Weekend Outlook Chat (August 5 - 7)

Lee: Many people (including me) last weekend looked at Stealth and saw it as a huge box office drop for Rob Cohen after Fast and the Furious and xXx, but he did have The Skulls before both of those, which debuted to $11.0 million. It looks like if he isn't directing Vin Diesel he may be SOL.

Ryan: The Skulls and most of his other movies have inspired cheap knockoff sequels. It makes you wonder if people saw Stealth as a cheap knockoff and avoided it.

Lee: Well first there is its title, which is one of the easiest ones to mock this year. I saw it with two friends and one of them kept jokingly remarking, "Stealth!" after ?supposedly? big moments in the movie. I think most people can agree that the ads didn't exactly give off a "must see this" vibe ? the material wasn't that thrilling. And even though they tried to make it look fun, I always had this suspicion that it would be one big bore ? like it was just a trick in the marketing. The trailer didn't really have a ?money shot? or anything particularly memorable.

Ryan: When I saw the previews I couldn?t believe that Sony was having Foxx carry an action movie. Then in the preview discs I couldn?t believe they were selling it as a romantic movie. Then in the reviews it was all a shame, as Foxx has a very minor role.

Lee: You could say the fact that it was Top Gun Redux could've hurt it, but people have flocked to Redux's on more than one occasion. The movie is far from romantic. That just shows their desperation.

Ryan: The marketing was all a big trick, as they either didn?t know how to sell it or figured having Foxx as the main point would be the best option?only to later change their mind and panic.

Lee: You might've been right in that it could've been filmed before Ray and they just released it afterwards to carry out the buzz. It's hard to imagine Foxx would pull that performance in Ray and then sign onto something this weightless.

Ryan: A guy?s gotta work. Still, though, Stealth wasn?t the weekend?s biggest surprise.

Lee: It probably doesn't sound good, but I actually liked Stealth more than Ray?not by much, but I thought both of them were mediocre.

Ryan: I found it to be a predictable snoozer that totally sold out in marketing.

Lee: The script for Stealth sucked, but I was surprised that I tolerated the action, being as though I didn?t like the action in Furious and hated the action in xXx.

Ryan: As an added bonus to those who haven?t seen it yet, stay through/after the credits or you'll miss something.

Lee: Can't miss a Stealth bonus! Gotta see every single bit or the experience isn?t complete.

Ryan: Stealth already is assured one awards nomination this year, though. Those folks at "Golden Trailer" nominated it in the Summer Blockbuster category. Suffice to say it won?t win.

Lee: The other surprise you're referring to is Aristocrats, I'm presuming?

Ryan: Well, two surprises I guess. 1) Sky High was the best of the new releases, and 2) Aristocrats scorched up the per screen average. Aristocrats may not have much moneymaking power outside of the big cites, though, as Melinda & Melinda dropped like 80% screen average wise when it expanded.

Lee: I had already heard about its through the roof business by Friday afternoon, but I was surprised that night when I saw 20 - 30 year olds flooding into the 10:00 show (I figured it was going to be an older crowd flocking to it). It was like Wedding Crashers. I was just counting on Aristocrats to bomb so much that I didn't even look at the big gross comparisons for this theater. Bulworth went here and that did $70,000/screen.

Ryan: Yeah its not a stretch to see those films playing to a similar crowd, but Aristocrats probably won?t have the longevity of Wedding Crashers when it expands. The expansion date is Aug 12.

Lee: It could be more of a "buzz" flick, though. You see all those names attached and you see "the filthiest joke ever told" and you have to wonder. Since my audience wasn't blown away, it made me wonder how it was going to fare in terms of word of mouth. If it had been a laugh riot at that screening, I would've been more optimistic in a huge opening.

Ryan: ThinkFilms may have thought the same thing when they reduced the theater count to 4.

Lee: And even as boring as Melinda & Melinda was, you could tell it was going to be a big attraction in the top markets, or at least NY (where it pulled $70,000 at only one theater) and LA (where it pulled $20,000 at 1 particular theater). But it?s not something that many people outside those markets would want to see, and Aristocrats will probably play the same way.

Ryan: Documentary films with an edge need to be built up. Example: ThinkFilms? other doc., Murderball, had another successful weekend in its expansion.

Lee: I don't think I have to say anything about WB's 3,785 count for Dukes of Hazzard. That's probably self-explanatory.

Ryan: Last week you said Under the Tuscan Sun was based off of a best selling book. Must Love Dogs is also based off of a book, but I digress. Yes, "The Event Movie of the Summer" is finally here. Or at least WB wants us to think its the big event or that Warner Bros. movies are the big event since that studio has the most play dates/screens ever in a single weekend.

Lee: Yes, everyone is just waiting impatiently for the PG-13 pairing of Johnny Knoxville and Seann William Scott... I'm over $20 million now, but I'm still not that confident in it reaching at least Starsky & Hutch figures.

Ryan: Neither of the stars can carry a movie by themselves, as Knoxville has two delayed movies coming out this Christmas and Seann William Scott didn?t bring Bulletproof Monk or Stark Raving Mad to high heights.

Lee: Starsky business is possible, and even $30 is possible, but I think Seann William Scott could be an overrated sell with PG-13 material (The Rundown), and the star of Jackass with a PG-13 label is questionable in terms of appeal. You could say that it has Jessica Simpson, but look at that rating and you know it's just going to be a tease. People are smart; they'll know this won't have sex or nudity (let alone a sufficient quantity of foul material).

Ryan: Come on, don?t sell the power of "From the director of Super Troopers and Club Dread" short. Jessica Simpson has less of a role in Dukes than Jamie Foxx had in Stealth, but at least it makes sense for her to be a tease. Well Time Warner is being smart with the releasing of the TV sets on DVD.

Lee: Yes, all those older fans will be delighted by the timing.

Ryan: That and the fact that it is the only new wide release should push it up near $30 mil.

Lee: See, nobody amongst the 20 - 30 year old crowd gave a shit about Starsky & Hutch as a story/TV series, but it had two stars who were bigger (together) than the ones here have yet to prove, and it ran off the hot tagline "From the director of Old School." Starsky was PG-13, but it didn't have a country theme (which could be a turnoff here), and it featured a group of people who fans knew could be entertaining without foul substance.

Ryan: Dukes was originally supposed to be a tentpole movie (ala Scooby Doo). However, Warner Bros. moved it to August (not a good sign) and relied on over-saturation in theater count and ads, which hasn?t worked for anything this year (from Hostage to Island to Stealth, etc.)

Lee: I keep looking at "The event movie of the summer" and think it's either desperation or I'm just too oblivious to know the truth. Mr. and Mrs. Smith and Fantastic 4 kicked my ass at the box office, but Dukes of Hazzard??

Ryan: On the one hand, I have a hard time seeing it not going Starsky levels, especially with the weekend to itself, the TV series DVD?s, and free movie tickets in the TV series sets. But on the other hand, the "event,? which I think is meant to be silly in making fun of itself (like the series was at times) and I think it will backfire.

Lee: I'm more confident in the low to mid $20 range, but I could see up to $30 as possible. I think an opening night similar to Jackass ($9.7 million - $3,873/screen in 2,509 theaters) is possible, but only because of the theater count. Dukes is in 1,300 more theaters.

Ryan: Starsky and Hutch did $28.1 mil in 600 fewer theaters, but it also had sneak previews which meant the studio had some confidence in it. I don?t think Warner has much confidence in Dukes. Basically for Dukes we have that the opening could be anywhere between The Rundown ($18.5 mil) and Starsky ($28 mil), with a safe bet probably near Jackass at $22.8 mil.

This weekend also has its own batch of sneak previews in the delayed "The Great Raid.? Yet another Miramax unshelving of a possibly good movie.

Lee: I've seen it, it?s not very good. It's a boring, clich? war flick.

Ryan: Miramax is trying to sell it as "good," though.

Lee: A good Miramax movie that has been delayed?

Ryan: Finding Neverland?

Lee: I wasn't a big fan of Neverland, but I'll give it to you.

Ryan: I?m not arguing that it will be good, but generally if a movie has sneak previews then the studio thinks it is good.

Lee: Generally true, but an 800-theater release as a starting point means that they are not confident in mainstream appeal.

Ryan: Anyway, with only one major new release we have Penguins expanding to 1,800 to possibly strike $10 mil for the weekend and strike past Bowling for Columbine as #2 documentary of all time.

Lee: I would say $10 isn't out of the question, but it's questionable considering this is its biggest expansion yet. This is its first test in the mainstream world. I'm at $6.5, but I would not be surprised if it does more. Word of mouth seems to be terrific for it, and it has gotten rave reviews.

Ryan: Penguins is the only family friendly movie really, and with The Dukes of Hazzard saturating the market it doesn?t get any friendlier. Other than that, the weekend's big surprise is "My Date with Drew," which as a DEJ production doesn?t strike me as a movie with any power. D-Tox (Eye See You) was a DEJ production and did under $1,000 screen average. Plus the surprise is that it?s being released to begin with, as I hadn?t even heard of it before this Tuesday.

Lee: On a raw guess, I would say Drew might get a $3 - 7,000 average. Could be worse than $3k, but one theater booking shows promise of at least $3k. If Jiminy Glick in Lalawood can gross $3,000 there, then, well...

Ryan: Yeah you'd think that, but D-Tox was the same production company and had a similar 50+ screen release and disappeared. Drew isn?t coming here so I have no idea, I just don?t have high hopes for DEJ productions.

Lee: Wait, how many theaters is this getting? Oh, 58. For some reason I keep thinking like 7 theaters. It's not going to get a $7k average with 58 theaters.

Ryan: Eye See You [a.k.a. D-Tox) had 78 bookings and a $414 average.

Lee: I take my original prediction back and say maybe $1,000 as the low region. It might be lucky to get $3k. Jiminy Glick did $1,069/screen in 24 theaters. And honestly I don't know which has more appeal, which is sad.

Ryan: Slow Hand Cinema is releasing it, so they will probably have more luck than solo DEJ.

Lee: I'm guessing it'll do better than D-Tox, for no better reason that it's not Stallone.

Ryan: It doesn?t have Drew [a.k.a. "Drew"] Barrymore in it either.

Lee: You mean to tell me the guy fails in his mission?

Ryan: Go see it and you can figure out the ruse.

Lee: Have you seen it?

Ryan: No, I just know that it?s a look-a-like.

Lee: That is so incredibly lame. I didn?t know that before.

Ryan: Chumscrubber and Broken Flowers also get released this weekend. Chumscrubber is only getting 28 theatres nationwide, but is getting 3 or 4 of those in this area. Broken Flowers is getting the biggest screen here.

Lee: I was going to put Broken Flowers on track with Coffee and Cigarettes ($19,832 average in 5 theaters), which was also by Jim Jarmusch, but with 27 theaters I'm not so confident.

Ryan: The movie getting the best reviews is Broken Flowers, while Hazzard and Chumscrubber are just getting trashed and thrashed.

Lee: I was thinking low-$10,000 range for Broken Flowers. This isn?t Lost in Translation. LiT wouldn?t have done $40,000/screen without Murray (and without Sofia being the daughter of Francis Coppola), but it seems like this movie is much more artsy in comparison, which might dampen it some outside NY and LA. I know Coffee and Cigarettes opened with $40,000 at a theater in NY and it did $12,000 at a local theater here in LA. But then again, Bill Murray wasn?t a "star" in it, and was only a cameo (and what a surprise, in the second to last scene), so being the star in this one could up the ante in the LA grosses. I haven't liked any of Jarmusch's films yet, so I'm a bit hesitant with this.

Ryan: Is Chumscrubber loosely based on a comic book? It?s got the whole feeling of a Donnie Darko knockoff, and since Donnie Darko played really well in this area I am guessing that is why Minnesota is getting a lot of its prints.

Lee: Yeah, I heard Donnie Darko played really well in LA and NY but was mostly a ghost town elsewhere. You were probably one of the few areas it did well in. It averaged $1,905/screen in 58 theaters.

My two guesses for Broken Flowers are $12k and high-10k range.

Ryan: Those are probably fine. It should play well and for a long time. Chumscrubber has a list of acting talent, but it doesn?t seem very good. It probably has enough draw to do around $6k per theater, maybe topping out at $100k for the weekend.

Lee: Junebug has the same booking as Magdalene Sisters ($16,911/screen) at one theater, but I know Magdalene didn't do that well at this place. I think it grossed something like $8,000 here. And 2046 is at the same theater Oldboy ($13,791/screen) went to.