MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Friday Estimates by Klady – 5/31

fri0531.jpg
What can one say about Sex?
Mighty niche plays are poorly predicted by tracking.
It’s not going to quite be The Simpsons, but like The Simpsons, a TV series showed its ability to draw on opening day… even if, in this case, the movie sucks like Samantha.
What’s truly remarkable… even if Indy opened on Thursday and even if Sex doesn’t follow with similar muscle… is that if Klady’s number is right, Sex had a better opening day number than Indy… not to mention Rings: 2 Towers and Bourne Ult.
Indy took, perhaps, a bigger than expected hit this Friday… but as there is little chance that families are going to spend the rest of the weekend at Sex, there may well be an uptick as the weekend progresses.
Universal got the $20m opening for The Strangers... which is about right for that title, even if it was released by Screen Gems, known for releasing those films, and whose campaign looked so much like a SG Special.

Be Sociable, Share!

70 Responses to “Friday Estimates by Klady – 5/31”

  1. That number for The Strangers could be for two reasons:
    1. Sex and the City sellout overflow from those who didn’t want adventure/superheroes
    2. That amazing trailer
    No doubt The Strangers had the best trailer of any movie so far this year and I can’t imagine it being beaten. I know lots of people who have decided to see The Strangers after seeing that trailer. Although you make it sound like $20mil was expected, when, really, everyone was predicting $8mil.
    Still, those numbers for Sex & the City can’t be denied. One day wonder or no. There was demand and it was supplied. I hope it doesn’t cave in throughout the weekend, if for no other reason than to give pause to the repulsive, repugnant and vile claptrap that a lot of men (and some women, it must be said) are spewing forth about this movie.
    I wonder what all these guys’ wives/girlfriends would say (if they even have one) if they knew they were being degrading online to strangers for wanting to see it.

  2. JohnBritt says:

    I have been saying over and over, ever since I saw that trailer and hearing people scream in the movie theaters that The Strangers would open big. I posted it when David did his first Summer Column saying his number was way too low. I also said his Sex and the City number was way too low as well. I knew in my gut that The Strangers would have an $8 mil Friday, at least I hoped. I have not seen it, and whether or not it’s crap, I will be seeing it along with Sex this weekend. Congrats on proving all the naysayers wrong. This is great news.

  3. The Pope says:

    $26m in one day? Cue lame gynocological jokes about “biggest opening.”

  4. The Pope says:

    And that comment would have had merit had I not mistyped gynaecological.

  5. Dr Wally says:

    This opening means that a Sopranos movie is now surely inevitable, whether that’s or a good thing or not i don’t know. Still, i’m only surprised that people are surpsised at the size of the SATC grosses – among 25-35 women this movie is the equivalent of The Phantom Menace. And yes, Indy’s drop-off looks pretty steep, but hey, $300 million, easy. It’s day-by day grosses are nearly exactly that of POTC 3 at the same point last year.

  6. Actually, I’d bet that Indy gets a big uptick today and tomorrow, both because of the family friendly nature of this picture, and because young girls will likely end up buying lots of tickets for Indy 4 and sneaking into Sex And The City during the matinees.

  7. Bartholomew Richards says:

    I doubt a Sopranos movie is inevitable, as I don’t know if Chase would come back and the cast wouldn’t come back without him.
    Also, a Soprano’s movie would be lucky to get $26 mil in it’s first weekend, let alone it’s first day. Soprano’s sn’t the same type of show as SATC.

  8. waterbucket says:

    Indy was such a disappointment. My friend and I kept looking at each other because it was so corny and stupid. I could even hear an audible groan behind me from this guy every time Shia Labeouf does something annoying, which happens fairly often throughout. So I’m not surprised that the Sex ladies are killing Indy this weekend. Words of mouth must be pretty bad.

  9. Eirin Q says:

    Is this the beginning of a new trend, successful HBO shows being adapted into feature film form after they have ended ?
    The disappointing numbers of “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” was surely affected by the poor word of mouth though in my opinion, some of the hate was overexaggerated. The film had its failings (overabundance of CGI, Shia LeBoeuf’s tarzan number and Karen Allen being underused), but it wasn’t the outright disaster so many have claimed it to be, at least compared to the likes of the National Treasure films.

  10. sloanish says:

    OK. I’ll have a trilogy of The Wire on the big screen, all of them three hours long. And I’ll have a second helping of the two Deadwood movies that were promised. Thanks
    THE WIRE OWNS LEX’S ASS + HIS FRIENDS AND FAMILY

  11. EthanG says:

    The Strangers has the best trailer of the year??? Are we that desperate for a decent horror flick?? I will admit that it has a decent trailer for a film that’s been sitting on a shelf for the last year and a half, but you’ve got to be crazy if you think this trailer is better than say…Wall-E, The Dark Knight or The Fall.

  12. sickofbashers says:

    Don’t make the mistake of assuming this means more HBO shows could be tapped (meaning more male heavy machismo oriented films, great). Maybe the
    Sopranos would do some of this business…but not the others. The success of SATC is about an untapped market of women — and NOT just older women. I can confirm the appeal of this spans to college age and younger. Maybe what should be looked at is more of the “chick lit” books that have strong fan bases haven’t been turned into movies…if 1/100th of those became movies, they still would not be close to the number of comic book adaptations! The big (obvious) lesson of this success should be women and money and are more than willing to pay to go to theaters to see movies if there is something there for them to see. And by the way, don’t discount the performance of Made of Honor as an indication of this either!

  13. EthanG says:

    On a lighter note, how depressing is it that What Happens in Vegas, not taking into account home market or ancillary revenue, may be just as profitable for the studio as Iron Man and Indy given their distribution deals??? The flick figures to bank close to $75 million domestically on a $35 million budget, and could shockingly hit $200 million worldwide.
    So much for the boo birds who said Cameron Diaz’s career was on the rocks, despite the fact the film sucks.

  14. mutinyco says:

    I remember coming across one episode in particular a number of years ago. It was immediately apparent that the exteriors had been shot while the foliage was green — but that the green had been telecined to a ridiculously vibrant, over-saturated confection of yellow and orange. The faux autumn served no dramatic purpose. It was simply an aesthetic for the sake of aesthetic.
    And that always seemed an apt metaphor for the series.

  15. Crow T Robot says:

    I’ll take “How many Hillary Clinton supporters can you fit into a theater on Friday?” for a thousand, Alex.

  16. IOIOIOI says:

    [Checks soul and love of Marion Ravenwood] Yeah… KOTCS rules. The disillusionment over this flick really goes to show that there is a generation of men out there, who are the movie-going equivalent of Vince Carter.

  17. sloanish says:

    I was joking/wishing about The Wire and Deadwood. It was hard enough to get people to watch them at home. That said, having more Wire would contribute a hell of a lot more to the fabric of society than Sex will.
    IO, I don’t understand the Vince Carter reference. Are you saying you’re an asshole if you don’t like Skull? Because if that’s the case, I am a raging gigantic asshole. Watch Raiders again and tell me you thought Skull was worthy.

  18. jeffmcm says:

    Well, I watched all three again, and Skull is worthy. It’s made by a different director than the guy who made the three films in the 80s and it has its flaws, but it’s still a good time and he knows how to craft his visuals.

  19. jeffmcm says:

    But yeah – calling people assholes if they have a different opinion is kind of the definition of an asshole.

  20. machiav says:

    Anyone who compares an Indy sequel to Raiders at this point, is an asshole.

  21. Dr Wally says:

    “The disappointing numbers of “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” was surely affected by the poor word of mouth though in my opinion, some of the hate was overexaggerated. The film had its failings (overabundance of CGI, Shia LeBoeuf’s tarzan number and Karen Allen being underused), but it wasn’t the outright disaster so many have claimed it to be, at least compared to the likes of the National Treasure films.”
    I don’t think ‘so many’ have claimed KOTCS to be an ‘outright disaster’ at all. The Tomato-ometer is a very healthy 79%. Cinemascore is a solid B. Box-office is booming, the sophomore Friday burn-off notwithstanding. Where, preceisely, is the ‘hate’ you speak of? By any rational measure, the movie is a roaring success. Have the rantings of a few thousand posting on AICN and it’s ilk now become the barometer by which me measure how a movie is being received? In that case, everyone bar Guillermo Del Toro and Robert Rodriguez may as well take their ball and go home. Whether you like Crystal Skull or not, it’s actually been received far better than your average megabucks Summer franchise picture out in the real world. Oh, and i wonder if the way Iron Man is holding is driving the Hancock people crazy, or if they think it will make people keener to see another superhero movie.

  22. doug r says:

    Raiders was a carefully made homage to action serials made with love.
    Crystal Skull was a spotty movie with some good scenes shot by guys who got lazy with the CGI.
    Raiders came out in 70mm, you could see the dust bouncing off Indy’s coat when he’s running down the hill. They actually discarded the mine/cart sequence and cut a fight that didn’t make dramatic sense. The climax was done with practical effects and works great.
    There is NO sense of mass with the flying debris at the end of Crystal Skull, at times there’s a Vaseline-like glow with the outdoor shots, but the motorcycle sequence was worthy at least.

  23. jeffmcm says:

    I don’t think they actually hired ghosts for the climactic sequence.

  24. Jimmy the Gent says:

    It must not be forgotten that movies like Superman II, Raiders, Manhunter, and Batman were 35mm movies that were blown up to 70mm for special engagements. That would mean there’d be A LOT of grain in the image. The 6-track soundtracks were impressive, but blowing up 35mm images is almost always not worth it.
    If memory recalls, the effects shot in Spielberg’s Close Encounters of the Third Kind were shot in 70mm to reduce the chance of the images losing clarity.

  25. JohnBritt says:

    The TV show I would like to see adapted for the big screen is Friends. I think it could do big numbers. Those actors would sign up I’m sure.

  26. Tofu says:

    I don’t think ‘so many’ have claimed KOTCS to be an ‘outright disaster’ at all. The Tomato-ometer is a very healthy 79%. Cinemascore is a solid B. Box-office is booming, the sophomore Friday burn-off notwithstanding. Where, preceisely, is the ‘hate’ you speak of?
    Rotten Tomatoes is at 77%, and 64% with the user’s. At a 7.3 on imdb.com, and lowering everyday. Releasing an Indy movie on Memorial Day weekend guaranteed $150 million, and a $300 million finish. Box Office is not a metric of quality, unless legs are found.

  27. jeffmcm says:

    Legs are not a metric of quality either.

  28. jeffmcm says:

    A ‘practical’ effect is an effect completely performed on a set. Since the ghosts were composited in after shooting, they weren’t ‘practical’.
    The faces melting and exploding would count as practical. The lightning and ghosts, not so much.

  29. jeffmcm says:

    Yes, I know I’m parsing terms. Sorry.

  30. doug r says:

    Alright, but they DID have a woman on wires, apparently.

  31. jeffmcm says:

    At least we know the truck chase scene, unlike the chase in Crystal Skull, was all stuntmen and cars.

  32. sloanish says:

    machiav, there’s nothing wrong with comparing a sequel to the original. Some sequels are comparable, a few are better.
    If you are comfortable slumming and accepting inferior sequels, that’s your deal. Calling someone an asshole because they’re not going compromise their standards reveals a lot about your taste.

  33. Hallick says:

    “Don’t make the mistake of assuming this means more HBO shows could be tapped (meaning more male heavy machismo oriented films, great).”
    God damn it, sickofbashers – don’t you start jinxing me here! We need that “Lucky Louie” movie and we need it NOW.
    (wow – when you see yourself with your tongue actually in your cheek, it looks like you’re…ummm, nevermind)

  34. brack says:

    I’d settle for a second season of Lucky Louie. I’m serious, the show was pretty darn funny.

  35. sickofbashers says:

    how about a “comeback” movie? or maybe taxicab confessions: the movie?…

  36. mattn says:

    “At least we know the truck chase scene, unlike the chase in Crystal Skull, was all stuntmen and cars.”
    Really, who cares how they do it? What’s that line about how the movies only have to *look* real, they don’t have to *be* real? I think this is at the level of a fetish. It’s fair to knock CGI if it looks fake (as some still does), but as long as I can’t tell the difference, I couldn’t care less.

  37. doug r says:

    The problem is, most of us can tell the difference. The best use of CG that I’ve seen has got to be Once Upon A Time In Mexico. Robert Rodriguez had his principal actors doing their own stunts hanging off the hotel. They were cabled up, of course with cranes and scaffolding. The support was digitally removed and looked great of course.
    CGI should not be a crutch, it should advance the story or do something that would be prohibitively expensive or dangerous.

  38. “The Strangers has the best trailer of the year??? Are we that desperate for a decent horror flick?? I will admit that it has a decent trailer for a film that’s been sitting on a shelf for the last year and a half, but you’ve got to be crazy if you think this trailer is better than say…Wall-E, The Dark Knight or The Fall. ”
    Granted, I haven’t seen the trailer for The Fall, but Wall-E and The Dark Knight? Really? They were good (I did really like Wall-E‘s, yes, but not really for how it worked as a trailer) but the trailer for The Strangers had the “it” factor as demonstrated by what could turn out to be a $20mil opening weekend during a season that is notorious for making horror movies flop. It turned a movie that, as you yourself mentioned, had been sitting on the shelf for over a year and that could’ve languished with a blah $5mil opening and turned it into a hit. That is the mark of a great trailer, moreso than – for me, anyway – just showing a lot of images from a movie I am anticipating anyway.
    That bit with the axe and the jumping record was, as I like to call it, a movie making moment. The bit that sells a movie and makes you go “yup, I’m gonna see that”. Add that to the bit of the hooded man appearing behind Liv Tyler in the kitchen, plus that final dialogue exchange (“because you were home”) and you got yourself an amazing trailer. I imagine the trailer for The Dark Knight wasn’t needed to convince people to go see it or not.

  39. Rob says:

    Oh my God, I would kill for a Comeback movie. Dreamworks made a deal with Michael Patrick King, they should use him for that.

  40. IOIOIOI says:

    I have no reason to explain anything to a group of people who will ignore any given explanation. The thing of it is: YOU CANNOT TELL THE DIFFERENCE! Please stop this bullshit about being able to tell the difference with CGI. CGI is so fluid now. You most likely have no idea that you are seeing it when you are seeing. Please do not state to me or anyone else, that an OPTICAL GHOST has more SUPPOSED WEIGHT than a CGI ALIEN. Get the fuck out of here with that absolutely conflicting logic.
    CGI IS NEVER A CRUTCH. The flicks you daffy bastards believe use it as CRUTCH, feature as many practical or model effects as CGI. Seriously, the mind-boggling bullshit people come up with to justify their whacky belief systems. Never ceases to fucking amazes me.
    Sort of like this BULLSHIT right here; “If you are comfortable slumming and accepting inferior sequels, that’s your deal. Calling someone an asshole because they’re not going compromise their standards reveals a lot about your taste.” REVEALS WHAT MOTHERFUCKER? DOES IT REVEAL THAT I FINALLY GOT INDY AND MARION IN A MOVIE TOGETHER, AND IT MADE ME HAPPY? Does it reveal that I like whacky prarie dog bits of business and a dude screaming out a Wilhelm scream? Seriously, I am not a fuck hater, and do not get your HATER fucking ways. I will never ever get being hater, and remain glad that cynicism has not rotted me from the inside out.

  41. IOIOIOI says:

    Sorry for getting so damn riled up, but some of this shit wigs me out. Also… the 13 crystal skulls is apparently based in some sort of reality. The Mitchell-Hedges Skull is real. While there is another that told it’s owner it goes by the name of “MAX”, and heals people. Yep. This movie is SO GOOFY. Motherfuckers base something in some sort of archeologist knowledge, and people act as if it’s unrealistic. Yep. HATERS: HATING SHIT FOR NO GOOD REASON SINCE 1999!

  42. For those calling the deathknell to Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Finke is reporting that it upped 60% and is neck-and-neck with S&tC on Saturday.

  43. sloanish says:

    IOIOIOIO, my comment about slumming was for the guy that attacked me, not you. I have a lot of friends who felt the same way you do about Indy, but at the end of the day that movie was about nostalgia. It does not stand on its own, it stands on the other movies. If you had started with 4, I doubt you would be excited about any other Indy movies.
    Regarding me being a HATER…I used to rail against other people who I thought were cynical about movies. I could see good in any movie. I understand what you’re saying. I don’t know anything about you personally, but for me age, experience and seeing a lot of fucking movies has changed the way I look at film. In my view, calling Indy dogshit is not cynical, it’s just calling it out for what it is. And since we have one movie on record to show what a great throwback to serialized movies looks like (Raiders), I don’t think I’m off base in doing it.

  44. jeffmcm says:

    Yeah, but calling Indy 4 ‘dogshit’ isn’t ‘what it is’, it’s hyperbole. Call it a movie with a bad script, call it a movie with too much CGI, but leave ‘dogshit’ for the movies that really deserve it.
    And IOI, calm down. Getting so incredibly angry about ‘haters’ is kind of ironically self-defeating.
    And I like the movie too, and yeah – it was a lot of very visible CGI.

  45. Geoff says:

    Fantasy Moguls is projecting a 25% drop for SATC on Saturday, which shows it is very front-loaded – now a $60 million opening, this weekend, which is still impressive.
    Indy surged 60% on Saturday, now saving its weekened – it will probably still have a strong chance at $300 million.
    What truly surprises me, just for yesterday’s grosses, is that Iron Man is on its way to doing around $14 million, this weekend – just under a 30% drop from Memorial Day Weekend?? This film just has amazing legs, never heard of such a small post-holidy weekend drop. It will be running about $60 million ahead of Indy, today – any one besides me think it has a shot of being Number One for the summer? That would be an upset, for sure.

  46. Considering both The Simpsons Movie and The X-Files had multipliers of 2.4, I think it can be expected that S&tC will have the same.
    The lower friday number for Indy should probably be put down to people not wanting to go to the cinema on the opening night of S&tC.

  47. movieman says:

    …is Disney’s “High School Musical” going to open as huge as “S&TC” this October? I bet the Mouse House would love to get that thing into theaters while the kiddies are still out of school on summer vacation.
    Speaking of October releases, am I the only one who’s more than a tad skeptical that Oliver Stone could really have “W” ready by October 17th? The whole time frame–from pre-production; the actual shooting; and the typical post-production hell–seems wildly askew. And if it is finished just in the nick of time to meet that October release date, you can be sure that press screenings (“No guests permitted!”) will be down to the wire.
    As intrigued as I am to see Stone’s take on our fearless leader, can anyone really imagine “W” doing any business at all? Bush-bashers won’t go anywhere near it, and W’s “base” are likely to be so turned off by “pinkie-liberal-commie” Stone that they’ll surely boycott it. Seems like a lose/lose commercial proposition all around. Sure, it’ll reap scads of free publicity in the op-ed pages: so did “The Death of a President” two years ago, and we all know how well that did. Yeah, yeah, I know: “W” is directed by an Oscar-winning, brand-name auteur, and stars lots of familiar faces–none of whom has ever “opened” a movie before–but still. Considering how poorly every Iraq-themed movie (except “Fahrenheit 9/11”) has fared, is there even an audience for Stone’s film? “Recount” (a terrific movie btw!) flopped so badly on HBO last Sunday nite (only 1,000,000 viewers: ouch!) that they might as well have ran an “In Treatment” marathon in its place.
    And, since I’m topic-hopping here, did anyone happen to catch EW’s Sydney Pollack obit in which “The Way We Were” was referred to as “part screwball comedy” (?!) Sort of makes you wonder whether the writer even see the movie.
    Is “TWWW” the best post-“Casablanca,” pre-“Titanic” star-crossed Hollywood love story? You bet! But a “screwball comedy” (even “part”-ially)? Not on your life.

  48. Nicol D says:

    As for SATC…I have no desire to watch this mind numbed trash but after seeing Kim Catrall on a talk show the other day I must ask the question…for how much longer do we have to indulge this bloated, botoxed woman’s fantasy that she is still sexually desirable? Sheesh. Rue McLanahan on the tap dancing episode of The Golden Girls provided more masturbatory material. Don’t deny it!
    Although…if SATC sequels keep up for another 5 years can we then just rename it The Golden Girls: The Next Generation?
    Perhaps the great Bea Arthur can make a cameo. No?

  49. The Pope says:

    Nicol D.,
    “How much longer do we have to indulge this bloated, botoxed woman’s fantasy that she is still sexually desirable?”
    Whether you like it or not, “Catrall” as you misspell her name, represents a rather potent demographic. And as long as their is an audience / market, so she and her three NY gal-pals shall remain.
    It is exactly the same as the Indy boys… now men.
    I have seen both (so I am in a better position to judge than you), and I would say that the flaws in both films are pretty much the same: plotting, dialogue, pacing and cosmetics.
    Get over yourself and your misogynist bile.

  50. The Pope says:

    “And as long as their is an audience”
    Apologies. Pot and kettle.

  51. Nicol D says:

    “Get over yourself and your misogynist bile.”
    Heh, heh. Threw you into a wee spot o’ a Sunday mornin’ hissy fit, huh love?
    I mis-spelled Kam Caterals name? Who. Cares.
    Now go see if you can pass a law banning criticism of SATC you twit.
    Oh and…
    “And as long as their is an audience / market, so she and her three NY gal-pals shall remain.”
    should read “there”.

  52. Joe Straat says:

    But when, WHEN is Catrall doing Mannequin 3: The Final Conflict?!
    “Switcher, you’ve been a sick puppy for the LAST time….”

  53. Joe Straat says:

    Sorry, “Cattrall.” I only do this as a fellow person with two double letters in their last name.

  54. The Pope says:

    Nicol D.,
    “Go see if you can pass a law banning criticism of SATC you twit”.
    Why would I want to do that? I myself criticized SATC saying that its problems stem from plotting, dialogue, pacing and costmetics (Revlon etc., in SATC and CGI in Indy 4).
    And while I will try not to be so hubristic in future, I did also call myself on the spelling issue (re: pot and kettle?).
    I think though that a lot of the stong reaction to SATC is pretty much what a lot of women feel when they are confronted with the media saturation of Transformers or any other film that is aimed predominantly at men, young men, and teenage boys. They feel excluded. Like a lot of men do when confronted with the media barrage of SATC. SATC consolidates its own demographics and so is really no different from Transformers et al. Especially when you consider the gorging on clothes is pretty much the same thing as gorging on gadgets and gizmos.

  55. Chucky in Jersey says:

    Weekend estimates are up: “S&TC” at $55.74M, Indiana Jones 4 at $46M.
    A week ago Saturday there were no long lines for IJ4. Last night there was a long line for “S&TC” and a much shorter line for IJ4 — and the megaplex I went to didn’t even need rent-a-cops.
    There were no sellouts for IJ4 on its first Saturday night. There were plenty of sellouts for “S&TC” last night with a healthy spillover into “Vegas”.
    All in all it tells you that when a Chick Flick catches on it shows up the Liberal Media as bigoted and biased. Scott McClellan can smile at that.
    Memo for movieman: Disney has locked in “HSM3” for an October release. HBO dumped “Recount” on a holiday weekend when few people were watching TV.

  56. movieman says:

    I’m aware of the October “HSM” date, Chucky:
    just a little puzzled as to why Disney wouldn’t prefer an August/”Step Up” bow when tykes, tweeners and teens are all still out of school and can buoy the midweek figures.
    Not entirely sure whether I buy your theory that HBO was dumping “Recount” last weekend. They’ve traditionally premiered some of their more prestigious (i.e., Emmy/Golden Globe bait) made-fors on M-D weekend: “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee” last year; the LBJ movie with Michael Gambon and Alec Baldwin in ’02; and (not positive about this, but pretty sure) Fred Schepisi’s “Empire Falls” starring Paul Newman.
    Damn! Sorry to see “Indy 4” get that Saturday/Sunday boost! I was really hoping that (deservedly) tepid w.o.m. would have put the kibbosh on its chances of ever passing “Iron Man.” Now I’m not so sure. Pretty remarkable that a middlng film almost nobody loved could outgross a terrific movie that almost everybody (except: talk about your strange bedfellows! Dave and Armond White) agrees totally rocked.
    And it looks like the swift drop-off for “S&TC” after Friday’s rock ’em/sock ’em opening is a pretty good indicator that the movie won’t have “Prada”-ish legs. Again, too bad.
    I’m really impressed at the marketing job Universal did on “The Strangers” to earn a $20-million-plus opening weekend: especially considering how long the movie sat on their shelf.
    Lost in all of the “S&TC” excitement (or disdain, depending upon your p.o.v./gender bias) is the thudding failure of “Prince Caspian.” At this point, it’ll be lucky to match HALF of “Narnia”‘s cume domestically. (I’m assuming that it’s doing marginally better in Europe, though, correct?)
    “Speed Racer” finally chug-a-lugged past $40-million this weekend: hurrah!!! Talk about a movie that got royally screwed by a less-than-optimum release date.

  57. movieman says:

    …and how sweet is it that “S&TC” nearly matched the entire domestic cume of “The Golden Compass” in THREE FRIGGING DAYS!

  58. IOIOIOI says:

    SATC struck this weekend. Next weekend… the Panda and the Zohan… take those ladies out at the knees. While Indy and Tony keep on smiling at the bank. Also Mr. McMahon, it’s outrage and not anger.

  59. yancyskancy says:

    Well, we opted for The Foot Fist Way this weekend, and liked it a lot. Saw it at the Arclight in a rather sparsely populated afternoon screening.
    There sure were a lot more well-dressed women than usual milling around the lobby. Wonder what that was about? 🙂

  60. christian says:

    “CGI is so fluid now. You most likely have no idea that you are seeing it when you are seeing.”
    Except when we do, which is all too common these days.
    Nobody bought that Shia was jungle surfing with monkeys — cept maybe you and the other ten year olds. But putting your rage in caps does give weight to your “logic.”

  61. jeffmcm says:

    IOI, it reads like frothing madness.

  62. IOIOIOI says:

    No it does not, jeff. I get email from people telling me that they love those posts. They also get them — unlike you — and understand it’s not “frothing madness.”
    You and I simply do not communicate the same way. You can turn that into a slam if you want Jeffy, but I am intentionally not unleashing on you in an attempt to try to be respectful to your statement. Which is another way of you trying to insult me for not being like you. Not posting like you do. Sorry there Jeffy Mac. Some of us actually put some umph in our statements. Excuse a brother for being able to bring it — as they say — how it should be brought.
    Oh yeah, Christian, Joe Biden has one word for ya; “BULLSHIT!”

  63. Joe Leydon says:

    IO and LexG: Additional evidence, if you need it, that Iron Man OWNS this summer.
    http://movingpictureblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/just-how-cool-is-iron-man.html

  64. “Perhaps the great Bea Arthur can make a cameo. No?”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMLITlAA0QM

  65. jeffmcm says:

    IOI, I’m sorry, and I mean you no disrespect, I merely think you’re insane.

  66. IOIOIOI says:

    Jeff: you have absolutely ZERO BASIS for that statement. The fact that you think you do. May reveals more about your mental stability than mine.

  67. IOIOIOI says:

    I did not need the MAY above, but you should get the point. It’s absolutely ridiculous that you or anyone could make such a statement based on post to a blog about movies and the movie business.
    You do know Bright Boy, that many people would find us posting to this blog a bit daffy. They would wonder why a bunch of outsiders and non-industry professionals spend there time bitch and moaning about one subject or the other. Do you actually going around telling people that you POST ON THE HOT BLOG? Probably not.
    So you keep on being a fucking huge asshole on the forum. You may be a decent chap in real life. On this plain… however… you are a gigantic fucking douchebag who would rank rather highly on any “GIGANTIC DOUCHES OF THE INTERNET – BLOG POSTERS EDITION” list.
    Again you simpleton. You stay to your side of the blog. I will stay to mine. Unlike Lex… I do not bend… chum.
    Now let’s see if your whacky ass can leave will enough alone. If not; who gives a shit? I have stated my peace. Time to move on.

  68. jeffmcm says:

    It’s spelled ‘wacky’.

Quote Unquotesee all »

“But okay, I promise you now that if I ever retire again, I’m going to ensure that I can’t walk it back. I’ll post a series of the most disgusting, offensive, outrageous statements you can ever imagine. That way it will be impossible for me to ever be employed again. No one is going to take my calls. No one is going to want to be seen with me. Oh, it will be scorched earth. I will have torched everything. I’m going to flame out in the most legendary fashion.”
~ Steven Soderbergh

I feel strongly connected to young cinephile culture. The thing about filmmaking—and cinephilia—is that you can’t keep hanging out with your own age group as you get older. They drop off, move somewhere. You can’t put together a crew of sixty-somethings. It’s the same for cinephilia: my original set of cinephile friends are watching DVDs at home or delving into 1958 episodes of ‘Gunsmoke,’ something like that. The people who are out there tend to be young, and I happen to be doing the same thing still, so it’s natural that I move in their circles.

In terms of the filmmaking, there was a gear shift: my first movies focused on people around my age, and I followed them for three films. Until The Unspeakable Act, I was using the same actors, not because of an affinity for people at a specific age, but because of my affinity for the actors. I like to work with actors a second time, especially if I don’t feel confident casting a new film. But The Unspeakable Act was a different script, and I had to cast all new people. Even for the older roles, I couldn’t get the people I’d worked with before. But when it was over, the same thing happened: I wanted to work with Tallie again in the worst way, and I started the process all over again.

I think Rohmer did something similar around the time of Perceval and Catherine de HeilbronnHe developed new groups of people that he liked to work with. These gear shifts are natural. Even if you want to follow certain actors to the end of their life (which I kind of do) the variety of ideas that you generate makes it necessary to change. And once you’ve made the change, you’ve got all these new people around.”
~ Dan Sallitt