One of my favorite film sites,
Box Office Mojo, doesn't overwhelm the reader with flashy graphics or
gossip: Just good, old fashioned, home-made number crunching and reportage. And this week's numbers serve as a pretty
clear indicator of how much Hollywood economics are changed by DVD. Of the
Top Ten DVD Rentals in Box Office
Mojo's chart, 5 are in their first week of release, which isn't surprising. What is surprising is that when you
compare first-week rental revenue to total box office for those five, you realize that
Match Point, in it's
first week of release, has made 21% of its total box office in rental revenue ... and that's the lowest percentage in
the bunch. Top renter
Aeon Flux's first week rental revenues equal 29% of it's box office;
Tristan and
Isolde is next at 34%;
Casanova is next at 39% ... and
Shopgirl's first-week revenue alone
equals 43% of its total theatrical box office. We all know DVD is a financial powerhouse, but these numbers bring that
cold, hard reality home ... and one that has Hollywood thinking hard about what happens next. Will we see more and more
straight-to-DVD films with A-list names? Or is the promotion and publicity and prestige of a financial release still
worth the expense?
Blu-ray Review: Funny People
See A Little 'Kick-Ass' In This Teaser Trailer
The Geek Beat: Rated M For Mature
'Clash of the Titans' Trailer Now Online!
'Twilight' Fans: Do You Really Want to See 'Breaking Dawn'?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
5-04-2006 @ 1:35PM
Finished.Law.School said...
James Rocchi, the following two statements show your ignorance of the situation: "Will we see more and more straight-to-DVD films with A-list names? Or is the promotion and publicity and prestige of a financial release still worth the expense?"
It is much cheaper to rent DVDs compared to going to the theater. Many of the films you mentioned were horrible. People feel that there is less of a risk (in terms of wasting their money) in renting a shit film compared to going to a theater to watch one. The high rental percentages show this more than anything you've asked. Shit films is the problem more than anything.
Reply
5-04-2006 @ 6:56PM
Nyx said...
I think this shows that movie theaters are too expensive and/or the quality of most theaters sucks. Why do people take a chance on a rental when they won't take a chance to see it at the theater? Because it's cheaper to watch at home and it's more pleasant. If the dvd you rented sucks then you're out, what, five bucks? If it sucks at the theater, then how much did you lose? $20? $30? What with popcorn and a drink being so high, plus the cost of tickets, setting in the middle of noisey people and sticky floors, hell, last time I was at the theater my wife had her purse searched for video cameras.
Why bother? Just wait until it's out on dvd and watch it then.
Reply
5-05-2006 @ 12:19AM
Watson said...
While there can be no doubt that video rental sales are huge, and that DVD's make up a massive amount of movie company's revenue (in 2004 it was a little under 50% -- it could be past 50% by now) It is slightly deceiving to say that the rental revenue was 26% or so of a film’s box office. After all, the movie companies do not receive all of the money that is collected in the box office -- especially overseas, where theaters get to keep a higher percentage of the sales. Similarly, It's doubtful that the numbers for DVD rentals are an accurate depiction of what film companies actually brought in from DVD rentals. No doubt much of that money when to the video rental stores.
Now, it's possible that since film companies receive neither the total box office revenue nor the total rental revenue, the actual amount they receive really is around 26% or so of the original gross, but without actually knowing the percent that they receive from either rentals or theatrical runs, it's impossible to say for sure.
The film industry likes to hide its numbers.
Reply