Friday's Numbers (2/4)

[MadsenOMC]

From showbizdata:

1) BOOGEYMAN - $8.5 million
2) WEDDING DATE - $4.2 million
3) HIDE AND SEEK - $3.1 million
4) ARE WE THERE YET? - $2.8 million
5) MILLION DOLLAR BABY - $2.7 million
6) AVIATOR - $1.5 million
7) MEET THE FOCKERS - $1.5 million
8) SIDEWAYS - $1.5 million
9) COACH CARTER - $1.4 million
10) IN GOOD COMPANY - $1.2 million

[MadsenOMC]

Boogeyman did well, as expected. Maybe even a little better. Man studios are just selling the shit out of these horror flicks and people are eating them up, regardless of their quality. Boogeyman should make about $24-$26 million over the weekend, since there probably won't be any Saturday increase. Nice opening. How in the fuck did The Wedding Date do so well? That many people like Debra Messing? Ugh, that's depressing. Hide & Seek dropped 60% from last Friday. No shocker there.

[max]

How in the fuck did The Wedding Date do so well? That many people like Debra Messing? Ugh, that's depressing. Hide & Seek dropped 60%

Dumb chick flicks or wedding flicks or dumb wedding flicks bring out the dumb in chicks, I guess. As for HIDE AND SEEK, too bad, but it should still do around $10 mil., strong enough considering it only cost $30 mil. to make. I think both BOOGEYMAN (horror fans) and THE WEDDING DATE (chicks comprised 57% of Hide and Seek's audience according to Cinemascore) took the bite out of it. I know, I know, you're thinking bad word-of-mouth, but I highly doubt it would've done that badly if it weren't for those two films opening. Anyway, I'm staying as far away from the cineplexes as I could this weekend. Scary, scary crowds to be around.

[MadsenOMC]

Max, I highly respect your opinions. You seem like an intelligent movie lover. But come on man. Hide & Seek would have suffered a severe drop no matter what movies opened this weekend. I know you liked it, but you have to face the facts. The fact is, most people didn't like it. The fact is, critics tore it apart (which may not factor into opening weekend, but does down the road). The fact is, horror movies always suffer a severe second weekend drop, with very few exceptions. The Wedding Date did not hurt Hide & Seek. There's no fucking way. If Hide & Seek was a good movie that audiences liked, it wouldn't have dropped so drastically. It's as simple as that. I don't think Boogeyman even really hurt Hide & Seek. They have different ratings and are going after a different audience. Boogeyman is clearly aimed at teens while Hide & Seek is clearly aimed at adults. Face it, Max. It happens to all of us. At one time or another, we all have liked a movie that most people didn't and that didn't do as well as we'd like. Don't live in denial.

One final note. There is no way in hell that Hide & Seek cost only $30 million to make. I don't care what boxofficemojo says. De Niro alone got, what, at least $10-$15 million? I can buy $30 million not counting De Niro's salary. $45-$50 million seems just about right for it.

[max]

There's an article in last Friday's Wall Street Journal regarding Dakota Fanning. It mentions that both De Niro and Fanning took pay cuts and the film's budget was estimated at around $30 mil.. De Niro got $10 mil. up front and Fanning received a 6-figure amount, less than her usual $2 mil. salary. $30 mil. sounds just about right: no special effects, no car crashes, inexpensive supporting cast, shot in and around a house. Why can't you shoot it for that amount?

The Hollywood Reporter reported that exit polls show that 78% of those polled would recommend it. Box-office Mojo also did a poll and its readers gave it a B average. Those seem to go against your assumption that most people did not like it. Most of my friends liked it. I liked it and it's normal for one to wish others would too. But I'm in no more denial than you for thinking most people didn't like it because you didn't. Besides, who really knows which movies would click and which won't? No one expected HIDE AND SEEK to do as well as it's doing. The reviews and the pre-release buzz were pretty negative. Also, good movies aren't always popular and popular movies aren't always good. I'm assuming that you're assuming that most people did not like MEET THE FOCKERS, but it's made more than all the current Oscar nominees combined, the kind of movies I'm assuming that you're assuming most people would like.

But you know what? So what? It's only fucking movies.

[EDsoulsurvive*]

ugh i'm so pissed i contributed to the gross of boogeyman. when will a good horror movie come out to erase my memory of this trash and darkness??

[MadsenOMC]

Sorry, Max, but I'm not buying it. Spanglish cost $80 million for crying out loud. In case you haven't seen it, there are no car crashes and there's an inexpensive supporting cast. If De Niro got $10 million for Hide & Seek there is no way it cost only $30 million. But you're right, it has done better than expected. That much we can agree on. And for the record, mainstream audiences are extremely forgiving when it comes to their opinion on movies. A "B" grade is nothing to brag about. I don't care Hollywood Reporter exit polls say. I'll let the numbers speak, and they speak pretty loud and clear.

[Jon Lyrik]

Superbowl Sunday is going to hamper the weekend numbers somewhat. Usually registers drops of 60% on Saturday.

[ilovemovies]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
How in the fuck did The Wedding Date do so well? That many people like Debra Messing? Ugh, that's depressing. Hide & Seek dropped 60% from last Friday. No shocker there.

Actually, I'm not that suprised that The Wedding Date did well. Don't romantic comedies usually do well?

I'm curious to see how it will do next week. On the one hand, it is valentine's day weekend. But on the otherhand it will be up against the similar and MUCH better looking Hitch, which unlike The Wedding Date, has star power with Will Smith.

I don't The Wedding Date making money is anymore depressing than Boogeyman making money. Both look like crappy movies, but if I had to choose to watch one of them it would be The Wedding Date. It looks slightly less painful than Boogeyman to me.

Of coarse, I'm going to end up watching both of them anyway, just because I always try to watch everything, regardless of how good or bad they look.

[MadsenOMC]

It just seemed like The Wedding Date was being dumped to me. It didn't have a high theater count and the lead is Debra Messing, and not all TV stars prove to be big box office draws (David Schwimmer anyone?) so I wasn't sure that she would get people into the theaters. Plus, the "experts" were predicting a $5-$6 million opening, which seemed pretty reasonable to me. And no, not all romantic comedies do well. Where did you get that idea from? Fools Rush In. Win a Date With Tad Hamilton. Those come to mind immediately, and I'm sure there are plenty more.

[ilovemovies]

It just seems to me to be a genre, like horror, to be critic proof. I wasn't necessarily saying ALL romantic comedies do well. Neither do all horror movies do well. Alone in the Dark being the latest example.

[MadsenOMC]

Oh I agree with you that romantic comedies, like horror flicks, are critic proof. But The Wedding Date seemed destined for failure. Semi-wide release, unproven TV star and a really uninteresting trailer. Isn't Gold Circle behind it? With this and White Noise doing so well very early in the year, they must be through the roof. Probably low-risk investments they weren't expecting much from that have paid off handsomely.

[dellamorte dellamore]

You should know by now , don't underestimate the power of cheese , after all this time i thought you would have caught on .

[MadsenOMC]

Was that directed towards me? I don't remember you predicting an $11 million opening for The Wedding Date. And I see that you were a little off on Boogeyman as well. Of course I know cheese sells. I certainly don't need you to remind me. I don't think many were expecting TWD to do this well. I'm hardly alone. And since I don't recall you making a prediction for The Wedding Date, you are in no position to talk smack.

[MadsenOMC]

Weekend Estimates:

1) Boogeyman - $19,500,000
2) The Wedding Date - $10,994,000
3) Are We There Yet? - $10,400,000
4) Hide and Seek - $8,900,000
5) Million Dollar Baby - $8,770,000
6) The Aviator - $5,445,000
7) Meet the Fockers - $4,970,000
8) Sideways - $4,800,000
9) Racing Stripes - $4,426,000
10) Coach Carter - $4,400,000

[ilovemovies]

Sigh. Crap like Boogeyman and The Wedding Date do ok, but a really cool, kick ass action flick like Assault on Precinct 13 isn't even in the top 10 anymore? :(

[Moviefan02000]

Both Boogeyman and The Wedding Date had good openings, after seeing The Wedding Date's Friday numbers, I'm a bit disappointed it didn't open with a bit more.

Are We There Yet, Million Dollar Baby, The Aviator, Sideways, Meet the Fockers, Racing Stripes, The Phantom of the Opera, Finding Neverland, Being Julia, Bad Eductation, Hotel Rwonda, and surprisingly Ray all had pretty good holds.

Hide and Seek, White Noise, and especially Alone in the Dark had terrible holds. The drop for all of them are expected though, especially for Alone in the Dark because most places it's at night only showings.

[dellamorte dellamore]

Man , those were huge drops . And Mad , you take everything so personal , all i'm saying is , you still get surprised when something you don't think looks that good does good at the box office , cheese sells , there is no way around it , even total garbage , which is what Wedding Date looks like , and so many others that have been released in this new year . I way overestimated Boogerman ( that's nothing new ) , but after Friday's numbers , it did seem as if it would have done better . Personally , i expected more . Same goes for Wedding Date . I didn't make any predictions for that , but after it's Fri. take , that one should have done better . Ah , no matter , i don't want to see either one in the theater , they are instant rental material , who knows i may even like one or both .

[MadsenOMC]

My expectations for The Wedding Date had absolutely nothing to do with my perceived quality of the movie and had everything to do with the fact that it was essentially being dumped in 1,500 theaters with little P&A and had an unproven TV star as the lead. Simple as that. I am perfectly aware of the fact that cheese sells. That should be obvious. I shouldn't even have to point that out.

[The Heart Collector]

... Madsen, he wasn't seriously saying "OH MAN, I CAN'T BELIEVE 'OLE MADSEN OVER HERE HASN'T REALIZED THAT CHEESE SELLS. HERE, I'M GOING TO SHOVE THE FACT THAT CHEESE SELLS RIGHT INTO THIS LITTLE FACE". He was just making a general comment dude, lighten the hell up.

[MadsenOMC]

I don't need to lighten up at all. He said "after all this time i thought you would have caught on." Are you telling me there was zero condescension and/or snideness there? And how do you know what he intended? And what does it have to do with you? Why so quick to attack me and defend him? Little puzzled by that. I did nothing wrong and take back nothing I said.

[The Heart Collector]

If by "condescension or snideness" you mean "lighthearted poke", then sure. What else did he need to do?

Here, lemme fix it:

You should know by now , don't underestimate the power of cheese , after all this time i thought you would have caught on .wink wink

[max]

My expectations for The Wedding Date had absolutely nothing to do with my perceived quality of the movie and had everything to do with the fact that it was essentially being dumped in 1,500 theaters with little P&A and had an unproven TV star as the lead.

Didn't Universal use the same strategy with IN GOOD COMPANY, which is still playing and doing ok despite being "dumped" in only 1600 theaters? I don't think it's dumping. Both are low-budget films which don't require very wide releases to recoup its money back.

[MadsenOMC]

I don't think you can compare The Wedding Date and In Good Company. One was a pick up and one was made in studio, for starters. Also, In Good Company received plenty of promotion, had a significantly larger budget and investment from Universal and was released in NY and L.A. before January to qualify for Oscar nominations. I'd say they are two completely separate situations with nothing in common save for playing in a similar number of theaters.

Heart Collector, I'm not sure why you're venturing to guess what dd meant in his post. You really have no idea. dd and I have history. Maybe you're right. Either way, I'm over it. Water under the bridge.

[max]

I don't think you can compare The Wedding Date and In Good Company. One was a pick up and one was made in studio, for starters. Also, In Good Company received plenty of promotion, had a significantly larger budget and investment from Universal and was released in NY and L.A. before January to qualify for Oscar nominations. I'd say they are two completely separate situations with nothing in common save for playing in a similar number of theaters.

Fine. I'm merely saying that you can't always equate dumping with theater count. Or film quality with dumping. Or film quality with theater quantity. You can dump a film that sucks (BOOGEYMAN) into 3000 theaters for a quick buck. I can see why the studio opted for a narrower release for THE WEDDING DATE. You see this done time and again with chick flicks. Releasing them in fewer theaters means they could keep the theaters longer if they open well or if word-of-mouth is good. Unlike teens or kids, women don't rush out to see films on opening weekends. Also, you don't want to spend any more on prints and advertising on a cheapie like THE WEDDING DATE than you have to. If that's what you mean by dumping, then I'm with you.

[max]

Sorry, Max, but I'm not buying it. Spanglish cost $80 million for crying out loud.

Well, I don't know how much Adam Sandler got paid. But SPANGLISH also had a more expensive writer/director in James L. Brooks, a more expensive composer in Hans Zimmer, a more expensive cinematographer in John Seale, just a more expensive crew in general. I suppose it's to HIDE AND SEEK'S credit that a movie this cheap could look so good.

[MadsenOMC]

As for The Wedding Date, I see what you're saying Max and I agree. You can't just say a movie is being dumped solely because of its theater count. But I do think The Wedding Date was more or less "dumped" into theaters, hoping to make a little $ around Valentine's Day before scampering off to video.

Assuming that Hide & Seek cost $30 million (which I still don't buy; the crew difference you pointed out doesn't account for $50 million) how is it impressive that it looks decent? If a $1 million looks good, that is impressive. Not a moderately budgeted effort from a major studio.

[max]

Assuming that Hide & Seek cost $30 million (which I still don't buy; the crew difference you pointed out doesn't account for $50 million) how is it impressive that it looks decent? If a $1 million looks good, that is impressive. Not a moderately budgeted effort from a major studio.

I thought maybe you were impressed since you can't seem to wrap your mind around the idea that it only cost $30 mil.. MILLION DOLLAR BABY cost $30 mil.. FINDING NEVERLAND cost $25 mil.. Why do you buy that? Each features an A-list cast and crew. Come to think of it, it's more unbelievable to me that SPANGLISH cost so much. To put it another way, if you don't believe HIDE AND SEEK's reported budget, why should you believe SPANGLISH's when both reports come from the same internet sources?

[dellamorte dellamore]

Some of these films are made in Canada , less taxes , less government interference , less permits , less union " shakedowns " , it makes some sense that some of these films are being made on the cheap , by major studio standards .


The Grudge only cost 10 mil to make , and even if i feel it wasn't great , excellent , somehwat , i guess , that film did look pretty damn good . It was made in Japan , prob would have cost 60 - 70 mil to make over here .


A big budget example is the LOTR trilogy , it cost around 300 mil to make all three , it would have been double that to make it in the States , prob more .

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by max
To put it another way, if you don't believe HIDE AND SEEK's reported budget, why should you believe SPANGLISH's when both reports come from the same internet sources?

Good point. I am puzzled as to how Spanglish cost $80 million. I find that a little tough to believe. I find them both difficult to believe. And studios are not entirely truthful about how much their movies cost, so I wouldn't put much faith into them (or Internet sites for that matter).

That's true dd, but Hide & Seek was filmed entirely in the state of NY.

[dellamorte dellamore]

If it was made in NY , then i don't believe that number , unless it was made outside of Manhattan or the outer boroughs ( Queens , Brooklyn etc.. ) , then maybe that number could be at least close to right . They could have easily rented a house upstate for a decent fee , and made almost the entire film there . If they made it in Manhattan , forget it , that would have skyrocketed the budget .