I don't think so, because the tone of the article is that
The Shaggy Dog's performance was BAD for Disney. That data makes it look like it was a pretty decent win for Disney. Just look at the first half of the same paragraph.
Quote:
|
It's certainly not an abject miss, but I can't quite call The Shaggy Dog a bona fide hit. It could go on to become a sleeper, but I was nevertheless looking for a bigger bark at the box office.
|
Clearly he was attempting to use the "per screen" analysis as an example of how poorly
The Shaggy Dog performed, but that's not what it shows (unless he made an error and meant "more" instead of "fewer").
IF he did mean it how you read it, well, that's just a really poorly written paragraph and a bad analysis overall. I mean, one generally doesn't follow a statement about how you expected better performance with an example of how much better it performed than its nearest competition.