North American box office: Hannah Montana beats up Vin DieselOh, the burn: 1. Hannah Montana: The Movie: $32.3 million (NEW) actual numbers, not estimates Never underestimate the breathtaking power of teenage girls. Hannah Montana defied most expectations to roundly trounce Fast & Furious, which had generally been awarded the weekend even before Hannah opened. Instead, F&F plunged 62 percent in its second week -- not good at all; it means everyone said what I did, which is that the movie wasn’t worth seeing after that initial opening sequence, which is spectacular. What did girls do? They gave us the second biggest Easter debut ever in Hannah, and the boys and girls combined -- with the top three movies all doing more than $20 million in sales -- to score the second busiest April weekend ever... after last weekend. Overall business was up 40 percent over this time last year. Whee! Peoples is goin’ to the movies... Even Miley Cyrus, though, could not beat out either the awesomeness of the moon or that of heavy metal: Hannah Montana came in only at No. 3 when you look at per-screen averages, losing out to an IMAX space documentary (and one that’s been available on DVD for ages) and a non-IMAX documentary about heavy metal musicians who refuse to go softly into that good night: 1. Magnificent Desolation: $15,845 (on each of 4 screens) Suck on that, Hannah. [numbers via Box Office Mojo] support
Disqus commentsblog comments powered by Disqus |
posted:
Tue Apr 14 09, 12:20AM categories: movie buzz permalink 12 pre-Disqus comments Disqus comments tip jarshare
read more
Anvil The Story of Anvil
box office Fast and Furious Hannah Montana The Movie Knowing Magnificent Desolation Monsters vs Aliens Observe and Report related· North American box office: ‘Avatar’ ‘Avatar’ ‘Avatar’ · North American box office: ‘The Hangover’ lingers; aspirin not helping · question of the day: Why are we no longer able to trust that a documentary is authentic? · Anvil! The Story of Anvil (review) · trailer break: ‘Anvil! The Story of Anvil’ · North American box office: Zac Efron is your god · U.K. box office: ‘Fast & Furious’ zooms to first place · question of the day: What movie are you most looking forward to in April? · U.K. box office: Brits like ‘State of Play,’ even though they’ve already seen it · U.K. box office: ‘Wolverine’ geekifies Britain, too bloggyprevious post: Anvil! The Story of Anvil (review) next post: question of the day: Huh? What? “Glenn Beck comedy show”? |
|
|
search
follow
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in case of site outages or other emergencies, I'll update my status on Twitter and Facebook)
|
||
follow FlickFilosopher.com no matter where you are online
|
||
share and enjoy
shop to support
support FlickFilosopher.com when you click through here and buy almost anything at:
• Amazon U.S.
• Amazon Canada
• Amazon U.K.
• Amazon Germany
• Amazon France
• Amazon Spain
• Amazon Italy
• Chapters/Indigo (Canada)
• Amazon U.S.
• Amazon Canada
• Amazon U.K.
• Amazon Germany
• Amazon France
• Amazon Spain
• Amazon Italy
• Chapters/Indigo (Canada)
pre-Disqus comments
posted by bitchen frizzy (Tue Apr 14 09, 9:36AM)
Two of the top three movies are aimed at children and families, a chronically underserved market that will make even a mediocre movie successful. I don't understand why people continue to be suprised when movies like Hannah Montana succeed. It's not that I personally wish for more family-oriented fare, but it just makes good business sense.
--"Suck on that, Hannah."
Tasteless, even as a figure of speech.
posted by Ryan (Tue Apr 14 09, 1:16PM)
Wow, could you BE any more politically correct?
Also, it interests me that Miley Cyrus has made all this movie/TV money off of a split-personality disorder. Oh, and as far as the I-Max stuff goes;
Suck on THAT, Hannah x2
posted by bitchen frizzy (Tue Apr 14 09, 1:49PM)
I don't think anyone who's read many of my posts here would call me "politically correct."
I believe that vulgar, sexually suggestive remarks in reference to a child are tasteless. If that makes me "politically correct" then so be it.
posted by kevin (Tue Apr 14 09, 5:19PM)
Why did you choose not to see Hannah Montana: The Movie? It could have been great. You never know.
posted by Ryan (Tue Apr 14 09, 6:50PM)
Er, yeah. I've read plenty of your posts here. Also, Miley Cyrus is a child. Hannah Montana is a fictional character. And if you believe that MaryAnn meant that in a sexual way then you clearly can't read for context.
posted by MaryAnn (Tue Apr 14 09, 11:02PM)
Yeah, there was nothing at all sexual intended by that.
And I didn't see *Hannah Montana* because there's too much else to see at the moment, and I can't see everything.
posted by bitchen frizzy (Wed Apr 15 09, 11:38AM)
I make an observation that a phrase like "suck it, Hannah" is crass and vulgar rather than witty, and I get an argument to the contrary. Um, ok.
posted by MaryAnn (Wed Apr 15 09, 12:18PM)
No, you said it was sexually suggestive and that's what made it tasteless. It may not have been witty, but it wasn't intended to be sexually suggestive. It was just meant to be a smackdown to an annoyingly vapid fictional character who thinks she rules the world, and clearly doesn't.
posted by bitchen frizzy (Wed Apr 15 09, 12:25PM)
Arrg. Do we need to parse the etymology of the phrase?
Actually, never mind. It was feedback, apparently unwelcome, and not even my main point. I should never have accepted Ryan's flamebait when he rode to your rescue.
posted by MaryAnn (Sat Apr 18 09, 10:38AM)
Feedback is not unwelcome. I'm sorry you were offended.
posted by Victor Plenty (Sat Apr 18 09, 11:34PM)
Seems to me, you're both right.
Many expressions once considered sexually suggestive have become generically aggressive "smackdown" material, used by people who don't intend anything sexually suggestive at all.
Yet these phrases still have their origins in talk that is not merely sexual, but deals in the abuse of sexuality as a tool of violence, degradation, and subjugation.
Even when the writer is free of such tasteless intent, there is still a strong potential these phrases will create unwanted connotations in the reader's mind, which can prevent real communication from occurring.
That seems to be what has happened here.
posted by MaryAnn (Tue Apr 21 09, 11:06PM)
Well, you know, I *did* intend for "Hannah Montana" to be subjugated by what I wrote. Just not in any nasty, disgusting, inappropriately sexual way. :->