« Box Office Hell - April 6 | Main | A Touch More Grindage »
April 07, 2007
Friday Numbers by Klady
12:07p Update
Things look grim for The Grind.
The issue this weekend of being #1 is really a non-issue. If Blades of Glory does $25m for 3 days and Grindhouse did $24m, that would be disappointing… but life would go on. But with only $5 million on Friday, which is a premium day for a movie like Grindhouse, given the cult status of Tarantino and Rodriguez, they are looking at under $15m for 3… and that is almost as painful as having an oozing puss ball splattered in your face.
Thing is, the movie ain’t cheap. Early reports set it at $35, The Weinsteins cop to $55, and reality is apparently closer to $75m - $85m. It’s still cheaper than Kill Bill, but not a lot.
The “you can only make so much on a 3 hour movie” is really just spin. Yes, you lose a show a day. But again, for a movie like this, your late shows are going to be stronger than for most films. On the other hand, any midnight shows that were scheduled this weekend will be gone by next weekend. There just isn’t enough money in it for exhibitors to send home kids at 3:45 a.m.
Another major problem for Grindhouse is 300, which is a high tech grindhouse film if ever there was one. (Here, by the way, is also where the split comes between, “300 rocks” and “300 sucks.” The film undeniably delivers on its intentions… it’s just that its intentions were so low that for many of us, it is a waste of movie space. The argument that some make in defense, that “it’s just not your kind of movie” isn’t true either. In my case, I can say for sure, it’s just not a good enough version of that kind of movie for me… very much like Planet Terror vs Death Proof.)
This is one of those occasions where tight marketing budgets for The Weinstein Company have paid off a bit. They have gone hog wild in publicity over marketing and really, I think they are getting all there is to get out of a 3 hour grindhouse thrill ride. So the pain will not be as great as if they threw another $20 million into the fire. But it would also be brilliant – if problematic for Rodriguez – to see a re-release next month of either a complete version at 2 hours or just Death Proof and the trailers (maybe including one for Planet Terror) at 100 minutes and see what happens.
(continuing, 2:09p…) Snakes On A Plane, opening Friday, $5 million. Opening weekend, $13.8 million. Total domestic gross, $34 million. Just sayin’.
You have to wonder how much wind 300 took out of the market with its big numbers. It's not to say that there aren't a lot of people ready for another go after a film like that, but a lot of guys, once satisfied, just want to roll over and go to sleep... until about Spider-Man 3. Yes, "great" or more accurately, the perception of great, always gets them out, no matter what came before. But 3 hours long and maybe the first half isn't so great and the DVD is just around the corner... so maybe not such a rush. Plus, adults who got turned out the "revolutionary" technologies of Sin City or Kill Bill or 300 just don't respond the same way to nostalgia. Or so it seems to me.
A nice hold for Blades of Glory suggests that this film will likely be the biggest of Will Ferrell’s smaller successes, short of Elf and Talladega Nights, but ahead of Anchorman (also release by DreamWorks), Old School, and Bewitched.
If Blades makes it to $100 million, this will be the second time in movie history that three $100 million movies came out of the spring. The other one was 1990, when Hunt For Red October, Pretty Woman, and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles all launched in March. Adding Ghost Rider to the picture, 2007 will also be the second time that there have been four $100 million domestic grossers in the first four months of a year (not including Oscar expansions as new releases), the other being 2003 (Daredevil, How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days, Bringing Down The House, Anger Management).
300 will soon become the #2 opening in the first four months of a year, behind only The Passion of The Christ. It is also looking like the worst total gross of any $70 million opener in history… which is probably more about how movies are now released than the film itself, though the most reasonable comparables are openers in the high 60s, Planet Of The Apes and The Day After Tomorrow.
The opening for Are We Done Yet? is about $100,000 behind the opening day for the surprise hit, Are We There Yet?, though somehow, the number is considered a lot less impressive as a non-surprise.
The Reaping is on target to repeat the opening of Ms. Swank’s last film, The Black Dahlia. Whether it has more life in it than $23m domestic total as a thriller/horror film is unclear.
Firehouse Dog offers its own pun.
Title | Distributor | Gross * | Theaters | % Change | Cume
Blades of Glory | DW | 8.9 | 3410 | -28 | 54.3
Meet the Robinsons | BV | 6.9 | 3435 | -9 | 42.2
Are We Done Yet | Sony | 5.4 | 2877 | new | 9.7
Grindhouse | TWC | 5 | 2624 | new | 5
The Reaping | WB | 3.8 | 2603 | new | 5.8
300 | WB | 2.9 | 2674 | -13% | 188
TNMT | WB | 1.9 | 2811 | -26% | 43.7
Shooter | Par | 2 | 2353 | -21% | 32.8
Wild Hogs | BV | 2.3 | 2825 | -10% | 140.9
Firehouse Dog | Fox | 1.6 | 2860 | new | 2.8
Premonition | Sony | 1.1 | 1752 | -32% | 42.6
Also Debuting
The Hoax | Mir | 0.43 | 230
Black Book | SPC | 33,400 | 9
The TV Set | Think | 9,900 | 8
========================================
We've been having some technical problems, but here is the gist, via BO Mojo...
Blades of Glory - $9,020,000
Meet The Robinsons - $7,025,000
Are We Done Yet? - $5,225,000
Grindhouse - $5,005,000
It's more shocking than anything in the movie. My first take is "Death By 300." But more to come...
Posted by poland at April 7, 2007 11:47 AM
Comments
This message can give us some insights to explain why "Grindhouse" doesn't do well.
http://talk.hsx.com/films/post.htm?0406161647.baronofbarons
Anyway, it is a terrible news for The Weinstein Company; most of their movies were bombs. (Even MGM is very unhappy for releasing Weinstein's bombs in theaters.)
It also looks like fewer and fewer people want to support the Weinstein.
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/archives/2007/04/grindhouse_is_a_1.php
Posted by: marychan ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 7, 2007 12:07 PM
Can't say I'm too surprised. In general, audiences just don't get it when a movie is supposed to look intentionally bad (see SOAP).
Oh well. At least the Weinsteins still have their Scary Movie franchise!
Posted by: martindale at April 7, 2007 12:30 PM
It's interesting that you're insinuating that Grindhouse is a financial "failure" when it's a three hour, R-rated movie (you can't sweep that argument under the rug), opening on a usually family oriented weekend (the Weinsteins counter programming seems to have left them with egg on their face) playing on roughly 1 000 less screens than Blades Of Glory. Anyone expecting more than $15-20 million is deluding themselves.
Also, comparing Grindhouse to Snakes On A Plane is ridiculous. I expect Grindhouse to have much longer legs, and I think everyone will be surprised when it ends up taking $50-60 million by the end of its run.
Posted by: montrealkid at April 7, 2007 03:13 PM
The problem is Grindhouse should be an art house movie, not a traditional movie house movie.
By putting it in the same movie houses as 300 and Blades of Glory....just not a smart move. Once it got the buzz from the art house then you move it to neighborhoods.
Posted by: Chicago48 at April 7, 2007 03:22 PM
montrealkid:
Grindhouse isn't on 1000 less screens than BoG, it is in than 800 theaters (3,401 vs 2,624). Judging by the amount of showtimes, I wouldn't be surprised to see that Grindhouse is only on 2/3rds of BoG's screens. Maybe even closer to half.
Not too surprising. 93 minute PG-13 Sports Comedy. 165 minute R Horror Fest. Not an easy sell to exhibitors no matter the talent.
Posted by: Tofu at April 7, 2007 04:08 PM
From the message posted by Marychan:
"Most of the public will not get it , cause most are not total movie buffs and understand any homage to past movie genre or direction."
Tarantino knows this so well there's a patch of dialogue in "Death Proof" that nails that absence of memories on the head. But you don't need to know jack about the genre to "get" what's actually in the movie. It's plenty primal.
"They just want to a see a top notch production and not the film quality they have been trying to rise above for the past 30 years or more. Glad I shorted it."
Then you all just blew off one of the best action movies in years. Spoilering prevents me from throwing a laundry list of reasons why these presumptions (many of which I shared before I saw "Grindhouse") are so far off the mark.
Posted by: Hallick at April 7, 2007 05:16 PM
I might not have liked GRINDHOUSE, but I can see why it just didn't pack them in, and that is it's concept. It is a niche picture. I bet even 75%+ of the people who did go to see it had no real idea of the "grindhouse" concept. To many people it just looked like stupid, cheap crap, instead of a celebration of stupid, cheap crap.
Posted by: RyanK at April 7, 2007 06:06 PM
The shallow drop-offs in the friday ests. are such that it makes it appear as though the audiences are in some regard avoiding the choices of the New films for this week, anyway.
Posted by: Lota at April 7, 2007 06:32 PM
>>>To many people it just looked like stupid, cheap crap, instead of a celebration of stupid, cheap crap.
And to many people they see nothing to celebrate and fetishize about stupid cheap crap.
Posted by: grandcosmo at April 7, 2007 06:42 PM
Lota, it may also have been a product of many schools being closed.
Posted by: Rob at April 7, 2007 06:43 PM
Maybe Rob, but schools have been closed all week in many districts, for spring break, and for those that were open this week, Friday was only a half-day, so I'm surprised that Are we Done Yet wasn;t bigger, and for the older youngsters, Grindhouse.
The lack of drop-off (like nothing over ~30%) makes me think that those who were off chose to see something released last week rather than this week, maybe by good word of mouth or just lack of interest in GH, Reaping and AWDY, that's all.
Posted by: Lota at April 7, 2007 07:40 PM
Well, I hope all you guys (by you guys I mean the people who didn't see Grindhouse) are happy when we get a dozen more stupid Ice Cube "family" films and Will Ferrell "comedies" and we go years without another Tarantino flick. HAPPY LIKE A BITCH!
Also, holy cow on the Meet the Robinsons number. Down only 9%?! That's amazing.
On the matter of 300 I'm still surprised it has/will make more money than last year's Ice Age 2 considering that is an animated family film and it opened with roughly the same number as 300.
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at April 7, 2007 07:52 PM
I'm always happy like a b*tch, Camel. Rohr. Or should I say woof woof.
But I'll take less Will Ferrell til he does something with less vomiting and close-ups on his teeth.
Posted by: Lota at April 7, 2007 09:52 PM
Dave, what about Freedom Writers? Wasn't that Ms Swank's last film?
Posted by: Aladdin Sane at April 7, 2007 10:35 PM
The ironic thing is that the Tarantino half of the film is actually the half that does the least amount of referencing or 'celebrating'.
Sorry you're such a stick in the mud, Grandcosmo.
Posted by: jeffmcm at April 8, 2007 02:33 AM
>>>Sorry you're such a stick in the mud, Grandcosmo.
I liked Tarantino's half way more but I don't see how I am a 'stick in the mud' just because I think other people wouldn't have an interest in the project. I don't see your logic there.
Posted by: grandcosmo at April 8, 2007 05:38 AM
I'm just surprised that Rodriguez's fans (they must be out there, right?) didn't pull in more, especially since they could have just watched his half and the trailers and left if they wanted to.
Posted by: EDouglas at April 8, 2007 05:50 AM
Rodriguez doesn't have fans.
I thought Sin City might have changed that, but i can't think of another marquee filmmaker with as much press as he gets having no real identity.
He's known more for technical achievement than creative quality.
Personally, i think he's as mediocre as you get. He was more talented when he had little to no money. The bigger his budgets got, the lazier his films became.
It's funny when you have a guy like Rodriguez who made Grindhouse films at the start of his career: El Mariachi, Desperado, From Dusk Til Dawn. Then he actually tries to make a grindhouse film with a budget bigger than all three of those films, and it's so disconnected.
Posted by: anghus at April 8, 2007 06:13 AM
The problem is Grindhouse should be an art house movie, not a traditional movie house movie.
The real problem is overbooking, a bad practice in summer that's expanded to other seasons.
Most megaplexes near me were booking 2 prints of "Grindhouse" instead of only 1. It means you don't sell out the first weekend, thus you don't create a must-see factor for those who wouldn't otherwise go.
It also forces megaplexes to not open "Hoax" or pick up "The Namesake".
Posted by: Chucky in Jersey at April 8, 2007 11:00 AM
Chucky: AGreed. But I think we're of the same mind. It needed to be in smaller number of houses, get the buzz, then move to big.
Posted by: Chicago48 at April 8, 2007 11:52 AM
Insane. You would never platform a movie like this.
Posted by: Wrecktum at April 8, 2007 01:37 PM
Thanks for the correction, Aladdin... but you still get the point, yes?
Posted by: David Poland at April 8, 2007 02:13 PM
And let me AGAIN point out that GH attendance was higher than ticket sales indicate because younger teens bought tix to PG and PG-13 pix like DONE and BLADES and then snuck into GH. Why is this concept so difficult to sink in?
Posted by: Cadavra at April 8, 2007 10:57 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.)