« Surprise | Main | Oscar Competitor Perspective »
December 23, 2007
Sunday Estimates by Klady - Dec 23

Posted by poland at December 23, 2007 10:34 AM
Comments
Looks like IAL is on the way to $150Mil, is that the biggest for Will?
Posted by: Chicago48
at December 23, 2007 11:40 AM
u mean fastest to $150 mill?
Posted by: martin
at December 23, 2007 11:52 AM
Not sure if you noticed it or not but it seems "Blonde Ambition" was dumped into theaters this weekend as well on a barely noticeable 8 screens. Total take: $1,300 and a 37th place finish. Makes me feel a little better about "Walk Hard".
Posted by: JPaul
at December 23, 2007 12:08 PM
JPaul: Evidenly, all eight of the bookings were in Texas. But none were in Houston.
http://movingpictureblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/dumped-in-heart-of-texas.html
Posted by: Joe Leydon
at December 23, 2007 02:35 PM
On Friday NT2's tracking looked like a $50+ weekend, easy. The dropoff is undoubtably attributable to yesterday's bad weather across most of the country.
Enchanted will be at $100m by Christmas. Who would have thought that Alvin and the freakin' Chipmunks would be the #1 kids movie of the season?
Posted by: Wrecktum
at December 23, 2007 03:19 PM
movie's with supposed "stars" like luke wilson have been getting dumped a lot lately. compare this with idiocracy(which still managed to find a second life), mama's boy, that ben affleck flick with rebecca romijn earlier this year, that penelope cruz and salma hayek western. five years ago, it would be unheard of that all those movies went straight to DVD. hopefully, this will at least lead to less stigma towards straight to DVD films so we can appreciate the actually good independent films that don't get to theatres.
Posted by: a_loco
at December 23, 2007 04:24 PM
awww, I really liked Bandidos (the Cruz/Heyak movie).
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0
at December 23, 2007 06:08 PM
Hey, Joe, thanks for the extra skinny on the "fiscally responsible" release of "Blonde Ambition". I have a sad and very apparent feeling we're paying more attention to it than anyone else.
And, Loco, while I certainly agree with you that not all movies should be written off just because they bypass the theatrical run, I don't think the case will be made on some of the titles you mentioned and certainly not on the weak and arthritic shoulders of "BA". And while we've observed that "technically", yes, it did get a theatrical release, everyone else will more than likely see it as a STDVD. And I know I for one will not correct them. I think I come off as a purveyor of useless and often pathetic trivia enough as it is. I know I've filled my quota for today.
Posted by: JPaul
at December 23, 2007 08:07 PM
How in the hell did AUGUST RUSH get to $29M? It debuted in 7th or 8th place over Thanksgiving and has stayed out of the top 10 ever since. That is a seriously under-the-radar success story for Warner. I was shocked to see that number this morning.
Posted by: bmcintire
at December 24, 2007 09:08 AM
"August Rush" is not a success given its budget and B.O. It stuck around as long as it did because of a slow release schedule.
Posted by: Chucky in Jersey
at December 24, 2007 09:39 AM
August Rush might do quite well on DVD.
Posted by: CaptainZahn
at December 24, 2007 01:34 PM
I wasn't saying that any of those films were worth seeing, I was just saying that they had legitimate stars in them and still went STV. God knows I'm not gonna waste my time on any of them. (Also, the title of the Hayek/Cruz movie would have been Bandidas, Bandidos is masculine, maybe it should be the title for the Banderas/Iglesias starring sequel? jk)
Posted by: a_loco
at December 24, 2007 02:52 PM
AUGUST will probably reach the "hit" MICHAEL CLAYTON's numbers by mid-January and both had relatively the same budget. I had this pegged as a title that wouldn't make it to eight figures theatrically and assumed it would flop quietly.
Posted by: bmcintire
at December 24, 2007 03:18 PM
I realize there are exceptions to every rule, but it's been my experience that when a movie goes to the direct-to-video route, there's usually a good reason.
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117934361.html?categoryid=31&cs=1
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117932699.html?categoryid=31&cs=1
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117935047.html?categoryid=31&cs=1
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117932430.html?categoryid=31&cs=1
And sometimes, there's a very, very good reason:
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117933156.html?categoryid=31&cs=1
Posted by: Joe Leydon
at December 24, 2007 05:19 PM
Oy, Farce of the Penguins went theatrical down here. Not that anybody noticed.
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0
at December 26, 2007 12:14 AM
Straight to vid question: do the actors get their regular pay day ($$$mil) or do they get gross on the receipts?
Posted by: Chicago48
at December 26, 2007 01:47 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.)