300 Sets March Weekend Record at $70M

[Authorized]

Although 60% of the R-rated '300' audience was made up of males, chicks flocked to the movie for the beefcake, the violence, and to be with their beaus. The R-rating hurt '300''s overall numbers preventing many 14-year-old males from buying tickets. Although, it's well known younger teens usually switch theatres in multiplexes.

'300" opens up in England in two weeks and internationally wide afterwards.

[TheKeenGuy]

The R-rating didn't hurt it. Had it been PG-13, that would have cut down on the appeal of what is advertised as an exhilarating two-hour bloodbath.

[Pull Back Reveal]

If teens switched theaters in multiplexes, it's not reflected in the numbers (because they bought tickets for something else), right?

[haunted]

That'd be correct. I was wondering how that was relevant.

[whistlelock]

It's Authy, nothing has to be particularly relevant.

[j over]

This definitely means Zack Snyder's adaptation of "Watchmen" will be put on the fast track any minute now.

[vmf]

If teens switched theaters in multiplexes, it's not reflected in the numbers (because they bought tickets for something else), right?

These Box Office numbers are becoming more open to scrutiny because of this type of erroneous reporting.

On some forums, there are organized efforts for members to buy a ticket for say, Ghost Rider, each and every time they go see any movie - for some strange reason these comic book guys are seriously dedicated to making each and every funny book movie a financial success.

The ability to fraudulently switch tickets harms R movies like 300, while artificially bumping up the receipts on nerd-fests like Ghost Rider.

[Signal30]

So it'd be a decent marketing strategy to open a PG-13 horror film the week before (or the same week) Grindhouse opens, eh?

[Authorized]

Why the big weekend number?

Young males continue to cry out for masculine heros in their matriarch dominated, mampy pampy lives. 300 wasn't a phenomenon. The targeted male audience was waiting for a movie like 300. Real men don't shy away from danger. They fight for glory!!!

[j over]

Young males continue to cry out for masculine heros in their matriarch dominated, mampy pampy lives. 300 wasn't a phenomenon. The targeted male audience was waiting for a movie like 300. Real men don't shy away from danger. They fight for glory!!!


Just because the movie contains three hundred sword-wielding and six-pack-carrying men does not make them great male heroes. Your definition of "real men" seems a bit narrow to say the least.

[dpaterso]

Namby pamby lives aside, $70 million, not bad at all.

The producers must be going nuts trying to figure out how to make "300 II"

"Oh come on, surely some of them survived? How can they all be dead?"

-Derek

[Big Adam]

Why the big weekend number?

Young males continue to cry out for masculine heros in their matriarch dominated, mampy pampy lives. 300 wasn't a phenomenon. The targeted male audience was waiting for a movie like 300. Real men don't shy away from danger. They fight for glory!!!

Agreed. There was a much different crowd in this theater then the crowds my wife and I typically see movies with.

[Big Adam]

Just because the movie contains three hundred sword-wielding and six-pack-carrying men does not make them great male heroes. Your definition of "real men" seems a bit narrow to say the least.

j over, not every movie can be Little Miss Sunshine and Pan's Labyrinth. We have not had a film like 300 in a long time and these returns prove that people wanted it.

[Cycstorm]

I'm going to see this tonight, but I have my guard up. I have been burned before by the 13th Warrior. I was so psyched for that, Antonio Banderas and SWORDS, I thought, what could possibly go wrong?? Everything, apparrently.

[Slappynipsy]

If teens switched theaters in multiplexes, it's not reflected in the numbers (because they bought tickets for something else), right?

Get this!

I go to see 300 with my wife and some friends on Friday night. We go to one of the big theaters in town and the line was full of kids (11-16ish) and I wondered, "How can all these kids be getting into an R rated movie?"

I notice another line in the lobby, it’s the line to the automated ticket machine and it accepts cash! it's not like it checks ID's so all the kids just bought tickets from that machine and no one at the theater seemed to care...

I'm guessing something similar happened all over the country to account for the big box office.

Good for the producers but made going to the theater suck, loud mouthed little snots.

[j over]

j over, not every movie can be Little Miss Sunshine and Pan's Labyrinth. We have not had a film like 300 in a long time and these returns prove that people wanted it.


What "kind of film" do you see "300" as, exactly? And did I say that every movie has to be like "Little Miss Sunshine" (which I'm not even really a fan of) and "Pan's Labyrinth"? No. All I said was that definition of what Authorized apparently views the ultimate male hero figure to be is a bit too narrow and verging on getting into misogynistic territory in my opinion. Heroes take all shapes, sizes and personalities.

[Jakkal]

When was the last time we had something truly "male" like 300? Anything that seemed truly testosterone-fueled? Most of what I've seen recently has been images of softened and "declawed" masculinity. The macho man is out. The sensitive man is in. I thought "300" was a long time coming.

[Signal30]

"Joey, do you like gladiator movies?"

[j over]

When was the last time we had something truly "male" like 300? Anything that seemed truly testosterone-fueled? Most of what I've seen recently has been images of softened and "declawed" masculinity. The macho man is out. The sensitive man is in. I thought "300" was a long time coming.


I guess what someone sees as "truly male" is ultimately as subjective as anything else...because I don't think "300" is a "truly male" movie.

[Pull Back Reveal]

I guess what someone sees as "truly male" is ultimately as subjective as anything else...because I don't think "300" is a "truly male" movie.

Hey, if you like your men glistening and sweaty, in Speedos, with rippling abs and perky buttocks -- putting the Greece in Ancient Greece ... well, then, yes, it's a "truly male" movie.

[Big Adam]

When was the last time we had something truly "male" like 300? Anything that seemed truly testosterone-fueled? Most of what I've seen recently has been images of softened and "declawed" masculinity. The macho man is out. The sensitive man is in. I thought "300" was a long time coming.

Amen Jakkal. I grew up on the buff heros of the 80's. And while I certainly understand that any shape and size can be a hero, I have missed the masculine male as action star. Our heroes on the screen lately have been the Tobey Maguires and Jake Gyllenhalls of Hollywood. Both are very fine actors but I hope Daniel Craig as the best 007 in decades and 300 are a shift in a new direction.

[j over]

Amen Jakkal. I grew up on the buff heros of the 80's. And while I certainly understand that any shape and size can be a hero, I have missed the masculine male as action star.


So this is about buff-ness and having it somehow tie in with personal nostalgia and preference? That I would more or less understand versus someone believing that pumped up muscles somehow automatically equal great male icons of heroism.

[12IronMonkeys]

I've missed the "action hero" as well, so maybe that's part of why I liked 300 as much as I did.

[Jakkal]

Hey, if you like your men glistening and sweaty, in Speedos, with rippling abs and perky buttocks -- putting the Greece in Ancient Greece ... well, then, yes, it's a "truly male" movie.

Actually, I wasn’t talking about their chiseled physiques. It is almost a given that a male actor, especially the so called “ hollywood hunks,” will have a good body, and not just in action flicks. So, defining “true masculinity” as a “look” falls flat on all counts. I was talking more about the way the Spartans acted and carried themselves in “300”.

SPOILERS.

No prisoners, no surrender. This isn’t a kid’s game where “weak sentimentality” plays a part. It’s pure practicality. The hunchback would’ve fvcked up the line. He wanted to play with the big boys? Too bad. They give no charity spot in their tight-knit killing unit.

Some dude’s son is killed. He doesn’t sit and weep like a little bitch. No, he grabs a sword and goes apesh!t wreaking havoc, trying to get his revenge.

Last, but certainly not least, you don’t tell your woman you love her. She understands you do.

Not saying it’s realistic or even “what true men are made of.” That’s just the macho man template and it had been missing from the screen for too damn long. Good to have it back.

[j over]

Not saying it’s realistic or even “what true men are made of.”


Well, I can at least agree with that. Even in a film like this, I would prefer a male protagonist who can both weep and kick some bad guy ass. You know, be as complex and human as...well, most humans are.

[sppeterson]

When was the last time we had something truly "male" like 300? Anything that seemed truly testosterone-fueled? Most of what I've seen recently has been images of softened and "declawed" masculinity. The macho man is out. The sensitive man is in. I thought "300" was a long time coming.

Crank -- came out last September.

The Marine -- came out last October.

I think 300's success had less to do with being a man's film, and more to do with being visually interesting -- something that comes across well in trailers.

I wonder where the pure action movies have gone too, but I think more of the blame lies on the fact that we don't have, or audiences aren't buying into, old-fashioned action heroes. Vin Diesel and Jason Statham are the only ones who've had any real success. All the other attempts fizzled despite the fact that they keep trying to promote new muscle-bound actioners: The Rock, Thomas Jane, that guy in the Marine.

Even the guys who do have some success actually have more success when they switch to mildly self-effacing comedy.

[Jakkal]

Crank -- came out last September.

The Marine -- came out last October.

I think 300's success had less to do with being a man's film, and more to do with being visually interesting -- something that comes across well in trailers.

I wonder where the pure action movies have gone too, but I think more of the blame lies on the fact that we don't have, or audiences aren't buying into, old-fashioned action heroes. Vin Diesel and Jason Statham are the only ones who've had any real success. All the other attempts fizzled despite the fact that they keep trying to promote new muscle-bound actioners: The Rock, Thomas Jane, that guy in the Marine.

Even the guys who do have some success actually have more success when they switch to mildly self-effacing comedy.

I've been wanting to watch Crank. And as much as I like the dude playing the bad guy in "The Marine", I still see it as a lame "wrestler" movie... Should I rephrase it as "when was the last time we had something 'truly male' like '300' that didn't entirely suck"?

But I agree that "300" is more about the visuals than the macho man aspect of it. I just mentioned it because it's where the thread was at the moment.

I have to concede that I, too, prefer more complex, realistic men in my movies, but a macho man flick once in a while doesn't hurt anyone. I was just venting my frustration at the pu$$ying of the male figure, It's OK not to make men "macho men" but sometimes the softening just goes too far. Thank God for Tony and the final season of The Sopranos :D

On a side note: I think the idea behind Crank is brilliant. The potential for action is built right into the premise itself. A guy has to keep his adrenaline up or else he dies. What could possibly go wrong?? (Apparently, a lot did as I heard the movie sucked... but I still think it's a brilliant premise, just, possibly, poorly executed).

[BROUGHCUT]

This is the funniest thread in a long time.

It's hardly completely atypical of wider Roman and Greek society, but one of the Spartan laws was that the men must bang one another on a regular basis.

That's one reason they fought so well -- they were protecting their fellow lovers.

It may as well have been called 300 Bitches.

[Jakkal]

This is the funniest thread in a long time.

It's hardly completely atypical of wider Roman and Greek society, but one of the Spartan laws was that the men must bang one another on a regular basis.

That's one reason they fought so well -- they were protecting their fellow lovers.

It may as well have been called 300 Bitches.

Sorry but I think it was already established those weren't the Spartans ;)

Check out this post

Then read the one after it by Tabula Rasa for confirmation.

P.S. sorry I just had to throw this in to one of the "300" threads. http://whitehousehell.ytmnd.com/

[BROUGHCUT]

Tabula was correct. I think.

Hard to find any actual sources (and even if I found one, it would be written by an Athenian...) so I've given up, defer to the Onion.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/34183

Scroll down for the Counterpoint. Who knows!

However, the trailer for 300 looked like a tacky, big-budget Private porno.

[Jakkal]

Read the article, but no clue who's really right and, for purposes of enjoying "300," I really don't care. :) I'll let historians battle that one out.

As far as the movie goes, there were no instances of homosexuality in it, save for a brief moment that had homosexual overtones...those who saw it know which one I'm talking about.

[nic.h]

As far as the movie goes, there were no instances of homosexuality in it, save for a brief moment that had homosexual overtones...those who saw it know which one I'm talking about.

Or maybe that scene where millions of young boys and men across America spend a couple of hours in the dark watching sweaty, muscle-bound men strutting around half naked. With big sticks. ;)

[Jakkal]

Ah, well, that depends on your own, ahem, personal experience watching the film. To each his own ;)