MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Friday Estimates by CinderKlady


Posted from a camp site…

Be Sociable, Share!

17 Responses to “Friday Estimates by CinderKlady”

  1. EtGuild2 says:

    I guess Katherine Heigl decided it was time to give “Zyzzyx Road” a run for its money. Speaking of which, are we really seeing Heigl and Sandler movies open with a less than $1,000 theater average in limited release?

    It’s now five $35 million+ wide releases in 2015, with twenty under $20 million (including ten under $10 million and seventeen at $15 million or less), and just the “Wedding Ringer” in that $20-35 mid-level hit range. It’ll be another skewed result next weekend.

  2. Breedlove says:

    So if Cinderella is gonna make $70 million this weekend are Emma Watson and/or her agents kicking themselves for turning it down?

  3. Kevin says:

    How about Mark Romanek? He could have used a massive hit like this.

  4. jbritt says:

    Isn’t Emma Watson doing Beauty and the Beast instead?

  5. Christian says:

    [Looks at “Eva” grosses.]

    [Rubs eyes.]

    [Looks again.]

    Is that for real? $60 per screen yesterday?

  6. leahnz says:

    little shoutout to homegirl niki caro’s affable ‘mcfarland USA’ hanging in there, onward and upward to the next spider-man or jurassic park

  7. Eric says:

    Anyone know when It Follows is scheduled to go wider?

  8. chris says:

    Next weekend, Eric. (Not sure how wide. Top 25 markets, though, at the very least.)

  9. Stella's Boy says:

    Is It Follows on VOD? I tried finding it but couldn’t. And will Spring and Kumiko, The Treasure Hunter be available on VOD this Friday, or just in theaters? I am dying to see all three. So many good options via limited release.

  10. EtGuild2 says:

    “Spring” will be VOD. “It Follows” is not, and I don’t believe “Kumiko” is either.

  11. Stella's Boy says:

    Thanks EtGuild2. I guess one out of three will have to do.

  12. EtGuild2 says:

    Yeah. “It Follows” doesn’t seem like a great art-house choice, but given these results, who knows? Pleasantly surprised to see an upstart distributor likely to get “Why We Live in the Shadows” to two or three million.

  13. movieman says:

    So “Follows” is Radius’ token “theatrical only” 2015 release?
    Oh, wait.
    Isn’t “Hunting Ground” a “theatrical only” Radius title as well?
    “Follows” would have made a cozy fit w/ Weinstein’s Dimension shingle once upon a time although it’s probably much too subtle (and smart) for the tweener set who thought “Annabelle” was the coolest thing since Instagram.
    But does Dimension, for all intents and purposes, even exist anymore?
    Or has it gone the way of Tri-Star?
    At least TWC (potential Oscar bait), Dimension (exploitation-ish) and Radius (docs and VOD-more-than-theatrical) were clearly delineated entities.
    Can anyone explain to me the distinctions between IFC, IFC Sundance Selects and IFC Midnight?

  14. EtGuild2 says:

    Dimension is pretty much relegated to sequels now I think…Sin City 2, Scream 4, Scary Movie 5, Spy Kids 4…all of which people were clamoring for. As far as I can tell, Blumhouse cast-off “Dark Skies” and the US distribution of “Paddington” are the only two original projects handled by the shingle in the last four and a half years.

    They do have “Regression,” with Ethan Hawke and Emma Watson in the Fall. But yeah, not sure why they disappeared.

    Btw, TriStar is much more active now…

  15. jesse says:

    EVERLY came out with the Dimension label — alongside the Radius label.

  16. movieman says:

    Et-Yes, the current reemergence of Tri-Star has been as puzzling as its former disappearance.
    Not even sure what constitutes a “Tri Star” movie these days.
    Screen Gems is Sony’s equivalent to Dimension; Sony Classics is it’s own groovy thing; and Sony proper is the tentpole division.
    But Tri Star doesn’t really seem to have much of an identity: they just release movies.

  17. cadavra says:

    TriStar was reactivated to be Sony’s sort-of Searchlight (hence Rothman), but now that he’s running the whole schmear it will probably recede again after the stuff he greenlit gets released.

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