I'm not entirely certainwhat the argument is here -- everyone, including the studios -- knew going in that Serenity was going to be hurty by being a spin-off from a TV show nearly no one saw, and that has no big name actors. The fact that it debuted at a respectable 2nd place against the Jodie Foster juggernaut (which HAS been a surprise to most of Hollywood how much staying power that flick has) and above the Jessica-Alba-in-a-bikini film is pretty good. It's not making a fortune, but no one's predicting it's going to lose money, either. "Serenity" will have a little staying power at the box office, turn a small profit and probably do well enough to at least merit a sequel. Because even "Underworld" gets a sequel.
As to the rest -- Viggo's a big star, but the Rock is bigger. "A History of Violence" is a lot of people's Oscar pick, though, and it's getting good buzz. I want to see it.
Cindy, are you sure you want to be doing active things in a Speedo? Well, just avoid fluffers.
Last time I saw
Serenity,
there was a
Doom
trailer -- first time I saw it I recognised it right away, because I knew they were making it, knew it was starring Dwayne, and knew the basic plot. But listening to the
Serenity
audience gradually realise what it was for -- hilarious -- you could track the realisations by the bursts of laughter popping up around the theatre.
If it were all about the LCD, Into The Blue wouldn't be doing worse than Serenity this week too. And Wallace & Grommit wouldn't be leading the estimates. If you're pissed, I'd recommend something like Waiting or Two For The Money -- I haven't heard much positive about either movie, and they're doing pretty well so far. Picking on a movie with an 87% rating at rottentomatoes, directed by a traditionally inaccessible director? Diffuses the point, and distracts from it to boot.
Never said it was all about LCD elements, just that it seems to be an element that helps. Into the Blue pretty much only has the eye candy factor going for it. You need something else going on. You could put Jessica Alba and Paul Walker in Mr. and Mr. Smith and it would still do well. Not as well but still probably pretty good. You put Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt in Into the Blue and I don't think it does very much better than what it's doing. I've read where G rated movies make more than R rated movies so W&G is no surprise. Two for the Money has Al Pacino. Waiting did what I'd expect.
Interesting that W&G had the big $16 million weekend but is on 3645 screens. I think if you look at the percentages instead of dollar amounts Serenity isn't doing as bad as it would appear.
edited: because there is a huge differnce between is and isn't!
Topic!Cindy - What ita said. Hee
These numbers from this weekend make me more optimistic. Only a 40% drop from last Saturday to this, is good. If it makes 2.5M by Friday, it'll have made back half its budget in two weeks.
I walked by the theater before, and the 4:00pm Serenity was sold out. Granted, it was the tiny theater at the top floor, but still.
I don't know the economics at all. A friend of mine told me recently that, as far as profits go, showing a movie in-theater is a loss leader designed to promote the DVD, which is where the real money is made. If this is true ( and I don't know if it is), Serenity is fine; the DVDs are pre-sold.
Huh: Amazon does movie showtimes [link]
as far as profits go, showing a movie in-theater is a loss leader designed to promote the DVD, which is where the real money is made. If this is true (and I don't know if it is), Serenity is fine; the DVDs are pre-sold.
There's some truth in that, although honestly if a film doesn't make it's money back in the theater, the studio is probably sweating a bit on the DVD. Still, the studios generally know what they're doing, money-making wise. They'll make their buck of Serenity, and if there's more bucks to be made, there'll be another one.
