MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Friday Estimates by Welcome To Post-Turkey Klady

Friday Estimates  2016-12-03 at 8.29.25 AM

There are few weekends of the year that compete with the first week of December, the weekend after Thanksgiving, for futility. Last year, every film in the Holdover Top 10 dropped by 51% or more, 5 of them by 66% or more, compared to the previous Friday. There was one bright-ish note, Krampus, which opened to $6 million.

This year’s sole wide new release is not as fortunate as Krampus, but Incarnate did take advantage of the down weekend to get outsized attention for horror.

The punchline for the weekend is that the 3-day drops were 10% – 15% less than the Friday-to-Friday. Still nothing to write home about, but better than the horror show that today’s numbers appear to be. Moana, for example, is likely a $23 million weekend, a serious drop but not a shocking one.

Among movies beyond their second weekend, Arrival continues to hold best, which has to make Paramount feelgreat.

The one happy story on the board is the exclusive run of Jackie, though the fantasy number on this kind of movie is $100k per. The success that Searchlight seems to be heading for with this title is remarkable for an excellent, although certainly not mainstream film. So take a deep breath and let it play out.

Be Sociable, Share!

31 Responses to “Friday Estimates by Welcome To Post-Turkey Klady”

  1. Movieman says:

    History will be a lot kinder to “Rules Don’t Apply” than 2016 was.
    I’m fairly confident that future generations of film fans will acknowledge it as the minor Beatty masterpiece it is.

  2. EtGuild2 says:

    I’m not sure if it’s the inability to concentrate on lengthy minor films in the wake of smartphones, but I felt like whole weeks had passed by the time I exited my screening. I thought it was okay, just exhausting.

    Is MISS SLOANE really going semi-wide next week?? Seriously, what are the studio honchos doing with the batshit scheduling in the last month. Why would Fox sacrifice ASSASINS CREED on December 21, and open WHY HIM? two days before Xmas?? Who knows!

  3. Sideshow Bill says:

    Boy, I really don’t know what to make of the Eyes Of My Mother. I was really looking forward to it. It looked to be right in my wheelhouse.It delivered things I wanted, and some memorable scenes. The lead performance was quite good. but it seemed to lack some needed connective tissue. And it felt kinda inauthentic at times, like it was trying to hard. It’s not a failure but it’s just a curiosity to me right now. I should watch it again but I don’t really want to. I had the same sort of reaction to Goodnight, Mommy a year or so back.

  4. Dr Wally Rises says:

    There’s a nice little duel developing between Strange and Beasts, at least domestically. Both will settle at around the $250 million mark, but which one wins out?

  5. Christian says:

    That’s a good comparison between “Eyes of My Mother” and “Goodnight, Mommy,” Sideshow Bill. I felt the same way about something missing in “Eyes,” but I admired the film’s willingness to be horrifying without apology. I’ll struggle to recommend it to anyone, though – just as with “Goodnight, Mommy” last year.

    I’m pleased with the “Jackie” numbers and will be curious to see if “Things to Come” – a superb film – generates any heat over the weekend.

  6. Sideshow Bill says:

    I appreciated the film’s brevity, Christian, but I feel like I wanted to see more of the girl’s relationship with her mother before certain events take place. That relationship is central to her development and actions, and we only get a little bit. What’s there is good but not enough for my liking.

  7. Geoff says:

    Looking back on the fall, what a shit-show it turned out to be….ALMOST everything under-performed: Jack Reacher 2, Girl on the Train, and Magnificent Seven all topped out well below $200 million worldwide while Inferno and Miss Pelegrine BARELY made enough to break even worldwide. Deepwater Horizon lost whatever profit Lionsgate made from Boo: Madea’s Halloween, just ugly overall. The only studio that had a good autumn was Warner Bros with Sully and The Accountant – who would have thought that The Accountant would make as much worldwide as Jack Reacher??

    Etguild, you’re dead-on about Fox and Assassin’s Creed – it makes NO sense for them to release it amidst the Christmas stampede when it probably even won’t get any IMAX screens when they could have given some breathing room by releasing it this weekend or next weekend. Have studios not paid attention to this time of year as a viable time to release a big budget film?? Going back over the past 15 years: Chronicles of Narnia, the Ocean’s franchise, The Last Samurai…you can launch a big budget property at this time of year. Getting a week or two before Star Wars and Passengers would have only helped Assassin’s Creed.

  8. JS Partisan says:

    Passengers, is DOA, Geoff. I know who is in it, but each spot makes it look worse. It’s astounding, that Sony still suck, at being a fucking movie studio. Hell. Assassin’s Creed is probably DOA, because they seemingly made a movie, THAT IGNORES THE STUFF FROM THOSE GAMES PEOPLE LIKE! Moving both of those movies, would probably help them, but they will just be more fodder, for the Star Wars machine.

    Movieman, it should have been a Netflix movie, because Netflix will determine what sort of fate it will have. It is weird, that they bungled the entire release of that film, but this is Hollywood. A place, where executives, seemingly have ZERO ABILITY TO SCHEDULE THEIR FILMS!

    Oh yeah: bringing over something from another thread. I fucking love many of those old Touchstone and Hollywood pictures. Yes, Disney used to have a lot more dynamic release slate, but times change. People’s taste change. It’s like Rules Don’t Apply, and most Oscar movies. Unless an Oscar movie can get the gray hairs out in drove. Most of those films, should be on a streaming service, because taste have changed. Smaller movies, work just as well on a TV, as they do on a screen. I love Tin Men, but that movie would work better as a TV series, then a fucking movie these days. Which, another difference between now, and then.

  9. Geoff says:

    “Passengers, is DOA, Geoff. I know who is in it, but each spot makes it look worse. It’s astounding, that Sony still suck, at being a fucking movie studio.”

    JS, I know that Sony has been easy fodder recently but they are really not THAT far off from turning films like 22 Jump Street, American Hustle, and Captain Phillips into over-performing blockbusters. Their problem – like several other studios apparently – is that they are trying to be like Disney….and they don’t have to be.

    Films like Hotel Transylvania and Angry Birds have become cash machines at half the cost of Disney animated films while Disney isn’t even touching the niche properties that Sony has thrived at: released a few weeks apart, Don’t Breathe actually made more worldwide at less than 1/5 the budget that Pete’s Dragon did….and with much less fanfare. The only two studios with the capability of chasing the Disney All-or-Nothing model right now are Universal and Warner Bros – both have PLENTY of big IP – but they don’t need to either.

    That said, I have a feeling that Passengers is going to do well – the campaign has actually been pretty effective so far and you KNOW Chris Pratt is going to work the circuit to promote it over the next few weeks. And even last year in the wake of record-setting grosses for The Force Awakens (which I don’t think Rogue One is going to approach), other films released around the same time including Daddy’s Home and The Revenant were able to gross blockbuster numbers…there’s at LEAST room for two as far as I can tell – probably Sing and Passengers.

  10. Arisp says:

    Passengers is going to open to about 20 million. Disaster.

  11. Stella's Boy says:

    The Passengers trailer and TV spots do absolutely nothing for me. It looks really boring and while I like Lawrence and Pratt they don’t appear to be a screen couple for the ages. It might be a hit considering the stars and promotional heft behind it, and of course it could be really good, but everything I’ve seen leaves me cold. I have no desire to see it, unless reviews convince me otherwise.

  12. cadavra says:

    PASSENGERS looks like Buster Keaton’s THE NAVIGATOR set in outer space and not funny. If it doesn’t perform, it will just be more proof that Lawrence and Pratt can’t open grown-up movies, together as well as singly.

    As for Pratt working the circuit, so did Key & Peele for their movie. How’d that work out?

  13. JS Partisan says:

    Mummy trailer, anyone? Anyone? It’s a weird monster movie, that makes me wonder what the fuck Dracula is going to be? The Wolf Man? The Invisible Man? The mind boggles.

    Geoff, the marketing is still dreadful. I am glad it’s working for someone, but every trailer is just a dirge. Also, if the spoilers are right, then that movie is just gross. It’s absolutely gross. If I had to pick two films, to get some of that Rogue One run-off. I’d go with Sing as well, but probably Why Him. It just seems like it could be a weird ass movie, that families want to watch over Xmas. It would be nice, if it were fucking Assassin’s Creed, but you know… what the fuck.

  14. EtGuild2 says:

    “more proof that Lawrence and Pratt can’t open grown-up movies.”

    Huh? More proof? What are we counting for JLaw here..SERENA, which played locally here for one-week in DC at a second-run basement with no promotion? Because JOY certainly doesn’t count. No idea who could open that to better than $17M.

    As for Pratt, aside from co-headlining the biggest Western opening of all time that didn’t involve aliens or cartoons he hasn’t been in anything. What am I missing?

  15. Geoff says:

    Yeah I’m not sure how any one can doubt Jennifer Lawrence’s drawing power at this point – I’m myself have been getting sick of her but she opened Joy last year and all four of her Hunger Games movies opened at over $100 million, no small feat.

    The jury’s still out a bit on Pratt as I thought he would help Magnificent Seven open larger than Denzel’s apparent ceiling. He could be where Jeff Goldblum was in the late ’90’s OR…..where Will Smith was, it’s hard to tell as of yet.

    JS honestly, how would YOU market a romantic comedy/drama/sci fi adventure like Passengers?? 🙂 Sony’s marketing department has dropped the ball on many a big project over the past several years no doubt: Elysium, White House Down, Amazing Spider-man 2, Ghostbusters….but with this kind of project, the most obvious route is to play to the strengths of your stars and it seems like they are doing just that.

  16. JS Partisan says:

    Geoff, I would sell it, as straight sci-fi. I’d ignore all of the fucking romantic shit, and let it be a pleasant surprise for people in the theatre.

  17. Ray Pride says:

    Let’s see how audiences respond to the twist.

  18. JS Partisan says:

    Ray, is that still the twist? Didn’t they change it? If that is still the film… Bleech.

  19. Ray Pride says:

    Dunno. Haven’t seen, but, oh, that script.

  20. Bulldog68 says:

    I wouldn’t want to be in the business of selling a straight sci-fi with Rogue One out and about, JS. Anecdotal of course, but the Passengers trailer is getting positive reviews in my neck of the woods in Canada. And adult themed sci-fi has been on a good run with Gravity, Interstellar, The Martian, and The Arrival. One with a romantic element with two of the hottest young stars on the planet, on paper, makes every bit of sense to me.

    And if the film turns out to be even half decent, I think they are in for some coin, particularly with Christmas box office legs giving a big boost.

    Also, I’m surprised that I’m not seeing “From the academy award nominated directed of The Imitation Game” in the trailers, but maybe I just haven’t seen it or they’re holding that back for some reason.

  21. Pete B says:

    I found the 30 second teaser for The Mummy to be more intriguing than the full trailer.

    The trailer looked like a supernatural Mission Impossible. How about more Sofia Boutella and less Cruise?

  22. Stella's Boy says:

    I so want to be on board with The Mummy and Universal’s attempt to relaunch their monsters. But The Mummy doesn’t look good. I see no attempt to be atmospheric or scary despite what the filmmakers claim. Looks like a typical Cruise action flick, big and slick, with tons of CGI and lots of huge set pieces where Cruise gets to do his thing.

    I’m surprised so many find the Passengers promos appealing. I don’t care why they woke up early. Nothing grabs me. And I don’t feel any chemistry between them. I’d rather see Why Him?

  23. JS Partisan says:

    So, we rarely agree, but I’m with you on this one. Why Him, just looks so ridiculous and fun.

  24. Michael Bergeron says:

    Why Him? is perhaps not oddly constantly funny

  25. PcChongor says:

    Why Him? would’ve worked much better if the premise was flipped and the boyfriend was completely normal and the father was a belligerently racist asshole. As it is now, it’s easily one of the blandest looking studio comedies I’ve ever seen.

  26. palmtree says:

    Bulldog, they’re not mentioning the director’s Oscar nom clearly to avoid the wrath of Chucky.

  27. Bulldog68 says:

    Palmtree, sorry, I don’t get the “wrath of chucky” reference.

  28. JS Partisan says:

    Chuck from New Jersey, Bulldog. Our very own hater, of Oscar baiting!

  29. Bulldog68 says:


  30. EtGuild2 says:

    Where is Chucky these days? I’m disappointed not to see a conspiratorial rant against the PC posturing of “Moonlight” and “Fences,” the moody frivolousness of “Manchester,” or the brownwashing melodrama of “Lion.”

  31. palmtree says:

    He/she/it pops up every now and then when no one expects it.

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