View Single Post
Old 08-13-2012, 08:29 AM   #125
Dr.'s Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,856
Default Re: What's So Bad About Superman Returns?

Originally Posted by DogofKrypton View Post
Anyway, as I have ALREADY addressed twice now, SR had an ADDITIONAL 21 days to get to the "units sold" you keep harping on. The fact that YOU seem to say this doesn't matter in a head-to-head comparison tells me one of two things:

A. You are being contrary just to be contrary.


2. You seriously are unable grasp the simple concept of one movie having a longer period in theaters than the other, and therefore ending up with a higher number.
It costs the studios and theaters money to keep a movie in release. But the reason this is done is because (obviously) the movie is bringing in revenues that exceed the expense. At a certain point, however, this calculus changes and the aging movie is pulled. So did Paramount screw up? Was Thor still making money and get pulled too soon? I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that Thor was pulled at the right time (because it was no longer selling seats). Hypothetically, Paramount could have taken a loss and extended the movie’s run for another 6 months. But if it was playing to empty movie houses, that wouldn’t have affected the box office numbers (the gauge of popularity that is the subject of our exchange).

Btw, BB out grossed SR (domestically). It started slightly weaker than SR but managed to develop good word-of-mouth and “legs.” Consequently, its theatrical run was 142 days (against SR’s 128). So are you suggesting that BB (likewise) had an unfair advantage and that we should dock or prorate some of its box office to create a level playing field? That strikes me as silly. BB fully deserves its higher standing because it was still selling seats during its longer theatrical run. Quid pro quo SR and Thor.

Dr. is offline   Reply With Quote