From the Editor's Desk, Sept. 25
Filed under: Paramount, Box Office, Remakes and Sequels, Columns, From the Editor's Desk
I got a text message some time on Saturday:
mike: josh hartnett sucks
That would be my friend Mike, checking in from Toronto, probably after seeing The Black Dahlia. That puts Mike firmly in two separate camps: People who think Josh Hartnett isn't a very good actor (or even an interesting screen presence) and the smaller group of people who actually paid money to see The Black Dahlia.
Maybe that's how they marketed Jackass: Number Two: "You'll see morons do idiotic things, but, we promise, no Josh Hartnett!" Something has to explain why Jackass can be number one at the box office, doesn't it? Actually, this is kind of what I hate about box office reporting -- there's rarely any discussion in the mainstream media about how many prints of a film were out there: When you realize that there were over 3,000 prints of Jackass: Number Two on the streets, the question is how could it not be at the top of the box office? I always find per-screen average as interesting -- or more interesting -- as which film pulled in the most money. For example, Jackass: Number Two made about $9,187 for every movie screen it played on; The Science of Sleep made $24,785. That's not a story, though -- it involves math, it involves talking about the real economics of movies and it involves looking at the business of show business. So it's a lot easier to just look at who made the most money -- doesn't matter how -- and trumpet that film as a success.
Sigh,
J.
_thumbnail.jpg)
James Cameron Never Wanted to Make 'Titanic'
Their Best Role: Brad Pitt and 'Fight Club'_thumbnail.jpg)
Megan Fox's Scratched SNL Hitler/Michael Bay Joke
Quick List: Five Favorite Ice-Bound Movie Moments
Blu-ray Review: Funny People
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
9-25-2006 @ 7:49PM
Culture Snob said...
Considering that the point here is that gross box-office receipts aren't an apples-to-apples comparison, it's also worth noting that per-screen average ain't, either.
The real question should be: If "The Science of Sleep" were playing on 3,000 screens with a comparable marketing effort, how would it fare compared to "Jackass"?
Only a moron would claim that the Science of Sleep would have pulled $9,187 per screen in that scenario.
Reply
9-26-2006 @ 3:23PM
Erin said...
Come on, Culture Snob, it's a little fascinating that on average each screening of "the Science of Sleep" had almost 3x as many people as "Jackass 2".
Also I don't think it's all that unfathomable that under different circumstances SoS could've given Jackass a run for its money. Had it been marketed as a date movie instead of a weirdo art film and been available at every multiplex. Include the language: from the director of that really strange movie with Jim Carey and the chick from Titanic, for full disclosure.
Although, I heard SOS is a little woman-hatey so maybe not.
Reply
9-27-2006 @ 4:15AM
Fiona said...
I love Josh hartnett and think hes one of the best actors.
Reply
9-27-2006 @ 4:52PM
josh said...
"When you realize that there were over 3,000 prints of Jackass: Number Two on the streets, the question is how could it not be at the top of the box office?"
Plenty of movies have underperformed with a lot of prints. Here are some other opening weekend figures courtesy of IMDB...
The Island:
$12,409,070 (USA) (24 July 2005) (3,122 Screens)
Pluto Nash:
$2,182,900 (USA) (18 August 2002) (2,320 Screens)
Just My Luck:
$5,692,285 (USA) (14 May 2006) (2,541 Screens)
The Alamo
$9,124,701 (USA) (11 April 2004) (2,609 Screens)
As those figures show, if people don't want to see your movie, it doesn't matter how many prints you make.
Reply
9-28-2006 @ 1:42PM
Richard von Busack said...
That Black Dahlia was good, wasn't a result of the genius of Josh Hartnett, and indeed SOS was a little woman-hatey. I guess what Jackass 2's success reveals is that given a choice between cinema and tv on the big screen, the mass audience is always going to choose the latter.
Reply