MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Weekend Estimates by Oscar & The Kladys

Weekend Estimates 2015-02-22 at 9.04.56 AM

Domestically, I now look at Spongebob: Sponge Out of Water to surpass 50 Shades of Grey in the long run. That’s a teachable moment about opening weekends.

Internationally, 50 Shades will destroy Spongebob. But as we get through the year, it is unlikely that 50 Shades will end up in the Top 10 for the year in that category either.

Don’t get me wrong. Massive success. As long as the two sequels are under $100m each, they will both be quite profitable, though I suspect this first film will be the highest grosser of the franchise.

If you look at the films with 70% second-weekend drop, there are some major bombs, but also films like the last Potter, Twilight: Breaking Dawn 1, and of course, Valentine’s Day. I would certainly say that Grey should be considered in that second group… a hit with HUGE must-see interest but a glass ceiling of potential ticket-buyers that made for an oversized opening weekend and a big drop. Add, for 50 Shades, Oscar Sunday – for a film that is more nighttime than matinee – and it isn’t shocking at all.

Holdovers Kingsman: The Secret Service and Spongebob: Sponge Out of Water are both estimating Sunday carefully, given the “holiday.” Both could dip back under 50% when the “actuals” are announced tomorrow.

Kingsman is chugging away to $100m+ domestic with a whole lot of foreign to go, so look for the sequel that Matthew Vaughn is already talking about. I still feel that this film hasn’t locked in with its biggest potential fan base… so it could have another theatrical wind or find greater popularity in post-theatrical.

After three weekends, Spongebob is actually out ahead of How To Train Your Dragon 2, though Dragon had the summer slotting. Still, an interesting comparison. And it’s only about $10m behind Big Hero 6 after three… though BH6 had the holiday season to blow up. It’s $30 million ahead of Rio 2 after three weekends, which was last spring’s biggest animated hit, and still doing bigger numbers. So $170m+ domestic would not be a shock at all for The Sponge, doubling the domestic gross of the first Sponge-flick.

McFarland USA is soft out of the gate. Right now, it’s looking at about $40 million domestic. But maybe word of mouth will help… maybe the Spanish-speaking market will lock in and add another $30 million… maybe not. A really surprising movie.

The Duff, made by CBS Films and distributed by Lionsgate, also opened soft.

And Hot Tub Time Machine 2, which was clearly hoping to capitalize in cult status and $50 million domestic gross of the original, was drained of 59% of the original’s opening… going the wrong direction. Released by Paramount, it is along the same lines as Anchorman and Anchorman 2, though that sequel’s opening was almost identical to the first film’s and ended up grossing about 50% more than the first. That’s not happening here.

That said, the price tag to make the sequel has been reported as being $14 million… almost a third of the original. If that is true, this film could see black ink with some help internationally, where the film performed modestly, but well for an American comedy.

American Sniper, now at $320 million domestic, has actually grossed more than Best Picture nominee from 2001, Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of The Ring. It has a good shot at also passing The Two Towers, though Return of the King (the one that won) seems out of reach. Looking back over the last 20 years of Oscar, Sniper is also behind Avatar, Titanic, and Toy Story 3. Eastwood’s film will pass Forrest Gump‘s domestic total in the next week.

In that group of eight $320m+ grossers nominated for Best Picture in the last 20 years, three have won, four have lost. Sniper is the eighth. Of course, if you adjust the win/loss for Rings, the third of which won, it’s 3 wins, 2 losses to date. Interesting, eh?

Screen Shot 2015-02-22 at 10.27.54 AM

As you can add for yourself, even with some Oscar bumping, Sniper‘s gross remains higher than the other 7 nominees combined.

Be Sociable, Share!

21 Responses to “Weekend Estimates by Oscar & The Kladys”

  1. The Pope says:

    While watching Sniper, I was strangely reminded of Rainman. Spielberg had also been down to direct that picture at one point and while I am convinced that he would have made a better picture than Clint, I am certain it would not have been anywhere near as successful. If Sniper wins, it will be another incredible “final” chapter to Clint’s career. When Unforgiven came out, so many observers remarked upon it being his swan song.

  2. movieman says:

    Why do you assume Spielberg would have made a better “Sniper” movie than Eastwood, Pope?
    The material seemed totally within Clint’s wheelhouse, and I think he did a tremendous job.
    Not sure whether Spielberg would have been quite as simpatico.
    Speaking of Spielberg, was anyone else puzzled to read that he’s planning to remake “Raiders” w/ Chris Pratt?
    I adore Pratt, but doesn’t it seem strange that he’d follow “Jurassic World” w/ a “Raiders” reboot? (Yes, I know that–sigh–“Guardians 2” will surely precede it.)
    The Spielberg classic I’d rather see Pratt tackle is “Close Encounters:” he’d be perfect in Richard Dreyfuss’ old man-child role.
    I can already picture Pratt building a mashed potato mountain at the dinner table while his horrified wife and traumatized kiddies look on.

  3. EtGuild2 says:

    Regardless of where it finishes on the charts, “Fifty Shades” is going to end up as probably one of the 5 most profitable movies of the years, from a purely theatrical standpoint (no ancillaries or home market). Remember it’s not getting a rollout in China, so the overseas total is not only more impressive, but the studio will get a higher percentage overall.

    Along the same lines, BIG HERO 6 has quietly chugged its way to $550 million with China still to come.

  4. dinovelvet says:

    Movieman, I haven’t read anything about it being a literal remake of Raiders…that would be horrific! It seems to be just a standard reboot or continuation. Isn’t Pratt or any of his people concerned about blockbuster overexposure? Or is there even such a thing as overexposure anymore? And yeah he’s definitely more suited to playing with mashed potatoes than giving archaeology lectures.
    On the subject of actors from highest grossing movies of 2014, I’d have thought Bradley Cooper would be a better fit for Indy. I could definitely picture him wearing the tweed suit and glasses and being more convincing at the historian side.

  5. EtGuild2 says:

    Cooper (he’s somber, and I mean that as a compliment, in “American Sniper”) seems to have one mode of acting when in non-straight material: bug-eyed, borderline-manic agitation, which wouldn’t seem to fit the part. Pratt gets the slick, sexy, wisecracking angle down pat.

    Re: the Indy reboot. After seeing, and being totally bewildered by the trailer for “Terminator: Genysis”, I’m not sure about the sacredness of anything at this point. But you have to think Spielberg hasn’t sold his soul enough to sully “Raiders.”

  6. movieman says:

    Personally I’d rather see Chris Pratt headline a Johnny Karate movie than “Jurassic World,” “Raiders 2.0” or umpteen “GOTG” sequels.
    I worry that Pratt will never find another role as perfect for him as Andy Dwyer.
    Roles like that only come around once in an actor’s career.

  7. Mike says:

    Yeah, if they MUST continue Indy, I was preferring Bradley Cooper, too. I think he’s shown that he has the range to make it work.

    I like Pratt, and hope he finds roles that suit him, like Andy Dwyer, but GOD, that Johnny Karate episode was a chore to sit through.

  8. Hallick says:

    Okay, I don’t love the idea, but the still photo montage for the In Memorium segment was kind of nice, but GOD DAMN IT are you kidding me with this song?!? I want to watch clips, I want to see reminders of what I loved about these people we lost, I want to see examples of whatever it is that dead make up artist worked on that made him worthy of a photo in this. I HATE, HATE, HATE, HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATE THIS PERFORMANCE GARBAGE.

  9. Hallick says:

    Wow, all of the cuss words I edited out of my complaint about the In Memorium part are blazing across David Poland’s Twitter feed! Right on Dave!!!

  10. Hallick says:

    Not the guy I would have picked in the category, but hey, at least “Eddie Redmayne’s Norbit” can go eat a shit sandwich now. Your order’s up.

  11. brack says:

    Guess you all never saw Pratt on Everwood. He was perfect as Bright Abbott on that show. The guy can act.

  12. EtGuild2 says:

    @Mike (if this is the same Mike), I saw RED ARMY yesterday. Nice composition by your son! 🙂

  13. PTA Fluffer says:

    In ten years, INHERENT VICE (and GBH) is what you will be choosing to re-watch from 2014.

  14. palmtree says:

    How about we see you in ten years and let you know?

  15. John E says:

    My biggest worry with Pratt as Indiana Jones is making it believable that he could be a college professor.

  16. Hallick says:

    Good lord…all of those “20 Weeks Til Oscars” columns and here we are halfway through the day after the show but with not so much as a “BYOB Oscars” entry for the actual show?

  17. movieman says:

    Brack- No complaints about Pratt as an actor.
    I’m probably his biggest fan next to Anna Faris, lol.
    That’s probably why it bugs me that he seems to be chasing one lucrative franchise tentpole after another instead of actively seeking out roles that could showcase his outsized charms.
    Andy Dwyers don’t come around every day, but it would be nice if Pratt finds a similar big-screen fit one day.
    Playing Indiana Jones (or a variation thereof) and “Jurassic World” exposition deliverers (just a guess) seems like such a waste.

  18. YancySkancy says:

    Hallick: I suspect the actual Oscars mean nothing to the prognosticators. Their picks were either right or wrong and that’s it — on to prognosticating for next year!

  19. leahnz says:

    EtG i think it may have been ‘steve’ rather than ‘mike’

  20. EtGuild2 says:


  21. cadavra says:

    I suspect that Pratt, like Clooney, is going the paycheck route now while he can, and then he’ll be able to kick back and do the more challenging things he wants to do.

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