| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Redford anti War anti Bush movie underperforming but beating others in genre |
| 2007-11-11 |
| The link is to the box office receipts. Redford's Lions for Lambs made about $2.1M on its debut night. Redford had predicted $4M. Other anti war/anti Bush movies have done worse. Rendition has finally reached a cumulative of about $10M after 3 weeks (and they had Reese Witherspoon!!! and Jake Gyllenhaal). In the Valley of Elah has reached a cumulative of about $7M after a month and a half. |
| Posted by:mhw |
| #22 "In other words, for a fat girl it doesn't sweat too much." Do not mock this phrase lightly. A buddy of mine went up to a girl on a dance floor once and used the line, "You don't sweat much for a fat girl", she ate it up, and they were an item for years. Truth stranger than fiction, and all that. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2007-11-11 20:23 |
| #21 Hollywood's take on war has become too predictable--why shell out good money? |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-11-11 18:16 |
| #20 :-) Jonathan... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-11-11 17:24 |
| #19 Redford anti war anti Bush movie underperforming but beating others in genre In other words, for a fat girl it doesn't sweat too much. |
| Posted by: Jonathan 2007-11-11 16:39 |
| #18 Here are the entire 3-day weekend estimates: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=lionsforlambs.htm $6,710,000 (Estimate). This means that each day they had about the same b.o. Typically, the opening weekend is seen as the most profitable, with b.o. going downhill from there. $3,029 average per theater, for three screenings. That is not a good b.o. Other stats: 88th top opening weekend for all movies in 2007. 88th place? That sucks. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-11-11 13:53 |
| #17 I blame tom cruise's haircut. Redford will make it up in Iran, Pakistan, Syria. Now if I click the link for Lions for Lambs 100 times, will it register 100 or just 1 because it came from the same computer? I want to do my part to make the advertising cost of the movie exceed the gross receipts by as large a margin as possible. |
| Posted by: danking70 2007-11-11 13:03 |
| #16 As a matter of fact, I'm visiting all of Fred's fine advertisers today. And don't forget that if your holiday shopping includes Amazon, go in thru Fred's portal there on the sidebar ---> |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2007-11-11 12:02 |
| #15 D'oh - hadn't thought of that Seafarious. Thanks for that... ;) |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2007-11-11 11:57 |
| #14 Oooh, Anonymoose, a mind that can do numbers is a terrible weapon ;) 50 people... not a lot is it? Hollyweird really doesn't get it, do they? |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2007-11-11 11:54 |
| #13 I don't like to see the ad here on the Burg for this POS film. I do. I click on it a few times a day and let them pay Fred for the privilege. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2007-11-11 11:54 |
| #12 This strange, Seriously, this is the best shot they could send. 3 big name actors and all that advertising money and this is what gets turned in? Agreed #8 A$$=lost. Game over, man! (Aliens, 1986, still one of the best, wonder why..) |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2007-11-11 11:53 |
| #11 I don't like to see the ad here on the Burg for this POS film. |
| Posted by: Intrinsicpilot 2007-11-11 11:38 |
| #10 I'm sure they will blame it on illegal 'Pirate' versions. Isn't that what the recording industry's been doing over the past few years? |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2007-11-11 11:37 |
| #9 They'll make it up in foreign. That's who their audience is. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-11-11 11:05 |
| #8 The only thing they understand is money. Here's hoping they continue to lose their a$$. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2007-11-11 10:54 |
| #7 It's also important to note that the Redford movie had a wide opening in 2,215 theaters. That works out to about $970 per theater. Divided by three showings is $323 each. Average national movie ticket price is $6.55. This means that about 50 people saw the movie each showing, on opening day. The typical theater seats 300. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-11-11 09:45 |
| #6 They're whining in Hollyweird, no one wants war movies during war. Bull!!!. They don't want pure unadulterated anti-American screed. Check the box office takes for 2006. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) $423,032,628 Night at the Museum (2006) $250,863,268 Cars (2006) $244,052,771 X-Men: The Last Stand (2006) $234,360,014 The Da Vinci Code (2006) $217,536,138 300 (2006) $210,592,590 source:http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross The suits lie through their teeth when they say the public doesn't want 'war' movies. "300" was hardly family affair to take the 8 year olds to. Plenty of blood and gore. Even the main characters die in the end. Sacrifice is never pretty, but it holds a lot move virtue than cowardice. Production Budget: $65 million. Domestic: $210,614,939 46.2% + Foreign: $245,453,242 53.8% = Worldwide: $456,068,181 The 300 shows people want heroes. American people will pay to see American heroes. The web identifies plenty in the WoT and they're not the anti-war/American punks who inhabit Hollyweird's universe. There's nothing needed to make up. Hot reality. Real profits. So if Hollyweird isn't interested in profits, let's join the rest of the industry and tax "get our cut of" the gross, not the net. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-11-11 08:50 |
| #5 There's a saying: There are some things worse than war. We now know what one of them are: Robert Redford movies. |
| Posted by: badanov 2007-11-11 08:08 |
| #4 From the linked movie review: Miss Streep's character, Janine Roth, is the most damaging, because, unlike the politician, merely another power-luster, or the student, who may not know better, she knows she's being used—like most of today's top press members, she is part of the status quo—and she is more conscious of popular downloads than she is of what comes with her byline. Her New Left ideals are as powerless in assuaging her guilt as they are in opposing a war with a premise, i.e., altruism, identical to her own. She is the embodiment of today's media stars: a willing exponent of a wrong war. The anti-war journalist and the pro-war politician share one another's philosophy; he uses liberal jargon—like that tipping point nonsense—to hustle his poison and she takes his dose of neo-conservatism with barely a whimper. Wow. I am really, like, so DUMB! I'm gonna rush out NOW and go see the movie, so I can be SMARTER! |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-11-11 07:05 |
| #3 no fools like old fools. Hollywood is 20th Century. Party's over, dudes. |
| Posted by: Unutle McGurque8861 2007-11-11 06:39 |
| #2 Debbie Schlussel categorized the layers of deceit in "Rendition." If I want to be lied to I will go to the CAIR website, rather than shell out bucks for Hollywood snakeoil. Redford, Cruise and Streep are all has-beens in any case. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2007-11-11 05:37 |
| #1 Hollywood, Die the nasty death of the NY times. There is a difference between wrong and very wrong. You know not either but you are BOTH. Die Hollywood, DIE. |
| Posted by: newc 2007-11-11 03:13 |