[freedumb2003]

10 theaters.

That is what the post said. That renders the per-screen pretty useless.

10 theaters is meaningless — statistically and otherwise.

yes, it is arithmetic and yes, even on another thread you attack the facts that penetrate your perception.

Note I said nothing bad about you nor Gov. Palin but you have no problem with calling me a “Troll.” You also say I insulted everyone: I again challenge you to point to a single post where I insulted anyone. I DARE you to do so. If you cannot, then we know what people are who post things that cannot be backed up, don’t we?

Truth is a harsh mistress.

[who knows what evil?]

That is what the post said. That renders the per-screen pretty useless.

Couldn't have been THAT useless...

With the strong initial showing, the film is going to a wider release footprint later this month, with details being announced soon.

Based on the useless per-screen showing, they will be expanding the documentary into even MORE theaters...

[perfect_rovian_storm]

Undefeated is a “Cult of Personality” film that I could never understand why made.

Then, you go around feigning a victim routine about how you were 'attacked' for 'arithmetic'.

Yeah, that's some pretty strong arithmetic there, pal, and it adds up to a troll. Period.

The per-theater-average is a perfectly viable metric to use to judge the popularity of a film. It is used specifically for cases like The Undefeated to measure them against movies in wide release. Your argument about number of theaters is moronic and shows either intellectual dishonesty or a shocking knowledge deficit on your part.

Hundreds of movies every year open in only one or two theaters and make a fraction of the amount The Undefeated did, because nobody is interested in seeing them. You may not like the truth, but that is the truth.

The truth is for a movie to open to these kind of per screen averages with zero major media campaign and only free word of mouth/social media promotion, is remarkable. If you were anything other than a troll, you wouldn't need to be told this.

Truth is a harsh mistress.

Indeed it can be. Too bad you wouldn't know the truth if it crawled up your wizwag and pitched a tent there.

[M. Thatcher]

10 theaters....That renders the per-screen pretty useless.

Apparently not.

[Windflier]

Truth is a harsh mistress.

Too bad that you haven't noticed her boot heel on your head. Now you know where that persistent pain in the side of your thick skull is coming from.

[Blue Ink]

You’re wrong.

The per-screen average, even in ten theaters, is of paramount importance. It’s the only measure for determining whether a picture will go wide or not.

You extrapolate your potential wider audience based on this number. Sometimes you hit pay dirt, e.g. “The King’s Speech.” Sometimes you flame out. “Atlas Shrugged” did well in a few theaters, went into wider release, and subsequently bombed.

Whether “The Undefeated” will succeed when it goes wide, nobody knows — but so far, it has succeeded wildly — based on the per-screen average. To assert that the number is “meaningless” is simply inaccurate.

[jamndad5]

“10 theaters is meaningless — statistically and otherwise.”

Zero ad buy. Accomplished in 3 weeks. Mock if you wish, but this is an accomplishment.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I guess you were the scum troll they didn't ping to their attack on you.

The article said "The film opened in 10 markets on Friday", not 10 theaters.

OK, I went to the chart used by conservatives4palin, and it does appear it was 10 theatres, one in each market:

On the other hand, that chart says the per-screen average was only $2850, so this article must include the saturday numbers.

I agree with you that you can't really draw conclusions based on such a small number of theaters. Palin has a solid base of supporters who will see the movie, until it gets above 3 million or so you haven't really exhausted her base.

Here's a freerepublic blast from the past about money-per-screen, it's from 2004, and you can imagine that the per-screen take on movies has gone up since then: Kinsey movie rakes in cash: the movie many critics are calling a puff piece on the man some consider a fraud and a pervert grossed an average of $15,805 per screen on 36 screens nationwide

The typical comments on this "outstanding" number, which at the time was the highest per-screen gross: Most of these art/ego films do high per-screen biz when they open.

For comparison, Atlas Shrugged opened in 300 theatres, and averaged $5590 per screen.

Now, it did great given the lack of regular marketing, but that could just mean that they knew marketing wouldn't help. Or it could mean that they didn't understand how popular it was going to be.

[lwoodham]

Oh man, here you go again. Why are you always so negative?

[Gargantua]

"Truth is a harsh mistress."

Yeah. Especially when she whips your ass like a bull-dyke dominatrix with a tack-studded belt on bathtub crystal meth!

LMAO!!!

Suck it up, Finkelstein, it's second only to Hairy Pooter and it'll still be selling out when H. Pooter's selling as DVD's at Seven-Eleven.

BWWWWAAAAAAHHHH-hah-hah-hah-hah-ahahahahahahaaaahaaaa!

8^D