Why Are Box Office Receipts The Be-All, End-All?
Why Are Box Office Receipts The Be-All, End-All?
What a difference a year makes! Last summer, right around this time, Hollywood was wringing its collective hands over a box office slump that had reached epic proportions. Okay, not exactly epic, but enough of a downturn (the worst in nearly a decade) to garner âthe sky is fallingâ talk from many studio heads.
But now, here we stand, nearly halfway through July 2006, and Tinseltown is all abuzz, patting itself on the back for its resurgence. Not only is this year well ahead of 2005 in terms of total monies and admissions, but also this summer boasts a bona fide, unqualified blockbuster in the latest Disney offering, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Manâs Chest. It earned a whopping $135 million in its opening weekend to claim the undisputed title as all-time biggest opening in movie history as it bested a number of records, including most money in one day, most money over a three-day weekend, and quickest film to $100 million.
Thatâs impressive⦠most impressive. But is it important?
Does that mean Pirates 2 is a great movie? If it made only $10 million in its first weekend, would that make it a bad one?
These are some of the things I think about when considering movies these days⦠and since itâs been a while since Iâve written a column, I thought I might review some of the issues out there in moviedom before I get back in the swing of things next week with regular film reviews.
First up, let me say that I have a substantial interest in the box office receipts. I love checking out the paper (or surfing the Web) on Monday morning to find out how the newest movies are faring and which films, if any, have hit it big with the public. I find it absolutely fascinating.
Thereâs something quite engrossing (pun intended) about finding out how much money a particular flick made and then seeing how it fared, comparatively, with other films, both this year and other years. However, more and more Iâm also finding it a bit out of whack that we seem to be equating the box office receipts with an assessment of a filmâs qualitative worth.
For instance, when Superman Returns opened a few weeks ago on a Wednesday with $21 million and then $52 million over its first weekend, most articles focused not on its impressive collection of positive reviews, but instead on its disappointing returns (no pun intended this time) at the box office.
There were comparisons with other superhero movies, though not regarding tone, theme or approach, mind you⦠which would have been interesting. Rather, they just wanted to compare how much money each one made on their respective opening weekends and then draw simple conclusions on which of the films were successful.
Also, many writers focused not on the movieâs merits or shortcomings but zoned in on the movieâs sizable budget and how Warner Bros. would have to struggle to make back their money. Thatâs all intriguing information, and Iâm not arguing that an average moviegoer shouldnât (or doesnât) care, but isnât it a bit dismaying that instead of discussions about whether or not the average person should see the film, the dialogue is being dominated by issues of money?
Alas, one could argue that Iâm simply making things worse by focusing my first column back on issues of money rather than on a review of one of this seasonâs big movies. But before doing that, I simply needed to get this off my chest⦠and I vow that though I might mention a filmâs box office receipts and how much money it has tallied in theatres across the country, Iâll strive to never let that be the main focus of my review nor let it be the driving factor in accessing a filmâs worth as an entertainment.