MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Early Friday Estimates by Klady

(Note: A mistake on the Harry Potter estimate was made earlier and has now been corrected. My spologies.)
Looks like Potter will hit $200 million in 10 days… with less than $35 million to go to reach that landmark.
Joaq The Line will be short of $60 million in 10 days, but still solid and likely enough business to lock up a Best Picture nomination, as the perception of business success is an important part of the Oscar positioning.
Chicken Little looks like it will have more like 125 million acorns at the end of 10 days.
Just Friends, on the other hand, will be lower than I thought yesterday, topping out at about $15 million for 5.
Rent is still heading to $20 million over 5… and $50 must feel a long way away. Alexander opened to about the same numbers last year and got to $34 million. A similar opening three years ago, Treasure Planet got to $38 million.
Title / Distributor / Gross* / Theaters / % Change
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire / WB / 23.6 / 3858 / -28%
Walk the Line / Fox / 7.9 / 3138 / +3%
Yours, Mine and Ours / Par / 7.3 / 3206 / New
Chicken Little / BV / 5.5 / 3475 / +55%
Rent / Sony / 4.4 / 2433 / New
Just Friends / New Line / 3.7 / 2505 / New
Pride and Prejudice / Focus / 2.7 / 1299 / +332%
In the Mix / Lions Gate / 1.8 / 1608 / New
Derailed / Wein Co / 1.8 / 2061 / -15%
Ice Harvest / Focus / 1.5 / 1550 / New
Zathura / Sony / 1.5 / 2620 / +2%
Also Debuting
Syriana / WB / 0.13 / 5 / n/a

13 Responses to “Early Friday Estimates by Klady”

  1. the keoki says:

    Where are these Potter numbers from? has Potter’s friday at $22 mil….why the $9 mil dif?

  2. Blackcloud says:

    BOM has Potter at $23.7 million.
    Someone is way off.

  3. David Poland says:

    Mr. Klady is in a screening and we will address this issue by 10p tonight.

  4. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Rent should be lucky it’s numbers didn’t decrease again.
    What two movies had the two biggest upsticks from Thursday? Chicken Little and Pride & Prejudice.

  5. jeffmcm says:

    So now I’ve seen Walk the Line. Good movie but…Ginnifer Goodwin as Cash’s first wife? _This_ is one of the actresses that Poland insists will be a star for decades to come? She’s not bad…she’s not much of anything.
    She’s no Rachel McAdams.

  6. Mr. Emerson says:

    If Potter doesn’t reach $200 million in ten days, it will end up being extremely surprising…no idea the film would have done so well.
    Walk the Line should end up topping off at $80-$85 million by the end of the year, then possibly add another $5 million more in 2006, make that $10 million more if the Oscar nods see it make a huge impact. I’m finally going to see it tonight or tomorrow, and then I’ll have a clearer picture.
    Rent will top Alexander and Treasure Planet because a) it has, I think, more of a chance to garner repeat business and b) it is far superior to those films. I DID see Rent Saturday and, interestingly enough, found it a terrific film with only a few minor problems…and yet I agreed with most of what Poland said in his review. It would have been an ultra-terrific film, still with a few minor problems, if the romance had been played up a little more and the rent conflict been played down. (Interestingly, I saw it with my parents, and their complaint was there were too many songs, while I felt that the one bad stretch came in between Seasons of Love’s reprise and Take Me or Leave Me because there was no singing.)
    Lost the thread up there, but the bottom line is that I’m calling $40 million at least for Rent, would like to say $45 million but we’ll see after the final figures come in.
    And all of the people pumping money into Yours, Mine, and Ours…why, God, why?

  7. the keoki says: is giving Potter $20 mil for Saturday, giving it $188 mil in 9 days. I still think $300 mil before Narnia is definately possible. Not quite sure of Narnia’s BO and audience.

  8. David Poland says:

    J-Mc… I’ve never suggested Goodwin was Rachel McAdams or that she will have that kind of career. She is Eve Arden, not Doris Day.

  9. Joe Leydon says:

    David: You might want to watch the Eve Arden references, for fear of being considered an even older fogey than you are. Remember what happened a few months ago when I referred to Debbie Reynolds.
    Come to think of it, you might want to watch the Doris Day references, too. I screened “Pillow Talk” for some college students recently, and most of them had no idea who she was.

  10. James Leer says:

    Doris Day had the misfortune of appearing in some rather dated movies. There’s nothing in her ouevre I’d call particularly timeless, so she’s not a major player in most young people’s film histories.

  11. Cadavra says:

    Not so. Check out three of Doris’ mid-60s classics: THE THRILL OF IT ALL, SEND ME NO FLOWERS and THE GLASS BOTTOM BOAT. Though the clothes may be dated, their respective themes–women in the workplace, hypochondria and industrial espionage–still resonate today. Plus they’re all goddamn hilarious; BOAT, in particular, is an overlooked masterpiece that demonstrates anew what an extraordinary talent Frank Tashlin was.

  12. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Ginnifer Goodwyn has made something like 4 movies and a television series (of which she was about the 10th when it came to screentime) and people are already dismissing her?
    Maybe if she was making movies like Yours Mine & Ours, but it at least appears that she wants a career. You don’t work on a show like Ed, or movies like Mona Lisa Smile (yes, it sucked but I’m sure she loved working with that great cast) and Walk The Line for a quick buck. Give her time.

  13. jeffmcm says:

    I don’t want to dismiss her, I think she’s overhyped, which you also shouldn’t do with someone with only 4 movies.

Box Office

Quote Unquotesee all »

This is probably going to sound petty, but Martin Scorsese insisting that critics see his film in theaters even though it’s going straight to Netflix and then not screening it in most American cities was a watershed moment for me in this theatrical versus streaming debate.

I completely respect when a filmmaker insists that their movie is meant to be seen in the theater, but the thing is, you got to actually make it possible to see it in the theater. Some movies may be too small for that, and that’s totally OK.

When your movie is largely financed by a streaming service and is going to appear on that streaming service instantly, I don’t really see the point of pretending that it’s a theatrical film. It just seems like we are needlessly indulging some kind of personal fantasy.

I don’t think that making a feature film length production that is going to go straight to a video platform is some sort of “step down.“ I really don’t. Theatrical exhibition as we know it is dying off anyway, for a variety of reasons.

I should clarify myself because this thread is already being misconstrued — I’m talking about how the movie is screened in advance. If it’s going straight to Netflix, why the ritual of demanding people see it in the theater?

There used to be a category that everyone recognized called “TV movie” or “made for television movie” and even though a lot of filmmakers considered that déclassé, it seems to me that probably 90% of feature films fit that description now.

Atlantis has mostly sunk into the ocean, only a few tower spires remain above the waterline, and I’m increasingly at peace with that, because it seems to be what the industry and much of the audience wants. We live in an age of convenience and information control.

Only a very elite group of filmmakers is still allowed to make movies “for theaters“ and actually have them seen and judged that way on a wide scale. Even platform releasing seems to be somewhat endangered. It can’t be fought. It has to be accepted.

9. Addendum: I’ve been informed that it wasn’t Scorsese who requested that the Bob Dylan documentary only be screened for critics in theaters, but a Netflix representative indicated the opposite to me, so I just don’t know what to believe.

It’s actually OK if your film is not eligible for an Oscar — we have a thing called the Emmys. A lot of this anxiety is just a holdover from the days when television was considered culturally inferior to theatrical feature films. Everybody needs to just get over it.

In another 10 to 20 years they’re probably going to merge the Emmys in the Oscars into one program anyway, maybe they’ll call it the Contentys.

“One of the fun things about seeing the new Quentin Tarantino film three months early in Cannes (did I mention this?) is that I know exactly why it’s going to make some people furious, and thus I have time to steel myself for the takes.

Back in July 2017, when it was revealed that Tarantino’s next project was connected to the Manson Family murders, it was condemned in some quarters as an insulting and exploitative stunt. We usually require at least a fig-leaf of compassion for the victims in true-crime adaptations, and even Tarantino partisans like myself – I don’t think he’s made a bad film yet – found ourselves wondering how he might square his more outré stylistic impulses with the depiction of a real mass murder in which five people and one unborn child lost their lives.

After all, it’s one thing to slice off with gusto a fictional policeman’s ear; it’s quite another to linger over the gory details of a massacre that took place within living memory, and which still carries a dread historical significance.

In her essay The White Album, Joan Didion wrote: “Many people I know in Los Angeles believe that the Sixties ended abruptly on August 9, 1969, ended at the exact moment when word of the murders on Cielo Drive traveled like brushfire through the community, and in a sense this is true.”

Early in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, as Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt’s characters drive up the hill towards Leo’s bachelor pad, the camera cranes up gently to reveal a street sign: Cielo Drive. Tarantino understands how charged that name is; he can hear the Molotov cocktails clinking as he shoulders the crate.

As you may have read in the reviews from Cannes, much of the film is taken up with following DiCaprio and Pitt’s characters – a fading TV actor and his long-serving stunt double – as they amusingly go about their lives in Los Angeles, while Margot Robbie’s Sharon Tate is a relatively minor presence. But the spectre of the murders is just over the horizon, and when the night of the 9th finally arrives, you feel the mood in the cinema shift.

No spoilers whatsoever about what transpires on screen. But in the audience, as it became clear how Tarantino was going to handle this extraordinarily loaded moment, the room soured and split, like a pan of cream left too long on the hob. I craned in, amazed, but felt the person beside me recoil in either dismay or disgust.

Two weeks on, I’m convinced that the scene is the boldest and most graphically violent of Tarantino’s career – I had to shield my eyes at one point, found myself involuntarily groaning “oh no” at another – and a dead cert for the most controversial. People will be outraged by it, and with good reason. But in a strange and brilliant way, it takes Didion’s death-of-the-Sixties observation and pushes it through a hellfire-hot catharsis.

Hollywood summoned up this horror, the film seems to be saying, and now it’s Hollywood’s turn to exorcise it. I can’t wait until the release in August, when we can finally talk about why.

~ Robbie Collin