January
21, 2003
New
York Times'
Box Office Error
_____________________________________
In
a Golden Globes follow-up
story, NYT writers Rick Lyman and Laura M. Holson
make the case for the importance of Oscar nominations at box office.
As an example, they cite last year's eventual winner, A Beautiful
Mind:
"Several
executives and analysts pointed to last year's Oscar winner for best
picture, A Beautiful Mind, as an example of what the studios
have been trying to do. That movie opened in a few theaters in December,
expanded in mid-January, won the Golden Globe for best dramatic film,
expanded into more theaters when the Oscar nominations were announced
and went on to earn more than $150 million, the bulk of it in the six
lucrative weeks between the Oscar nominations and the televised ceremony."
In
fact, A Beautiful Mind had grossed $18.6 million in its first 10 days
in 525 theaters. It hit $75 million before receiving a Golden Globes
award on January 20, playing on 2225 screen, the widest it would ever
play. And it was just under $115 million when its Oscar nomiantion was
announced on February 12.
So,
Lyman and Holson's claim that the film made "the bulk of it(s domestic
gross) in the six lucrative weeks between the Oscar nominations and
the televised ceremony," is false. In those six weeks, the film
grossed about $40 million of its $171 million domestic gross or 23 percent
of its total.
This
does not mean that Oscar nominations mean nothing. In the case of A
Beautiful Mind, it helped a big hit become a bigger hit.
Not
a single Best Picture Oscar nominee last year grossed as much as one-third
of their total domestic box office during the six weeks between Academy
Awards nominations and the ceremony.
Miramax
and Paramount better be praying that their films do not behave like
last year's Oscar nominees or they are looking at grosses under $70
million for Chicago and $20 million for The Hours.