View Full Version : 'Passion' beats 'Dead' in Box Office
View Full Version : 'Passion' beats 'Dead' in Box Office
joey tribiani
March 24th, 2004, 08:30 PM
http://movies.yahoo.com/boxoffice-daily/today/rank.html Got tired of hearing reports of Dawn beating Passion. When Passion will make 5x it's Box Office
aqlo
March 24th, 2004, 08:42 PM
duplicated here http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=19041
joey tribiani
March 24th, 2004, 08:52 PM
It is not the same thing read closely
Lord_of_the_Dense
March 24th, 2004, 09:11 PM
lol aqlo...seems tribiani has a point. Hey joey, this appears important to you. Maybe you should come visit this thread (http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=19086).
:shy
shawners
March 24th, 2004, 09:40 PM
check out this thread.> DAILY of what it made =)
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=passionofthechrist.htm
g-smooth2k
March 25th, 2004, 03:14 AM
Another great site to find out box office data and releases
http://www.the-numbers.com/
Mels_Smileys45
March 25th, 2004, 03:41 AM
Ahhh but Dawn of The Dead had a small budget and has already made more than it cost to make the movie. Not many movies these days do that. Its true though that horror fans usually make remakes first weekend the biggest then a sharp drop the next. Its made bank. Who cares which makes more money?
g-smooth2k
March 25th, 2004, 06:13 AM
Ahhh but Dawn of The Dead had a small budget and has already made more than it cost to make the movie. Not many movies these days do that. Its true though that horror fans usually make remakes first weekend the biggest then a sharp drop the next. Its made bank. Who cares which makes more money?
Ah, but there are other films with box office hits out there that had an even smaller budget then Dawn of The Dead.
aqlo
March 25th, 2004, 08:00 AM
It is not the same thing read closely
So what you are saying is that this tripe needs to be a separate thread because it has actual box-office statistics? And that makes it a different topic? Even though the title and the posted contents are in the same line as the other thread? Because you are special?
I don't believe you.
I haven't decided yet whether you just hit the wrong button, or are too lazy to read through the pages on the other thread, or just couldn't find it when you posted, or what. My current working theory is that you didn't want your Big Important Post buried on page 6 of the other thread where it really belongs.
But different? Special? Nope, sorry, better luck next time.
Back on topic, I think the 2 movies would make a great double feature, the end of Passion makes a great segue to the beginning of Dead.
Lord_of_the_Dense
March 25th, 2004, 08:11 AM
Back on topic, I think the 2 movies would make a great double feature, the end of Passion makes a great segue to the beginning of Dead.
I agree. That would actually prompt me to see the first movie.
jona100
March 25th, 2004, 08:19 AM
Ahhh but Dawn of The Dead had a small budget and has already made more than it cost to make the movie. Not many movies these days do that. Its true though that horror fans usually make remakes first weekend the biggest then a sharp drop the next. Its made bank. Who cares which makes more money?
Actually it has not made its money back yet, not even close!
You have got to remember that a movie studio only sees about 50-60% of the ticket price, the theatre gets the rest (they are not going to show it for free!).
In the opening week end the studio get about 70% of the ticket price after that they get a much smaller share (it can be as small as 40% to 50%)
Additionally the budget has been quoted as $26M, that is only the production budget; you have to add another 15-20M for promotion and distribution (i.e. the costs of ads and duplication of the 3000+ reels of the movie for theatres).
So at a rough total cost of $46M (£26M budget plus $20m promotion) and a return rate to the studio of 60%, the movie has to take $76.7M to break even.
Miniver
March 25th, 2004, 08:21 AM
i'm sure they will at the rate they are going at
Psilaxs
March 25th, 2004, 09:20 AM
So what you are saying is that this tripe needs to be a separate thread because it has actual box-office statistics? And that makes it a different topic? Even though the title and the posted contents are in the same line as the other thread? Because you are special?
I don't believe you.
I haven't decided yet whether you just hit the wrong button, or are too lazy to read through the pages on the other thread, or just couldn't find it when you posted, or what. My current working theory is that you didn't want your Big Important Post buried on page 6 of the other thread where it really belongs.
But different? Special? Nope, sorry, better luck next time.
Back on topic, I think the 2 movies would make a great double feature, the end of Passion makes a great segue to the beginning of Dead.
That was unnecessarily harsh AQLO, don't let ALL 1,700+ post go to your head now.
Induna
March 25th, 2004, 09:37 AM
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by aqlo
Back on topic, I think the 2 movies would make a great double feature, the end of Passion makes a great segue to the beginning of Dead.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree. That would actually prompt me to see the first movie.
__________________
You mean there's a zombie running around with holes in his hands and feet, sporting a thorny crown, screaming forgive them father for they know not what they do?
Lord_of_the_Dense
March 25th, 2004, 10:04 AM
You mean there's a zombie running around with holes in his hands and feet, sporting a thorny crown, screaming forgive them father for they know not what they do?
For the most part you are correct. Instead of the words that you state this zombie may be screaming, I would say it would be more like "RHHHAOORRR NNNNGAHHHHRGG GNARLLLLLLGNNNNISHHH" or simply "MorE BraINs!"
neoufo51
March 25th, 2004, 11:20 AM
Jesus freaks...
I bet they just had their hearts broken when Dawn unseated the Passion.
What losers...everything has to matter to them, even how a religious movie does...
Lord_of_the_Dense
March 25th, 2004, 11:33 AM
Easy man. Let's not get this one under the magnifying glass too. Keep it clean and professional.
shawners
March 25th, 2004, 12:28 PM
Think about this though.. Even if studios only get 70. percent, then 50 or 40 percent.. Later they get a 100 percent from DVD sales, dvd rentals, video games if they make them, then cable companies and pay perview pay them for the movie, then LOCAL networks pay them later on to show the movie.. Trust me, they get more then their money back.
neoufo51
March 25th, 2004, 12:34 PM
Easy man. Let's not get this one under the magnifying glass too. Keep it clean and professional.
Nothing professional bout this thread, dude. Its petty squandering over which movie is making more money.
Mels_Smileys45
March 25th, 2004, 12:40 PM
Theres alot of money to be made off of JC. The movie still sucks
aqlo
March 25th, 2004, 12:47 PM
Nothing professional bout this thread, dude. Its petty squandering over which movie is making more money.
And this one in particular is to advance the idea that because Passion is still winning from some overall viewpoint with box-office statistics to prove it, therefore yay goD ?!?
If the movie bombed it would be because "Christianity is being persecuted" whereas since it did well it is miraculous proof of the Divine Power. Essentially no matter what happens it will be interpreted as proof of one or another contradictory plank in what passes for religion in the vulgar mindset.
neoufo51
March 25th, 2004, 01:56 PM
And this one in particular is to advance the idea that because Passion is still winning from some overall viewpoint with box-office statistics to prove it, therefore yay goD ?!?
If the movie bombed it would be because "Christianity is being persecuted" whereas since it did well it is miraculous proof of the Divine Power. Essentially no matter what happens it will be interpreted as proof of one or another contradictory plank in what passes for religion in the vulgar mindset.
Well Said.
Sk8er Boi
March 25th, 2004, 02:08 PM
Jesus freaks...
I bet they just had their hearts broken when Dawn unseated the Passion.
What losers...everything has to matter to them, even how a religious movie does...
You forget. The passion in 4 weeks has already made 300 million, while its rare to see a movie make more than 100-150 these days. So why did the Passion do so well? Simply put because Mel was playing with a winner, when you play with God expect to break record after record.
crackerjacker
March 25th, 2004, 04:54 PM
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by aqlo
Back on topic, I think the 2 movies would make a great double feature, the end of Passion makes a great segue to the beginning of Dead.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree. That would actually prompt me to see the first movie.
__________________
You mean there's a zombie running around with holes in his hands and feet, sporting a thorny crown, screaming forgive them father for they know not what they do?The following errors occured when this post was submitted:
1. The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.
bah humba
rebirth
March 25th, 2004, 06:19 PM
Ahhh but Dawn of The Dead had a small budget and has already made more than it cost to make the movie. Not many movies these days do that. Its true though that horror fans usually make remakes first weekend the biggest then a sharp drop the next. Its made bank. Who cares which makes more money?
'Dead' still beat 'Passion' FOR THE WEEKEND...you were looking at a daily graph
1 (new) Dawn of the Dead $26,722,575 2,745 $9,735 $26,722,575 3
2 (1) Passion of the Christ, The $19,414,377 -39.58% 3,250 $5,974 $295,507,244 26
umm...plus...Passion had a 30 mil budget and it has made it back x10 already ...so...HA
Mels_Smileys45
March 26th, 2004, 02:35 AM
Did you read the last sentence of my post? Back up, re-read, get a clue. Its a success. Both movies. Big freakin whoopidy doo. Go jam a cross in it!
neoufo51
March 26th, 2004, 03:52 AM
You forget. The passion in 4 weeks has already made 300 million, while its rare to see a movie make more than 100-150 these days. So why did the Passion do so well? Simply put because Mel was playing with a winner, when you play with God expect to break record after record.
Um, when did I forget anything? Dawn beat Passion at the Sunday box office that time.
Of course it was gonna do well. The word of mouth was completely insane in its amount, people were talking about it daily on the news, specials were made, christ was studied yet again by dateline, we have a president who pretends to be a jesus freak...
shawners
March 26th, 2004, 04:51 AM
He mentioned God told him to make the movie.. The devil was everywhere he said, in his friends, in other studios, movie company, saying not to make the movie.. your carreer will fall.. and no one backed him up on it.. ANd because of the studios feeling they wont make any money or take a stance on doing something this good.. ThEY lost out.. So the movie will still making money. cause they will show it, play it every easter at all the churches world wide.
Wolfie
March 26th, 2004, 06:19 AM
Simply put because Mel was playing with a winner, when you play with God expect to break record after record.
LMAO!!!!
Yea, the only God Mel and the rest of the Hollywood producers of The Passion had in mind was the Almighty Doller. And He did come through for them.
Lord_of_the_Dense
March 26th, 2004, 08:09 AM
LMAO!!!!
Yea, the only God Mel and the rest of the Hollywood producers of The Passion had in mind was the Almighty Doller. And He did come through for them.
Indeed! lol
ROMANTICGUY50
March 26th, 2004, 08:21 AM
Easy man. Let's not get this one under the magnifying glass too. Keep it clean and professional.
Thank You For your comment. I agree. Yes I want to see the (Passion of the Christ) Just have not be able to.I will not stupe to downgrade other faiths, and I hope they will not do the same to mine. I have not had a chance to see either movie by the way.
aqlo
March 26th, 2004, 08:48 AM
LMAO!!!!
Yea, the only God Mel and the rest of the Hollywood producers of The Passion had in mind was the Almighty Doller. And He did come through for them.
I don't think you guys are being fair here. As I understand it, Gibson didn't expect to make a dime off this movie. He set out to use his film talents and connections to make a graphically "realistic" modern depiction of the traditional Stations of the Cross, because of the impression this Catholic doctrine had made on him during a time in his life when he was depressed. (He took this so far as to restrict the script to the Latin and Aramaic he imagined might have been actually used that century, with subtitles.)
Where another believer might have simply handed their 25 million directly to the church, his personal and familial political aversion to the "modernized" (Vatican II) reorganization of the church led him to make sure his money was being used in a way he could agree with, and to personally make sure of making a maximum impact using everything he had learned in his film career. But he honestly expected to never see his 25 million again, just like you would never see that dollar you stuck in the collection plate again.
Religious fundamentalists in the US got behind his movie though, as an alternative to the sort of thing Hollywood normally produces, while Jewish groups concerned with a resurgence of medieval "Passion Play" anti-semitism came out strongly against any such Gospel-based depiction because the high priest Caiaphas and numerous other Jewish figures get the main blame for the crucifixion in those gospels (written during the time of the Roman empire.) Marketing forces came into play and the public bought a lot of tickets, Mel seemed genuinely surprised to get his initial investment back so quickly.
If I'm missing something or this seems oversimplified, please speak up, I'm not religious about this construction of Gibson's motivations, it just holds together well and the only opposing views I have heard do not. But feel free to make me smarter if you can.
In the meantime, here's the sort of crap we can expect to read again and again:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&ncid=757&e=3&u=/nm/20040326/od_nm/crime_christ_dc
Police had thought Ashley Nicole Wilson, who died on Jan. 18, had hanged herself, but Dan Leach, 21, went to them on March 9 to admit that he had killed her, said Fort Bend County Sheriff's Department spokeswoman Jeannie Gage.
Leach wanted to seek redemption after talking to a friend and seeing the movie about the last hours of Christ's life, she said.
"He mentioned that speaking with the friend and seeing the movie 'The Passion of Christ' made him feel remorse," Gage said.
Leach said he killed Wilson because she was pregnant with his child and he did not want to be involved with her anymore, she said.
Lord_of_the_Dense
March 26th, 2004, 08:50 AM
Fair point, aqlo. Thanks.
Wolfie
March 26th, 2004, 12:31 PM
I don't have really anything against the content of the movie and I think it was done quite well. All the money it has made up to now is quite well deserving considering the quality of the work.
However, I have a hard time believing the fact that the movie breaking the bank was unexpected. No producer/investor/studio would sink that amount of money in a project without considering a significant return. Even if Mel was not in it for the money and looked at it as some sort of spiritual project, the rest of the Hollywood investors involved probably had thier green goggles on.
crackerjacker
March 26th, 2004, 01:06 PM
I don't think you guys are being fair here. As I understand it, Gibson didn't expect to make a dime off this movie. He set out to use his film talents and connections to make a graphically "realistic" modern depiction of the traditional Stations of the Cross, because of the impression this Catholic doctrine had made on him during a time in his life when he was depressed. (He took this so far as to restrict the script to the Latin and Aramaic he imagined might have been actually used that century, with subtitles.)
Where another believer might have simply handed their 25 million directly to the church, his personal and familial political aversion to the "modernized" (Vatican II) reorganization of the church led him to make sure his money was being used in a way he could agree with, and to personally make sure of making a maximum impact using everything he had learned in his film career. But he honestly expected to never see his 25 million again, just like you would never see that dollar you stuck in the collection plate again.
Religious fundamentalists in the US got behind his movie though, as an alternative to the sort of thing Hollywood normally produces, while Jewish groups concerned with a resurgence of medieval "Passion Play" anti-semitism came out strongly against any such Gospel-based depiction because the high priest Caiaphas and numerous other Jewish figures get the main blame for the crucifixion in those gospels (written during the time of the Roman empire.) Marketing forces came into play and the public bought a lot of tickets, Mel seemed genuinely surprised to get his initial investment back so quickly.
If I'm missing something or this seems oversimplified, please speak up, I'm not religious about this construction of Gibson's motivations, it just holds together well and the only opposing views I have heard do not. But feel free to make me smarter if you can.
In the meantime, here's the sort of crap we can expect to read again and again:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&ncid=757&e=3&u=/nm/20040326/od_nm/crime_christ_dc
Spoken with great clarity :)
Mels_Smileys45
March 26th, 2004, 02:06 PM
Mel seems to be truely a good guy who did take a big risk for what he beleives in. Most religious movies dealing with Christ usually are not box office hits. I dont think he was in it for the money.