MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Friday Estimates by Klady Along 1

Friday Box Office Estimates 2016-01-16

Be Sociable, Share!

23 Responses to “Friday Estimates by Klady Along 1”

  1. movieman says:

    Thought “13 Hours” would have opened bigger since it was in the “Sniper”/”Survivor” January/military slot.
    And–simply because of a recent dearth in kid movies–assumed “Norm” would do better than its dire estimates.
    Wrong on both counts.
    “Ride Along 2.”
    Bleuch. It’s so dully generic I’m surprised the actors refrained from yawning while delivering their boilerplate dialogue.
    Olivia Munn and Glen Powell are the only two who emerge w/ their dignity intact. (And Powell–lucky him–disappears after the first five minutes.)

  2. Hmmm says:

    Benghazi is not a commercial topic. Too murky.

  3. js partisan says:

    Fuck 13 Hours, and fuck Bay for even making this shit show of a fucking movie. Your little bullshit trap failed, conservatives. Thanks to Kevin Hart, Ice Cube, Leo, and STAR WARS! Very happy that film bombed.

  4. EtGuild2 says:

    NORM might be the worst thing I’ve sat through in the last 5 years. Egad.

    SISTERS is going to get close to $90 million, DADDY’S HOME $140 million, JOY $55 million and BIG SHORT 60 mil+. All over-performing vs what people would expect I think.

  5. Arisp says:

    JS partisan confused as usual. The movie has nothing to do with the political bullshit surrounding it.

  6. Geoff says:

    Calm down JS, I’m as liberal as you and from what I know about this film is that it is NOT Right-Wing propaganda.

  7. Bulldog68 says:

    But the Right Wing has adopted it though. And Donald Trump is even having a screening and footing the bill. Not to mention the fact that it comes out before the first voting begins and the DVD will most likely come out when voting in the General election begins.

  8. Stella's Boy says:

    They sure have Bulldog. In all fairness I have not seen it and can’t judge it, but there’s the Trump screening, and the glowing reviews and coverage from National Review and Weekly Standard, among others, and the two GOP screenings on Friday, one of which was introduced by Sen. Tom Cotton. And didn’t Cruz say something like “two words: 13 Hours.” And this:

  9. Geoff says:

    They can try to co-opt it all they want just like they did for United 93 a few years back, but the movie doesn’t look it’s gonna be a breakout hit and NOBODY gives a shit about Benghazi except the Breitbart/Fox & Friends crowd.

  10. Geoff says:

    And I saw American Sniper and I thought it was a pretty good film, I don’t understand how right-wingers claimed such validation from its success. It was
    really obnoxious…they’re worse than Marvel fanboys!

  11. js partisan says:

    Arisp, you don’t know enough, but feel free to condescend to me. It seems to make people like you feel.. who cares. Moving on.

    Geoff, it’s been co-opted by the right, and they want to use it for their goofy means. The same goes with Sniper, because being a SNIPER is sure the fuck heroic.

    I am sure you are fucking around with the Marvel fanboy thing, because the Right Wing are actually dangerous to this country at large. What I don’t get is, why making such a stupid… oh. It’s just you being you. Ha. Never the fucking less, what part of Marvel do some in here don’t get? I am far from fucking sorry, that so many of us dreamed of a comic book, with the crossovers and the slew of characters, truly happening on the god damn screen, and we finally fucking got it. God fucking forbid, that some of us like comic book movies, and a film like SPOTLIGHT! God fucking forbid, that a man loves a good mid-October release!

  12. brack says:

    Bradley Cooper must have put marbles in his mouth to come up with that horrible accent. Have tried to watch American Sniper twice and have fallen asleep both times. Just not that compelling of a movie from what I’ve seen of it. I’ll finish it on HBO GO, but I’m so glad I didn’t pay to see this movie.

    There was no hype or star power for 13 Hours. Why anyone would think it would open well is beyond me.

  13. Bulldog68 says:

    “There was no hype or star power for 13 Hours. Why anyone would think it would open well is beyond me.”

    Maybe because Act of Valor with a relatively unknown cast and director still managed a $24m opening. And the Benghazi issue has been in the media ad nauseum for years. And the reviews are halfway decent. I believe Black Hawk Down also had a good January run. So the atmosphere was there for this to open bigger.

  14. Bulldog68 says:

    Zero Dark Thirty as well did good in January.

  15. Stella's Boy says:

    And Lone Survivor. So they probably figured successful openings in past January’s and a well-known director and topical subject matter would combine to overcome the lack of a name cast.

  16. brack says:

    Act of Valor came out almost four years ago in late February, not on MLK weekend. Lone Survivor had Mark Wahlberg and a limited release in December. ZDT had a limited release in December and Oscar buzz, and from the director of The Hurt Locker. And no one except the right wing media has cared about Benghazi for years. And the marketing was terrible. They only ran ads on tv for it maybe starting three weeks ago. A horrible release date for a movie like this.

  17. Stella's Boy says:

    It sounds like they ran an aggressive marketing campaign, just a highly targeted and therefore somewhat limited one, in the hope that the American Sniper crowd would turn out. I mean Cooper isn’t that huge of a star is he? It wasn’t totally crazy to think those folks would embrace 13 Hours a year later.

  18. brack says:

    Cooper is easily recognizable and had been in numerous hits/had award nominations before American Sniper, but it was Clint f-ing Eastwood that made that movie “legit”. He’s up there with Tarantino, Scorsese, Spielberg as one of the most bankable directors alive – ones people actually know or care about. People don’t give a crap about Michael Bay.

  19. Stella's Boy says:

    That didn’t seem to help Jersey Boys much. I’m sure no one here gives a crap about Bay, but does he have no pull with younger male viewers? His name means nothing to that demo, the ones who turn out for all the Transformers movies? I figured he did but I could be wrong.

  20. hcat says:

    I would say both Bay and Eastwood, just as any name director, can bring an audience for something that appears in their wheelhouse. Any time Bay promises to blow up the world his people will come out, a few city blocks based on a true occurance not so much. Same with Eastwood, his name doesn’t lend anything to an adaption of a broadway play or a historical biopic of Hoover (or whatever the hell Hearafter was). But a straight ahead over the plate biopic of an american soldier? That will get people into the seats.

    Other name directors have faced the same apathy when they stray too far from their well traveled material, Kundun for example, but that doesnt diminish their name when they return to the types of films that audiences expect from them.

  21. Stella's Boy says:

    Good points hcat. I just thought 13 Hours would do better, and it sure seems like Paramount worked overtime to reach the “right” viewers. I didn’t think the lack of a star would matter in this instance.

  22. brack says:

    Benghazi isn’t a popular topic. There’s a decent article about the likely reasons 13 Hours didn’t open as well as some had hoped. I won’t post the link out of respect for David, due to his dislike for the founder of the site.

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