British box office: ‘The House Bunny’ ain’t so dumb after all...My experiment with exploring global box office numbers continues. I think I’ll eventually start looking at numbers beyond North America and the U.K., but I’m trying to get a hold on what the U.K. box office numbers mean first. British numbers are not as readily available as North American ones, but it seems that the previous weekend’s figures are available by midweek. So here’s how this past weekend shaped up: 1. The House Bunny: $1.6 million (NEW) I need to get more of a grip on how to interpret some of these numbers, and I don’t even know where to begin: there simply isn’t as much analysis of box-office numbers outside of North America as there is for the numbers within. Still, the idea that if a film sees a dropoff in business of less than 50 percent after its opening weekend, that’s a good thing, probably holds for the U.K. too. And look at this: the Simon Pegg comedy How to Lose Friends... dropped only 29 percent in its second week, and the Liam Neeson thriller Taken dropped only 28 percent in its third week. That must mean people actually like the films and are spreading good word-of-mouth, and that marketing isn’t the driving force in getting people into theaters. Whatever I think of the films -- I’ve now seen How to Lose..., and liked it; I won’t see Taken till January, most likely, unless I spring for a trip to London for New Year’s like I’m fantasizing -- it’s always better if it’s genuine general acclaim for a movie that puts butts in seats, rather than advertising. Speaking of finding more analysis of the British box office... it’s bizarre. If you Google “british box office” the first results that come up are historical, and then my postings about the numbers. Googling “uk box office” produces somewhat more promising results, such as Charles Gant at the Guardian’s film blog, where for this week’s numbers, he notes that The House Bunny earned its spot at the top of the chart even though it earned less than £1 million, which is a rare thing. Gant also notes that this past weekend, Mamma Mia! had its first noticeable decline... after 14 weeks in release and a cumulative U.K. take of £65 ($113.5) million, making it the third biggest ever UK hit, after Titanic and the first Harry Potter. With another £1 million in takings – a feat it will easily manage – Mamma Mia! will overtake the latter to nab the number-two spot in the all-time hall of commercial fame. (For context, the second biggest hit of the year, The Dark Knight, has grossed £48 million.) Wow. ABBA bigger than Batman? Amazing. [numbers via The Hollywood Reporter] Disqus commentsblog comments powered by Disqus |
posted:
Thu Oct 16 08, 3:57PM categories: movie buzz permalink 6 pre-Disqus comments Disqus comments tip jarshare
read morerelated· question of the day: Would a coupon deal get you to a multiplex to see a movie you wouldn’t otherwise see? · question of the day: Should we applaud successful movie marketing when the movie being marketed is a stinker? · The Exorcist (retro trailer) · question of the day: What is the magic equation to gets people to go to the movies... or to stay away? · question of the day: After ‘Harry Potter’ and ‘Twilight,’ will we see more movies broken up into multiple installments? · question of the day: Has Hollywood abandoned young men? · must reads: “The Formula for Complete and Utter Bayhem” · deep thought (re ‘Paranormal Activity 3’) · Johnny English Reborn (review) · The Lion King in 3D (review) bloggyprevious post: dream cast: hypothetical ‘Max Headroom’ remake next post: ‘Pushing Daisies’ blogging: “Bad Habits” |









pre-Disqus comments
posted by JoshDM (Thu Oct 16 08, 4:07PM)
Abbatman
posted by Paul Hayes (Thu Oct 16 08, 4:35PM)
It's like I said in one of your earlier British box office threads - in terms of public consciousness and popular culture, they were very much the Beatles of the 1970s, and thus hold huge nostalgic appeal here. Certainly a bigger sway than Batman as cultural figures, I would say.
posted by Mark (Thu Oct 16 08, 6:24PM)
Are the UK figures you get actually in US dollars, or are they in pounds? I'd rather see the UK box office in pounds -- since the variable exchange rate can distort the meanings of the figures in terms of number of tickets sold.
posted by MaryAnn (Thu Oct 16 08, 7:05PM)
The figures I've been listing come from my source in dollars (I wasn't doing the conversion). I previously hadn't had a source that listed the takes in pounds... but now that I've found one, I'll list pounds from now on (or maybe both dollars and pounds). I had actually been worried about the exchange rate, and how that impacts the numbers... and I still am. It makes it even harder to compare across borders.
posted by jakob1978 (Thu Oct 16 08, 10:29PM)
Here's the IMDB's UK Top Ten, which is in pounds
http://uk.imdb.com/boxoffice/?region=uk
posted by Tonio Kruger (Thu Oct 16 08, 11:10PM)
Well, Abba was pretty big here in the States as well. Just not in MaryAnn's generation. Though I do remember a certain Abba-related movie starring Toni Collette being pretty successful in the US back in the 1990s.
Then again that was the same time period in which Americans invented the term "trash disco" which basically summed up the average American's attitude towards '70s pop music back then. I even remember some wag dubbing the 70s the decade of bad taste, a term that seems quite ironic in the same decade that has seen the rise of reality shows, Eminem and Britney Spears.
Anyway, cultural figures tend to come and go. Anyone who has watched a old Warner Brothers cartoon and found himself going "Huh?" at the sight of a celebrity who was evidently famous back in the day but obscure to most people today knows that. For that matter, I'm surprised how many cultural references on old Simpsons episodes elicit a "huh" nowadays.
I'm curious to see how many cultural figures that seem universal to those of us reading this site today will seem obscure to MaryAnn's younger readers ten or twenty years from now...