Weekend boxoffice report

[Guest Youth N Asia]

1. The Lord of the Rings: The TwoTowers ($ 62.0/$ 102.0)

2. Two Weeks Notice ($ 14.3/$ 14.3)

3. Maid in Manhattan ($ 10.7/$ 35.3)

4. Gangs of New York ($ 9.5/$ 9.5)

5. Drumline ($ 7.1/$ 22.4)

6. The Wild Thornberrys Movie ($ 6.0/$ 6.0)

7. The Hot Chick ($ 4.6/$ 13.8)

8. Star Trek: Nemesis ($ 4.4/$ 26.5)

9. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets ($ 4.4/$ 228.8)

10. Die Another Day ($ 4.0/$ 138.5)

 

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

So I'm guessing Two Towers did $40 million on Wed and Thursday, and the $62 million over the weekend...I'm going to see it Christmas day.

 

Gangs of New York...4th?! That seems like a disapointing number, I have little interest in seeing it, but I thought it would be a strong 2nd

[Guest So what? I liked bubble boy]

Isn't Harry Potter getting to us all

[Guest C.H.U.D.]

Poor Star Trek.

[Guest ISportsFan]

Gangs of New York...4th?! That seems like a disapointing number, I have little interest in seeing it, but I thought it would be a strong 2nd

I think it was a limited release, and there will be a wider release soon (I heard tomorrow (Christmas Day)).

 

Jason

[Guest Lethargic]

Gangs of New York...4th?! That seems like a disapointing number, I have little interest in seeing it, but I thought it would be a strong 2nd

I think it was a limited release, and there will be a wider release soon (I heard tomorrow (Christmas Day)).

 

Jason

It opened on 1500 screens, it expands to 500 more screens tomorrow. It's not like it was a limited release that was just open in NY and LA and then goes wide to the whole country or anything. I doubt if only adding 500 more is gonna make much of a difference. The movie just doesn't look very good. It could very well be great but what I see in commercials doesn't make me the least bit interested in ever seeing it and besides people on this board I haven't heard one person say a word about it. Face it, like I said before in the Gangs thread, this thing ain't gonna do jack at the box office. When a movie gets shuffled around then put out against a movie like Lord of the Rings, there's a reason for it. So later on they can say "well, it didn't do good because it opened against Lord of the Rings" but the truth is this movie doesn't look like it'd do well against Freddy Got Fingered. And I'm not knocking the movie itself, I haven't seen it. But I just haven't seen any interest from the public for this thing besides die-hard Scorcese fans.

[Guest ISportsFan]

Gangs of New York...4th?! That seems like a disapointing number, I have little interest in seeing it, but I thought it would be a strong 2nd

I think it was a limited release, and there will be a wider release soon (I heard tomorrow (Christmas Day)).

 

Jason

It opened on 1500 screens, it expands to 500 more screens tomorrow. It's not like it was a limited release that was just open in NY and LA and then goes wide to the whole country or anything. I doubt if only adding 500 more is gonna make much of a difference. The movie just doesn't look very good. It could very well be great but what I see in commercials doesn't make me the least bit interested in ever seeing it and besides people on this board I haven't heard one person say a word about it. Face it, like I said before in the Gangs thread, this thing ain't gonna do jack at the box office. When a movie gets shuffled around then put out against a movie like Lord of the Rings, there's a reason for it. So later on they can say "well, it didn't do good because it opened against Lord of the Rings" but the truth is this movie doesn't look like it'd do well against Freddy Got Fingered. And I'm not knocking the movie itself, I haven't seen it. But I just haven't seen any interest from the public for this thing besides die-hard Scorcese fans.

You're right, 1500 screens is not a limited release. Adding 500 more tomorrow won't really help.

 

When I first saw the trailer, I had absolutely no interest in seeing the movie. I still don't, but I heard the "limited release" line from a friend who likes Scorsese like a father and I spewed it back here. "My bad," as they say.

 

Jason

[Guest cabbageboy]

Gangs of NY will eventually get a nice profit but it'll happen due to major Oscar talk and awards. It's going to make a lot of money on video rentals I would think. As far as seeing it this past weekend over LOTR? Forget it.

[Guest Angle-plex]

What the fuck is "Drumline"?

[Guest Kingpk]

Gangs of New York...4th?! That seems like a disapointing number, I have little interest in seeing it, but I thought it would be a strong 2nd

Remember:

 

Romantic comedies > everything else released

[Guest Mole]

Gangs of New York...4th?! That seems like a disapointing number, I have little interest in seeing it, but I thought it would be a strong 2nd

I think it was a limited release, and there will be a wider release soon (I heard tomorrow (Christmas Day)).

 

Jason

It opened on 1500 screens, it expands to 500 more screens tomorrow. It's not like it was a limited release that was just open in NY and LA and then goes wide to the whole country or anything. I doubt if only adding 500 more is gonna make much of a difference. The movie just doesn't look very good. It could very well be great but what I see in commercials doesn't make me the least bit interested in ever seeing it and besides people on this board I haven't heard one person say a word about it. Face it, like I said before in the Gangs thread, this thing ain't gonna do jack at the box office. When a movie gets shuffled around then put out against a movie like Lord of the Rings, there's a reason for it. So later on they can say "well, it didn't do good because it opened against Lord of the Rings" but the truth is this movie doesn't look like it'd do well against Freddy Got Fingered. And I'm not knocking the movie itself, I haven't seen it. But I just haven't seen any interest from the public for this thing besides die-hard Scorcese fans.

I have heard interest in this movie, just not on this board. I was going to see it on Sunday, but it wasn't playing in my local theater. However, since they are releasing it in more theaters, I am sure it will be in my local theater.

 

Scorsese movies generaly don't do that well in the box office. His movies are more towards arts and for his hardcore fans. Here are some of his past movies success since Taxi Driver (1976):

 

Taxi Driver: $21.1

New York, New York: $13.8

Raging Bull: $30.0

The Last Temptation of Christ: $8.4

Goodfellas: $46.8

Cape Fear: $79.1

Casino: $42.4

Kundun: $5.5

Bringing Out the Dead: $16.6

 

As you can see, his movies don't do that well. However, his movies are classics, which I all love. Gangs of New York wasn't expected to make TONS and TONS of money. Plus, it is an rated R movie, and R rated movies don't do as well in the box office. It will get some Oscar notice, as it did for the Golden Globes.

 

Besides, it looks sweet to me, and that is all I care about. I have been looking foward to this movie for ever, so I'll see it this weekend.

 

Lethargic is right, it won't do a lot of business.

[Guest red_file]

What the fuck is "Drumline"?

Urban (is that still the proper PC term?) dramatic comedy about rival schools' marching band programs. While I'm sure it's well made and entertaining, I'm amazed that the concept made it all the way to production.

[Guest C.H.U.D.]

I remember the days when the hype for new movies was how exciting or entertaining it was going to be. Now it's all about how much money it can make in the opening weekend, which is why most movies suck now, cuz they just want to build a decent trailer, make the quick $50 million on first the 3 days, then hit DVD.

[The Dames 0]

CHUD, when you get that kind of excitement these days, that's when you get the MEGA draws like Spiderman and Two Towers. I don't think I've ever been more excited to see any other two films.

 

Dames

[Guest EQ]

CHUD, when you get that kind of excitement these days, that's when you get the MEGA draws like Spiderman and Two Towers.  I don't think I've ever been more excited to see any other two films.

I'd just like to point out that Dames wouldn't have given two pieces of gold-plated shit about LOTR if it weren't for me.

 

[Guest Mole]

I remember the days when the hype for new movies was how exciting or entertaining it was going to be. Now it's all about how much money it can make in the opening weekend, which is why most movies suck now, cuz they just want to build a decent trailer, make the quick $50 million on first the 3 days, then hit DVD.

You remember the days when the hype for movies was just for the chance to see the movie, not how much money it was going to make? When was that exactly? If my memory serves me correct, that is what it has ALWAYS been about. How much money the film is going to be.

 

Actually, I am excited to see the movie, and how much money it is going to make.

[Guest El Satanico]

Actually movie goers never really cared about how much a movie may make until after Titanic.

 

Yes the money that a movie made has always been a big deal, but it used to only be the people who you know actually had money riding on the movie.

[Guest cabbageboy]

I've always been interested in seeing how much money movies make. I wish there was a book that had accurate stats of this stuff going back to the silent era, just to see what movies were ultra popular. It's interesting to find out that Casablanca was only #5 at the box office in 1942, or how much more the Star Wars movies made compared to anything else at the time.

[Guest Lethargic]

People care because it's how you measure success. A movie can win a thousand awards but that doesn't matter to Hollywood if it doesn't help the movie make green. If one of my favorite stars or filmmakers has a movie out, I want to see it be succesful so they'll get a chance to make more stuff. If I see something that sucks I wanna see it bomb. Like if Darren Aronofsky puts something out, I'd love to see it be a hit because that means the chances of Batman Year One getting made by him will go up. But the money doesn't have any effect on my judgement of the movie and how I think about it.

 

I do agree on the opening weekend thing. I hate the way it's setup now. If you're not a hit in the first weekend you won't be a hit 99% of the time. That's why I don't think Gangs has a shot to get it's money back. The business doesn't operate that way anymore. Sure the Oscars will help but how is Gangs gonna stay in the theaters for two more months if it doesn't get immediate help now to even make it to the Oscars? You can't keep something like that going for a few months when the next big romantic comedy, the next big kids movie, the next big Martin Lawrence movie, the next rap star/Jet Li movie and the latest PG-13 horror movie are all waiting to take it's place and get their opening weekend boom or bust.

 

I don't think this started with Titantic. I've always seen weekend box office totals on entertainment shows and news shows for as long as I remember. I remember what a big deal it was in 89 when Batman made a 100 million. That's what REALLY gets me. How big of a deal it used to be to make 100 million. That wasn't that long ago. 8 years ago or so if you made 100 million you was the man. Today, 100 million is a budget and they expect the movie to make 200 million and when it doesn't happen they jack up the theater prices to compensate.

 

I don't think there will ever be another movie like Titanic or Star Wars that sticks around forever and breaks records. Not unless there is serious change in the way things operate. The theater experience isn't anything like it used to be. Nobody WANTS to go see a movie multiple times anymore because it costs WAY too much and the theaters themselves usually suck. It's so much easier and cheaper today to be able to get your own home theater system, why should you ever leave the house? I don't see anything at the theater anymore besides 1 or 2 movies a year. Why bother when I can just sit at home with my DVD player, 60+ inch TV and 300 watt surround system? I go to the theater every night in my own home.

[Guest red_file]

I don't think there will ever be another movie like Titanic or Star Wars that sticks around forever and breaks records.

 

While it didn't break any records (that I know of), My Big Fat Greek Wedding would seem to indicate that it is possible to have movies that last over sex months in the theatres and have people attend it multiple times. Granted, it was only making two or three million a week, but it was still out there.

 

Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone and Lord of the Rings stayed in theatres for a goodly amount of time and made obscene amounts of money. Sure, these are safe movies with built in audiences, but they prove that it's no impossible to make movies that will stay in theatres and make lots of money.

 

Perhaps the role of theatres in society is dying. As Lethargic mentions, most people that are deeply interested in movies have their own home theatre systems. I too prefer watching movies in the comfort of my own home than crammed into a theatre with a hundred other people who won't shut up.

[Guest Lethargic]

Yeah, that's why I said 99% of the movies are that way. There always seems to be one movie a year that does it like Big Fat Greek Wedding. Those used to happen quite frequently and are now once in a blue moon.

 

When I say stick around forever and break records, I mean like for a year or so. Sure Potter and Rings stuck around for a while but they didn't stay longer than your average big hit. I mean Titanic opened in December and didn't leave theaters until the next September. ET opened in June of 82 and was still playing in 83. Even Tootsie opened in December and was STILL the number one movie the next April and continued to play for a few more months. Today if a movie is #1 for more than one week it's a shock. Star Wars opened in May '77 and played until July '78 and then came back off and on until '79. Today, a Star Wars movie comes out in the summer and I already own it by October.

 

Just for kicks I went through this year. Here are the movies that were 1 at the box office for more than two weeks and how many weeks. Not even really trying to make a point or anything, just bored and curious.

 

Weekends of 2001-2002

 

Fellowship of the Ring - 6 weeks - longest by far

Black Hawk Down - 4 weeks

Attack of the Clones - 3 weeks

Signs - 4 weeks

Harry Potter - 3 weeks

American Pie 2 - 3 weeks

Pearl Harbor - 3 weeks

Spy Kids - 4 weeks

Hannibal - 4 weeks

Save the Last Dance - 3 weeks

 

Now the weekends for 1982 - 1983

 

On Golden Pond - 8 weeks

Porky's - 8 Weeks

ET - 16 weeks

First Blood - 3 weeks

Tootise - 14 weeks

Flashdance - 3 weeks

Jedi - 7 weeks

Vacation - 3 weeks

Mr Mom - 5 weeks

Never Say Never Again - 4 weeks

Sudden Impact - 3 weeks

 

So about the same number of movies but not close to the length. I had to go back to 1997 and Titanic which was #1 for 15 weeks to find anything longer than Ring's 6 weeks. What it tells me is...well nothing really...but it kinda agrees with Chud, Hollywood's only concern seems to be to get a movie out and get that big first weekend and then forget about it for whatever new thing they're putting out the next weekend.

[Guest C.H.U.D.]

Yeah, movies weren't in such a huge rush to hit DVD. I remember seeing ads in the paper for movies like Aliens and Gremlins with big banners saying 30TH SMASH WEEK!!. These days, movies are usually on DVD in 30 weeks from release.

 

Also, the hype for movies in the 80's like Crocodile Dundee, Indiana Jones etc., was much different that it is for stuff like Spider-Man. Maybe it's just me, but it wasn't all about weekend grosses back then.

[Guest red_file]

Or perhaps the majority of the public wasn't privy to how much films were making, barring the extremly huge successes. When did Entertainment Tonight premier? As mentioned, Batman was one of the first movies that I can recall the actual gross being tossed about as a success; previous to that all I ever heard was how long movies had been in the theatre.

 

If one factors in inflation, did the movies of the past make what current movies make on a week to week basis?

[Guest Mole]

Yeah, that's why I said 99% of the movies are that way.  There always seems to be one movie a year that does it like Big Fat Greek Wedding.  Those used to happen quite frequently and are now once in a blue moon.

 

When I say stick around forever and break records, I mean like for a year or so.  Sure Potter and Rings stuck around for a while but they didn't stay longer than your average big hit.  I mean Titanic opened in December and didn't leave theaters until the next September.  ET opened in June of 82 and was still playing in 83.  Even Tootsie opened in December and was STILL the number one movie the next April and continued to play for a few more months.  Today if a movie is #1 for more than one week it's a shock.  Star Wars opened in May '77 and played until July '78 and then came back off and on until '79.  Today, a Star Wars movie comes out in the summer and I already own it by October.

 

Just for kicks I went through this year.  Here are the movies that were 1 at the box office for more than two weeks and how many weeks.  Not even really trying to make a point or anything, just bored and curious.

 

Weekends of 2001-2002

 

Fellowship of the Ring - 6 weeks - longest by far

Black Hawk Down - 4 weeks

Attack of the Clones - 3 weeks

Signs - 4 weeks

Harry Potter - 3 weeks

American Pie 2 - 3 weeks

Pearl Harbor - 3 weeks

Spy Kids - 4 weeks

Hannibal - 4 weeks

Save the Last Dance - 3 weeks

 

Now the weekends for 1982 - 1983

 

On Golden Pond - 8 weeks

Porky's - 8 Weeks

ET - 16 weeks

First Blood - 3 weeks

Tootise - 14 weeks

Flashdance - 3 weeks

Jedi - 7 weeks

Vacation - 3 weeks

Mr Mom - 5 weeks

Never Say Never Again - 4 weeks

Sudden Impact - 3 weeks

 

So about the same number of movies but not close to the length.  I had to go back to 1997 and Titanic which was #1 for 15 weeks to find anything longer than Ring's 6 weeks.  What it tells me is...well nothing really...but it kinda agrees with Chud, Hollywood's only concern seems to be to get a movie out and get that big first weekend and then forget about it for whatever new thing they're putting out the next weekend.

Well actually, there is a big reason for that. Movies nowadays are always seeming to get that big first weekend, then they get that big drop off the second week. Also, during the 80's, there wasn't as many movies being released throughout the whole year. I don't know the exact numbers, but if someone wants to do some serious research, they could find that number out. Plus, movies are coming out in over 2,500 theaters. I don't know the numbers back in the day, but I am sure they didn't come out in that many theaters.

 

Funny thing about Titanic was that it was orginally slated for a July 4th release, the same day Men in Black came out. If it came out the same day MIB came out, it wouldn't of made the same amount of money that it did. No way, no how.

 

And what happens to Big Fat Greek Wedding is called a sleeper movie. A movie that no one expected to do well, but kicks major ass. Last years sleeper movie was The Others, which was an awesome movie by the way.

[Guest starvenger]

While it didn't break any records (that I know of), My Big Fat Greek Wedding would seem to indicate that it is possible to have movies that last over sex months in the theatres and have people attend it multiple times. Granted, it was only making two or three million a week, but it was still out there.

Well, it is apparently the highest grossing indy movie of all time. Sometimes, though, I think that the spin doctors just stretch to come up with these things. Although I'd love to see the spin on the big bombs. Imagine:

 

- Swept Away ("Biggest opening for a limited release starring a director's wife who only goes by one name")

- Glitter ("Best movie ever starring Mariah Carey")

- Solaris ("Biggest opening for a Soderbergh movie that was quickly downgraded to 'art house film'")

- Pluto Nash... um, actually, I don't think anything coulda saved this movie...

[Guest red_file]

Funny thing about Titanic was that it was orginally slated for a July 4th release, the same day Men in Black came out. If it came out the same day MIB came out, it wouldn't of made the same amount of money that it did. No way, no how.

I disagree. When it was finally released on 12/19 there was this huge hubbub about how it and Tomorrow Never Dies were going to cancel each other out and the studios were fools for having the movies compete against each other. Neither film had a huge opening weekend ($25 and $28 mil), but Titanic proved that audiences wanted to keep coming back. I see no reason why it wouldn't be the same had it opened in the summer. Sure, Men in Black would've trounced it on the opening weekend, but I think Titanic still would've won out.

[Guest Nevermortal]

- Swept Away ("Biggest opening for a limited release starring a director's wife who only goes by one name")

This movie pains me.

 

Snatch & Lock/Stock.....and then that pile of shit. Ritchie got a punch in the mouth with 'Swept Away'....stick to London Gangster films.

 

Or in the least, he should've casted Vinnie Jones & Jay Statham, WHO RULE THE FUCKEN WORLD.

[Guest Mole]

Funny thing about Titanic was that it was orginally slated for a July 4th release, the same day Men in Black came out. If it came out the same day MIB came out, it wouldn't of made the same amount of money that it did. No way, no how.

I disagree. When it was finally released on 12/19 there was this huge hubbub about how it and Tomorrow Never Dies were going to cancel each other out and the studios were fools for having the movies compete against each other. Neither film had a huge opening weekend ($25 and $28 mil), but Titanic proved that audiences wanted to keep coming back. I see no reason why it wouldn't be the same had it opened in the summer. Sure, Men in Black would've trounced it on the opening weekend, but I think Titanic still would've won out.

Yeah, but there was a BIG difference between Tomorrow Never Dies and Men in Black.

 

James Bond movies never make more than $100 million dollars. Goldeneye only made $106 million, and Bond movies make a decent amount, but are no BIG box office hits. So there wouldn't be a big competion between Titanic and Tomorrow Never Dies.

 

MIB made $84.3 its first weekend. Followed by $55.5, $32.6, and $21.9. It went on to gross $250 million in the US.

 

TND made $25.1 its first weekend. Followed by $37.1, $30.2, and $10.9. It went on to gross $125 million in the US.

 

My point is that MIB grossed a lot more money than TNB did. I believe that it would of cut into Titanic's gross. But that is just all speculation and my damn opinion.

[Guest C.H.U.D.]

James Bond movies never make more than $100 million dollars. Goldeneye only made $106 million, and Bond movies make a decent amount, but are no BIG box office hits. So there wouldn't be a big competion between Titanic and Tomorrow Never Dies.

Well, to be technical, Tommorrow Never Dies & The World is Not Enough, both made $125 million, and Die Another Day looks to make much more.

 

I'd say calling them hits would be accurate. Obviously they don't reach MiB's level, but they do well.

[Guest El Satanico]

But the point is that Titanic didn't make all it's money in two weekends. I don't believe it made that much money it's first month, but then word of mouth and hype got started and then it blew up for the next 8 months.

 

MIB would've died down by time Titanic started making it's big money. Besides both would've drawn from different crowds.

[Guest Mole]

But the point is that Titanic didn't make all it's money in two weekends. I don't believe it made that much money it's first month, but then word of mouth and hype got started and then it blew up for the next 8 months.

 

MIB would've died down by time Titanic started making it's big money. Besides both would've drawn from different crowds.

Yeah, I know Titanic didn't make all the money in it's first two weekends. It made $20 million for a steady 20 or more weeks in a row.

 

However, MIB did make a lot of money. So I believe it would of taken a big chunk out of Titanics gross.

 

Actually, Titanic didn't draw a different crowd from MIB. Titanic drew from EVERY demographic.

 

Plus, there are a lot of movies that came out during the summer of 1997. I believe those movies would of also taken a chunk of out Titanics gross. Here are the movies that came out in the summer of 97 and how much money they made all together

 

Air Force One - $172.6

My Best Friends Wedding - $126.8

Face Off - $112.3

Batman & Robin - $107.3

George of the Jungle - $105.3

Contact - $100.9

Hercules - $99.0

Conspiracy Theory - $76.1

 

I can go on, but that takes a lot of time that I don't feel like wasting. Once again, my point is that I don't think Titanic would of made as much money that it did. Not only were there these movies during the summer that came out, but movies that came out during the fall also. Such as Flubber, As Good as it Gets, Good Will Hunting, and more.

 

Yes, Titanic would of made TONS of money. However, not as much as it did make. I'd say it would of made around $500 million, not the $600 that it did.