Rules Don't Apply : Ticket sales don't apply

Bombs away!!

"Worthington, we're being attacked by giant bats!"

$1.5m for the weekend. $661 per screen average in 2382 theaters. Ouch.

Reviews aren't great either. So much for Beatty's dream project.

http://www.indiewire.com/2016/10/2017-oscar-predictions-best-actor-1201687982/

Wait for it.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
"She'll go faster". Howard Hughes

Okay.

Meanwhile, in its second weekend, a massive 66% drop. Only $543,000 in 2386 theaters, with an embarrassing $228 per screen average. Plus, it was in 4 more theaters than its opening weekend. Clearly very few people are interested in Beatty's comeback film.

This thing will be gone by year's end, and likely forgotten by the Oscar voters.

Of course it's a bomb! Virtually all of his movies bomb! And Town & Country and Ishtar are two of the biggest bombs in history! He has only really has 3 hits in movies that he headlined or was the top star, in the last 55 years: Bonnie & Clyde, Shampoo, & Heaven Can't Wait. That's it! And he is a terrible one note actor, playing the same shy, deer in the headlights look, in every movie! That's why the longevity of his career as a star is so absolutely ridiculous and unfair to other actors!

---

And he is a terrible one note actor, playing the same shy, deer in the headlights look, in every movie! That's why the longevity of his career as a star is so absolutely ridiculous and unfair to other actors!

---

I really find this to be a weak point. There are many great actors that who or have always played themselves throughout their career. It's what some actors do and do well. It's endearing to their fans.

If you don't like Beatty fine, but considering he's already made his marks in Hollywood, is very rich and really has nothing to be ashamed of, except maybe Ishtar (which would include Hoffman), I'd say he's done just fine for himself.

I enjoyed the film. I found the central character did a great job with her character.

I've never looked at revenues to value art and I certainly have no intention to. People who that rely on others to judge the piece of art that stands right in front of them. I hope you guys enjoy the new Transformers movie whose revenues should make you like the film quite a lot.

Growing up, Hollywood style.

---

I've never looked at revenues to value art

---

Neither have I. I look at revenues to see how a film is doing at the box office, plain and simple. As the OP pointed out, this film is a bomb. Doesn't mean that it's bad, or that it's not worth seeing.

As I mentioned in another thread, I plan on seeing this when it comes out on Blu-ray. The reviews are just too mixed to spend hard earned money to see it at a cinema.

A good question is, why are people staying away from this movie? Is it Beatty? The marketing? They don't care about another film about Howard Hughes?

That's what intrigues me about box office flops or sleeper hits.

As I stated elsewhere, I think this is an exceptional film.
Box office, I was at a bookstore looking for books on Hughes. I asked a few clerks (ranging in age from 25-40 I'd say) none of them had any idea who Hughes was.

I think this hurt box office.

Well, back in 2004 The Aviator made $213m worldwide. It had the advantage of DiCaprio as Hughes, but stillI think Beatty expected great reviews and hoped word of mouth with mature viewers would make this a modest hit.

As it stands, it will be lucky to make $5m domestic. Luckily the budget was only $25m, but that's still a big loss for the studio.

"Luckily the budget was only $25m, but that's still a big loss for the studio".

I do not think that this was the typical studio situation. I recall reading somewhere that the studio here is only distributing the movie. That usually means that the movie was independently financed, which makes sense because there are something like 12 different producers. But if a movie is independently financed outside the studio system, I do not think that the usual rules of disclosure apply. For example, does anyone really know if Clerks cost only $25,000 as alleged by Kevin Smith. Moreover, you are always better off telling the critics a lower number than a higher one to get on their good side. Knowing Beatty's history of running up budgets, the quality of the cast, the fact that there were re-shoots, the fact that the movie was originally shot way back in early 2014, the four different alleged editors, 12 different producers, the production values, etc., I am fairly certain that it cost a lot more than $25 million. In fact, I recall that they originally said that it cost $30 million. Moreover, remember that even if it was only $25 million, that is just the production budget. That does not include the marketing budget which is separate. I have read that most movies, even small movies, generally have a marketing budget of another $25 to $30 million.

It's a loss for the studio, but not as big as the usual situation where the studio also finances. But it is also a big loss for all the investors obviously, which are probably listed as producers.

One of the real problems which no one has addressed is why they went for a wide release. Although I am not a fan of Beatty, this movie should have been a limited release with a later roll out like the typical prestige movie, and as going on right now with Moonlight, Manchester by the Sea, Nocturnal Animals, etc.

---

this movie should have been a limited release with a later roll out like the typical prestige movie

---

Maybe, but the reviews were mixed it's hard to say if that route would have worked. I'm sure Fox considered it, but for whatever reason decided to go wide. Perhaps they thought the Beatty fanbase would turn out in droves.

"Maybe, but the reviews were mixed it's hard to say if that route would have worked. I'm sure Fox considered it, but for whatever reason decided to go wide."

That's true also and a good point. Fox probably did some sort of pre-screening or testing and probably had some idea that the movie would not get great reviews.

The unfortunate problem with a wide release, however, is that it magnifies a movie's poor showing at the box office. Conversely, when a movie bombs in limited release, there is little if any press about it. For example, the recent movies by Rachel Weisz, Denial, and McGegor/Jennifer Connelly, American Pastoral, bombed at the box office. But since they were both limited releases, there was little if any press about it. In fact, I saw more press about getting Rachel or Timothy Spall getting a nomination.

The other problem that Beatty had is that the fall season is just too crowded, and there are too few dollars chasing too many good movies. There are so many better movies than this one. As someone suggested, it might have made more sense to release it after Alden is seen in Star Wars, and maybe during the Spring when there is less competition.

Beatty and Fox probably wanted it released near the end of the year so it would still be fresh in Oscar voters' minds when it came time to nominate eligible movies.

That's for sure, because the prevailing wisdom is that a movie seeking awards should be released at the end of the year. Unfortunately, that leads to way too many good movies released in a short period of time, and sometimes a good movie can get hurt. It also seems that in recent years more movies are being pushed out. For example, the Don Cheadle/Miles Davis biopic, and the Tom Hiddleston/Hank Williams biopic, which were both originally hoping for awards and which would have historically been scheduled for the fall, were rescheduled from fall 2015 and pushed to spring 2016. It probably would not have mattered, since neither movie was that good.

I've been thinking about watching I Saw The Light on Netflix. Hiddleston got rave reviews, but the movie didn't. In any case, I'll give RDA a shot when it hits blu-ray.