300 SETS MARCH RECORD WITH $70 MILLION OPENING WEEKEND

[MattBrady]

On Friday, those with their eyes on such things knew something was up. Online movie ticket site Fandango.com was reporting that 92% of all online ticket sales for the coming weekend were for the film adaptation of Frank Miller’s 300.

And then – the film brought in $27.7 million on Friday. When it was all said and done, the film, directed by Zack Snyder had laid waste to the competition, bringing in an estimated $70 million, making it the biggest opening weekend for a film in March since records had been kept. In Spartan fashion, the film made more than the nine other films in the top ten, combined. The film also came in as the 3rd largest R-rated opening of all time, and the fifth best debut for a film based on a comic book. The movie opened both in regular theaters and IMAX theaters, bringing in $22,567 per traditional theater and $55,000 per IMAX screen (62, total).

While a dropoff is expected in the coming weekend, the size will be of interest (with 50%+ being roughly the norm). After all, while some critics are dismissing the film, others are pointing out what they feel to be obvious overtones to the current political climate, and how it could easily be seen as propaganda for the current war, as, in the larger picture, the film's story is about the West holding back the East. In that comparison, as some critics have pointed out, it's easy to see (or have them pointed out) parallels: the Persians are heathens and monstrous, a small number of true believers sacrifice everything to ultimately convince their nation to rally to the cause. As such, 300 may enjoy better than average word of mouth to drive audiences who passed on the film this weekend to see it next weekend.

Additionally, 300, which was an admitted risk after Hollywood has seen less than stellar returns on gladiator type fare, cost a reported $65 million to produce. Its success at the theater could lead to many aftereffects, the first of which being Warner Bros fast tracks Snyder’s adaptation of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ Watchmen, the director’s previously announced next comic book-based project. Likewise, as with the buzz from similar adult-oriented comic-based movies such as Sin City and V for Vendetta, 300’s success will undoubtedly drive sales of the graphic novel in bookstores – although, as ICV2 reported, Dark Horse appears to be having trouble meeting demand, and the graphic novel may be sold out for a period of weeks until more copies arrive in the country.

Additionally, the success of the film also reinforces Miller’s Hollywood reputation, which will most likely keep things moving along smoothly for his upcoming two film projects, Sin City 2 with Robert Rodriguez, and an adaptation of Will Eisner’s The Spirit. Likewise, Miller’s other works, such as Ronin will most likely be pushed ahead on development schedules.

In the end, 300’s strong opening, along with Ghost Rider’s earlier opening of similar magnitude seem to suggest that comic book-based movies are a Hollywood trend that’s far from over, and this year’s other comic-based films, such as Spider-Man 3 and Fantastic Four 2 are due for healthy box office takes as well.

[KoozyK]

i'm genuinely surprised about this. the movie had no huge marketable stars and still manages a box office of this magnitude? weird.

in my opinion, the movie wasn't even that great. all the senate stuff with the queen and that dude from the wire was lame. faramir was lame too - especially with that last scene back in rome where he was leading the army. why did we need that? just cut on the king dying.

bad story. bad acting. and bad directing. this coming from the director who is going to screw up the watchmen. can't wait.

[Joementum]

I'm predicting 300 million total for worldwide + DVD sales.

[Ace]

Big thing here is that it didn't open against anything.

[Comic-Reader]

From what I understand, Miller has about 6 or 7 scripts written for All-Star Batman, with 4 published, and one imminent. I'd guess that now that he's an official Hollywood mogul, his comic book work will dwindle to nothing.

For me, that's ok because I don't think All-Star Batman was any good to begin with, so no great loss. I was kind of interested in "Holy Terror, Batman," so we'll see if that ever materializes.

However, this is good for him and his career, no doubt. Also, now that Miller can serve as a public face to the world of comics, people may hopefully be intrigued enough to scan their local bookstores for other graphic novels written by him and other talented and off-beat creators.

This movie's success will definitely help dispell the notion that the general public still has that comics are only about kiddy superhero stuff.

I think Miller has the potential to have that sort of cult status cache that movie people like Quentin Tarantino and Kevin Smith do.

[Ace]

On the other hand, the reason why Marvel's so dark and gloomy is because almost all the main writers are fans of Miller.

I'd rather them be fans of Karl Kesel's DD run myself.

But yeah, this bodes well for him getting more creative influence on The Spirt.

[CitC]

Big thing here is that it didn't open against anything.

True, but whent there is nothing to go see, I stay home. This likely brought out a lot of people that wanted to see this movie, not just people that wanted to go see any movie.

[Jeremy Holstein]

Originally Posted by KoozyK

faramir was lame too - especially with that last scene back in rome where he was leading the army. why did we need that? just cut on the king dying.
.

The ending's straight out of the Graphic Novel. To have cut on the king dying would removed the whole plot thread about the nature of victory.

[Ye Olde Iowa]

I'm surprised it put up huge numbers like this, but I'm glad to see that it did. Snyder did a great job of literally recreating Miller's books on the screen, using nearly every line of dialogue and reproducing nearly every page of art; the fill-in subplots (the captain's relationship with his son, the playful competition between Spartans, and the political intrigue/scandal with Leonidas's wife) were all true to Miller's work and added a lot of depth to the film. I thought it was simply fantastic.

What surprises me even more, though, is that the packed house I saw the movie with (on a Sunday afternoon), was very enthusiastic and seemed to love the movie. I figured this would find a strong niche audience, but I'm glad to see it has had a wider appeal.

[FallenFate]

I loved the movie and thought it stayed very true to the comic and Miller's interpretation of the battle of Thermpylae. And I, for one, thought the acting was fine (they were acting against green screen the whole time, so there were actually no backgrounds to interact with) and the direction was amazing. I have complete confidence in Snyder's ability to bring "Watchmen" to the screen. And with "300" doing the numbers it's doing, it should mean that we'll see a "Watchmen" that sticks to the comic. And to be fair, I certainly would no longer count comic book movies as a trend, since it seems pretty obvious that they have very much grown into their own genre of movies and are here to stay,

[smitch]

Originally Posted by KoozyK

i'm genuinely surprised about this. the movie had no huge marketable stars and still manages a box office of this magnitude? weird.

in my opinion, the movie wasn't even that great. all the senate stuff with the queen and that dude from the wire was lame. faramir was lame too - especially with that last scene back in rome where he was leading the army. why did we need that? just cut on the king dying.

bad story. bad acting. and bad directing. this coming from the director who is going to screw up the watchmen. can't wait.

"Back in Rome"? Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, friend. Although I will agree with you that the actor who played Faramir was a bad choice for that role, and the subplot with the queen and the council did seem forced. But then, we got to see more of the queen. While the "boylovers" talk about oiled abs, I'll talk about her!

Does anybody else wonder if there were prosthetic nipples on the women, to give them that Frank Miller "BOING"?

[FireLight]

Ya know - I've been seeing this trend for a while now - it's not an absolute - but:

What is up with forums and social sites all having the first post being something negative?

This article clearly paints a positive - rosy picture for the future of comics films and apparently healthy projections for comics. I look at films adaptation like this: In January 07 Civil War #6 sold 259,300 issues ... 300 sold an estimated 10 million tickets. Broadening exposure to a work some FEW people originally saw to a form where MILLIONS see it c'aint be a bad thing...

Film adaptations rarely get it 100% right based on the source material - but for the most part they do the 'story as a whole' pretty well. As a comic fan I walk into the theatre knowing it's not going to be perfect (I mean come on - organic web shooters!).

But this is a success - most people seemed to like it and it's healthy for the industry.

I begrudge no-one their opinion. Some don't like it they don't like it. But based on this I'm AM excited to see Watchmen come to screen - just to see if they can pull it off. Sin City and 300 are examples where many (including me) never thought they'd even come close and they did. LXG and Catwoman and Daredevil and Constantine are examples where I really thought it should have been a lot easier to pull off and they failed. So maybe Watchmen has a better chance than we might have believed...

[attritus]

I think as propaganda goes this film pretty much works both ways. It's also about a smaller nation forced to submit to an empire, supposedly for their own good. The smaller nation then defends itself by hoping that attrition of the empire's forces will demoralize them and force them to move on. I guess it's just a matter of perspective.

[FallenFate]

Originally Posted by attritus

I think as propaganda goes this film pretty much works both ways. It's also about a smaller nation forced to submit to an empire, supposedly for their own good. The smaller nation then defends itself by hoping that attrition of the empire's forces will demoralize them and force them to move on. I guess it's just a matter of perspective.

You know, though, it's not really propaganda either way unless you are saying it is Spartan propaganda. The Battle of Thermopylae was a real battle and this was based on a graphic novel that was based on a historical event. Those that read propaganda in it have some serious issues in my opinion, no matter which way they read it.

[Skinshark]

I would think it also helps to cast capable third tier actors as well, a definite reflection of the budget vs. earnings.

I hope Watchmen does the same.

=s=

[DarkNomis]

Originally Posted by Ace

On the other hand, the reason why Marvel's so dark and gloomy is because almost all the main writers are fans of Miller.

I'd rather them be fans of Karl Kesel's DD run myself.

But yeah, this bodes well for him getting more creative influence on The Spirt.

I don't know if you're old enough to remember this but Frank Miller saved Dardevil's comic from being canceled a couple of times in the '80s. Particularly with the Electra storyline and "Born Again" (still the best DD story arc ever !).

But what made the stories so notable was moreso than the high level of violence (for comics at that time) but the complexity of the heroes (as well as villian) situation in there personal lives.

In other words, the stories was more than just when a villian attack and then DD stops the villian. the stories involved around the villians actions and how they would drastically effect DD personally life and the people who know him. But it was things in a very real world approach (mentally ill criminals, DD trying to kill Bullseye after electra assassnation, DD being homeless, Karen Page doing porno, Kingpin's wife isssues, etc...)

This is what made Miller DD stories great. Change the whole course of DD stories as well as all comics in general with Miller's Opus on Batman in "Dark Knight Returns"..

The writers in Marvel today grew up on that syle of storytelling (including Kesel) which is why Marvel has a Frank Miller that feel in a lot of the stories today and DD have has some really great seriously deep personal storie arcs since then.

As for 300 doing so well, I hope this will make Hoollywood pay more attention ot adapting more of Miller's graphic work like RONIN and My personal Favortie THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS (That would make such a gereat Batman movies).

[michaelman9]

3 screens were sold out friday night, and my wife and i had to see it at a different theater (also packed) we really enjoyed it, and i'm glad it's doing well outside the comic fan circuit.

[erikthered25]

I personally think it sucks that he took such a revisionist pen to historical information because I've been searching online and King Xerxes never looked like that. If I took a closer look, I'd probably find even more information that's been changed or altered. Although it's "just an adaptation from a comic book and it's not supposed to be taken seriously" I'm disturbed how it's okay just go in and revise someone's history. If Xerxes or anyone else in his family lineage was alive today, they could sue Frank Miller and everyone involved for defamation of character because his version or vision of events is inaccurate. I've always been uncomfortable with this type of revision because I personally don't think it's right. I know he's not telling it as if it's history because he has a narrator but to me that's just a cop-out and a ploy to get around the fact that he has revised someone else's history.

Of course I expect the replies of lighten up..etc..etc..etc.. But that's just my two cents.

[Ace]

Originally Posted by DarkNomis

I don't know if you're old enough to remember this but Frank Miller saved Dardevil's comic from being canceled a couple of times in the '80s. Particularly with the Electra storyline and "Born Again" (still the best DD story arc ever !).

But what made the stories so notable was moreso than the high level of violence (for comics at that time) but the complexity of the heroes (as well as villian) situation in there personal lives.

In other words, the stories was more than just when a villian attack and then DD stops the villian. the stories involved around the villians actions and how they would drastically effect DD personally life and the people who know him. But it was things in a very real world approach (mentally ill criminals, DD trying to kill Bullseye after electra assassnation, DD being homeless, Karen Page doing porno, Kingpin's wife isssues, etc...)

This is what made Miller DD stories great. Change the whole course of DD stories as well as all comics in general with Miller's Opus on Batman in "Dark Knight Returns"..

The writers in Marvel today grew up on that syle of storytelling (including Kesel) which is why Marvel has a Frank Miller that feel in a lot of the stories today and DD have has some really great seriously deep personal storie arcs since then.

As for 300 doing so well, I hope this will make Hoollywood pay more attention ot adapting more of Miller's graphic work like RONIN and My personal Favortie THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS (That would make such a gereat Batman movies).

You can do really personal stories without making them mired in the drudgery of reality. That seems to be the whole point of the superhero genre if you ask me.

[RoiVampire]

[Zugernaut]

Originally Posted by FallenFate

You know, though, it's not really propaganda either way unless you are saying it is Spartan propaganda. The Battle of Thermopylae was a real battle and this was based on a graphic novel that was based on a historical event. Those that read propaganda in it have some serious issues in my opinion, no matter which way they read it.

Who says propaganda can't be based on real events? Of course, I'm using the term "real event" pretty loosely in terms of Thermophylae, since not only is 300 a rather loose interpretation of the accounts of the battle, but the accounts themselves are very likely hagiography. So if you want to count "very loosely based on third- and fourth-hand accounts of a battle that maybe sorta happened in this general way" as depiction of an actual event, then go ahead.

In any case, the machinery of the state can draw from all manner of sources for propaganda. Heck, it even tried to use Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the U.S.A." as propaganda, hoping the idiot masses would just shout the slogan and not listen to the actual words (which usually works).

[Vyper]

Originally Posted by erikthered25

I personally think it sucks that he took such a revisionist pen to historical information because I've been searching online and King Xerxes never looked like that. If I took a closer look, I'd probably find even more information that's been changed or altered. Although it's "just an adaptation from a comic book and it's not supposed to be taken seriously" I'm disturbed how it's okay just go in and revise someone's history. If Xerxes or anyone else in his family lineage was alive today, they could sue Frank Miller and everyone involved for defamation of character because his version or vision of events is inaccurate. I've always been uncomfortable with this type of revision because I personally don't think it's right. I know he's not telling it as if it's history because he has a narrator but to me that's just a cop-out and a ploy to get around the fact that he has revised someone else's history.

Of course I expect the replies of lighten up..etc..etc..etc.. But that's just my two cents.

I'm fairly certain King Arthur didn't become king by pulling a sword from a stone, but hey, that's just my two cents

[Thalya]

Originally Posted by erikthered25

I personally think it sucks that he took such a revisionist pen to historical information because I've been searching online and King Xerxes never looked like that. If I took a closer look, I'd probably find even more information that's been changed or altered. Although it's "just an adaptation from a comic book and it's not supposed to be taken seriously" I'm disturbed how it's okay just go in and revise someone's history. If Xerxes or anyone else in his family lineage was alive today, they could sue Frank Miller and everyone involved for defamation of character because his version or vision of events is inaccurate. I've always been uncomfortable with this type of revision because I personally don't think it's right. I know he's not telling it as if it's history because he has a narrator but to me that's just a cop-out and a ploy to get around the fact that he has revised someone else's history.

Of course I expect the replies of lighten up..etc..etc..etc.. But that's just my two cents.

Actually, Miller and the filmmakers couldn't get sued. Watching to the end of the credits you could see the standard legal disclaimer about how these were fictitious characters which should not be inferred or understood to represent real people.

----------------------------

And honestly, the best thing I loved about this movie was that it was self-contained, a story of dream and legend made visual, honest to the story itself and the story alone. It was clearly its own reality and wasn't bound to modern politics (let alone history) the way, say, Episode 3 was. Sure there were a few lame references about "freedom isn't free", but no one in this day and age would have the stones to say the line that immediately followed it and which everyone has forgotten: "it must be paid for in blood."

[smitch]

Originally Posted by erikthered25

I personally think it sucks that he took such a revisionist pen to historical information because I've been searching online and King Xerxes never looked like that. If I took a closer look, I'd probably find even more information that's been changed or altered. Although it's "just an adaptation from a comic book and it's not supposed to be taken seriously" I'm disturbed how it's okay just go in and revise someone's history. If Xerxes or anyone else in his family lineage was alive today, they could sue Frank Miller and everyone involved for defamation of character because his version or vision of events is inaccurate. I've always been uncomfortable with this type of revision because I personally don't think it's right. I know he's not telling it as if it's history because he has a narrator but to me that's just a cop-out and a ploy to get around the fact that he has revised someone else's history.

Of course I expect the replies of lighten up..etc..etc..etc.. But that's just my two cents.

I'm not going to tell you to lighten up! But here's another point of view: I think the artistic liberties taken with the look are acceptable. I saw a special on the History Channel about it the night before, and they said that Leonidas' helmet crest would have gone side to side, not front to back. So you can nit pick that stuff if you want, but I was actually impressed at how much of the real history of the events made it into a comic book adaptation (and in turn, it's movie adaptation). "We will fight in the shade" is taken directly from Herodotus' history of the event. I know I have my nit picks as well, but I think we can all agree that this is a positive thing for comics. It's certainly more true to the source material than ANY other adaptation of a comic I have ever seen.

[G Dog]

To its credit, the big effing theatre in my area had four screens playing it and me and my friends could only get tickets for the 11pm show on Friday, and even it was almost sold out.

On the other hand, the movie sucked. This goes to show me that Frank Miller should not be adapted by "fans". They takes great pains to recreate the visual aesthetic of his comics and do nothing to try and adapt or improve his awful, cliche writing and dialogue.

Meh, at least it was better than Sin City...even though that's damning with faint praise, indeed.