A week into this movie's release, if you checked out the way it was being spun in the press, it was being reported as a 'surprise' hit, in that it was an arthouse film made for just $5 million that made almost all of that back in a week, despite an extremely limited release. The reality is that, when one considers the cast and the many, many millions more spent to promote it -- certainly many times more than the budget -- this was a movie expected to do much better. As for the limited release, over 1000 theatres -- well, that's a lot of 'art house' theatres. The spin suggested that it was doing gang-busters in its small amount of theatres, when the reality is that it was doing about $4K per theatre, which was much less than half of what Oz and the other top earners were doing, per screen.
In other words, the movie is, though not the biggest bomb ever, certainly a money-losing disappointment. (This week's paltry box office supports this.) I only point this out not as much to criticize the movie, but rather to point out how the media are so quick to be spoon-fed the industry's spin on something like this, and then turn around and regurgitate it to the public. The sameness of the reports of Spring Breakers' 'surprise' success in 'limited release' -- even the wordings -- suggests that most media outlets cut-and-pasted the studio's PR release into their websites and newspapers.
I'm not a a big fan of the emphasis of box office results over the more relevant coverage of a film's quality, but if the media is going to play that game, at least do it right, you lazy bastards.