MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Friday Estimates by He Better Hope There Isn’t A Recording Of the Box Office Before He Estimates Klady

Friday Estimates 651w 2017-05-13 at 8.42.34 AM

Oh Guardians, my Guardians…

The second volume isn’t maintaining the “50% improved over the original” pace of the opening, but it is still well ahead of the first and internationally, it has already three-quarters of the way to the entire international gross for the first film ($326m going into this weekend vs 440m for the full run of the original). Given that, it is likely that V2 will come close to the total gross of V1 by the end of this worldwide weekend and it will pass it by next weekend (unless it somehow manages that feat by this Sunday).

Meanwhile, two new films arrived, neither encumbered in any way by Guardians’ haul this weekend… and both are as soft as a penis Amy Schumer would make into a gag about her not being attractive enough. (She is plenty attractive, but careeer-wise, should probably stop jumping between denying it and overstating it.) Ironically, the entire idea of King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is that it is rock hard. (I know… pushing the metaphor too hard… damn, did it again by mistake!) The male gaze upon the male is the least of KA’s problems.

There is a legit difference between these films. King Arthur will, unless saved by international, lose a bunch of money. Snatched, which I assume stayed under $50 million, will be breakeven or lose just a little. So a tale of two grosses that don’t lead to the same sadness.

Meanwhile, the #4 and #5 in the box office are both billion-dollar worldwide movies.

Not an interesting weekend. Paris Can Wait will be the exclusive-release representative in the $10k per screen club. Have a lovely Saturday. Enjoy streaming something!

12 Responses to “Friday Estimates by He Better Hope There Isn’t A Recording Of the Box Office Before He Estimates Klady”

  1. WB Exec says:

    Kong Arthur! A surefire hit crossover. Quick let’s greenlight it for summer 2022

  2. David Poland says:

    I kinda love that typo too. And the way things are going, Legendary might greenlight it.

  3. arisp says:

    I am beyond thrilled King Arthur tanked. More bombs will hopefully equal a little less IP raping.

  4. Js partisan says:

    Snatched, should have been, a Netflix exclusive movie. Seriously. Schumer, being a movie star, is an out of fashion idea, but her being a comedian, who occasionally does a fun little comedy on Netflix? Probably not.

    There is a dimension, where King Arthur succeeded, and I’m wondering how excited that dimension is… With NINE MORE FUCKING KING ARTHUR MOVIES! Here’s hoping, that they find that idea, ponderous…. Fucking ponderous.

  5. Dr Wally Rises says:

    Logan is on Digital HD and streaming already. That’s crazy. The theatrical window for major studio blockbusters has been shrinking and shrinking for the last few years now – given this and the fact that Netflix’s model is now attracting major stars like Brad Pitt and Will Smith, is widespread day and date for home viewing and ownership now an inevitability?

  6. Christian says:

    I can’t wait to see STALKER on the big screen at AFI Silver, and have been wondering if the big screen might help me better engage with the always-difficult-for-me SOLARIS. I’ll make that call the week SOLARIS plays AFI Silver, but based on these first-night reissue numbers, I’m thinking I’m far from alone in struggling with SOLARIS. (The remake put me to sleep – and I’m a big Soderbergh fan. This story just hasn’t clicked for me.)

  7. EtGuild2 says:

    Blumhouse-Tilt looks like it finally got what it wanted with its targeted release strategy; a near $10,000 per screen average in 295 theatres is pretty uncommon, especially for urban fare. Kudos.

    Roadside with THE WALL? Not so much.

  8. Sideshow Bill says:

    That small window, Dr. Wally, is part of what keeps me away from the theaters. I go and see the big stuff that I want to see but otherwise I wait, unless I have money burning a hole in my pocket. Even Get Out, as highly praised as it is, I waited on. And I’m a horror geek (I was also kinda broke). But now it’s there for me any night I want to watch and I waited barely 2.5-3 months.

    There was a gap between Logan and Guardians 2, the last 2 I saw in the theater. But I’ll see Alien, maybe Pirates and many others this Summer. Even so the Guardians 2 Blu Ray will probably be in my hands before my daughters go back to school in late August. It’s crazy. I remember waiting forever just to rent Gremlins on VHS.

  9. Geoff says:

    Dave any word on the overseas numbers for Alien Covenant as of yet?

  10. Movieman says:

    Does anyone know what’s happening w/ the New York Times film section?
    Scott and Dargis barely review anything anymore (the former reviewed “Snatched” yesterday;” the latter did “King Arthur” and Netflix’s Roger Stone doc).
    The rest was split up among their myriad (and largely interchangeable) freelancers. Come to think of it, I don’t even remember the last time I saw a Holden byline.
    Very odd. Since I’m assuming Scott/Dargis/Holden are paid a flat salary (vs. a freelancer’s fee-per-review), it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, financial or otherwise.
    Are they being phased out in favor of an all-freelancer-all-the-time film section? I know that seems inconceivable, but something very weird seems to be going on.
    Any inside scoop, Ray Pride?

  11. lujoc says:

    This has always been a puzzlement, Movieman. The Times hangs onto weird elitist assumptions about how hard its critics and columnists have to work, even as on the other hand they are laying people off. Scott and Dargis only review a couple of movies a week just as the op-ed columnists write only two columns a week. It makes no sense at all as a business model to employ 2.5 full-time film critics and then ALSO pay freelancers to review most of the movies.

  12. Movieman says:

    Lujoc: Glad someone else has noticed the weirdness in the NYT’s film section these days.
    Before 2017 Scott, Dargis and Holden reviewed a LOT more movies than they currently do.
    Their current “workload” (or lack thereof) is mind-boggling.
    Have to believe there’s a story there somewhere.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

“Roger Ebert claimed that the re-editing of The Brown Bunny after Cannes allowed him a difference of opinion so vast that he first called it the worst film in history and eventually gave it a thumbs up. This is both far fetched and an outright lie. The truth is, unlike the many claims that the unfinished film that showed at Cannes was 24 minutes shorter than the finished film, it was only 8 minutes shorter. The running time I filled out on the Cannes submission form was arbitrary. The running time I chose was just a number I liked. I had no idea where in the process I would actually be when I needed to stop cutting to meet the screening deadline. So whatever running time was printed in the program, I promise you, was not the actual running time. And the cuts I made to finish the film after Cannes were not many. I shortened the opening race scene once I was able to do so digitally. After rewatching the last 4 minutes of the film over and over again, somewhere within those 4 minutes, I froze the picture and just ended the film there, cutting out everything after that point, which was about 3 minutes. Originally in the salt flats scene, the motorcycle returned from the white. I removed the return portion of that shot, which seemed too literal. And I cut a scene of me putting on a sweater. That’s pretty much it. Plus the usual frame here, frame there, final tweaks. If you didn’t like the unfinished film at Cannes, you didn’t like the finished film, and vice versa. Roger Ebert made up his story and his premise because after calling my film literally the worst film ever made, he eventually realized it was not in his best interest to be stuck with that mantra. Stuck with a brutal, dismissive review of a film that other, more serious critics eventually felt differently about. He also took attention away from what he actually did at the press screening. It is outrageous that a single critic disrupted a press screening for a film chosen in main competition at such a high profile festival and even more outrageous that Ebert was ever allowed into another screening at Cannes. His ranting, moaning and eventual loud singing happened within the first 20 minutes, completely disrupting and manipulating the press screening of my film. Afterwards, at the first public screening, booing, laughing and hissing started during the open credits, even before the first scene of the film. The public, who had heard and read rumors about the Ebert incident and about me personally, heckled from frame one and never stopped. To make things weirder, I got a record-setting standing ovation from the supporters of the film who were trying to show up the distractors who had been disrupting the film. It was not the cut nor the film itself that drew blood. It was something suspicious about me. Something offensive to certain ideologues.”
~ Vincent Gallo

“I think [technology has[ its made my life faster, it’s made the ability to succeed easier. But has that made my life better? Is it better now than it was in the eighties or seventies? I don’t think we are happier. Maybe because I’m 55, I really am asking these questions… I really want to do meaningful things! This is also the time that I really want to focus on directing. I think that I will act less and less. I’ve been doing it for 52 years. It’s a long time to do one thing and I feel like there are a lot of stories that I got out of my system that I don’t need to tell anymore. I don’t need to ever do The Accused again! That is never going to happen again! You hit these milestones as an actor, and then you say, ‘Now what? Now what do I have to say?'”
~ Jodie Foster