This is topic Grosses for Fahrenheit 9/11 - 350 Million+ US, 600 Million+ Overseas in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=001153

---

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 05-18-2004, 05:34 AM:
 
OK. With Moore indicating that this film will release in 6 weeks time in the US and that a distribution deal will be clinched there at Cannes, lets brace up for a discussion about grosses for this film - theatrical.

Please note that I prefer to use the term 'film' and 'film-maker' over 'documentary' and 'documentary-maker' in this context.

6 weeks is enough time for a movie to get all the publicity it may require to corner the kind of money I am talking about. A 350 million plus in North America (Canada included) is what I forsee for this film.

And, should this film also release in all major international territories within 14 days from the US bow, then a 600 million cumulative from all such major territories (India excluded but China included).

And, unlike any other film in History, this will be the fastest film to gross a 100 million, 200 or nth million.

So much said, this film may also run into problems in the Middle-East, like the people in those places may be tempted to target American establishments or stations. And this possibility may hurt gross estimates from the Middle-East. Minus the Middle-East, overseas grosses would be 500 million.

However, I need to also say that the slope is very slippery here. All calculations may come to naught if Moore is shown to have faked even a part of his film. Then, his opposition will seize on it and tear apart this film and make it less appealing.

And there is something this film will do to documentaries - take them mainstream. The birth of the REALITY CINEMA.
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 05-18-2004, 08:26 AM:
 
I believe the film is to political and most likely will never see numbers such as that. Sorry but those types of films are not mainstreem enough to have huge numbers. I for one have no interest in seeing it.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 05-18-2004, 08:56 AM:
 
Me neither. It might do good, but 600 million, come on KD, thats a little high, dont you think.
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 05-18-2004, 09:06 AM:
 

quote: Jeremy Fuentes

---

but 600 million, come on KD, thats a little high, dont you think.

---

Jeremy, don't you mean:
Come on KD, you're a little high, don't you think.

 

---

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 05-18-2004, 09:12 AM:
 
Pravin, you said it, I only thought it.
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 05-18-2004, 09:24 AM:
 
Having run and seen this film, I enjoyed it. But KD this film will never see those numbers that you posted. When it gets released it may hit in the US at around the 20 million dollar range. His last film "Bowling for Columbine" only did around 22 million in the US. Documentaries never hit numbers like main stream movies do.
 

---

Posted by Mike Williams (Member # 1140) on 05-18-2004, 09:34 AM:
 
I wonder what his NEXT documentary would be like if this one did make 600 million...
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 05-18-2004, 12:42 PM:
 
The only way this movie could gross $350 million in North America would be if local preachers bought out entire screenings and encouraged all the members of of their congregations to attend, to take friends to other screenings, etc..

A pipe dream (no pun intended).
 

---

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 05-18-2004, 01:29 PM:
 
KD......No......Can I ask a serious question though?

Why are you posting ridiculous topics like this? IMHO you aren't very good at guessing grosses. I believe that unless you are directly affiliated with the film company, being concerned with these grosses like you seem to be just isnt necessary. I admit, I am just a lowly projectionist. However, all that my theatre is concerned about is box office take for the day for our theatre. All that the big box office numbers mean to us is that the movie is popular.

Would you please stop posting these ridiculous posts and think realistically. Look at the totals for the top grossing movies of all time on boxofficemojo.com.

quote:

---

1 Titanic Par. $600,788,188 1997
2 Star Wars Fox $460,998,007 1977
3 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial Uni. $435,110,554 1982
4 Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace Fox $431,088,301 1999
5 Spider-Man Sony $403,706,375 2002
6 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King NL $376,853,002 2003
7 The Passion of the Christ NM $368,894,610 2004
8 Jurassic Park Uni. $357,067,947 1993
9 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers NL $341,786,758 2002
10 Finding Nemo BV $339,714,978 2003

---

Look at the top 10 of all time, That's North American grosses only. KD it wastes my time and many others, I'm sure, to read posts like this. Please Stop

Also, read this post about the film
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 05-18-2004, 01:38 PM:
 
In all seriousness, I guess a new forum for grosses wouldnt be so bad.

However, we would still need an altogether separate forum for predictions by KD. Alongside Bob Maar's joke forum. I just read the original post in its entirety and it would be a perfect addition to the box office analysis column in Mad magazine. The deadpan serious tone is perfecct.

[ 05-18-2004, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Pravin Ratnam ]
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-18-2004, 02:10 PM:
 
The birth of "REALITY CINEMA?" Great...the reality wonks have ruined the TV industry, now they're ready to start on cinema.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 05-18-2004, 03:16 PM:
 
if it's a waste of time you don't have to read it. the topic title is clear enough.

but i have to agree that k.d's figure is ridiculous. f-9-11 could be a huge hit, in documentary terms, and not make 1/20 of that amount.

carl
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-18-2004, 06:31 PM:
 
Carl: You don't seem to get it...there are people here (I'm one) who like to read EVERY topic. Some are way over my head technically but I still like to at least skim them all, because there is a lot to learn.

And, you never know when a good fight will erupt!
 

---

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 05-18-2004, 06:33 PM:
 
Agreed Mike, Since I am lucky enough to have a high-speed connection it isnt as bad, but I like to learn as much as I can.

Honestly, I think it is to boost KD's post counts that he posts stuff like this.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 05-18-2004, 08:30 PM:
 

quote:

---

And, you never know when a good fight will erupt!

---

amen to that. i think we need some new pictograms next to the thread titles for when the dust starts flying and things get saucy. basically whenever phil starts posting to it.

carl
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 05-18-2004, 08:52 PM:
 
BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE made about $21,000,000. 911 is going to make about the same amount.
 

---

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 05-19-2004, 12:56 AM:
 
OK. For now, may be some here should know that for the Democrats to buy entire screenings and distribute them amongst their faithfuls or other members of the public does not constitute an electoral misconduct as long as certain other conditions are met - such conditions are not hard to meet or comply with, however.
 

---

Posted by Dean Kollet (Member # 1789) on 05-19-2004, 12:58 AM:
 
it's still not going to make 350 million in North America...
 

---

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 05-19-2004, 01:18 AM:
 
lest' you forget,

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident" - Arthur Schopenhauer

Quotes are True
 

---

Posted by Dean Kollet (Member # 1789) on 05-19-2004, 02:04 AM:
 
um....ok...then

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
- Albert Einstein
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 05-19-2004, 02:12 AM:
 
"Whatever is reasonable is true, and whatever is true is reasonable." - Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

"The greater the lie, the greater the chance that it will be believed." - Adolf Hitler

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P. Feynman

"Get the facts first. You can distort them later." - Mark Twain

"You can't handle the truth." - Jack Nicholson

which all goes to show.

carl
 

---

Posted by Peter Kerchinsky (Member # 1098) on 05-19-2004, 04:23 AM:
 
See Carl, it's very easy to hit that "caps lock" button on your keyboard.
Congratulations. I'm proud of you.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 05-19-2004, 04:33 AM:
 
caps lock? what's thAT? OH THAT ONE! THANKS FOR SHOWING ME THAT PETER!!

actually i cut'n'pasted those quotes. lazy all the way, baby!

carl
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 05-19-2004, 09:23 AM:
 

quote: Kamakshipalya Dhananjay

---

for the Democrats to buy entire screenings and distribute them amongst their faithfuls or other members of the public...

---

KD WTF are you talking about.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 05-19-2004, 09:54 PM:
 
In case you need Moore`s private phone number, here it is: 858-483-6700 .
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 05-19-2004, 10:05 PM:
 
Dominos Pizza, Clairemont, (858) 483-6700, 4471 Clairemont Mesa Blvd, San Diego, CA 92117
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-19-2004, 10:07 PM:
 
"Wherever you leak, the world hangs a bucket." - Gallagher
 

---

Posted by Todd Cornwall (Member # 2205) on 05-19-2004, 11:43 PM:
 
This "director" and his film(s) are worthless. Granted, this is only my opinion (so please dont take offense), but I'm so sick of this guy and his messages that I could just

He has a platform and is making way too much use of it. Sooner or later I think people are going to just tune him out (hopefully sooner) and he'll just fade away.
 

---

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 05-20-2004, 03:27 AM:
 
2004 Elections set a new record for campaign expenditure - 1 Billion Dollars to date.

How to spend a billion dollars ? by CBS News

Kerry, Bush Awash in Money - LA Times

An estimated 3.9 Billion spent on 2000 Elections - USINFO.Gov

And a Google News Search using :
Michael or Micheal and moore and fahrenheit or farenheit retrevied these many hits :
8 days ago - 135 hits (meaning unique sites)
Today - 2430 hits
This search retreives from News sources across the world.

In comparison, this day -
terms 'shrek 2' result in 2120 hits
terms 'troy and brad and pitt' result in 2200 hits.
 

---

Posted by Emma Tomiak (Member # 1862) on 05-20-2004, 04:49 AM:
 
Hmmm, methinks KD's posts may be getting a little too close to the political realm...
 

---

Posted by Mike Williams (Member # 1140) on 05-20-2004, 06:23 AM:
 
I think KD is on to something....

I am suprised the Democrats have not yet taken a cue from Passion and started buying out entire screenings to get people in the theaters to see that movie... but then it still could happen. Just wait until we get closer to election time.

If that happened, while I doubt $350M domestically, it would do much more than Bowling for Columbine.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 05-20-2004, 06:40 AM:
 
So are the democrats also spending money on buying out theaters overseas, because KD predicted 600 million overseas.
 

---

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 05-20-2004, 08:09 AM:
 
If you don't live in the US then you can't bitch about politics here. KD you arent a democrat or a republican since you don't live here. I hope a mod comes soon and shuts this down b/c this isnt a forum for politics....The mods shut down a forum like that a little while ago. If this movie even makes more than BFC it won't be by much.
 

---

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 05-20-2004, 08:52 AM:
 
Politics strictly prohibited here!

And to accusations flowing left and right on this post, I have one word for them - continue.

And my discussion was and continues to be apolitical. It was a business forecast and a study of numbers and remember, numbers have nothing political about them.

The biggest international territories in order of expected grosses for this film will be (however, it should be obvious to anybody that the interest from the Muslim World will be somewhat unprecedented or severe):

United Kingdom - The opposition in the UK to the coalition with the US over Iraq is mounting by the day - in fact, it is the strongest ever. Even assuming US is out of Iraq by the time this movie releases there, the second largest interest and enthusiasm (or concern) in the world for this film will emanate from that territory. The press and the media in the UK seem to have shown far greater interest already in this film than one would anticipate. In fact, practically every electronic news organisation there has updated itself with all the latest information about Fahrenheit 911. Take it or leave it, UK will be huge and I mean, it will be unprecedented. Further, if the movie is going to be huge in UK and is going to get all the attention of the media there, something could stir elsewhere - you see, BBC is widely broadcast over most Arab nations, China and most parts of Asia. Of course, you would know that China does not permit satellite reception of CNN by its people. The only international news organisation they trust is the BBC and BBC also happens to be the trusted news organisation in the Middle East. And in India, a recent survey ranked BBC as the most respected and trusted newschannel in the Country. And if BBC evinces enough interest in this film, you can be certain that, in addition to what the local news media in many such countries disclose, the hype around this film could reach a 'fever pitch'.

And I will talk later about other major territories like :

France

Germany

Japan

Spain

South Korea

Australia

China

and of course, India

And half of a billion Muslim population in the world have access to Hollywood offerings officially, meaning, they could become fervent audiences for this film in a manner that the revenues generated thereon could reach legal owners of the Copyright works. In this case, Fahrenheit 9/11. I will elaborate later.
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 05-20-2004, 09:02 AM:
 
I can guarantee that it won't do that much business in India. And I don't think the democrats are going to benefit from this movie as much because it will just preach to the converted. I think the problem with this thread is not the politics as they are intertwined with the subject of the doc, but the inane projections which have no basis in any kind of reality. KD's projections are like a running joke here. I look forward to his projections on a possible Gigli's rerelease numbers.

I just wish some other filmmaker with a more objective view made this movie as I feel the issues this documentary deals with are very valid. Bowling for Columbine was pretty good in parts, but it messed it up at the end with a cheap shot at Charlton Heston which was not necessary to make Moore's points. And 25 minute standing ovation at Cannes. Pure crap. 25Min is a LONG time. I doubt it was even 10 minutes. Just try clapping and hollering for 10 minutes in a row.
 

---

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 05-20-2004, 09:15 AM:
 
Lets say, when the reckoning comes, I was wrong all along. So what ?

I do not understand how this thread is more ridiculous than the one on 'PASSION'. And why should anybody be desperate here to claim this whole thing is 'ridiculous' ? Why not let time decide if it was ? Before accusing me of anything at all, I might like to ask people to examine their own anger over this thread. And if you really believe this is 'ridiculous' or an 'outright waste of your time', please feel free to skip this thread if you have nothing constructive to offer.

And please do not seek that every member in these forums be in perfect agreement with everyone else. And I have read the rules for posts and I can confidently state that nothing that I have said here violates anything the rules stipulate. Likewise, I also wish that others will not render this thread any more political than I indicate by my words. And mine have and continue to be apolitical. And I wish to see the same of others.
 

---

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 05-20-2004, 09:19 AM:
 
The use of "KD" as abbreviation for "Kamakshipalya Dhananjay"
has me wondering whether it's from laziness or confusion with the meanings of "KD" in
a) shipping: KD = Knocked Down (partially disassembled) or
b) pugilism: KD = Knocked Down (but not unconscious, which would be "KO'd.")

[I mean no disrespect; it takes this old head a while to welcome new meanings for old abbreviations.]
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 05-20-2004, 09:52 AM:
 
KD, what is everyone accusing you of? I think they are merely stating that your predictions are somewhat ridiculous. The reason I put they, is because I am no longer going to argue/discuss film grosses with you, because you like to make changes in your predictions once you feel you might be wrong, and you ignored my statement about the difference between North American box office and foreign box office. There is no difference, all the money ends up in the same place. Like I said before, good luck with the rest of your predictions.
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 05-20-2004, 10:40 AM:
 
Any time you predict such high box office numbers for a movie, KD, you sound more like a cheerleader for that movie than an objective observer of box office trends. And it's very difficult to discuss the work of Michael Moore without implying details about one's own political ideology. Michael Moore knows how to polarize an audience and he loves to make other people argue. Look at what he's doing right here... and most of us haven't even seen his movie!
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 05-20-2004, 01:58 PM:
 

quote: Kamakshipalya Dhananjay

---

I do not understand how this thread is more ridiculous than the one on 'PASSION'.

---

quote: Pravin Ratnam

---

I personally am looking forward to seeing it as I distrust our current government.

---

MEE TOO! I hate our current government! We should band together and overthrow it, burn both the flag and the constitution, kill everyone we hate because we are better than them, and name Mikey Moore as our new king, because there is just something about fat bearded slobs that never bathe that make me want riot and pillage anything or anyone that may at anytime ever said anything positive about something that mr. moore hates.

OR.....

Perhaps I am bieng ultra cynical and after having to take a month break that I really did not want to take, and coming back here to see politics once again rear its ugly head and risk our family go toe to toe again over something as silly as what kind of government we have or who runs it, or who makes movies about it, or who gives a flying rats ass!

This movie will do real good busisness for the following reasons...

1. Disney INTENTIONALLY went public with thier distaste for political fare in an election year, so as to guage and build interest in the future project, not for thier own interests, but for the interests of thier business partners, the wiensteins.

2. Now that hype has built for the movie that DISNEY DID NOT WANT YOU TO SEE, lions gate will open this picture on 1000 screens. The marketing campaign will reflect the disney angle, as it was all preordained in lala land.

3. People of all political persuasions will flock to the film, as it is also using a title reference to a famous book and movie about book burning and ultra government control.

4. Besides that this movie will probably be moores worst effort to date, as even he states he set out to make a movie that was a political attack that was only one sided, with one singular intention. It will inflame one side, and enrage another. Something that any good money maker does.

My prediction is that it will gross 27 million in its first fever pitched week, followed by six or seven weeks in lower figures, leveling out at just above 65 million domestic. I am rarely wrong on these issues. I used to be forced to watch 30 movies a week on video to guage thier rental potential and purchase copies based on my evaluations for a 30 store chain. I am rarely wrong on these issues.

This will be moores biggest return, but his worst work, mainly because he has no independant perspective on the subject matter at hand, like he did with bowling for columbine.

I am all for the discussions of how a political movie will fare and for what reasons, but to use the debate as a way to start arguing politics makes me wonder why the hell does anyone bother to show up for work?

Aaaaugh! I should have stayed in bed this month and not bothered to venture back to the keyboard.

Ciao

Dave
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 06-03-2004, 01:56 PM:
 
Welcome back, Dave

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 06-05-2004, 12:33 AM:
 
Well it's good to be back.

I sold my house out in bountiful and moved back to salt lake city into a nice apartment that has little to no upkeep, which is a little better on me overall.

I am about to go back to work in the morning after a long break, so here's wishing me luck.

Caio

Dave
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-05-2004, 02:23 AM:
 
Kashduisuihre Dkaspjdsiojtoer is wrong. It'll make over 6 billion in Rhode Island alone.[av=n] Worldwide? It will make more than 88 times the amount of money that exists for all nations and peoples combined. Aliens will come to see it from outer space, boosting its grosses even more.
 

---

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 06-05-2004, 07:07 AM:
 
I wonder why the marketers seem to have a low aim this time for this film ?

A 1000 theatres is just too small anyway and I cannot really get myself to assume this 'small release' merits our concern as much as it would had it been a '3000+' release. Whats wrong with these people ? Why dont they get it out on more screens and as Moore says, get people to raise 'some hell' ?

I think the marketers should get people like Amy Goodman and Chomsky to watch this film and take their comments to the public.
 

---

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 06-05-2004, 09:19 AM:
 
Moore is a fool KD. He takes peoples comments and totally blows them out of context. I for one think this movie should not be shown here in the states. He is an amazing editor. Nothing that he says is true. He just edits it to seem that way. I'm going to see this just to laugh my ass of at it.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-05-2004, 01:48 PM:
 
I've always found that gross discussions are really gross and pretty lame.

Mark.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-05-2004, 07:02 PM:
 
KD - No political documentary ever has or will open on 3000 screens because there isn't enough business to support it. This movie, being very high profile, might do brisk business on such a wide release for about one day, then it would be bye-bye.

What should happen, is Roland Emmerich should make a 9/11 movie showing the events actually happening, and really bringing home the suffering that people went through. People love to see people suffering! ("Passion" should be proof of this.) You wanna talk about high grosses! Let Michael Bay loose on the subject and crank'er up! (And don't forget to include two people falling in love during the disaster.)


 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 06-06-2004, 01:30 AM:
 
Michael Moore's new film won't make all that much more money than the last film he made.

Not everyone hates George Bush.
Not everyone beleives in this 9/11 conspiracy
and not everyone goes to the movies.

It will do all right but no more than $25 million in the US.
 

---

Posted by Tim Lockridge (Member # 1346) on 06-06-2004, 09:00 AM:
 

quote: Richard Greco

---

Moore is a fool KD. He takes peoples comments and totally blows them out of context. I for one think this movie should not be shown here in the states. He is an amazing editor. Nothing that he says is true. He just edits it to seem that way. I'm going to see this just to laugh my ass of at it.

---

Now, I'll be the first to agree that Moore uses creative editing more often than not. However, to assert that "Nothing that he says is true" is just as offbase as his editing.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 06-06-2004, 10:02 AM:
 
Editing is part of the art form to convey the story or message being told in the film, for which I sure as hell hope it's creative! You could say the editing in The Passion is creative, but Christ still got beaten either way.

And don't use positive words for derogatory remarks. It's childish. Just like saying something is "interesting" when it sucks.

Michael Moore reminds me of Howard Beale in a way. Things are bad, and he doesn't need to tell us things are bad and whoever doesn't see that things are bad are just one of those people who want to be left alone with their MTV and their electric toaster and cordless phone and their internet and they sit every night clutching their remote controls screaming, "Please! Please! Just leave us alone in our living rooms..."

But I'm not going to leave you alone. I want you to get MAD!!! I'm a human being goddamit! My life has value!

Everyone needs to see this movie, and everyone needs to see The Corporation, too. Maybe then people will realize [[political comments restrained]]

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 06-06-2004, 03:34 PM:
 

quote: Tim Lockridge was the last to post

---

Moore is a fool KD. He takes peoples comments and totally blows them out of context. I for one think this movie should not be shown here in the states.

---

quote: Gerard S. Cohen

---

The use of "KD" as abbreviation for "Kamakshipalya Dhananjay"
has me wondering whether it's from laziness or confusion with the meanings of "KD" in

---

GC , in one of the Indian states (Andhra Pradesh) at least, KD is used as a term to denote someone who is kind of a scammer and mild thug.

quote: Dave Williams

---

1. Disney INTENTIONALLY went public with thier distaste for political fare in an election year, so as to guage and build interest in the future project, not for thier own interests, but for the interests of thier business partners, the wiensteins.

---

quote:

---

Kashduisuihre Dkaspjdsiojtoer is wrong. It'll make over 6 billion in Rhode Island alone. Worldwide? It will make more than 88 times the amount of money that exists for all nations and peoples combined. Aliens will come to see it from outer space, boosting its grosses even more.

---

This is the only comment in this whole thread that I fully agree with.
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 06-06-2004, 06:57 PM:
 
Hmmm somebody is spending too much time in the strawberry patch instead of brushing up on civics and political science I saw Moore's "Bowling" in an art cinema in Sao Paulo Brazil and the local patrons reacted in a balanced manner...they where smart enough to figure the good from the bad. The gross of six billion is adjusted for our weak dollar...that is a billion less than Shrek III will make when it is released
 

---

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 06-07-2004, 12:43 AM:
 
Well, I just didn't realise that the distribs for this film were trying to get the movie in as many screens as possible until I read that Variety news article on what efforts are going into the release of this film. Pretty impressive.

Link :
Moore doc faces plex hex

So, the target of 1000 screens therefore, is not something I would complain about now. However, as that article discusses, the availability of screens is fundamentally tied to the perception of how much money is there to be made on a film and therefore, the possibility of 'Fahrenheit' generating greater hype in the days to come will, I believe, help the wider release of this film in more than a 1000 theatres.

If we recall what did happen with PASSION, the screen count for that one too was speculated to be under 1000 screens when the announcement was made of the release date. And before it hit the theatres, that movie found itself with a 3000+ theatres. I think 'Fahrenheit' too will be able to manage a 3000+ theatres by June-25. There are no big releases on that date and it also looks likely that Moore's earlier announced July-2 release must have been nixed only with the expectation that they could get as wide a release they want if they come earlier than 'Spider-Man 2'.

Any agreement - when 'Fahrenheit' hits theatres on June-25, the distribs would have managed a 3000+ theatres ?

That I used to track the popularity of 'PASSION' in some places on the net, I only have to say now that 'Fahrenheit' is far, far ahead of 'PASSION' on the parameters I employed to guage its popularity on the internet.

BTW, though the trailers have just been out on the net, the posters that are previewed on some sites are not that appealing. Care to coin a slogan for this movie ?

Here's mine - "NOT ANOTHER FAIRYTALE"
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 06-07-2004, 01:43 AM:
 

quote: Pravin Ratnam

---

Dave, please tell me you were just joking. That is some spin even Moore and his counterparts on the right wing would be would be proud of. You seriously think Eisner is thinking of long term strategy when it comes to political documentary. Hell, that guy doesn't think long term strategy on a lot of issues, let alone something as far fetched as this. This is guy who pissed off Pixar. I doubt he would come up with a charade like this to appease the Weinsteins.
Oh Dave, and I wasn't getting nearly as political as I could. I had to disclose where I stood just to prove a point in my reply-that people criticizing KD's projections were not merely right wingers

---

I should've stayed in bed!

This is long term strategy. Do you think that disney would hold a press conference to discuss thier decision to not distribute the film if they didn't have a vested interest in it? They don't hold press confrences for the other 300 films a year they turn down.

This was a scheme cooked up by the weinsteins, carried out by eisner, all to get this film to do some business. Eisner already blew the pixar deal, last thing he needed was to loses the weinsteins, who seem to provide half the income for the overall infrastructure.

It is more rational to believe that this is a conspiracy than to believe that eisner felt compelled to hold a press conference on the issue. It was nothing more than a ploy to get attention to the film. IT is done all the time in the biz.

As for getting political, you can't. Not here. I can tell people all damn day that I am a liberal conservative indepentant progressive democrat member of the republican party, but that doesn't mean jack squat on my opinions. you either take them for what they are or not. To attest my opinions on anything based on who I vote for? Now that's just damned wrong.

I for one do not care WHAT political affiliations ANYONE here has. They are my friends, my family, my support line to the rest of the world most of the time.

I mean really? Do we stop talking to our siblings because they voted for the other guy? Politics, sports, bloodletting, its all the same, and here it just doesn't matter one bit when discussing stupid crap like we are in this thread, and now I don't even know what the hell it was I was thinking when I got out of bed today.

LOve you all,

Ciao

Dave
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 06-09-2004, 10:12 AM:
 

quote: Dave Williams

---

I mean really? Do we stop talking to our siblings because they voted for the other guy?

---

Yes.
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 06-10-2004, 01:01 AM:
 
Thomas you kill me!

Actually, I have disowned my sister because of her choice of boyfriend. He is a beer swilling hungarian racist drunk and for some reason she finds that atractive. Somehow, somewhere, there must be redneck genes in the family, and she got em all.

Ciao

Dave
 

---

Posted by Bruce L. Grither (Member # 1588) on 06-10-2004, 05:16 PM:
 
I just have to put my two cents in. I seriously doubt that this biased one sided piece of junk will make enough to cover the cost of the prints alone in the USA. I'm not a Moore fan and never will be, but in my market it's already getting very negative feedback. Bring on spiderman and a few of the other summer releases and they will choke this off the screen fast.

Overseas might well be another thing. Especially with the French. I don't plan on running it.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 06-10-2004, 05:52 PM:
 
The film raises some serious issues such as why the bin Laden family was allowed to fly out of the country when all other flights were grounded without being subjected to FBI questioning. For their safety it was said. As Moore says, what if Clinton had gone out of his way to ensure the comfort of the McVeigh family after the OKC bombing---he would have been crucified. I think that is a fair question regardless of anyone's political leanings.

It also points up the cozy relationship between president & friends, the oil interests, the Saudis, and even the Taliban at one point. Again, fair question.

There is also some stuff about the military and how veterans are treated. (Like the guy whose military pay was docked because he didn't work the whole month on account of being killed.)

Of course it is heavily anti-Bush but perhaps he does raise some legitimate points.

However, whether it will interest those who don't already share Moore's opinions remains to be seen. If you're wondering about box office that's going to depend on people's expectations as much as the reality of the film. If Bush supporters figure it's just a diatribe against their guy then of course they won't be going even if curious (not to mention not wanting to have their dollars go to the "enemy"). But people in the middle who are currious plus people already against Bush...it's hard to say. It's still a documentary and that's swimming against the current as it is.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 06-10-2004, 07:59 PM:
 

quote: Steve Kraus

---

It's still a documentary and that's swimming against the current as it is.

---

Documentary my ass.

Let's call a spade a spade here folks.

It is a propaganda film with one sole purpose: to smear the president and his administration. Period.

Goebbels would be proud.

-AS
 

---

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 06-10-2004, 09:36 PM:
 
O.K. then, we have Kd at an estimate of 350 million in the States & BG at less than 6 million.
My guess is for somewhere in the middle of these.
BTW I am the most liberal guy in the world but find Moore annoying.
 

---

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 06-10-2004, 11:11 PM:
 
Yes, Goebbels would be proud .. of censorship. It was his stock-in-trade:

"Once they succeeded in ending democracy and turning Germany into a one-party dictatorship, the Nazis orchestrated a massive propaganda campaign to win the loyalty and cooperation of Germans. The Nazi Propaganda Ministry, directed by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, took control of all forms of communication in Germany: newspapers, magazines, books, public meetings, and rallies, art, music, movies, and radio. Viewpoints in any way threatening to Nazi beliefs or to the regime were censored or eliminated from all media."

Ron Yost
 

---

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 06-10-2004, 11:25 PM:
 
Anybody here got invited to the L.A.screening last night ? How did it go ?
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 06-10-2004, 11:49 PM:
 
I am going to do something strange and odd and actually agree with every point that steve made. Without going political, and also understanding the leanings of the film and it's maker, as a free thinking individual I find outings such as this very informative and entertaining. I do want to see what the left, and let's not have any doubt about where it comes from, has to say about these issues. Every side should have its day in the sun, and this is a good time to get thier opinions out for all to see.

I say we go see it. Regardless of persuasion. Judge for yourself, with an open mind, and put yourself in thier shoes. Reverse the questions put to the right by the left and then ask yourselves... what if?

If anything, a film like this should be viewed because there is so much fact as opinion. I for one will view this film with my open mind because I want to hear the opinions undiluted, instead of twisted by someone else.

I really do hope this doesn't get political and hope I did not go there. I just really think people should see this movie. I think it is an important movie and should be seen. That's my take on it.

Ciao

Dave
 

---

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 06-11-2004, 06:55 PM:
 

quote:

---

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 11:27 AM
Subject: Moore 911

This is to notify you that we will never attend another theater run by your companies, because of your intent to show Michael Moore's defamatory, slanderous and harmful "movie." This movie, based on lies by Michael Moore and not based on truth, will do more to harm our country and put our citizens in harm's way from foreign terrorists than anything you could have done.

You should take our mention of boycott seriously because we have a long list of actors and directors whose movies we have very easily boycotted since they showed us their true colors. Boycotting is easy because there are so many more entertaining things to do in this life than to waste precious moments of it being insulted in a movie theater, and allowing that theater and those involved in these particularly harmful movies to profit monitarily from a moment of evil.

---

quote:

---

----- Original Message -----
To: info@rialtocinemas.com
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: Moore 911

Where I live is of little importance, as I reflect the opinions of a large portion of this country. My moment of contact with you has shown me your character and your lack of education in dealing with your public. If you show a politically-based movie, unless you are the person running the popcorn machine, then you are indeed part of the political discussion of this country. Making a movie is part of the creative process but the person who shows the movie becomes part of the process, too. Like a painting, does a movie exist if no one sees it? Does music live if no one hears it?

Surely you would care about the truth. Surely you are not of the same character as Moore. Of course you will do as you wish and if money is all you care about, then you will be recompensed in like spirit when you come to judgment day. That excuse doesn't hold water, because I know there are plenty of other movies you can show that will draw huge audiences. And in the end, you will have made the right and moral decision when you choose to avoid abetting evil. It's your choice and I see you have made it.

---

Thank you for writing. That shows a little courage and backbone. However not signing your email shows you to be a lily-livered, chicken-shit. Such is the duality of life. (That was for attacking my character and just to confirm my lack of education in dealing with the public.)

Note: I'm a lot more polite in face to face conversations or where the person has identified themselves as one of our patrons.

By the way, our staff that you so derisively called popcorn poppers, are very politically astute and they vote. They read the newspapers, they form opinions and they don't like to be insulted either.

Yes you reflect the opinions of a large portion of this county as do Michael Moore's opinions. People want to see the film and we will make it available to them just as we made available The Passion of the Christ even though we aren't practicing Christians.

It's a movie! It's just entertainment. To impose more on it only reflects your insecurities and fears. Our showing a film in no way is an endorsement of the themes or messages contained in the film. We are going to run Control Room too. I don't hear anybody complaining about that one.

I'm going to forward your emails to my business partner and see if you like his public relations any better.

So what was the last film you saw?

What was the last film you liked?

Ian Price
Rialto Cinemas Lakeside

Note to self: Don't answer anymore unsigned emails.

Ky's response:

Exactly what country do you think you are living in??? Last time I checked we still live in the land of the free and the home of the brave. In case you haven't heard the art of cinema is free speech. We are very disturbed that you don't seem to believe in this fundamental and most American right. Move America Forward to what censorship? Furthermore we aren't bashing anyone,
except maybe you for being narrow-minded, cowardly, and overbearing. If you don't want to see Fahrenheit 9/11, don't buy a ticket. Just don't expect us to cowtow to your views. Perhaps enrolling in a basic American History class at your local community college will reacquaint you with the fundamental values this country was founded on - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, free from persecution and censorship. And by the way, it is possible to be supportive of our brave troops while disagreeing with the current administration and why those
troops are there in the first place. Censorship is an ugly thing. If you don't like a movie or a tv program, don't watch it. But don't threaten or harass those who have the courage to stand-up and dissent.

Ky Boyd
Rialto Cinemas Lakeside
Santa Rosa, CA
 

---

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 06-11-2004, 07:10 PM:
 
Good riddence, you don't need customers like that anyhow.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 06-11-2004, 08:02 PM:
 
Nicely put, Ian & Ky.

Documentary my ass. Let's call a spade a spade here folks.
It is a propaganda film

Aaron, if by propaganda you mean Moore would like his film to help Mr. Bush transition into his future job as "former" president four years sooner than he otherwise might, yes I would agree that is clearly part of his agenda. But if you mean that the film tells lies no I don't think that is the case. No, I haven't independently verified each fact (I screened it early last week) but much of it is the same material covered in the Dude book and there's a ream of notes and sources at the back of the book. Surely the Bush people have gone over this carefully to find any flaw and will do the same with the film.

That the film has a point of view doesn't make it any less a documentary. Most of the good ones do.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-11-2004, 11:47 PM:
 
edit: Changing my mind and staying out of this discussion.
 

---

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 06-12-2004, 05:14 AM:
 
Business only ! Please !
 

---

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 06-12-2004, 10:19 AM:
 
Well it's part of the business that all the theatres that are list on the film's site are now being bombarded by angry emails about showing this film. Someone has started a campaign to try to get theatres to reconsider showing this film. They use inflammatory language accusing the theatres of siding with terrorists and being un-American.

The funny thing is that all these emails are coming from out of town.

I had 12-emails this morning. The stupid thing is, it only will help Michael Moore sell more tickets. Does anybody know where I can rent protesters?
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 06-12-2004, 11:51 AM:
 
There you go, Ian! Get some friends or off-duty staff to stand out in front of the theater with all sorts of protest signs: "No MOORE Lies!" -- "Fur is Murder!" -- "Free Tibet!" -- "No Oil for War" -- "Make Love, Not Choice!" -- "Buddy Holly Lives!" -- "Frampton Comes Alive!" Then call the news and say you have "Hoards of protesters" at your theater

Honestly, the people who are saying that this movie is full of lies having not seen it are nothing short of ignorant. Just like all the other ignoramouses who jump on movie review sites and give something straight F's with the comment "thism ooVie suX" or something to that effect. SEE THE FILM, and THEN decide if it's a "biased one sided piece of junk." People hate to be prooven wrong, and hate to admit they're wrong even more, which is probably why this film is generating so many negative comments.

And I hope I'm not getting too political when I say I'm tired of this "US and THEM" mentallity. People are classifying liberals not as people with different ideas, but as a different group of people (the enemy?) alltogether. "THOSE liberals..." the people who are CLEARLY different from the rest of us NORMAL people. Some go as far to say that they HATE the country. Just like saying if you're not a bible-thumping Christian you MUST be a pagan Jesus-hater. Find some other way to boost your self-esteem.

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 06-14-2004, 12:35 AM:
 
My wife today called me a liberal democrat, and I made her take it back, and she wouldn't. We were in the process of drawing up plans to build our first house together, and one sticking point is that I insist on xeriscaping with only a small patch of desert resistant grass, and a rain collection system to irrigate the patch and avoid access to city or irrigation lines for that purpose.

HOW DARE SHE CALL ME A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT!!!! AAAUGH!!!

At least she didn't call me an environmentalist. Now that would have been going just way too far!

The reason I put this here is that I think that the organized movement against this film is just what Ian suggested, "rented protesters". I believe that Mr. Moore and company are very wily, and are having people do whatever it takes to create controversy over this film. I don't thing either side of the spectrum will take this film seriously until the initial box office numbers are out. Right now it's just the kooks.

I have not seen it, but I do not think the film is that controversial. But then again, I am apparently a liberal democrat. My parents will be thrilled!

Ciao

The NON political Dave
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-14-2004, 09:20 AM:
 
Here are some of the websites organizing the campaign against the theatres showing the film:

Pabaah.com (specifically lists Ky and Ian's theatre)

bushcountry.com

freerepublic.com

chronwatch.com

juntosociety.com
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 06-14-2004, 10:57 AM:
 
The trailer for this was shown before Stepford Wives this weekend. Most of the audience clapped and cheered when the trailer ended, with one guy booo-ing it. Yes, this film will be controversial....
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 06-14-2004, 11:25 AM:
 
Pabaah.com on John P's post is also banning "Garfield the Movie" I didn't know felines are so political or a moral threat to our society
 

---

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 06-14-2004, 08:01 PM:
 
And Stepford Wives & Riddock! Again why?
 

---

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 06-15-2004, 05:11 AM:
 
Will Moore previal over the appeal's Board and get a PG-13 for this ?

What would be the true import of the words "not rated" ? If it meant that the producers did not submit their film to the MPAA for the purpose of the rating, would it amount to a misrepresentation if the distributors decide to release this film now with the tag "not rated" ?

And to circumvent such claim of a misrepresentation, what other words would have to be used by the distributors this time ? Any precedent ?

Should not this movie court this new controversy and begin to do away with the MPAA rating altogether ?

Michael Moore could very well argue and claim that the MPAA is somewhat unsuitable or that their ratings are rather inappropriate to deal with a documentary such as 'Fahrenheit 9/11' simply because the themes that the ratings regularly deal with are fundamentally different from the one in 'Fahrenheit 9/11'. I expect Michael Moore and his distributors will do what they need to in order to prevent an R-slap on this film. Having come this far, it makes no sense whatsoever to give up now and to resign to the MPAA.

My theory is - "Fahrenheit 9/11s shots did not originate inside a stage and if the participants were not stage actors, then it is a very elementary presumption that the extent of audience access is to be gauged by the intent of the film-maker than of a stranger privy to the visuals"

The MPAA should know better and if it does not, it only needs to be told that it is not so indispensable, after all.

Hope Moore or his distributors visit film-tech forums. I was once told by a chief executive of an European entertainment company that these forums are heavily accessed by producers and distributors across the US and to some extent, by their European counterparts.
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 06-15-2004, 09:48 AM:
 
I think the R Rating is silly from what I read of the scenes. Are we going to rate our evening news R? Still, I don't think it will hurt the boxoffice that much because most of the younger folk will show up with their parents anyway to a documentary. I doubt you will see many 16 year olds making this a movie to see on their list in the theater.

It may take a small hit at the boxoffice. But this will not be the factor that prevents this doc from making 360M.

I do think this will easily outgross Bowling for Columbine. The buzz on F911 is growing each day. But not enough to make this gross in three figures.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 06-15-2004, 10:02 AM:
 
Did anyone see Moore basically begging the MTV Movie Awards audience to go see the movie? He did that as an acceptance speech for someone elses award I think. Either way, it was stupid.
 

---

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 06-15-2004, 01:54 PM:
 
no Regals listed here in GA ... 6 AMC 1 Landmark
 

---

Posted by Rob Butler (Member # 2274) on 06-15-2004, 02:38 PM:
 
I know I'm a little late jumping on the bandwagon with this one, but I've always been a Michael Moore fan and it's mainly because everything I've seen in his movies and read in his books, I've also been able to find from credible sources. Although he may take some information and blow it way out of proportion, I've never heard or read anything by him that I couldn't find to be the truth.

The thing I have to say to anyone protesting the release of this movie, don't say it's bad until you see it, and keep an open mind. For example: I've never said that blowing lines of cocaine was truly a bad thing, I've never tried it, and I never will, but because I've never tried it personally, I don't know if it's good or bad, I just know what I've heard from other people. The same goes for a movie I haven't yet watched, don't judge a book by it's cover or a movie by it's poster.

How can anyone claim to be patriotic and still try to limit the most basic right we have as Americans, the right of free speech?

Furthermore, the thing these people don't seem to understand is that showing movies isn't free speech. I've shown movies that I like a lot, and I've shown movies that I thought were absolute crap, but I'm not showing movies to voice an opinion, I do it because that's what I'm paid to do. If I said that I wasn't going to run a movie because I didn't believe in what the movie portrays, I seriously doubt that my boss would say "Alright, it's your right as an American to do that, so show something more appealing to your beliefs".

As was said before, it's business, pure business. I wonder if these same people protest against stores that sell candles to Satin worshipers since these stores are making profits off the same thing movie theaters make profits off, providing the consumers with what they desire.
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 06-15-2004, 09:11 PM:
 

quote: Rob Butler

---

As was said before, it's business, pure business. I wonder if these same people protest against stores that sell candles to Satin worshipers since these stores are making profits off the same thing movie theaters make profits off, providing the consumers with what they desire.

---

I have been a satin worshiper for years, its so soft and smooth, it makes my bum feel nifty when I sleep.

CIAO

Dave
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 06-16-2004, 02:10 PM:
 
Protesters are going to assert their right to free speech to organize boycotts for this movie. But their approach is faulty. They are attempting to force theaters to not show the movie. They should feel free to ask people not to watch the movie, but if they ask theaters to not show the movie, they are not even giving the people the choice to watch it or not. Cutting off access to information is not acceptable.
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 06-16-2004, 05:32 PM:
 
One local theatre showing 911 is sending out special e-mails announcing the engagement. These are in addition to the regular weekly showtime e-mails. They don't seem to be intimidated by the protesters (they've been protested against before, during the hoopla over LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST). Theatre is Drexel East in Columbus, OH. I'm sure there will be an interesting group of people outside the theatre on opening day.

One important thing in this entire affair. No matter what one thinks of Michael Moore and his politics, it must be admitted that he is a master at getting publicity. Publicity often sells tickets, and that is what the movie business is all about. I'm sure he won't be turning away the dollars he makes from the film.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-17-2004, 05:06 AM:
 
Fahrenheit 9/11 is to be released in the UK on 9 July.

quote:

---

US director Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 will get its UK release on 9 July, distributors have announced. The controversial movie about the Iraq war, will get the biggest-ever release in the UK for a documentary.

It alleges connections between President George W Bush and top Saudi families, including the Bin Ladens. The movie won the Palme d'Or prize at the Cannes Film Festival, the first documentary to win it since Jacques Cousteau's The Silent World in 1956.

---

quote: Eric Hooper

---

Why didn't they give us more prints/theatres in this region???

---

there were rumors at first we might get 3 prints (yes, one on every screen) but there weren't enough to go around so we were alloted one. then they decided they had enough to give us 2. basically, because it was bandied about a while before settling on a distributor, there wasn't enough time to make enough prints to satisfy the demand.

there's some group that's encouraging people to go and see the movie opening night. yeah, great advice there. spread it out, people!

carl
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-23-2004, 04:24 PM:
 
So, let's have some opening weekend predictions! This could be fun!

I know theaters may be selling out, but try to remember how many prints are actually in play.

I'll aim low and say 13 million.
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 06-23-2004, 04:38 PM:
 
Looks like F9/11 is opening on nine screens here, which is six more than I thought would get it in this town:

Regal Village Square 18--2 (west side art screens)
Century Orleans--2
Century Stadium 16 Rancho Santa Fe--1
Century 18 Sam's Town--3
Regal Colonnade 14--2 (east side art screens)

I'm surprised the Century Suncoast 16 didn't get it, as they are another west side house with art/foreign/indie screens.
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 06-23-2004, 04:41 PM:
 
13M too low. 20M minimum. I say 25M opening weekend even with only 900 theaters. I think this is the kind of movie people will be willing to commute 10 miles to watch. Looks like they are adding locations each day. However no chance in hell it will get even a third of the KD 350M prediction.
That still remains a dumb prediction. I think most of the people wanting to watch this will watch it early or on DVD.
 

---

Posted by Jim Bedford (Member # 4) on 06-23-2004, 05:04 PM:
 
Might not F-9/11 be looked at as another side or the anti-side of "The Passion of the Christ"? Seems like that film drew as many fanatics, zealots and extremists as this could from a totally different demographic.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-23-2004, 07:01 PM:
 
Passion averaged about $ 27,500 per theater opening weekend. With 900 theaters, F911 would have to bring in a total of about 25 million to do that. Some say they think it can. I don't think so, but I've been wrong before!

Either way, this will be interesting to watch, just like Passion's opening was.
 

---

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 06-23-2004, 11:09 PM:
 
This just in :

Two single day records of New York City Theatres just shattered.

Link :
'Fahrenheit 9/11' Turns on Box Office Heat

Quote :
'Fahrenheit 9/11' Turns on Box Office Heat
Wednesday June 23 10:17 PM ET

Director Michael Moore 's controversial documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" turned on the box office heat in its first day in theaters breaking single-day records at the two New York City theaters where it played.

The movie, which aims a critical eye at President Bush and his prosecution of the war in Iraq , sold $49,000 worth of tickets at the Loew's Village 7 theater, beating the venue's single-day record of $43,435 held by 1997's "Men in Black," according to distributors Lions Gate Films and IFC Films.

At the Lincoln Plaza theater, "Fahrenheit 9/11" took in more than $30,000 to top the $24,013 set by "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" in 2000.

spokesman for Lions Gate Films said the company debuted the movie in the two theaters to help build good word-of-mouth -- friend telling friend -- publicity ahead of the wide debut on Friday when it plays in 868 theaters in all 50 states.

The film has caused a storm of controversy because director Moore, whose past work includes Oscar-winning documentary "Bowling for Columbine," makes a case that the Bush administration was determined to invade Iraq following the Sept. 11 attacks.

The movie links Bush family members and business associates with wealthy Saudi Arabian families, including that of Osama bin Laden , and Moore clearly wants to see the president fail to win reelection in this fall's presidential campaign.

Groups have organized support for and against the movie, and audiences appear to be keen to see it.

Online ticket service Fandango.com on Wednesday reported that "Fahrenheit 9/11" was making up 48 percent of advance ticket sales for the weekend ahead, compared to 11 percent for "Dodgeball" and 9 percent for next week's "Spider-Man 2"
------------------------------------------------------------

[ 06-24-2004, 04:51 AM: Message edited by: Kamakshipalya Dhananjay ]
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 06-25-2004, 06:52 PM:
 
(Subscription required)

From Daily Variety on the numbers of Moore's crocumentary:

--------------------------------------------------------
Posted: Fri., Jun. 25, 2004, 3:41pm PT

'Fahrenheit' overheats Friday B.O.

Boffo sales put doc in running for No. 1 spot

By GABRIEL SNYDER


Buzz works.
After weeks of debate and media coverage, "Fahrenheit 9/11" opened today far better than expected.

An estimate of just how well it could do is difficult to make, but as of 3 p.m. on the West Coast, it looks as if Michael Moore's doc could sell between $6 million and $8 million worth of tickets on its first day.

Playing at 868 theaters, the pic would have an amazing one-day theater average of $6,912 at the low end of that range.

It is still too soon to tell where "Fahrenheit" will end up for the weekend, though the strong perf out of the gates makes the pic a contender for the No. 1 spot at the box office.

"Fahrenheit" is distribbed by the Bob and Harvey Weinstein's Fellowship Adventure Group and by Lions Gate and IFC Films.

Distribs declined to give an estimate for the day, but Lions Gate prexy Tom Ortenberg said, "There are many, many theater that are selling out many shows. We are thrilled. Things are going great."

"I don't think anyone thought it would do this well," said IFC topper Jonathan Sehring. "I know Lions Gate didn't and I know we didn't. And I wouldn't say Harvey did, but he has always been very bullish on this film."

By mid-afternoon, box office tracking service Rentrak, which is collecting ticket data from 406 locations, had recorded $2.9 million in sales.

How much higher that figure might go is difficult to say since many of those locations have likely already sold out all of their remaining evening shows. However, responding to strong demand, some theater managers may move the pic to bigger auditoriums, allowing them to sell more tickets for the day's remaining shows.

A bigger complication, though, is estimating how much business the 462 theaters not tracked by Rentrak will do. Industry conventional wisdom is that the non-tracked theaters gross less than those that supply data.

"Fahrenheit" is crushing both expectations of those involved in the film as well as industry rivals.

Ortenberg said that while tracking data did not predict sales this strong, the trends had been encouraging.

"The most important thing in the tracking is the trend. Every day our numbers keep going up for awareness and interest," he said.

Sehring added, "It would be great if it held for the weekend. It could break the documentary box office record in just one weekend."

That record is, for the moment, is $21.6 million cume for Moore's 2002 doc, "Bowling for Columbine." But, that pic played for 25 weeks before it crossed $20 million.

Read the full article at:
http://www.variety.com/story.asp?l=story&a=VR1117907062&c=13

Like this article? Variety.com has over 100,000 articles, 35,000 reviews and 10,000 pages of charts. Subscribe today!
http://www.variety.com/emailfriend
or call (866) MY-VARIETY.
Can't commit? Sign up for a free 14-day trial!
http://www.variety.com/emailfriend

------------------------------------

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-25-2004, 07:18 PM:
 
EVERYONE

Remember the rule against political posts. If you have a comment to make that is anything other than raw profit numbers, prints, screen count, etc that could be construed as political...don't make it. Same goes for any newslink that can be taken as political commentary.

Anyone want to make some predictions as to how much longer this thread will remain open before someone comes on here pushing his political babble?
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-25-2004, 07:39 PM:
 
Not long. People can't help themselves. Some might get political just so that this thread (and other Fahrenheit threads) are closed, because they don't like seeing the film discussed in any matter. Hopefully I am wrong, though. [av=c]
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 06-25-2004, 07:48 PM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

Anyone want to make some predictions as to how much longer this thread will remain open...

---

Wait! Lemme check the Radar Range. About 2 more minutes, chief!

I agree with Joe....

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 06-25-2004, 07:49 PM:
 
As of Friday, June 25th, Fahrenheit 911 is being shown in 15 theatres in the five counties of New York City, fourteen in Nassau and Suffolk counties, and thirty-three in New Jersey.

At the Kew Gardens Cinema, all shows were sold out on both screens. I bought my tickets two days in advance by telephone.
At the 4:30 showing, all seats were filled wall-to wall, even in the first row.

[My review not posted because review thread was locked before I could push "Add Reply."]
 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 06-25-2004, 08:15 PM:
 
As stated in the thread dealing with possible security issues, in this medium sized Wisconsin town (Eau Claire-60,000 residents) we are playing one print in our largest auditorium. First show half full, second show 2/3 full, 7:00 show SOLD OUT, and as of 8:15 the 9:50 about 1/3 full.

While I still think the original prediction of $350 million is far too high this movie is going to much better than most people were expecting. I can easily see $100 million plus and for a documentary that is just astronomical.
 

---

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 06-25-2004, 09:31 PM:
 
It is playing in 4 AMC's in the Tampa Bay Area.
 

---

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 06-26-2004, 07:08 AM:
 
Friday numbers anywhere ?
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 06-26-2004, 07:24 AM:
 
We made about $350 million. You were right.
 

---

Posted by Gracia L. Babbidge (Member # 582) on 06-26-2004, 11:22 AM:
 
With Fahrenheit 9-11 yesterday, we had all five shows sold out!
...ok ok, we can only seat 100, but still...

In fact, the 7:15 sold out via advance sales on Thursday, and the other 4 shows were sold out by about 2:30 yesterday. Yup, we had plenty of advance sales being done for shows today, tomorrow, and even into the next week!
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 06-26-2004, 11:40 AM:
 
A group of friends and I went to see it yesterday, 6:45 show at the Universal. We arrived around 5:30, because 4 of us had tickets and 2 didn't. SOLD OUT!

At the last minute, I guess they decided to interlock because they removed the Sold Out sign, and the other two people in our group got tickets, but for the neighboring auditorium. We all sat together in the same one anyway.

Every seat was full in our auditorium except maybe 5 or so way up front by the corners of the screen. When leaving, I noticed they added more showtimes to the board: 6:45, 6:46, 9:20, 9:21, 11:55 and 11:56 --- all sold out, though.

A glance at Fandango also shows the local Regal interlocking. Something tells me this should have had a bigger print run.

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 06-26-2004, 12:01 PM:
 
For KD, Box Office Mojo reports an estimate of $8,358,000 ($9,447 per screen average) USD for Friday's 868 screen opening. These are estimates. The real numbers will come out Monday afternoon.
 

---

Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 06-26-2004, 12:45 PM:
 
It's sellin out to all hell here in Northern California. I was thinkin it might've just been some crazy California Hippie thing, but apparently people from across the land want to see what Michael Moore has to say this time.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-26-2004, 02:24 PM:
 
This is probably drawing a lot of the same people who went to "The Last Temptation of Christ" just because of the controversy. Everyone wants to be "in the loop." I don't like Mr. Moore, but I find myself wanting to see the film just so I can discuss it with people.
 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 06-27-2004, 01:51 AM:
 
As an adendum to my earlier post we esperienced a 25% drop in business on Saturday as compared to Sunday.
 

---

Posted by Mike Williams (Member # 1140) on 06-27-2004, 05:53 PM:
 
The Drudge Report is currently headlining that it has grossed $21M.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-28-2004, 12:46 AM:
 
Looks like I may have aimed a little TOO low. $21 Million (or whatever it ends up being when the final numbers are in) is somewhat respectable I suppose. FAG must be happy.
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 06-28-2004, 02:10 AM:
 
Who is "FAG"?
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-28-2004, 02:12 AM:
 
Anybody know what the production budget for it was?
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 06-28-2004, 03:41 AM:
 
If that was 21 million on just 868 screens (very modest) I would wonder what the gross would have been on 2000 screens? It probably would have been a smash hit.

Right now, even though it opened on 800+ screens, it is beating everything out there - including the latest new releases. Kinda makes me wonder a little.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-28-2004, 05:44 AM:
 
FAG:

quote:

---

Fellowship Adventure Group -- the latter quickly formed by Miramax chiefs Bob and Harvey Weinstein to release the $6 million picture after buying it back from corporate parent Disney. Around $10 million was spent on prints and advertising, less than a third of the average Hollywood release.

---

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/articles/news/?id=040627bo.htm
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 06-28-2004, 12:23 PM:
 
I'm sure Michael Moore must be fretting terribly over the $$ that may have been left on the table due to the modest size of the initial release.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-28-2004, 12:32 PM:
 
I have a feeling this picture will have "legs" well past the Democratic and Republican Conventions this summer, and screens can always be added. Weren't there plans for a home video release before November?
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-28-2004, 12:55 PM:
 

quote: David Stambaugh

---

I'm sure Michael Moore must be fretting terribly over the $$ that may have been left on the table due to the modest size of the initial release.

---

quote:

---

The "Fahrenheit" audience at the Empire 25 was a young, diverse one, characteristic of Times Square but perhaps a surprise to theater staff. Just before midnight on Friday a large crowd formed for a late showing and one attendee, a concerned African-American man in his twenties (wearing a loose basketball jersey and sporting dreadlocks) stepped out of the long, winding line to ask a theater staffer, "Are we all going to fit into this theater?"

"Are you here for 'White Chicks'?" the usher asked the customer flatly, to which the ticket-holder responded, "No man, I'm here for Fahrenheit 9/11."

---

I believe Moore's story now is that they "haven't officially decided on a Video release date" yet.

Wouldn't it be cool if they did another quick marketing campaign for the sub-runs?

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 06-28-2004, 05:12 PM:
 
Here in Huntsville, I've gotten several questions about whether Huntsville is getting the movie. Word now is Madison Square 12 will be picking it up soon. Why in the heck Huntsville didn't get it is beyond me. When I read in the paper today that it was the top-selling movie of this past weekend, I was amazed. This was a huge blunder on someone's part, and I'll bet the theatres here are wishing they'd gotten it to share in the money made on it that went to other cities. Birmingham and Nashville got it, so people drove there. We didn't get Saved! when we should have either. It really irks people here when we don't get movies in our theatres when we should. Years ago, Decatur (much smaller than Huntsville) got Chasing Amy long before we did.

We have 40 screens in Huntsville now. Soon, we should be getting another 18-plex and a new 16-plex (although an existing 12-plex will likely close afterwards). That will be an increase of 22 screens, so hopefully we can start getting more different movies so we won't have to wait on movies like these.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-28-2004, 05:22 PM:
 
Very surprisingly, "Fahrenheit 9/11" did not have any print bookings here in the Lawton area. Lawton is home to the US Army's Fort Sill military installation. Anyone who has anything to do with artillery in America's armed forces winds up here at one time or another in their careers. Some people nickname Fort Sill "the cannon cocker school."

Jack Connor, the manager at the Carmike 8 here in town said they have had numerous requests for the show, well before it opened. Many people arrived at the theater Friday assuming the show would be playing. And then the customers were chewing out members of the staff for not having the film, not realising these people have nothing to do with bookings.

Given the very large military population here, and the large number of troops from Fort Sill stationed in Iraq, it seems really stupid that Lawton's theaters didn't get any prints. Perhaps the distributor might strike another 1,000 or so prints to make for a wider release. Not everyone wants to watch "Spiderman 2."
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 06-28-2004, 11:34 PM:
 
It is my understanding that we have it booked to open Friday. I think it will do very well up here, since we have a large military population with NAS Whidbey.

I'll probably commit a sin by watching the movie from the porthole. Since I'll be running it, I think I can "sneak a peek" and enjoy it because there will be no foul-ups while I am running it.
 

---

Posted by Josh Kirkhart (Member # 1046) on 06-29-2004, 01:17 AM:
 
Home Release to be in stores around September, Mid-October at latest. He wants it in every hand he can get it in before November elections. Really after that the psuedo-documentary will lose its ummph and become a entirely different movie.

Overall theatrical gross guess: 50-52 Million

Also looking like there gonna try to add about 150-200 more screens Friday the 2nd. WoooHooo just in time for the holidays!!!!
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 06-29-2004, 02:49 AM:
 
yes, we're getting one more print next week. we'll have it on every screen.

carl
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-29-2004, 07:46 AM:
 
When I went to see it Monday night at 7:20, it was almost a sell-out in an auditorium with almost 300 seats. The late afternoon matinee had several hundred people, and there were long lines for the late show. Currently on four screens in Rochester.

A news report on Rochester WHAM-1180 radio indicated that Rochester will be getting several additional prints this weekend, and even more next week.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 06-29-2004, 10:14 AM:
 
People are trying to compare this to "Passion of the Christ" which is way off... Passion had a phenominal print run when it opened, and grossed accordingly.

I would compare this more to "Greek Wedding" where it was initially a limited release, then when they realized people actually wanted to see the movie, it expanded a little more each week until the grosses leveled off. Greek Wedding, however, is the highest-grossing movie NEVER to have reached #1!

I doubt Greek Wedding would have pulled in that much if it were plopped onto 2,000 screens without the word-of-mouth it had generated in limited release. Theaters would have cut shows after the first week or two, and it would be out by the third to make room for the "50 prints per film" summer rush.

Every good economist knows that the harder it is to get/see something, the more people want to buy/watch it. Film bookers should take notice.

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 06-29-2004, 11:14 AM:
 

quote: Pravin Ratnam

---

13M too low. 20M minimum. I say 25M opening weekend even with only 900 theaters. I think this is the kind of movie people will be willing to commute 10 miles to watch.

---

quote: Thomas Procyk

---

Every good economist knows that the harder it is to get/see something, the more people want to buy/watch it. Film bookers should take notice.

---

And distributors used to follow this reasoning. A recent special about blockbusters that aired on TRIO used the example of JAWS. Because JAWS was a troubled production, Universal was planning to open it on hundreds of theatres opening weekend (in case word of mouth was bad). However, after a few very successful sneak previews, Universal knew they had a potential blockbuster on its hand, so the studio actually greatly decreased the number of screens, opening the film on just over 400 screens. The stated rational was to make audiences have to go and seek the film out, to make it hard to get into. (Previous to this, Universal released "blockbuster" films such as AIRPORT, EARTHQUAKE, and THE STING in exclusive engagements in major cities, and even with constant sellouts, continued to hold the films exclusively for many months).
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-29-2004, 05:45 PM:
 
I saw a news report late this afternoon about "Fahrenheit 9/11" and the money it is making. Reporters were drawing some odd comparisons in their statements about "the real test will be how the film will last." They noted how films like the latest "Harry Potter" movie and other big summer releases have had giant drop-offs in attendance percentage in the second week of release. They presumed Michael Moore's pseudo-documentary would suffer the same drop. I think that's a stupid prediction.

Strangely the dumb bells at the news networks didn't look to see how the typical summer release these days has many thousands of prints glutting theaters on opening day. Anyone who has any desire to see "Harry Potter" or the next "Spiderman" installment will have very little problem in doing so. The releases literally blow their wad right out of the gate in attempts to break opening weekend records. Who really gives a crap about that? I was far more impressed how films like "Forrest Gump" or "Titanic" lasted week after week and month after month in theatrical release. That's a far more impressive achievement, and one that is more possible when you don't have 8,000 prints circulating in the United States alone.

If "Fahrenheit 9/11" keeps its print inventory at a somewhat modest level (below 2,000) it should maintain some decent attendance levels through July.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 06-30-2004, 03:44 AM:
 
I agree with everything Bobby just said. The word of mouth is already flying about the film, the media always talking about it, and people are just downright curious to see the film. So the moral of the story is to keep them curious and make the movie difficult to see. We open the film tomorrow, and hopefully it will do well. It's good alternative programming to something like Spider-Man anyhow.

AJG
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-30-2004, 05:32 AM:
 

quote: Carl Martin

---

yes, we're getting one more print next week. we'll have it on every screen.

---

quote: Stephen Furley

---

That doesn't seem to give people much choice as to what they see; are there other theatres nearby offering other films?

---

oh yes, this is a theater mecca.

carl
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 07-09-2004, 05:15 PM:
 
How well is it holding up after two weeks? It opened here today, but I still haven't seen any publicity for it, and I don't know where it's showing. There was an interviiew with Michael Moore on Channel Four News eiither yesterday of Wednesday, and a couple of very short clips were shown.
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 07-09-2004, 06:04 PM:
 
Box Office Mojo says the estimated gross as of yesterday is $69,090,104 USD. Final figure for the opening weekend is $23,920,637 USD. It opened on 868 US screens and has expanded to 2011. I think it will begin to tail off from here.
 

---

Posted by Nate Lehrke (Member # 1460) on 08-15-2004, 02:19 AM:
 
Well as of August 13th:
Domestic: $114,772,000 78.0%
Overseas: $32,400,000 22.0%
= Worldwide: $147,172,000

716 theatres still showing it. source
 
With many arab countrys banning it, I don't see it hitting that 950 Million mark but you certainly cant deny that it did amazing business overall.
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 08-15-2004, 03:18 AM:
 
It's opening near me, at the small place where I've been doing some projecton until recently, on September 3rd. It's been on release in London for a while, but I've been too busy to travel further to see it, They will only have it for a week, but they don't normally hold anything for longer than that, though they often bring a film back two or three times during the next few months.

It's been reported as having broken London box office records (whatever that means, nothing specific was stated) but I've seen and heard very little about it. There were a few posters on Underground stations, but that's about all. I haven't spoken to anybody here who's seen it. I have heard from a few people in the US who've seen it, and in several cases, it has been better received by Republicans, who said it was better than they expected, than by Democrats, who said they were disappointed by it, which is rather surprising, but based on a very small sample.

Does anyone have any figures for the UK? 'Bowling for Columbine' did well here, I would have expected this one to do less well, but I don't know.

I want to see it, but I may wait until the DVD comes out. Columbine looks much better on video than it does on film. Televison news material looks pretty bad on a large screen, and to make it worse, I got the last remaining seat for the last show, in the front row, which is too close to the screen in this place anyway.

Does anyone know what format the original material for F. 9/11 was shot on? Was it just standard def interlaced video, or something desgned for film transfer.

I've heard a figure of $6m mentioned for the production budget; is this correct? If so, it's a very high budget production. There are normal feature films, and certainly many major television productions, made for a lot less than that.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-15-2004, 07:33 AM:
 
Shot on genuine HD according to the end credits.

I thought the video to film transfers weren't that bad, given what they were starting with. But yes, this would have been the ideal sort of thing to use digital projection on, given that none of it was originated on film to start with.

I saw it at the new Odeon Wimbledon on a visit to relatives, about a week after release. It was only in one screen, and the 6pm Saturday screening was about half full. It was clearly starting to tail off a bit.

That was, I would guess, the fourth or fifth film I've seen there, and the first in which there wasn't any significant presentation fault (the print was a bit tatty around the reel ends, though - which, if it was a new print which they had from day 1, could only have been their film handling). Glad to see that they're starting to sort out the problems.

As for the $6 million, I would guess that a lot of it was spent on rights clearances for the archive stuff. The clearance rate we charge for using our copyright material in a cinema film (worldwide, 10-year licence) is £5.50 per second, which is around the TV industry average. Not that anyone has ever used any of our stuff in a worldwide distributed cinema film...
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-16-2004, 09:50 AM:
 
There was quite a mix of original material, ranging from NTSC VHS video to 35mm film. There was even a rather graphic (and mercifully unsharp) view through a sniper's night scope.

http://www.postmagazine.com/post/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=101686

quote:

---

NEW YORK - HD specialist Craig Gordon and the team at Rhinopost (www.rhinopost.tv) recently provided high def services for Michael Moore's controversial "Fahrenheit 9/11." The facility has worked on Moore projects in the past, having provided color correction services for scenes featured in "Bowling For Columbine."
For Moore's latest project, Rhinopost eye-matched the entire project - which consisted of formats ranging from VHS to HD - and converted the entire production to a 24fps for film and HD master for exhibition.

"With various formats to contend with, each element had to be color-timed and matched to be transposed seamlessly to film," explains HD specialist/colorist Walter Lefler. If not done properly, the viewer will notice, you want to keep the viewer focused on the contents of the film rather than the technical aspects."

"Anytime you're working in video and going to film, there are numerous challenges inherent in the process," says Kurt Engfehr, Moore's editor on "Fahrenheit 9/11." "Our biggest problem were the hard deadlines we were facing. Rhino made this whole project not only work, but work smoothly. Craig Gordon, through his knowledge and adeptness, was the rock we all ended up depending on."

---