Fandango To Sneak Preview 'Doctor Sleep' Just In Time For Halloween

Warner Bros. and Fandango are teaming up for a sneak preview of the upcoming Stephen King adaptation Doctor Sleep. The (paid) national sneak preview will occur in 400 theaters on the evening of October 30, essentially eight days (counting Thursday night previews on November 7) before its domestic launch. It's not the widest sneak preview we've ever had, and frankly I'm having a challenging time finding participating locales that are closer than a conventional "drive to a press screening" commute, but it's clear that Warner Bros. and friends have enough faith in the artistic value of Mike Flanagan's sequel to The Shining (both the book and the 1980 movie) to let audiences sample the goods a little early.

At the very least, without presuming that a robust sneak preview total will lead to a robust overall performance (see: The LEGO Movie 2), it's a fun way to get in on the Halloween action. And since this season is entirely lacking for a conventional big scary movie, well, it's not unlike when Fox sneak previewed This Means War (MCG's Reese Witherspoon/Chris Pine/ Tom Hardy action comedy) on Valentine's Day just before its domestic debut. It didn't "work," but $156 million worldwide on a $65 million budget wasn't a disaster and but it was a nice effort. If this were a wider sneak, I'd argue that the film would probably be the top-ranked movie of October 30, but I digress.

Doctor Sleep is tracking for what would be a perfectly solid $25 million domestic debut when it opens alongside Roland Emmerich's Midway, Paul Feig's Last Christmas and the Jon Cena kiddie comedy Playing with Fire. While the film seems to be repeating the "mistakes" of Blade Runner 2049 (a 2.5-hour, star-lite, R-rated, adult-skewing, nostalgia-driven sequel to a 40-year-old movie that isn't obsessed upon outside of the film nerd circles), Doctor Sleep cost closer to Conjuring 2 ($40 million) than Blade Runner 2 ($160 million, financed mostly by Alcon and Sony who distributed the flick overseas). A performance like the Ryan Gosling/Harrison Ford critical darling ($90 million domestic and $242 million worldwide) would be fine for the Ewan McGregor/Rebecca Ferguson chiller.

The Mike Flanagan-directed chiller is based on Stephen King's 2013 novel, which was a literary follow-up to The Shining. Flanagan put himself in an unusual position, making a movie that was both a faithful adaptation of the source material and a sequel to the movie version of its predecessor. Stanley Kubrick's beloved adaptation, starring Jack Nicholson and Shelly Long, isn't a terribly faithful adaptation of the book, which has been a decades-long point of contention for Mr. King. As a result, Doctor Sleep will have a fascinating needle to thread, and a fun artistic challenge. Moreover, commercially, it is a bet that audiences want a sequel to The Shining, including a marketing campaign entirely focused on "Hey, it's a sequel to The Shining!"

Yes, The Shining was a big hit in 1980, earning $41 million domestic ($147 million adjusted-for-inflation) on a $19 million budget and earning a place on almost every horror nerd's "all time scariest movies" list. The Shining also ran 146 minutes in its day. It was, until It Chapter Two (169 minutes) and the upcoming Doctor Sleep (152 minutes), the second longest theatrical Stephen King adaptation save for The Green Mile (188 minutes). And if the movie works on its own terms, length will be a mere trivia point. On its face, a 2.5-hour, R-rated, adult-skewing, action-lite sci-fi drama earned $90 million domestic and $242 million worldwide would be a pretty solid result. Twas the budget that killed Blade Runner 2049.

For what it's worth, when I took the kids (excluding my 12-year old) to The Addams Family last week, the eight-year-old, the four-year old and their five-year old cousin all laughed their butts off at the slapstick-heavy trailer for Paramount's Playing With Fire. At a glance, the Emilia Clarke/Henry Golding holiday-themed romantic comedy, written by Emma Thompson and perfectly timed to be a leggy holiday crowd-pleaser, looks to be pacing for an over/under $20 million debut. That could easily end up overperforming if reviews and buzz are good. Moreover, it cost around $30 million so nobody is going to panic over a $15 million launch. Lionsgate's World War II actioner is a more open question.

They didn't finance the $60 million Ed Skein/Patrick Wilson/Luke Evans/Nick Jonas movie, but they'd probably prefer something closer to $20 million than an over/under $15 million opening. That said, if it's any good (I tend to like most Emmerich spectacle flicks) and if it plays to at least some of the folks who turned Mel Gibson's Hacksaw Ridge into a leggy hit ($67 million domestic from a $15 million debut) in 2016, then that will be just fine. As for Playing With Fire, at this point, in this environment, I'd argue anything above $10 million for opening weekend is a win. Either way, I will certainly be taking whichever kids want to come along when the time comes.