StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I expected this to be a very unremarkable week, what with nothing of note opening. Yet looking at the numbers this week, it's clear that the holidays have a weird effect on things that I haven't been doing this long enough to have observed before. Not only has every single movie posted a double-digit percentage gain, but one ridiculous shit bomb has actually moved five places upwards in it's second weekend.
__________

#1 - The Chronicles of Narnia, Week 4
Weekend gross: $25.7m (+30%)
Total gross: $217.7m
Budget: $180m

It's official, Narnia has kicked King Kong in the nuts. Whatever profit Kong does or does not eventually generate, the battle for the title of champion is over. Narnia has a hundred million to go before it matches the gross of Fellowship of the Ring. A few weeks ago I'd have laughed at it's chances of catching up, but I've learned not to underestimate this movie so much.
__________

#2 - King Kong, Week 3
Weekend gross: $24.5m (+15.7%)
Total gross: $167.3m
Budget: $207m

Poor Peter Jackson. I'm sure foreign grosses will bring in enough money that nobody beheads you, and DVD sales may well be quite profitable. But let's face it, that's consolation talk for losers. Your movie got kicked in the ass by talking animals. What lessons can we take away from all this? Well for one, not every goddamn movie needs to be three hours long. When the Rings flicks clocked in at around that length, we all nodded our heads, because we knew the source material more or less demanded at least that much. But the original Kong wasn't an epic, it was a fun monster movie about a giant ape and an island full of dinosaurs. There's NO EXCUSE for nearly doubling it's length in the remake.
_________

#3 - Fun with Dick and Jane, Week 2
Weekend gross: $16.4m (+14%)
Total gross: $59.9m
Budget: $100m

Look Jim Carrey, your movie actually improved upon it's opening weekend! Of course, the opening weekend sucked ass, and this 14% gain is actually the smallest of any movie in this weekend's top ten, but hey! That DVD market sure is important these days. In all seriousness, Carrey needs to go back to talking out of his butt and being funny and stuff.
_________

#4 - Cheaper by the Dozen 2, Week 2
Weekend gross: $14.2m (+53.1%)
Total gross: $50m
Budget: Unavailable

It's almost sad when you can post a gain of more than 50% over your opening weekend, and still come in at less than fifteen million. Nevertheless, I'll reserve final judgement until the budget is revealed. If they managed to keep it under control, this flick could turn out to be a modest success.
_________

#5 - Rumor Has It, Week 2
Weekend gross: $9.2m (+166.2%)
Total gross: $24.3m
Budget: Unavailable

The most surprising rally of this weekend is also the one least likely to matter in the end. After all, 166% of jack shit is... still pretty much jack shit. Will someone please blackball Kevin Costner already? It's bad enough that his movies suck ass, but something about his face just pisses me off. I can't explain it.
_________

And the rest!

Rank - Title - Weekend/Total/Budget (Comment)

#6 - The Family Stone - 8/44/18 (See Hollywood? Small budget = WIN!)
#7 - Memoirs of a Geisha - 8/28/85 (And gross overbudgeting = LOSE!)
#8 - The Ringer - 6/19/? (Of course some movies can never be cheap enough...)
#9 - Harry Potter - 6/275/150 (While others can spend all they want and still make it.)
#10 - Munich - 5/14/70 (Then there's Spielberg, who'll do what he wants and you can kiss his ass.)

Do you have international numbers for Narnia?

Fuck it, I thought King Kong was almost perfect. Not every film needs to be 3-4 hours long, no, but I felt Kong's length was fine.

Anyway, it's already reached $222.5 million internationally, and if today's estimate pads out, It'll break $400 million worldwide by the end of tomorrow. Kong has not lost...

Interestingly, once you add in foreign markets, Kong is up on Narnia by 396 to 303. I'm still not going to stop farting in Kong's general direction though. Domestic box office is all about dick waving.

Ace Pace wrote:Do you have international numbers for Narnia?

$78.862 million, but that almost seems like a lack of updating to me...

LordShaithis wrote:Interestingly, once you add in foreign markets, Kong is up on Narnia by 396 to 303. I'm still not going to stop farting in Kong's general direction though. Domestic box office is all about dick waving.

Thats because in many places Narnia isn't as well known. However a giant monkey has universal appeal.

LordShaithis wrote:Domestic box office is all about dick waving.

The blinder of the Domestic box office is only looked at by the same people who worship the mother fucking worthless star system like it matters for four shits. If you want to tell me how good a movie's doing, then give me the fucking international earnings as well. I couldn't care less how an internationally distributed film does only in a single national market, especially in this day and age of near-total film globalisation.

I'll probably start including worldwide numbers next week, since they're making such a big difference here.

Bear in mind, however, in regards to King Kong: it initially was looking like a shut-out, one that would be squeezed out fairly quckly. It has managed to develop this much staying power over the weeks, which was not expected. It never did break out of its hover in the lower reaches of potential, however.

LordShaithis wrote: #2 - King Kong, Week 3
Weekend gross: $24.5m (+15.7%)
Total gross: $167.3m
Budget: $207m

Poor Peter Jackson. I'm sure foreign grosses will bring in enough money that nobody beheads you, and DVD sales may well be quite profitable. But let's face it, that's consolation talk for losers. Your movie got kicked in the ass by talking animals. What lessons can we take away from all this? Well for one, not every goddamn movie needs to be three hours long. When the Rings flicks clocked in at around that length, we all nodded our heads, because we knew the source material more or less demanded at least that much. But the original Kong wasn't an epic, it was a fun monster movie about a giant ape and an island full of dinosaurs. There's NO EXCUSE for nearly doubling it's length in the remake.

You seem to be missing the point that this was Peter Jackson's pet project. He couldn't give 2 shits if the US box office gross isn't up to scratch. Not to mention that he wouldn't give a single shit about domestic box office anyway. Yes, Narnia is kicking its arse, and was always expected to from what I understand.

LordShaithis wrote:I'll probably start including worldwide numbers next week, since they're making such a big difference here.

you damn well should. Kong is actually quite profitable when you do. What is with the focus on only the North American market? Euros, Pounds and Yen are just as spendable. It's equally as idiotic as only counting the money made on a few arbitrary days of the week.

Narnia's been marketed heavily as a Christian allegory to grab the same people who turned out in droves to see The Passion. Incidently, Passion didn't do so well outside of the United States, despite its huge domestic gross.

The U.S. is one of the most Christian developed countries in the world, so quasi-religious films like Narnia will logically do better in the U.S than elsewhere.

Ericxihn wrote:Incidently, Passion didn't do so well outside of the United States, despite its huge domestic gross.

dude, the Passion was an even bigger hit in South and Central America and made over a quarter billion dollars (39% of it's total gross) outside of the US/Canadian market. People who talk out of their ass just to bash popular targets don't last long around here.

Pffft, I went to see Narnia because I grew up on the books, not because of the religious symbolism. I plan to go see it again next week, too. I loved it.

Zaia wrote:Pffft, I went to see Narnia because I grew up on the books, not because of the religious symbolism. I plan to go see it again next week, too. I loved it.

Maybe i was naieve, but i don't remember the religious symbolism in Narnia. Then again I was 12 when i read it.

Col. Crackpot wrote:

Zaia wrote:Pffft, I went to see Narnia because I grew up on the books, not because of the religious symbolism. I plan to go see it again next week, too. I loved it.

Maybe i was naieve, but i don't remember the religious symbolism in Narnia. Then again I was 12 when i read it.

Oh, it's throughout. It's basically a fanciful retelling of the story of Christ, at least the first book is (and 'The Magician's Nephew' is basically a retelling of the book of Genesis). I've been reading them yearly since I was about 10, I think, and it's definitely there, but it doesn't detract from the story, at least in my opinion. You should see the movie; it's wonderfully done.

My father thinks Narnia is clearly full of Biblical metaphors, especially the evils of homosexuality. Bad things happen if you stay in the closet.

Col. Crackpot wrote:

Zaia wrote:Pffft, I went to see Narnia because I grew up on the books, not because of the religious symbolism. I plan to go see it again next week, too. I loved it.

Maybe i was naieve, but i don't remember the religious symbolism in Narnia. Then again I was 12 when i read it.

Which really is the point. The books were built for a young audience and while the mythology is there as you grow older and come BACK to the books when you are young its simply an amazing story. The characters are larger than life (and also VERY black and white) so it serves as a great story for young kids, its only if you've really been beat over the head with allegory and symbolism that you begin to see where Lewis made the story Christian (and also where he left some non-christian room as well). Honestly the best review I read about the movie was from EW which said something to the effect that the whole story is like your house when you were a little kid, coming back to it as an adult it seems much smaller but you also understand a lot of things about it that you didn't as a child who just wanted to run around inside of it.

Now that said I go to the matter of the international box office. I don't mind adding the numbers in here but what should be remembered is that the sheer act of moving the money back domestically (where the studio can use it) lowers your profit percentage while also increasing your costs basis for distribution. So does the internaitonal box office matter? Sure as hell it does but it isn't as profitable for a US based corporation as the domestic box office.

Kevin Costner annoys me the way Nicholas Cage does. They just piss me off for no good reason. Maybe it's the partial baldness.

LordShaithis wrote:Kevin Costner annoys me the way Nicholas Cage does. They just piss me off for no good reason. Maybe it's the partial baldness.

Ironically enough, he sat right behind me at a showing of King Kong a few days ago and after having read this thread last week, I was tempted to turn around and ask him "so how's your movie doing this week?".

LordShaithis wrote:Kevin Costner annoys me the way Nicholas Cage does. They just piss me off for no good reason. Maybe it's the partial baldness.

I've heard that he only makes movies that he would want to watch himself. That would be fine with me, but he seems to go for 3 1/2 hour post-apocalyptic epics. That are boring.


ROAR!!!!! says GOJIRA!!!!!

I personally didn't really mind Waterworld or The Postman much, actually liking them somewhat, although The Postman definately dragged a little in places.

In regards to Narnia and hidden messages or agendas, I was wondering how closely the movie related to the physical descriptions and images in the book. Because considering the time and events around which the book was written (WW 2) I saw a lot of it as an allegory about the evils of fascism.

There is the witch queen, white and blonde, that controlled a realm of cold temperatures and barbaric warriors willing to engage in monstrous acts to spread their will against the 'decent creatures'; the Lion could easily represent Britain. The only Christ-like parallel I saw was that the Lion came back to life, but I also saw that as the British Empire being reborn after the great test of wills against the fascists...

I mean, the Lion could also represent the Lion of Judea, the Jews, and that was probably not intentional. The usual animal associated with Jesus is the Lamb, while the Lion represented adversity.

I saw it as more easily fitting into the realm of political treatise, and the religious zealots were simply trying to hijack it and cover it with their own coat of paint.

(edited for clarity and grammar)

Coyote wrote:In regards to Narnia and hidden messages or agendas, I was wondering how closely the movie related to the physical descriptions and images in the book. Because considering the time and events around which the book was written (WW 2) I saw a lot of it as an allegory about the evils of fascism.

There is the witch queen, white and blonde, that controlled a realm of cold temperatures and barbaric warriors willing to engage in monstrous acts to spread their will against the 'decent creatures'; the Lion could easily represent Britain. The only Christ-like parallel I saw was that the Lion came back to life, but I also saw that as the British Empire being reborn after the great test of wills against the fascists...

I mean, the Lion could also represent the Lion of Judea, the Jews, and that was probably not intentional. The usual animal associated with Jesus is the Lamb, while the Lion represented adversity.

I saw it as more easily fitting into the realm of political treatise, and the religious zealots were simply trying to hijack it and cover it with their own coat of paint.

(edited for clarity and grammar)

True, but once you read the rest of the Narnia books, it becomes clear that its a christian story.

By The Last Battle it smakes you right in the face.