Box Office Archive for September, 2006

Klady's Friday Estimates & BO Hell – 9/30

(Note: A typo in friday’s numbers put Jackass: Number Two at $6.2 million. The correct number was $4.2 million)
Title | Distributor | Gross * | Theaters | % Change | Cume
Open Season | Sony | 6.2 | 3833 | | 6.2
The Guardian | BV | 5.8 | 3241 | | 5.8
Jackass: Number Two | Par | 4.2 | 3063 | -63% | 41.9
School for Scoundrels | MGM | 2.7 | 3004 | | 2.7
Fearless | Focus | 1.4 | 1810 | -61% | 14.5
Gridiron Gang | Sony | 1.3 | 3033 | -56% | 30
The Illusionist | FS/YF/Odeon | 0.8 | 1319 | -21% | 29.4
Flyboys | MGM | 0.7 | 2033 | -64% | 8.3
The Black Dahlia | Uni | 0.6 | 2009 | -55% | 19.2
Little Miss Sunshine | Searchlight | 0.6 | 1065 | -31% | 51.7
All the King’s Men | Sony | 0.5 | 1520 | -63% | 5.1
Also Debuting
Facing the Giants | IDP | 0.4 | 441
The Last King of Scotland | Searchlight | 41,000 | 4
A Guide to Recognizing Saints | First Look | 28,000 | 8
Journals of Knud Rasmussen | Odeon | 12,000 | 43
Broken Sky | Strand | 1,500 | 1
bohell930.jpg

21 Comments »

Sunday Estimates by Klady

bo092406.jpg

39 Comments »

Friday Estimates by Klady

Jackass Number Two will open about 25% ahead of Jackass, which is pretty good, but not sensational. It suggests that the core for this franchise remains about the same, while it probably got some expansion via Home Entertainment and a lack of product in the theaters for audiences that you might not expect to be rushing to Jackass (

27 Comments »

Friday Numbers From Mojo

I don’t think Len Klady has returned from Toronto yet, so I don’t think we’ll be seeing his box office report until tomorrow…
I don

70 Comments »

Friday Box Office by Mojo

Rank. Movie Title (Distributor) / Theater Count
Daily Gross | % Change (Last Week) | Total Gross | Days in Release
1. The Covenant (Sony / Screen Gems) / 2,681
est. $3,150,000 | – | est. $3,150,000 | 1
2. Hollywoodland (Focus Features) / 1,548
est. $1,875,000 | – | est. $1,875,000 | 1
3. The Protector (Weinstein Company) / 1,541
est. $1,825,000 | – | est. $1,825,000 | 1
4. Invincible (Buena Vista) / 2,987
est. $1,750,000 | -42.8% | est. $41,621,000 | 15
5. Crank (Lions Gate) / 2,515
est. $1,440,000 | -56.9% | est. $16,499,000 | 8
6. Little Miss Sunshine (Fox Searchlight) / 1,560
est. $1,280,000 | -29.8% | est. $38,501,000 | 45
8. The Illusionist (Yari Film Group Releasing) / 1,362
est. $1,250,000 | -20.5% | est. $14,700,000 | 22
7. The Wicker Man (Warner Bros.) / 2,784
est. $1,250,000 | -56% | est. $14,621,000 | 8
9. Talladega Nights (Sony) / 2,617
est. $910,000 | -39% | est. $140,091,000 | 36
10. Accepted (Universal) / 2,381
est. $760,000 | -40.2% | est. $30,492,000 | 22

13 Comments »

4-Day Weekend Estimates by Klady

No real surprises this weekend.
Crank, the teen skewing actioner, fell behind Invincible, the family feel good, after Crank had a slight lead on Friday.
The Wicker Man was less of an unmitigated disaster than it could have been.
Little Miss Sunshine continues to build effectively on word of mouth and simple, clean ads. My $50 million guess on the film

50 Comments »

Friday Estimates by Klady – 9/2/06

The only thinks here that are of any interest to me are the good results for Little Miss Sunshine and The Illusionist.
Have a lovely 4-day weekend.
Title | Friday | Screens | % Chg | Cume
Crank | 3.2 | 215 | – | 3.2
Invincible | 3.0 | 2921 | -44% | 25.7
The Wicker Man | 2.8 | 2784 | – | 2.8
Little Miss Sunshine | 1.8 | 1602 | -14% | 27.9
The Illusionist | 1.5 | 971 | -16% | 5.6
Talledega Nights | 1.5 | 3001 | -38% | 132.2
Accepted | 1.2 | 2822 | -41% | 24.8
Crossover | 1.2 | 1023 | – | 1.2
Step Up | 1.1 | 2553 | -43% | 54.0
World Trade Center | 1.0 | 2902 | -42% | 58.9

13 Comments »

Box Office Hell – 09/01/06

bohell0901.jpg

15 Comments »

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