MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Friday Box Office Estimates

180217 box

Be Sociable, Share!

24 Responses to “Friday Box Office Estimates”

  1. JSPartisan says:

    Wakanda Forever.

  2. movieman says:

    “Double Lover” is terrific fun and should be doing A LOT better.

    “Loveless” is a masterpiece, and my favorite of the five Oscar-nominated foreign language films.

    Once upon a time both would be selling out right and left at big city arthouses.
    Sad that neither can make any box office impression whatsoever in 2018.

  3. Stella's Boy says:

    Saw a trailer for Loveless before I, Tonya today. Looks really bleak and depressing. I’m sure it’s very good but it looks like quite a downer. JS is that enough money to make you believe Trump voters are seeing it?

  4. Ray Pride says:

    “Downer.” Ha. Director said he updated Bergman’s “Scenes from a Marriage…” but made it more demolishing.

  5. movieman says:

    Hey, SB: Bergman’s “Cries and Whispers” was a bleak, depressing downer and arthouses went cuckoo for it back in the ’70s, lol.
    (Ditto “Scenes from a Marriage” a few years later: still the single greatest film ever made about, yes, marriage, even if it was originally made for TV.)

    “Double Lover” is lip-smackingly decadent, deliciously over-the-top movie-movie fun. No excuse for specialized auds not checking it out.

  6. Christian says:

    “Loveless” is amazing.

  7. Joe Leydon says:

    Remember: Cries and Whispers had Roger Corman behind it. No joke: Corman notes in his autobiography that he even got it booked into drive-ins, much to Bergman’s amusement.

  8. brack says:

    lol @ Stella’s Boy

  9. JSPartisan says:

    SB, go see the movie. Trust me: they aren’t seeing it :D!

    Movieman, but few people have critic choice options in this country in 2018. It sucks, but those films should have always been streaming centric, because those types of films play anywhere. The experience is the experience, rather you are in a theatre seat, or in your bed.

  10. movieman says:

    I was surprised that “Double Lover” opened on three screens in the Cleveland (yes, Cleveland) market. It was clearly spread too thin: a miscalculation on Cohen Media’s part.

    Yes, I realize that it’s a Brave New World for exhibition (if you can call streaming on Netflix “exhibition”).
    Just commenting that it’s a shame when movies as good as “Loveless” and “DB” don’t find an audience.

    Speaking of which: poor “Early Man”! Lionsgate sure picked a bad date to open the new Aardman.

  11. Stella's Boy says:

    What’s so funny? I saw a trailer for the first time and noted the movie looks bleak. Just an observation. Never said it looks bad or that I have no interest in it. Loveless wasn’t on my radar until about a week ago. JS the numbers suggest they are seeing it.

  12. Bulldog68 says:

    Movieman, somebody at Lionsgate needs to be fired for that shit. BP isn’t a surprise hit. The only question was how big. What kid in a family contemplating going to a movie this weekend and asked what they want to see would chose Early Man? There are so many weekends coming up between now and the May where they would’ve had some breathing room to give their movie a fighting. Stop Motion animation is already a difficult sell as it is, and it’s like they just sent this one to the slaughter.

  13. movieman says:

    Yeah, Bulldog. I get that they wanted to avoid “A Wrinkle in Time,” but seriously?!? Not helping matters are the “Peter Rabbit” legs.
    Late April would have been a preferable date for Aardman.

  14. Dr Wally Rises says:

    I see your point, but it’s not an exact science. A modest animation can still scoop up quite a bit of secondary business from families who are sold out of a blockbuster and don’t want to waste the trip. Let’s not forget that Ferdinand just made a quietly impressive $90 million opposite Star Wars. So it’s not that Early Man never stood a chance this weekend, but other factors came into play.

  15. JSPartisan says:

    SB, and the movie puts a pie in their face.

    The thing with Early Man could be, that most Americans aren’t Anglophiles anymore. I have no idea why, but it seems like British stuff doesn’t connect. Which is sad, but Early Man will probably find success at him, and that may have been the point in the first place.

  16. Spassky says:

    “It sucks, but those films should have always been streaming centric, because those types of films play anywhere. The experience is the experience, rather you are in a theatre seat, or in your bed.”

    Bullshit. Any film can “play anywhere” going by your criteria. Attention, focus– these are things that cinemas demand; not bluster, and underlit liemax screens. I for one have to see a movie like loveless in a theater. its the entitled, loud, rude geriatrics who go to an arthouse and treat it like their living room that is ruining this kind of exhibition– people who can afford to make their living room look like a cinema.

  17. movieman says:

    I’ve had more problems with Millennials than seniors making multiplex auditoriums into their own personal living rooms.
    The incessant texting (“See my brightly illuminated i-Phone everyone!”) and chatting has completely gotten out of hand.
    As if the interminable “pre-show”s with their endless commercials and trailers (that you’ve already seen a dozen times) weren’t enough of a mood-breaker to help ruin the theatrical experience.

  18. Bodhizefa says:

    I’d like to posit that trailers are an antiquated practice, movieman. One thing theaters could do to really help themselves attract more moviegoers is to not have half an hour of trailers/commercials before the film begins and to simply start the film proper at the advertised showtime. I don’t want my time wasted by trailers I have already seen weeks or months prior on my computer/iPhone. Why are theaters still showing trailers? By the time we leave the theater, trailers have already vanished into the ether of everything that isn’t the next new thing on our phones.

  19. Bulldog68 says:

    I don’t think trailers at the theater are antiquated. And according to some data I’ve seen, only 11% see movies at least once a month. Significantly less go more often.
    About 28% are a few times per year, so to lots of them, the trailers aren’t things they’ve already seen over and over. It’s also a great way to market a smaller movie in front of a lot eyeballs that people may not generally seek out. It’s the damn commercials that are the annoyance, and not to mention the price of the fucking popcorn. When a popcorn and a soda cost more than the fucking movie, no wonder film attendance is down. I actually don’t think that people are less interested in movies. Heck all the available viewing options prove that people want to see movies. For a family, going to the theater used to be a cheaper form of entertainment, now it’s an outing that has to be budgeted for as opposed to the afterthought it used to be.

  20. movieman says:

    I’m old enough to remember when the prospect of maybe seeing one trailer (“Our next attraction!”) before a movie was genuinely exciting.
    Now it’s (multiple) soft drink commercials, car commercials, TNT (the network) commercials and eight-twelve trailers, most of which I’ve already seen multiple times.
    I’m exhausted/cranky before the movie proper begins.

    “simply start the film proper at the advertised showtime”?
    What a quaint notion!
    Or at least list two start times: one for the “pre-show;” one for the actual movie.
    Since most theaters allow you to pre-pick your seats, that would be a win-win for the consumer.
    P.S.= Totally agree about obscene concession prices, Bulldog. That’s why I haven’t bought anything–besides a ticket–at a theater in years. (Notice I didn’t say “brought,” lol.)

  21. Ray Pride says:

    Roger Corman was a visionary distributor.

  22. Triple Option says:

    Speaking of trailers, for the ones who saw Black Panther, did any of your audiences boo the Venom trailer? Some did at mine. What’s that about? Is something being bastardized? The unnecessity of it all? It didn’t seem like a fun booing of the villain like you do in dinner theater or when the raiduhs file out of the tunnel onto the field. Any ideas?

  23. Stella's Boy says:

    When I saw it the audience seemed more confused than anything. No booing. I heard several people whisper to someone next to them “Oh it’s Venom.” Not sure what yo make of that trailer. Didn’t really grab me or get me excited about the movie. Also Ant Man 2 looks dreadful.

  24. Pete B says:

    I think the distinct lack of Venom in the Venom trailer caused the booing.

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