MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Friday Box Office Estimates

180217 box

24 Responses to “Friday Box Office Estimates”

  1. JSPartisan says:

    Wakanda Forever.

  2. movieman says:

    “Double Lover” is terrific fun and should be doing A LOT better.

    “Loveless” is a masterpiece, and my favorite of the five Oscar-nominated foreign language films.

    Once upon a time both would be selling out right and left at big city arthouses.
    Sad that neither can make any box office impression whatsoever in 2018.

  3. Stella's Boy says:

    Saw a trailer for Loveless before I, Tonya today. Looks really bleak and depressing. I’m sure it’s very good but it looks like quite a downer. JS is that enough money to make you believe Trump voters are seeing it?

  4. Ray Pride says:

    “Downer.” Ha. Director said he updated Bergman’s “Scenes from a Marriage…” but made it more demolishing.

  5. movieman says:

    Hey, SB: Bergman’s “Cries and Whispers” was a bleak, depressing downer and arthouses went cuckoo for it back in the ’70s, lol.
    (Ditto “Scenes from a Marriage” a few years later: still the single greatest film ever made about, yes, marriage, even if it was originally made for TV.)

    “Double Lover” is lip-smackingly decadent, deliciously over-the-top movie-movie fun. No excuse for specialized auds not checking it out.

  6. Christian says:

    “Loveless” is amazing.

  7. Joe Leydon says:

    Remember: Cries and Whispers had Roger Corman behind it. No joke: Corman notes in his autobiography that he even got it booked into drive-ins, much to Bergman’s amusement.

  8. brack says:

    lol @ Stella’s Boy

  9. JSPartisan says:

    SB, go see the movie. Trust me: they aren’t seeing it :D!

    Movieman, but few people have critic choice options in this country in 2018. It sucks, but those films should have always been streaming centric, because those types of films play anywhere. The experience is the experience, rather you are in a theatre seat, or in your bed.

  10. movieman says:

    I was surprised that “Double Lover” opened on three screens in the Cleveland (yes, Cleveland) market. It was clearly spread too thin: a miscalculation on Cohen Media’s part.

    Yes, I realize that it’s a Brave New World for exhibition (if you can call streaming on Netflix “exhibition”).
    Just commenting that it’s a shame when movies as good as “Loveless” and “DB” don’t find an audience.

    Speaking of which: poor “Early Man”! Lionsgate sure picked a bad date to open the new Aardman.

  11. Stella's Boy says:

    What’s so funny? I saw a trailer for the first time and noted the movie looks bleak. Just an observation. Never said it looks bad or that I have no interest in it. Loveless wasn’t on my radar until about a week ago. JS the numbers suggest they are seeing it.

  12. Bulldog68 says:

    Movieman, somebody at Lionsgate needs to be fired for that shit. BP isn’t a surprise hit. The only question was how big. What kid in a family contemplating going to a movie this weekend and asked what they want to see would chose Early Man? There are so many weekends coming up between now and the May where they would’ve had some breathing room to give their movie a fighting. Stop Motion animation is already a difficult sell as it is, and it’s like they just sent this one to the slaughter.

  13. movieman says:

    Yeah, Bulldog. I get that they wanted to avoid “A Wrinkle in Time,” but seriously?!? Not helping matters are the “Peter Rabbit” legs.
    Late April would have been a preferable date for Aardman.

  14. Dr Wally Rises says:

    I see your point, but it’s not an exact science. A modest animation can still scoop up quite a bit of secondary business from families who are sold out of a blockbuster and don’t want to waste the trip. Let’s not forget that Ferdinand just made a quietly impressive $90 million opposite Star Wars. So it’s not that Early Man never stood a chance this weekend, but other factors came into play.

  15. JSPartisan says:

    SB, and the movie puts a pie in their face.

    The thing with Early Man could be, that most Americans aren’t Anglophiles anymore. I have no idea why, but it seems like British stuff doesn’t connect. Which is sad, but Early Man will probably find success at him, and that may have been the point in the first place.

  16. Spassky says:

    “It sucks, but those films should have always been streaming centric, because those types of films play anywhere. The experience is the experience, rather you are in a theatre seat, or in your bed.”

    Bullshit. Any film can “play anywhere” going by your criteria. Attention, focus– these are things that cinemas demand; not bluster, and underlit liemax screens. I for one have to see a movie like loveless in a theater. its the entitled, loud, rude geriatrics who go to an arthouse and treat it like their living room that is ruining this kind of exhibition– people who can afford to make their living room look like a cinema.

  17. movieman says:

    I’ve had more problems with Millennials than seniors making multiplex auditoriums into their own personal living rooms.
    The incessant texting (“See my brightly illuminated i-Phone everyone!”) and chatting has completely gotten out of hand.
    As if the interminable “pre-show”s with their endless commercials and trailers (that you’ve already seen a dozen times) weren’t enough of a mood-breaker to help ruin the theatrical experience.

  18. Bodhizefa says:

    I’d like to posit that trailers are an antiquated practice, movieman. One thing theaters could do to really help themselves attract more moviegoers is to not have half an hour of trailers/commercials before the film begins and to simply start the film proper at the advertised showtime. I don’t want my time wasted by trailers I have already seen weeks or months prior on my computer/iPhone. Why are theaters still showing trailers? By the time we leave the theater, trailers have already vanished into the ether of everything that isn’t the next new thing on our phones.

  19. Bulldog68 says:

    I don’t think trailers at the theater are antiquated. And according to some data I’ve seen, only 11% see movies at least once a month. Significantly less go more often.
    About 28% are a few times per year, so to lots of them, the trailers aren’t things they’ve already seen over and over. It’s also a great way to market a smaller movie in front of a lot eyeballs that people may not generally seek out. It’s the damn commercials that are the annoyance, and not to mention the price of the fucking popcorn. When a popcorn and a soda cost more than the fucking movie, no wonder film attendance is down. I actually don’t think that people are less interested in movies. Heck all the available viewing options prove that people want to see movies. For a family, going to the theater used to be a cheaper form of entertainment, now it’s an outing that has to be budgeted for as opposed to the afterthought it used to be.

  20. movieman says:

    I’m old enough to remember when the prospect of maybe seeing one trailer (“Our next attraction!”) before a movie was genuinely exciting.
    Now it’s (multiple) soft drink commercials, car commercials, TNT (the network) commercials and eight-twelve trailers, most of which I’ve already seen multiple times.
    I’m exhausted/cranky before the movie proper begins.

    “simply start the film proper at the advertised showtime”?
    What a quaint notion!
    Or at least list two start times: one for the “pre-show;” one for the actual movie.
    Since most theaters allow you to pre-pick your seats, that would be a win-win for the consumer.
    P.S.= Totally agree about obscene concession prices, Bulldog. That’s why I haven’t bought anything–besides a ticket–at a theater in years. (Notice I didn’t say “brought,” lol.)

  21. Ray Pride says:

    Roger Corman was a visionary distributor.

  22. Triple Option says:

    Speaking of trailers, for the ones who saw Black Panther, did any of your audiences boo the Venom trailer? Some did at mine. What’s that about? Is something being bastardized? The unnecessity of it all? It didn’t seem like a fun booing of the villain like you do in dinner theater or when the raiduhs file out of the tunnel onto the field. Any ideas?

  23. Stella's Boy says:

    When I saw it the audience seemed more confused than anything. No booing. I heard several people whisper to someone next to them “Oh it’s Venom.” Not sure what yo make of that trailer. Didn’t really grab me or get me excited about the movie. Also Ant Man 2 looks dreadful.

  24. Pete B says:

    I think the distinct lack of Venom in the Venom trailer caused the booing.

The Hot Blog

Amblinman on: BYOBlog

Sideshow Bill on: BYOBlog

leahnz on: BYOBlog

leahnz on: Friday Estimates - Felt Falls To GlamAsians

Bulldog on: BYOBlog

Stella's Boy on: BYOBlog

Sideshow Bill on: BYOBlog

Sideshow Bill on: Friday Estimates - Felt Falls To GlamAsians

Sideshow Bill on: BYOBlog

Sideshow Bill on: Friday Estimates - Felt Falls To GlamAsians

Quote Unquotesee all »

“Ten years ago at Telluride, I said on a panel that theatrical distribution was dying. It seemed obvious to me. I was surprised how many in the audience violently objected: ‘People will always want to go to the movies!’ That’s true, but it’s also true that theatrical cinema as we once knew it has died. Theatrical cinema is now Event Cinema, just as theatrical plays and musical performances are Events. No one just goes to a movie. It’s a planned occasion. Four types of Event Cinema remain.
1. Spectacle (IMAX-style blockbusters)
2. Family (cartoon like features)
3. Horror (teen-driven), and
4. Film Club (formerly arthouse but now anything serious).

There are isolated pockets like black cinema, romcom, girl’s-night-out, seniors, teen gross-outs, but it’s primarily those four. Everything else is TV. Now I have to go back to episode five of ‘Looming Tower.'”
~ Paul Schrader

“Because of my relative candor on Twitter regarding why I quit my day job, my DMs have overflowed with similar stories from colleagues around the globe. These peeks behind the curtains of film festivals, venues, distributors and funding bodies weren’t pretty. Certain dismal patterns recurred (and resonated): Boards who don’t engage with or even understand their organization’s artistic mission and are insensitive to the diverse neighborhood in which their organization’s venue is located; incompetent founders and/or presidents who create only obstacles, never solutions; unduly empowered, Trumpian bean counters who chip away at the taste and experiences that make organizations’ cultural offerings special; expensive PR teams that don’t bring to the table a bare-minimum familiarity with the rich subcultural art form they’re half-heartedly peddling as “product”; nonprofit arts organizations for whom art now ranks as a distant-second goal behind profit.”
~ Eric Allen Hatch