Guest Mole Posted January 6, 2003 Report Posted January 6, 2003 1 Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The (2002) 25.6m 261.0m 2 Catch Me If You Can (2002) 21.2m 97.6m 3 Two Weeks Notice (2002) 11.6m 69.3m 4 Maid in Manhattan (2002) 9.0m 76.7m 5 About Schmidt (2002) 8.7m 12.2m 6 Gangs of New York (2002) 7.4m 47.2m 7 Drumline (2002) 5.6m 47.8m 8 Wild Thornberrys Movie, The (2002) 5.5m 31.5m 9 Chicago (2002) 5.0m 9.3m 10 Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002) 4.5m 252.0m LOtR is at the top again. It already has beat out Harry Potter, and looks like it will get to atleast $350million, in my opinion.
LaParkaYourCar Posted January 6, 2003 Report Posted January 6, 2003 Damn!! I guess you can call Chicago a flop huh?
Guest El Satanico Posted January 6, 2003 Report Posted January 6, 2003 I didn't know that Chicago recieved massive amounts of hype. I don't really know if it can be considered a flop since it hasn't been hyped up that much. However I've heard that it's good so i kinda want to see it.
Guest the pinjockey Posted January 6, 2003 Report Posted January 6, 2003 Was it even released in a wide range of places?
LaParkaYourCar Posted January 6, 2003 Report Posted January 6, 2003 That's true I didn't even know it was out yet until I saw that list.
Guest El Satanico Posted January 6, 2003 Report Posted January 6, 2003 Was it even released in a wide range of places? I think it's initial release was Limited, but I'm not sure if this is it's wide release or not.
Guest Mole Posted January 6, 2003 Report Posted January 6, 2003 It only played in 304 theaters, averaging $16,500. I haven't seen ANY trailers for it on television, so they better start doing that. I don't even know when it is going to be released nationwide. Like I really care, I'm not going to see it. I hate musicals.
Guest Youth N Asia Posted January 6, 2003 Report Posted January 6, 2003 Gangs of New York isn't turning out to be the blockbuster they thought it would be. And how the hell is Drumline STILL doing that well?
Guest C.H.U.D. Posted January 6, 2003 Report Posted January 6, 2003 Damn!! I guess you can call Chicago a flop huh? Not really. It only playing in 300 theatres, and it's average per screen is amazing. The same with About Schmidt, it's #5 and it's only playing 800 theatres.
Guest evenflowDDT Posted January 6, 2003 Report Posted January 6, 2003 What the hell is Chicago even about? I saw it playing at a theatre the other day and it was the only title I didn't recognize.
LaParkaYourCar Posted January 6, 2003 Report Posted January 6, 2003 What the hell is Chicago even about? I saw it playing at a theatre the other day and it was the only title I didn't recognize. It's a movie version of the play/musical by the same name.
Guest Mole Posted January 6, 2003 Report Posted January 6, 2003 Gangs of New York isn't turning out to be the blockbuster they thought it would be. Gangs will be hanging around for awhile. This movie is actually doing pretty well for a Scorsese film. The highest grossing film for Martin was Taxi Driver, with $70 million plus I believe. Gangs is already the second highest grossing film for Scorsese, and I believe it will be the highest grossing film. The production company figured this movie would make most of its money over time, with word of mouth helping it the most.
Guest red_file Posted January 6, 2003 Report Posted January 6, 2003 And how the hell is Drumline STILL doing that well? Lack of demographic competition; attractive women bouncing around; uplifting storyline.
Guest Edwin MacPhisto Posted January 6, 2003 Report Posted January 6, 2003 Chicago's one of the flat-out most gleefully produced movies I've seen in a long time. Don't sell it short if you've never heard of it; it's one of the wittiest, most fun musicals around. If it comes to your town, check it out. I saw it Saturday and had a blast.
Guest starvenger Posted January 6, 2003 Report Posted January 6, 2003 Damn!! I guess you can call Chicago a flop huh? Not really. It only playing in 300 theatres, and it's average per screen is amazing. The same with About Schmidt, it's #5 and it's only playing 800 theatres. Anyone think that they were doing a limited release for Oscar-eligibility purposes?
Guest The Hamburglar Posted January 6, 2003 Report Posted January 6, 2003 Shit, Gangs may have started badly, but its hardly dropping at all. And it doesn't even have any of the possible award impetus yet. With that and overseas still to come it could turn out to be an earner, which is good to see. And Catch Me If You Can, I can't wait for this in the UK.
Guest Lethargic Posted January 6, 2003 Report Posted January 6, 2003 Why do people keep apologizing for this movie and coming up with excuses for it? It's doing good for Scorcese? So? It's still a bomb. When you spend that much money to make a movie you're not pleased with going into the hole like that just because Scorcese made it. Miramax isn't saying, well that's ok...Scorcese made it, let it lose money! Everybody says word of mouth will help it. It's gone down every week. Word of mouth hasn't done much so far. Oscars will help it? That's IF the movie is still playing in a month and that's a BIG if. Even if it beats Taxi Driver, what does that matter? The thing with Taxi Driver is that it cost 1.6 million to make. So 70 million was almost ALL profit. Gangs cost 97 million to make. Even if it beats Taxi Driver and becomes his biggest money maker at 80 or 90 million, it still most likely won't make a profit so it would STILL be a flop. It's just like the Lakers losing ways this season. Everybody says well, it's only November, it's only December, it's only Janurary. Eventually you have to admit something is wrong.
Guest The Hamburglar Posted January 6, 2003 Report Posted January 6, 2003 Well, I personally thought Gangs was going to drop out of sight after its disappointing opening weekend, so I'm surprised to see it still hanging on with really rather small drops from said opening weekend. And with all due respect this is not Lord of the Rings or Spiderman - people are hardly going to be wanking off into a frenzy over the money a Martin Scorcese film makes. Its not like there's any real devastation over it flopping financially, neither he nor Miramax are going to go out of business and he hardly has a track record of financial success anyway. Money has no bearing on the films of such directors.
Guest C.H.U.D. Posted January 7, 2003 Report Posted January 7, 2003 Just so you know, movies do play in other countries besides the U.S., and the money it makes in those countries does make a difference. It may "flop" in the U.S., but "flopping" in the U.S. doesn't make the film a complete failure. I know the U.S. is the center of the world, but the currency of other countries does have some value.
Guest Mole Posted January 7, 2003 Report Posted January 7, 2003 I am making excuses for this show because I still have fate in it. It still has a few weeks left, and the Oscar buzz won't hurt the film either. And if it makes more money than Taxi Driver, it will be a feat for him. It will be his highest grossing film. Yes, it won't be the big box office hit like a lot of people thought, but it will still make its budget overseas and when DVD and video sales. Oh well, whatever.
Guest Max Danger Posted January 7, 2003 Report Posted January 7, 2003 Anyone think that they were doing a limited release for Oscar-eligibility purposes? I read somewhere, might have been Zap2it.com, that that was exactly the reason both Chicago and About Schmidt were given the limited release. Just an Oscar thing. They will both eventually expand, I would assume. Anyway, I'll probably check out About Schmidt, but I'll wait for the DVD release to see Chicago, though I really do like musicals.
Guest Lethargic Posted January 7, 2003 Report Posted January 7, 2003 Just so you know, movies do play in other countries besides the U.S., and the money it makes in those countries does make a difference. It may "flop" in the U.S., but "flopping" in the U.S. doesn't make the film a complete failure. I know the U.S. is the center of the world, but the currency of other countries does have some value. I know that, you know that. But does that really mean anything over here when it comes to being a flop or not? Waterworld is considered one of the biggest flops ever. Everybody talks about the 175 million budget and the 80 million gate over here. Nobody ever mentions that it did over 250 million worldwide. Why? Because nobody cares what something does over seas. They care what shows up on Entertainment Tonight every Monday. And do you really think Miramax is thinking about international right now? Sure they'll be happy once they get that money, but right now they're still having to go through the embarrasment of watching their big budget epic, which many claim to be the best movie of the year, perform on the level of a Rob Schnieder movie. By the way, I was checking and I'd like to know where the Taxi Driver is his highest movie thing came from. I did some checking and Taxi Driver only made 21. I thought 70 something was pretty high for a 70's movie like Taxi Driver. Cape Fear was his biggest at 79 million.
Guest Mole Posted January 7, 2003 Report Posted January 7, 2003 Oh ya, my bad. I don't know where Taxi Driver came from. Cape Fear made $70 million. Stoner move right there, nice job Lethargic.
Guest C.H.U.D. Posted January 8, 2003 Report Posted January 8, 2003 Waterworld is considered one of the biggest flops ever. Everybody talks about the 175 million budget and the 80 million gate over here. Nobody ever mentions that it did over 250 million worldwide. Yeah, I don't know how many times I've brought that up when people say it was a bomb.
Guest Mole Posted January 8, 2003 Report Posted January 8, 2003 No one brings that up because they just want to flame Kevin Costner.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now