Quote:

---

Originally posted by Succatash:

The film cost only $6 million to make.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Succatash:

What does that have to do with Inspector Gadget? Can you please make sense?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Succatash:

What does that have to do with Inspector Gadget? Can you please make sense?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JCKNIFE:


Just for a sense of perspective: $21.8 million puts it at #222 on the list of all-time opening weekends, slightly worse than "Inspector Gadget" did on its premiere weekend.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Succatash:

You're sneezing at $20 million and comparing Fahrenheit to Inspector Gadgit. As if production costs mean nothing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JCKnife:
I can't see this film generating word-of-mouth audience.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JCKnife:
You're implying that Inspector Gadget's higher production costs made it a better film?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by janielynn:


Regardless of Moore's politics, he pulled off something that most people in the film industry would consider remarkable.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Succatash:
...if Serenity makes $20 million during the first weekend it will likely be the top box office movie and considered a success. Even though it made less than Inspector Gadget.

---

Quote:

---

Though Fahrenheit's $25,115 per theater average is extraordinary, it's not unprecedented. It ranks as the seventh highest all time for a wide release (adjusting for ticket price inflation knocks it down to no. 28) and the third best this year behind The Passion of the Christ's $27,554 and Shrek 2's $25,951. However, they were super-saturation releases playing at 3,043 and 4,163 theaters respectively -- the lower the theater count, the easier it is to have a high average as the release isn't diluted by less populous locations with lower ticket prices.

Fahrenheit's performance harkens back to the days when big movies wouldn't play in every nook and cranny of the country, but would bow at around 700 or 1,000 theaters to sell out crowds. Perhaps the greatest example of this, Return of the Jedi debuted to $23 million at 1,002 theaters in 1983, which would adjust to $45 million by today's ticket prices. In terms of raw dollars, Fahrenheit is actually the biggest opening ever for a movie playing at less than 1,000 theaters, topping Rocky III's $12.4 million at 939 venues.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by janielynn:
JCKNIFE

I can appreciate your perspective. Spider-man opens this Wednesday and will probably kill off this film.

But I do find it impressive that a political documentary with a minimal promotional budget claimed the #1 spot during the middle of the summer film season.

Regardless of Moore's politics, he pulled off something that most people in the film industry would consider remarkable.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Caligari:
and I paid cash money just to place my "vote" for such courage, his politics notwithstanding.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by janielynn:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Caligari:
and I paid cash money just to place my "vote" for such courage, his politics notwithstanding.

---

I think a lot of this films business is coming from people wishing to "cast a vote" or simply send a message to the current administration. While I do think Moore did a remarkable thing by grabbing the #1 spot. I think a lot of the credit also has to be placed with that percentage of the public who disagrees with the President's politics.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SouthernMerc:

BTW, I was somewhat interested in Moore's film "Bowling for Columbine" just to see what the talk was about, until I watched the animated segment. Animated segment...in a documentary? That right there had me questioning the film's veracity, as the segment had ALOT of misleading and flat out wrong information. "If just that small bit was misleading, what about the rest?" I said. So, I have a hard time believing MM's movies are honest. Did the events he outline occur? For the most part, I think they did. But I believe he put a spin on them, and even showed the events in a Hollywood type of showmanship that leads the audience to the wrong conclusion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by maugwai:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SouthernMerc:

BTW, I was somewhat interested in Moore's film "Bowling for Columbine" just to see what the talk was about, until I watched the animated segment. Animated segment...in a documentary? That right there had me questioning the film's veracity, as the segment had ALOT of misleading and flat out wrong information. "If just that small bit was misleading, what about the rest?" I said. So, I have a hard time believing MM's movies are honest. Did the events he outline occur? For the most part, I think they did. But I believe he put a spin on them, and even showed the events in a Hollywood type of showmanship that leads the audience to the wrong conclusion.

---

Michael Moore never said he was trying to be objective. When John Stewart asked him if he was fair on the Daily Show, Moore said, "No. Of course I'm not fair." So you take his stuff with a grain of salt. He's combining art and politics, and doing it very well. But he does have an agenda.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by maugwai:



The funniest part of the movie, I thought, was how many people run when they see him. I would too. But the film tugs at your heart strings just like a regular movie. I did laugh, and I did cry. I tried to look at it with the awareness of his agenda, but when you put it like he did, man that stuff is persuasive. Moore definitely knows what he's doing.

And at the theater we went to, every single showing was sold out both Saturday and Sunday. Lines to get in were stretching down the street.


"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LexiBlock:
Ah yes, an almost typical Michael Moore discussion: Attack him for being ugly - even though has nothing to do with political point of view. Claim his films are full of lies, yet never prove any of them. etc etc.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LexiBlock:


If he had lied someone would have sued him, the never do. He presents the facts and states and opinion, and that is no longer accepted in the USA. Home of the free it's no longer.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
But IMHO, not worth my $9.00.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JCKnife:
Just for a sense of perspective: $21.8 million puts it at #222 on the list of all-time opening weekends, slightly worse than "Inspector Gadget" did on its premiere weekend.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JCKnife:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
But IMHO, not worth my $9.00.

---

Damn, here's where I'm out of touch. I still think of a movie ticket as costing $6.50.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tallgrrl:

Here's some more perspective for you:
$21.8 million dollars...for a DOCUMENTARY.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tallgrrl:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JCKnife:
Just for a sense of perspective: $21.8 million puts it at #222 on the list of all-time opening weekends, slightly worse than "Inspector Gadget" did on its premiere weekend.

---

Here's some more perspective for you:
$21.8 million dollars...for a DOCUMENTARY. [Bites tongue so doen't end the sentence with the word "fool".)


"Take me, sir. Take me hard."

---

Quote:

---

Depends, $9.00 is fairly avg in metropolitan areas now; and you'd be lucky to find a reduced price matinee showing for $6.50. In bigger cities, the prices can top at $12.00.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:

Quote:

---

Depends, $9.00 is fairly avg in metropolitan areas now; and you'd be lucky to find a reduced price matinee showing for $6.50. In bigger cities, the prices can top at $12.00.

---

jasonzzz

Yeah. I was amazed that the matinee price at the theater I went to was $7.50! wtf? Fortunately, we still have an old theater in town that shows black and white double features for $4. But going to see a new movie gouges. I can't imagine what it would be like for a family with more than three kids.

On a side note, I'm fascinated by charts that show box office totals updated for inflation. For those interested:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted/

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tallgrrl:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JCKnife:
Just for a sense of perspective: $21.8 million puts it at #222 on the list of all-time opening weekends, slightly worse than "Inspector Gadget" did on its premiere weekend.

---

Here's some more perspective for you:
$21.8 million dollars...for a DOCUMENTARY. [Bites tongue so doen't end the sentence with the word "fool".)


"Take me, sir. Take me hard."

---

DOCUMENTARY b/c it was self-entered into that category. That and there isn't a complete mis-representation of the facts and a big fat baffoon category.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Doran:



I would not like to even think about your scrotum.. yuck!

---

Well it's not like I'm under contract...but I can dream, can't I? It would have to be done tastefully.

Quote:

---

Moore: pirate my film, no problem (since I already got paid $100-million)

VIDEO DOWNLOAD:
http://piratenews.org/video-archive.html

Fury as Fahrenheit 9/11 director backs allegedly "illegal" not-for-profit downloads - Controversial film-maker Michael Moore has welcomed the appearance on the internet of pirated copies of his anti-Bush documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 and claimed he is happy for anybody to download it free of charge. The activist, author and director told the Sunday Herald that, as long as pirated copies of his film were not being sold, he had no problem with it being downloaded. “I don’t agree with the copyright laws and I don’t have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people as long as they’re not trying to make a profit off my labour. I would oppose that,” he said. “I do well enough already and I made this film because I want the world, to change. The more people who see it the better, so I’m happy this is happening.” Moore’s views have not been well received by Hollywood’s establishment, which is fighting a war against the online pirates it claims cost the industry £1.6 billion a year in lost sales. Jack Valenti, the outgoing president of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), an industry that steals billions of dollars in "venture capital" from private pension funds and from government CAFR pension funds, said: “Piracy is having a dramatic impact on the creators and copyright owners of this nation, and its defeat depends largely on the commit ment and resolve of the entire industry. File sharing causes tremendous financial loss to the movie business, untold hardship to support workers, and costs thousands of jobs.” Distributed via websites such as suprnova.org, which lays claim to having served more than 17 million downloads, Moore’s documentary critique of the Bush administration’s red, white and blue rush into war with Iraq is among the web’s hottest properties. Thousands of copies of Fahrenheit 9/11 have already been downloaded, each taking about 3.5 hours over a broadband connection. Moore said: “Is it wrong for someone who’s bought a film on DVD to let a friend watch it for free? Of course it’s not. It never has been and never will be. I think information, art and ideas should be shared.”

By MichaelMoore.com

---