$54,000 4 -Day weekend gross on 20 Screens

[C5NOTLD]

83% dip is bad. .

[DjfunkmasterG]

Its not good that's for sure. An 83% dip in your second week is a good sign that your theatrical career is going to come to a screeching halt. Granted there was very little advertisement and having the UK Blu-Ray out 3 months before anything in the USA didn't help things either, but still that is a hard hit to take.

[Trin]

Hard to support a movie that plays on 13 screens nationwide.

[MinionZombie]

Hard to support a movie that plays on 13 screens nationwide. Exactly. Diary wasn't exactly pushed in theatres, and Survival has been pushed even less - no doubt in part due to the lack of interest in indie fare in the cinemas because of all the blockbusters ... not to mention all the 3D blockbusters that take up an extra screen or two more than usual. So it's hardly surprising that an indie zombie flick hasn't fared amazingly well in a handful of US cinemas when it's already been out on R2 DVD for months and on VOD for a while stateside.

[ChokeOnEm]

Its not good that's for sure. An 83% dip in your second week is a good sign that your theatrical career is going to come to a screeching halt. Eh, prior to the 28 Days Later / Dawn-remake zombie craze, Georges flicks were going straight to DVD anyway. He's pretty much back where he was before. Shame that he's pissed away so much of the fans' goodwill.

[Trin]

You know, I'm not much for getting into the nitty-gritty of film. I don't know that much about it. I can tell a hack-job B-movie horror flick from a blockbuster, but that's about it. That said, I do have a couple opinions. Romero shouldn't get a free pass by calling Survival an Indie film. He's not subject to the typical Indie film challenges. The man is a legend of filmmaking and if he makes a movie people look at it. He's not trying to get a foot in the door at this point and shouldn't be treated like it's some big uphill challenge for his movies. The only time his movies have these hurdles is AFTER people have seen them, and then it's a quality issue, not a problem with getting an audience. Survival looks like a movie to me. Not a "low-budget" movie or an Indie movie. Just a movie. If you sat me down in front of half the big studio movies playing right now (discounting hugely expensive action flicks) vs. Survival I'd have a hard time telling you which movie cost more. I know the film is low budget but it doesn't look low budget to me. It looks like any other movie. Or, perhaps put another way, the problems with Survival have nothing to do with budget or talent in filmmaking. It's the story he's trying to tell that people aren't buying.

[Rancid Carcass]

I think that we should also consider that it is, at the end of the day, a horror film, not only that, a zombie film, it's technically a niche within a niche so it's never going to do huge numbers at the box office. It's easy to forget posting here that we are in a bubble and to your average film goer we are a minority that enjoys what it sees as a simple 'splatter movie' - for all the debates we have around here about George's apparent lack of subtety with his subtext, most other people just don't see it, all they see is blood and guts and they either buy into that or they don't and generally has nothing to do with the quality of the film etc. So I wouldn't be too worried about it's takings or the length of it's run, the only thing that really reflects is the fact horror films, quite naturally, have a smaller target audience than the latest rom-com or summer blockbuster.

[bassman]

Romero shouldn't get a free pass by calling Survival an Indie film. I agree. Although it's considered an independent film by hollywood's standards, it's still a bit better off than most. Although not related in any way, it's kinda like how District 9 was called an independent film because it was financed through outside sources.

[MinionZombie]

I agree. Although it's considered an independent film by hollywood's standards, it's still a bit better off than most. Although not related in any way, it's kinda like how District 9 was called an independent film because it was financed through outside sources. It's technically indie - it's bid budget indie - and technically indie - but it's not like truest-of-the-true indie where it's, well, Night of the Living Dead.

[DjfunkmasterG]

I think that we should also consider that it is, at the end of the day, a horror film, not only that, a zombie film, it's technically a niche within a niche so it's never going to do huge numbers at the box office. It's easy to forget posting here that we are in a bubble and to your average film goer we are a minority that enjoys what it sees as a simple 'splatter movie' - for all the debates we have around here about George's apparent lack of subtety with his subtext, most other people just don't see it, all they see is blood and guts and they either buy into that or they don't and generally has nothing to do with the quality of the film etc. So I wouldn't be too worried about it's takings or the length of it's run, the only thing that really reflects is the fact horror films, quite naturally, have a smaller target audience than the latest rom-com or summer blockbuster. Poor excuse if you ask me. Zombie films do very well when his name isn't attached to them: The Crazies $40,000,000 Dawn 2004 $60,000,000 Zombieland $75,000,000 Land of the Dead $20,000,000.00 Diary $1,000,000 Survival $0,077,000 After the shitfest known as Land he hasn't made a good name for himself. Hell, Dawn 78 and Day 85 did better box office than Diary and Survival. In fact Dawn 78 made something like $20,000,000 in the US back int he 70's which is double that today. So even DAWN kicked the hell out of LAND and were talking a period of 27 years Or, perhaps put another way, the problems with Survival have nothing to do with budget or talent in filmmaking. It's the story he's trying to tell that people aren't buying. I don't think the story itself is the problem, it is one of the problems, but no the problem. It is the crafting/editing of the story that is the problem and the fact he uses the same excuse for the last 3 films. "Oh they're comic book adventures" How many times does the same excuse come up for every one of his films that flops? Side Note: I believe it was MZ who pretty much hit the nail on the head. Having the R2 release 3 months before the US is what killed this off. When people have been able to buy or pirate the film for 3 months why would they go see it in theaters? Hell most of the conventions I attended since the Uk release... I watched a plethora of shady dealers selling bootlegs of Diary, and at a premium price too $30.00 or more. Artfire and Romero dropped the ball allowing Optimum to release Survival so early.

[bassman]

the fact he uses the same excuse for the last 3 films. "Oh they're comic book adventures" How many times does the same excuse come up for every one of his films that flops? But to be fair, as you mentioned Dawn made and continues to make good money even though it's often regarded as a comic book adventure. As much as I like Dawn and the fun I have with the adventure, I think he needs a darker, more serious film like Day to get out of this rut.

[DjfunkmasterG]

But to be fair, as you mentioned Dawn made and continues to make good money even though it's often regarded as a comic book adventure. As much as I like Dawn and the fun I have with the adventure, I think he needs a darker, more serious film like Day to get out of this rut. My thoughts exactly, and see I felt Diary was a move int he right direction as it was much darker in tone than Land or Survival.

[bassman]

hrmm....I would say that Land is a bit darker than Diary. I think the overuse of the camera subtext made it lighter. Also the fact that it was a group of seemingly 17 year olds not taking the situation seriously or even trying to have emotion.

[Trin]

I agree with bass on this one. Land was a darker movie imho. Land had quite a bit of serious tension around the characters. It had a more cohesive and broader storyline. Diary was the first to highlight comedic zombie gag kills and a lighter vignette portrayal of events. I'm not sure how the story isn't the problem, but the crafting/editing the story is the problem. What's the diff?

[DjfunkmasterG]

Meaning the direction. You guys think Land is darker? Dennis Hopper was picking his fucking nose. Zombies were using fully automated machine guns. Zombie slinging machetes, with a lot of force and speed might I add. The only thing dark in Land was the water from the river.