Fahrenheit 9/11: $86,701,002 in only 3 weeks! (more than Spielberg/Hanks)

[Equipoise]

I just realized that I hate the title of that other thread. Someone not reading the thread could get the wrong impression of how well the movie's doing.

It's made $86,701,002 worldwide in 3 weeks. Who would have thought a Michael Moore documentary would make more money than a Steven Spielberg/Tom Hanks movie? (The Terminal: $65,262,144 after 4 weeks)

Its domestic total is $80,121,002 and it's now playing in 2,011 theaters. It's made an additional $6,580,000 overseas, but it just opened in 4 countries:

Country Release Date Total Gross / As Of
Belgium 7/8/04 $576,109 7/11/04
France 7/7/04 $3,700,000 7/11/04
Switzerland 7/8/04 $303,138 7/11/04
United Kingdom 7/2/04 $2,400,000 7/11/04

It will be opening in more countries and playing on more theaters in current countries in the coming weeks.


Box Office Mojo's Fahrenheit 9/11 page

[lissener]

Cool. I was thinking of seeing it again, so add another $9 to that.

[yojimbo]

Well it doing very well in Ireland now. It was sold out when I tried to go on Sun. night.

More €'s heading MM's way some of them mine.

[Revtim]

I'm glad F911 is doing well, but the reason it beat 'The Terminal' is because 'The Terminal' looks very, very dull.

[LeRoi Lezard]

Originally Posted by Equipoise

I just realized that I hate the title of that other thread. Someone not reading the thread could get the wrong impression of how well the movie's doing.

Why do you feel it's so important that people know how much the film has made? What are you, Michael Moore's agent?

[aegypt]

That's great! It proves that unexpected things can still happen in the movie world - it's been a while, hasn't it? It doesn't open here until August (we have to make use of the brief summer granted us by an inclement climate, and the guy who does the subtitles is probably on vacation) but I'll definitely go see it when it comes.

[Revtim]

Originally Posted by LeRoi Lezard

Why do you feel it's so important that people know how much the film has made? What are you, Michael Moore's agent?

Why do *you* care when people discuss things that do not interest you? Why didn't you just avoid this clearly-titled thread, if it's a subject of such little importance to you?

[rjung]

Originally Posted by LeRoi Lezard

Why do you feel it's so important that people know how much the film has made?

To be honest, given the traditional low box-office draw of documentaries in general, and the pre-release prediction by the pundits that the movie would not have any appeal outside from die-hard Bush-bashers, its continued success is worth a note or three. If nothing else, it's already made history in more ways than one.

(And it really is a good movie, IMO. I might have to wrangle some time to see it again.)

[DMark]

Haven't seen it yet, but intend to see it - either in theater or rent on DVD.

Box office number ARE important for a lot of reasons, but mostly to let film studio executives see what the public is buying. Not that we are necessarily going to be seeing the UK version "Celcius 488" about Blair, but future film projects with a political edge, or films with a viewpoint, or films written by someone with a brain might have a chance to make it through the first few studio pitch meetings.

So, yeah...box office IS a big deal.

[Cervaise]

Originally Posted by aegypt

It proves that unexpected things can still happen in the movie world - it's been a while, hasn't it?

Depends on what you mean by "a while," as the staggering financial success of the Christ movie happened within the last few months (the which, it must be said, led this week to an announced remake of The Ten Commandments — I shit you not).

[Larry Mudd]

Originally Posted by Revtim

I'm glad F911 is doing well, but the reason it beat 'The Terminal' is because 'The Terminal' looks very, very dull.

Are you kidding? It's set in an airport! Who doesn't love airports?

[LonesomePolecat]

Does anybody know or has anybody conjectured how much of that is due to repeat customers, i.e. people coming back three or four times? Admittedly it'd take an awful lot of repeat viewings to come to $86 million plus, but you can be sure Moore's critics will bring up the possibility ...

[Hail Ants]

To be honest, given the traditional low box-office draw of documentaries in general, and the pre-release prediction by the pundits that the movie would not have any appeal outside from die-hard Bush-bashers, its continued success is worth a note or three. If nothing else, it's already made history in more ways than one.

(And it really is a good movie, IMO.

You summed it up perfectly. Yes documentaries due draw low box office. And F911 is drawing big box office because, as you said, its a really good movie, not a documentary.

Documentaries document, they don't overtly and excessively manipulate or preech. They can't. That isn't 'documenting'. The same way The Thin Blue Line is not a documentary, its a fact-based movie. More fact-based than say, Fargo , but still a movie nonetheless.

[SPOOFE]

Didn't Moore say that he was a SATIRIST? Wouldn't that make his movie... a SATIRE?

Or is he just afraid of confronting people that WON'T genuflect and shout huzzahs in his name?

[Larry Mudd]

Originally Posted by Hail Ants

...its a really good movie, not a documentary.

Documentaries document, they don't overtly and excessively manipulate or preech. They can't.

Banana oil. If that definition of "documentary" were accepted anywhere, the only films that would qualify for the category would be taken from mall security cameras.

Quite apart from that, F9/11 is quite self-consciously a solidly-constructed argument, based on facts in evidence. If you want to argue any individual points, have at it -- but let's not hijack this thread, there are plenty of others debating the content of the movie.

Originally Posted by SPOOFE

Didn't Moore say that he was a SATIRIST? Wouldn't that make his movie... a SATIRE?

Absolutely. In the same way that Trey Parker's description of himself as an animator made Orgazmo! an animated feature.

[Askia]

Originally Posted by Cervaise

Depends on what you mean by "a while," as the staggering financial success of the Christ movie happened within the last few months (the which, it must be said, led this week to an announced remake of The Ten Commandments — I shit you not).

Huh. Somewhere, Patrick Stewart is getting an urgent message to assume Yul Brynner's role ...and get a tan.

[ftg]

Originally Posted by LonesomePolecat

Does anybody know or has anybody conjectured how much of that is due to repeat customers, i.e. people coming back three or four times? Admittedly it'd take an awful lot of repeat viewings to come to $86 million plus, but you can be sure Moore's critics will bring up the possibility ...

All the movies that smashed the previous box office records had numerous people seeing the film again and again. Jaws, the first Star Wars film, etc. Movies that people like generally get big box office, and repeat business is what seperates the successes from the "Oh my gosh, we need bigger spreadsheets!" films.

I can't conceive of any rational as to why a critic of Moore's would bring up this favorable point.

Almost all documentaries present a single side of an issue, the side the maker wants to present. That's a fact. Live with it.

[Hail Ants]

Banana oil. If that definition of "documentary" were accepted anywhere, the only films that would qualify for the category would be taken from mall security cameras.

Um, no. You're simply going from one extreme to the other.

In the context of this being Cafe not GD, a documentary can be much more than just 'raw footage' but a true documentarian must not deliberately withhold certain key facts while presenting others directly related to them in order to over-emphasize and over-legitimize his POV (and there are countless posts discussing where and when Moore does this in F9/11).

No documentary will ever break $100 million, they are simply not a mass-appeal type of film making. The mass movie viewing audience want clearly defined sides, not muddled, objectivism. So Moore gave it to them, in spades.

Even some left-leaning documentary makers (as well as pundits) have broken ranks and acknowledged how often F9/11 violates even the most basic tenets of documentary film making. Its just such an emotional issue that most people don't care right now.

However I believe not too distant history will view this film for what it is, just one film maker's extremely slanted opinion of things.

In a world where an unbelievably bad film like Independance Day can rake in $400 million dollars this manipulative bit of tripe's success doesn't completely surprise me.

[pepperlandgirl]

Originally Posted by Hail Ants

Um, no. You're simply going from one extreme to the other.

In the context of this being Cafe not GD, a documentary can be much more than just 'raw footage' but a true documentarian must not deliberately withhold certain key facts while presenting others directly related to them in order to over-emphasize and over-legitimize his POV (and there are countless posts discussing where and when Moore does this in F9/11).

.

Man, the History Channel is going to be in serious trouble then....

[chique]

Originally Posted by Hail Ants

In the context of this being Cafe not GD, a documentary can be much more than just 'raw footage' but a true documentarian must not deliberately withhold certain key facts while presenting others directly related to them in order to over-emphasize and over-legitimize his POV (and there are countless posts discussing where and when Moore does this in F9/11).

So you're saying that the PBS documentary I saw a few years ago on an Iowa farm family slowly going under wasn't a documentary because the film maker didn't present the banker's side of the story? Or because the film maker didn't produce each and every receipt the farm family spent?

Wow. And here I thought I had watched a great documentary. How was I supposed to know it was just a movie?

[pepperlandgirl]

Come to think of it, those American Undercover documentaries that HBO air are highly suspect as well. Like the makers of Southern Comfort didn't give any time to the people who believed that all the transgendered men and women at the convention were sinning freaks who should be condemned to hell, at the very least.

That's it, I'm sending post-cards. They're going to hear about this.

[chique]

I'm with you, pepper. I'm going to send a postcard, too.

[/url=http://imdb.com/title/tt0312318/]Damn Frenchmen[/url]. How dare they tell the movie from the point of view of the firefighters! Next time they make a movie about a terrorist attack they'd better include the point of view of the police, the hot dog vendors, and the terrorists! They didn't include everyone's point of view! They deliberately withheld information that would make me sympathetic to the terrorists! They didn't tell both sides of the story!

It's just a satire, not a documentary!

[chique]

Oops.

[Larry Mudd]

Originally Posted by Hail Ants

Um, no. You're simply going from one extreme to the other.

Not at all. All documentary films present a point of view. You can't even begin to approach filmmaking without defining a point of view, and it's naive to suggest that it's even possible to do so, much less a stringent requirement for documentary filmmaking. Triumph of the Will is a documentary film. Ronald Reagan: The Great Communicator is a documentary film. You can't just arbitrarily redefine the word "documentary" in such a way that excludes virtually every film previously categorized as "documentary" just because you disagree with the film's point-of-view.

Originally Posted by Hail Ants

No documentary will ever break $100 million, they are simply not a mass-appeal type of film making.

No previous documentary film has done that much box office, but F.9/11's record will be broken, and soon. I can recall a time when science fiction films were considered box-office losers -- because they didn't have mass appeal. Then a little picture called Star Wars came along, and suddenly SF flicks became a whole lot easier to pitch. We're going to be seeing a lot more documentaries being produced and distributed in the coming years, because now the money knows that they can put butts in seats -- and they're especially attractive since they have a much lower overhead.

Originally Posted by Hail Ants

In a world where an unbelievably bad film like Independance Day can rake in $400 million dollars this manipulative bit of tripe's success doesn't completely surprise me.

I anxiously await your insights with regard to precisely why this film can be dismissed as "manipulative tripe." Oh look! A ready-made GD thread.

[rjung]

Originally Posted by Hail Ants

In the context of this being Cafe not GD, a documentary can be much more than just 'raw footage' but a true documentarian must not deliberately withhold certain key facts while presenting others directly related to them in order to over-emphasize and over-legitimize his POV (and there are countless posts discussing where and when Moore does this in F9/11).

Just to keep this very relevant for Cafe Society, but I think the definitive word of what does and does not constitute a documentary ought to come from a respected authority on cinema:

'9/11': Just the facts?
By Roger Ebert

...Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker's point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not.

Michael Moore is a liberal activist. He is the first to say so. He is alarmed by the prospect of a second term for George W. Bush, and made "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the purpose of persuading people to vote against him.

That is all perfectly clear, and yet in the days before the film opens June 25, there'll be bountiful reports by commentators who are shocked! shocked! that Moore's film is partisan. "He doesn't tell both sides," we'll hear, especially on Fox News, which is so famous for telling both sides.

The wise French director Godard once said, "The way to criticize a film is to make another film." That there is not a pro-Bush documentary available right now I am powerless to explain. Surely, however, the Republican National Convention will open with such a documentary, which will position Bush comfortably between Ronald Reagan and God. The Democratic convention will have a wondrous film about John Kerry. Anyone who thinks one of these documentaries is "presenting facts objectively without editorializing" should look at the other one.

...Moore's real test will come on the issue of accuracy. He can say whatever he likes about Bush, as long as his facts are straight. Having seen the film twice, I saw nothing that raised a flag for me, and I haven't heard of any major inaccuracies.

Personally, I remain perplexed why folks who dislike Fahrenheit 9/11 have to resort to a weak "it doesn't fit the dictionary's definition of 'documentary'" argument. Aren't there more substantive arguments to be made against the film?

[LeRoi Lezard]

Originally Posted by Revtim

Why do *you* care when people discuss things that do not interest you? Why didn't you just avoid this clearly-titled thread, if it's a subject of such little importance to you?

Wow, personal attack - cool!

I clicked this thread to find out why the OP thought the box office numbers were important (duh). The other big thread on this subject gave me the impression that some of the die-hard Bush-bashers think that if the movie makes more than other documentaries, it means that there must be overwhelming support out there for Moore's point of view.

[Revtim]

That was not a personal attack, merely a question. Thank you for your answer.

As others have pointed out, there are several reason why it interesting that the movie did well.

[LeRoi Lezard]

When I saw it, and listened to the discussions afterwards, there seemed to be equal numbers of liberals who were seeing the movie for the second or third time, reveling in the innuendos, half-truths, and staged-for-laughs scenes, and conservatives who were seeing it so they could argue better with the liberals. Based on my experience (and I'm sure others had different ones), my contention is that the relative success of this little film can be attributed more to the media hype it got than support for Michael Moore's views.

By the way, if it makes 20 million more this week, it might catch up to Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story, which has made $97,865,599 in 4 weeks.

[Giraffe]

Originally Posted by LonesomePolecat

Does anybody know or has anybody conjectured how much of that is due to repeat customers, i.e. people coming back three or four times? Admittedly it'd take an awful lot of repeat viewings to come to $86 million plus, but you can be sure Moore's critics will bring up the possibility ...

I heard that only $6 million of the box office gross actually came from people seeing the movie a single time. The rest came from thirteen guys who each saw it 684,000 times.

[LonesomePolecat]

Originally Posted by ftg

I can't conceive of any rational as to why a critic of Moore's would bring up this favorable point.

You see, the argument will go like this: "Sure, the film made a lot of money, but it's not really that popular a film 'cuz a huge part of the box office receipts came from repeat viewers, so not that many people actually saw the film." I'm pretty sure someone (not me) will seriously try that argument sooner or later. That's why it might be useful to have some idea of how many repeat viewers there have been.

Originally Posted by ftg

Live with it.

My. Touchy, aren't you?

[Live Better Electrically!]

Originally Posted by Larry Mudd

All documentary films present a point of view.

Indeed. PBS' long-running documentary series is titled POV: "Point of View."

[Cerowyn]

Originally Posted by Hail Ants

However I believe not too distant history will view this film for what it is, just one film maker's extremely slanted opinion of things.

In a world where an unbelievably bad film like Independance Day can rake in $400 million dollars this manipulative bit of tripe's success doesn't completely surprise me.

The fact that you can't swallow a point of view that deviates at all from yours does not make F/911 less of a documentary, however fervently you wish it to be so. I won't see the documentary in the theatre because I abhor monomaniacal pontificating, but that doesn't change the fact that it is documenting reality, not fiction. Your average news broadcast, in particular the joke that is Fox, doesn't meet the standards of non-fiction that you're trying to impose on Moore's film.

[Reeder]

Money? Just wait till it's released on DVD in September. Were I in control of it..I'd price it way low.

[Larry Mudd]

You know who I'm thinking of? Edward R. Murrow, granddaddy of American television documentary, who over-emphasized and over-legitimized his POV thusly:

This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy's methods to keep silent, or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of a republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn't create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it -- and rather successfully. Cassius was right. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves." Good night, and good luck.

[rjung]

Originally Posted by Cerowyn

I won't see the documentary in the theatre because I abhor monomaniacal pontificating

Nah, it's a lot better than that.

Though supposedly Moore has said publically that he doesn't care if people download it off the internet and see it for free, so you might want to consider that venue.

[alison ashley]

Originally Posted By Hail Ants
Documentaries document, they don't overtly and excessively manipulate or preech. They can't.

OK. Serious question here. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Have you suddenly crawled out of a hole in the ground, hit your head on a tree branch or something, and proclaimed a whole lot of junk about documentary film making? I'm not asking this as someone with an interest in leftist politics - I know plenty of idiots I can go to if i want a marred view on liberalism. There's no shortage of morons on our side of the spectrum. I'm simply asking as someone with a background in film. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

All documentaries put forth a point of view. There is absolutely no reason to think that the point of view a documentary puts forward has to be neutral. You're deluding yourself if you do.

I don't mean to offend you, and this is not a personal attack. But what you've said in your posts is ridiculous. Since this is a board devoted to fighting ignorance, I suggest you should stick to subject areas you actually know something about.

[Equipoise]

Originally Posted by Hail Ants

No documentary will ever break $100 million, they are simply not a mass-appeal type of film making. The mass movie viewing audience want clearly defined sides, not muddled, objectivism. So Moore gave it to them, in spades.

I realize now my thread title didn't allow for expansion. Darn.

Fahrenheit 9/11 now stands at $103,356,000, and climbing.

Of course, it'll make most of its money when it hits DVD/video in October.





Box Office Mojo's Fahrenheit 9/11 page

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by SPOOFE

Didn't Moore say that he was a SATIRIST? Wouldn't that make his movie... a SATIRE?

I haven't thought of that , but indeed the word "satire" is quite appropriate for this movie. Much more than "documentary", IMO.


By the way, I didn't intend to watch it, after reading the critics and some of the numerous threads on this board, but after having watched yet another interview of Moore, I decided to go. I just had to know what the fuss was all about. SO, I went to the next show, which was at 10 :30 pm on sunday night. I expected there wouldn't be many people so late on a sunday, but to my surprise, the theater was nearly full. So, indeed it seems to be making big bucks in France too.

Oh! And though I wasn't expecting much, I still was dissapointed.