I went to Daily Variety's website to check its opening weekend tally. $59,371 on 63 screens for a per-screen average of $942. That's dismal. And based on what I've read here, Sony did at least try to market it in the areas it was released in. Think they're gonna give up and start thinking about marketing the DVD to recoup the costs?
shareI've actually found numbers lower than this. I found one that stated that this only made $25,000. It was a bad idea from the start. The Vampire genre has been beaten back into the dust from whince it came. I wish she would learn how to choose projects better. Every movie where she is the lead actress tanks and this year she has had three box office bombs in a row. Regardless of a small percentage liking Lucky Number Sleven, the film did poorly domestically. Code Name Cleaner was just as much a lost cause as this. Her movie from the end of last year, 3 Needles, was another huge disaster and her acting was God-awful in it, if not insulting since she re-wrote her own character.
I hope she wakes up and smells the coffee before she paints herself in more in a corner than she already is.
I actually wanted to see the movie, but it was never released in the entire DC/Baltimore area. I think half the problem is that the studio didn't market the movie AT ALL and nobody really knows that it exists. Have you seen one single preview or poster or commercial or trailer? I heard about it by accident. The few reviews I've read were actually positive.
shareThat's a question that only the people in the markets it came out in (Seattle, Phoenix, and one more place) can answer, but there's been talk here that an attempt was made to market it.
Of course you haven't seen any marketing for it. I haven't, and I live in L.A. Why would I? It'll never see a wider release beyond its current one given its dreadful box-office performance.
I got lucky and they showed it here in Seattle, and there were some comercials for it.
www.myspace.com/skillz4realz
well, the producers made it have a small release...cuz they're idiots. but the movie's surprisingly entertaining. go in with low expectations and it will be enjoyable. actually, i really liked it.
shareI watched it last night. On pirate DVD. Gave up hope to see it in the cinemas.
Shame because it has some fresh ideas on the vampire folklore. (Particularly the point of view of someone who has just become one of the undead against their own will and the confusion and emotional devastation that happens while trying to come to terms with your new "life" - you don't see that in many movies)
-Goodnight, mother of six!
-Goodnight, father of two!
Honestly, the more I try to find out about this movie, the more convinced I become that I'll only see it once it hits DVD. I think that writer/director Sebastian Gutierrez' name became literal "box office poison", since he was one of the writers who worked on SNAKES ON A PLANE, (and we all know how well THAT did.) This is Sony's "vote of no confidence" in him for this, so even if it was so good that it would resurrect the vampire genre completely, The Powers That Be would make sure that it would never see a single theater screen if they could help it.
It sure can't be any worse than FINAL DESTINATION 3 was, (one more like that and Morgan and Wong should be required to burn their DGA cards.)
Snakes on a Plane:
Budget
$33,000,000 (estimated)
Gross
$34,014,398 (USA) (5 November 2006)
See, it wasn't this bad.
...but seriously, when movies like D.O.A. are given a chance at cinema release, why can't atmospheric genre movies like this (that are sure to catch the attention of at least the vampire film fans) manage it?
(Of course, by now the biggest part of its prospective audience will probably have seen it via an illegal route....)
-Goodnight, mother of six!
-Goodnight, father of two!
I think Sebastian Gutierrez is a brilliant writer and director. I happen to know that he re-re-re-re-re wrote the dialogue for SoaP. And after, it got re-re-re-re-re-re-re-written. To judge him soley based on that movie is ridiculous. As for the other movies he has done, they all had their reasons. I mean, I know it sounds absurd that every movie he contributes to gets messed up, but it's the truth. I've researched it. Gothika for example, he wrote it and was going to direct it when producers decided to change the script, bring in Halle, and get a different director. When the film tested poorly they covered it up with SG's name. When in fact, he had tried to distance himself as much as possible from the very beginning. So it's rather unfair to say he's a bad writer/director when in fact, none of his visions have actually been executed the way he thought them up.
I may die young. But at least I'll die smart.