Funny math

[Ponine]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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.

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").

Right, because what they are saying as a whole is that an opening weekend of $16 mil isnt very good.

he compares it to last year, Vin Diesel opening at $30 mil.. THAT would have been good.
It comes back to the box office slump and that they are still in, and that they really wanted Disney to have a BIG hit.

*office crisis.. brb*

[Ponine]

ok, what you and I consider a win, a third place box office, isnt a win in the industry.
What is the current thinking, that it takes a 20+ million opening weekend to be considered a hit?
WHere's ism when we need him? I know he'd know.

The box office and the global opinion is that 16 mil is modest. Nothing to sneeze at, but not great.
he's right, it could be a sleeper, a word of mouth film.
Wouldnt that be a coo? I agree with him, I would have thought Tim Allen would have brought in more. But out here in Cal it was a dismal weekend, and a lot of people didnt get out, and they didnt buy tickets.