erik lundegaard

Movies - Box Office posts

Thursday August 13, 2009

The Wobbly Legs of "G.I. Joe"

After busting out gangbusters on Friday with a $22 million opening, "G.I. Joe" hasn't fared particularly well. It was the only film, among the top 20 grossers Saturday, whose percentages dropped, and they dropped by 18 percent. Its studio's Sunday estimation was off by $1.5 million—indicating enthusiasm, such as it was, was waning even more than they thought—while it was one of only three films whose percentages dropped Tuesday. And while the other two, "Orphan" and "Funny People," dropped by 1 percent, "Joe" dropped by 7 percent. "Joe"'s torso may be buff, in other words, but his legs are weak.

The lowest-grossing film for any film to open in over 4,000 theaters is "Mission: Impossible III," which wound up making $134 million, domestic, back in 2005. "Joe" is now at $67 million. Fingers crossed.

No tagsPosted at 08:25 AM on Aug 13, 2009 in category Movies - Box Office
Comments   |   Permalink  
Tuesday July 21, 2009

Die, Die, Die!

For the first time since it opened on June 24, “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” made less than $2 million (domestically) in one day—when it grossed $1.7 million yesterday, down 42% from the previous Monday. I know. Cold comfort. But so far it's the only comfort I've found.

Tags: ,
Posted at 08:56 PM on Jul 21, 2009 in category Movies - Box Office
Comments   |   Permalink  
Saturday July 18, 2009

Quick Movie Quiz

Question: Three 2009 films are already among the top 100 films in terms of all-time worldwide box office (unadjusted). Name them. I'll leave the answer tomorrow in the "Read More" field.

» Read More

No tagsPosted at 09:33 AM on Jul 18, 2009 in category Movies - Box Office
Comments   |   Permalink  
Tuesday July 07, 2009

Revenge on “Revenge of the Fallen”

Here's the plan. We find every 14-year-old that's propeling “Transformers 2” toward the $400 million mark in the U.S., and possibly the $1 billion mark globally, and in 30 years force them to watch it again. Plus the original. Plus all sequels. Plus the '80s series. Back to back to back to back. As a way of saying thanks.

The movie's box office has fallen off, certainly, but not preciptiously liked I'd hoped. I had my fingers crossed for “Gigli” numbers (-81% during its second weekend) or at least “Wolverine” numbers (-69%), but “Transformers” only fell off by “Terminator: Salvation” numbers: -61%.

I'm hoping for better next weekend. Stop the stupidity. While we can.

Tags: ,
Posted at 04:24 PM on Jul 07, 2009 in category Movies - Box Office
Comments   |   Permalink  
Friday June 26, 2009

Why We're Getting 10 Best Picture Nominees

 The Annual Box Office Rankings for Best Picture Nominees, 1991-2008*

Year
BPN BO rank
BPN BO rank
BPN BO rank
BPN BO rank
BPN BO rank
2008  16 20 82 89 120
 2007  15 36 50 55 66
 2006  15  51 57 92 138
 2005  22  49 62 88 95
 2004  22  24 37 40 61
 2003  1  17 31 33 67
 2002  2  10 35 56 80
 2001  2 11 43 59 68
 2000  4 12 13 15 32
 1999  2  12 13 41 69
 1998  1  18  35 59 65
 1997  1   6 7 24 44
 1996  4  19 41 67 108
 1995  3  18  28 39 77
 1994  1  10 21 51 56
 1993  3  9 38 61 66
 1992  5 11 19 20 48
 1991  3  4 16 17 25

* Best picture winner represented in red.

Want one more?

Year
BPN BO rank
BPN BO rank
BPN BO rank
BPN BO rank
BPN BO rank
1970 1 2 3 4 11

*ditto

The problem isn't the number of nominees. The problem is the disconnect between studios, distributors, audience and the Academy. We don't make best pictures anymore. And if we do make them we don't distribute them. And if we do distribute them we don't go see them. And if all three happen, but the movie happens to be a cartoon or a superhero film, the Academy can't be bothered.

I'll say it again. The Academy is fixing something that ain't broken (the tradition of five nominees) because of something that is hugely broken. All of the above.

BTW: I charted the above for the drastic change that took place in 2004, but I never noticed —until I created this graph — how the best picture winner is almost always (eventually) the no. 1 or 2 box office hit among the five nominees. That's good to know. Or at least it was in the era of five nominees. Now it's useless knowledge.

Tags: ,
Posted at 11:08 PM on Jun 26, 2009 in category Movies - Box Office
Comments   |   Permalink  
All previous entries
 RSS    Facebook

Twitter: @ErikLundegaard

ARCHIVES
LINKS