For movies, frontloading is the name of the game. Movies open bigger and fall faster than ever before. Whereas in the past a big movie would likely be prominent in theaters for weeks at the very least, if not months, nowadays it's not too suprising to see something open large and be gone from public memory within a month.

This has been cited as one of the examples of the problems with the theatrical experience. And it will tend to be news if something opens large and crashes hard. What's ironic is that this is exactly the behavior that studios want from films, because it makes them the most money, proportional to the total take. Studios get the lions share of the receipts from the early weekends, later weekends tend to go to the theaters.

Of course, there's a case of diminishing returns. No matter how much you make percentage wise, if you cut the total take by a third, you're not going to get as much.

Some time back, I became interested in the biggest opening movies which failed to get to x benchmark. I was mostly curious to see what was the minimum a movie could make after an opening of at least $30 million or whatever.

So, tracking down from the top of the chart, Spider-man is the biggest opening movie. Since it grossed $403 million, it's the biggest opening film to fail to get to any benchmark above that. Which is fine, because nobody cares.

Star Wars: Episode III is the biggest opening movie to fail to get to $400 million It's $108.4 million opening propelled it to $380. Curiously, the percentage of its total gross that came from the opening weekend (28.5%) is almost exactly the same as Spidey's (28.4). Of course, Sith opened on a Thursday, and pulled in $50 million that opening day, so we can probably take that similarity with a grain of salt.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, which opened to $102 million last November, only grossed $290 million... which makes it the owner of all benchmarks from $300 million to $400 million.

Its immediate predecessor, Prisoner of Azkaban, opened to $93 million two years ago, but only grossed $249 million... which means it's (barely) the biggest opening movie to not get to $250 million.

And entirely because of thsoe two HP films, the overblown heap that is The Matrix Reloaded doesn't have anything notable to its name. Which is both good and bad, I suppose.

X2 failed to get to the $225 mark, which means its $85 opening is the biggest of all films to get to that.

The Day After Tomorrow just -barely- edges out Planet of the Apes as the biggest opening film to fail to reach $200 million. Of course, it's a minor quibble. The two films had opening weekends less than a quarter million apart, but Day After Tomorrow earned $6 million more in the end.

And now we reach Hulk. Which is truly notable beyond any other film yet mentioned. The previous films are just signs of the times. They have all done respectable business and are mostly rememebered well, at least for that business. Hulk, though, cannot and will not shed its skin as a disappointment, if not a bomb. Its $62 million opening accounts for a whopping 47% of its total gross... It earned just $132 million. This is bad by any measure, and despite some words from Universal a couple years ago, there won't be a sequel. Of course Ang Lee is off directing gay cowboys and barely failing to get Oscars, so he's probably not hurting too bad.

Of course, it's notable that outside of the Spidey films, Marvel movies tend to typify bad legs. Even the well regarded ones, like X-Men, don't stick around for long. They are almost the perfect indication of what movie performance is like nowadays. Quality, it seems, is almost irrelevant to the performance of a film. Consider X-Men's opening and total ($54/$157) to Fantastic Four's ($56/$154). It's close enough to be nearly identical, and the two films actually matched each other quite well throughout their runs. Yet, while X-Men is well regarded, FF is typified as one of the problem comic book films. (Not by me, though. I enjoyed it... and it's got Jessica Alba. H_H) I wonder if it means anything that there's a 5 year difference between the films, during which we've seen movies open bigger and bigger and fall faster and faster... yet here's one of the "bad" films which can almost exactly match the pace of the better regarded one. No matter what I read, I couldn't see FF as a disappointment. It's got a sequel... somewhere. I think.

As box office totals shrink, it's easier to find films that get the bulk of their business from the opening weekend. Just below Hulk (although still not in its class, because let's be honest... you have to try to do that badly.) We've got a Trio of films which failed to get to the $125 million mark. Van Helsing, 8 Mile, and The Village. All opened within $1 million of each other, around $51 million. Van Helsing finished with just over $120 million. 8 Mile got $116, while The Village got $114. While Van Helsing gets the crown, it's just barely doing it.

If we're looking for the biggest opening to fail to get to $110, that goes to Batman and Robin. Which is also the oldest film yet mentioned. Before Hulk took its crown, it was probably the film most recognized as a bomb.

And, of course, we come to the whole point of this article. What does it take to guarantee a film gets to $100 million. For a long time, I thought it was $40 million. After all, Daredevil, loathed though it was, opened to that, and it passed the century mark, with $102 in the bank.

It's no longer the case. Daredevil specifically opened to $40,310,419. However with $40,222,875 is Scary Movie 4. And while it's still in theaters, it only has $87 million to its name. It's not going to get to $100 million pending an act of God or Gates. Of course, it's still performing better, leg-wise, than Hulk.