Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Da Vinci Code' opens with estimated $29 million
CNN ^ | 5/20/06 | AP

Posted on 05/21/2006 5:18:45 AM PDT by Aquinasfan

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- "The Da Vinci Code" banked an estimated $29 million at the box office on its first day in theaters, an industry official said Saturday, positioning the film to turn in the strongest opening weekend for any movie this year.

(Excerpt) Read more at edition.cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: big4bigotry; bigbofo4bigots; boxoffice; christianbashing; christianhaters; christianinsecurity; crap; davincicode; godgaveusfreewill; itsfiction; itsfictionyouidiots; junktheology; rejecttheocracy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340341-355 next last
To: linda_22003

I think I was correcting an "it's" in the final paragraph of the post. I think. LOL! I've lost track!


321 posted on 05/22/2006 9:01:00 AM PDT by puroresu (Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: BeAllYouCanBe

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it." jesus

I wouldn't give a penny to these people. I could care less if I ever read it or see it. I would imagine they say the same thing about the bible. Judging by Madonna's crucifix in her new act, it is always open season on Jesus Christ and his followers.


322 posted on 05/22/2006 9:04:20 AM PDT by applpie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #323 Removed by Moderator

To: BunnySlippers
Your behavior betrays you!

And what about your behavior? You accused me of supporting banning the book and the movie and implied I was some kind of 'hardline fanatic'. You never took it back eventhough I pointed out I have never taken those positions. Then you go on about my lackings, whatever you think those may be. Now you call me a non-Christian for responding to your personal assults. You are a piece of work. I don't know what you consider yourself, but I have not seen any sign of much morals thus far. Proof me wrong.

324 posted on 05/22/2006 9:11:55 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: BunnySlippers
THIS JUST IN:

Santa Monica, (AP) - Encouraged by the smashing success of their religious epic Da Vinci Code, director Ron Howard and author Dan Brown announced they are ready to launch their next project which will examine the claims and conspiracy to exaggerate the extent of the Jewish Holocaust of World War II. The script will be based on the bestselling Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the writings of noted British historian David Irving, who has been engaged as a consultant with the project.

325 posted on 05/22/2006 9:26:50 AM PDT by Revolting cat! ("In the end, nothing explains anything.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: kjo

As a catholic, I found the novel a good read. There has been a ton of consipracy theories written over the years and all this book does is collect them all in a pretty decent storyline.

I won't see the movie just because there's no way it can be as good as the novel was. My faith is strong enough to read such stuff and laugh and be intrgued about it all and just go on with life.


326 posted on 05/22/2006 9:33:30 AM PDT by Dazedcat ((Please God, make it stop))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002; MineralMan
The Post wasnt writen malisciously it was partly in jest to begin with.

I hate to break this news to you, but jokes about God sending down lightning on movie theaters and incinerating the patrons thereof are not exactly amusing. About the only sort who would find it to be funny would be those Muslims who are into beheading infidels.

That you would say it was written "partly in jest" says that you were partly in earnest with this idea--and that is the most disturbing aspect of that post.

Perhaps you didn't wish to say those things; the problem is, you did.

327 posted on 05/22/2006 12:06:16 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan

Then explain the use of the term "scripture" in I Tim 5:18...


328 posted on 05/22/2006 12:41:18 PM PDT by kinsman redeemer (The real enemy seeks to devour what is good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse

Get a friggin life.


329 posted on 05/22/2006 12:45:32 PM PDT by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002

"The Post wasnt writen malisciously it was partly in jest to begin with. its been fun though"

How else do you expect someone to read it, especially with your followup message, which was just about as ugly.

Partly in jest? Wishing death and destruction on others isn't funny, even partly. It's just ugly.

You can expect folks to point that out to you, whenever you post such things. Some of us take such stuff seriously.


330 posted on 05/22/2006 12:46:38 PM PDT by MineralMan (non-evangelical atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: Sans-Culotte

"Why have faith in a guy who was not God?"

Well Buddhists do it all the time.


331 posted on 05/22/2006 12:48:23 PM PDT by MineralMan (non-evangelical atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002; BeHoldAPaleHorse

"Get a friggin life."




Brilliant retort! I must say that your rapier-like wit has cut me to the quick. I fear it is a mortal wound. [/sarc]


332 posted on 05/22/2006 12:54:37 PM PDT by MineralMan (non-evangelical atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: marajade
Its got the 12th highest three day gross since they've been tracking box office and you think that that is bad?

Good grief, marajade, the point I'm making is pretty simple but I'll try to break it down further:

Bottom line is that context matters, and I'm absolutely confident that the powers behind this movie are disappointed and scratching their heads at what went wrong. Yes, it did a lot of money, but rest assured they expected it to do far more.

MM

333 posted on 05/22/2006 1:37:31 PM PDT by MississippiMan (Behold now behemoth...he moves his tail like a cedar. Job 40:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: MississippiMan
Having seen it, I can say this much: it's probably gotten most of its gross already. Hanks' performance was disappointing; I really think Howard and Hanks (who have done great work together) just didn't really care very much at all. "It's based on a smash best-seller, it will make money."

This weekend, people went to see what all the noise was about. Now, they know that it is simply much sound and fury, signifying nothing.

334 posted on 05/22/2006 1:41:42 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: MississippiMan

I don't think anybody involved in the production of this movie is even slightly disappointed with how it did this weekend. It has none of the marks of a standard summer blockbuster (not a special effects flick, not an action flick, not directed by a summer blockbuster director, not starring a summer blockbuster actor) and yet it's on pace to make an easy $200 mil domestically during the main part of it's release, is having excellent revenue abroad and will easily be a very profitable movie. Nothing went wrong, no one is scratching their heads, and only complete idiots thought it would make significantly more.


335 posted on 05/22/2006 1:47:12 PM PDT by discostu (get on your feet and do the funky Alphonzo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
If you want to regard Jesus as a sort of Buddha-type, that's fine. I was merely pointing out that worshiping Jesus and Jesus not being god are incompatible positions. You can do one or the other. I do not believe Buddhists worship Buddha.

When I said "why have faith", I meant "why worship as God someone who is not God?". But I think you knew that.

336 posted on 05/22/2006 2:33:01 PM PDT by Sans-Culotte (I hereby re-christen the Republican Party as "The Flaccid Party")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: Always Right; DJ MacWoW
The real issue is the people like Brown who want to paint Christ and the Bible as not neccessarily the absolute Truth and the only Way

The "real issue" here is how threatened you all feel your faith is by a movie! If you know the real truth in your heart none of the rest of this crap matters. In the grand scheme of things what Dan Brown or any other author says about Christ is meaningless!

As they say here in the south "hit dog hollers".....me thinks we have more than a few doubters amongst us...

337 posted on 05/22/2006 3:16:10 PM PDT by Thermalseeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: discostu
yet it's on pace to make an easy $200 mil domestically during the main part of it's release

Word is that 200 megabucks will just about cover the cost of the rights to the property; it cost another 125 to produce after you prepaid the major players' royalties.

Figure that the movie's actual cost is 325 megabucks, and that it has to make 650 megabucks to actually make a profit.

338 posted on 05/22/2006 3:17:08 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse

Remember domestic gross generally only represents between 1/4 and 1/3 of the total revenue for a film (foreign, soundtrack, in this case probably a movie reprint of the book, cable sales, network TV sales, and DVD sales make up the rest... and tie-ins like toys and video games but I don't see that playing into the DVC bottomline). So a $200 mil domestic gross represents a total revenue of $600 to $800 million. It'll make a profit.


339 posted on 05/22/2006 3:27:46 PM PDT by discostu (get on your feet and do the funky Alphonzo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: discostu
Remember domestic gross generally only represents between 1/4 and 1/3 of the total revenue for a film

The rule of thumb I've heard from accounting weenies in Hollyweird is that you take the total cost of the movie and multiply it by two--that is the box office take it must generate worldwide to make a profit, and that considers everything other revenue stream in the mix (since those streams tend to reflect a set percentage of the gross). The "movie reprint" of the book does not generate revenue for Hollyweird. The soundtrack revenue is small potatoes unless it generates some big hits.

The movie just wasn't very good--Hanks and Howard (who worked very well together on Apollo 13, so they can make a great movie when they're both passionate about it) just didn't seem to care, and it showed. They relied on the hype, instead of their own talent.

340 posted on 05/22/2006 3:37:55 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340341-355 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson