‘Hunger Games’ Box Office Final: $152.5M

COMMENTS (14)

• I am a 30s male, and I read the books, and went to the movie. I enjoyed it. It was a good movie. But not great. The rewatchability of the film isn’t high. Prior to seeing it, I had planned this week to go rewatch it on an IMAX theater that is further from my house than where I saw the film. I scrapped that plan after seeing the film. It was an event film, but I don’t have to see it again. To much was left out, which I understand.

  I always thought the HP films had natural breaks that could have been used to split the films, and be more faithful to the books. HG doesn’t have that. To be faithful to the books, the films would have had to be close to 3.5 hours long, and I get that that is unfeasible. But I don’t have to see this again, and I feel that is why Sun came in lower than expected.

  Comment by pat — Monday March 26, 2012 @ 1:29pm PDT  Reply to this post

  • Thank you so so much Pat for that amazing analysis of HG. As a rival studio head, I am so glad to hear YOU won’t be going to see it again. That is such a relief because I was really sweating that decision, because now my movie has a chance next weekend, now that YOU won’t be giving it YOUR repeat business.

    Now go get in line for the next TWILIGHT…

    Comment by Caesar Flickerman — Monday March 26, 2012 @ 2:36pm PDT  Reply to this post

    • Your snark isn’t really necessary, and Pat’s not alone in his assessment.

      Comment by cookmeyer1970 — Monday March 26, 2012 @ 6:58pm PDT  Reply to this post

    • Geez Caesar, u mad?

      Comment by JennyL — Tuesday March 27, 2012 @ 2:27am PDT  Reply to this post

• The estimate was a bit high, but it’s silly to try and spin that as “lower than expected” and blame that on personal quibbles with the movie. The box office performance was spectacular and exceeded all expectations, period. And it should have great legs, the weekday and particularly second weekend numbers should be very interesting.

  Comment by milo — Monday March 26, 2012 @ 1:41pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Still a huge achievement for the film. But as noted, will be interesting to see if it spent it’s force in one weekend or has any kind of legs on it next weekend.

  Comment by Esquire — Monday March 26, 2012 @ 2:29pm PDT  Reply to this post

• the film series is going to do fantastically well. it’s a new blockbuster franchise. it’s just not going to attract guys to it, that’s all. the 61/39 female-to-male split they got for this film is the highest they’re going to get. it is a waste of time to try and attract a demographic that wants nothing to do with this film, and it’s only going to get worse. i understand they desperately want the hunger games to be a 4 quadrant film, but why is it so bad if it’s just 2 quadrant? market it to girls and women! they’ll eat it up and thensome!

  i also wouldn’t be surprised if it was like twilight in that the gross will be highly frontloaded. it should still rake in the boffo bucks like twilight, but it won’t have legs like a big budget summer blockbuster, i.e. something like the avengers, or the dark knight rises.

  Comment by beardown — Monday March 26, 2012 @ 2:30pm PDT  Reply to this post

  • A 61/39 opening weekend ration is great, especially when you compare it to Twilight’s 80/20 averages. That’s hardly no men seeing it.

    Comment by Hank — Monday March 26, 2012 @ 4:43pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Congratulations, Lionsgate, on your financial success with ‘Hunger Games’. I thought the movie was a great adaptation, and walked that very fine line of conveying the violence of the Games, without exploiting it.

  I’ll be surprised if it doesn’t hold strong at the BO in week two because everyone is talking about it. And by “talking about it”, I mean they’re discussing the themes of the movie, not just the box office proceeds and fan hype surrounding it. The message seems to have resonated with the American public, and I think that will get the attention of even more adults. We’ll see……

  Comment by G — Monday March 26, 2012 @ 3:09pm PDT  Reply to this post

• So it IS possible to make a wildly successful film with a smart female lead that does not involve vampires. Huh.

  Comment by whippet — Monday March 26, 2012 @ 3:13pm PDT  Reply to this post

  • And the best? a relative low budget 78 Millions (plus marketing).

    Comment by Tim — Monday March 26, 2012 @ 5:40pm PDT  Reply to this post

• YOU are obnoxious.

  Comment by mqa — Monday March 26, 2012 @ 5:49pm PDT  Reply to this post

• See this movie is a flop it’s a huge disappointment because it didn’t earn as much as everyone thought it earned. Go see John Carter. Please? My job depends on you seeing John Carter. Pretty please? It’s better than The Hunger Games it’s more exciting and more spectacular it’s Hunger Games but it’s set on Mars!

  Comment by Team Disney — Monday March 26, 2012 @ 6:25pm PDT  Reply to this post

• I don’t know why everyone is saying it “exceeded all expectations” when some reported speculation was that it could open as high as what it opened with. How about “met the studio’s wildest expectations” instead? I saw it– I thought it had many, many flaws, but the book fan I was with was satisfied. I thought it lacked suspense. I went home and watched “Winter’s Bone” for the first time on Netfix to compare–now THAT was a “Hunger Game.”

  Comment by David Boze — Monday March 26, 2012 @ 11:01pm PDT  Reply to this post