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

[DjfunkmasterG]

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=survivalofthedead.htm

[bassman]

So is this good or bad? I have no idea how these things work.

Quite honestly....I hope it doesn't do TOO well. I don't want another rushed job out of the next flick....

[Trin]

It's not exactly Iron Man 2....

So 20 theaters. And worldwide is under $100,000. On a $4,000,000 budget. Does that bode poorly for it? How should it be doing by this point?

[bassman]

Man, are people still watching this flick? It was released when my granny was born. All I want to know about is the R1 DVD features...

This was just recently released for home viewing in the states. Got several months to go before the DVD is released...

[AcesandEights]

Man, are people still watching this flick?

Well it was only just released here. In fact, it's only playing in one theater this week that I can find and that's in the city, where I'd expect it to be showing in a few more venues.

I may just wait for the DVD release.

[DjfunkmasterG]

There are some films that do that much business on just one screen in NY or LA. The fact it is on 20 screens in major cities

LA
NY
WASH DC
etc

It should have done a little better. $54,000 doesn't even cover the 35MM film prints.

[bassman]

So if it doesn't pick up sales it's not doing too good? Whew....maybe they'll take a break now.:p

I've just seen that my local independent theater is starting it this friday. I'm tempted to do it just as a fan, but having already *ahem* seen it.....I'm not sure it's worth it. Might be waiting for DVD like Aces...

[DjfunkmasterG]

Hey... I imported the Blu-Ray from UK. The least you can do is go sit through it ont he big screen. Plus it is in 2.35:1. So it may add to the viewing experience

[bassman]

ehhhh. 45 minute drive there, 45 minute drive back, mediocre film, shitty effects, etc etc. I'm thinking dvd sounds like the better deal.:p

[BillyRay]

Yeh...it's only been released in theory.

It's out for real when it's playing by me.

Numbers be damned.

[EvilNed]

This was never the sort of film that was going to make money in the theathers anyway. I'm not saying the producers didn't want it too, but if they wanted to make big money, they wouldn't have released it in a bare 20 cinemas. Seriously.

A huge part of today's market are DVDs. That's where Diary made it's money, and that's where Survival will make it's money.

[darth los]

It's not exactly Iron Man 2....

So 20 theaters. And worldwide is under $100,000. On a $4,000,000 budget. Does that bode poorly for it? How should it be doing by this point?


Don't know. All I know is that they better pray for good dvd sales. :dead:

:cool:

[Trin]

In that LA Time article GAR said that Diary "ended up making a lot of money" and was "still earning." It might be that Survival goes that route as well. If I recall it did poorly in the theater too.

Of course, Diary didn't suffer the fact that everyone who ever wanted to see it had seen it prior to it ever being in a purchase-able format.

I'd spend my money to go see Survival in the theater just to support GAR. I don't think it's playing anywhere near me. So the best I can do is buy the DVD when it becomes available.

Personally, I'd love to see the thing be successful enough to fund a dozen more. I know... glutton for punishment. I'm like that.

[C5NOTLD]

It's not exactly Iron Man 2....

So 20 theaters. And worldwide is under $100,000. On a $4,000,000 budget. Does that bode poorly for it? How should it be doing by this point?

Depends on what type of change in % from first to second week of release to see if it builds in box office if more theaters are added or if it drops with the current 20 theaters.

Paranormal Activity in it's early release was in 200 theaters and grossed $41,000 per screen.


.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Yeah Survival only made about $2700 per screen.

[clanglee]

Yeah, I really don't think the whole "Let's release it in the UK on DVD so that the movie can be pirated easily, and then do a Theater release in the US. . but before that We'll do an OnDemand thing!!" was the best business plan. :rolleyes:

[DrSiN]

The question is does BoxOfficeMojo track VOD sales. I'm willing to bet it doesn't.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Nope.. ATM I don't know who does, if anyone.

Only time I know about VOD is when I get my quarterlies from the studio

[Yojimbo]

Sad figures - but here in Los Angeles there was little to no ad campaign, no commercials on tv, third page article which comparatively was not even a real big feature in the newspaper, no bench ads, no billboards, little to no radio promo and it screened without fanfare in only one theater for the whole city of Los Angeles on an obscure art house screen. I can only imagine that there was less in other cities. This had less than Diary in the way of promo, and far far less than Land. Admittedly, I wasn't even aware that it was screening over the weekend, and I am the target demographic.

All that being taken in account, the poor numbers are understandable.

---------- Post added at 11:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:30 PM ----------


Yeah, I really don't think the whole "Let's release it in the UK on DVD so that the movie can be pirated easily, and then do a Theater release in the US. . but before that We'll do an OnDemand thing!!" was the best business plan. :rolleyes:


Agreed. This too was a really bad move.

---------- Post added at 11:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 PM ----------



I may just wait for the DVD release. I suspect this is what many fans are doing - I'm sure the movie will make back the principal investment plus a good profit through dvd sales. Just a shame that they didn't configure the theater release to do all that well. Almost as if it was mean to fail

[bassman]

And this is the same company behind Diary, right? I seem to remember Diary getting a pretty good ad campaign. For a month or so I was seeing it everywhere. I wonder why they slacked off on this one...

[Danny]

Depends on what type of change in % from first to second week of release to see if it builds in box office if more theaters are added or if it drops with the current 20 theaters.

Paranormal Activity in it's early release was in 200 theaters and grossed $41,000 per screen.


.

God i hope it makes more than paranormal activity. i like that film from an audience standpoint but as a filmmaker that two people in a house with no decent effects for thousands of dollars schtik still pisses me off.:lol:

[sirjacktorrance]

Yeah Survival only made about $2700 per screen.

only? that´s not a bad number. it´s near 3000 per screen. same as robin hood... for example. it´s far from the media per screen in the weekend. it´s gonna make what a little independent movie it´s suppose to make.I don´t Know what they expect but i suppose they didn´t expend ANYTHING in advertising.i hope it do well i would like to see how George ends this minisaga.

[ChokeOnEm]

And this is the same company behind Diary, right? I seem to remember Diary getting a pretty good ad campaign. For a month or so I was seeing it everywhere. I wonder why they slacked off on this one...

Not the same company. Survival is being distributed by Magnet, the genre arm of Magnolia. Diary was handled by The Weinsteins, the former Miramax heavyweights. Diary may have had more of a theatrical presence (and even that was pretty slight) but I think Magnet has done a great job promoting Survival in alternative ways. Magnet has released several of their films on VOD before going into theatres. Increasingly, this is the new release model. Romero-bashers point to Survival's on-demand premiere as proof of its crappiness. While the film is indeed lousy, that has nothing to do with anything.

[darth los]

I don´t Know what they expect.

To atleast make what they put into the film.

:cool:

[sirjacktorrance]

To atleast make what they put into the film.

:cool:

with only 20 screeen is a very difficult task, not all the horror movies are paranormal activity! i think it´s gonna be pretty profitable anyway, cause they spend very little in promotion, it´s all on the net.

[Yojimbo]

Surely they will make big bucks on the dvd sales - more than enough to make a decent profit.

[C5NOTLD]

only? that´s not a bad number. it´s near 3000 per screen. same as robin hood... for example. it´s far from the media per screen in the weekend. it´s gonna make what a little independent movie it´s suppose to make.I don´t Know what they expect but i suppose they didn´t expend ANYTHING in advertising.i hope it do well i would like to see how George ends this minisaga.

The per screen average can be misleading because it depends on the size of the theater and location (which can bring more people out or less people). You can have two different films with $3000 per screen average - one is good (because it's a smaller seat capacity theater and less theaters - say 20) and one is bad (because it is a larger seat capacity theater with more empty seats and in many more theaters say 200). Of course the negatives can work the other way as well. Ther percentage drop or increase from the first week to the 2nd week in box office is much more telling usually.

Survival just hit the cover of the latest issue of Home Media Magazine (formerly Video Store magazine) with a full page insert inside. Talks about some of the marketing including promotional partnership with AMCs Walking Dead series.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a152/USCJC/d3.jpg
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a152/USCJC/d2.jpg




.

[rongravy]

August 24th?!?!? No wayyyyyyyy.
Put it on near me on the bigscreen and let me be the judge whether or not it sucks...
I liked the last two. I will probably like this one in spite of the hate for it here.
:elol:

[MinionZombie]

August 24th?!?!? No wayyyyyyyy.
Put it on near me on the bigscreen and let me be the judge whether or not it sucks...
I liked the last two. I will probably like this one in spite of the hate for it here.
:elol:

Not according to the HPOTD poll - like with Land, most HPOTD'ers dig Survival.


Ah, so the R1 has a commentary, 'Walking After Midnight' documentary, 'Sarge' - a short film, GAR introduction, "and more". So I was right not to buy the barebones after all.

Seeing as it wasn't coming to UK cinemas I went for the DVD (£7.99), which was just a bit more than a cinema ticket anyways, and I've had two viewings out of it so far. I'll get the R1 2-discer when it comes out for sure for all the extras goodness. :thumbsup:

[DjfunkmasterG]

Survival takes an 83.1% dip in its second week. Also loses 7 screens

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=survivalofthedead.htm

[C5NOTLD]

83% dip is bad. :eek:



.

[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.:confused:

[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.:confused:
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?:rockbrow:

[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.

[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 :D) and chicks falling over so their boobs fall out ... oh and the whole Amish guy bit ... and the defibrilator eye burst. :p

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 :D) and chicks falling over so their boobs fall out ... oh and the whole Amish guy bit ... and the defibrilator eye burst. :p

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. :moon:

Diary and Survival have me defending Land!! Now that's the darkest story of all!! Oh, the horror of it!! :eek:

[darth los]

It's all relative. They all suck.

It's just a matter of which shit sandwich tastes worse.

:cool:

[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. :D

[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. :D


That's not saying very much now is it?

That's like saying i like syphillis more than gonerrhea. :dead:

:cool:

[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!

[DjfunkmasterG]

I am pretty sure Romero or Artfire went on record as saying Survival already turned a profit from sales to other markets.

[LouCipherr]

That's not saying very much now is it?

That's like saying i like syphillis more than gonerrhea. :dead:

:lol:

If there was a smiley that laughed 'till he puked, I would've used that one instead. Good one, DL! :D


I am pretty sure Romero or Artfire went on record as saying Survival already turned a profit from sales to other markets.

Wow, I have to admit I'm pretty surprised at this.

[DjfunkmasterG]

:lol:

If there was a smiley that laughed 'till he puked, I would've used that one instead. Good one, DL! :D



Wow, I have to admit I'm pretty surprised at this.

You shouldn't be... the europeans love their zombie horror. That is how they make money selling it to multiple markets.

I think on IMDB for LAND and DAWN 04 there are 4-5 different companies who released each film based on Market

TOHO/TOWA (JP)
UIP (UK)
etc

[LouCipherr]

You shouldn't be...

Well I am. :p :lol:

[DjfunkmasterG]

Well I am. :p :lol:

Well :moon:

[Mr.G]

As of July 1st...domestic: $95,334 and foreign:$41,451. It appears the Germans love GAR! ;)

[DeadJonas190]

Yeah, I really don't think the whole "Let's release it in the UK on DVD so that the movie can be pirated easily, and then do a Theater release in the US. . but before that We'll do an OnDemand thing!!" was the best business plan. :rolleyes:

They also had it on Xbox Live as a movie you could purchase and watch. So yeah, they didn't quite have the best business plan in place for this movie.

[darth los]

As of July 1st...domestic: $95,334 and foreign:$41,451. It appears the Germans love GAR! ;)

As evidenced by the 50 (yes I'm exagerating) dawn covers there are throughout europe. :)

I'm still finding dawn posters on the internet that I've never seen before. :lol:

:cool:

---------- Post added at 04:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:05 PM ----------


:lol:

If there was a smiley that laughed 'till he puked


Well, maybe there should be. :D

You guys have connections around here. Make it happen man !

I see you already have a few personalized smileys, so ya...:lol:

:cool:

[Mr.G]

Update: As of July 11th...

Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $101,055 70.9%
+ Foreign: $41,451 29.1%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
= Worldwide: $142,506

[Neil]

update: As of july 11th...

Total lifetime grosses
domestic: $101,055 70.9%
+ foreign: $41,451 29.1%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
= worldwide: $142,506

O u c h !

[Mr.G]

O u c h !

Agreed. Let's hope domestic/foreign distribution and DVD sales/rentals help.

[Mr.G]

As of July 15th....

Total Lifetime GrossesDomestic: $101,740 71.1%
+ Foreign: $41,451 28.9%

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

= Worldwide: $143,191

[Neil]

As of July 15th....

Total Lifetime GrossesDomestic: $101,740 71.1%
+ Foreign: $41,451 28.9%

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

= Worldwide: $143,191

Continued ouch!

[MinionZombie]

As of July 15th....

Total Lifetime GrossesDomestic: $101,740 71.1%
+ Foreign: $41,451 28.9%

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

= Worldwide: $143,191
Is this purely cinema & VOD?

Of course with sales to foreign markets the film is already in the black, so I've heard and what about DVD sales?

[Mr.G]

Is this purely cinema & VOD?

Of course with sales to foreign markets the film is already in the black, so I've heard and what about DVD sales?

I'm pretty sure this is 'just' cinema/theatre money. Still...even if the movie is 'in the black' making less than 200K during an initial theatre/cinema run is shocking.

[Trin]

I'm pretty sure this is 'just' cinema/theatre money. Still...even if the movie is 'in the black' making less than 200K during an initial theatre/cinema run is shocking.Exaclty who had the option of seeing it? If it did come through town I didn't know about it. And I was checking the movie listings every so often watching for it.

[MinionZombie]

Exaclty who had the option of seeing it? If it did come through town I didn't know about it. And I was checking the movie listings every so often watching for it.
How many screens did it show on? If it's on sod all screens then of course it's not going to make a bunch of cash.

[bassman]

Exaclty who had the option of seeing it? If it did come through town I didn't know about it. And I was checking the movie listings every so often watching for it.

I think you just had to know which independent theaters in your area could possibly play it. That's the only reason I knew it was playing around me....I regularly check the theater's page.

At least Diary had a website letting everyone know where they could see it. They've really dropped the ball on Survival....

[rongravy]

They have two places semi near that play independent movies all the time. The one in Fayetteville has Winter's bone right now, which is an awesome movie btw...
I know semi soon it's not going to matter, but it would've been nice.
Balls dropped, alright.