Bet those folks stayed out in movie lines for months to see this drek realize their time would have been better spent in Mel's line.
I estimate a $300 million gross on these bases.
Where did Yahoo! get these numbers? Its still Wednesday, and I know for a fact that all of the evening shows tonight (around here at least) are sold out. I think you can probably double that $15 to $20 million figure.
Bet those folks stayed out in movie lines for months to see this drek realize their time would have been better spent in Mel's line.
I have seen that it is opening on 4500 screens. So that is is $4444 per screen assuming 20 million total. Now, let's assume 5 showings a day for each screen. So that is $888 per showing. Finally, assume $8.00 per ticket. That means that there are an average of 111 seats filled for each viewing.
Now, maybe I am wrong, but most of the theaters I have been to have a lot more than 111 seats. I don't know the average number of seats in a theater. Let's just say 500, which is probably low, and let's assume only 80% capacity per viewing (which is probably low given what we have heard about today). That would be 400 seats x $8 = $3200 per viewing. $3200 x 5 viewings per day is $16,000 per screen. $16,000 x 4500 screens means a first day take of $72 million.
Did I do that right? Somebody want to check my math? Also, if anyone has better stats on theaters feel free to recalc? Bottom line, 20 million seems low.
1) The reviews don’t give a good impression of the movie. It is certainly “R” material for the violence, but there have been lots of equally violent Hollywood movies. In this case the intensity and duration of the violence is necessary artistically (with much less of it the movie would lose its point). Only if you generally have a bad reaction to violent movies AND you are not a Christian should you be put off.
2) No fair-minded person who sees the whole movie could possibly say it is anti-Semitic. Those who say it is either haven’t seen it, or are being purposefully misleading in service of their own agenda, or are paranoid. Many of the articles which made this accusation, I can say now that I have seen the movie, grossly misrepresent what is on the screen.
3) As a piece of cinematic art, it is first-rate. Not the greatest movie ever, but Oscar-quality direction, cinematography, and acting. Many of the choices Gibson made have been criticized, but the criticisms amount to “why didn’t he make a different movie” rather than “he failed to accomplish what he was trying to do”.
4) The movie follows the New Testament account very faithfully; where it departs, it is to imaginatively fill in parts of the story that the New Testament takes for granted or passes over very briefly, but these additions are entirely consistent with Christian tradition.
5) The decision to use ancient languages works very well, but subtitles are absolutely necessary or many subtleties would be missed.
6) It succeeds both in giving Christians a deeper understanding of their faith, and in explaining to non-Christians what it’s all about. Many of those who have already rejected Christianity will regard the movie as propaganda; but their problem is with Christianity itself and with the Christian Bible, NOT with this movie specifically.