Cannes: Another Jewelry Heist? $2.6M Necklace Missing After … 
‘Hangover III’ With Weak $11M Wed/Thurs Kicks … 
Hammond On Cannes: Leo DiCaprio’s Moon Trip Tops … 
Specialty B.O. Preview: ‘Before Midnight’, … 
2012-2013 Season Network Rankings: CBS Sweeps In Final … 
Full 2012-2013 TV Season Series Rankings 
TOLDJA! Paramount Pocketing $190M From Disney For Marvel … 
‘Good Morning America’ Hits 19-Year Viewership … 
MGM Buys ‘Modern Family’ Producer Ben … 
‘Fashion Police’ Writers Chant On Picket Lines: … 
Universal Makes Seven-Figure Deal For ‘The School For … 
Steven Soderbergh Will Interrupt Retirement To Direct And … 
Cannes: EOne Announces Itself As Player In U.S. … 
Will LIN TV Stations Go Dark On Time Warner Cable? 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Modern Family’, ‘Law … 
Hammond On Cannes: Paramount’s ‘Nebraska’ … 
Hot Trailer: Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s ‘Don … 
Hammond On Cannes: A New Day Comes To The Fest As HBO and … 
Cannes: Fleming Reflects And Finds Talented Trio A Breath … 
Hot Trailer: ‘Man Of Steel’ 
CBS Wins Season & Ties Sweep In Demo; ABC Tops Adults … 
SATURDAY PM/SUNDAY AM, 3RD UPDATE: After some initial uncertainty, 
this was indeed the comeback weekend that finally ended Hollywood’s extended 2011 slump at the North American box office. Because after a weak Friday, most of these pics grossed stronger on Saturday. The overall total is around $134 million, 11.7% ahead of last year’s $119M. Meanwhile, this weekend Twentieth Century Fox’s Rio 3D posted the best G-rated family pic opening since Toy Story 3, The Weinstein Co’s Scream 4 whimpered, Warner Bros’ Arthur slipped still more, FilmDistrict’s Insidious and Soul Surfer stayed strong, and Robert Redford’s The Conspirator debuted #9 in the Top 10 despite playing in only 707 theaters:
1. Rio 3D (Fox) NEW [3,826 Theaters]
Friday $10.2M, Saturday $17.1M, Weekend $40M, Global $168M
Twentieth Century Fox’s Latin-flavored toon Rio 3D already is #1 internationally with after opening in 92 territories and a premiere in Rio De Janeiro. With this weekend’s $53.5M earned overseas from 20 territories adding to its already $79.2M from 72 territories last week, plus domestic tally of $40M, its worldwide cume is now $168M. It finally opened in the U.S. and Canada Friday and earned a top “A” CinemaScore as well as the top spot. Made by Brazilian director Carlos Saldanha as a tribute to his hometown’s natural beauty and upbeat lifestyle, the bird flew past the studio’s mid-$30s target and even Hollywood’s $38M projections. With not many schools out Friday, Saturday’s kiddie matinees overperformed. Made for just a $90M budget because of tax breaks in Connecticut where Blue Sky Studios is based, the pic is playing in 3,826 theaters, of which 2,591 are 3D with higher ticket prices. Still, many made the point that Rio should have made a lot more than 2D Hop‘s $37.5M opening. (Hop‘s budget was under $65M.) Which once again raises the question whether moviegoers and especially families are willing to pay the premium for 3D. Still, it’s yet another win for Blue Sky Studios, the digital animation house wholly owned by Twentieth Century Fox and responsible for the blockbuster Ice Age franchise films. ”We have always managed to make our animated films for much less and because we are based back East, we don’t succumb to the West Coast animation arms race that escalates prices,’ a 20th exec tells me. Marketed as a comedy-adventure about a domesticated Macaw taking a walk on the wild side, Rio has a voice cast including Anne Hathaway, Jesse Eisenberg, Jemaine Clements, Leslie Mann, Tracy Morgan, will.i.am, George Lopez and Jamie Foxx; and music by award-winning Brazilian producer Sergio Mendes and composer John Powell. Blue Sky’s productions include Robots (2005) and Dr. Seuss’ Horton Hears A Who.
Rio‘s world premiere took place in Rio De Janeiro on March 22 with people singing and sambaing all night long. Sergio Mendes and Carlinious Brown played a concert afterward, while Jamie Foxx and Taio Cruz rocked out. As one Fox exec recalls: ”It really was a cross cultural explosion, with the movie as a metaphor for the creative melting pot of pop culture. Really hip, but really heartfelt at the same time. Most of the audience had tears in their eyes at the end.” That same day, Fox and Rovio launched the much-hyped “Angry Birds Rio” app. The toon also made Super Bowl commercial history when the 30-second Rio commercial became the first ever to air with an embedded code. That code directed them to a special level and to a Rio sweepstakes. Twentieth Century Fox lined up an impressive list of promotional partners including creative and non-traditional alliances like Overstock.com, Benjamin Moore, McDonalds, and Chiquita. Eschewing traditional package goods tie-ins for family films, Fox and Overstock created a boutique inspired by Rio showcasing a variety of products themed to the movie and its personalities. This was Benjamin Moore’s and Chiquita’s first motion picture partnerships. Fox and McDonalds took a somewhat more traditional promotional approach, though the fast food restaurants mounted giant branded beach balls atop its roofs. Key international promotional partners included Nestle Cereals, Ferrero Chocolates, Chupa Chups, Oreo (turned cookies blue), Duracell, The Gap, Peugeot, etc.
2. Scream 4 (Miramax/Dimension/Weinstein Co) NEW [3,305 Theaters]
Friday: $8.2M, Saturday $6.6M, Weekend $19.2M, Global $49.2M
Before Scream 4 was released this weekend, tracking indicated an opening in the mid- to high $20sM for this 4th film in the Scream franchise which comes 11 years after the 3rd film. But after Friday’s so-so debut and Saturday’s declining grosses, it won’t make even the lower end of predictions. The Miramax/Dimension/Weinstein Co’s 15-year-old Scream franchise kept the formula that made it so popular in the first place — including producer/director Wes Craven, screenwriter Kevin Williamson who bailed mid-production because of Weinstein meddling, and orignal castmembers Courteney Cox, David Arquette, and Neve Campbell — then added Hayden Panettiere and Emma Roberts (Julia’s niece and Eric’s daughter). Maybe the entire concept should have been reworked. The result is that Scream as a franchise has little life left in it domestically even though the Weinsteins kept insisting that it had a lot. Overseas, it earned an estimated $18M across 30 territories releasing day & date this weekend.
3. Hop (Universal) Week 3 [3,608 Theaters]
Friday $2.3M, Saturday $5.2M, Weekend $11.1M, Cume $82.6M, Global $112M
The little fella is heading to $115M domestic all in. Now, let’s look at international, which shaped up as a feathers vs fur box office battle dominated by pre-Easter family films Rio and Hop. Not every foreign land has a tradition of an easter bunny (let alone one that poops jelly beans). Hop grossed another $10.3M from 45 territories for a new foreign cume of $29.4M. But it still trails Rio almost everywhere. As a Universal rep admits to me, ”Rio is outperforming us, in part because of the higher 3D ticket price. The above examples show that family films are dominating the international box office. There is room in the marketplace for two family films and Hop is holding its own against Rio.” Opening outside of school holidays almost everywhere, Rio took the #1 ranking in nearly every market’s debut, with several openings that were the biggest in their markets to date this year. Fox International co-presidents Paul Hanneman and Tomas Jegeus are even more hopeful with UK and Australia school holidays that began this week.
4. Soul Surfer (FilmDistrict/Sony) Week 2 [2,214 Theaters]
Friday $2.1M, Saturday $3.2M, Weekend $7.4M (-30%), Cume $19.9M
Look at that impressive word of mouth! And this is just one of FilmDistrict’s moneymakers in theaters now.
5. Hanna (Focus Features) Week 2 [2,545 Theaters]
Friday $2.1M, Saturday $3.4M, Weekend $7.3M (-41%), Cume $23.3M
A very decent hold for the little lady…
6. Arthur (Warner Bros) Week 2 [3,276 Theaters]
Friday $2.1M, Saturday $3.2M, Weekend $6.9M (-43%), Cume $22.3M
Yikes! Who else thinks Russell Brand will be lucky to star in a sitcom for the 2012-2013 TV season?
7. Insidious (FilmDistrict) Week 3 [2,233 Theaters]
Friday $2.3M, Saturday $3M, Weekend $6.8M, Cume $35.9M
Now this is a horror movie, and made for only $1 million by the Paranormal Activity people. Kudos to FilmDistrict president of theatrical distribution Bob Berney for continuing smart marketing and only a -27% drop from last weekend (and Soul Surfer staying strong…).
8. Source Code (Summit) Week 3 [2,557 Theaters]
Friday $1.8M, Saturday $3.1M, Weekend $6.3M, Cume $36.9M
9. The Conspirator (Roadside Attractions) NEW [707 Theaters]
Friday $1.1M, Saturday $1.7M, Weekend $3.9M
At first Robert Redford’s dramatic thriller about “the story you dont know about the Lincoln assassination” scripted by James Solomon (story by Solomon and Gregory Bernstein) couldn’t find a distributor. Then Howard Cohen’s Roadside Attractions saw the indie’s potential and stepped up for the highest profile acquisition title at the Toronto Film Festival, and now it exceeded box office gross projections despite a limited release. The pic went up 44% from Friday to Saturday, and is selling out matinees across the country. “Looks like we motivated an older audience to come out opening weekend, which is a big thing, for a $5,550 per screen average,” a rep for financier The American Film Cimpany tells me. “The movie came in at the high end of our expectations.” With classy stars like James McAvoy, Robin Wright, Kevin Kline, and Tom Wilkinson, plus Redford at the helm, there was thinking this was an Oscar pic. But there wasn’t time to get a campaign together for 2010′s race. No question this under-$25M budgeted film is nice inaugural success for TAFC’s planned series of historical American pics. TAFC is owned by billionaire Joe Rickets, founder of Ameritrade and owner of the Chicago Cubs. Which is why, on April 1st, Redford — star of The Natural – threw out the opening pitch at the Cubs game in connection with a premiere of the film in Chicago.
Redford fronted a huge PR effort for the film, ranging from a cool sepia-toned cover of Parade magazine this past Sunday which reaches 30 million homes, to the cast doing a full hour on CNN’s Piers Morgan talker, to a full-page Time magazine 10-question interview with Redford (with Lincoln on the cover of the magazine). And of course one of the pic’s premieres was at the Ford’s Theatre. Marketing was targeted to the over-25 audience, and a combo of heartland audience and high-end arthouse as well as history buffs and Redford fans. ”Our materials tested significantly above norm: people are fascinated by the Lincoln assassination,” an exec tells me. National Geographic aired a companion documentary on the subject this week that the filmmakers made. Next weekend, the film expands for another 300 runs. Greg Shapiro, Brian Falk, Robert Stone, Bill Holderman produced while Ricketts, Jeremiah Samuels and Webster Stone were exec producers.
10. Your Highness (Universal) Week 2 [2,772 Theaters]
Friday $1.2M, Saturday $1.8M, Weekend $3.8M (-58%), Cume $15.9M
What a complete flop. The last of the previous Universal administration’s losers.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
That’s low on Scream, perhaps TWC will recut it to PG13 and re-release ala King’s Speech.
How is a $30 million 2D opening low for a film budgeted around $40 million? Unlike Rio and 90 percent of the other movies out there, Scre4m won’t have a problem making a profit. The failure is Rio 3D doing the same business as Hop on almost 3,000 3D screens where the ticket prices are double.
When it’s 19 mil. Can you read at all? For Scream to fail to break 20 mil with all the advertising it has had is terrible. And no, it won’t make any money. It will lose a ton.
Here we go again with this nonsense. It isn’t terrible. It’s profitable. It’ll probably make a ton of cash in the end. Give it a rest with this crap.
You have to understand Bill’s agenda. His agenda is insist that nearly movie is a money-loser and this theme is in 99% of his posts; this guy just doesn’t like movies very much. Which puzzles me as to why Hollywood is still in business, if all movies are such losers at the box office.
A ton? Doubt it. Unless the movie does really well overseas. A $19 million opening for a horror film usually translates to between $45 and $55 million for total gross domestically. If the film cost $40 million (and the studio spent who knows how much on marketing?), it will lose money domestically. It will make its money back with foreign grosses and DVD. But it defininetly won’t make “a ton”.
Actually, you should give it a rest. Do you understand the first thing about how any business works? You seem to think if a manufacturer makes a chair for 50 bucks and the store sells it at 50 bucks he’s breaking even. Because obviously the chair magically appears in the store and the store itself doesn’t make any money. You’re a frigging idiot. Take a community college basic business class then come back on here and post. Until then go away.
because, Bill, even if it has a total cume only equal to its budget (although it will pass it easily in the end), there is also revenue from foreign release, dvd/blu-ray, selling television rights, etc. In the end this movie will make planty of cash.
@ rb
I love movies, dude. I just hate bad development execs who make crummy movies that lose money. And it’s not just me who says these films lose money. You just have to get off the posting boards where morons think grossing as much as your production budget means you make money.
And there are lots of films that actually do make money. The Wimpy Kid fims make money. Nicholas Sparks movies all make money. Bob Berney knows how to make money. Which is why he has done so well no matter where he goes. Pixar makes money even with their rising costs. What doesn’t make any money is when Hollywood buys a crappy book no one really read or worse yet one of the dreaded “Black List” scripts, package it with a non-star like Jake G., James Franco or the like, spend 40-60 mil on production, another 50-100 mil worldwide to distribute and then open wide and make less than 20 mil opening weekend. It doesn’t pencil out and the people who come on here and defend those films are usually working for the companies that make them, or fanboys who think the rest of us should support making the films that they like no matter how bad they do at the box office.
Your basic college business class / chair sales model rant is ridiculously flawed. A chair sale is one and done. A movie has MANY avenues – and years – to recoup costs and generate profits beyond its theatrical run. It’s entirely possible for a movie to not be profitable theatrically yet still ultimately make money for the studio. Try that with a chair and try taking a more comprehensive business class while you’re at it.
Don’t confuse Bill with facts. If Bill didn’t have his little rants on Deadline Hollywood, what else would he have in his life?
Bill, the commenter you responded to said $30 million because that was the earlier prediction on Friday. The post has since been revised to $22 million and now $19 million. This isn’t a print publication; articles can be edited on the fly. Welcome to the internet.
The guy posted at 8 PM Friday. This site had already reported that it was coming in at 19 or 290 by that time. So the poster either misread the article or just didn’t pay attention.
As for my chair analogy, it is just fine if you look at my other posts. I do know there are lots of income streams for movies. There are also lots of costs as well. Just as there are for any product. with movies there are distribution costs, print costs, publicity costs as well as production costs. There are others but let’s leave it at that. There are also things like filmmakers and actors who get gross points on their films and those costs are almost never mentioned except when an agent leaks them at the time of the deal to pump up their own position in town. For example, when WME made the insane deal between Paramount and Sasha Baron Cohen for his next movie. Somehow I doubt the suits at Paramount will be ringing up Nikki to mention that Cohen gets a percent of the gross as well if his movie bombs when it comes out next year. They’ll be talking about how they got tax credits and the film didn’t really cost that much.
As far as income streams go, there are many for film but not as many as you all seem to think. DVD is not good right now, although VOD is killing for some films. Foreign is great for animated films and anything with Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt. And American comedy not so much. And cable is not the gold mine it once was either. But the bottom line is this. If a film costs are way higher than it’s potential income then it is a flop even if it plays for a hundred years. And most of these films will lucky to be pulling in significant income a year from now.
So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
I have to reply here as the “Reply To This Post” link has been exhausted below.
Bill, one of the main issues I have with your commenting is that you pretend to know it all, but even after others have corrected your accounting, you seem to not even be phased.
Case in point is your assertion, week after week, that theater owners get 50% of box office grosses right off the bat. Exhibitors have commented here many times before that they do NOT get that kind of dough until the film has long run its course – we’re talking 5+ weeks in.
Studios recieve between 85 AND 95 PERCENT of the gross for most of a film’s run. I don’t know how many times this needs to be drilled into your head – do you even realize that just this accounting fact alone throws off 90% of your box office profitability estimates?
Dude, get a clue and stop posting bullshit.
Rio doesn’t need the US market. Their market is the rest of the world, and the US is just gravy.
In other words, Rio is a great example of the Hollywood’s global market reality.
Around $20mil low on Scream? I’m shocked it did that well. Talk about 0 buzz.
TWC will exaggerate the numbers. That’s the history
My personal fav was Scream 2 where they claimed $39.2mm, only to announce Monday someone had “inadvertently” swapped numbers, and it was actually $32.9mm.
Scream 4 was a blast. The most intense two hours I’ve had at the theater in a long time. The best of the sequels.
loved it too!
I really didn’t like it, but I seemed to be the only one in the theater who didn’t, so that’s saying something.
Saw “Rio” and loved parts of it but it never really came together. Still, when it works, it’s amazing to look at.
Scream 4 was great! I loved it.
I agree – I thought it was great! Much better than 3 and nearly as good as 1 and 2, which I loved.
@Ghostface– best comment of the day. PG13 for the win.
Congrats to Williamson/Craven & Co.
I just viewed the film Atlas Shrugged part 1 and even though I haven’t read the book that didn’t diminish my enjoyment of the film. Looking forward to part 2.
Now I have to read the book.
I read the book decades ago – long before Rand and right wing politics became inexorably bound – and found it long-winded, implausible and poorly written in general. Now I’m not allowed to say that without someone claiming I’m attacking it politically.
It’s a lousy read. Not ’cause of politics. ‘Cause of writing.
The Fountainhead is better.
I won’t attack you. I had heard of Ayn Rand’s politics as being absolutely independent in the cleanest sort of the word. Then I heard that Alan Greenspan, former US Treasurer was a member of her group that thought large thoughts. He spanned Reagan, Clinton, and Bush so in my mind, he was also independent.
Now, onto the movie. I had always wanted to read the book, bought a copy, but was intimidated by its size. Then I bought Cliff Notes and even THAT was too convoluted for me so I went without ever reading it, only hearing snippets of what this book was about – but I never felt that those snippets did it justice, as like you, the labels turned me off.
So am I ever glad that I never read the book and saw the MOVIE – part 1 and now I can’t wait to see part 2 because I want to know if She will be alone before or even, IF, Gault comes for her, or if she’ll break under pressure. How much can this woman take while trying to make her way in life and call it her own without others dictating to her what she must be?
THAT is the story that I took with me from the theater. Empowerment of women and can she hold out against all forces – even Gault, as he picks off her allies.
Its a great mystery. The political games are the squeeze that make the chessboard run. I like this movie.
The book is never as good as the movie.
Nobody believes you.
Maybe see the film before commenting?
Don’t hold your breath for parts 2 & 3….
Are you kidding me? It’s a rushed-to-production, cheaply made piece of caca with mediocre tv actors. The producer, John Aglialoro, put this movie together at the last minutes because his rights to the novel were about to expire. He twice blew opportunities to make a high quality movie – first with Angelina Jolie as Dagney Taggert with a script written by Randall Wallace; and later when Jolie baled due to pregnancy Charlize Theron was offered the role. In early 2010 Aglialoro cobbled together a horrible script and a bunch of tv actors because the movie had to be in production by July or else the rights he’d held for 10 years were going to expire. He made this junk with the intention of using it to launch a new cable channel and when that fell through he started looking for a distributor – and suckers dumb enough to pay money for a Lifetime-esque Movie of the Week they ordinarily couldn’t be bothered to watch at home. If part 2 gets made it’ll be because Aglialoro needs a business tax write off.
Aglioloro did not “blow” opportunities to work with Jolie, or Wallace, or the director of Sand and Fog – they bowed out, as did the major studio involvement. So – did they string Aglioloro on because they wanted to let the clock run out on his option and thus have the film not get made, or were there actual creative issues? But with the option within weeks of expiring, it was start shooting by 6/2010 or lose the rights.
TV actors? What snobbery. They should adopt the English attitude – there are no film actors or stage actors or telly actors, only actors who take jobs because they want to work in their field. Jolie would have added nothing. Word to her publicist – people do not pay for her anymore. Salt? The Changeling? The Tourist?
Saw the film. Needed a stronger director and another 15 minutes in length, but it was nothing that I was led to expect from the mainstream reviews. Shame when you can’t trust sources that used to be so reliable.
Oh and ladies – Grant Bowler is to-die-for. Smart bit of casting, there, “TV actor” or not. He was worth the $30 we paid for a couple tickets.
Wow, Joan, you sound bitter. Does Jolie owe you money or something? Jolie was basically going to do Atlas Shrugged for free. And yes, Aglialoro did “blow” opportunities with both Jolie and Theron. When Jolie left the project in early 2008 Aglialoro still had over 2 years left on his option. Jolie left the project because the director Agliarloro brought in, Vadim Perelman, rewrote the Randall Wallace script and she didn’t like Perelman’s version. That’s a blown opportunity. Both Jolie and Lions Gate tried for over 18 months to make the collaboration work, so exactly how was that “stringing” Aglialoro along? When Jolie dropped out in early 2008 Aglialoro still had nearly 3 years left on his option. He almost immediately brought in Charlize Theron and they couldn’t agree on a script either. That’s 2 A-list Oscar winning/nominated actresses he lost and ends up making the movie with some two-bit D-list tv actress. In my book those are blown opportunities and what he ended up with is a low budget MOTW that probably has Rand spinning in her grave.
No one purposely makes a product to lose money for a tax write-off. If they were taxed at a 100% rate, they would break even, but since they are not (yet, anyway), they would still lose money. You are just repeating a cliche coined by business hating tax loving politicians.
angelina jolie would have been awful in the starring role. I think they got everyone right. but that’s my opinion and I liked the movie never having read the book and only knowing little about Rand’s philosophy regarding THIS book. I think the plot moved well and timed right, there were no gaping downsides, no holes, and I’ve seen far far far worse movies than this one.
It looks like the free-market has declared Atlas Shrugged a total bomb.
My husband and I both LOVED Atlas Shrugged. It was mature without being dirty, and the cast was not into diversity like the movies we avoid. The liberals still try to say “Passion of the Christ” was a bomb too. LOL
Joan: please name the liberals who are saying “Passion of the Christ” bombed.
This has to be a troll. HAS to be.
Were to even begin?
No they won’t. Liberals are not afraid of reality.
“It was mature without being dirty, and the cast was not into diversity like the movies we avoid.”
Why do I sense everyone avoids you, Joan?
What exactly does this mean? “The cast was not into diversity like the movies we avoid”
I’ve heard liberals say that “Passion of the Christ” was torture porn being marketed to family audiences, but I’ve never heard anyone claim it was a bomb. Joan, why do you avoid movies that feature casts “into diversity”? Any fan of Ayn Rand would know that the free-market supports diversity, especially in the global film market.
“…and the cast was not into diversity like the movies we avoid.”
Congrats, lady. Your racism is almost as ugly as your grammar. Your husband is a lucky man indeed.
Good numbers finally.. but Rio isn’t as sunny as it sounds. With 2/3rd (nearly) of it’s theaters on 3D, which carries a 50-60% price premium, if it ties the #s made by Hop then it’s ticket sales suck. Imagine it this way:
If HOP had a ticket average of $8 (I know, it didn’t) but let’s say it did, that’s 4.6M through the turnstyles; if 2/3 of the available tickets for Rio are in 3D at a let’s say 50% price premium (or about $13, though locally 3D tickets are $15) then you are talking about a SERIOUSLY lower # of tickets sold. Who cares to the studio, who makes the 1st weekend revenue.. but for a theater, “Rio” is not good business. Fewer people through the turnstyles means less concessions sold, and less profit.
The target # for Rio, based on this breakdown should have been about 23-25% ahead of Hop to show some strength. If it finishes tied with hop, then we know that the # of people going through the turnstyles really didn’t change all that much this weekend, and that’s not so hot for the market.
What theaters have a 60% 3D premium? The most I’ve ever seen is 50% – and extra $5 on a $10 ticket – and most theaters around me have about a 30% markup.
KW – Please find a way to stay in it. The one that everyone bitches about is the one you didn’t write. Can you take the series that built Dimension somewhere else? Bam, bitch went down.
i secretly fantasize about writing a Scream installment but after watching Scream 4 today nothing can compare to the master. KW is hilarious, he just hit everything out of the park. He’s the Oscar Wilde of Horror. I just kept laughing in the theater at every one of his one liners.
So… the Oscar Wilde of Horror got his name by making you laugh eh?
I am giving him the name Oscar Wilde of Horror because of his wit (that’s makes me laugh) but he’s still able to conjure up good scares. (Knife through the door mail slot? Classic.)
Scream 3, Cursed, Scream 4. The Weinsteins need to stop fucking around with movies made by Craven and/or Williamson. Stay the fuck out of the way and let them do their own thing.
Not much buzz on Redford’s “The Conspirator”? I’m surprised. I saw the second matinee here in Green Bay and got the last seat. The multiplex theater crew said first matinee was also sold out. Film was moved to the largest open venue for evening shows… moving the decrepit “Arthur” into the smaller screen.
There’s buzz, just not with the ‘texting’ crowd, so it appears more subdued. But we also go see films, and will help the entertaining ones make a profit. Eventually!
I myself have been looking forward to seeing this, and a film with substance all year. I hope others support it…..
My matinee of The Conspirator was almost sold out as well. I was very surprised.
They keep saying that this weekends box office is strong, highflying, and contains “impressive debuts”. How is this impressive? Even though Rio looks to do in the high 30s, with 3D and spring break available, it really should have done in the mid 40s. The biggest dissapointment this weekend, however, goes to Scream 4. Its supposed total of mid 20s is 40% off of most people’s projections of a mid 40s opening. Given the 11 year build up, where a new generation has discovered the Scream movies, Im extremely surprised that this will be the lowest Scream opening since the original. That’s with 11 years of ticket price increases and build up. If Scream 5 comes around, that will likely tank with 30 million total. If these performances describe the entire year at the box office, I would get prepared for eventual VOD exclusive releases of highly anticipated films, as well as the death of cinema.
I have been saying this all along — why release a horror movie in April — it’s target audience is in the middle of graduation, prom, finals and they will lose screens once the bigger movies come in may. It’s so stupid. They should have given this the release date it has always had it’s greatest success — in December. or at least in August. I did not see one trailer in the movie theater, nor any tv advertisements. And why exactly did the weinsteins need to rush the process, you want a great movie you wait for kevin williamson. Still worth watching.
You haven’t seen any ads? Really? I guess you don’t watch TV or go on the Internet except to post on here. The ads have been everywhere. I only watch a couple of shows in the late evening and I’m sure I’ve seen the Scream TV ad at least 100 times. It’s also on IMDB, YouTube, Yahoo – everywhere.
Bill – I haven’t seen any ads on TV either. I’ve seen about a million for Rio, and slightly less for The Conspirator. But not one Scream. And I watch a lot of SyFy and Chiller, which would be Scream’s target audience.
Nope, I have not seen a lot of ads either.
But even Nightmare on Elm Street did 30 million in its opening weekend. Scream 4 bombed in theaters, not because it should but because the whole film industry is suffering. Eventually, VOD exclusive releases on tentpoles will appear and theaters will go out of business. Scream 4 was expected to debut 100% to 150% more than this. You know how missing the mark by 50%-60% feels like. This fails to match the last 2 scream films’ openings. This weekend is considered by most to be the comeback weekend. If this is their definition of a “comeback”, I say that VOD will finally do what vhs’s and rental stores and TV couldn’t do, cause theater chains to go extinct. It’s a shame too because I enjoy going to the theaters. This will happen within 3 to 5 years.
Geesh, all this talk about VOD when people still turn out in droves for summer event films and even art house fare like the multiple Oscar nominees that scored huge relative to budget. In other words, profit can still be made. This weekend was simply a case of (1) 3-D financial fatigue for families at a time of year (tax season) when households are wary of budgets (I’d bet Rio would have made more with relatively more 2-D screens, or a two week later release) and (2) a really poor distribution date for Scream 4, whose target is tweens through college-age and therefore should have been an August release. Even ten years from now VOD will be simply another revenue stream that, if anything, would put a strain on the art house theaters, which release the kind of movies you don’t mind seeing on a smaller screen with a few like-minded people. People will always want a reason to leave the house and have a communal experience, and movies are still the cheapest option for that (at least 2-D is).
Then look for an underperforming summer because 80% of the movies scheduled for release this summer are in 3D. As for release dates, a famous brand name should overcome most poor choices unless there is another highly anticipated horror release around the same time. Insidious, though respectful, isn’t like it’s drawing in summerstyle grosses. Remember A Nightmare on Elm Street? That made 30 million. In other words, Scream 4 should, if anything, actually be taking April’s grosses higher instead of being downsized. Besides, Scream 4′s buzz suggested a 45 million opening. I do not expect audiences to turn out the same way as in previous years. With this VOD talk, this could also see revenues to decline in future years. VOD is cinema’s true killer.
Box Office Mojo says Scream 4 was released on the same weekend as Weinstein/Dimension/Miramax’s hit Scary Movie 4, even though that was PG-13 and more of a pure comedy. They’re also already releasing Spy Kids 4 in August. Wonder how that’s going to do. (Hoodwinked 2 seems DOA.)
I think the low opening is just because Scream is no longer relevant, and is thus having to start from scratch with its demographic, most of whom never saw a Scream movie in the theater. (If you could get into an R-rated movie back in 1996, then you’re at least 32 now.)
The performance of future sequels will depend not on this movie’s opening weekend take, but on how much the public actually likes the movie. Don’t forget Batman Begins’ well-publicized “disastrous” $48 million opening.
I’m 23 and I saw Scream 2 and 3 in theaters; some of us younger folks have awesome relatives.
You scarred for life?
“screenwriter Kevin Williamson who bailed mid-production because of Weinstein meddling”
Sorry, Nikki — you’re wrong on this one. Williamson and the Weinsteins had creative disagreements during writing and pre-production, but don’t have ill feelings towards one another. Williamson left during filming because he was contractually obligated to work on “Vampire Diaries”, and according to Wes Craven, the CW threatened to sue if Williamson didn’t leave the production. It’s between a rock and a hard place.
Now, I could be wrong. But if your inside sources claim otherwise, please do elaborate.
No, Nikki has it right and you have it wrong.
Originally, the movie was going to start out with Neve Campbell in the Drew Barrymore role from the first one, with her getting killed right off the bat. She was to be the only returning cast member, because Scream 4 was supposed to be about a new killer wearing the ghostface mask who is doing a “remake” of the first Scream, therefore all new actors are needed, with a cameo by the original star, like a lot of remakes.
They were all set to go, but the Weinsteins got cold feet at the last minute and said the whole script needed to be changed because they can’t kill off Neve’s character. They were scared no one would go to the movie if Neve got killed in the opening moments and no one else from the originals were in it. And that’s the story in a nutshell.
Unless Williamson told YOU that (or let you see a script outline), I don’t buy it. Plus, if you actually saw the film, what would’ve been the new replacements bit the dust.
… and I don’t work for TWC or affiliated with the Weinsteins whatsoever. Call me skeptical.
EW and kevin williamson have confirmed that there were some heated discussions about the movie, kevin has not even seen the movie, he says there is no bad blood between them but yet they haven’t spoken — but he did have to go back to vampire diairies because of contractual obligations. I just don’t understand why harvey took over so much control and that they would film a movie without a script to make a release date which is not exactly the best release date in the world. I’m so happy that neve is front and center and never would have liked for neve to be killed off right off the bat.
The movie cost 40 million so it will make a profit.
Without Neve as well as Courtney and David..but Neve/Sydney above all i would have not gone to see this movie.
By the way Jamie Lee Curtis did all the Halloween no ?
let me get this right – there’s no hard feelings yet Harvey didn’t let the guy see an early cut of the film.
Scream is a franchise that hasn’t worn well. And the lack of carpet bombing us with the the first three movies on cable in the last month wasn’t a help.
Bob personally runs Dimension.
Scream was the same fare we have come to expect from the sequels. It could’ve done with better editing. I don’t see long legs for this.
Do you go to movies regularly? Or are u one of the “Strikers” brainwashed to push the Atlas movie because of its politics no matter how badly its made?
I saw The Conspirator today too (Santa Cruz, CA)–and it was in the largest theatre and quite well attended. The numbers should be interesting.
“Scream 4″ was fun. I saw it this evening and I actually enjoyed it. The opening was well done. It stalls a bit in the middle. But the finale was good. Campbell looks great and I was surprised to see her kick massive amounts of ass. Roberts was the weakest link. And I love the one liner at the end. Good movie. Was it needed? No. Was it fun? Hell yeah.
How was Emma Roberts the weakest link? Her and Hayden were great additions (along with that hottie Marielle Jaffe). It wasn’t perfect but the beginning and end were classic, way better than Scream 3 and a worthy competitor to Scream 2 (which did anyone notice was like the Scream sequel with a lot of African-Americans).
She just wasn’t believable. She went from fading into the background to suddenly playing crazy. It was funny. The whole ending was funny. I still enjoyed it. But Hayden came off better.
Emma Roberts is the weakest link, because she’s weak period. Even her face is weak, and definitely her personality and charisma factor. Somethings off.
Sorry but that Scream 4 performance is awful. It will be lucky to hit 40M total, which is what it cost to make.
I loved SCREAM 4. Incredible job by Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson. Not to mention the marketing team, for taking a huge risk (and flak) by marketing it as if it would be the same total by-the-numbers reboot trash everybody’s used to be now… then BAM! It was all part of the trick.
Brilliant killer/motive combination… hilarious social commentary.
All this weekend does is confirm the box office slump, not break out of it. Two decent films both performing below expectations is a bad sign. We can’t use the excuse of quality here.
Whoa that low for scream?
Wow, Insidious is doing really great. Well deserved. Great horror movie.
Insidious was the real boxoffice story last week too when it dropped only 24% or something. But this weekend even more so. Great horror movie and holding so well in the wake of big, direct competition is tremendous achievement.
I know, god damn look at that little indie go and still rock the box office. I’m so happy to see the little guys win.
Hmmm. So how much longer will these “experts” have jobs when it is very obvious they haven’t a clue as to what they’re talking about? I read the HSX article Nikki linked and the most notible part of the article is how sure they are about their opinions. It’s like listening to a member of a 1-10 football team bragging about how great they play. As if we can’t read the scoreboard.
Scream 4 failure = final nail in the coffin of R-rated movies.
It’s going to be a long time before one with a budget over $20 gets greenlit – not counting a Scorsese/Spielberg/Cameron outing – but even then they’ll struggle to get over $80M, if the At the Mountain of Madness debacle was anything to go by.
Maybe smaller budgets will be a blessing in disguise. could allow for more creativity and new film makers and actors to be given a chance. 20 mil is alot to an indie director making his first studio pic.
do you even look at the tracking? nothing in the tracking suggested an opening above $20 for SCREAM. all these people who predicted an opening with a 3 in front of it were crazy.
I can’t even understand how it was tracking so low. For a film with an 11 year gap, this should be tracking in higher than Scream 3, around the same as Paranormal Activity 2.
it was tracking very high on boxoffice.com — it’s twitter feed was through the roof. I’m telling you it’s the release date — finals, graduation.
Tell me Josh, how is it going to fail to hit $40 million TOTAL when it will already be well over $20 million by Monday? Legs, it’ll have them.
And what the hell is with the “Now THIS is a horror movie” bullshit for Insidious? Cause it was made on a shoestring budget? Oh wait, I’ve seen this shtick before. Get behind some indie flick solely because it was made for bread crumbs, it does surprisingly well and then put down other movies? Way to stay impartial! Still can’t stand to see a movie that is supposedly a horror movie and have a PG-13 rating. Glad Scream 4 didn’t go that route or I wouldn’t have bothered.
No, it’s because Insidious is actually a great, original horror movie. Sure, it definitely feels inspired by Poltergeist, but it’s definitely not a remake or a reboot. It’s nice to see original horror doing well, made by people who care about making horror movies.
Agreed with Chris about the budget. People are also forgetting foreign. I think Scream 2 and 3 both made over 40% of their worldwide b.o. from foreign. The foreign market has expanded significantly since 2000 when Scream 3 came out. So you’re probably still looking at a film that can hit 100 million worldwide (if they distribute it and market it well overseas), plus plenty of downstream revenue.
Insidious did feel original, and I really enjoyed it. But Scream 4 was only marginally less popular among critics than Insidious, and it’s an apples to oranges comparison. One is gory-comedy-pop culture commentary, the other much more traditional psychological horror. You can’t praise one for being a horror movie over the other–it’s just Nikki’s dislike for TWC shining through.
Companies like TWC sell the rights internationally, though I’m not sure how exactly does it work.
“That’s with 11 years of ticket price increases and build up. If Scream 5 comes around, that will likely tank with 30 million total”
This is preposterous on every level. We’re now at the point of being able to guess the totals of movies not even announced yet? Do you have the winning lottery numbers for a date ten years from now as well?
Scream 4 had the benefit of 11 years of build up and it still dissapointed. With Scream 5, if The Weinstein Company decides to make one, since that one will not have the build up, seems pretty likely to fall from the last one significantly. Take Sex and the City 2 for example. This will all, of course, if studios choose to even use theaters by the time a movie comes out. This whole VOD plan is, of course, intended to cut down theater gaps. By the time VOD is widespread, they will almost certainley use VOD for exclusive distribution. This isn’t lottery, this is movie buff’s common sense.
It is the movie lottery. You could point to dozens of “predictions” like this a year that never pan out (hundreds counting other sites), and you could point to dozens more examples of slanted reporting. Nikki likes certain movies and likes certain people, and an entertainment journalist–even a good one–is not required to keep subjectivity out of it. I agree that it’s preposterous, and you just have to sift all the other stuff and find what’s objective. As for Etrata–you’ve made your VOD point, what, four times now? Get over it. Your out-there comparison of Sex and the City to the Scream franchise belies you crowning yourself a movie buff quite yet. Did you invest in the future of VOD or something?
Before you mention this lottery thing, it is common sense for a sequel with little build up time to do less than a sequel with a lot of build up time simply because it would have less anticipation surronding it. I don’t think Scream 5 is going forward but this would happen if it were to go forward.
“The big comeback weekend” Is everyone brain dead? Look at the weekend movies? This is a joke…it’s not a surprise that the weekend is missing. Scream 4 is full of terrible actors, and Rio is an animated movie in 3D (good but not re-writing history). This weekend is simply coming in as it should…2011 will miss overall…done