Bloodrayne Bombs At The Box Office (January 9, 2006)

ChrisReid

Super Soaker Collector / Administrator
The year's first video game to movie adaptation was released this past weekend. Bloodrayne premiered on January 6 in the US. Despite featuring a fairly all-star cast including Kristanna Loken, Michelle Rodriguez, Ben Kingsley, Michael Madsen, Udo Kier, Meat LOAF and others, the film only managed to make a paltry $1.2 million. To put this in perspective, the Wing Commander Movie and DooM did more than $5 and $15 million respectively. This caused Bloodrayne to debut in nineteenth place, and although it showed on fewer screens than expected, its per-screen average was also lower than every movies in the top eighteen.



--
Original update published on January 9, 2006
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry for the long copy/paste, but... this is funny. :rolleyes:

"A projectionist from UltraStar Cinemas has revealed to Shacknews a rather huge error made with the distribution of Uwe Boll's latest cinematic endeavor, the BloodRayne adaptation featuring such well-regarded thespians as Ben Kingsley and Michael Madsen. The UltraStar employee explained that when he got into work last week, he noticed that the theater had received a copy of BloodRayne. This seemed odd because his particular theater generally shows films aimed more at the arthouse set. "I didn't want to build this and put it in my theater," he said, so he checked up with UltraStar higher-ups. It turns out that a computer error resulted in the print being sent to 5,500 more theaters nationwide than was intended. "The computer that placed the order, instead of selecting just the correct theatres, it also selected 5,500 additional theaters, so they made that many extra copies." Whoops.

I asked how much each print costs, and he said that in total, it costs about $5,000 to have each set of reels delivered to a theater, meaning that as a very rough estimate the total costs incurred may be upwards of $27 million. "And that's 27 million that didn't go into production, didn't go into marketing, it's just expenditure that's sitting there," he said. "I mean, I know Ben Kingsley was in Ghandi, but nobody gets to just throw away that much money for nothing."

The situation is exacerbated by the fact that, according to Variety, the film is only showing on 985 screens, just over half of the original target of 1,900--and that's separate from the thousands of accidental extra copies. Now, the film is already millions in the hole and it earned only $1.2 million during its opening weekend, failing to place it in the top ten. Uwe Boll has had a lot of second chances, but might this spell the beginning of the end for the self-described misunderstood director?"

Source: Shacknews

Uwe Boll is preparing three new movies about games, Far Cry, Postal and In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale.
 
It already "did worse than" Catwoman -- it had a $1.2 million opening weekend versus Catwoman's $16 million.

The story about the 'computer error' can't be true, though -- creating prints of a film is a costly and involved process, not an automated one... you see lots of little movies that can only open in a few theaters because they don't have the money to create additional prints -- they certainly didn't "accidentally" create twice as many copies of Bloodrayne as even the largest blockbuster needs.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
It already "did worse than" Catwoman -- it had a $1.2 million opening weekend versus Catwoman's $16 million.

The story about the 'computer error' can't be true, though -- creating prints of a film is a costly and involved process, not an automated one... you see lots of little movies that can only open in a few theaters because they don't have the money to create additional prints -- they certainly didn't "accidentally" create twice as many copies of Bloodrayne as even the largest blockbuster needs.

Yeah, there's no way that's a computer mistake. Maybe they got shipped somebody else's copy but no way they accidentally produced 5500 extra copies. Someone would have noticed..."Hey, instead of 1900 copies we now have 7400?"

But as for the movie bombing...wow there's a surprise. Speaking of bombing movies...is Aeonflux out yet? If so, how did it do? I remember seeing the commercials and even though I like a lot of cheesy lame movies this one looked to set a new low. Maybe it was just a really really really bad trailer...
 
Aeon Flux was generally hailed as the worst movie of 2005. I haven't seen it myself but I can think of a couple of movies that came out last year that were assuredly worse than that.
 
LeHah said:
Aeon Flux was generally hailed as the worst movie of 2005. I haven't seen it myself but I can think of a couple of movies that came out last year that were assuredly worse than that.
So... you haven't seen it, but you're convinced that the movies you saw were worse? That's pretty impressive... I just hope you don't use your new-found omniscience to reveal what's gonna happen in ep.4 of Standoff.
 
Not sure about the quality of AF, but it didn't do all that great at the box office. Box office gross income as of Jan 1st is a bit over $25M, for a film with an estimated production cost of $55M.

(source)
 
And there we have it ladies and gentlemen...another horrible movie that surprised no one in particular. I may catch it one day on a Starz showing but I'll not rent either of these movies.
 
Since we don't have very many movie threads, I guess I'll mention here that I really liked Narnia.. And if you haven't seen it, the teaser trailer for Clerks 2 shows that Ben Affleck will be in it!
 
ChrisReid said:
Since we don't have very many movie threads, I guess I'll mention here that I really liked Narnia.. And if you haven't seen it, the teaser trailer for Clerks 2 shows that Ben Affleck will be in it!

Yeah Chronicles of Narnia looks very interesting, I'm wanting to see it sometime. I will gladly admit I'd never heard of the story until the movie came out so can I ask someone to give me a quick run down of the story (hopefully without any spoilers if there are any)?
 
Quarto said:
So... you haven't seen it, but you're convinced that the movies you saw were worse?

I'm hard-pressed to think of a movie worse than Saw II
 
Oh, now that looks like another game-movie I don't want to see. I played only a very little of the game, so I don't expect that either the story or the acting is better in this one then in for example in Tomb Raider.
Narnia looks interesting, but I jsut can't coop with the child actors. I'v seen the 7minute trailer of it, and it felt a bit dumb, and run-of-the-mill "kids+dog (=lion) saves the day" movie. Please, if I just got it entirely wrong, tell me, cause the VFx looks great enough for me to be worthy of a look :D
 
Dyret said:
I guess people are just getting tired of Uwe Boll.

No, because nobody knows who Uwe Boll is. He's only a name we recognize because the internet treats him like an anticelebrity. Alone in the Dark had an equally terrible showing at the box office. It went on to finally gross less than the Wing Commander movie made in its opening weekend alone.

Maj.Striker said:
Yeah Chronicles of Narnia looks very interesting, I'm wanting to see it sometime. I will gladly admit I'd never heard of the story until the movie came out so can I ask someone to give me a quick run down of the story (hopefully without any spoilers if there are any)?

I read the main book many years ago. Four kids get sent away during World War 2. In the big mansion they move to, they find a wardrobe that's a gateway to a fantasy land that's in trouble.

lorddarthvik said:
Narnia looks interesting, but I jsut can't coop with the child actors. I'v seen the 7minute trailer of it, and it felt a bit dumb, and run-of-the-mill "kids+dog (=lion) saves the day" movie. Please, if I just got it entirely wrong, tell me, cause the VFx looks great enough for me to be worthy of a look :D

I already told you it was good. The effects are very good. Noticeably better than Harry Potter and some other recent movies.
 
No, it will be about some guy that, for no obvious reason kills a lot of chicks that are topless for no obvious reason, and then some other stuff will happen for no obvious reason.
 
Back
Top