Was I right? Maybe not ... maybe so
I had a feeling the $3-a-gallon gas would start keeping people away from the movie theaters. The alternate theory, advanced by Sunni M, was that the Tom Cruise wackout factor might do the same thing.Well, Mission Impossible III had an opening weekend take of $48 million, not exactly a disaster. But the headline is indeed about how it had been predicted as much higher, perhaps as much as $60 million. That's about 20 percent off.
I accept that weariness of Mr. Cruise could be worth $12 million off the box office. But I'm not ready to give up my theory - if gas stays around $3 a gallon, there'll be fewer movie nights, I humbly believe.
posted by B.W. Richardson at
8:21 AM
3 Comments:
I completely agree with you, BW—gas prices have become a consideration in a lot of proposed activities again. My point was just that there'd be no way to separate out the gas-price and Cruise-nutjob factors if box office receipts were lower than anticipated ... which seems to have been the case from what you're saying.
But so what? MI:3 is still one helluva thrillride. And Phillip Seymour Hoffman is the best screen villain I've seen since maybe Gert Frobe's Auric Goldfinger in 1964!
My mom recently told me that when she and my father were out for dinner, the both noticed that the night-life around town seemed to be nearly dead. Now my hometown has never been a booming night party locale, but they barely saw any cars on the major street where they dined, which is highly unusual for the four-lane road.
I suspect that, given my suspicion of people's saving habits, is not that they're saving their money for gas instead of going out, but that they've already blown their partying money on gas, and staying in because of it.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home