"I, Frankenstein" Flops Hard at the Box Office

Alex Co

New member
Dec 11, 2013
1,183
0
0
"I, Frankenstein" Flops Hard at the Box Office


Lionsgate's I, Frankenstein disappoints at the box office where it fails to break $10 million in ticket sales in its debut weekend.

Lionsgate's big budget feature I, Frankenstein failed to sizzle in its debut weekend at the box office managing to only rake in an estimated $8.3 million in ticket sales. The flick, based on the graphic novel by Kevin Grevioux with the same name, has a listed budget of $65 million, which doesn't even include marketing costs and ad campaigns. I, Frankenstein failed to topple Universal's comedy film "Ride Along," which brought in $21.2 million to nestle itself at the top spot once again, and brings the comedy film's total to $75.4 million in just two weeks in theaters.

Listed below are the top ten estimated weekend earners.

1. Ride Along $21.2 million

2. Lone Survivor $12.6 million

3. The Nut Job $12.3 million

4. Frozen $9 million

5. Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit $8.8 million

6. I, Frankenstein $8.3 million

7. American Hustle $7.1 million

8. August: Osage County $5 million

9. The Wolf of Wall Street $5 million

10. Devil's Due $2.8 million

The action fantasy adaptation I, Frankenstein stars Aaron Eckhart (The Dark Knight), Bill Nighy (Underworld) and Yvonne Strahvoski (Chuck) and features Frankenstein's Monster (Eckhart) surviving in the present day where he sees himself caught between a centuries-old war between the Demons and the Gargoyles.

If you want to know more how I, Frankenstein fares, make sure you check out our Escape to the Movies video review [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/8720-I-Frankenstein?utm_source=latest&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all] of the flick where it's called "I, Disappointed."

Source: Box Office Mojo [http://theslanted.com/2014/01/13261/a-dismal-return-i-frankenstein-flops-at-box-office/]

Permalink
 
Nov 28, 2007
10,686
0
0
Ouch. Even by dump month standards, that's pretty bad for an opening weekend. I mean, getting outperformed by a movie that's been out for almost two months (Frozen)? That's abysmal.

Not that I'm sorry, due to what I've heard about it.
 

Dr.Awkward

New member
Mar 27, 2013
692
0
0
You know what Hollywood should try?

A good-old Greek tragedy. No CGI or intense action scenes, something that's actively low-key in atmosphere but is engaging through narrative, yet not so complicated that it loses the majority of its viewers.

So 300, but without the elements that make 300.
 

Roxas1359

Burn, Burn it All!
Aug 8, 2009
33,758
1
0
I will say that I saw 1 commercial of this movie about a week ago, and I will say that it looked terrible in the trailer. Can't say I'm too surprised about this happening.
 

Objectable

New member
Oct 31, 2013
867
0
0
thebobmaster said:
Ouch. Even by dump month standards, that's pretty bad for an opening weekend. I mean, getting outperformed by a movie that's been out for almost two months (Frozen)? That's abysmal.

Not that I'm sorry, due to what I've heard about it.
To be fair, Frozen is actually a good movie.
 
Nov 28, 2007
10,686
0
0
Objectable said:
thebobmaster said:
Ouch. Even by dump month standards, that's pretty bad for an opening weekend. I mean, getting outperformed by a movie that's been out for almost two months (Frozen)? That's abysmal.

Not that I'm sorry, due to what I've heard about it.
To be fair, Frozen is actually a good movie.
So I've heard. However, around where I live, movies are generally out of theaters in a month and a half for the really good ones, so a movie still outperforming a new release two months later is unheard of.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
14,178
3,193
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
All the ads I saw for it make it look pretty bad. All the worst aspects of a re-imagining of a classic.
 

JoJo

and the Amazing Technicolour Dream Goat šŸ
Moderator
Legacy
Mar 31, 2010
7,158
123
68
Country
šŸ‡¬šŸ‡§
Gender
ā™‚
Neronium said:
I will say that I saw 1 commercial of this movie about a week ago, and I will say that it looked terrible in the trailer. Can't say I'm too surprised about this happening.
This, the film looked pretty silly and generic when I saw a trailer a couple of weeks back, no surprises this happened. Hopefully lessons will be learned in future (not likely).
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Dr.Awkward said:
You know what Hollywood should try?

A good-old Greek tragedy. No CGI or intense action scenes, something that's actively low-key in atmosphere but is engaging through narrative, yet not so complicated that it loses the majority of its viewers.

So 300, but without the elements that make 300.
Can they keep the washboard abs, at least?
 

Remus

Reprogrammed Spambot
Nov 24, 2012
1,698
0
0
This movie really isn't as bad as critics make it out to be. Being a work of Kevin Grevioux, it's obviously in the same vein as the Underworld movies, just more flashy. It's a decent popcorn flick, its only real negatives being the constant talk of angels, demons, etc, which even with christianity being so grounded in our society, comes out sounding a bit less believable than vampires vs werewolves. If you're looking for a literal continuation of the Mary Shelley book, this is not it. Oddly enough this seems to be the primary complaint coming from critics. But if you're looking to see demons getting wasted like Blade going on a revenge kick, then sit down, grab a soda, and enjoy.
 

MarsProbe

Circuitboard Seahorse
Dec 13, 2008
2,372
0
0
I've been somewhat confused by the title of this movie. It is called I, Frankenstein, but from what I can gather, Frankenstein himself does not feature in this movie. When I first saw the ad for this on the side of a bus (where else?) with the tagline "200 years later, still alive", I wonder if perhaps Frankenstein had been able to develop his experiments to the point where he was able to extend his own life and was back animating dead bodies in the 21st century. So, either the writers were just ignorant to the fact that Frankenstein wasn't the monster or though that "I, Frankenstein's Monster" would have been more of an unwieldy name.

Interesting, according to the internet, this film is being released here in the UK on 29th January. They must be going for the lucrative start-of-the-week crowd then I take it. I also learned we appear to be getting a sequel to Olympus has Fallen - "London has Fallen". Presumably to be released not that far apart from Downing Street Down, if you could ever imagine a clumsier title.
 

thisbymaster

New member
Sep 10, 2008
373
0
0
I had never heard of it until it was the only thing playing on the IMAX this last weekend. It wasn't very good, I couldn't really root for any one side. Angels, demons or Adam. He doesn't seem sympathetic or even nice. But it did prove that people don't react well the "ugly" heroes.
 

Dr.Awkward

New member
Mar 27, 2013
692
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Dr.Awkward said:
Can they keep the washboard abs, at least?
There will be little muscle definition in the bare torsos you'll be seeing. Also the women are mostly chubby - Especially those who are wealthy and live in nobility. It's authentic after all!
 

webkilla

New member
Feb 2, 2011
594
0
0
It just seems so painfully generic by Lionsgate standards

I mean, do they do nothing but religiously themed action movies? Can't they try something else every now and then?
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Dr.Awkward said:
There will be little muscle definition in the bare torsos you'll be seeing. Also the women are mostly chubby - Especially those who are wealthy and live in nobility. It's authentic after all!
Blasphemy! I demand washboard abs! Especially the women!
 

Not G. Ivingname

New member
Nov 18, 2009
6,368
0
0
MarsProbe said:
I've been somewhat confused by the title of this movie. It is called I, Frankenstein, but from what I can gather, Frankenstein himself does not feature in this movie. When I first saw the ad for this on the side of a bus (where else?) with the tagline "200 years later, still alive", I wonder if perhaps Frankenstein had been able to develop his experiments to the point where he was able to extend his own life and was back animating dead bodies in the 21st century. So, either the writers were just ignorant to the fact that Frankenstein wasn't the monster or though that "I, Frankenstein's Monster" would have been more of an unwieldy name.

Interesting, according to the internet, this film is being released here in the UK on 29th January. They must be going for the lucrative start-of-the-week crowd then I take it. I also learned we appear to be getting a sequel to Olympus has Fallen - "London has Fallen". Presumably to be released not that far apart from Downing Street Down, if you could ever imagine a clumsier title.
I think it some kind of copy/reference to the famous "I, Robot" series.

It is based on a comic of the same name, so there is that.

OT: I didn't think it would do very well, but to open THIS bad? The huge amount of marketing this thing got, I would think it would break the the million mark, but opening SIXTH? Wow.

Somebody is going to get fired over this.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
6,842
1,728
118
Country
USA
JSoup said:
I expected that to happen. Still would like to see it.
I recommend you do. Sadly, Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 5%. That is outrageous.

The comparisons to Underworld are apt. The main heavy in both is Bill Nighey! (Davy Jones from the Pirates movies).

This was a lot more fun than the Underworld movies. The screen is full of fun stuff. Frankenstein's monster himself is an interesting movie character. So wonderful to see a main character NOT be a vampire!!!

Maybe I liked it so much because my expectations were low. But I did. I thought it a blast.