_Blades of Glory_ is only half as long as _Grindhouse_, so theatres can only sell half as many tickets to _Grindhouse_ on any given day (assuming screening rooms containing the same number of seats).

But apparently *Grindhouse* was on more screens than *Blades* (even though it was at fewer overall venues). And I would assume that *Grindhouse* audiences are more amenable to midnight screenings, but *Blades*' audience not so much.

You really have to look at the per-screen averages for the best idea of how excited audiences were about a particular film. *Blades*' per-screen last weekend was $6,604 -- *Grindhouse*'s was $4,419.

The film with the best per-screen last weekend was *Black Book,* which was playing on only 9 screens but made $12,502 on each of those screens, almost double what *Blades* made. (The reissue *Killer of Sheep* made $15,864 on each of two screens, but rereleases work on a different level, have built-in audiences, etc.)

What puzzles me is why anyone who's paid attention to box office grosses over the years thought *Grindhouse* would do all that much better. Not on its merits, but simply being a 3-hour R-rated movie inherently puts a ceiling on how well a movie's going to perform. (Not to mention it's a really, really gory one, which is the only thing that kept away squeamish wusses like me....)

I can't remember all the precise details, but if I remember right from the research I did when I was seriously playing HSX, there are very, very few R-rated movies that have had anything like $20 million inflation-adjusted openings or real "blockbuster" total numbers.