Weekend box-office

email this story
read comments (36)
post a comment

Wild Hogs wailed at the box-office this weekend while Zodiac struggled. The consistency in supporting and back-slapping low- brow entertainments straight out of the gate (i.e., as long as they feel familiar and amiable-friendly) is what sets Americans proudly apart from other cultures. (Is there another big-time industrial western society as blue-collar oafish as ours?) A slovenly homophobic movie about four pot-bellied male menopausers on motorcycles handily kicks the ass one of the unquestionably great early films of '07...as it should be! Yeah!

It was obviously in the cards for Zodiac to come in second -- I was just hoping against hope that it would do more like $14 or $15 million. My new dream is that it'll drop a lot less than Hogs does next weekend.

The yaw-haw Disney flick costarring John Travolta, Tim Allen, Martin Lawrence and William H. Macy played in about 900 more theatres than Zodiac did, and wound up with $38 mil lion, give or take. Zodiac, playing on 2,362 screes, ended up with $13.1 million and a per screen average of $5,546.

Ghost Rider dropped 43% to the #3 position...what, non on DVD yet? Paramount Vantage's Black Snake Moan, a tasty, morally positive gridhouse drama (liked it quite a bit at Sundance), came in eighth place with just over $4 million on 1252 screens, averaging $3,208 -- hey, not as good as Zodiac's!

Cruise, Wagner, Sloan and UA<< previous | next >>Malicious doc

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on March 4, 2007 at 11:07 AM

comment #1

The Movie Man says ...

This is usually where I or someone else take offense at the elitism on display, but I have to back Jeff up 100% on this one. I'm not surprised but I'm still appalled. America wonders why Hollywood makes so many bad movies but then can't get to the theatre fast enough to make crap like this (haven't seen it, but come on, what are the odds of Wild Hogs being even remotely watchable?) and Ghost Rider huge hits. It's not Hollywood's fault, they are logically making the bullshit that America seemingly can't wait to see.

Posted by The Movie Man at March 4, 2007 12:11 PM

comment #2

jeffmcm says ...

Wells is an idiot here. Other countries consume just as much crap as we do here - of course, we're usually the ones exporting it. But it's just plain stupid to not know that there are lowbrow types in Britain and Australia and Russia and Japan too. Please get a clue.

Posted by jeffmcm at March 4, 2007 12:17 PM

comment #3

Hallick says ...

What in holy hell are you whining about? You did not expect anything different to happen, did you? To the general public, "Wild Hogs" looked like a fun dopey comedy (whether it is or it isn't), and "Zodiac" looked like a bleak thriller (whether it's intense and gripping or it isn't). One has the box office clout of Travolta, Allen, Lawrence and Macy, vs. the clout of Gyllenhaal, Ruffalo, Downey Jr. and Edwards in the other. "Wild Hogs" is 99 minutes long in 3287 theaters and "Zodiac" is 158 minutes long in 2362.

"Zodiac" made exactly as much as a sane and reasonable person would expect from THE FRIGGIN' BOX OFFICE! The box office almost always rewards suck-fest movies? Knew that!

Posted by Hallick at March 4, 2007 12:25 PM

comment #4

tfresca says ...

Mr. Wells is indeed full of it, just look at the international take of films like "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas". Also could it be that people, seeing war on television and having their pension funds vanish, just want a laugh? Everybody knew this was going to tank. What movie abut an UNSOLVED murder has ever done well? They make for good reading but lousy viewing. I haven't seen Zodiac but I have a strong feeling that I will like the Zodiac special that was on America's Most Wanted a few weekends ago better than the movie. (I also have to say that it was a good bit synergy and well executed infomercial.)

Posted by tfresca at March 4, 2007 12:26 PM

comment #5

JD says ...

Wild Hogs beating Zodiac was a foregone conclusion but, even beyond that, there's some hyperbole in what Wells is saying here. I was in a relatively small town over the weekend and Zodiac was playing exactly once each night (at 8), due to its running time, whereas Wild Hogs was playing twice (7 and 9). In other words, unlike Wild Hogs, there's a good chance that there simply weren't enough opportunities for everyone who wanted to see Zodiac opening weekend to see it. I wouldn't be surpirsed if it made somewhere between $10-12 million next weekend. Keep in mind, even Titanic only made $15 million in its opening weekend (due to its running time).

Posted by JD at March 4, 2007 12:44 PM

comment #6

JD says ...

Also, Zodiac was playing on 1,000 fewer screens than Wild Hogs.

Posted by JD at March 4, 2007 12:47 PM

comment #7

Jeffrey Easter says ...

JD,
While I understand your position and somewhat agree with it, please take two seconds to check up on your stats before you spout them off as fact. Titanic opened to 28mil in '97.
imbd.com it is amazing

Posted by Jeffrey Easter at March 4, 2007 12:57 PM

comment #8

MathewM says ...

Wells is off-base with this superficial write-up. Wild Hogs looks stupid but as others have pointed out Zodiac lacks box office marquee star power, is R-rated, has a long running time and is also about a serial killer case that happened over 30 years ago. With that said in my small microcosm of people I know I haven't heard a single person say that they want to see Wild Hogs but even my 58-year old mom wants to see Zodiac. I expect a 60-70 millon cume for Zodiac which is fine considering everything I've mentioned. Wild Hogs will probably top out at 80 million. Nothing to get your panties tied up about Jeffrey.

Posted by MathewM at March 4, 2007 1:01 PM

comment #9

The Movie Man says ...

The comment about other countries is needless and off-base, but I stand by the general sentiment. Wells isn't expressing surprise (at least I didn't get that) but the fact that this isn't a surprise that it happens EVERY DAMN TIME, is what frustrates Wells, and me too. Come on guys, you have to be sick of mass audiences always taking the bottom of the barrel crap over something more interesting and original.

Posted by The Movie Man at March 4, 2007 1:18 PM

comment #10

PanTheFaun says ...

Sadly, to mine and Wells' dismay, "Hogs" will likely have a very small drop next weekend. The audience at my screening could not have loved it more-- I heard hyperbolic comments like "I haven't laughed that hard in years" on the way out-- and I'm betting the word-of-mouth will be glowing. Truly a piece of shit.

"Zodiac" deserved better, but I knew in my heart it wasn't going to get what it deserved.

I knew "Moan" was in for a beating, but I had hoped it would've been somewhere between 5 and 10 million. Just a strange movie that chose a horrible weekend to open-- the arthousers went to "Zodiac" and the low-browsers went to "Hogs." Even the black audiences didn't show up, given Lawrence's presence in "Hogs."

A real fucking shame-- the two best movies of the year so far open on the same weekend, and they both get their asses handed to them by the 2nd-worst movie of the year ("Norbit" takes the top spot).

Posted by PanTheFaun at March 4, 2007 1:20 PM

comment #11

PanTheFaun says ...

"With that said in my small microcosm of people I know I haven't heard a single person say that they want to see Wild Hogs but even my 58-year old mom wants to see Zodiac. I expect a 60-70 millon cume for Zodiac which is fine considering everything I've mentioned. Wild Hogs will probably top out at 80 million."

While I wish your wildly-inaccurate musings were correct, they're off by a long shot. I honestly have no idea what kind of word-of-mouth "Zodiac" since audience reaction is so mixed (older folks and cinephiles who know the case seem to really admire it, younger idiots expecting either a serial killer thriller or a "satisfying" conclusion seem to loathe it), but I'd say it'll be lucky to reach $40 million and earn its place in the pantheon of American classics.

The loathsome, homophobic "Hogs" on the other hand will probably reach $150 million or so.

Posted by PanTheFaun at March 4, 2007 1:25 PM

comment #12

JckNapier2 says ...

To correct the above post... Titanic made $28 million in its opening weekend, which was a record at the time for a three-hour plus movie, and it also had to contend with Tomorrow Never Dies doing $26 million on the same opening weekend. Contrary to legend that it was a small opening weekend that had huge legs, it was a very impressive performance and everyone was happy (of course, it still had huge legs to boot).

Scott Mendelson

Posted by JckNapier2 at March 4, 2007 1:27 PM

comment #13

JD says ...

Jeffrey Easter, you're right. I was writing that from memory and my memory was wrong. Still, Titanic -- a movie that Zodiac would never be expected to equal at the box office -- had an opening weekend gross that was in no way indicative of its ultimate gross. The reason: running time.

Posted by JD at March 4, 2007 1:29 PM

comment #14

D.Z. says ...

Movie Man: "America wonders why Hollywood makes so many bad movies but then can't get to the theatre fast enough to make crap like this (haven't seen it, but come on, what are the odds of Wild Hogs being even remotely watchable?) and Ghost Rider huge hits. It's not Hollywood's fault, they are logically making the bullshit that America seemingly can't wait to see."

Dreamamount failed to properly promote and position Zodiac. You can blame moviegoers, but Di$ney just had better marketing than them. Plus Gyllenhall isn't really a box office draw.

Jeffrey: Titanic was PG 13, and Leo was bigger than Jake.

Posted by D.Z. at March 4, 2007 1:35 PM

comment #15

thorsen1nk says ...

There is plenty of fluff-garbage in almost every country, but much of it is often so-culture specific it doesn't translate. Case in point: Bollywood. How many brainless pieces of musical fluff do the studios in Mumbai crank out each year?

I do agree with Der Wellsmeister that us Yanks seem to stuff our snouts in the trough of big-budget cinematic mediocrity with more shameless gusto than most other countries. However, if those countries had a film industry the size of Bollywood's I think we'd see similar big-budget dreck-fests like Wild Hogs.

Posted by thorsen1nk at March 4, 2007 1:37 PM

comment #16

ZacharyTF says ...

If this movie gets to $125-$150 million, I expect Wild Hogs 2: Electric Bugaloo to start filming sometime in the next year or so.

Posted by ZacharyTF at March 4, 2007 2:02 PM

comment #17

EDouglas says ...

Oddly, this was one of the lowest attendance all media screenings I've ever attended from Disney or any other studio. Seriously, must have been about a 300 seat theatre and only 50 people or less were there.... was like all the critics realized how bad it was going to be and stayed home and they didn't bother to fill the theatre up with people who might actually laugh at the dumb jokes (i.e. non-critics)... was kind of surprising cause usually these all-media screenings are PACKED.

Posted by EDouglas at March 4, 2007 2:06 PM

comment #18

Rothchild says ...

Wild Hogs will make 180-200 million. Easy.

Posted by Rothchild at March 4, 2007 4:34 PM

comment #19

Dixon Steele says ...

But what does it say when the director of VAN WILDER kicks the crap out of David Fincher?

Posted by Dixon Steele at March 4, 2007 4:42 PM

comment #20

Rothchild says ...

It doesn't say anything. Zodiac is a movie people will watch, love, and study in ten years. Wild Hogs is a movie that people will go see, enjoy, and buy on DVD (or watch on TBS whenever it airs). They have nothing to do with each other. What's next? People are going to complain about how much money Night at the Museum made?

Posted by Rothchild at March 4, 2007 4:47 PM

comment #21

corey3rd says ...

what about the complete lackluster action on Black Snake Moan. Samuel L Jackson needs to stay away from films with Snake in the title if he wants to keep up his "box office champ" title.

Posted by corey3rd at March 4, 2007 4:49 PM

comment #22

Undercover Brother says ...

Everyone knew "Hogs" was on it's way to a big weekend, what no one could figure out was why? Outside of a Santa suit, Tim Allen is box office poison. Same goes for Lawrence. He can only open a movie starring himself in a fat suit or riding on Will Smith's coattails. Travolta movies keep on sucking year in and year out and frequently with only marginal fanfare. And Macy? I guess everyone plays the whore once and a while.

So all these guys suck on their own, Macy excluded, and the general movie going population seems onto this. So what made the collected force of their crappiness so appealing to every one this time out? Baffling.

And even if crap like "Hogs" hadn't opened, "Zodiac" was not going to open huge. Everyone new this. The reasons are thoroughly covered above. I simply hope it doesn't trail off.

Posted by Undercover Brother at March 4, 2007 4:53 PM

comment #23

Chris D. says ...

Okay. Next subject. What film will Zodiac be Dreamamount's apology for? Discuss amongst yourselves.

Posted by Chris D. at March 4, 2007 5:12 PM

comment #24

romeoisbleeding says ...

Just a couple quick points. I really have to think that Zodiac will go down as a classic and it will be taught in film school. I just know this will happen. It will not be quickly forgotten. It is not unheard of that movies that turned into classics did not start off well at the box office. "It's a Wonderful Life" and "Wizard of Oz" both had weak box office during their first run. Zodiac is just too good of a movie to be ignored forever. And really .. it did ok at the box office. It was in no way a dud. I am praying that it gets the good word of mouth it deserves and has a long steady run. I see it making money kind of like "Good Night and Good Luck" did and drawing the same kind of intelligent audience.

Posted by romeoisbleeding at March 4, 2007 5:19 PM

comment #25

Terry McCarty says ...

PantheFaun wrote:
I knew "Moan" was in for a beating, but I had hoped it would've been somewhere between 5 and 10 million. Just a strange movie that chose a horrible weekend to open-- the arthousers went to "Zodiac" and the low-browsers went to "Hogs." Even the black audiences didn't show up, given Lawrence's presence in "Hogs."

I wouldn't call African-American audiences monolithic in their tastes.

Re BLACK SNAKE MOAN, I think that audiences across the board were likely none-too-high on the premise. Wonder what the Cinemascore opening-weekend research will be regarding audience satisfaction?

Posted by Terry McCarty at March 4, 2007 11:29 PM

comment #26

Silverscreenvideos says ...

There is an intriguing scene in Zodiac when Jake Gyllenhaal and Mark Ruffalo are at a screening of Dirty Harry and neither can bear to sit through it. Their reaction is one of frustration, that life can't be as smooth as art, in which the case can be neatly wrapped up in two hours in an emotionally satisfying manner by having Clint Eastwood blast the killer into the next county.

That frustration should also apply to the public reaction to this movie as well. The local newspaper, the Atlanta Journal, gave the film a C+, largely because of its unfulfilling resolution, then had the nerve to compare it to films like Seven, Silence of the Lambs, and, surprise, Dirty Harry.

Duh.... of course this movie is "unfulfilling," in the same way United 93 is "unfulfilling," because it doesn't end in precisely the way viewers might have wanted. Because real life is "unfulfilling," often lacking the tidy resolution that Dirty Harry so neatly provided. The frustration that all the investigators felt, which the movie vividly portrays, is one that viewers will also feel.

I can't remember seeing a film in which I kept thinking to myself, "gee, the CSI folks would have this one solved in no time." But there was no CSI, just a group of overworked cops with the technology of the times (having to mail case files from one jurisdiction to another), having to deal with jurisdictional hassles, legal requirements and a forensic science incapable of providing the evidence they needed.

We've gotten spoiled by Dirty Harry, we've gotten spoiled by CSI or Law and Order in which bizarre cases go neatly from Point A to Point B to Point C in order to be neatly wrapped up in 44 minutes of screen time. Real life isn't that neat, a point that Fincher drives home repeatedly. But too many viewers would rather have four middle-aged guys having contrived midlife crises which can all neatly be wrapped up in a PG-13 manner in 100 minutes or so of lame comedy.

Posted by Silverscreenvideos at March 4, 2007 11:44 PM

comment #27

Dharth Presley says ...

People like to laugh. Wild Hogs also seems to appeal to a few different generations, multiple demographics. Why lament that it made more money one weekend than Zodiac? Why disparage an audience that would prefer to spend money hoping for laughs? This takes nothing away from Zodiac.

Posted by Dharth Presley at March 5, 2007 5:57 AM

comment #28

DavidF says ...

Does the success of Wild Hogs and Ghost Rider mean that the pirate craze is over and all the kids will be dressing as bikers this Halloween?

Posted by DavidF at March 5, 2007 6:53 AM

comment #29

DavidF says ...

Silverscreenvideos said:
"We've gotten spoiled by Dirty Harry, we've gotten spoiled by CSI or Law and Order in which bizarre cases go neatly from Point A to Point B to Point C in order to be neatly wrapped up in 44 minutes of screen time. Real life isn't that neat, a point that Fincher drives home repeatedly."

Yup. This also precisely the reason that my beloved HOMICIDE: LIFE ON THE STREET was on life support for its entire run while L&O franchises continue to pop up like Starbucks.

People like things fast and easy and that's just reality.
The good news is that we elitists can gather on boards like these and slam the small-minded hog-loving folk.

Posted by DavidF at March 5, 2007 7:13 AM

comment #30

Rich S. says ...

Silverscreenvideos, while I understand what you're saying and agree with it to a certain extent, I think you've distilled the reason why people didn't turn out in droves for Zodiac. People have never gone to the movies for "reality." Verisimilitude, yes. Reality, no.

I think most moviegoers (knuckle-draggers or not) reason, with some justification, why should I spend $10 of my money and three hours of my life to watch reality? I can pick up a fifty-cent paper and do that.

The purpose of Zodiac may have been to show the tedium and minutiae of police work, and the toll it takes on its practitioners. But, ultimately, it's still a story without an end. The police blotter in any large city is full to the brim with those.

Posted by Rich S. at March 5, 2007 9:36 AM

comment #31

PanTheFaun says ...

Dharth Presley wrote:
People like to laugh. Wild Hogs also seems to appeal to a few different generations, multiple demographics. Why lament that it made more money one weekend than Zodiac? Why disparage an audience that would prefer to spend money hoping for laughs? This takes nothing away from Zodiac.

I think the frustration comes not from that a mainstream comedy beat 'Zodiac'... great films usually don't do well as more accessible far. The frustration comes from that 'Wild Hogs' is SUCH a piece of shit. While 'Zodiac' is superior, I wouldn't have been nearly as furious if a piece of mainstream entertainment like 'Knocked Up' or 'Ocean's 13' or 'The 40-Year-Old Virgin' had come out on top.

'Wild Hogs' is just such a tremendous soul-sucking, borderline-evil piece of work that it becomes somewhat more distressing.

Posted by PanTheFaun at March 5, 2007 9:54 AM

comment #32

christian says ...

"Outside of a Santa suit, Tim Allen is box office poison. Same goes for Lawrence. "

this may sound nice in theory but the reality is different.

the SANTA CLAUS films have all made bank.
GALAXY QUEST was a hit.
even that xmas movie he did last year (who cares what the title is) made lotsa money.

BIG MOMMA'S ASS was a major hit.

it's travolta who should be happiest.

but really, ZODIAC has nothing to do with WILD HOGS. some people don't want to see serial killer films -- and that includes me, tho i'll see this -- and tv audiences can wallow in 24/7 CSI clones and incessant court tv shows on hunting serial killers.

just because ZODIAC didn't make 50 million dollars this weekend (as if) doesn't mean it won't have "legs" -- a phrase almost out of date in this silly age of OPENING WEEKEND MEANS EVERYTHING.

Posted by christian at March 5, 2007 10:20 AM

comment #33

The Movie Man says ...

christian-as a movie lover, you know that mainstream America's tastes leave a little something to be desired. They like movies that studios spends millions telling them to like, and they are not interesting in doing any heavy lifting at all. I don't mean to generalize quite as much as Jeff, there are exceptions, but look at what the huge hits are year after year, and the debate is over. Ok WILD HOGS is a comedy, and America wants to laugh after a hard week at work So what? Nothing is more depressing or less entertaining to me than a bad, cater to the masses comedy. I've never gotten mainstream audiences desire to see the same thing over and over again. Of course that makes me an elitist, I'm supposed to say "its just a movie". But that line of thinking is why Pirates of the Caribbean makes 400 million. Oh its fun, its action, its cute, who cares if it has no story or sucks?

Posted by The Movie Man at March 5, 2007 12:53 PM

comment #34

The Movie Man says ...

Christian-for the record that rant wasn't aimed at you, its just that prevailing attitude "oh its just a movie" thats brought up whenever when bitches about a mindless hit that bugs me.

Posted by The Movie Man at March 5, 2007 1:49 PM

comment #35