I know its such a small meaningless thing, but I have a feeling the fall of a movie from #1 to #3 would get reported correctly if it went againt the liberal leanings of the times.
And in only its second weekend in release, the bottom fell out of costly domestic flop The Golden Compass from New Line, which forked over $200+ million to make it. I know, I know, the pic is doing OK overseas after earning $50.9 mil from 27 territories December 7th-9th. But the fantasy epic is so lost domestically it earned only an anemic $2.6 million Friday and $3.7 million Saturday from 3,528 nearly empty runs for 3rd place and a new cume of just $40.5 mil. I hear studio topper Bob Shaye once again is blaming everyone but himself -- including the movie's director Chris Weitz, and also New Line's own prez of production Toby Emmerich.
Times would be usefull, if you had a parakeet.
When people start raising themselves above God; there will be trouble to follow.
I loved the earlier version of this movie, “The Omega Man” with Charleton Heston.
*Post* apocalyptic? I was in Manhattan a few months ago and saw plenty of zombies...most of them on the Upper West Side.
Good catch.
I usually parse things pretty closely, but I probably would have missed that bit of revisionist history if you hadn’t highlighted it.
I was told that this was a remake of “The Omega Man”.
Sadly, this might not be the end of compass. If it can get enough on DVD and cable, they might press ahead for the other two movies anyway. They might take the loss just for the opportunity to “kill God”.
Will Smith is this generation’s Jimmy Stewart-—a sure bet, a likeable guy who can play drama, comedy, romance, and action.
” . . . in a postapocalyptic vision of a zombie-infested Manhattan,”
You think they would go with something that was different from the pre-apocalyptic New York.
1. Am I the only Freeper who has seen this movie?
2. Am I the only Freeper who enjoyed this movie?
Worth it for Javier Bardem as Anton Shugar alone:
"What business is it of yours where I'm from, friendo? "
Heard from two people who went to see it over the weekend, bottom line comment, boring.
bump
If you wanted to say that something... anything... was in the second position last week and the third position this week, 99.9% of the time you would say "Dropping from second place to third this week..." That is the standard construction. It places the rankings in chronological order, and is the way people expect to see the information presented for maximum clarity. It uses the term "this week" instead of "last week", so the information sounds more current, which is always rule number one in the newspaper business.
Instead, the New York Times utilizes the clunky "Dropping to third place from second last week, the fantasy..." to describe what happened to The Golden Compass.
Here is a clue. When the New York Times uses such a backward and awkward construction, they are trying to obfuscate. They realize that most of their readers are scanning the newspaper, and that a certain percentage of the readers will see "...third place...second place...Golden Compass...", and get the mistaken impression that their precious Atheist epic is rising in the standings.
It is yet another small, insignificant example of the New York Times failing at their most basic function of presenting factual information clearly, and a minuscule demonstration, as if another was necessary, that they are advocates in all things, rather than reporters.