I can’t tell if this is a serious post. $70 +/- a couple million seems like a pretty good opening weekend.
Estimates are rounded BECAUSE they are estimates.
I confess to some disappointment that they appear to have pretty drastically departed from canon. I imagine future generations of Disneyland visitors are going to be awfully confused by the climax to Fantasmic!
And does the movie have her change her name to Beneficent after she turns good again?
Sorry you didn’t like it (edit, now I see you haven’t seen it yet). Since I’ve never read the original story or seen Sleeping Beauty or been to the Disneyworld thing, canon means less than nothing to me. I was reading through the IMDB reviews (not the message board) and I saw review after review after review from people who said they were huge/life-long Disney fans who loved it.
Btw, wouldn’t “canon” be the original Grimm fairy tale? Did Disney follow canon?
Edit to add: The answer to your last question is no.
The rounding usually does go that far and when it does, it is “rounding up” way past what they should be estimating. E.g., A Million Ways to Die in the West was estimated at $17,069,000. Rounding to the thousands is common and is usually somewhat reliable. Once you see rounding to the millions, the term “estimate” no longer applies. Rounding to the 10 millions? Someone is trying to keep the stock from dropping on Monday.
$70M or so is great if your projection was $55M. But to go under $67M, like this film might, when projected higher, then not great. Tiny, temporary, stock blips hurt. Phone calls are made. Budgets are cut. Projects get delayed or canceled. When the blip is over, other stuff starts taking precedence. Hollywood studios are good at producing fiction.
The weekend actuals are in: $69,431,298. Which is only .8% off the estimate and I am surprised.
(Two example outliers in estimates for the weekend are Blended which reported 3.3% too high and Neighbors was 4.7% too low. Rare to have several films off by that much. Makes the estimate for Maleficent look even better by comparison.)
So Disney is a little bit unhappy. Very close to $70M but not quite. The questions are: is this going to play as a kids movie or not (slow/fast fall off, merchandise, plus DVD sales) and the overseas question. If it stands as a kids movie, they will make serious bread. Otherwise, they will only make decent bread.
BTW, the CinemaScore is “A”, which will help overcome the critics.
(Ninja’d)
I might have missed this. Has it been mentioned yet that the Maleficent screenplay was written by Linda Woolverton, who wrote the screenplay for The Lion King?
I saw her name in the credits and wondered why it sounded familiar.
All the distributors have mathematical models, and on some of them (particularly R movies) it’s hard to be precise. I don’t think they position as much as they used to.
Disney isn’t unhappy at all with 69.4M vs 70M. And as far as legs go, this won’t be like a kids’ animated movie, the 4x I mentioned above. Plus or minus 3x, probably a little minus with the upcoming slate of movies.
What movies might those be? Looking at IMDB’s Coming Soon roster, I could see only 3 more movies geared toward kids during the summer, and they’re all male-oriented: How to Train Your Dragon 2, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and Planes 2. Not that girls can’t or won’t like them (I loved the first Dragon and I’ll see the 2nd) but Maleficent is female-centric, and that appetite was whetted with Tangled, Brave and most especially Frozen (which, by the way, made less in its opening weekend than Maleficent, and has now made over a billion, though I don’t expect that for Maleficent).
It has lots of advantages to have legs and make a lot more money. It’s not a remake (it’s a reimagining), girls and their parents are loving it and wanting to see it again (not enough data yet as to whether boys are liking it), little competition, Disney, Angie and Elle all bringing in their fan bases (the other actors have fan bases too. Even if all the other roles were cast with unknowns, I’d see it just because Juno Temple and Sam Reilly are in it. Plus I’m a fan of Sharlto Copley, Leslie Mannvile and Imelda Staunton, who could bring in those curious because they only know her as Dolores Umbridge from Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix). And other reasons.
Let’s not forget the international box office. Angelina Jolie is an A-list star over here, but she’s an A-list superstar in other countries. This movie will set that status in stone.
For the purposes of a character with that name, Disney IS canon.
Now that’s just silly. I predict that in seven years, SoCal school kids are going to be asked to define the word maleficent and come back with “Sweetness and light, but with a physically imposing exterior.”
I appreciate your enthusiasm and certainly I’ve been wrong before. Two movies to keep your eye over the next weeks are Dragon 2 (45% of the Maleficent viewers were families) and The Fault in Our Stars (60% were female); the latter is tracking heavily with both teenage girls and older women, and opens in 3,000 theaters.
International box office is accounted for separately in the discussion above.
Oh definitely. I’ll not only keep my eyes on them I’ll see them myself, but I’ll still see Maleficent again. Tomorrow in fact. In 3D (I hope*). A lot of people will be seeing Maleficent multiple times.
As you say, Fault is really geared to teen girls and older women. Yeah, that’d be me, but I’m only seeing it because I like Shailene Woodley. I haven’t read the book. (Damn thing better be better than Divergent. I liked Shailene and Chicago all apocolypsed, but dear lord what a silly story!)
I don’t think it’s going to be one or the other. There’s a lot of room for both, or all three. This is not Highlander, THERE CAN BE JUST ONE! or however that goes.
- A tip for Chicago moviegoers: Century/CineArts in Evanston, a theater with nice big screens and cushy seats, has a discount Tuesday special. All showings are $5.75! I was told that that price doesn’t include 3D movies, but that they’re discounted to $9.00, cheaper than their normal movies, which I think is $11.00, but I’m not sure since I’ve never seen a full-priced movie there. I go all the time after work for matinees, which are, ouch, $7.50. I’ll be testing if that discount price is real since I saw both Maleficent and Godzilla in 2D, and I’d like to try them both in 3D.
I can’t fathom why you would come to that conclusion, since it looks to me. that with a one or two exception, every movie that has had an opening weekend of anything over 69 million has eventually earned over $200m and generally well over.
And it looks like that site doesn’t do any inflation edjustment, if the estimated tickets opiton is any clue. The columns have some asterisks, but I couldn’t find corresponding footnotes…
Just to confirm for Chicagoians, 3D movies are $9.00 on Tuesdays at CenEv, all showings.
I did see both Maleficent and Godzilla again, this time in 3D. It’s not necessary to enjoy either movie because I enjoyed both movies in 2D just fine. Seeing some of the twinkling lights in 3D was cool during Maleficent, but cementing my love for this film had nothing to do with the 3D. Next time I see it I’ll see it in 2D.
I was only trying to comment on the Box Office of the film at the cinema.
I like Angelina Jolie. But what I find interesting is that she is a huge ‘star’ but has not got huge box office hits in her CV (yet).
I did go to see the movie with my young kids. I was worried that it would be too violent for them. I was actually surprised that it was not all that violent or ‘adult’ in theme.
I enjoyed the movie. I was surprised after when I found out that the budget was 200M. If I knew that before I would have been looking for a million special effects. There were not that many. Where did the 200M go?
What? Practically everything except the actors was a special effect. I’m not home so I can’t look up and post cites. I am glad you liked it. How old are your kids?
My kids are 7 and 6.
Quote from LEIGH PAATSCH’s review-
“Forgive this production its shoddy start - Maleficent still many go down in history as the cheapest-looking $200 million movie ever shot - and it will very gradually begin paying the viewer back in kind.”
You will note that to me the question isn’t $200M but $250M. Last Friday’s numbers strongly suggested $200M was going to happen. If you look at just the films on that list at $70M or just under, the ones that did $250M generally had hella legs. This is the issue with Maleficent. We have a preliminary number: $10M this Friday vs. $24M last Friday.
That is not good no matter how you slice it.
$250M domestic is not going to happen. Now I am starting to doubt $200M if HTTYD2 adds to the hurt.
The *'s are explained at the upper right of the page you link to.
I’m with you on $250 million being unlikely. Tracking for this weekend is around $35 million, about a 50% drop. That’s neither horrible nor great, if it holds up.
More interesting to me, although a bit of a tangent, is that The Fault in Our Stars continues to rise in tracking. Social marketing of this has been completely genius… as a result, it’s gone from estimates in the high 20s to potentially as much as $50 million.
Wouldn’t $200m domestic be kind of middling, given a budget of $180m? Although you can’t underestimate the value of keeping families on the Disney train.