Quote:
Originally Posted by predator20
The Matrix had pulled in 27 million by April 4th its opening weekend. But I'm wondering if it nosedived after Columbine. With all the negative publicity made towards gun movies. It could have scared off potential buyers.
|
Here's what IMDB says:
$129,715,015 (USA) (2 May 1999)
$117,082,992 (USA) (25 April 1999)
$98,946,842 (USA) (18 April 1999)
$73,310,417 (USA) (11 April 1999)
$37,352,692 (USA) (4 April 1999)
You can see it took in about $25 million from April 11th to 18th, and then $19 million from the 18th to the 25th (after Columbine). A decline of $6 million is not that substantial; it's pretty standard for any film that's been out for several weeks. Especially since you can see that it stabilized and continuously took in $4-$5 per week for most of May and June. If Columbine really scared moviegoers away from action films, I think it would be way more obvious in the film's numbers.
Besides, the entertainment industry almost never shies away from material
only because it's controversial. Usually, controversy has the opposite effect - it boosts interest in a movie. I really just don't think it explains why "The Boondock Saints" received no purchase offers. I think the explanations are more likely:
(1.) Duffy's reputation as an arrogant prick.
(2.) The fact that on the surface, "Boondock Saints" really isn't that good a movie, besides Willem Dafoe's performance and its cult status. If you're a distributor and you have to decide which movie is going to get millions of dollars in marketing budget costs, what would you see in "The Boondock Saints"? (and remember that in the mid- to late-1990s, there were a lot of Tarantino-style shoot-em-ups coming out)