|
Oh, I don't disagree with his overall point, but I think he screwed up. I think what he was trying to prove was that not only did Shaggy Dog only pull in $16 million, but it did worse per-screen than its closest competitor. But either he did his math wrong and Shaggy Dog did better per screen, or he made a mistake and meant "more". Because as written, it proves nothing.
If he meant it as written, what it says to me is that in a bad movie-going market, at least The Shaggy Dog seemed to be pulling people in in the few places it was being shown. That statistic makes the numbers look BETTER for Shaggy Dog because it made it into 2nd place on fewer screens.
__________________
'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.'
-TJ
|