MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Friday Estimates by He Better Hope There Isn’t A Recording Of the Box Office Before He Estimates Klady

Friday Estimates 651w 2017-05-13 at 8.42.34 AM

Oh Guardians, my Guardians…

The second volume isn’t maintaining the “50% improved over the original” pace of the opening, but it is still well ahead of the first and internationally, it has already three-quarters of the way to the entire international gross for the first film ($326m going into this weekend vs 440m for the full run of the original). Given that, it is likely that V2 will come close to the total gross of V1 by the end of this worldwide weekend and it will pass it by next weekend (unless it somehow manages that feat by this Sunday).

Meanwhile, two new films arrived, neither encumbered in any way by Guardians’ haul this weekend… and both are as soft as a penis Amy Schumer would make into a gag about her not being attractive enough. (She is plenty attractive, but careeer-wise, should probably stop jumping between denying it and overstating it.) Ironically, the entire idea of King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is that it is rock hard. (I know… pushing the metaphor too hard… damn, did it again by mistake!) The male gaze upon the male is the least of KA’s problems.

There is a legit difference between these films. King Arthur will, unless saved by international, lose a bunch of money. Snatched, which I assume stayed under $50 million, will be breakeven or lose just a little. So a tale of two grosses that don’t lead to the same sadness.

Meanwhile, the #4 and #5 in the box office are both billion-dollar worldwide movies.

Not an interesting weekend. Paris Can Wait will be the exclusive-release representative in the $10k per screen club. Have a lovely Saturday. Enjoy streaming something!

Be Sociable, Share!

12 Responses to “Friday Estimates by He Better Hope There Isn’t A Recording Of the Box Office Before He Estimates Klady”

  1. WB Exec says:

    Kong Arthur! A surefire hit crossover. Quick let’s greenlight it for summer 2022

  2. David Poland says:

    I kinda love that typo too. And the way things are going, Legendary might greenlight it.

  3. arisp says:

    I am beyond thrilled King Arthur tanked. More bombs will hopefully equal a little less IP raping.

  4. Js partisan says:

    Snatched, should have been, a Netflix exclusive movie. Seriously. Schumer, being a movie star, is an out of fashion idea, but her being a comedian, who occasionally does a fun little comedy on Netflix? Probably not.

    There is a dimension, where King Arthur succeeded, and I’m wondering how excited that dimension is… With NINE MORE FUCKING KING ARTHUR MOVIES! Here’s hoping, that they find that idea, ponderous…. Fucking ponderous.

  5. Dr Wally Rises says:

    Logan is on Digital HD and streaming already. That’s crazy. The theatrical window for major studio blockbusters has been shrinking and shrinking for the last few years now – given this and the fact that Netflix’s model is now attracting major stars like Brad Pitt and Will Smith, is widespread day and date for home viewing and ownership now an inevitability?

  6. Christian says:

    I can’t wait to see STALKER on the big screen at AFI Silver, and have been wondering if the big screen might help me better engage with the always-difficult-for-me SOLARIS. I’ll make that call the week SOLARIS plays AFI Silver, but based on these first-night reissue numbers, I’m thinking I’m far from alone in struggling with SOLARIS. (The remake put me to sleep – and I’m a big Soderbergh fan. This story just hasn’t clicked for me.)

  7. EtGuild2 says:

    Blumhouse-Tilt looks like it finally got what it wanted with its targeted release strategy; a near $10,000 per screen average in 295 theatres is pretty uncommon, especially for urban fare. Kudos.

    Roadside with THE WALL? Not so much.

  8. Sideshow Bill says:

    That small window, Dr. Wally, is part of what keeps me away from the theaters. I go and see the big stuff that I want to see but otherwise I wait, unless I have money burning a hole in my pocket. Even Get Out, as highly praised as it is, I waited on. And I’m a horror geek (I was also kinda broke). But now it’s there for me any night I want to watch and I waited barely 2.5-3 months.

    There was a gap between Logan and Guardians 2, the last 2 I saw in the theater. But I’ll see Alien, maybe Pirates and many others this Summer. Even so the Guardians 2 Blu Ray will probably be in my hands before my daughters go back to school in late August. It’s crazy. I remember waiting forever just to rent Gremlins on VHS.

  9. Geoff says:

    Dave any word on the overseas numbers for Alien Covenant as of yet?

  10. Movieman says:

    Does anyone know what’s happening w/ the New York Times film section?
    Scott and Dargis barely review anything anymore (the former reviewed “Snatched” yesterday;” the latter did “King Arthur” and Netflix’s Roger Stone doc).
    The rest was split up among their myriad (and largely interchangeable) freelancers. Come to think of it, I don’t even remember the last time I saw a Holden byline.
    Very odd. Since I’m assuming Scott/Dargis/Holden are paid a flat salary (vs. a freelancer’s fee-per-review), it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, financial or otherwise.
    Are they being phased out in favor of an all-freelancer-all-the-time film section? I know that seems inconceivable, but something very weird seems to be going on.
    Any inside scoop, Ray Pride?

  11. lujoc says:

    This has always been a puzzlement, Movieman. The Times hangs onto weird elitist assumptions about how hard its critics and columnists have to work, even as on the other hand they are laying people off. Scott and Dargis only review a couple of movies a week just as the op-ed columnists write only two columns a week. It makes no sense at all as a business model to employ 2.5 full-time film critics and then ALSO pay freelancers to review most of the movies.

  12. Movieman says:

    Lujoc: Glad someone else has noticed the weirdness in the NYT’s film section these days.
    Before 2017 Scott, Dargis and Holden reviewed a LOT more movies than they currently do.
    Their current “workload” (or lack thereof) is mind-boggling.
    Have to believe there’s a story there somewhere.

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