|
Post by milo on Sept 24, 2011 13:51:37 GMT -5
Thanks for breaking that down Kneum....I was trying in my simple little head to see how Gerry would have done against the others had MGP been at more theaters .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2011 17:29:27 GMT -5
Sorry, don't want to poor cold water on the box office numbers but they are really very poor.
Just a comparison Jane Eyre was released in only 4 theaters and it made an average of $45,000 a day for a weekend total of $182,885. The Hurt Locker's 4 theater release was almost exactly the same - weekend total of $145,000 and $36,000 per day.
Right now MGP is going to be lucky to make $45,000 for the entire weekend. This is not good. I think the bad reviews have accomplished their goal.
edited to make a correction
|
|
|
Post by kissthegirl on Sept 24, 2011 17:48:04 GMT -5
Shellie, that $45,000 was the daily figure for Jane Eyre's opening day, not the per theater amount, which was a bit over $12,000. Still, that is over 4 times what MGP brought in for Friday....which is not so good at all.
On the plus side, it has a unanimous "A" rating from the 9 people who rated it over at Box Office Mojo. A very small number to be sure, but hopefully more will add to that and the word will get around a bit.
I really hope this moves along at a better pace, or it will never get the full wide release it deserves.
|
|
|
Post by kissthegirl on Sept 24, 2011 17:55:25 GMT -5
Edit.....
Actually, Jan Eyre made $49,000 the first Friday, almost 5 times the estimated take for MGP. I also compared it to A Beautiful Mind, which was released in only 11 theaters. It's Friday number was almost $10,000 per theater, 4 times as much as MGP and that was based on 2001 dollars.
I agree, if the estimate is correct, this is not a good number at all. Mr B and company must be very disappointed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2011 18:27:19 GMT -5
Edit..... Actually, Jan Eyre made $49,000 the first Friday, almost 5 times the estimated take for MGP. I also compared it to A Beautiful Mind, which was released in only 11 theaters. It's Friday number was almost $10,000 per theater, 4 times as much as MGP and that was based on 2001 dollars. I agree, if the estimate is correct, this is not a good number at all. Mr B and company must be very disappointed. Thanks for catching my error, I was so upset when I was writing my post I didn't check it properly. I think the bad reviews by the LA Times and the NY papers just killed the interest in the film in those cities. I can't help but think they picked the wrong 2 towns to launch the film. I am still stunned over the critical bashing the film has gotten. The movie is definitely on a up-hill battle and I am still hoping word of mouth will hep the movie in the next few weeks.
|
|
|
Post by kissthegirl on Sept 24, 2011 19:34:58 GMT -5
Hey Shellie, the only reason I caught the error was because I was so devastated by the numbers!! I agree they should have launched somewhere else, like Pennsylvania, and maybe Detroit.
The more I read the reviews, the more disgusted I am by the nit-picking about white saviors, the children being props, and most especially that Sam's motives aren't fully explored. Anyone who bothered to take the time to do their homework would have known that Sam doesn't exactly have explainable motives because he just reacted to what he saw. He's not so much a deep thinker, and I think making up bullshit motives for Sam would have made his life a lie.
I am so frustrated that they also fail to be objective, and are inserting their own morals and politics into their reviews.
On top of that, I am really annoyed that they fail to see that this is not a message movie, it is a fact-based biopic. And it really irks me that they complain that the director/scriptwriter didn't spell out just how you should feel about what Sam is doing. That's actually one of the things I liked best about the film-that they let you deciide for yourself whether Sam is doing right or wrong.
I really think the reviewers forgot that this is a movie, not a documentary, and that its primary purpose is to entertain. The audience at TIFF certainly understood that, and they enjoyed the film immensely. Too bad the reviewers spoiled it for everyone else. I am so glad I got to see it before I read all the crap they've been spewing because it may have tainted what I saw.
And Mr B was positively brilliant. I really am so impressed with his performance, and how well he embodied the not-so-likeable Sam. He really was quite magnificent. Which makes all this negativity all the more sad. Mr B said the opening night at TIFF was the best night of his career. I'm sure tonight isn't.
|
|
|
Post by HollyC on Sept 24, 2011 20:24:50 GMT -5
Hi everyone! I've been by this site often, first because I'm in the industry and it's my job, but then I realized you guys are really supportive of Gerard's work. It seems that you are becoming alarmed at the numbers for MGP's release and have compared it to Jane Eyre's opening, but it is comparing apples and oranges. Although it made a fair amount of money to start, JE only made less than $12 million worldwide. Those who were going to see it saw it when it first came out, then that was it. It found its' built-in audience and that was satisfactory for them.
You may have discussed this already, but you need to understand that these "critics" are part of an over-arching attempt to get rid of Gerard. He has lost the current powers-that-be A LOT of money over the last 2 1/2 years because he has refused to be the muscle head they wanted him to be and his masculinity is an unbelievable threat to them. But, most importantly, he refused to make them billions by dating Jennifer Aniston. That refusal has cost them more than just money, believe me.
MGP and Coriolanus are not about making tons of money; they are about restoring Gerard's reputation as a fine actor. The people behind MGP are not idiots and knew going in that this would happen. If they didn't have a path to the Oscars, they would not have stuck their necks out and announced that they were going for it.
What your members could do to help is go to sites like Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb and post your comments as you see the film. Also, go to some of the reviewer's comment areas and respond. You are not powerless, but complaining here doesn't really help Gerard. More than nine people have seen the movie, so there should be more reviews at RT. Stop pouting and go do something!
|
|
|
Post by swansong on Sept 24, 2011 20:46:20 GMT -5
Thanks for the feedback Holly! It helps to have a little inside info, because as much as we want to support Gerry, we're not sure how to go about it. So far MGP is not scheduled to play in my city. You have given us better understanding of how things work in the movie business, so now we have something to go on. I love the fact Gerry refused to "play the game" and like many of Gerry's longtime fans, we want VERY much for him to have the career HE wants on HIS terms. Thanks again!
Swannie
|
|
|
Post by milo on Sept 24, 2011 21:13:31 GMT -5
Thanks for the input, Holly. I have felt for a long time that something was going on, on a very large scale that we the fans did not know about. TIFF was so successful and I saw the tides turn after TIFF as far as the critics. I am replying to critic articles, facebooking and on twitter. I will continue and as soon as it opens near me, I will be there and will post my comments. Thanks again, so now I know I am not crazy.
|
|
|
Post by scottishdreamer on Sept 24, 2011 23:04:03 GMT -5
Holly, I appreciate you taking the time to fill us on in on the what is really going on with the powers that be and Gerry's career. I think a lot of us have been wondering what is going on the past 2 yrs or so.
Thanks for giving us some insight and some suggestions that may help out. I will certainly repond once I see the movie next weekend.
I am sure you have noticed that Gerry is tirelessly going to screenings and talking to the public. He deserves to be noticed for his commitment to his craft and to his movies and for his acting ability.
|
|
|
Post by elenoire on Sept 25, 2011 2:56:59 GMT -5
Thanks Scottishdreamer! www.dailyblam.com/news/2011/09/22/pietros-movie-review-machine-gun-preacher?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitterBy Pietro Filipponi Gerard Butler turns in one of his best cinematic performances alongside a well chosen supporting cast in a film that unfortunately took too long to tell it's story. Years ago I'd heard of Sam Childers, the guerrilla missioner of Africa who protected Sudanese children by attacking their vicious enemies instead of continuously waiting on the defensive. Machine Gun Preacher offers plenty of back story to the dramatic events of Childers' life which made headlines. The two most important influences that shape this film are it's star, Gerard Butler, and it's length; one worked in it's favor while the other was a detriment. Butler has already established himself as a popular and well liked action star who dabbles in the occasional drama and comedy. This film gave him all the leeway he needed to prove his dramatic range, and he succeeded in spades at delivering his character's pain, hard work and strife as well as the occasional stroke of whit. Michelle Monaghan and Michael Shannon, who portray Childers' wife and best friend respectively, offer solid supporting performances that thoroughly connected with the audience; Shannon once again showcasing why he is such a captivating actor to watch on screen. This controversial story -- which in and of itself cannot be easy to translate to film -- is complimented with a beautiful score and brilliant cinematography which sweeps back and forth between the arid African plains and course brush to the manicured landscapes of suburban Pennsylvania. Director Marc Forster brings to this project a style of filming I remember most in Monster's Ball; a way of capturing singular, internal pain as heartfelt as personal communications between actors. It's hard not to be moved by the film, and the message I took away was this: Do your best to right the wrongs you witness without losing yourself in the process. It's conveying a message, though, where the movie falters. Machine Gun Preacher is both shocking and memorable, it just needed to find a clearer and more concise way of telling it's story. It took too long to get to the film's principle struggle of the while hitting too many climactic notes in it's second half. One may argue that it's hard to pick a definite ending to the cinematic story since Childers' real-world plight in Sudan continues to this day. Nevertheless one should have been decided upon and stuck to, because by the time the film reached it's overdue ending it was hard to sympathize with him and his quest. Also, if you are put off by which focus on heavy-handed Christian influence and symbolism this one may not be your style. Overall Machine Gun Preacher was an interesting and uplifting film. It shares many inspirational moments with it's audience, augmented by an exceptionally enjoyable performance by it's title star. Machine Gun Preacher is based on a true story and stars Gerard Butler as reformed biker and drug dealer Sam Childers. In the film Childers builds an orphanage for children in a battle laced Sudan. He ends up supervising militia to protect the kids from being kidnapped by guerillas who are being forced into becoming soldiers themselves. Machine Gun Preacher is directed by Marc Forster (Monster's Ball, World War Z). It stars Gerard Butler, Michelle Monaghan, Kathy Baker, and Michael Shannon. It hits theaters in limited release September 23, 2011. 3/5 stars www.ramascreen.com/machine-gun-preacher-review?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeedGRADE: 4 out of 5 MACHINE GUN PREACHER is one of those films that will cause audiences to talk more about its subject matter than about its filmmaking and storytelling quality. And that is perfectly normal, because film-wise, though it is an impressive undertaking and I give mad credit to director Marc Forster for doing all he could to capture Childers’ story faithfully, but as far as the direction, the acting, the script, and the cinematography are concerned, they’re only as compelling as the elements in Forster’s adaptation of The Kite Runner were. This film doesn’t strike a daring, powerfully affecting blow like Forster’s Monster’s Ball did. If it does, it’s only because Forster presents the violence that has hurt and killed Sudanese children in the most graphic and shocking way possible. But I hope MACHINE GUN PREACHER inspires more people to help with the need in Africa, not just Sudan. I hope people don’t quickly dismiss this film as just another story about a white man savior because if they get judgmental that early in the game, they’re gonna miss out a decent portrayal of an incredible actual life and mission of Sam Childers… reckon it’s hard putting myself in Childers shoes. He leaves his family for months at a time to build an orphanage in one of the most dangerous places in Africa, meanwhile the family back home has to deal with him being gone for a long time and they also have to run the church that Childers has built for the unlikely churchgoers: the bikers, the prostitutes, the rejects. So how do you balance living in two worlds?! That’s the challenge that Jason Keller’s script and director Marc Forster face because they want the audience to see that while things are going on in Africa, at the same time things are going on back home as well. So the transition from one setting to another is not done in a way that one would have the spotlight and then the other would be forgotten for a while until Childers arrives at the airport, no.. Forster and Keller find a way to have those two constantly progress together. Fosters doesn’t shy away from the violence and I’m not saying he should because let’s face it, the situation in Sudan and war torn countries in Africa is really that violent, you can’t even comprehend some of the horrible things that happen to the people there. But I also wonder if there could be another way to instill that in the audiences’ hearts without making them necessarily see the mutilation and the burnt bodies. We want them to get the message of this story without scaring them away because some could stomach it more than others. I remember the film Hotel Rwanda, where the power lies in its dialogue, the threat and the danger exist and they run deep, you can sense what’s going on outside the hotel was brutal and the film didn’t have to go too graphic to successfully execute it. I’m still not sure if Gerard Butler is the perfect man for the role. As Childers, Butler shows a never before seen layer, which is admirable for an actor that many recognize as King Leonidas. Butler does a good job of trying to look like younger Childers, dress like him, preach like him, talk with his accent but Butler couldn’t quite have me sold on the emotional scenes. When those scenes happen, his performance doesn’t go beyond the ordinary. So if Butler expects an Oscar consideration, I think this would be a long shot. But don’t get me wrong, Butler doesn’t do a half-ass job, at the very least he manages to embody Childers’ fear and anger, his frustration. Because after he invests so much into this orphanage, the rebels always seem to find a way to screw things up and mess with his faith again, to the point where he feels like the God who once saved him has forsaken him I think after seeing this film, audiences would be divided. Ones who think that Sam Childers’ method is wrong, that he doesn’t set a good example by engaging the rebels in a war, that the means shouldn’t justify the end. On the other hand, there’d be audiences who may not fully agree with Childers’ method but they’re not entirely disagreeing with it either considering that that is the only way for him to protect those children and that gunfight or violence is the only language that those rebels understand, because there is no negotiating with them. Like I said earlier, I hope MACHINE GUN PREACHER inspires more people to do something rather than just talk about it. Now that there is a depiction of a man who actually does something about it,.. in his own way. Childers’ life and mission do put the rest of us in shame who may or may not have the motivation to even donate a few bucks to the cause. Surely we could do more. MACHINE GUN PREACHER is an important film
|
|
|
Post by Dianne on Sept 25, 2011 7:23:23 GMT -5
Hi everyone! I've been by this site often, first because I'm in the industry and it's my job, but then I realized you guys are really supportive of Gerard's work. It seems that you are becoming alarmed at the numbers for MGP's release and have compared it to Jane Eyre's opening, but it is comparing apples and oranges. Although it made a fair amount of money to start, JE only made less than $12 million worldwide. Those who were going to see it saw it when it first came out, then that was it. It found its' built-in audience and that was satisfactory for them. You may have discussed this already, but you need to understand that these "critics" are part of an over-arching attempt to get rid of Gerard. He has lost the current powers-that-be A LOT of money over the last 2 1/2 years because he has refused to be the muscle head they wanted him to be and his masculinity is an unbelievable threat to them. But, most importantly, he refused to make them billions by dating Jennifer Aniston. That refusal has cost them more than just money, believe me. MGP and Coriolanus are not about making tons of money; they are about restoring Gerard's reputation as a fine actor. The people behind MGP are not idiots and knew going in that this would happen. If they didn't have a path to the Oscars, they would not have stuck their necks out and announced that they were going for it. What your members could do to help is go to sites like Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb and post your comments as you see the film. Also, go to some of the reviewer's comment areas and respond. You are not powerless, but complaining here doesn't really help Gerard. More than nine people have seen the movie, so there should be more reviews at RT. Stop pouting and go do something! Holly, thank you so much for this post and please come back again. We always suspect bigger things are brewing behind the scenes and it's nice to get a little window in once in a while.
|
|
|
Post by elenoire on Sept 25, 2011 8:04:54 GMT -5
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/09/25/PK6P1L7183.DTLGerard Butler plays life-size hero in 'Preacher' Pam Grady, Special to The Chronicle When Gerard Butler strides into a San Francisco hotel room, he doesn't so much project the aura of a movie star as that of a biker, clad in jeans, a form-fitting T-shirt and leather jacket. The look is appropriate, for the 41-year-old Scotsman has come to town to promote his latest movie, "Machine Gun Preacher," in which he portrays Sam Childers, a biker, drug addict and criminal who transforms himself into a man of God and founds an orphanage in the war-torn Sudan, taking up arms to defend his young charges. "I feel the story is such a remarkable and exciting adventure to go on," Butler says. "Here is a man who fights addiction, who fights against his own environment and friends that are all kind of leading him to a dark and lonely place, who finds redemption, finds God, gets his life together, who begins a whole other fight in Africa, saving children, fighting in a war." He has played his share of larger-than-life characters. He was the Hun in "Attila," a 2001 TV miniseries. He played a dragon slayer in "Reign of Fire," a troll-fighting Norse warrior in "Beowulf & Grendel," and Spartan King Leonidas, who leads a small band of men against a huge Persian force in "300." In Ralph Fiennes' upcoming "Coriolanus," Butler - who began his professional career as a spear carrier in a production of Shakespeare's tragedy - is Volscian general Tullus Aufidius, the titular Roman's nemesis. The real-life Sam Childers represents something different, an ordinary man caught up in extraordinary circumstances. "Did I consciously think, 'Here's a man who is a hero, but who is a regular guy?' I think probably that was an influence, because I love to examine a hero and what is the nature of a hero?" Butler says. "What is the nature of a man who realizes that he has to fulfill a certain destiny?" Excited and challenged "I just knew that I had to play that character, because it left me excited. It left me challenged. It left me tingling. I wanted to know more. I wanted to know more about him. I wanted to know more about Sudan. I wanted other people to hear the story, to feel what I felt when I read the script." Butler studied Childers' memoir, "Another Man's War: The True Story of One Man's Battle to Save Children in the Sudan." He looked at documentaries and books about the strife in the region and the situation facing the children there, many orphaned, many maimed or killed, some pressed into service as soldiers. He also got to know Childers, traveling to Pennsylvania to spend time with him and his family. "When Sam talks about his past, you see the extent of the man, how much he's lived, you feel his charisma. Through his eyes, I saw so much humor, which is something I didn't expect to see, and which really helped me inform the character. And then so much pain and shame, how he would just sit and I would see how haunted he was," he says. "Here's a man who seeks danger and something to do in his life which is far more demanding than your typical person would seek out," he adds. "Sam thrives on danger. There's a moment in the movie when (his friend) Deng tells him there's a bounty on his head. That's funny to Sam. That's what he lives for, knowing that he's caused enough of a ruckus that people want to kill him. There's that dry sense of humor and I think awareness of his own destiny. Sam likes to cause problems." Emotional experience Making the movie was an emotional experience for Butler, who after spending day after day looking at photographs of children caught in Sudan's cross fire, would step out on the orphanage set in South Africa and imagine danger and terror stalking the little kids around him. "To me when I was there at that orphanage, I really felt like I was in the Sudan," he says. "That orphanage was built out in the middle of nowhere. You'd look around and you'd look over toward the horizon, and you'd just always imagine these rebel forces coming at you." It was also a physically taxing shoot. Unless an insurance company forbids it, Butler does all of his own stunts. He feels more connected to the story and his character that way, but he also admits, "In '300,' I thought that if I could impress the crap out of the stuntmen with how hard I trained, how big and strong I got, that if even they went, 'Wow! He's not just an actor, he's a bad-ass!' then I'd done my role. Then I could really imagine that I deserved to be their king, because I would never ask them to do something that I wasn't willing to do times 10. So it was like that on this movie as well. I've got to prove myself to myself and prove myself to everybody else that I'm willing to take risks." Injured on set Making "Machine Gun Preacher," Butler tore ligaments, was cut twice on the head when he was hit by shell casings that flew out of a co-star's AK-47 during a battle scene, and was struck just beneath the eye by a pellet that ricocheted off a car. He was also coping with pain. In 2007, he injured his back during a car crash scene on the set of the thriller "Shattered." During a pivotal fight scene with Ralph Fiennes' while making "Coriolanus," his back problems flared again. "In that fight, my back went out and stayed out for five months," he remembers. "In the final scene in 'Machine Gun Preacher,' when I'm picking the kids up, that was one of the worst days. I felt like I was being stabbed in the back, and I had to spend all day lifting kids off the truck. "By the end of it, when you count all the takes, I probably lifted 200 kids off the truck. Every time, I felt like somebody was sticking a knife into my shoulder blade. That day involved many painkillers." {sbox} Machine Gun Preacher (R) opens Friday at Bay Area theaters.
|
|
|
Post by gersarchitect on Sept 25, 2011 8:07:34 GMT -5
I would not worry about the box office number yet. That's just an estimate. My guess is they had no clue how much the movie made Friday and just put any good old nice round number there. And as Kneum posted, it still has a higher per screen average than Moneyball. I think once the weekend numbers come out it'll be different. Plus Friday night is date night and MGP is not a date night kind of movies. I think the numbers will be way better Saturday and Sunday.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2011 8:43:57 GMT -5
I would not worry about the box office number yet. That's just an estimate. My guess is they had no clue how much the movie made Friday and just put any good old nice round number there. And as Kneum posted, it still has a higher per screen average than Moneyball. I think once the weekend numbers come out it'll be different. Plus Friday night is date night and MGP is not a date night kind of movies. I think the numbers will be way better Saturday and Sunday. I hope you are right GA but I think it would have been better to post NA than to just throw out that $10,000 amount if they had no clue. And sorry to say Kneum's comparison is true but doesn't apply in a limited release., Opening limited in 4 theaters is about seeing if an audience is clamoring to see a film and touting that -you need to see lines down the street and tickets sold out for every showing.
|
|