MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Friday Estimates: Disney Can’t Quite Open Non-Superhero Pooh, Lionsgate Dumps Spy By Mistake, Fox Goes Dark

Friday Est 2018-08-04 at 9.05.21 AM

29 Responses to “Friday Estimates: Disney Can’t Quite Open Non-Superhero Pooh, Lionsgate Dumps Spy By Mistake, Fox Goes Dark”

  1. EtGuild2 says:

    Enough hasn’t been said about the catastrophic collapse of Lionsgate openers this year. Domestically, they are down 55% since last year, and are back to pre-Summit acquisition gross levels with their good performers (Tyler Perry) mirroring what they used to be as well. On this trajectory, STX will be the premier mid-major in a year or two.

    And yeah, Fox has simply given up pre-merger. I feel for Shane Black’s PREDATOR. The studio just isn’t trying.

    Will be interested to see if MI:6 can match ANT MAN 2 domestically. I’m thankful it’s ahead internationally…I like both but not every tentpole should be a superhero.

  2. Dr Wally Rises says:

    That’s a freaking champ of a hold for MI:F, and very well deserved. It will leave Ant-Man in the dust and get a new high for the franchise, at least domestically.

  3. Sideshow Bill says:

    MI:F was so freaking good. I’ve been watching Tom Cruise movies that I’ve missed all week. Jack Reacher tonight. I am very very anti Scientology, especially after reading GOING CLEAR, but it’s his life. The guy is still a star.

  4. EtGuild2 says:

    @DrWally that’s a bold statement considering Ant-Man 2 is $10 million ahead of it through two weekends and has an average -40% drop in the subsequent three weekends. Then again, there’s no August competition so I think MI:6 wins, but it certainly doesn’t leave Ant-Man “in the dust.”

  5. movieman says:

    Glad the D’Souza is tanking.
    Wish “Eighth Grade” was doing better.

  6. JS Partisan says:

    Ant-Man and the Wasp doesn’t even have a Chinese date. Once it gets that? Add another 100m, and you once again have a movie about a guy and gal who shrink, that’s made 500M dollars. That’s pretty solid.

    And yeah, MI-6 isn’t a fucking Raid movie. There’s nothing more insane to me, than people acting like 80s set pieces and a 56 year old dude beating the shit out of himself, is better than the Raid movies. It’s just…

    One more thing: not every comic book movie has to be a tent pole, but guess what? Tom Cruise’s demo is old, and the Predator demo is just as old or older. There’s an entire generation of kids, born in the late 90s, and what is MOVIES to THEM are comic book movies.

  7. EtGuild2 says:

    @JS if we’re talking about MI vs Ant Man worldwide, MI dominates in almost every market…

  8. JS Partisan says:

    Ethan, when you need to make close to 800m to cover cost, from your star injuring himself. You’re not winning. You’re not even close to winning.

  9. EtGuild2 says:

    800m? Where did you get that? MI:6 is going to crush Ant-Man worldwide and be happy for it. Cruise isn’t demanding $200M for his injury. This is FAKE NEWS.

  10. Sideshow Bill says:

    So you’re saying my reaction to MI:F was false? Not genuine? That I’m lying or my brain was lying to me as I enjoyed the fuck out of it, JSP? I don’t understand.

  11. JS Partisan says:

    Bill, if we are discussing action films in the 21st century, and people are stating they are better than the Raid movies. Well, I simply disagree with that sentiment, and wasn’t referring to you in particular, Bob. It’s more the entertainment press/twitter, that seemingly is ignoring the most insane action films from this century. Hell. Mile 22 looks more edge of your seat than anything in Fallout, but it is what it is. I simply… disagree.

    Ethan, it’s been reported in the press, that the insurance cost alone made the cost of the production double. It’s funny, that you can spend the same amount of money, and can get a 2bn dollar movie. Again, outside of the goodness or badness of the movie, Fallout is an eventual success. It’s just not a success right now.

  12. GdB says:

    Anyone else catch the continuity error in Avengers:IW with Tom Holland’s hair in the scene on the spaceship when Parker and Stark have the talk before saving Strange? Most of the scene its slicked back, then on one of his closeups, its dry and hanging over his forehead. I wonder why/how they missed that? Not a big deal at all. Just a little jarring every time it happens as per usual with continuity errors.

  13. dinovelvet says:

    a new high for the franchise, at least domestically.

    Technically, yeah, but factor in inflation and it’d have to make almost $400 million to compete with the first two MIs! It’s funny everyone trashing MI2 these days, but people forget how massive it was at the time. Here, I cut and pasted the boxofficemojo stats representing adjusted totals:

    1 Mission: Impossible Par. $379,570,500
    2 Mission: Impossible II Par. $370,473,000
    3 Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol $246,468,600
    4 Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation Par. $219,012,100
    5 Mission: Impossible III Par. $189,688,000

  14. Sonny Hooper says:

    JS you do realize that the insurance actually covers the cost of having to shut down for eight weeks while Cruise recovered, right? That’s how insurance works. And the cost didn’t double. The reported actual budget is around $180 million. Not nothing, and certainly the highest in the franchise. With the insurance covering the additional $60-70 million.

  15. Sonny Hooper says:

    As for it being better than The RAID, that’s a matter of opinion, obviously. I haven’t seen Fallout. But The Raid is a very specific fight-centric action movie with the flimsiest of storylines. Still a terrific visceral experience, but I can easily see people – of any age – preferring something g with more story, more variety of action sequences, bigger stars, etc. It’s hardly a stretch.

  16. Triple Option says:

    For me, when it comes to action films, classification is a big deal. M:I Fallout, The Raid:Redemption, Transformers 3, The Avengers and Predator are all films heavily reliant on action. Miss:Imp is an espionage thriller. Its progression is based on uncovering a mystery and solving a plot. The length Cruise’s character goes through, those intense action sequences, make the movie. I can’t say the plot for The Raid is any more complex than Trans3 but just adding more action and more explosions just made for overkill and a long bloated miserable experience in the case of the later.

    The Avengers had a story and characters you cared about. Like the first Trans. There really wasn’t much story in Predator but it still managed to be riveting. Also, some cool lines. I think many of the superhero films over the past 14 (has it been that long??) years have really benefited by having more complex stories and why the gen pub hasn’t grown tired of them because they’re not the same ol’ same ol’ all the time. I think there were a lot of complaints abut one of the Miss:Imp films having a too complex (convoluted) plot. I don’t generally have a problem following what is going on but I may question why some things are necessary and that takes a lot away from my enjoyment of a film.

    I really enjoyed the franchise installment Predators. It made the distinction very early on that it wasn’t a film about plot or reason just survival and I thought was executed very well.

    I suppose the tl;dr version of this post would be apples to oranges in action films. Predator and The Raid, great examples of what can be done in a straight action film w/minimalist plot. As much as I loved X2 and M:I Fallout, and would recommend any of the four just mentioned for someone wanting to see a good film with a lot of action, I’d still follow up with questions like, “Do you like superhero films? Do you get squeamish over violence? Do you just want to shut your brain off and watch?” cuz those qualifiers could make a serious difference.

  17. Bulldog68 says:

    A couple of us “old” guys, age range 45-60 like action films, and we have done the unspeakable, seen all MI movies, and seen all Marvel movies. And for the most part, liked em both. Shocking.

  18. Triple Option says:

    I have been wondering if Mission:Impossible Fallout hasn’t benefited from its contrasting live stunts to the plethora of cg superheroes feats. On the one hand, I had remembered that Cruise did his stunts like scaling the needle in Dubai and hanging on to the cargo net outside of the plane and I found those films to be…alright. But I found more of an appreciation for the skydive sequence and him trying to climb up into a helicopter this time around. Maybe just shot and edited to show him being a badass as opposed to it being real but then have it look like anything else with a green screen so you just don’t care?? Was it one too many times seeing someone crushed by a falling skyscraper or steamrolled by a semi and still knowing the character will survive that desensitized any fear of death?

    There’s obviously a safety issue to consider in enlisting extravagant stunts but to me it shows you don’t need the totally made up to be thrilled and engaged, just merely the impossible.

  19. movieman says:

    “Raid 2″ is freaking phenomenal.
    But I love “M:I–Fallout,” too.

    Took a spill this morning. There were lots of cuts, gashes and blood, but a shoulder injury (dislocated? fractured?) brought me to urgent care. After three-and-a-half hours, a physician’s assistant–apparently there are no MDs there on Saturdays–still couldn’t ascertain (from two series of x-rays) whether I’d broken my collar bone, dislocated my shoulder…or not.
    And he couldn’t even write me a prescription for a pain killer (which I desperately need: opioids be damned!), only a steroid. Which so far hasn’t helped a whit.
    G-damn. I keep finding new ways to hurt myself.

  20. JS Partisan says:

    Movieman, if it’s your collarbone. Your neck will feel it’s just hovering there, because collarbone injuries fucking suck. Get better though, man. Seriously.

    BD, again, I can be confounded by the Raid films being excluded from action film talk. Also, I don’t really consider comic book films action films. That’s just me in case you missed it :D!

  21. Glamourboy says:

    Movieman, dude, take care of that injury and get better…..a lot of us, myself included, really count on your feedback here.

  22. Geoff says:

    JS, I’m not disputing how mind-blowing both Raid films were but that’s just such a weird qualifier – yes MI:F has gotten gobs of praise for how great the action is but mainly just from comparing to other big budget studio blockbusters, not something like The Raid or any more obscure recent films starring Donnie Yen. I have seen and read tons of highly positive reviews but not one saying it was better than The Raid.

    That said, I really dug it myself….I don’t think it was as good as ‘Ghost Protocol or ‘Rogue Nation, but it was pretty strong – I think worldwide, it’s going to demolish Ant-Man & and the WASP….but that’s more on Disney’s release strategy than competition from outside the studio. I liked Ant-Man 2, actually enjoyed it more than the first one…and if you had asked me a couple of months ago, I thought it had an outside shot at a billion with $800 mill worldwide as the absolute floor so yeah having to rely on China AGAIN for an Ant-Man film to nudge over $500 million and just break even, I have little doubt that Disney/Marvel was leaving money on the table – they opened it three weeks after The Incredibles, what did they expect??

    And as for MI:F’s box office, $800 million worldwide is looking very possible…and that would be a highwater mark for the franchise and Cruise…but it’s pretty obvious at this point: Cruise as a DOMESTIC draw clearly has a ceiling that he’s not likely to ever crack again for the foreseeable future. With the reviews and buzz this film had leading up to opening, $61 million felt like a let-down….and that’s on Cruise for better or worse.

    I get why they promote his stuntwork acumen as a selling point for these movies but at the end of the day, they’re then making these films ALL about CRUISE which is keep some audiences away – tearing apart the absurdity of Scientology (ask Leah Remini) has become a bigger business than promoting it nowadays, I can’t see how that doesn’t drag his brand down a bit….he’s basically a pseudo-cult leader or at the very least the figurehead for a very sketchy cult – short of him publicly leaving and speaking out against Scientology, I don’t see that stain (and a deserved one in my opinion) on his reputation ever going away no matter how many funny talk-show appearances or smiley interviews he gives.

    So if Paramount is smart and they actually want to keep Mission Impossible a running franchise, they might want to reconsider transitioning the reins over to Jeremy Renner…or hell why not, Rebecca Ferguson!

  23. Greg says:

    from Variety

    With a $178 million production budget and a promotional and distribution price tag that hovers around $150 million, sources close to the studio and at rival companies estimate that the sixth installment in the spy franchise will need to pull in $560 million in order to get into the black. Some competitors think the figure that “Mission: Impossible” needs to make is even higher, approaching the $650 million range.

    These are achievable results given the past track record of films in the series. “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol” boasts the biggest haul with $694.7 million globally. Its follow-up, “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation,” fell slightly short of the fourth iteration, generating a nevertheless robust $682.7 million worldwide. If “Fallout” hits either figure, it will be in the clear.

  24. Hcat says:

    Disney finally goosed Panther over the 700 mil mark. Over a thousand percent increase from last weekend. Lots of pent up inetrrest apparently

  25. JS Partisan says:

    Okay, so it needs more like 600m. And it should be Ferguson. She’s never getting a comic book movie, so they might as well make the IMF about her and a new team, that would be different.

    Hcat, they had to do it. They just had to do it.

  26. Stella's Boy says:

    I like the idea of The Swedish Nightingale getting her own spinoff or taking over. She’s great.

  27. Christian says:

    Looks like “Doctor Dee” fell off a cliff in week 2, which is, sad to say, well deserved for that sub-par entry.

  28. leahnz says:

    + 1 for ferguson (the perfect opportunity to diversify, and it’ll never happen)

    your ER sounds shit movieman, hope your bones heal

  29. BestRiley says:

    I see you don’t monetize your blog, don’t waste your traffic,
    you can earn additional bucks every month. You can use the best adsense alternative for any
    type of website (they approve all websites), for more info simply search
    in gooogle: boorfe’s tips monetize your website

The Hot Blog

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