{"id":8287,"date":"2010-04-19T17:06:43","date_gmt":"2010-04-19T16:06:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.filmdetail.com\/?p=8287"},"modified":"2010-04-20T00:29:19","modified_gmt":"2010-04-19T23:29:19","slug":"kick-ass-disappoints-at-the-us-box-office","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.filmdetail.com\/2010\/04\/19\/kick-ass-disappoints-at-the-us-box-office\/","title":{"rendered":"Kick-Ass disappoints at the US box office"},"content":{"rendered":"
[ad]<\/p>\n Despite an expensive marketing campaign and web-fuelled hype Kick-Ass<\/a><\/strong> under performed at the US box office this weekend<\/a>.<\/p>\n There had been expectations that it would hit the Number 1 slot and could have a $30 million opening, but it failed to hit the top slot which was instead claimed by the DreamWorks animated film How To Train Your Dragon<\/a>, which is in its fourth week of release.<\/p>\n * UPDATE 19\/04\/10: Variety are now reporting that Kick-Ass was the Number 1 film of the weekend<\/a> as Lionsgate opened it early on Thursday and are counting those grosses in with their final figure. This allows them to claim the weekend, although the figures are so narrow I still think the studio are going to be disappointed with this opening. *<\/p>\n It is worth pointing out that Kick-Ass was an interesting case study as it was funded outside the studio system and was a rare example of a high profile indie film having a shot at making some decent cash.<\/p>\n Things looked promising as it was being released by Lionsgate<\/a> (the only major distributor outside of the big six major studios) and they have a strong track record in releasing edgier films – like the Saw franchise<\/a> – to a wide audience.<\/p>\n Kick-Ass seemed to be tailor made for them: it looked like a superhero movie; it had lots of carefully cultivated buzz on the geekier websites (AICN<\/a>, CHUD<\/a>); and it was a film that directly appealed to a hipper, younger audience.<\/p>\n This meant that Lionsgate felt they had a potential breakthrough hit on their hands and they spent heavily marketing the film. Some have speculated they acquired it for $25m and $40m on prints and advertising, including TV ads like this<\/a>.<\/p>\n Going in to the weekend it had decent reviews (76 on Rotten Tomatoes<\/a>, 67 on Metacritic<\/a>), online buzz, awareness and it was on a load of screens with little in the way of serious rivals (the main one being the US remake of Death of a Funeral<\/a>).<\/p>\n All this boded well and\u00a0some Hollywood observers were even\u00a0expecting it to make $30m<\/a>.<\/p>\n By the end of the weekend it had only grossed $19.7m<\/a> and had been (narrowly) beaten to the top slot by an animated film that had already been out for three weeks.<\/p>\n Why did it\u00a0under perform?<\/p>\n My guess is that it played well to the male-skewing fanbase but just didn’t connect with the wider audience due to the violence, the in-your-face tone of the film and the fact that it was not a conventional super-hero movie at all.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n