Expelled‘s Weekend Box Office: Part 2

As Samuel Goldwyn once said, they stayed away in droves.

I suddenly feel a little better about humanity.

It’s obviously not a blockbuster action-packed-must-see-on-the-big-screen movie. It’s something that most of us can wait to rent.
The box office results is not a good indicator of whether the movie was a success or not.

Too bad their theistard base would simply lap it up.

Most of the theistards we are trying to reach would not need to see the movie in order to believe in their stupid unscientific myths.

Given the film grosses about $3.4 million in 1052 theaters, then it made about $3200 per theater or about $1100 per day (conservatively estimating everything here). Assuming a ticket costs $10 and there were only 3 showings per theater per day, we can estimate that, on average, there were no more than 37 people per screen for this film.

BTW, thanks for your posts. I’m finding many useful resource here.

…but it’s doubtful that anyone will be able to call it “successful” by any conventional means.

except for Chris Mooney….*rolls eyes*

10 dollars? Tickets are 4 bucks here. Plus there tend to be more like four or five showings. So I would think the actual turnout was even less. We saw Sara Marshall Friday night and it was friggin packed!

I would really really like to know what Expelled cost. But a cursory search reveals no numbers.

Depends on where you live. Tickets are like $10 for adults here too. Popcorn is $4 and a drink is $2. It’s not cheap at all to see a movie anymore. If you want to see a movie anymore in this area, you have to figure about $20/per adult.

It did worse than they wanted it to, and better than we wanted it to. Seems Americans are dumber than we hoped, but smarter than we feared.

This wart on the ass of intelligent inquiry might make its money back in DVD sales, but at least it shows how duplicitous you have to be to get an anti-science film off the ground. Maybe that’s good enough for now.

Rumor has it that Dawkins admits to Design in the movie? Any confirmation or clarification on that?

Rumor has it that Dawkins admits to Design in the movie? Any confirmation or clarification on that?

TX, from what I understand of the movie (having sadly not watched it 🙁 ), Dawkins is asked to provide an example in which Intelligent Design could have happened. He then basically tells a tale of panspermia, in which an alien intelligence would bring life to earth.

The film basically plays it off as a joke, even though (at least in our atheist eyes) there’s very little difference between the idea that an intelligent god made life on Earth vs. the idea that intelligent aliens made life on Earth.

Also intriguing is how the film frames one of the ideas for how abiogenesis could have occurred: early pre-biotic organic molecules could have used clay to ‘scaffold’ themselves. Check out the section of Clay theory on the wikipedia page on abiogenesis for a really quick synopsis of the idea.

The movie frames it a joke. Their exact words are something along the lines of “scientists say life began on the backs of crystals.” The really awesome thing for science education in this country is that if you google “backs of crystals” you find hundreds of reviews of Expelled already making fun of abiogenesis, using that phrase.

Flock of Dodos = warning shot to scientists to learn how to speak gooder.

Expelled = proof to scientists that they haven’t learned jack.

I find it interesting that people have such harsh words to say about a movie that’s supposed to be irrational and unsupported. If it’s so stupid then why bother? Why not recommend the movie to millions to expose its obvious irrationality? On the other hand, if it genuinely poses debatable questions, I think its success can be found in the reaction from the opposite side of the belief spectrum. The more atheists and evolutionists who complain about it then the more likely it’s causing people to think about what really happened in the evolution or creation of the world.

Where the heck is “here”? Are you living in 1982?

Haha. No I live in College Station, TX, tickets used to be 8 bucks, but an actual independent movie theatre (way nicer than the corporate one too) opened up down the highway from our one theatre. And then battle ensued. The price ware stopped at $5 for showings after 6 pm ($4 for senior, children, and students) and $3.5 for early showings. But soda, candy, beer, all that stuff still costs a whole lot. I usually spend close to $15 for myself.

Oh and Linda… you are sooo deep (sarcasm). Celebrating 4-20 were we?

We know what you’re doing here. It’s kind of obvious, movie promoters.

I have never posted here before, and I don’t claim to be impartial. I can’t speak for others, but If I wanted to promote the movie I would do it at my conservative Christian church… If I post at an atheist blog, it is probably to discuss the movie and influence people who I consider wrong on a very important topic. This is obvious since you may not go see the movie, but you do check comments on a post like this.

Now the people who make this movie are scientifically ignorant and self-deluded, self-righteous Christians

Ben Stein is not a Christian. David Berlinski, the main theist interviewed, is not a Christian. The others may be, I don’t know about them all. The ID people in the movie are probably not scientifically ignorant, since they have doctorates in their fields, sometimes two. The same goes for the atheists interviewed… I don’t mind saying that. They disagree on this issue, but they are hardly ignorant. Self-delusion would only be possible if they were wrong and not ignorant. Self-righteous, that’s possible for anyone, but the atheists in the movie come off looking far more arrogant than the ID advocates.

Hi theist CA, welcome to the club.

The ID people in the movie are probably not scientifically ignorant, since they have doctorates in their fields, sometimes two.

As science class after science class has beat into my skull, just because people spent a good deal of time working on a PhD and obtained one doesn’t make them any less capable of being wrong about matters of science that they don’t understand.

Three of the people interviewed in Expelled are Guillermo Gonzales, Richard Sternberg, and Caroline Crocker. The first got a PhD in astronomy, the second got PhDs in molecular evolution and theoretical biology, the third got a PhD in immunopharmacology.

Doc Crocker taught a lecture at two different schools (George Mason University, Northern Virginia Community College) that was highly critical of evolution to the point of being ridiculous. Some of the slides from her powerpoint lecture have been put online for the world to see. They display an amazing amount of scientific ignorance. Picture teaching a college-level history class and saying that Abe Lincoln was president during WWII. And then being proud of doing so.

Doc Sternberg made …a really bad decision to run a paper that had very little scientific merit. He was one of the reviewers of the paper. And he won’t reveal who the other three people who reviewed the paper are. Those bad decisions by themselves don’t show scientific ignorance, but, well, let’s look at the effects of his decision.

Firstly, he published that article in the last issue of a journal that he was the editor for. Somewhat convenient. Afterwards, he has basically played both sides of the ID v. science debate against each other for the last ~four years; on one hand, NPR once “said Sternberg himself believes intelligent design is ‘fatally flawed.”, on the other hand, he serves as a fellow for the ID group ISCID and signed the Discovery Institute’s Dissent from Darwinism petition. He might not be scientifically ignorant but he made a bad decision and his ego has been profiting from it for a while now.

Doc Gonzalez is also a fellow of ISCID. And, like the other two scientists mentioned above, signed the Dissent from Darwinism petition. From what I’ve read, when he has talked about biology, he has sounded ignorant; but that’s understandable, it’s not what he studied. Much more disturbing is the deterioration in his publications over time. Heck, I published more in 2007 and I’m years away from being a potential professor.

What unites all three of these scientists (besides their dissent from Darwinism) is that they have had disappointments in their careers…and instead of taking any personal responsibility for these events, they have decided to blame a scientific cabal that doesn’t exist. I think their sin is not scientific ignorance, but rather inflated egos and an over-enthusiasm for pretending to be a martyr.

I expect that the 3.1 million dollar estimate will be revised downward when we get the sunday actuals on Monday evening.

As I predicted in the other thread, the estimate did drop once we got actuals.

2.9 million three-day total. 1.2 Friday dropped to .99 Saturday to .77 on sunday.

Dropping like a stone. This turkey won’t break 4.5 million.

More important than the money this movie isn’t making is how many people aren’t going out of their way to see it.

Back to the topic of this post, it needs to be pointed out that compared to other documentaries, the film did quite well. It is the third highest opening weekend ever for a documentary. Maybe that wasn’t what Ben was hoping for, who knows. Regardless, given that most people don’t go to the movies to see documentaries, and that most theists I know aren’t very interested in this topic in the first place, it is clear that it did relatively well.

Dropping like a stone. This turkey won’t break 4.5 million.

The average quotient of lifetime/opening weekend gross for those top 100 documentaries is 74 with a standard deviation of 100. This means that 1) 4.5 million is almost certainly too low of an estimate, and 2) no one can make such a prediction with any degree of confidence.

Back to the topic of this post, it needs to be pointed out that compared to other documentaries, the film did quite well. It is the third highest opening weekend ever for a documentary.

The reason is that they didn’t open it like a documentary. They did what we call in the business “buying an opening weekend”. Unlike all the other docus in the top ten, they opened wide. They spent big money on expensive TV ads. They shot their wad in the opening weekend. In two weeks they lose their theaters to Indiana Jones. Art houses normally play docus. This movie is poison to their regular arty-liberal crowds. The multiplex doesn’t want this turkey, and the art houses wouldn’t touch this thing with a ten-foot pole. Docus play in the big cities… not heartland america. The odds are stacked against this film. Expect close to an 80% drop in BO next weekend.

The average ratio of lifetime/opening weekend gross for those top 100 documentaries is 74 with a standard deviation of 100

.

You can’t look at it like a docu. They didn’t do a tiered release platform. They didn’t look to build word of mouth. They were critically panned as one of the worst motion pictures of all time. This film will have no legs. They hid the film from critics, opened wide, and bought their opening weekend. We aren’t looking at Roger and Me here, we’re looking at Catwoman. The Friday to Saturday drop tells the tale.

2) no one can make such a prediction with any degree of confidence.

Barring a miracle, of course, I predict at least a 70% drop next weekend.

theist CA said:

It won’t take much to convince me that physicist A is ignorant of biology, but if so I’m not going to say that physicist A is ignorant of science, which implies both biology and physics. I think this is more what Andrew has done and what you hesitate to do.

I do hesitate to say that ID proponents are ignorant of science because …they want to use scientific language and scientific rigor to promote an intensely anti-scientific viewpoint. So they’re not really ignorant of science, they’re just either consciously or unconsciously opponents of science.

I think we can agree that whether or not the reason Sternberg published the article was because it advocated intelligent design, that was the reason he was fired.

As siamang said, he wasn’t fired. I briefly discussed (ok, maybe not so briefly) those three people because the Expelled film brings them up as people who have faced academic bias. But all three of them are currently employed in research or academia (although Gonzales does have to find a new job in 2009 because he didn’t get tenure).

I will say that if he didn’t divulge the names of the other reviewers, it may well be that he doesn’t want also to put them in a difficult position.

This is one of the few redeeming parts of the story for him; these three people, for all we know, might have raised huge objections to the paper and not thought it was worth publication. Or, they may be, like the author of the troublesome paper, young-earth creationists. But they want to be anonymous and so it’s good that he’s not willing to involve them.

The fact that the other side of the story is hard to get does not help things.

Which is the disturbing thing about all of this. He makes the claim that the Smithsonian knuckled down on him and he was, among other grievances, “forced to give up [his] master key”. The government report about Sternberg mentions the key issue repeatedly. The Smithsonian says that he was never denied keys, and that his keys were “taken away” when the museum switched to ID badges and magnetic keycards.

He obviously feels that his rights and freedoms were trampled on. It’s just difficult for those of us who aren’t him to objectively see how much of this is his perception and how much is reality. Saying as how he is making no issue with a movie that (for all intents and purposes) says he was fired, when he was not, my skepticism alarm is going off, big time, telling me that a lot of this might be his perception.

The Christians behind this kind of thing are only hastening their self-inflicted discrediting. The more they push against science and reason, the more ridiculous they seem. If and when they have succeeded in slowing progress in some area (like Bush’s anti-stem cell research decision) they have only hurt our country–the rest of the advanced world is more than happy to take the lead in these areas. What I find humorous is how the Christo-Conservatives are caught in a dilemma between their theism and the new markets that are foregone because of it.

Interesting, Phil.

The Wikipedia page is excellent. I saw the movie, and the Darwin Quote mine stood out…. GEE, a creationist TWISTING something Darwin said to make it seem like he supported something evil, when in fact he was saying the exact opposite?

NAWWW…. couldn’t be!!!! Creationists are highly moral and intellectually honest individuals who would NEVER be so mendacious!

Back to the topic of this post, it needs to be pointed out that compared to other documentaries, the film did quite well.

It’s insufficient to compare the BO of this documentary to other documentaries. These guys did several things that are atypical of documentary production:

1. Taking their film on a nationwide tour.
2. Buying Google Ads to send people to the movie’s website (I’m so curious! I click on these every time I see ’em. 😉
3. Paying churches/schools who send groups to the movie (see notes in the Wikipedia entry).
4. Hiring 4 different public relations firms to promote this movie. (see Wikipedia notes).

Some documentaries may have done one or 2 of those, but I’m guessing that no documentary has ever done all four.

We also have no idea how much money was spent on straight-out advertising for the film.

It is the third highest opening weekend ever for a documentary.

See above. It would be far more meaningful to normalize the BO by how much money was spent on pre-release marketing of each film. Unfortunately, that’s only possible if the producers freely and openly disclose those numbers.

Regardless, given that most people don’t go to the movies to see documentaries, and that most theists I know aren’t very interested in this topic in the first place, it is clear that it did relatively well.

Relatively well compared to what? If these guys spent 5x on their pre-release marketing than any of the other films on the list, it’s a far less impressive number.

There’s a completely separate question: will they make any money? Rocky Mountain Pictures is a tiny operation — much smaller than a 20th Century Fox or Universal (or even these theater chains themselves). RMP doesn’t have any Harry Potter films in the pipeline to help with the negotiations; this is a one-shot deal. In order to push an unknown quantity out to that many theaters, I’m guessing that RMP had to give the theaters a sweetheart cut of the BO.

The average quotient of lifetime/opening weekend gross for those top 100 documentaries is 74 with a standard deviation of 100. This means that 1) 4.5 million is almost certainly too low of an estimate, and 2) no one can make such a prediction with any degree of confidence.

You are absolutely right on this. None of the professional BO analysts will ever post a prediction until they see what the dropoff is in the 2nd weekend. That was neat for you to crunch those numbers.

After seeing the first weekend’s BO, I took a SWAG and estimated the film would end up with 10M domestic gross and placed an upper limit at 12M. I think that was pretty good, and I’ll stick by it.

The actuals for the weekend come out on Monday evening. Why don’t you plot an estimate for this film’s total gross then?

The only number you won’t have is how many theaters will still have the film for the third weekend; that number comes out on Thursday. You could run your numbers one more time then.

JB, I saw the movie. I’m amazed that it was able to change anyone’s mind about evolution, since it contained absolutely no science at all.

What part of the film do you think rocked your long-held “faith in evolution”?

Why don’t I believe you, that you HAD “faith in evolution” before you saw this film?

My long-held faith in evolution is completely rocked.

. . and it was much better than Cats . . .

Siamang, I want to see it but won’t pay for it. What would you say was the most interesting part of the movie….in your opinion?

Siamang, I want to see it but won’t pay for it. What would you say was the most interesting part of the movie….in your opinion?

I have to say that I did get a little kick out of hearing Richard Dawkins read his passage about God in a movie theater that I expect was peopled with 12 Christians and me.

You know the one:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

It was a guilty pleasure, to be sure. But after sitting through the blood libel of Stein blaming science for the murder of six-million Jews, I took what pleasure I could.

Wow, I went in expecting to find things I could pick apart. I was floored. I think my mind is completely changed. My long-held faith in evolution is completely rocked.

Please see this movie and decide for yourself.

JB, I saw the movie. If you’re still here, let’s have a discussion about it.

It’s a MIRACLE!!!!
only a 53% drop off, and the CUM total is now up to 5.2 million!

Hardly a miracle. I’m guessing you’ve never ever made BO estimates before. You really need to have a 2nd week’s worth of data before doing that.

I was wrong! They might make their money back!

Unless these guys revealed their marketing budget, it’s almost impossible to tell.

The rule-of-thumb cut between distributors and theaters is 50/50, although I don’ think it’ll apply in this case. Rocky Mountain Pictures is a tiny operation; it’s very difficult for them to get anything near the rate that a Universal or Paramount would get for a movie.

I’m guessing that the producers said, “To hell with the BO take!” Or maybe something like that….

They pretty clearly had their priorities on the public numbers and don’t really care if they take a bath on the [private] bottom line.

Never mind the pending lawsuits about IP theft…

I believe in God and know that Jesus is our Savior just as I know I am typing on this forum. I appreciate the freedom we have in being able to believe as we wish, in fact, this freedom is a major part of the Plan of Salvation for mankind.

Although we disagree, we are on this earth for the same reason. I thank you for allowing me to post and for the opposition you raise.

Christians and Athiest alike are human and thus susceptible to human error; left to the thinking ways of the natural man. This is why some Christians and Athiest do things that are not right. But it isn’t up to us to judge; instead we should seek to serve each other regardless of different beliefs.