| film | three days | per | all | |
| 1 | The Expendables | $16,500,000 (-52.6%) | $5,046 | $64,890,000 |
| 2 | Vampires Suck | $12,200,000 | $3,774 | $18,564,000 |
| 3 | Eat Pray Love | $12,000,000 (-48.1%) | $3,894 | $47,100,000 |
| 4 | Lottery Ticket | $11,125,000 | $5,639 | $11,125,000 |
| 5 | The Other Guys | $10,100,000 (-42.0%) | $2,909 | $88,190,000 |
| 6 | Piranha 3D | $10,035,000 | $4,063 | $10,035,000 |
| 7 | Nanny McPhee Returns | $8,310,000 | $2,985 | $8,310,000 |
| 8 | The Switch | $8,100,000 | $4,026 | $8,100,000 |
| 9 | Inception | $7,655,000 (-32.2%) | $3,188 | $261,848,000 |
| 10 | Scott Pilgrim vs. the World | $5,034,000 (-52.6%) | $1,785 | $20,730,000 |
This just in: One in five Americans believe that president Obama is a Muslim.
When Rambo came out it, it was trumped by Meet the Spartans. But this time Stallone held firm and trumped Friedberg and Seltzer. So for Sly and crew, they’ve got their second weekend on top. But if Fox wanted the weekend they likely could have had it if they didn’t have a Wednesday opening. Vampires Suck was made for around $20 Million, so it’s likely another win for team F/S. Ancillaries are still weaker than they were, but this is going to do enough business theatrically and at home to be profitable. Perhaps next they’ll make fun of 3-D movies. This seems to also fall right into their previous grosses for Fox, slightly under $40 Million, though this likely has a slightly different audience. Though Vampires didn’t win the weekend, these guys are back after the disastrous numbers for their Disaster Movie. As for The Expendables, of the Stallone comeback trilogy it looks to be the most successful, and should edge past Rocky Balboa‘s numbers some time this week. $100 Million is likely out of reach, but there will also likely be an extended DVD cut, etc. and the film will do much better overseas. With a 50% drop word of mouth was mostly positive, in that the number suggests people weren’t scared off. But with this sort of film, the target demo is going to be happy when they sit down, and Stallone ends it big.
As for holding, Eat Pray Love should have held around 30% is if it was going to play strong to its target demo. Julia Roberts isn’t Meryl Streep. Unless somehow it levels next weekend, it’s fair to call this a misfire with its audience. The Other Guys is going to get past $100 Million for sure at this point, and maybe gets around $110 Million. Anything more than that is luck. This is a win-ish number, though the film is rather expensive. I keep talking about the death of ancillary, and basically what happened is that a while back people were buying moves on whims, and engaged in having film collections, but with the rise of VOD and Netflix a lot of that additional money is gone. But not all of it, and a McKay/Ferrell film has a likely higher purchase average than a Julia Roberts-type vehicle. So a film like this is in good shape, even with a higher price tag. But then also, back-end deals have changed, etc. etc.
Lottery Ticket was the best of the rest of the new films, but the numbers are all around the same level of Meh. Ticket cost the least of these, so it’s in good shape to make its dime back. Sometimes these sorts of pictures are front-loaded, but it may have some shelf life if it plays to families, etc. Likely not. Nanny McPhee was made for an international audience, so it’s American release is mostly a courtesy. If the film was made for the number suggested, it’s already going to be in profit. The Switch is likely a disaster, but the film at least opened in the top ten. I thought it might not even hit five million. Piranha 3-D may have suffered from the backlash against 3-D. Having gotten a headache watching the first two reels, the post-conversion was sloppy at best. But I don’t really care for 3-D to begin with. A ten opening – even with enthusiasm – basically means that Dimension and the Weinstein’s couldn’t get their shit together to market this well. All you really need to do is show violence and Kelly Brook’s backside. I guess you can get the latter on the internet, but not in three dimensions. She’s a lovely lady, I’m sure. Horror doesn’t hold, so if they get much over $20, they’re lucky.
Inception has a nice per screen, which may help keep it on screens after next weekend. There are two wide releases (Takers and The Last Exorcism), so it might lose a number of screens it wouldn’t have if some of the last couple wide releases weren’t so new. The film gets to $275 Million without problem, but that may be the end of it. What can I say about Scott Pilgrim that hasn’t already been said about Afghanistan? Summer’s getting close to being over. Next week is more lameness.
20 comments
You were wrong about Vampires Suck. Which isn't a bad thing!
I imagine that these Freidberg/Seltzer "Movies" have no shelf life whatsoever. Aside from just being awful films, their gimmick has always been about jamming in as many of the most recent references as possible, many of which I'm sure are outdated even by the time the thing hits theaters. They also don't seem to know who the hell they're making them FOR. From what I saw during the very brief time that "Disaster Movie" played at my theater, there were "No Country For Old Men" jokes, a term I use very loosely, as jokes in these Movies usually just involve someone basically being a caricature of a better known character…and then getting kicked in the nuts. The audience for these films doesn't care about references to Academy Award Winners for Best Picture when the "Movie" comes out, they REALLY won't care about by the time it hits DVD, and they'll have absolutely no idea it's supposed to be by the time the next abomination by these filmmakers rolls out. The Unrated "Vampires Suck" DVD will feature a few more swear words and some outtakes (I'd really hate to see what wasn't deemed good enough to make the final cut), which might move a few units, before the rest of the unsold copies take up permanent residence in dump bins and Netflix warehouses everywhere.
Wow Scott Pilgrim sure set the world on fire didn't it? LOL
Damn, Sly has to be pleased as PUNCH!!!
Bombed out and depleted
Went to see Piranha today and was disappointed to see it didn't have a 2D version showing in a separate theater like many of the 3D crap. Needless to say the wife and I turned around and left. We are not paying $21.00 for a crappy 3D conversion on a Sunday afternoon.
So why are people gloating that Scott Pilgrim, a movie made by geeks for geeks did badly here?
Because this fanboy attiude, the countless previews with movies such as Kick Ass which Devin from this very site said it was one of the best movies he had ever seen, it was a 10/10, a new era in cinema.
People went and saw it, and damn what average POS of a movie, i barely even laughed at their "best" jokes.
Before that he had spent months and months going after Avatar, he had a chip on his shoulder and damnit he was going to teach us all why it was a disaster waiting to happen. Movie comes out and does insanely good bussiness after Devin says it wont do so.
Then he runs a article saying how stupid everyone is for liking it.
So here we are, Scott Pilgrim, a movie he has praised before release (nothing we arent used to) and what do you expect the average reader to get from this?
I am sorry i respect the writers here, but they seem completly detached from the actual movies they review instead focus on their own agendas and how they know better.
It dosent help that reviewers on geek sites often end up sounding like bullies, "if you like Avatar you are a goddamn moron!".
This kind of tone just makes you not want to be a part of this "geek culture" and its not just Chud, AICN has it in spades.
But thats not the real reason the movie failed at the BO, it failed becuase the general public dosent care. And no they just saw Inception a movie without any major special effects, no titties or huge explosions with a rather complicated plot and it made lots of money.
Leo is a star but how many movies have done 500 plus million worldwide of his? Yea stop with the excuses.
In a few months a new "hipster" movie will emerge and AICN and Chud will hype it like the second coming of Christ, and it all repeats itself.
The only difference is that readers are catching on, because reviewers are not being honest, they arent actually talking about these movies and what they are but what they want them to be.
Devin simply projects what he wants in the movie to be real, so it all seems roses and wine to him.
His inevitable article on how the entire world is too stupid to enjoy this piece of revolutionary art that will change the fabric of our time is surely coming, he will slam anyone who didnt watch it 5 times and got 15 other people to watch it.
Its getting tiresome, stop latching to your own ideas and just review the movie, the actual film, the actual experience.
#7 – well done; I have no need to really post now. It's great for movie sites (and especially genre sites) to get behind flicks they are excited about, but the excessive pimping is shameless and embarrassing. Likewise for the excessive bashing (ie. Avatar; the Twilight movies deserve it since they are barely films). Report the movies, say whether you liked it or didn't, and move on.
Reality, I agree with everything you just wrote.
Comment 7 – Its not just Chud & AICN. It is all critics. I believe the critics get so much free swag and perks from the studios, they are expected to promote the crap. Otherwise, their inside access is cut off.
@Reality. Just look at that block of text. No paragraph breaks even. I think it speaks for itself. As Darwin might say, "you've been de-selected."
@#7 "Its getting tiresome, stop latching to your own ideas and just review the movie, the actual film, the actual experience." That's what they're doing, mate. The reviewer says what they feel about the film – not what they expect the general public to feel, or what they expect the BO to be. Devin liked Kick Ass and Scott Pilgrim, but didn't really like Avatar. These reviews aren't meant to be predictors of success, but subjective opinions. You, as a reader, can judge whether your opinion generally aligns with a reviewer or not. Me? I really dug the hell out of all the movies you mentioned – Avatar, Kick Ass, Scott Pilgrim AND Inception. People who gloat over the failure of a film, or reject it just to spite an internet personality (or collective) are, IMHO, stupid. Personally, I watch films for the sake of finding enjoyment in them – not to posture or make a statement about how in tune web nerds are with the zeitgeist. It seems so many people on the web have turned watching films into some kind of competition. It's lame.
I saw Scott Pilgrim and loved it. Saw Pirahna and thought it was okay. Saw the Expendables and laughed at how goofy it was. I don't get this gloating about the box office failure of this or that film. Heads up guys, unless you have a stake in the film as a producer or what not, giving a shit about how a film does is pointless and a waste of time. I feel bad about Scott Pilgrim, not because it's such a great film, but because I really loved Spaced and after Scott Pilgrim tanked, it might effect another movie by Edgar Wright getting made or not getting made. In a world where McG, Brett Ratner and their ilk are getting films made, I feel bad when someone with a modicum of talent and originality gets their hands tied even further by the failure of something a little out of the ordinary. I don't get why that should be a reason to celebrate. You should show a little forsite and look at the big picture and grow the fuck up.
This would – in a legal case – be exhibit 1 (or in a rap video xhibit 1) of the bizarro attitude in talkbacks toward Scott Pilgrim. I wrote one sentence that wasn't even positive, and I get a paragraph to explain why the film didn't do well, and how it is and isn't sites like Chud's fault.
You motherfuckers better leave Kick-Ass out of your backlash.
That as was an actual good movie and a legitimate financial success.
Reality, your entire post is predicated on the wrongheaded idea than more than a small fraction of one percent of Americans who regularly go to the movies read movie blogs like CHUD and AICN and Slashfilm and whatever and thus even could become sick of a film due to its hype on said blogs. They don't.
Are you saying Scott Pilgrim is bombed-out and depleted?
Even though I was a little disappoined by The Expendables (if just the action had been shot correctly) I'm glad to see it holding off that Sucky shit from the top spot. I haven't seen Scott Pilgrim yet, but I have quiet hopes that it is every bit as good as what some reviews are saying – in which case shame on the US box office. However, it most resembles Kick-Ass in its feel and the positive reviews that I take note of, and although enjoyable I found that movie to be a little too conventional.
Pirahna was not post-converted into 3D, it was filmed in Real 3D from the start, so you just lied yourself into a headache.
guys, get real. this "shameless pushing" that you complain about is because the websites are PAID to push product on you. these sites are not objective review sites. they are ad based, revenue machines. if some fat asshole with a beard to hide his double chin tells you to go see something, you see it. don't blame the websites. they're doing their job. they're making money. you're lemmings. you're the sheep. try thinking for yourselves for once instead of all your opinions and thoughts coming from someone else.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.