Weekend numbers

email this story
read comments (23)
post a comment

Spider-Man 3 is being projected to earn $60,379,000 this weekend -- a 60% drop. If people really liked it, it would be doing better than this. (The CinemaScore rating was only a B.) It's now at $242 million cume, and will end up with a bit more than $300 million domestic. But it cost over $300 million to make and the marketing costs were over $100 million, and nobody but nobody who saw it did cartwheels in the lobby. A cruddy script written by three screenwriters (Raimi, Raimi's brother and Alvin Sargent, producer Laura Ziskin's husband>) and populated with too many villains (i.e., three).

Worldwide and DVD revenues will put it into profit, but it's on par with Iraqi War in terms of waste and redeeming enjoyment levels.

28 Weeks Later will end up with $10,893,000 -- 2304 theatres, $4700 a print. Georgia Rules, a disaster, will finish with $5,896,000 -- so much for the drawing power of Lindsay Lohan. Disturbia will earn $4,659,000 by Sunday, off 20%. Lionsgate's
Delta Farce will end up with $3,505,000 in 1300 venues.
Fracture will make $2,962,000. The Invisibles -- $2,108,000. Meet The Robinsons -- $1,742,000. The Ex -- $1,640,000. Hot Fuzz -- $1,613,000, off 27%.

Cage as Capone<< previous | next >>Comparing the "Thief" discs

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on May 12, 2007 at 8:19 AM

comment #1

George Prager says ...

Movies for 30-year-old boys should never cost that much. A $300 mil flick should appeal to kids, teenagers, soccer moms, my Mom and Dad, me and 30 year-old boys. This was the genius that was Titanic.

Posted by George Prager at May 12, 2007 8:44 AM

comment #2

jesse says ...

So Jeff... question, have you actually seen the movie yet? Your vague criticisms sound suspiciously like boilerplate summary of reviews you've read.

I also love how a "B" rating from CinemaScore means that people didn't like the movie. I'd give it a "B" with the traditional meaning of "above average," or a qualified but enjoyable thumbs-up.

No question they overspent on this movie, however. It didn't look much more expensive than the other two movies (well, maybe more than the first one), and won't make as much, so Sony's decision to break the bank on it was pretty dumb.

Posted by jesse at May 12, 2007 9:17 AM

comment #3

Gnome de Guerre says ...

My hypothesis is that unfortunately the over-the-top wad-blowing opening weekend of this means that even if Spidey 4 were actually great, it wouldn't make as much over the long haul.

Am I right on this? Would people have a sense in 2-3 years or whenever the sequel emerges that they'd already been there done that as far as falling for the hype?

Conversely, if this had been the best thing ever, would Spidey 4 had an even bigger opening? (presuming it had kickass trailer and was released within a reasonable timeframe)

Posted by Gnome de Guerre at May 12, 2007 10:02 AM

comment #4

Josh Massey says ...

A CinemaScore of anything less than A- pretty much always means the movie sucks (or is too challenging for mainstream audiences.)

Posted by Josh Massey at May 12, 2007 10:02 AM

comment #5

iamanerd says ...

Even if that movie did cost $500 million to make, advertise, etc., it'll make that, easy, overseas, so anything domestic, product licensing, and DVDs will be profit. It will probably "only" make 1/2 a billion or so. Gee whiz, I hope that's enough.

We can bitch and moan all we want about the quality of these movies over the last few summers and their ballooning budgets, but they make money hand over fist.

Spiderman 3, as a fan too, was very disappointing. It wasn't good. The effects, despite the costs, looked like a cartoon to me. I began to wonder if any time the mask was pulled down if ole Tobey was even under there. Probably not. Still, I forked over my $8.75 opening weekend along with most of the world it seems. Sure, we're sheep. Don't worry, Jeff. I'll only do this for Shrek, Pirates, Oceans, Bourne, and Transformers this summer. Don't be mad.

Posted by iamanerd at May 12, 2007 10:35 AM

comment #6

D.Z. says ...

jcal: "A $300 mil flick should appeal to kids, teenagers, soccer moms, my Mom and Dad, me and 30 year-old boys. This was the genius that was Titanic."

Titanic only appealed to teen girls who were crazy enough to believe that Leo was attractive and straight.

jesse: "It didn't look much more expensive than the other two movies (well, maybe more than the first one), and won't make as much, so Sony's decision to break the bank on it was pretty dumb."

What are you talking about? It had a better opening than Sith and King Kong! It might fizzle out by now, but most companies with bloated budget
tentpoles would love that kind of return.

Gnome: "My hypothesis is that unfortunately the over-the-top wad-blowing opening weekend of this means that even if Spidey 4 were actually great, it wouldn't make as much over the long haul."

It probably won't have to spend six months trying to break even like Batman Begins, because the last film was so awful.

iamanerd: "Spiderman 3, as a fan too, was very disappointing. It wasn't good. The effects, despite the costs, looked like a cartoon to me."

If you're a fan, you'd actually read the comic.

Posted by D.Z. at May 12, 2007 11:08 AM

comment #7

wholovesya says ...

The gross for "28 Weeks Later" is tremendously disappointing. The movie is on par with the first, but was the victim of a bad marketing and publicity campaign by Fox Atomic. And that begs the question, can they do ANYTHING right over there? This is their third screw up opening in a row...

To add to the Spider-Man chatter -- if will probably get to $330-340. Would it have done more if people liked it? Absolutely.

Posted by wholovesya at May 12, 2007 12:00 PM

comment #8

Cadavra says ...

"So much for the drawing power of Lindsay Lohan."

I thought JUST MY LUCK pretty much proved she was over as a "star."

Posted by Cadavra at May 12, 2007 12:16 PM

comment #9

martindale says ...

For the record, Spiderman 3's Cinemascore rating was B+, compared to A- for the first two movies.

Posted by martindale at May 12, 2007 12:35 PM

comment #10

JD says ...

Why does everyone always resort to the low blow of specifying that Sargent is Ziskin's husband, as if he's not a real screenwriter. For one, he co-wrote Spider-Man 2, which most people agree is one of the best super-hero movies ever made. He also wrote Gambit, Paper Moon, Straight Time, Ordinary People, and many other terrific movies. I understand that you hate the Spider-Man franchise Jeff, but taking digs at Sargent/doubting his validity as a screenwriter is beneath even you. If you're gonna blame someone for the SM3 script, blame the Raimis.

Posted by JD at May 12, 2007 12:37 PM

comment #11

BNick says ...

In two weeks Spiderman 3 will have taken in almost $50 million more than Superman Returns or Batman Begins did in their entire theatrical run. Incredible.

Posted by BNick at May 12, 2007 1:36 PM

comment #12

travis b says ...

this drop is hardly a surprise. besides, everything that it makes is now icing on the cake after the 382 million worldwide opening take. which also means you're looking at pure profit from here on out, something which jeff's blur fails to mention. you may not like the film wells (and have you seen it), but it's a hit, no matter which way you try and spin it. can we start attacking pirates 3 now? it's only a couple of weeks away...

Posted by travis b at May 12, 2007 2:31 PM

comment #13

actionman says ...

just got out of seeing 28 weeks later. fucking awesome. one of the best horror movies in years. loved it. had some serious balls that movie.

saw the trailer for pirates 3...looks like an insane amount of fun.

also--the new trailer for peter berg's the kingdom (a movie i saw a few weeks ago at a test screening and was INCREDIBLE)--was shown, and it's pretty fucking sweet. the kingdom is easily one of the best action movies in a long, long time, and I will be very curious to see how it does both criticially and at the box office. it's a really serious drama with some of the best and most intense action scenes in years. always maintained believeability and was pretty bloody. anyways, great flick...i hope it does well in september when it opens.

Posted by actionman at May 12, 2007 2:42 PM

comment #14

JD says ...

If The Kingdom is as good as the script for Lions For Lambs, consider me excited. Big year for Joe Carnahan's brother.

Posted by JD at May 12, 2007 3:35 PM

comment #15

Mike Schaefer says ...

"Titanic only appealed to teen girls who were crazy enough to believe that Leo was attractive and straight."

DZ that may be the best and funniest line you've ever written.

I've heard that rumor too, and it really makes you wonder about that whole "Pussy Posse" thing. So elaborate a sham is really overdoing it, no?

Posted by Mike Schaefer at May 12, 2007 5:50 PM

comment #16

JD says ...

You do realize, Mike, that there are rumours out there claiming every single actor in Hollywood is gay. Read the imdb message boards some time.

Posted by JD at May 12, 2007 9:31 PM

comment #17

Mike Schaefer says ...

Yes, JD, I'm a card-carrying godless homo, so I am aware of that. But even if only 2% of those rumors are true, the lengths to which some closeted celebs go to remain closeted are still mind-boggling to me.

Posted by Mike Schaefer at May 12, 2007 10:19 PM

comment #18

jesse says ...

Josh Massey, I know that anything under A- from CinemaScore is considered a "meh" reaction, which seems ridiculous to me. A movie has to win near-unanimous praise from a mass auidence to be considered even *liked* -- that's just weird to me. If I were polled about a movie and gave it a "B," it would mean: "I liked it, but didn't love it. It was worth seeing." Is that a bad reaction??

Although it does fit into my "word-of-mouth" theory, that WOM is only really a factor if it's extraordinarily good (or maybe extraordinarily awful, like a D from CinemaScore).

D.Z., breaking the bank on Spidey 3 still seems like a dumb idea in retrospect not because it's not making money, but because it could've probably made a similar amount without costing the extra $50 mil or $75 mil. I mean, yes, it will definitely make over $300 million domestic... but it could outgross SM1 (which it probably won't) and still not have made back the budget and P+A... just seems unnecessary considering how much of the Spiderman movies is actually based on human characters rather than pyrotechnics. For all of the expense of SM3, it only had, what, four or five big action scenes? The others were like that too; it's fine with me, but it doesn't seem to demand that kind of rampant spending.

Posted by jesse at May 12, 2007 10:26 PM

comment #19

D.Z. says ...

wholovesya: Fox Searchlight shouldn't have taken five years to do a sequel to 28 Days Later. Horror's not like other genres; if you don't milk it for what it's worth, people will move on to something else. And apparently, that "something else" is Saw and Hostel.

Posted by D.Z. at May 12, 2007 11:42 PM

comment #20

The Movie Man says ...

I thought 28 WEEKS LATER was just ok. It has a teriffic opening 30-45 minutes, but after that predictably turns into a remake of the first film with less interesting characters and the typical, never will die despite the odds being greatly in that favor annoying children.

But that first third is strong, its too bad the filmmakers didn't fulfill their notion of a broader look at the story (like the trailer misleads you into thinking it will.)

Posted by The Movie Man at May 13, 2007 5:40 AM

comment #21

christian says ...

i've never been a fan of the first one. it stops being a horror film and becomes a less interesting DAY OF THE DEAD...

Posted by christian at May 13, 2007 12:41 PM

comment #22

George Prager says ...

Stick a fork in it. Spider-Man 3 is officially a commercial and critical disaster. If you're going to make a $300 mil movie, its got to be a class act like Titanic, not a flick that makes you think of farts. C'mon, Raimi, how about a Quick and the Dead 2?

Posted by George Prager at May 14, 2007 6:10 AM

comment #23