Fur Box Office Options

[RedSatinDoll]

I'd say her paycheck from Happy Feet (and the Chanel commercials) free her up to do work like this that she really wants to do, regardless of box office results. And there will always be a certain amount of potential "prestige" pictures that studios will take a chance on in the hopes of a sleeper hit or an award or two.

[elegant_fan]

I really hope that it shows at least one theater in ever state... cause i will drive to that theater! I DONT CARE HOW FAR IT IS! lol... i just dont like the fact that these people get to see it and i dont haha just kidding. but i really want to see it! sooooo badddd!!...!!

[gracie]

Thanks for the info, Gracie. 

Actually, this is trending downward.  The 28 additional theaters that opened this past weekend only resulted in $49,000??  That's  only $1,750 per screen.  Combined with the 4 theaters that opened last week, that meant only $1,531 per theater.

The percentage increase is based on increase in weekend earnings. Majority of movies listed have per theater earnings around $1,500 to $2,000. There are only about six movies out of over 100 that have significantly more than $2,000 per theater. So the earnings per theater for Fur are pretty similar to most of the movies listed.

[Meisha]

The percentage increase is based on increase in weekend earnings.  Majority of movies listed have per theater earnings around $1,500 to $2,000.  There are only about six movies out of over 100 that have significantly more than $2,000 per theater.  So the earnings per theater for Fur are pretty similar to most of the movies listed.

Gracie, you got me curious so I went and checked the weekend box office results at http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/. Looking at those results, I would still stand by my earlier statement.

While the weekend total gross of $49,675 is 72.4% better than last week's total gross, one has to factor in that it went from 4 screens to 32 screens. So the per screen average went from $7203 last weekend to $1552 this weekend. Even factoring that per screen average generally drop from week to week, this is still the sharpest drop from Week 1 to Week 2 (78% drop) for an NK film that I could remember. Maybe other members may have a different recollection. I'm sorry to bore everyone with numbers. Old habits die hard, I suppose, as I used to be a financial planner and financial analyst for a major movie studio a long, long time ago. Thank goodness I'm not in that line of work anymore.

btw ... I don't want to imply that financial results are everything. There's always other tangibles/intangibles to consider, such as critical acclaim, or even simply be on the "good side" of some key A-listers.

This post has been edited by Meisha: Nov 21 2006, 04:32 PM

[In Theory]

The expectations for an independent movie are different than mainstream ones.

[skankyoldwhore]

Picturehouse need to push it more, movies like this only do well with critical support and Fur doesn't have it so it is up to Picturehouse to push it. Most people don't even know that it exist and half the people who rely on reviews will give it a miss especially if it is a drama, it is the same problem Birth had, and Birth by all comparison was a little more audience friendly or accessible than Fur. It is also a matter of Fur not getting the audience or people refusing to see it, the theatres may also be refusing to show it because they know it won't make them much profit. Most theatres may be screening it just 2ce a day compared to more accessible fares. The first week was great for what the film is, the second week is progressing the same way but because of the names involved, more money is expected to be made, if Jennifer Jason Leigh or even Samantha Morton were to have been in the role rather than NK, this is what it will make perhaps even lower but no one will pay much attention to the numbers.

[The_sparkling_di...]

Thanks for the info.
I really hope it will come to the cinema in my town!! It's so typical that it doesn't!! I'll get upset if not!!

[gracie]

I spent Thanksgiving week in Dallas, Texas. The Dallas newspaper included Fur in a write up of current releases. Only one theater in Dallas had Fur and the only screenings were in the afternoon (two), no evening screenings.

There were also no advertisements for Fur as there were for other current releases. At this rate, Fur will never make money. I know for Nicole that is not the main purpose, but it seems as if making a little profit and having a little more box office success would be nice.
Also, I don't understand why other actresses of her calibre are making movies that are successful at the box office and Nicole has had mostly box office flops in the last three/four years. What does this do to her "bankability" and also, don't all actors need a little affirmation for their work? I kind of feel a little concerned about Nicole with the lack of affirmation in her work.

Since I did not have time to see Fur in Dallas, I guess I'll have to wait till the DVD comes out also, like most of you will have to.

[lowresist]

Also, I don't understand why other actresses of her calibre are making movies that are successful at the box office and Nicole has had mostly box office flops in the last three/four years.

I guess it's because Nicole takes more artistic risks than other actresses. I mean if you look at Dogville, Birth and now Fur... they are all very unique, small and visionary... not the blockbuster movies the audience is used to.

And I would say it's not only Nicole, also other established actresses fail with unusual independent films... look at Reese Witherspoon (Vanity Fair), Sandra Bullock (Infamous), Julia Roberts (Closer), Natalie Portman (FreeZone), Kate Winslet (Romance and Cigarettes) or Cate Blanchett (Little Fish).

Beside this fact Nicole also had successs at the box office... Cold Mountain, Interpreter, Happy Feet... and I think that His Dark Materials: Golden Compass and Australia will be very big at the BO for sure

[Wiggleurnose]

I think too much emphasis is placed on a stars bankability. I don't think Fur would do any better if any other actress played Diane Arbus.

[skankyoldwhore]

I spent Thanksgiving week in Dallas, Texas.  The Dallas newspaper included Fur in a write up of current releases.  Only one theater in Dallas had Fur and the only screenings were in the afternoon (two), no evening screenings. 

There were also no advertisements for Fur as there were for other current releases.    At this rate, Fur will never make money.  I know for Nicole that is not the main purpose, but it seems as if making a little profit and having a little more box office success would be nice.
Also, I don't understand why other actresses of her calibre are making movies that are successful at the box office and Nicole has had mostly box office flops in the last three/four years.  What does this do to her "bankability" and also, don't all actors need a little affirmation for their work?  I kind of feel a little concerned about Nicole with the lack of affirmation in her work.

Since I did not have time to see Fur in Dallas, I guess I'll have to wait till the DVD comes out also, like most of you will have to.

Nicole has never had any box office hits maybe apart from Batman, The Others. She doesn't do well in domestic BO but she has her hits overseas and most of these actresses who do well at the domestic BO are not so lucky overseas and despite all appearances, that's where it counts. I don't know any actress of her calibre who is doing well at the BO apart from Jodie Foster, and despite her movies being considered as flops, they are actually not. The only real flops she has had in the last 3 or 4 years have been The Stepford Wives, The Human Stain. Bewitched and The Interpreter may not have been blockbusters but they made their money back even Birth made its money back. This is the way her career has been since she got into Hollywood, she has never been bankable or have people flock to see her movies, the funny thing is that she can now actually open a movie in the $20m range with her Hollywood fares, something she's never been able to do before. She may not be able to give her movies legs but she can open them, now. If you take her total tally at the BO, she is one of the better performers. She is the 67th most bankable star and that's without having appeared as a character in a recurring franchise or real blockbuster apart from Batman Forever. Despite not having hits in the last 2 years, Joel Silver still paid her $15m for The Visiting/Invasion. Nicole's image as an actress is not of "likeability or ease", the kind of ease that draws a crowd and create hits.

Perhaps a lack of bankability may stop her appearing in Hollywood fares that don't work because frankly, Hollywood fares are not what has made her career and perhaps giving them a miss will strengthen the career she is striving for or picking better Hollywood mainstream scripts will help. She needs to make mainstream movies that are critically supported, that is when she will have hits. If critics don't support her movies, people won't see them because she does not have the audience.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/?view=...er=DESC&&p=.htm

This post has been edited by skankyoldwhore: Nov 27 2006, 01:13 AM

[scarlett]

Nicole has never had any box office hits maybe apart from Batman, The Others.  She doesn't do well in domestic BO but she has her hits overseas and most of these actresses who do well at the domestic BO are not so lucky overseas and despite all appearances, that's where it counts.  I don't know any actress of her calibre who is doing well at the BO apart from Jodie Foster, and despite her movies being considered as flops, they are actually not.  The only real flops she has had in the last 3 or 4 years have been The Stepford Wives, The Human Stain.  Bewitched and The Interpreter may not have been blockbusters but they made their money back even Birth made its money back.  This is the way her career has been since she got into Hollywood, she has never been bankable or have people flock to see her movies, the funny thing is that she can now actually open a movie in the $20m range with her Hollywood fares, something she's never been able to do before.  She may not be able to give her movies legs but she can open them, now.  If you take her total tally at the BO, she is one of the better performers.  She is the 67th most bankable star and that's without having appeared as a character in a recurring franchise or real blockbuster apart from Batman Forever.  Despite not having hits in the last 2 years, Joel Silver still paid her $15m for The Visiting/Invasion.  Nicole's image as an actress is not of "likeability or ease", the kind of ease that draws a crowd and create hits.

Perhaps a lack of bankability may stop her appearing in Hollywood fares that don't work because frankly, Hollywood fares are not what has made her career and perhaps giving them a miss will strengthen the career she is striving for or picking better Hollywood mainstream scripts will help.  She needs to make mainstream movies that are critically supported, that is when she will have hits.  If critics don't support her movies, people won't see them because she does not have the audience.

Good points, Skanky. I would only add that as much of a risk-taker as she is, even if she picked a no-brainer with commercial appeal-there are still no assurances of success. What looks great on paper may not end up transfering well to the big screen -even with the most trusted/talented director at the helm.

[NMK612]

it will be interesting once it is released all over the us.

when is that going to be!? I can't hold out much longer lol

[gracie]

Thanks, Skanky! Good points....I also looked at the box office link on stars' rankings based on their total earnings, etc. It was very interesting.

Thanks also lowresist and wiggleurnose!

[Grace Margaret M...]

Good points, Skanky. I would only add that as much of a risk-taker as she is, even if she picked a no-brainer with  commercial appeal-there are still no assurances of success. What looks great on paper may not end up  transfering well to the big screen -even with the most trusted/talented director at the helm.

see bewitched...

but still, skanky very well said

[scarlett]

see bewitched...

but still, skanky very well said 

GMM- did Bewitched look good on paper? Who really knows! Maybe it was a script malfunction after the commitment...still....I didn't think it was so very bad but it was our witchy Nic so I was ok with 'what it was'.

And another point (I seem to have too much to say of late), maybe the lighthearted genre filled a void in her life at that time- or perhaps, as I'm prone to also, it was just a fanciful whim with fond memories reenforcing the decision to do it.

Ah, I am tired and perhaps I've gotten too cryptic now.

[gracie]

I wonder if more than 39 theaters in the U.S. would be interested in showing Fur. It seems like there would be a few more but maybe not.

[scarlett]

I wonder if more than 39 theaters in the U.S. would be interested in showing Fur.  It seems like there would be a few more but maybe not.   

perhaps it was a limited release that was expected to grow marginally as word of mouth grew. Perhaps that's not meant to happen...