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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.)

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.

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).

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

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 …

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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?