F 9/11 still #1 on Saturday

[cjbuchanan]

http://boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/?sortdate=2004-06-25&p=.htm

Takes in $7.8 million on Sat. Total so far: $16.158 million. It might just break the documentary total box office record (around $21 million set by Bowling for Columbine).

On Sat. the film took in around $9000 per screen. This is a HUGE number. The nearest rival to this was was White Chicks with $2600.

[Jokinomx]

1. F 9-11

I saw it Friday with my Wife and second Daughter (I have two however my first was out of town)... we are going to see it again with my oldest Daughter and some Friends. It was absolutely awesome. Hopefully it will unite the Dems even more as we get closer to DB-Day..(Dump bush Day).

[eyesroll]

2. It appears to have made its money back already ($16 million total for

production and promotion.)

Heck, at this rate, it might break Bowling for Columbine's record today.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

5. The Miramax owners paid $6 million to buy F911 from Disney...

...on May 28, not $16 million as you stated. Here is a link with some additional detail:

<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5087465/>

"The Weinsteins repaid their parent company for all costs of the film to date, estimated at around $6 million. They will also be responsible for all costs to finish the film and all marketing costs not paid by any third-party film distributors."

...snip...

"Any profits from the film’s distribution that go to Miramax or Disney will be donated to charity, the statement said."

....snip....

"The confrontational Moore won an Academy Award for his 2002 documentary, 'Bowling for Columbine,' about the Columbine High School shooting and U.S. gun control policy. The film earned $21.5 million at the box office, making it the highest-grossing documentary ever."


MY NOTE: I doubt seriously that finishing the film and paying for the distribution of the film cost as much as the $10 million additional you noted in your post. Additionally, to avoid any confusion, 'Bowling for Columbine" earned a TOTAL of $21.5 million during its entire stay in the theaters.

[Tansy_Gold]

6. Please remember that ticket sales do not go entirely to the

producers. The theatre owners/managers take a cut, to pay for their expenses and their employees.

Rule of thumb is to consider at least doubling the cost of PDA (production, distribution, advertising) before you start to see a profit. Distribution includes cost of copies of the film and the cut that the theatre owners take. Even the online ticket distributors get a cut.

[Tuttle]

8. Bottom line: for all you capitalists

One have theater and one day: do you want take in $9000 in gross receipts?

Or are you happy with taking in $2500 in gross receipts by showing White Chicks (supposed to be a pretty funny film, BTW)?

This is what is called a no-brainer: ask yourself WHAT WOULD CHENEY DO?

Tut-tut

[givemebackmycountry]

10. Ebert & Ropert last night

Said that "White Chicks" is hands down the "worst movie of the year" and that right after the make-up tests it should have been apparent to all that the movie should "never had been made".

And they closed with the line "Please, no White Chicks 2"

[ilovenicepeople]

11. I wish!

That White Chicks was a Micheal Moore documentary.I would go see it then,by calling it the worst movie of the year though I will definitely watch it on video.But thats just me,I thought GUMMO was a brilliant movie. HOWDY:hi:

[abelenkpe]

15. for the first three weeks

the lions share of all ticket sales go to the producers not to the theater. That is why studios considered a film successful if it makes back its production costs in ticket sales during the first three weeks. If a movies ticket sales equals it's production costs during the first week it is consider a huge success, and usually there are sequels made to cash in on it's success. The longer a movie stays in theaters the more money the theaters make because more of the ticket price goes to the theater (and less to the producers) as each week passes. Make sense? This is why studios like 'blockbusters' over 'sleeper hits' which make their money gradually but stay in the theater a long time.

(edited for spelling/grammar)

[treepig]

9. it's $16 million by this account

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=fahrenheit911.htm

[eyesroll]

12. The $10 million figure came from Box Office Mojo, not me

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=fahrenheit911.htm

Running Time: 1 hrs. 56 min.
Production Budget: $6 million

MPAA Rating: R
Est. Marketing Costs: $10 million

And yes, that's what I meant re: Bowling -- the $21 million figure was for the total take, and F911 appears to be headed to beat that in a single weekend.

[onehandle]

3. Will the morning news shows on Monday report this?

Reporting the top box office takes for the weekend is part of their usual routines.

Folks should keep an eye out.

[anarchy1999]

4. Hooray! Hooray for Michael and hooray for TRUTH IN REPORTING.

And just how will the networks report this on Monday?

[Tuttle]

7. I didn't imagine it would be this big...

until I was in the theater on a nice Saturday afternoon and it was basically sold-out! Wild! Thank you Michael Eisner and all the media whores -- people are starving for information about this bunch of liars and crooks!

Tut-tut

[Mokito]

13. Lesson for the repubs:

DON'T defuse a bomb by angrily jumping on it!

[JCMach1]

14. Stupid White Chicks

:bounce:

[stickdog]

16. How did it go DOWN between Friday and Saturday?

That almost never happens for a high demand, limited screen opening.

[stickdog]

17. Were people scared away by all the sold out shows? (nt)

[cjbuchanan]

18. More people seeing daytime shows

Ticket prices are less. Also, I think you are right about the 'sold out' effect.

Still, $9000 per screen is huge! Even Titanic never took in that much.

Don't get down, this movie is smashing all expectations.

[ixion]

19. judging from the lines outside the theater,

it will be number one today (Sunday) as well.

woohoo!! :bounce: