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

[MinionZombie]

Land was definitely darker than Diary. No question about it. Diary has dark moments ... like Debra returning home and finding her family undead, or the chick freaking out and shooting herself ... but it's also go "Don't mess with Texas" and that silly jingle, and the blunt comedy comments about running zombies (even though I appreciated them ) and chicks falling over so their boobs fall out ... oh and the whole Amish guy bit ... and the defibrilator eye burst. Land shows a world where life is - amazingly - cheap, where the haves tower above the have-nots, where vices are sold at great expense, where Kaufman will sell you out at the drop of a hat, where greed is still good, where people throw their fellow man into a pen to be fed to the zombies so they can bet on which lands the first bite. It does have silly moments, but Land is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay darker than Diary. Land is three years into an outbreak while Diary is the first couple of days where nobody has any idea of how dark it's going to eventually get. They see a lot of chaos, sure, but they don't consider what will one day become of mankind at large - Land, on the other hand, shows us.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Land was definitely darker than Diary. No question about it. Diary has dark moments ... like Debra returning home and finding her family undead, or the chick freaking out and shooting herself ... but it's also go "Don't mess with Texas" and that silly jingle, and the blunt comedy comments about running zombies (even though I appreciated them ) and chicks falling over so their boobs fall out ... oh and the whole Amish guy bit ... and the defibrilator eye burst. Land shows a world where life is - amazingly - cheap, where the haves tower above the have-nots, where vices are sold at great expense, where Kaufman will sell you out at the drop of a hat, where greed is still good, where people throw their fellow man into a pen to be fed to the zombies so they can bet on which lands the first bite. It does have silly moments, but Land is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay darker than Diary. Land is three years into an outbreak while Diary is the first couple of days where nobody has any idea of how dark it's going to eventually get. They see a lot of chaos, sure, but they don't consider what will one day become of mankind at large - Land, on the other hand, shows us. Lets just agree to disagree. Land Sucks, Diary is better. Clint Eastwood is a badass and would eat Chuck Norris for breakfast.

[Trin]

I'm with MZ on this. Diary has two guys get lost in a frikking warehouse walking down a hallway and going through a door. Duhhhh.... "Uh, where's the door. Is this the door? Uh, let me hang the camera around here for a sec. No, this isn't the door. Where does this go? Helloooooo.... zombies? Dinner here..." I disagree to agree. Diary and Survival have me defending Land!! Now that's the darkest story of all!! Oh, the horror of it!!

[darth los]

It's all relative. They all suck. It's just a matter of which shit sandwich tastes worse.

[C5NOTLD]

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. . Having just watched Survival on PPV - I'm surprised it took such a big dip in the 2nd week. Not that bad of a film. Certainly not on par with the original three but I liked it and thought it would have done better box office. .

[RJ_Sevin]

$2,700 per screen on an opening weekend for a horror movie is really good, and the 80-something percent second weekend drop is par for the course with horror. The problem here: 20 screens. If it had opened on, say, 3,000 screens, like any other movie that weekend, it would have brought in around 8 million. Second weekend drop would have brought it down to about 2 mil. That's ten mil for a flick that cost four mil. Of course, none of this is neither here nor there. It's done what it's done, and one can only expect low numbers with a movie opening on 20 screens... George's movies have never blown holes in the box office. They live or die on home video.

[DjfunkmasterG]

RJ, would you agree the early UK release kind of fucked them? I am thinking the meager US screen count was probably due in part to the UK release as well as the fact it was a very indie label releasing the film. However, George's films have gone on to make serious dough on Home Video... Diary is still pulling down some good money and that is my fave of the three newer flicks.

[bd2999]

I do not think they expect much out of the theatrical run honestly. As they released in on demand first. I know I watched it through amazon. So with that, what the theatrical run makes and then the DVD sales I am sure that it will make money, although probably not tons. I thought it was better than Diary and had moments that made me want another one but at times not really.

[Trin]

RJ, would you agree the early UK release kind of fucked them? I am thinking the meager US screen count was probably due in part to the UK release as well as the fact it was a very indie label releasing the film. However, George's films have gone on to make serious dough on Home Video... Diary is still pulling down some good money and that is my fave of the three newer flicks. The UK release would've been fine had the reviews been stellar. As it was the lackluster and mixed reviews didn't fire anyone up in the US. It was like a mountain of wet carpets.

[RJ_Sevin]

RJ, would you agree the early UK release kind of fucked them? Could be. I don't have enough info to make an informed call. I do know this: SURVIVAL appears to be tanking in foreign markets, too. DIARY made nearly 1 million in its meager US theatrical run, and nearly 4 mil theatrically abroad. SURVIVAL, by comparison, has brought in 41 grand abroad, and nearly 100 grand here. I'm not sure what the upcoming cross-promotion with AMC's THE WALKING DEAD will result in, and maybe the movie still needs to be rolled out in Italy and Japan, where it will make a few more bucks. We're talking about art, and statistics really don't have a place at the table of discussion. How much a piece makes has nothing to do with how it should be judged, or how we should feel about it. That said, I find myself following the numbers here because I like George and I want his stuff to do well. I like SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD. it's not a position that I have any desire to defend-- maybe I would have, a few years ago, but now, I see it just doesn't matter. We like what we like, and though it's interesting to know why others do or don't like what we like, it really just doesn't matter. My feelings on SURVIVAL aside, word of mouth isn't good. I've talked to folks who've seen it-- regular movie fans, not diehards -- and they just can't stand it. Author/Filmaker Gregory Lamberson, who has been really hard on Romero's last few films, and who had written off SURVIVAL at one point, absolutely loves it, and he has a theory: it appeals to a very small percentage of zombie fans, and will always be the one that only a few appreciate.

[DjfunkmasterG]

I can't say I hate it, but can't say i love it either... I know I like it better than LAND.

[krakenslayer]

$2,700 per screen on an opening weekend for a horror movie is really good, and the 80-something percent second weekend drop is par for the course with horror. The problem here: 20 screens. If it had opened on, say, 3,000 screens, like any other movie that weekend, it would have brought in around 8 million. Second weekend drop would have brought it down to about 2 mil. That's ten mil for a flick that cost four mil. Of course, none of this is neither here nor there. It's done what it's done, and one can only expect low numbers with a movie opening on 20 screens... George's movies have never blown holes in the box office. They live or die on home video. Bear in mind, though, you can't extrapolate theatre averages for a 20 screen release to theatre averages for a 3,000 screen release because it doesn't take into account people who travel to see the movie (as fans of cult movies tend to do), and who would have gone to a closer theatre showing it if there was one. In other words, small release movies tend to draw a bigger crowd from a wider catchment area to the few cinemas that show them. If it was a 3,000 theatre release, I would estimate that you'd be seeing half to two-thirds of the theatre average gross, at best. Still, that's about five mil, which more than cover the budget in any case. It's also worth noting, though, that we don't know how much the movie pulled down in takings from the UK DVD release and the US PPV run. It could be considerably more.

[Mr.G]

It's also worth noting, though, that we don't know how much the movie pulled down in takings from the UK DVD release and the US PPV run. It could be considerably more. Good point. However, I'm not as certain it will make a profit once DVD, pay per view, and tickets are included. The 4 million dollar budget looks steep looking at how its doing in theatres.

[darth los]

I can't say I hate it, but can't say i love it either... I know I like it better than LAND. That's not saying very much now is it? That's like saying i like syphillis more than gonerrhea.

[Neil]

Good point. However, I'm not as certain it will make a profit once DVD, pay per view, and tickets are included. The 4 million dollar budget looks steep looking at how its doing in theatres. Dear God, if "The Asylum" can turn a profit on their million dollar turds, I'm sure "Survival" can!