MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Friday Estimates

Screen Shot 2017-11-04 at 12.53.10 PM

15 Responses to “Friday Estimates”

  1. Max S. says:

    Last Flag Flying did the same business on the same screen count as My Friend Dahmer? That either can’t possibly be right, or that’s really, really bad for the Linklater movie.

  2. JS Partisan says:

    So, that’s three 100m dollar openings, for Marvel Studios this year. Probably what? 2.4 billion from all three movies? Nice, and here’s to BAD MOMS 2… making some bank as well.

  3. Bulldog68 says:

    So unless Thor has terrible legs, which I don’t expect, comic book movies will be 4 for 5 with getting over $300m this year. And the one that didn’t reach that threshold was the R rated Logan. Let’s see if JL can keep that hot streak going.

  4. JS Partisan says:

    Here’s hoping JL just opens worth a damn, and isn’t thrown under the fucking bus. If I were a Warners exec. I’d be nervous as a motherfucker about JL opening. It’s not going to get a 94 RT score, it may not be as fucking funny, and it’s already has the entire mountain of the DCEU to overcome. Oy… just… oy.

  5. dinovelvet says:

    Assuming Justice League hits its bare minimum, 6 out of 10 of the highest grossers of the year will be superhero movies. Yay…?

  6. Dr Wally Rises says:

    And let’s not forget that many were positing that Call of Duty would hurt Thor a bit – I think you have your answer.

  7. Lynch Van Sant says:

    Lady Bird will have an $80,000+ per screen average challenging The Big Sick for current highest of 2017. I can see it being a similar word-of-mouth hit. And it still bugs me that Saoirse Ronan was robbed of Best Actress Oscar for Brooklyn. She’ll have a long and acclaimed career as the Kate Winslet of her generation.

  8. Bulldog68 says:

    “Here’s hoping JL just opens worth a damn, and isn’t thrown under the fucking bus. If I were a Warners exec. I’d be nervous as a motherfucker about JL opening. It’s not going to get a 94 RT score, it may not be as fucking funny, and it’s already has the entire mountain of the DCEU to overcome. Oy… just… oy.”

    And that’s the weird ass backward world we live in. Maybe we’re in the Upside Down. MCU’s movies open well, are reviewed way better than DC, have better legs, are considerably more fun, but yet DC generally opens bigger, (with few exceptions of course), drop like a stone, but still consistently hit that $300m mark.

    I don’t know whether JL should be nervous, or Thor should be worried that that JL may prevent it from hitting the stratosphere and merely keeping it as a good instead of great performer. After all, no matter what JL will open, and will take some of the dollars away from folks who may have wanted to sample Thor for a 2nd time.

  9. Pete B says:

    JL should open fine just because of Wonder Woman.

  10. Joshua K. says:

    I wonder if any viewers were confused by the fact that LBJ and LADY BIRD are opening the same weekend.

  11. Ray Pride says:

    Joe Leydon may have a joke.

  12. JoeLeydon says:

    I still think The Martian Manhunter has been seriously rooked by not being in the Justice League movie.

  13. Pete B. says:

    ^ Not to mention the promotional opportunities DC missed with Oreo cookies…

  14. palmtree says:

    JL looks considerably more fun than previous DC films and has the benefit of having everyone in it. It may not be Avengers money, but I’d think grossing lower than 300 is not a possibility.

  15. Dr Wally Rises says:

    Those sweet Thanksgiving weekend dollars should ensure that JL gets over $300 million. And yet the announced running time of 121 minutes is interesting. Either it curtails the tendency of the DC movies so far to be windy and lumbering (sorry but even the beloved Wonder Woman was a touch baggy at 140 minutes). Or it could be a Dark Tower-style hack and slash / too-many-cooks-in-the-kitchen fiasco.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

What do you make of the criticism directed at the film that the biopic genre or format is intrinsically bourgeois? That’s the most crazy criticism. That’s an excuse for not engaging with the content of the movie. Film critics sometimes, you know, can be very lazy.

Come on, formal criticism is valuable too. But I’m amazed when this is the thing they put in front of the discourse. My situation is that I’m dealing with a highly explosive subject, a taboo subject that nobody wants to deal with.

Karl Marx? Yes, this is the first film ever in the Western world about Marx. And I managed to make an almost mainstream film out of it. You want me at the same time to play the artist and do a risky film about the way my camera moves and the way I edit? No, it’s complicated enough! The artistic challenge — and it took me ten years with Pascal to write this story — was the writing. That was the most difficult part. We were making a film about the evolution of an idea, which is impossible. To be able to have political discourse in a scene, and you can follow it, and it’s not simplified, and it’s historically true. This is the accomplishment. So when someone criticizes the formal aspects without seeing that first, for me, it’s laziness or ignorance. There’s an incapacity to deal with what’s on the table. I make political films about today, I’m not making a biopic to make a biopic. I don’t believe in being an artist just to be an artist. And by the way, this film cost $9 million. I dare anyone in the United States to make this film for $9 million.
Raoul Peck on The Young Karl Marx

“The Motion Picture Academy, at considerable expense and with great efficiency, runs all the nominated pictures at its own theater, showing each picture twice, once in the afternoon, once in the evening. A nominated picture is one in connection with which any kind of work is nominated for an award, not necessarily acting, directing, or writing; it may be a purely technical matter such as set-dressing or sound work. This running of pictures has the object of permitting the voters to look at films which they may happen to have missed or to have partly forgotten. It is an attempt to make them realize that pictures released early in the year, and since overlaid with several thicknesses of battered celluloid, are still in the running and that consideration of only those released a short time before the end of the year is not quite just.

“The effort is largely a waste. The people with votes don’t go to these showings. They send their relatives, friends, or servants. They have had enough of looking at pictures, and the voices of destiny are by no means inaudible in the Hollywood air. They have a brassy tone, but they are more than distinct.”All this is good democracy of a sort. We elect Congressmen and Presidents in much the same way, so why not actors, cameramen, writers, and all rest of the people who have to do with the making of pictures? If we permit noise, ballyhoo, and theater to influence us in the selection of the people who are to run the country, why should we object to the same methods in the selection of meritorious achievements in the film business? If we can huckster a President into the White House, why cannot we huckster the agonized Miss Joan Crawford or the hard and beautiful Miss Olivia de Havilland into possession of one of those golden statuettes which express the motion picture industry’s frantic desire to kiss itself on the back of its neck? The only answer I can think of is that the motion picture is an art. I say this with a very small voice. It is an inconsiderable statement and has a hard time not sounding a little ludicrous. Nevertheless it is a fact, not in the least diminished by the further facts that its ethos is so far pretty low and that its techniques are dominated by some pretty awful people.

“If you think most motion pictures are bad, which they are (including the foreign), find out from some initiate how they are made, and you will be astonished that any of them could be good. Making a fine motion picture is like painting “The Laughing Cavalier” in Macy’s basement, with a floorwalker to mix your colors for you. Of course most motion pictures are bad. Why wouldn’t they be?”
~ Raymond Chandler, “Oscar Night In Hollywood,” 1948