‘Fireproof’ Earns Twice As Much As ‘Religulous’
Oct 27, 2008 by Vic HoltremanHow has Fireproof managed to make TWICE as much money as Religulous at the box office?
I went and saw Fireproof this weekend, the low budget Christian film starring Kirk Cameron. It cost all of $500,000 to produce thanks to tons of volunteer efforts and community donations. As far as I know Cameron refused a paycheck for appearing in the film.
It was written, produced and directed by Alex Kendrick, whose previous two films Facing the Giants and Flywheel (neither which I’ve seen) are both also Christian-centric films.
I haven’t seen Bill Maher’s Religulous, and honestly, have no desire to do so – at least for a few months. All this electioneering has my blood pressure spiking already and I don’t need to see Maher’s smarmy approach to belittling religion to put me over the top. Maybe once the election dust has settled and it’s no longer saturating the web I’ll feel up to it.
Expectedly, Religulous has been getting much better reviews than Fireproof. I can’t say I’m surprised due to a number of reasons – I’m sure the production values on Maher’s film are far higher than on Kendrick’s, and the Fireproof cast was populated by members of the local church… no professional actors outside of Kirk Cameron. And of course the subject matter and message of the film doomed it to critical panning overall, regardless – although I was surprised to see at least moderate recommendations from a couple of critics at the NY Times and Variety which looked past the obvious at the emotional impact of the film.
Bill Maher conducts an interview in Religulous
What I found to be completely unexpected is the fact that Fireproof has earned twice as much at the box office as Religulous.
Both opening weekend box office numbers and total to date are as close to two-to-one as you can get. On their respective opening weekends (one week apart), the barely advertised Fireproof earned $6.8 million while the highly advertised Religulous earned only $3.4 million. As of the date of this post the numbers are $23.6MM vs $10.6MM.
And let’s not even get into the profit margin side of things. Fireproof had an ROI of $46 for every dollar spent while Religulous earned $4 for every dollar (probably less, if marketing is considered).
Granted, Fireproof opened on 60% more screens, but over ensuing weekends its numbers have dropped by a far lower margin due to word of mouth than Religulous.
A friend of mine who runs a movie news site asked (incredulously) how in the heck a movie like Fireproof could have a $6 million opening weekend. I would add to that how the heck did it manage to trounce Bill Maher’s anti-religion movie?
Sure, I’ve heard the “call to action” reasoning – churches exhorting their members to go out and see the film and support it. I can tell you that I heard no such announcement or mention at the church I attend. I didn’t even know about it until after it had already opened. Of course I’m not saying that didn’t happen, just that it didn’t happen at my church.
Kirk Cameron rescues a child in Fireproof
What I do find interesting is that the movie has held up so well – this must be attributed to good word of mouth. Believe me when I tell you I was not looking forward to watching it, but my wife and I and another couple made a day of it, driving up to Park City. I was expecting a cheesy movie along the lines of the Left Behind movies – and while the acting was far from great (with a few surprising exceptions), I found the film to be much better put together than I expected.
And personally, I found it extremely moving and that surprised me big time.
Now if someone shows up to see this film who is a hard core athiest or an anti-religion/anti-Christian person, they’re going to hate it and its heavy slathering of “the message” starting at about the half way point. However for those who can set that aside, you’ll find a very emotionally intense film about the attempt of an estranged husband trying desperately to keep his marriage together.
I cannot speak to the content of Religulous – I’m sure it was quite enjoyable for fans of Bill Maher. But I’ll tell you what’s fascinating about all this to me… I spend a LOT of time online, and it gives one a skewed view of the population. I would say that people who don’t believe in God and are vocal about it probably outnumber believers by at least 5 to 1 online. There’s nothing scientific about that number, it’s just my impression from blogs and social networking sites that I frequent.
I say it’s skewed, because if that translated to “the real world” Religulous should have beat the crap out of Fireproof at the box office. By a very wide margin – especially considering TV commercials, trailers, etc.
But that didn’t happen.
I know that spending a lot of time online can cause us to think that this little “bubble” represents everyone out there, so maybe we should step back once and a while and remember that it doesn’t.
To some that will be disconcerting (and they’ll no doubt deny it), but to others it’s a comforting thought.
Around the web:
Loading ...
Don’t get me wrong, I know not ALL atheists are spiteful, like I said, I feel EVERYONE is free to believe what they want, including atheists. But I stand by what I said that the core of atheism is standing AGAINST religion instead of for anything. Supporting science and evolution and all of those things DON’T make you an atheist. That simply makes you an agnostic, and some religious people also believe in all of those things. The only time you become an atheist is when you denounce the possibility of God’s existance.
a⋅the⋅ist [ey-thee-ist]
–noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
While simply believing in science and evolution, but not believing in any specific God or any supreme being would make you agnostic. By not believing in, I don’t mean you are against the idea, just that you’re not specifically for it.
ag⋅nos⋅tic [ag-nos-tik]
–noun 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Think about it this way. Let’s pretend that there are no religions. Let’s say that, for some reason, in all the years it took for us to evolve into what we are today, nobody was curious enough about things they don’t understand to create a religion. So there is no Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Wicka, Scientologists, whatever, lol. I’m sorry, but there would also be no atheists. Atheism RELIES on the existance of religions and concepts of gods or supreme beings to denounce for it to exist. Now I know your argument for this, if there were no religions, EVERYONE will be atheists. I do not believe that is correct. I believe in that case everyone will be agnostic, because they don’t know, they don’t pretend to know, nor do they even think about it. To further support this, look at your own words:
Kane wrote:
“As an Atheist, I actually am open to the idea of a conscious creator… ON THE CONDITION…”
I personally believe that you have mistaken yourself for an atheist, but you are, in fact, an agnostic, since you are saying you are open to the idea of a conscious creator. Even though you are giving conditions and criteria, a true atheist believes that there is no such thing, regardless of conditions or criteria.
But like I said, not all atheists conduct themselves in an insulting way. Some people are atheists but simply keep their beliefs their own opinion and do not express them against religious people in an antagonistic manner. But sorry to say this, but EVERY true atheist I’ve ever met have always been very spiteful and hateful in the way they confront religious people or the concept of religion. Most don’t antagonize the people themselves, but if the topic of religion is ever brought up, they have nothing but negative and condescending things to say about the religion and the people who follow them.
But just to set things straight, I’m agnostic, I’m not religious. I 100% believe that we evolved from an ape that was very similar to the chimpanzee. Most people misunderstand the theory of evolution as saying we evolved from the chimpanzee, it doesn’t. In fact, both humans and chimpanzee’s evolved from the same ape, but the chimpanzee remained very similar while we took a path not taken by the rest of them.
Which brings on the arguments over which theory of human evolution people choose to believe. There has to be isolation for us to evolve in such an independent way from the others. The Savannah theory is WRONG, sorry to anyone who still believes it, but it has been proven wrong for many years, but nobody has another theory to replace it with, so the scientific community is hesitant on making any kind of public campaign to denounce the savannah theory. Well, I don’t want to hijack this any further, but I actually like discussing that, so if you would like to discuss issues with evolution, email me at slagman5@yahoo.com as long as you promise to keep it friendly, lol.
Well Oren, I’ve read several people say that he wasn’t too critical or seemed like he was out for blood on this one. So having not seen the film, I’ll have to conceed to your assessment of the film. I’m still not going to see it, but simply because I’m not too interested in these wannabe documentaries I like to call mockumentaries we see in theaters lately… blame Michael Moore…
Human life could have also been seeded on Earth by alien beings, that took the very chimpanzie dna, and altered it with 5 other life forms.
The end result “US”. They drop off some text books next thing ya know over time those text books become lore…
We will all find out one day,,,
People who saw fireproof have little taste in movies. They don’t care that it’s not good, they just care that it reaffirms their own beliefs. Not as many people went to see religulous because they know its not great, and have no interest in seeing a bad movie.
I haven’t seen either, but anticipate seeing both, probably Religulous more than Fireproof.
To be honest I don’t think any of this is a religious matter. I know a large amount of religious people who watch documentaries I have on and read books which I read (mainly anti religion + anti politis stuff).
Someone said before that it is probably due to Fireproof being a movie and Religulous being documentary.
@Kane : I see someone reads /watches Richard Dawkins
@fracaso089
I saw Fireproof and I happen to think its quite good, religion aside. I happened to see it with an atheist friend and he also thought it was good.
Obviously you have some pretty strong opinions, but when they insult others they really dont have a place here.
Can’t we have a civilized discussion about movies without insulting people who disagree with our opinions. Dissenting opinions are not inherently wrong, they are just different.
Btw, I think the word “atheism” may have described decades ago what is currently contained in “atheism” and “agnosticism;” it may have meant both “I don’t believe in G-d” and “I don’t know…” I say this because I read an Ayn Rand essay years ago (and I’m not recalling it well) where she described herself as atheist, but explicitly said she doesn’t believe “G-d doesn’t exist,” just that she doesn’t know either way. I’ve tried to look this up (well, on Wikipedia), and haven’t found anything showing this to be the case or not the case.
@Oren Reich
Let me get this straight,,, you don’t believe in G-d… “because I read an Ayn Rand essay years ago?”
Bro, you need to expand your mind,,, there’s plenty of books on the afterlife.
Check out some of Raymond Moodys work. Ghessh,,,
Ken… I’m not going to get into a debate over your classification of my ideology. Religion was my major at Uni, and I’ve spent many years since then refining my views.
Whether or not you happen to classify me as Agnostic or Atheist is inconsequential to me and a simple matter of semantics (and which dictionary you used). But the point I was making is that my acceptance of a “God” would be dependent on irrefutable evidence, in which case that “God” would simply be part of science, everyday reality and nature. And, as I said, I would then continue investigating this “God’s” origin… and so forth… and so on.
Maybe I’m not saying everything I need to to make my points here… since I go over these circular arguments on a weekly basis and frankly can’t be bothered touching on every detail and every piece of fallacious logic every time… but, in my understanding, an Agnostic simply doesn’t know and simply doesn’t care to investigate the issues. That’s fine… but I consider myself an Atheist in that I do believe strongly that no religion on Earth has the answers they believe they have in their holy books. I believe they are myths and legends, written within certain contexts and in very particular societies, not to be taken literally. And – you’re right – without the world’s religions, there would be no Atheism. But the fundamental search for science would remain, as would the idea that people should be free to govern their own existence without interference by other people’s ideologies, so long as they do no harm to others themselves. Yes, Atheism is a reaction to something else… and it tends to be aggressive… but I liken that to angry African-Americans or women when the otherwise accepted (not to mention hateful, spiteful and antagonistic) status quo says it’s obvious they should be denied a right to vote… or earn an equal income… or commune in the same space.
It’s all part of a process… and, for the time being, Atheists just happen to be the next frustrated minority fighting to have what they see as pure common sense heard.
Oh, and by the way… we’ve agreed Atheism wouldn’t exist without religion… but why does it never come up that the idea of “God” might never have existed in the first place without the earliest neanderthals looking at the Sun and trying to explain the world?
Religious belief has been evident – and ever-evolving – since the dawn of humankind. I’d like to think we’re still evolving to realise the closest thing we may have to “God” is the unconscious nature surrounding us, not some angry and spiteful deity spending his time judging everybody and telling them why otherwise harmless acts are “bad”.
I have a friend who is an atheist.
she has many friends of faith ,
She kind of breaks the stereotype of the angry non believer.
She is actually one of the nicest people I know .
great sense of humor too.
“Learning” politics or religion at a university is about the worst thing to do. I remember University. I got thrown out of a class because I disagreed with a theory the professor was teaching. You get their side of the story and only their side.
I still don’t understand the evolutionary need to appreciate art and beauty, how reason “evolved” and why (apparently) no other species wastes its time pondering its own existence or wondering where it came from.
Of course neither side is going to convince the other here, so any attempt to do so is really pointless.
Vic
Ken you constantly surprise me…
Anyway, please stop playing the pity card. I’m an agnostic, I believe I’m a minority. I’m also a minority in terms of my race and I was a minority in my political views in my University when I was still in earning my BS. Being a minority doesn’t hurt you unless you’re really concerned about what others think about you. I fought my point of view because they were MY beliefs. I can care less if people agreed with me or not. In fact, I felt being a minority in my opinion was an advantage in keeping persepctive. I don’t have a circle jerk that would eliminate checks and balances and allow for a more objective view on your own opinion so you can learn and adapt if need be.
So seriously, stop playing this whole “we are the frustrated minority” bit. It doesn’t win you any favors.
Not trying to be mean, just saying so the discussion can be more focused.
Well Vic, on the flip side, that curiosity of where we came from has also helped develop religion.
Nothing wrong with curiosity… Well, except when you’re a cat and it kills you…
Wow… I really need to stop illustrating points by making simplified, sweeping statements and utilising the narrative power of exaggeration. I guess I make the mistake of assuming people understand irony/sarcasm and can read between lines.
(By the way… I’m aware the arrogant-sounding me is surfacing, so I’ll bow out soon) ;o)
As for me studying religion at Uni… I don’t know how tertiary education works where you studied, Ken, but where I went they don’t “teach” you their biased opinion… they give you facts and readings from many different perspectives and ask you to discuss them amongst the class (you know… form your own opinions and justify them in writing that is susequently marked by two people). It’s a pretty scary world if – by the time you’re at university age – you can be kicked out of class for disagreeing with someone whose job it is to simply guide critical thinking, no matter which direction it goes in.
And just to throw it out there… Vic… how do we actually know for certain that humans are the only creatures to ponder their existence? Has a method been discovered to tell whether a being is pondering something or not? Or have we just grown up to assume this supposed “common knowledge” is indeed a fact? (The world is flat and cigarettes are harmless, anyone?) We know animals don’t have the means to communicate their thoughts to us… but that’s as far as that goes. I guess the “common knowledge” does affirm that other unique human feature, though: the presumption that we’re “special”.
Oh… and Ken… that bit about irony/sarcasm and exaggeration was in reference to your “pity card” statement.
I don’t pity myself – I’m just aware that the non-religious are one of the most silent minorities at this point. That’s not something I sit home and cry over. It’s a fact.
I really can’t stand Maher. I am an atheist, but I have no interest in seeing his film. I wish that I could say that I would be able to put my views aside and enjoy fireproof, but in all honesty I would probably be rolling my eyes during the entire movie. I’m just not sure I could get beyond the message. Just trying to be honest.
Also I would like to add though I may not believe in God I am still a republican and this makes yet another person voting for Mccain that can use the computer and I make decent money doing it.
LMAO, “silent” minority??? They are the ones that cry about everything. “Oh, they have In God We Trust on the dollar,” “Oh, you say ‘under god’ in the pledge of allegiance,” “Oh, they have a statue of Moses with the ten commandments in front of the court house,” wah wah wah wah wah.
Yah, they are soooo silent…
And if you don’t think your professors are skewing the information they assign as “required readings” so what you get out of it is leaning toward their own personal views on the matter, then you’re either really naive or you simply believe in the same point of view as the professor. You know the only unbiased news source is the one you agree with right?
Do you consider University of Illinois in Chicago and Northwestern University good schools? Of course they are, but they still have William Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dorhn as professors there. Are you going to say that you don’t think they are a bit “biased” (more like extreme) in their teachings? Oh yah, I’m sure they are 100% objective and they let their students decide… Riiiight… haha
So I don’t know about the people you have as professors where you are, but where I am, they are human beings with their own biases and opinions. Everyone is biased and prejudiced in their own way, but maybe they are magically immune to that where you are since you must live in that perfect town you always see on the Walgreens commercials…
@ Daniel
Uh oh, be careful, haven’t you been watching the news? If you vote McCain you must be racist. They might scrutinize your personal history and check if you’ve paid your taxes if you try to question anything.
If you didn’t already when Vic mentioned it before, maybe now is a good time for you to look up the “straw man”.
And with that, I’m off… I can see it getting far too personal shortly and I’m learning self control.
Shlater!
I personally hated Kendrick’s other movie “Facing the Giants”, and I am a Christian. I’d watch “Religulous” long before I’d ever watch “Fireproof”, and every time I hear another one of my Christian friends who say they went and saw “Fireproof”, a little of me dies inside.
@JM
I haven’t seen “Facing the Giants” but I certainly can’t understand your comment about “Fireproof.”
Being married and having my own tendency towards anger I thought the movie was very meaningful in showing that he couldn’t turn himself around on his own and had to reach out to God for help.
Vic
I went on a website that asked you a series of questions to find out which religion you are closest to. After answering all the questions, the software came to the conclusion that I was a member of 27 different religions, including Judaism, Jehovah Witness, Mormon, Baptist, Zen, Buddhist, Sikkhism, etc… I call myself Christian but don’t cling to one denomination over another; I have also been known to read Thich Nhat Hanh, a Buddhist Christian.
Having said that, I tend not to spend money on documentaries so if I did have to choose which movie to see, it would be Fireproof. I have seen movies my pastors would slap me on the wrist for but I tend to enjoy movies more that are less vulgar.
I would get into this conversation you all are having pertaining to the facets of religious belief over non-religious but my experience has been this usually ends up heated with no one side gaining favor over the other. I know Vic is policing the thread but I can see some animosity growing between a few posters. All I can offer is let’s all try to be mindful of each other’s feelings. I, for one, have been shaking my head with saddness because for soo many years this battle has been waged with no one side coming any closer to victory. I just pray that one day a person’s opinion about the metaphysical won’t elicit such string, and at times hostile, behavior. This is a site for movies and TV shows; let’s try to remember that, my fellow humans.
Religulous will find its audience on DVD. At the end of the day its still a documentary. As for Fire proof- The creators did a great job marketing it to churches around the country. Pound for pound it will probably be one of the most profitable films of the year as it cost just $500,000 to produce.
I’m gonna have to agree with CinemaBlend.com (9th post from the top), the two films are completely different.
Religulous is a documentary and Fireproof is a drama.
Religulous is not anti-religion as you’re stating Vic. It’s about understanding why religious extremist are so certain of themselves as to take all the little quotes from the bible literally. You see, you can have faith but to be 100% certain of the accuracy of everything in the bible? That is extremism and that is what this documentary is all about. And that’s what Bill Maher has been trying to explain about his documentary in all of his talk show appearances.
Fireproof is a drama about a firefighter going through a divorce and finding faith to help him find back love.
Two different films. Neither is anti-religion. One questions extremism in faith and uses humour to do so, the other tells a story to promote faith as a solution to your marriage (lol).
Sabin, all Maher is doing is finding an argument that is easier to make fun of in order to make a general statement about religion in general. He knows if he makes fun of “normal” religious people, nobody will want to watch the film and a lot of people will be insulted. By using extremists to mock in the film, it brings the audience and at the same time the general message you get out of it is “those religious people are so crazy.” I’m not saying he’s being anti-religion, I haven’t seen it, but it’s a VERY common tactics in these types of hollywood mockumentaries. Look at Borat, they picked real extreme cases of Americans to make fun of on the big screen, but do people go, “oh, those are only the REALLY dumb ones.” No, they see it and say “oh, look how dumb and racist Americans are.” That’s what these people do.
@Sabin
I thought you wrote a fair comment until you added a “lol” to using faith to save a marriage.
I’d love to see some stats on divorce stats between committed Christians and those with less faith.
I haven’t seen Religulous yet, but I guess I will now once it’s out on DVD. I did hear that Maher’s closing statement in the film is about as anti-religious as you can get, even from atheist websites, so methinks you’re not exactly being objective.
Vic
I’ve seen the first two Kendricks movies. Sure, they are thinly produced on paper thin budgets.
Flywheel started out as an internal project for the church whose members acted in the movie. Demand grew and grew, so they released it more widely.
Facing the Giants has a scene that makes grown men cry with joy. I hear sniffles in men’s groups that this has been shown in. It’s a story close to every man’s hart. A guy who’s been just skating along, is provoked to reach inside to find passion he didn’t know was there. The way this scene unfolds is one of the best scenes of any movie.
If anyone has seen this movie, do you agree with me about the death crawl?
boundingsquirrel(at)yahoo(dot)com