MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Friday Estimates by Uptight Dude Next Door Klady

Friday Estimates 2014-05-10 at 8.15.51 AM

Excluding animated voice performances… Neighbors‘ opening day is a bigger opening day than any Seth Rogen opening… bigger than any Sandler opening… any Apatow opening as producer, director, or writer… any Will Ferrell opening. Bigger opening day than The Hangover… but not Hangover II. The only original comedies with stronger opening days are Ted and Bruce Almighty. Add in Sex & The City if you like, though it’s obviously not a real original. And Jackass 3D. That makes this – unless I am missing something – the 6th best comedy opening day in movie history… which is really something.

As usual, there are plenty of box office ignoramus’ out there – one very special one back at Deadline – who think of it all as some zero sum game of who beat which film and why. Of course, had Neighbors been opening against the second weekend of Captain America 2, a month ago, it would have been Cap2 on its 2nd Friday by nearly the same margin… but because of reporting bias, Cap 2 (as other movies would have been) was hailed as winning a triumphant 2nd weekend and Amazing Spider-Man 2 is being pissed on. I know some of you are bored to death with me deconstructing poor reporting, but until editors and reporters start reporting box office with some semblance of objectivity, I feel compelled to keep pointing out what bullshit a lot of it is.

And when Godzilla wins next weekend, it won’t be crushing Neighbors or Amazing Spider-Man, but succeeding on its marketing merits… which is pretty much the story at least 47 weekends a year.

Speaking of the other box office hits of the last 6 weeks, Captain America 2 (the current box office #1 of 2014) should end up at just over $700 million worldwide, almost $250m of that coming from the domestic box office. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (the current box office #2 of 2014) will pass $500 million worldwide this weekend, about $140m of that domestic. ASM2 is looking like it will come in a bit behind Cap domestically. International is still open to interpretation. Time will tell.

The only other openings over 1000 screens were dumpers, really. Mom’s Night Out and Legends of Oz. Both sound like Vegas sideroom shows, no?

Open Road has a small hit in Chef, which will have a per-screen near $25k on 6 thanks to aggressive grassroots marketing, emphasizing a web presence, in-person appearances around the country, and a stellar supporting cast. The real scene stealers in the film, however, are Amy Sedaris and John Leguizamo.

Coppola brood release Palo Alto is also doing nice exclusive business, with a $15k+ per-screen for the weekend on 4.

Be Sociable, Share!

27 Responses to “Friday Estimates by Uptight Dude Next Door Klady”

  1. movieman says:

    That “opening” for Kellan Lutz’s “Tarzan” is a joke, right?
    Hell, a Lutz-ian “Tarzan” just four months after “The Legend of Hercules” is a pretty good joke all by itself.

    Nice bows on the indie/limited scene for “Chef” and “Palo Alto,” though.
    Could TriBeCa Films actually be on the verge of their first hit ever w/ the Coppola?

  2. movieman says:

    P.S.= Isn’t New Kid on the Block Clarius releasing the “Oz” ‘toon?
    Or are they FreeStyle under a different name?

  3. EtGuild2 says:

    Whatever they are, they delivered the most painful movie I’ve seen since “Delgo.” And if the $70 million budget is correct, that’s the last we’ll see of them.

  4. Curious says:

    I wonder if TASM2 is still going to be #1 three weekends in a row.

  5. movieman says:

    Isn’t Clarius releasing Rob Reiner’s “And So It Goes” w/ Diane Keaton and Michael Douglas this summer?

  6. EtGuild2 says:

    Btw…GRAND BUDAPEST has the Wes Anderson record domestically, overseas and worldwide.

    And Universal has to be feeling pretty great about releasing four original movies and one remake this year, and the four originals end up being very strong hits (I’m including “Lone Survivor” despite its NY/LA run). Their early marketing for “Get On Up” and “Lucy” is very good…it’s the MacFarlane Western I’m hesitant about.

  7. movieman says:

    it’s the MacFarlane Western I’m hesitant about.

    Ditto, Et.
    The “Lucy” trailer is terrific: it looks like a return to “La Femme Nikita” territory for Besson.

  8. Gustavo says:

    “I wonder if TASM2 is still going to be #1 three weekends in a row.”

    Is this some sort of joke?

  9. Warren says:

    Yes, that’s a joke based on David’s weird prediction that ASM2 had a chance to be #1 three weekends in a row, in spite of the fact that Godzilla is opening next weekend.

  10. EtGuild2 says:

    How bad have things gotten for Spidey? The film is projected to be 2 million ahead of THOR 2 after two weekends….wtf? It seems clear that Spidey is now on the same tier as Superman and The Captain…somewhere between Tier 1 and Tier 2. Batman and Tony Stark are clearly the Tier 1 Superheroes for now.

  11. Matt P. says:

    If Sony doesn’t turn to Marvel/Disney now for a team up, I’ll be shocked.

  12. Warren says:

    I think Marvel/Disney might turn that down. They’d be smart to just let Sony continue making Spider-man movies with escalating costs and declining grosses until they have little choice but to let the rights revert.

  13. Big G says:

    Marvel/Disney could get the Spider-Man film rights back? Great! Then we’d have to sit through ANOTHER friggin’ Spidey reboot? Maybe they won’t get a 28 year old to play a teenager next time. LOL.

  14. Geoff says:

    Whoah whoah whoah…..I will be the first one to state that the Sony marketing team truly dropped the ball on this one. They really didn’t know what they had; they had a film that reaches emotional heights and with the potential to connect with the young Twilight audience….and they overmarketed it as a melange of villians. So much money has been left on the table no doubt.

    But… there any evidence that if Marvel owned the rights, they would do any better?? Sony is going end up making over $4 billion on just five films from this property and Feige’s team just would not have had the balls to end this film the way it was under this regime…..

    And the next 15 months are going to be critical for Feige’s team – they’re investing easily $400 million plus in Ant-Man and Guardians of the Galaxy and no doubt Avengers 2 is going to be huge, but they’re going to lose a much bigger chunk this time to the likes of Downey and Hemsworth with profit participation deals. I could be SO wrong about this but I have a feeling that by the time May 2016 swings around, they could be in a much weaker position and will likely try to give a $250 million Cap 3 some significant breathing room from the likes of Batman/Superman.

  15. JS Partisan says:

    Spider-man should be a key property for Phase 4 or 5. It would be foolish on Sony’s part to keep this property. This team, just doesn’t have the people excited, and this movie is a failure. If David doesn’t want to admit to it, then he’s in denial.

    That aside, you are hesitant about a movie that features Seth Macfarlane and looks fucking hilarious? Really? TED! END OF LINE.

  16. Hcat says:

    Universal is having a good year because they are playing to their strengths, breezy comedies and affordable action. They try to make some mega budget fox type bohemeth like 47 ronin and it makes 7 mil opening day, they spend a tenth of that on neighbors and it pulls in 20.

    Sony should be taking copious notes.

  17. Matt P. says:

    In the end, Sony’s marketing seemingly put together more trailers for a movie than I have ever seen. They actually sold a movie that wasn’t there. It’s not like cut scenes movies are rare in ads (see Frozen), but they kind of advertised the movie as villains hot on Peter’s trail.
    While a bit hard to quantify, these last two movies and likely Spidey 3, diminished the stock of the character on the big screen.
    Is $200 million domestic absolutely guaranteed now? Going to be tough.
    This film was supposed to be big enough to have people care about the expanding world and it’s looking like people aren’t chomping at the bit for Spidey, let alone the villains.

  18. Warren says:

    The production budget for Ant-man and GOG will not be $400 million plus and there’s no way in hell CA3 will cost $250 million. Also, there’s no chance Hemsworth has a profit participation deal–Marvel would recast before they would do that. RDJ is the only cast member that has that kind of pull.

  19. pat says:

    Spider-Man is approaching damaged goods status. Sony is insane to be squeezing out these movies at such a rapid pace. And they’re already re-using plots and characters. Even if Marvel got the film rights back, they would have to wait years for memories to fade and the character become viable again.

  20. spacesheik says:

    I saw AMAZING SPIDERMAN 2 two weeks ago in London at the amazing Odeon Leicester Square theater and I was underwhelmed, even though I felt it was an improvement over #1.

    The Good: I loved the opening Blues Brothers-like action sequence and I think Garfield and Stone are brilliant, there is real chemistry there, I loved Sally Field’s turn and unlike others I had no problem with Campbell Scott’s Richard Parker scenes.

    The Bad: Director Marc Webb is unsuitable for this sort of franchise, he’s more comfortable with the small romantic beats – his action set-pieces, are just that: set-pieces (i.e. Times Square Electro sequence) – and then forgotten about – they don’t jell with the flow of the film and are merely smaller mini movies.

    Too many villains, too much emphasis on Oscorp, strange campy characters (the mad professor torturing Electro etc)- the film didn’t do much for me. Speaking of Electro, what a waste of a potentially great villain, but Jamie Foxx’s portrayal of the Urkel-like Max was ridiculous (he even gets his own comic theme, which really further degrades the character). The fact that Electro disappears from the screen for an eternity after his set-piece is also proof that the script is weak, bloated and all over the place.

    Villains don’t get a chance to make much of an impact and these sorts of films need strong villains. Sony marketed the crap out of this movie, showed way too many clips the months beforehand, promising ‘Spiderman’s greatest battle’ – misleading to say the least. Why did Electro even turn on Spiderman? Because a random cop shot him? It doesn’t make sense – that’s not how effective cinematic adversaries are formed.

    The Hans Zimmer score was disappointing as well.

    This isn’t ‘Captain America 2’ here w/ its great word of mouth, dark relevant story line & effective plot.

    Marvel needs to take over the Spiderman character – they understand, they *get* their properties and know how to maximize their franchises.

    Sony Pictures keeps dropping the ball on this property unfortunately.

  21. EtGuild2 says:

    “That aside, you are hesitant about a movie that features Seth Macfarlane and looks fucking hilarious? Really? TED! END OF LINE.”

    Yup. TED, which I didn’t really enjoy, had been screened a ton within 20 days of release. The only stuff I hear from test screenings this time out, is how bad the movie is.

  22. Bodhizefa says:

    Spider-Man should be on the upper tier in the superhero box office hierarchy, and that he’s not is a function of the studios and director’s choices. This is absolutely a disappointment for Sony, and they should be admonished for how they’ve essentially taken a juggernaut film franchise and turned it into a second rate superhero series.

    Yet maybe they don’t care. If they can make more money in the long run by morphing the one franchise into many (Sinister 6, Venom, etc.), then perhaps they don’t care as much about the total take on the one as they do the many. I think it’s a silly stance, especially given how important Spider-Man is in the pantheon of Marvel comic properties, but can’t you see a board room meeting at Sony where this sort of thing is discussed and glossed over for the bottom line?

    I don’t dislike the new Spidey flick, but I certainly think it was a waste of a great property’s potential. Captain America beating out a behemoth like Spider-Man is insane in my mind, so I will be interested to see Sony’s response to this tepid response to their product.

  23. Hallick says:

    “Spider-Man should be on the upper tier in the superhero box office hierarchy, and that he’s not is a function of the studios and director’s choices. This is absolutely a disappointment for Sony, and they should be admonished for how they’ve essentially taken a juggernaut film franchise and turned it into a second rate superhero series.”

    Or maybe the world has just had its fill of the story for now since this series hasn’t been all that different from the previous one. The world has had a Spider-Man movie every couple of years or so for 12 years running. On top of any other complaints, character fatigue ISN’T a possibility here?

  24. Hallick says:

    Captain America is also a fresher franchise that had build-off from the first movie and The Avengers, whereas this Spider-Man sequel is yet another Spider-Man sequel.

  25. Bodhizefa says:

    Hallick, Captain America’s role in the Avengers movie was basically to help save civilians while the real heroes went to work. I’m not saying he’s an uninteresting character, but he’s certainly not as popular a franchise as Spider-Man has always been in the comics. And you can say it’s franchise fatigue for Spidey if you want, but I choose to believe it’s crappy marketing coupled with bland filmmaking and storytelling abilities by all those involved. In addition, Captain America 2 has had legs because of its excellent reviews and word of mouth (filmmaking and storytelling DO make a difference!), and Spider-Man 2 will have none of that.

  26. cadavra says:

    Sony beats Spidey to death because they have nothing else left in-house that’s sure-fire. They’ve tarnished their brand with all those overpriced, lousy Happy Madison comedies and Screen Gems crapfests.

  27. Terry says:

    Sony should just take a royalty and lend Spidey to Disney. No risk- all reward.

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