Subject: Re: FWWM: box office news
From: v075q5fr@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott J Gorcey)
Date: 1992-08-31, 16:44
Newsgroups: alt.tv.twin-peaks

 Steve and Scott ...

> >|> >From one of the clari newsgroups:
> >|> > 
> >|> >>The weekend's other major opening, New Lines' ``Twin Peaks: Fire Walk
> >|> >>with Me'' failed to generate much heat in eighth place with an estimated
> >|> >>$1.9 million at 691 screens. The movie brings to the big screen the
> >|> >>continuing saga of TV's offbeat ``Twin Peaks'' series set in a mythical
> >|> >>Northwest town.
> >|> 
> >|>      Break that down to a per-screen average, please.  Despite what
> >|>      that .clari newsgroup said, this isn't bad for 700 screens.  
> >|>      Read VARIETY instead.

     I thought I should add something I forgot to say in my original
     reply: if Clari refers to FWWM as a "major opening" that doesn't
     mean "major" in the sense of box office potential, it means major
     in the "pop/cult culture event" sense of the word.

> >Sorry about that. Here are the full stats with a per-screen average
> >added by me:
> >M$screens$/screen
> >Honeymoon in Vegas7.51637$4581
> >Unforgiven5.82078$2791
> >Pet Sematary 25.41852$2915
> >Single White Female4.71744$2694
> >Death Becomes Her2.71810$1491
> >Rapid Fire2.31830$1256
> >A League of their Own2.11575$1333
> >TP:FWWM1.9 691$2749
> > 
> >Not so bad after all, you're right Scott!

     I didn't mean for you to actually go and do it, Steve!  Just
     to think about it... but thanks anyway!

> >$/screen seems a much more relevant figure; in looking over
> >the article I just didn't notice that TP opened on relatively few
> >screens. Why is this? Is it because it is a lower-budget film
> >or because they think it doesn't have the wide appeal to play
> >in as many places? In any event, it seems a bit unfortunate,
> >since it insured that TP would not do "well" according to the
> >popular barometer of $ taken in, which is the stat by which
> >films are ranked in your average newspaper and, as we have
> >seen, on clari.

     The per-screen average for major box office films are widely
     inaccurate, as well.  Most theatre chains now show major
     releases - like Pet Sematary 2 and Unforgiven - on more than
     one screen -- but the per/screen average is figured by THE
     THEATRE, not the number of screens in that theatre the movie
     is being shown on.
     So if Pet Sematary 2 was being shown by Lowes on 2 screens this
     weekend, in 2 thousand multiplexes, the real per screen average
     is half your figure.  
     The FWWM figure is accurate, however, because who the hell would
     show a 700 theatre release on more than one screen -- by their
     very nature, small releases appeal to SMALLER audiences, not
     larger ones.
     To answer your question about why it's a relatively small release,
     Steve, in this case it's NewLine testing the waters.  Based on
     the reception here, it's a hard call as to whether they will
     thin the distribution or increase it -- 

     But I do think we'll see only a slight drop off of the nearly
     2 million the movie took in this weekend when the stats for
     next are released -- because it will be all of us goin back
     for seconds.  If the drop off is very small, based on that and
     that alone, NewLine would be justified in increasing distrib -
     probably from 700 to 1200 venues.  (But the truly rotten reviews -
     and Lynch's reputation as a cult filmmaker - don't make that sound
     incredibly promising)...

     I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

     "...So...You Want To Hump The Homecoming Queen..."
                           -Laura, shy, sweet, innocent.
     Scott Gorcey

</pre>
<hr><a target="right" href="/fwwm/index.txt">Return</a></body></html>