacation, there’s a level of psychosis that makes it that much funnier. I dont think Sudekis has that side. Maybe because Chevy was so nuts in real life, it carried over into his work.

  12. Chris says:

    BoulderKid: Every August is chock-full of Wednesday openers, on non-holiday weeks. (Studios are maximizing the last out-of-school weekdays of the season.)

  13. alynch says:

    Aniston really can’t catch a break. Every hit she’s ever had has been credited to her more famous co-star. Now she’s got one where she’s clearly the biggest name and people are giving Sudeikis credit anyway.

  14. leahnz says:

    jts i was thinking something similar: when aniston’s a main/lead character and the movie does well financially it seems like her male co-stars are given the ‘credit’ by pundits, and when the shoe’s on the other foot and a movie like ‘wanderlust’ doesn’t do very well it’s not on paul rudd but rather placed in the ‘nobody likes aniston let’s blame her’ basket. sucks to be her in punditville i guess (having said that i can’t wait not to watch ‘we’re the millers’, looks dire)

  15. anghus says:

    the star-power of Jennifer Aniston is an interesting topic. Clearly she’s been in some movies that have performed well, but when’s the last time you saw her carry a movie based solely on her star power? She’s very clearly popular in certain quadrants, but she’s like the person you cast when you want to help solidify a project with mainstream audiences but has no wattage on her own.

    I can’t think of another actress with those specific limitations.

  16. Breedlove says:

    Maybe she’s the new Rene Russo? Or not.

  17. jesse says:

    Anghus, I’d say, quite to the contrary, most actors/actresses have pretty much that exact limitation: popular with parts of the audiences, but more of a value-added proposition than a license to print money.

    I mean what does “no wattage on her own” mean? Are there a lot of actresses who have gotten multiple huge hits ENTIRELY on their star personas? No help from concept, good marketing, less-famous-but-still-well-liked costars?

    Sandra Bullock has had a bunch: The Proposal and The Blind Side were both sold largely on her and she seemed to be a massive part of their success. But even The Heat, you can’t really attribute just to her; she’s teamed with McCarthy (who approximated a “probably pretty much just her” hit with Identity Thief).

    I’ve always been puzzled by the idea that a TRUE star is basically bulletproof — that you’re not really a movie star unless you’re doing Hanks-and-Cruise-in-the-90s or Smith-in-the-90s-and-00s numbers. Those guys were the exceptions, not the rule.

    Obviously it’s hard to break down a movie’s success and divide up credit for box office, but I’d say evidence suggests that Aniston is a solid mid-tier star. As I asked on Wells’ site a few days ago: are we really suggesting that The Break-Up was a hit ENTIRELY because of Vaughn, Horrible Bosses was totally because of the Bateman/Charlie Day contingent, The Bounty Hunter was mostly Gerard Butler, and He’s Just Not That Into You was a hit equally because of Affleck, Ginnifer Goodwin, and whoever the hell else was in that movie… and now that We’re the Millers was all Sudeikis?! Seems to me she has way too many hits on her resume to brush her off as “no wattage on her own.” I mean, would a movie about her reading the phone book in front of a white screen make $75 million? Probably not. But other stars don’t exist in a vacuum, either.

    To be clear, I don’t even really like Aniston very much. Limited actress, not all that comedically adept, rarely stretches, often seems to (consciously or not) choose roles that conform to her aw-poor-Jen tabloid persona. But I do think she’s weirdly under-credited for her own movies’ successes.

  18. Foamy Squirrel says:

    So I see Deadline has scrubbed it’s reference to damning other sites for being inaccurate with their initial box office numbers.

    I’m guessing someone pulled her aside and said “Hey, remember how you ‘adjust’ your numbers every week? Yeah… stones and glass houses…”

  19. anghus says:

    jesse, good point.

    i think my angle, if i have one, is that there are actresses who can star in their own movies and carry them. Bullock, Katherine Heigel, and play the Aniston supporting female role. But Aniston can only play the supporting female part. There isn’t an audience lining up to see Jennifer Aniston.

    And youre right, few movies are sold on one solo female performer these days, but there are actresses who could be solo billed for a movie and still attract an audience. I don’t know if i’d put Aniston in that group. And its odd because she gets so much media coverage. There are few actresses as recognizable and as covered in the media but i dont think would be able to carry a movie solo.

  20. cadavra says:

    FWIW, I think the tabloids’ obsession with Aniston has damaged her career. People don’t take her seriously as an actress, and her presence seems to keep a large contingent away. For example, JUST GO WITH IT, which was marginally less vomitous than most Adam Sandler movies and in which she was excellent, wound up on the low end of his pre-slump earners. She’s no Hepburn (either one), but she’s pleasant, nice to look at, and can be very good in the right role. But it’s highly unlikely she’ll ever be a genuine movie star with so much baggage chained to her legs. It’s not her fault, and perhaps not fair, but she’ll always have her bank account to wipe away the tears.

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