« Saturday Estimates by Mojo | Main | The Worthiest? »
December 26, 2005
Weekend Estimates By Klady
4-Day Estimates / Weekend / % Change / Cume
King Kong / 30.8 / -58% / 118.2
The Chronicles of Narnia / 30.4 / -36% / 163.9
Fun With Dick and Jane / 23.2 / - / 30.7
Cheaper by the Dozen 2 / 14.6 / - / 19.8
Memoirs of a Geisha / 10.1 / 415% / 13.2
The Family Stone / 10.0 / -48% / 29.2
The Ringer / 8.2 / - / 8.2
Rumor Has It / 7.7 / - / 7.7
Wolf Creek / 6.1 / - / 6.1
Harry Potter & Goblet of Fire / 5.9 / -34% / 262.6
Posted by poland at December 26, 2005 03:15 PM
Comments
My favorite film from that list?
Harry Potter.
Posted by: Scooba Steve
at December 26, 2005 03:32 PM
Wow, this box office is tough to read. I really can't tell about how good Kong's legs are going to be, but those surges the past two days do bode well. There is no doubt that it is underperforming, for sure, at this point, though. I thought it would have easily cleared $150 million by now.
As for Brokeback, I think awards and nominations are going to carry it past $50 million, just have a feeling. People forget that with saavy marketing and awards hype, The Crying Game did over $70 million and that was 13 years ago!
I know, that was a sneakily-marketed thriller, different animal, for sure. But you can't tell me that the majority of America did not already know the "secret" by the time they saw it in wide release.
I think it's going to be a very close race for box office crown for the season and can see Potter, Narnia, and Kong all doing around $270 million, but my hunch is that Potter will be on top, when all is said and done.
I predict that Munich is going to end up slightly higher than Amistad grosses, just about breaking $50 mill. This film just does not have the buzz around it that I thought, sorry Dave.
Posted by: Geoff
at December 26, 2005 03:43 PM
Why "sorry Dave"? Does DP have some kind of huge stake in Munich? Did he direct it or fund it? I really don't think Dave takes it personally if Munich doesn't hit 75$ million and win the Oscar.
Posted by: Angelus21
at December 26, 2005 04:35 PM
I never really saw the big market for "Munich" anyway. Don't see it for "Brokeback" either. "Walk the Line" will probably walk into the Oscar ceremony as the most successful film no nominated. If it gets a nomination.
Posted by: PandaBear
at December 26, 2005 05:00 PM
I was surprised about Wolf Creek. I went to a showing sunday night and it was packed, sold out. I didn't know that the general public was much aware of it as I hadn't seen much about it on television. This is surely a win for the independent movie.
Posted by: JohnBritt
at December 26, 2005 05:10 PM
Angeuls21, it seems pretty obvious that Dave is pulling for this film to be a success, that's why I put in the "sorry." Not a big deal, since I am rooting for the film, as well. Haven't seen it, yet, but am hoping that this can be Spielberg's first true masterpiece since Schindler's List.
Posted by: Geoff
at December 26, 2005 05:51 PM
If I have to see another commercial for Cheaper by the Dozen I may smash my tv into a thousand pieces.
Posted by: Sanchez
at December 26, 2005 06:28 PM
Kong's legs are medium-length at best.
Posted by: qwiggles
at December 26, 2005 07:31 PM
Just thought of something: If "Brokeback Mountain" hits $52 million domestic, it will outgross "The Phantom of the Opera." Gee whiz.
Posted by: Joe Leydon
at December 26, 2005 07:35 PM
Have we actually seen proof that DP is rooting for Munich? All I remember him writing about it was his initial guardedly positive review. If there's one movie he's _really_ rooting for it's The Constant Gardener, which he cheers for at any opportunity, while remaining fairly mum, personal opinion-wise, on Munich.
Posted by: jeffmcm
at December 26, 2005 07:50 PM
I think something about Munich that is not popular. And I think something about Brokeback Mountain that is unpopular with some people. So it is obviously bias and some sort of nefarious campaign.
It's tired. But each time it happens, I realize that it is one cost of doing what I do.
Posted by: David Poland
at December 26, 2005 07:59 PM
"I was surprised about Wolf Creek. I went to a showing sunday night and it was packed, sold out. I didn't know that the general public was much aware of it as I hadn't seen much about it on television. This is surely a win for the independent movie."
It's called the internet. The movie's already been released in Australia and UK and garnered buzz as one mother of a horror film.
I'm so happy Cheaper II has died. No more movies from that franchise. I never thought the existance of Yours, Mine & Ours would actually be beneficial to film lovers around the world.
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0
at December 26, 2005 08:17 PM
In September if you didn't think "Munich" was the clear front runner you really don't know how to handicap an Oscar race. Even now it still might be the favorite.
Posted by: Rufus Masters
at December 26, 2005 09:13 PM
Thinking a movie that no one has seen (and I do mean no one) in September is never a smart move...and that's what a lot of people were doing. Then everyone saw the movie, and a few people had problems...and I'm telling you, not getting a Golden Globe nom in a category where it should have been an easy nomination is not a good sign for an Oscar win. Regardless of the fact that the Golden Globes are picked by journalists not industry types, they're still all humans, mostly based in L.A... And frankly, I don't think Munich is as strong a movie as Brokeback Mountain, mainly because it's too long and somewhat preachy.
That said, don't ever change, David...my great respect for you comes from your willingness to speak your mind, however unpopular those thoughts may be. Even if I don't always agree with what you say, there are plenty of times where someone has to say something...and I'm glad it's usually you, not me :)
Getting back to the topic at hand, I'm pretty annoyed with the "media spin" on Kong vs. Narnia this weekend. Every paper is posting headlines of Kong winning the weekend and defeating Narnia, except that they're overlooking that Kong had a massive drop, bigger than Narnia's last weekend, while Narnia held up its business well. $30 million in its third weekend is much better than $30 million in your second; Narnia has a much better chance to cross the $200 million mark than Kong at this point.
Posted by: EDouglas
at December 27, 2005 03:53 AM
i dont think edouglas gets the concept of "handicapping".
Posted by: bicycle bob
at December 27, 2005 07:25 AM
How did Dick and Jane even make a dollar let alone 30 million?
Posted by: Bruce
at December 27, 2005 07:39 AM
The Crying Game did 70+ but it was also marketed and sold as well as any film released the past 20 years. The secret was a great marketing exercise. Everyone knows what BBM is before they walk in a theatre and a lot of people just aren't interested. Most guys don't want to see a love story anyway let alone a gay cowboy love story.
Posted by: Terence D
at December 27, 2005 08:24 AM
Terence D, yes, the marketing was exceptional, but like I stated in my post, the "secret" wasn't really a secret, anymore, by the time most of America saw it. I can remember it very clearly, since I was working at a movie theater at the time. The film took over two months to have a full wide release and by that time, there was an extensive wink-wink campaign and loads of "actor" awards and nominations for Jaye Davidson. It was pretty obvious to many that the film centered on a gay couple and it still did very well. I know that Brokeback Mountain is a different type of film, but it has been very well marketed. And with the right type of marketing and acclaim, even completely uncommercial downer films like The Hours and The Pianist can make over $40 million at this time of year.
Hell, look at The Cider House Rules, the whole film took place at an abortion clinic and featured a likeable and sympathetic abortionist and had a subplot about incest! Sure sounds like a film that would play in the supposed red states, huh? Well, that made over $50 million.
Look, I could be wrong, but it seems to me that Focus really knows what they are doing with this film and they will squeeze some money out of it. Is it going to be a blockbuster? Probably not. But some of you guys are really underestimating this film and Ang Lee.
I have never been a huge fan of his, but the guy seems to have strong commercial instincts or at least luck. True, Hulk did underperform, but it still did over $140 million. Sense and Sensibility, The Ice Storm and Crouching Tiger probably all made profit and significantly more at the box office than anybody expected them to.
It's pretty amazing when you realize that a import director like Lee, who has done extremely deliberately paced films that catered to his tastes, has been much more successful in the United States than John Woo, who went all out to sell out to the domestic market. Whodathunkit?
Posted by: Geoff
at December 27, 2005 08:52 AM
The reason John Woo has been less successful in the United States is that his English language films have, for the most part, sucked, especially compared to his earlier Hong Kong work. It's really only his recent films like Paycheck & Windtalkers that were big financial disasters. MI:2 wasn't his baby, but it still raked in a shitload of money.
Personally I thought Face/Off was a great genre film, and at least original. But look at all the recent projects he's flirted with or been attached to: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Metroid, He-Man, Spy Hunter. Why bother with this cartoon and videogame crap? What he needs to do is work with Chow Yun-Fat again, and/or make his dream project about the Chinese railroad workers..
Posted by: lazarus
at December 27, 2005 10:23 AM
''Everyone knows what BBM is before they walk into a theater and a lot of people just aren't interested.''
True. But you can say the same thing about most movies. Not everyone is going to be interested in a movie about a hunt for Palestinian terrorists or geisha in Japan or even a gigantic gorilla.
''Most guys don't want to see a love story anyway, let alone a gay cowboy love story.''
Guys traditionally aren't the target audience for love stories. Focus always has said its fortunes on ''Brokeback'' would rise and fall with the women. But they're expected to come with their boyfriends and husbands. And so they have.
Posted by: Wayman_Wong
at December 27, 2005 10:34 AM
Hey DP, Ebert and Roeper didnt split on Crash. They gave it 2 thumbs up. It even says it in the ad on the top of this page...
Posted by: RoepersGottaGo
at December 27, 2005 11:36 AM
Any guesses on what two films Poland saw this weekend that will make his Top Ten? Perhaps a couple titles from that other thread of things he'd missed.
Posted by: Melquiades
at December 27, 2005 11:43 AM
"Kings and Queen" and "The Beat That My Heart Skipped" are two great films from this year, so if Poland hadn't seen them, those could easily make his list. Never saw "The White Diamond."
Posted by: James Leer
at December 27, 2005 11:52 AM
For the record, Hulk earned $132 million, not over $140. Worldwide it did $245 m. And just because they know what they're getting with BBM doesn't mean they won't be curious, especially if they haven't seen it before. Women eat it up because it's their fantasy: manly men who emote.
Posted by: palmtree
at December 27, 2005 11:57 AM
Red States just like good movies too. It's not hard. They're just people too there. Brokeback has a shot to make 50 million plus.
Posted by: Josh
at December 27, 2005 12:29 PM
The Associated Press handled this weekend's box office as a horse-race story. You have to go to Variety to find the troubling subplot: Even with "Kong" and "Narnia" for this Xmas, overall box office for the year remains off 5 percent.
Usually theaters don't run late-evening shows Xmas Eve or early shows Xmas Day. Where I live AMC and Regal theaters ran their late-evening shows Xmas Eve -- no late-late shows -- plus a full set of shows on Xmas Day starting around 10:30-11 AM. That tells me Hollywood is desperate to make up that 5 percent deficit even with 1 extra day in the holiday release period.
Posted by: Chucky in Jersey
at December 27, 2005 12:39 PM
So unless Poland's notorious awful movie was a 2006 release, he's decided to forget about it, because all 2005 press embargoes are over. Dave?
If "red-state" people like good movies...Cider House Rules would not have made $50million. Bashing it and not them.
Posted by: jeffmcm
at December 27, 2005 12:41 PM
When did 50 mill become a hit or a good movie gross? We lower our standards here for box office hit?
Posted by: Josh
at December 27, 2005 12:46 PM
I still say its "Aeon Flux".
Posted by: Josh
at December 27, 2005 12:47 PM
Dave's awful movie is obvious. It's Brokeback Mountain.
Posted by: LesterFreed
at December 27, 2005 12:53 PM
Yes, Josh, for smaller movies. King Kong grossing $50 is not a hit. If, say, Transamerica made that much, it would be stupendous.
Posted by: jeffmcm
at December 27, 2005 12:57 PM
Transamerica couldn't make 50 million if it gave away 48 million tickets.
Posted by: Mark Ziegler
at December 27, 2005 01:48 PM
"But look at all the recent projects he's flirted with or been attached to: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Metroid, He-Man, Spy Hunter. Why bother with this cartoon and videogame crap? What he needs to do is work with Chow Yun-Fat again..."
You snob! The world needs and wants more movies based on sitcoms, toys, TV cartoons and commercials.
How about Mr. Bubble? It could be brilliant with today's effects. Or Aunt Jemima: The Motion Picture--the Tidy Bowl Man could cameo. And the Transformers could team-up with Malibu Ken for hot doll-on-robot action.
As for Chow and John Woo, I'm torn between thinking it would be great and wondering if the moment has passed. It could be an enormous letdown, the same way another Indiana Jones might be a very bad idea.
Posted by: frankbooth
at December 27, 2005 01:56 PM
LATEST HOLLYWOOD SCRIPT DEALS
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter)—Lowend Productions has purchased the script “Brokeback Prison” from Boston screenwriter Leon Jones. Lowend CEO W. E. Makcrap says production will begin in February for release in December 2006.
“This is one of the strongest spec scripts we’ve ever come across,” said Makcrap. “It has action, romance, drama, even a little bit of comedy. We expect that this will be an awards contender in 2007.”
“Prison” is story of two convicts, Lamont Jenkins and Malik Harris, who become cellmates in New York’s notorious Riker’s Island prison. An initially adversarial relationship leads to friendship—and one night, it leads to more.
After a unexpectedly passionate evening, Jenkins and Harris deny their attraction to each other, but after Harris is paroled, Jenkins finds himself longing for his former cellmate. After Jenkins’ release from prison, he pursues Harris, who has since married his girlfriend and fathered three children with her. Despite his marital connections, Harris cannot deny his love for Jenkins, and the two men try to maintain their love in the face of a hostile society.
Makcrap says the roles are “unbelievably well written. Jones did a remarkable job with the script, and we’ll surely find two young, handsome, muscular studs to play the leads. These roles have star-making potential.”
Jones previously wrote “What the Hell Were You Thinking, Girl? The Whitney Houston Story” and “The Man Who Killed Tupac,” and directed the documentary “Mumia Abu-Jamal: Guilty as All Hell.”
Reuters/Hollywood Reporter
Posted by: tuc
at December 27, 2005 01:58 PM
I've been taking the temperature of Brokeback's chances here in The Red States where my parents live. Asking white people who still use the word "nigger" what they think of the film. And let me tell you it's gonna be huge. Maybe "Dogma" and "Last Temptation of Christ" huge.
Posted by: Crow T Robot
at December 27, 2005 02:23 PM
Thanks Crow, for the most insensitive and dumbest comment on the subject. Congrats.
Posted by: Angelus21
at December 27, 2005 02:52 PM
Who doesn't want to see more movies from Woo and Chow? Anyone who says they don't lives in fantasy land. They should make as many movies as they can together. The chance for greatness shouldn't be stopped. Just because they've made some great ones they should hang it up and stop??? You know how stupid that sounds?
Posted by: PandaBear
at December 27, 2005 02:56 PM
Brokeback Prison? When did porno make it to Variety?
Posted by: joefitz84
at December 27, 2005 03:36 PM
Well, the actual grosses came in and it looks like a pretty strong weekend, with almost all films coming in a bit above initial estimates. I am wondering if Narnia will follow the typical Christmas film projectory and start fading, because it seemed to lose some strength after Christmas Day. I think Kong will shoot past it, next weekend, but the difference between these two is just too great at this point. I'm guessing Narnia ends up at $270 and Kong at under $250 mill.
What do you guys predict?
Posted by: Geoff
at December 27, 2005 04:32 PM
Crow T. Robot is hilarious. He's also right about so-called red stares not dying to see BBM. While I don't really believe in red state-blue stae labeling, I do believe the movie's audience will be the open-minded art house crowd and casual viewers who're just curious to see what all the fuss is about.
P.S. Roeper didn't like Ms. Henderson Presents.
Posted by: Jimmy the Gent
at December 27, 2005 04:49 PM
King Kong 240mill
Narnia 250 mill
My guesses as of this moment.
Posted by: PandaBear
at December 27, 2005 04:58 PM
I can't see KK doing much past 200. It's not exactly a film where after you sit through its 3hour pummel, you feel like watching again.
Posted by: palmtree
at December 27, 2005 05:28 PM
Yeah, and how will Kong suddenly pull within ten million bucks of Narnia's total gross? If it were going to show long legs, this would have been the frame for it.
Posted by: James Leer
at December 27, 2005 05:31 PM
I'd love to see Kong again.
Posted by: Melquiades
at December 27, 2005 05:35 PM
I didn't mean to say I didn't like KK, which I did. It's just that I'd find it hard to ignore other films out there and devote another 3 hours in a theater to this bloated film.
Posted by: palmtree
at December 27, 2005 05:38 PM
"Who doesn't want to see more movies from Woo and Chow? Just because they've made some great ones they should hang it up and stop??? You know how stupid that sounds?"
Trolling for a fight, are we? Fine, I'll take the bait against my better judgement.
Try actually reading the post. I said there was POTENTIAL for it to be a dissapointment. Many years have passed, and Woo is not the same director he was. And do you really think he'd get away with the over-the-top carnage of his HK films in a big-budget Hollywood movie? Or that they'd let him make it without saddling Chow with an American co-star, most likely a dopey comic sidekick? He'd wind up as essentially second banana in his own movie.
Do you know how naive that sounds?
Posted by: frankbooth
at December 27, 2005 06:44 PM
Sadly, the title of my horrible film will never be acknowledged... at least not anytime in the next year.
Itis most certainly not Brokeback or any of the awards season films.
As people seem to forget, I quite like the first hour and the last 15 minutes of Brokeback. They have context. The other 20 years of time do not. And that is the core of my problem with the movie.
As for E&R the Crash correction was made. And it seems that the the E&R website is incorrect on Mrs. Henderson Presents... will listen to the audio soon.
Still... 23 for 26 remains... with none of the three leftovers two thumbs down
Posted by: David Poland
at December 27, 2005 07:22 PM
Good call Poland. Save that movie title to break a heated blog moment, like when jeffmcm gets into a push with one of the Joshs (Duke? McNamara? Chandler? I forget which).
It'll be akin to Tom Hanks' "I was a school teacher!" scene in Private Ryan.
Posted by: Crow T Robot
at December 27, 2005 08:45 PM
I was going to make a racially insensitive joke about Tyler Perry and the Aunt Jemima film suggested by frankbooth, but then Brokeback Prison showed up and I thought, wow, I thought I was an asshole.
Posted by: lazarus
at December 27, 2005 09:36 PM
Is there more than one Josh? Honestly, the only antagonist I can tell apart is Sanchez.
So it was something with no release scheduled? Dave, I'll be massively pleased if it's a certain film with "Little" and "Sunshine" in the title.
Posted by: jeffmcm
at December 27, 2005 09:39 PM
David: You wouldn't be talking about the "All the King's Men" remake, would you? (I've been told there were preview screenings of a rough cut before the release was delayed.)
Posted by: Joe Leydon
at December 27, 2005 10:10 PM
Nothing like saying I'm not telling to get people guessing again... oy.
Posted by: David Poland
at December 27, 2005 10:34 PM
This is what you get for bringing it up in the first place! Toss us a bone! Make something up, as long we we are placated!
Posted by: jeffmcm
at December 27, 2005 10:36 PM
Why is no one talking about IMHO the most interesting thing in the BO reports, which is that "Polar Express" is doing EXTRAORDINARY business in its "return engagement," especially considering that many theatres are running it maybe 2 or 3 times a day because they have Potter or other Imax features running (e.g., Loews Lincoln Square in NYC is running it once a day). How is a movie that was pretty much universally critically reviled, with no real "star" managing to become this Christmas perennial?
Posted by: MattM
at December 28, 2005 07:27 AM
How is Tom Hanks' silicon avatar not a 'star'?
Posted by: jeffmcm
at December 28, 2005 08:02 AM
Two reasons:
1. The movie, at least in current advertising, is not at all sold off of Hanks' name.
2. Though Hanks is the motion capture basis for like 5 characters in the movie, he's only recognizable as one of them, which is really a minor character.
It seems like people are hungry for explicitly Christmas-centric fare at this time of year, and there wasn't really a Christmas-based release.
Posted by: MattM
at December 28, 2005 08:24 AM
Don't forget the IMAX experience itself. People will pay to see it there as opposed to DVD, and they will pay more per ticket too. That would make up for the fewer screenings per day.
Posted by: palmtree
at December 28, 2005 08:27 AM
The Family Stone is pretty Christmassy.
And I recall Tom Hanks being pretty front-and-center in the marketing of the movie...but agreed, the poster is basically a kid and a train.
Posted by: jeffmcm
at December 28, 2005 08:27 AM
PROTESTS MOUNT OVER “BROKEBACK PRISON”
By Ann L. Secs, Associated Press Writer
December 28, 2005 8:51 pm EST
LOS ANGELES (AP) – Civil rights groups, outraged over a Hollywood production company’s plan to produce a film about two African-American convicts in love, have vowed to mount protests over the upcoming project.
“This is shameful,” said American Foundation for Diversity and Community
President Jesse Louis Sharpton in a press conference condemning Lowend Productions’ decision to greenlight “Brokeback Prison,” the story of two felons who find love inside New York’s Riker’s Island prison and homophobia outside of prison walls. “This is a deliberate attempt to once again denigrate the African-American male in popular entertainment. This is going to turn the clock back to the days of ‘Dolemite’ and ‘Mandingo.’”
Essence Reader, the organization’s leader, said it was appalling that Lowend, the company bankrolling the project, “decided to make a film like this instead of a movie depicting a healthy, heterosexual African-American relationship.”
“Our community wants a ‘Jerry Maguire,’ a ‘What Women Want,’ a ‘When Harry Met Sally.’ We don’t want a ‘Birdcage.’”
Some leaders are vowing to boycott any movies released by Lowend next year.
“Damn skippy we’re serious,” said Nation of Islam spokeswoman L. A. X. “This disrespect for our people cannot be tolerated. How can they even think of making a film like this? And they better not cast Wesley Snipes or Denzel (Washington). I mean, I still can’t believe Wesley did that movie where he (expletive) that white girl.”
Lowend chairman W. E. Makcrap said that he is “confident that the African-American community will be filled with pride when the movie finally comes out.” He would not confirm rumors that the studio is negotiating with either Spike Lee or John Singleton to direct the project.
-------
Posted by: tuc
at December 28, 2005 06:16 PM
How many pornos are already in the works/already finished with some variant of Brokeback in the title?
Posted by: jeffmcm
at December 28, 2005 06:18 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)