ROTTEN TOMATOES: Box Office Guru Wrapup: 300 Unleashes Box Office Bloodbath

Box Office Guru Wrapup: 300 Unleashes Box Office Bloodbath

by Gitesh Pandya | March 12, 2007

The mighty Spartans won a glorious victory at North American theaters as the bloody war epic "300" exploded with a record-breaking opening and powered the overall marketplace to the biggest March weekend in box office history.

Selling more tickets than all its enemies in the top ten combined, the ancient battle film exceeded even the loftiest of industry expectations conquering every multiplex it invaded. Despite the colossal strength of "300," holdovers performed well with most witnessing relatively small declines of 35% or less.

Capitalizing on intense pre-release anticipation, the Warner Bros. actioner "300" rallied to a staggering $70M opening weekend, according to estimates, ruling the box office with the greatest of ease. The violent and stylish R-rated tale played in only 3,103 theaters and averaged a sensational $22,567 per theater. The tally included a potent $3.4M from 62 higher-priced Imax venues ($54,839 average) marking a new opening weekend record for the large-screen format. Rival studios were scared away from the frame as no other major film dared to go head-to-head in wide release. The lack of competition helped to keep the focus of moviegoers on just one entertaining feature.

If the estimate holds, "300" will set a new March opening weekend record beating the $68M bow of "Ice Age: The Meltdown" from last year. That PG-rated toon played to a wider family audience and averaged a weaker $17,163 from nearly 4,000 theaters. The saga of King Leonidas and his battalion of brave Spartan warriors grossed a stunning $27.7M on Friday (including midnight shows from Thursday night), dropped an understandable 11% to $24.5M on Saturday, and is projected to slide only 27% to $17.8M on Sunday. Final weekend grosses will be reported on Monday.

"300" also generated the third largest opening ever for an R-rated film trailing just "The Matrix Reloaded" ($91.8M) and "The Passion of the Christ" ($83.8M). And among non-sequels, it was the seventh biggest debut in history following "Spider-Man" ($114.8M), "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" ($90.3M), "Passion," "The Da Vinci Code" ($77.1M), "The Incredibles" ($70.5M), and "Finding Nemo" ($70.3M). 300 also posted the sixth largest bow in studio history for Warner Bros. after the four "Potter" pics and the first "Matrix" sequel.

The sheer size of the audience was eye-popping for the stylish film which chronicles the Battle of Thermopylae between the warriors of Sparta and the mighty Persian army led by its ruler Xerxes in 480 B.C. Historical war epics like "The Last Samurai" and "Troy" made tons of money worldwide ($450-500M each) but after flops like "Alexander" and "The Alamo," Hollywood ran the genre into the ground. Warner Bros. developed a new look that audiences would crave with "300" which is based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller. With digital effects, a stylized look, and brilliant marketing materials, the film began generating excitement last fall when the first trailers debuted. The studio should send a case of Cristal to the team that cut the trailers as they certainly ignited the spark leading to the fever-pitched anticipation.

With a reported budget of only $65M, "300" will easily become a major moneymaker for the studio especially since international theatrical and worldwide video revenue look to be explosive. The film had no pricey stars and featured epic battle scenes created by computers thereby eliminating the need to shoot on location with thousands of extras. In fact, only one scene in the enite film was shot outdoors. "300" debuted in only a handful of overseas markets this weekend but box office was impressive there as well. The film opened at number one in Greece, Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan, and the Philippines with a combined gross of $6.2M from just 337 prints for a $18,398 per-print average which is phenomenal given the average ticket prices in those countries. The bloody actioner invades Korea later this week and attacks France, Italy, Spain, Mexico, and the U.K. on the following weekend.

For those in a less violent mood this weekend, Buena Vista's middle-aged motorcycle movie "Wild Hogs" was the ticket. The Tim Allen-John Travolta biker comedy dropped only 29% in its second weekend to an estimated $28M giving the studio a fantastic $77.4M in only ten days of release. Moviegoers are paying no attention to the universally poor reviews for "Hogs" which has now generated the second highest ten-day start of any film this year after "Ghost Rider"'s $79M. The star-driven comedy could be on course to reach $150M or more domestically giving Disney a lucrative hit.

Ticket buyers were fixated on either "300" or "Wild Hogs" this weekend as the dynamic duo combined for a towering $98M in grosses accounting for a whopping 72% of all cash spent on the top ten films. Overall, the top ten posted its second best performance of 2007 with $136.1M narrowly trailing the $138.1M three-day tally from Presidents' Day weekend when "Ghost Rider" attacked. The North American box office is clearly alive and well.

The rest of the top five saw three films in a narrow range with estimates that were separated by less than $100,000. Final data to be released on Monday could see the rankings change. Third place, for now, went to Disney's "Bridge to Terabithia" which grossed an estimated $6.9M, down only 23%, for a $67M cume. Also in its fourth weekend, Sony's "Ghost Rider" fell 41% to an estimated $6.8M raising the total to $104.1M making the Nicolas Cage actioner the first film of 2007 to break the $100M mark. 300 and "Wild Hogs" could also join the century club as early as next weekend.

Fifth place went to the well-reviewed serial killer pic "Zodiac" which took in an estimated $6.8M, down a disturbing 49%, for a ten-day tally of $23.7M. Paramount's $65M production hoped to benefit from word-of-mouth, but instead suffered the worst drop by far of any film in the top ten thanks in part to competition from its R-rated foe 300. A disappointing final take of $34-37M seems likely making it director David Fincher's lowest grossing film ever.

A pair of funnymen followed with estimated weekend grosses of $4.3M a piece. Jim Carrey's psychological thriller "The Number 23" dipped 33% and upped its cume to $30.5M for New Line. The Eddie Murphy comedy "Norbit" also shed one third of its audience but lifted its total to a more impressive $88.3M for Paramount.

"Music and Lyrics," the romantic comedy starring Hugh Grant and Drew Barrymore, followed with an estimated $3.8M. Off only 22%, the Warner Bros. title has taken in $43.8M to date. Universal's thriller "Breach" collected an estimated $2.6M, down 28%, for a $29.1M sum. The slave trade drama "Amazing Grace" rounded out the top ten with an estimated $2.5M. Distributors Samuel Goldwyn and Roadside Attractions added over 200 theaters and enjoyed the smallest dip in the top ten sliding just 11%. Cume to date stands at $11.4M.

Fox Searchlight generated the biggest opening weekend average of the year with the launch of Mira Nair's "The Namesake" which bowed to an estimated $251,000 from only six locations for a muscular per-theater average of $41,794. Starring Kal Penn, the PG-13 film about an Indian family and their American-born children platformed in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Toronto and will expand on Friday into additional markets. Reviews were mostly good.

Also opening in limited release was the Korean monster movie "The Host" with an estimated $320,000 from 71 theaters for a mild $4,507 average. The Magnolia release about a family that fights a mutated sea creature made its world premiere at the Cannes Film Festival last year and has already played in most of Asia. Critics were overwhelmingly giving praise.

Fox Faith, the new division of Fox dedicated to uplifting religious-themed pictures, opened its new film "The Ultimate Gift" over the weekend to an estimated $1.2M from 816 sites for a poor $1,471 average. The PG-rated film stars James Garner and Abigail Breslin and did not earn many positive reviews.

A pair of struggling films tumbled out of the top ten over the weekend suffering large declines. The Samuel L. Jackson-Christina Ricci pic "Black Snake Moan" fell 55% in its second weekend to an estimated $1.9M. The Paramount Vantage release has collected only $7.3M in its first ten days and should end with around $10M. Fox's comedy "Reno 911!: Miami" collapsed in its third weekend dropping 65% to an estimated $1.4M. With $19.1M in 17 days, look for a finish just north of $20M.

The top ten films grossed an estimated $136.1M (a new March record) which was up a stunning 53% from last year when "Failure to Launch" opened at number one with $24.4M; and up a solid 35% from 2005 when "Robots" debuted on top with $36M.

Source: Gitesh Pandya, www.BoxOfficeGuru.com

Related Items

Movie:	The Ultimate Gift
	Breach
	Bridge to Terabithia
	300
	The Host
	Music and Lyrics
	The Namesake
	Ghost Rider
Celeb:	Frank Miller
	Mira Nair
	Tim Allen
	John Travolta
	Nicolas Cage

(1-20 of 37 posts) | Reply

3263827 writes:
on Mar 12 2007 04:51 AM

[b]300 is exactly what Lucas order.[/b]
In the 90's as film prices soared George Lucas began talking about how digital would make epics economically feasable again. With only one scene shot outdoors and $70 million in the bank opening weekend 300 drives one more nail into the coffin of "that would cost too much." Now if only Lucas is right about the Indy script...

(Reply to this)

frogleg writes:
on Mar 12 2007 05:47 AM

That's an interesting observation. That method definitely works for "300", which was awesome. I wonder how many imitators there will be to that style and look? I can see it getting old rather quickly (remember "bullet time"?). "300" was awesome because it looks like the book and is pretty unique, but I hope we don't get too many jumping on this particular bandwagon.

(Reply to this)

red_wine writes:
on Mar 12 2007 06:41 AM

There was no way this movie wouldnt be a smash. Its like one of the greatest guy movies of the recent times and with trailers that cool, you sure dont end up with empty theatres. The movie will also do lotsa business with repeat viewings, which believe me a lot of guys would be doing. I'm already planning my third show with friends.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Mar 12 2007 06:51 AM

Not to rain on the parade, but this movie is going to drop quite a bit in it's 2nd weekend. Definetely over 50%. It's the definition of an Opening Weekend movie: the hype was huge, but all the fans saw it opening weekend. There won't be a lot to keep it going in the long run. That's how I see it, could be wrong.

(Reply to this)

FILMCZY writes:
on Mar 12 2007 07:03 AM

The movie was just okay. I was disappointed in the visuals: everything looked out-of-focus and blurry (and I saw it in IMAX). It appeared the backgrounds needed to be run through the computer one more time and cleaned up plus all the special effect shots were in the trailer--there was nothing new in the movie you had not already seen. I'm afraid LOTR has set the standard for fantasy films and this one just kinda laid there...perhaps a better director could have done something with what is an interesting story. I wouldn't call it a failure but it could have been much more...

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Mar 12 2007 07:30 AM

In reply to this comment (#857846)
Well, I haven't seen the movie yet (plan to Thursday) but I'm betting the reason the shots looked blurry and out of focus is because you saw it in IMAX. Unless a movie is shot specifically for that format (which I'm betting this wasn't) then there are going to be issues like that. Try seeing it again in a regular theater (if you liked it enough to see it twice) and see if you have the same problems.

(Reply to this)

adml_shake writes:
on Mar 12 2007 07:59 AM

In reply to this comment (#857846)
You need to go see it in another theater then, it was crisp and clear where I saw it. The graphics looked amazing and easily put anything in the LOTRs moives to shame. I don't see how this movie could have been any better.

(Reply to this)

Samwise Gamgee writes:
on Mar 12 2007 08:28 AM

Well, the styles of filming and editing were so different, I don't see how you could compare The Lord of the Rings to 300. For one, 300 was nearly all digital, hence only one scene being shot outside, and Lord of the Rings was nearly all shot with real elements. If they didn't have the exact background they needed, they blended two different, yet still real backbrounds rather than digitally create one. They shot almost everything on location, and even for the buildings, they mostly went with miniatures rather than computers. 300's goal wasn't to look real like Lord of the Rings' was. It was to look cool. Both succeeded, but since neither was trying to do the same thing, it's like comparing apples and oranges.

(Reply to this)

mikeyh writes:
on Mar 12 2007 08:34 AM

In reply to this comment (#857846)
from my understanding, the movie, though shown in IMAX, was not shot specifically for it. Meaning that it was shot to be shown in a standard theater, but since it was shown in IMAX, all they did was just stretch out the picture to fit the screen, which I have heard makes it look grainy and such. I suggest seeing it in a standard theater as it was amazing.

(Reply to this)

Kid_Ikarus writes:
on Mar 12 2007 09:42 AM

In reply to this comment (#857846)
ive seen quite a few movies at IMAX here in Irvine, and they all seem to have that problem. I think it's probrably just the fact that with such a huge screen, there is going to be some image degradation invovled.

(Reply to this)

Pilgermann writes:
on Mar 12 2007 10:47 AM

I think 300 is worth seeing since the battles are well done and exciting, and a lot of the visuals are pretty neat, but it is NOT an amazing film that all of the idiot fanboys make it out to be. There is too much slow motion (the dancing Oracle is one of the most idiotic things I've ever seen--it looked like a bad perfume commercial or something), the acting is mostly crappy (Lena Headey continues to suck), the sex scene was lame, the blood appeared to evaporate, the music was generic and uninspired, and I felt like the film's pace was clumsy.

The goat-headed dude in Xerxes' Love Shack was pretty damn funny, though, and whenever anyone said the name of Daxos it sounded like "duck sauce".

FILMCZY you must've gone to a crappy IMAX theater 'cause it looked quite lovely where I watched it. Many theaters are also showing it in digital which is a good alternative (it should be the same price as a 35mm show).

(Reply to this)

lrm8 writes:
on Mar 12 2007 11:09 AM

i enjoyed 300, even if it wasnt spectacularly awesomely breathtakingly amazing... the dialogue could have been better (it was adpated from a comic book, so i understand the limitation) and yes, there was just a little too much slow motion, but the visuals were everything they were cracked up to be, and i really liked the digital blood. what surprised me is that the theater was packed with people of all ages and pretty evenly matched men and women (although, this one couple saw fit to bring their 5 year old kid with them, WTF?)...

overall, not the greatest movie ever made (that goat guy was pretty goddamn funny), but it was supremely original in its visuals, which is enough for me. however, 300 doesn't exactly prove to me that snyder can handle a huge story like watchmen, although that picture of Rorsasch looks spot on. i will be cautiously optimistic about Watchmen until we start hearing some casting and a trailer...

(Reply to this)

LEGENDc writes:
on Mar 12 2007 11:21 AM

I liked the movie alot and think the second week will bring in about 50mil.
Best movie so far this year to see in the theater, a reason to have HiDef at home & Stereo Surround. The Fight scenes were awesome! The dialogue was laughable especially the narrator, and I also thought it was funny that all the women were topless, and that sex scene, WHAT WAS THAT? Overall B+

(Reply to this)

dudemovies writes:
on Mar 12 2007 11:38 AM

That sucks about Black Snake Moan. It was a really good movie but I think it was too odd to be given a wide release this one needed to start out slow and then expand.

(Reply to this)

TheIceGhost writes:
on Mar 12 2007 12:22 PM

I'm not surprised at all that 300 did as well as it did, and I hope more of Frank Miller's stuff gets brought to the big screen.

Saying that, I must confess I wasn't really a fan of this flick. There were some amazing shots to be sure (and if you're going to see it, the theater is the best bet) and a plethora of boobies but the whole thing was kind of, well, laughable.

From the Spartans being able to PUSH AN ELEPHANT OFF A MOUNTAIN, to a laughably gay man-god (there was actually a lot of laughable gay vibes going on throughout the film), to that big monster guy who was stabbed in the head AND KEPT FIGHTING, to the freakin' bubbling mass of flesh with nipples pierced and FLIPPERS FOR HANDS...I dunno, I was expecting something different, and better. It was good, but I was actually hoping for MORE blood and less Lord of the Rings knockoffs.

Then again, one of the kids I went with said it was one of the best movies he's seen in years so, it might just be me. My rating would actually coincide with that of the Tomatoe Meter for once; Fresh, but far from what it should of been.

(Reply to this)

dalonoman writes:
on Mar 12 2007 12:50 PM

I don't think some people have quite realized what kind of storytelling was going on with this movie. It was a mytholigical tale, and the creatures, feats of strength and steel were all fantastical because in mythology everything is grander and well- impossible in reality. That said it was a cool movie, but not an amazing mind altering movie.

BTW- the goat jamming on the harmonica was awesome!

(Reply to this)

the-russian writes:
on Mar 12 2007 01:20 PM

In reply to this comment (#857856)
Not to get picky, but I don't think they pushed the elephants off the cliff. I believe they mentioned in the film that they were big, clumsy beasts, and on top of that the ground was unstable due to all the dead bodies (I know for a fact they made a point of this in the book).

But I agree about all the mythical, monster-type creatures. None of those appeared in the book, and they made the movie seem sort of videogame-like. I'm wondering whose idea it was to add all of them. Ephialtes, the hunchback soldier, was the extent of any fantastic creatures in the book.

(Reply to this)

monkeyonaspring writes:
on Mar 12 2007 01:34 PM

In reply to this comment (#857856)
Dude they didn't PUSH the elephant off. If you had listened to the narration the elephants slipped on the mounds of bodies and FELL off. plus having a wall of spears in front of them made them a little jumpy and so as they backed up they slipped.

But anyway, I am very happy for the film's success and Miller's success as he deserves every bit of it. I personally loved the film even with its flaws (the acting, dialogue, etc) because its point wasn't to be anything more than pure guy entertainment which it scores perfectly at.

Cheers!

(Reply to this)

unbreakable_samurai writes:
on Mar 12 2007 02:49 PM

I enjoyed it, it wasn't a masterpiece, it was kinda like Gladiator meets Sin City but not as good as either one of them. It is the best film of the year so far though(A-). Supprisingly kinda predictable amongst other flaws but a really enjoyable film. Lena Headey is damn hot. I also saw Amazing Grace which was a solid drama(B).

(Reply to this)

Zee-Mann writes:
on Mar 12 2007 03:04 PM

In reply to this comment (#857845)
50% sounds right; the movie most likely will end 150-200 million. It may be the definition of an Opening Weekend movie but that doesn't stop strong word of mouth, repeat veiwings, and the lack of competition next weekend.

(Reply to this)

RottenTomatoes.com