Box Office: The Slightly Mighty Thor

Thor discovers he isn't as strong as he looksOnline coverage of weekend box office is often dry, repetitive and facty. We respond to it as we do to sports stats, with curiousity that people care so much. This week is slightly different. Thor's box office take is actually a case study in how flexible numbers are, how perception is everything. FACT: Thor did not break box office records, did less impressive numbers than many summer heroes (if you want a comparison he's slightier mightier than The Incredible Hulk or Fantastic Four but far far weaker than Iron Man -- which no one remembers that people were  nervous about in terms of audience interest until the trailer arrived since history tends to rewrite itself after huge successes -- or Wolverine and such. FACT #2 Just last week, Fast Five was a bigger draw with less of a marketing push in a franchise you'd think would be weakening. Yet many online reports, or at least the headlines, were all about Thor's "super" box office weekend or how it "hammered", "smashed" and "crushed" its competition or somesuch.  LESSON LEARNED: the web roots for superheroes like young children clap for fairies in Peter Pan, in a show of enthusiastic solidarity.

USELESS FACT #3 The theater I saw it in had no more than 20ish people in it. Admittedly it was a morning show and for some reason people don't go to movies in the morning (Why not? Start the day off right!) but still... opening day.

The Box Office (Actuals)

01 THOR new $65.7 [my review]
02 FAST FIVE  $32.4 (cumulative $139.7)
03 JUMPING THE BROOM new $15.2
04 SOMETHING BORROWED new $13.9
05 RIO $8.5 (cumulative $115.2)

The success story of the weekend is Jumping the Broom; it's opening take was more than double its budget! FACT #3 I really wanted to see it given the Loretta Devine / Angela Bassett face off. But then I saw the trailer. Interest dwindled.

In other box office news, the new limited releases had a really difficult time: The Beaver and Last Night failed to find much of an audience despite big stars in the lead roles. If you have big stars who are typically bigger box office shouldn't you risk a wider opening with more advertisements? It seems strange that a movie starring Mel Gibson and Jodie Foster is going to make less than a period piece with no typically bankable names like The Conspirator (which opened much much wider). Kelly Reichardt's Meek's Cutoff, just discussed on the podcast, is also having a rough time. It's up to just $200,000. That's more than Wendy & Lucy (the previous Reichardt/Michelle Williams combo) had made at this point but the per screen average is much lower indicating it will probably not have that earlier film's very sturdy legs despite similarly ecstatic reviews. Wendy & Lucy neared the million dollar mark at the end of its long run.

What did you see over the weekend?