So Far, the Blockbuster Season Isn't As Blockbustery As Usual
Filed under: Box Office
On Friday, Star Trek reached an important milestone when its U.S. box office total passed the $200 million mark. It's the first film of 2009 to cross that barrier, and that fact got me thinking: Friday was May 29. Isn't that later than usual for the first $200 million film of the year? I did some poking around at Box Office Mojo and found that my suspicions were correct.In 2008, Iron Man hit $200 million on May 17. In 2007, Spider-Man 3 did it on May 12. In fact, since 2001, a film has always made it to $200 million before May 29, with only two exceptions: In 2006, X-Men: The Last Stand didn't achieve it until June 11, and in 2001 it was Shrek, on June 19.
To look at it another way, in some years there have been TWO $200 million films by the end of May. The reason for the deficit this year, obviously, is that the early "summer" (i.e., early May) releases didn't take off the way the tent poles in those slots usually do. X-Men Origins: Wolverine (released May 1) was a disappointment, and Angels & Demons (May 15) was never going to make the same kind of money as its predecessor.
Another factor is that May has lacked the major sequels and prequels that have usually been the biggest moneymakers. No Indiana Jones, no Spider-Man, no Star Wars, no Matrix. (In 2003, the first $200 million film was The Matrix Reloaded, which crossed the line on May 25.) If you'll recall, those movies tended to make a lot of money, and they tended to make it FAST. Like, record-breaking fast. In contrast, it took Star Trek 22 days to make $200 million -- and 31 films in history have done it in less time. Even Independence Day did it faster, and those were 1996 dollars.
So what does this mean for 2009 as a whole? Since 2001, there have usually been about six $200 million films per year. (2007 was the freak year, when a whopping 11 movies made that much.) For 2009, we only have Star Trek so far, and the only thing currently in release that might also make it to $200 million is Up. Looking at the rest of the summer, the new Transformers and Harry Potter films will almost certainly do it. And after that ... maybe that Jim Carrey A Christmas Carol thing, with the creepy Polar Express animation? Is anything else even a likely contender? Will 2009 wind up with only three or four $200 million films?
Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams Reunite for 'Mission Impossible 4'
'Big Top Pee-Wee': The Original Benicio Del Toro Wolfman
Spin-ematical: New on DVD and Blu-ray for 2/9
Watch This: Brilliant Oscar-Nominated Short 'Logorama'
Chris Nolan to Lead 'Superman' Reboot!?
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-01-2009 @ 11:29AM
A.J said...
Star Trek, Up, Harry Potter, and Transformers are all pretty much guaranteed over 200 million. The last two Harry Potter films fell just short of 300 million, Half-Blood Prince has higher ticket prices, less competition, and more IMAX screens so it should break that barrier only passed by the first film. Transformers could break or come close to the 400 million mark. Night at the Museum 2 could break 200 million. There is also Ice Age 3 that could, I think differently but the first two both had huge box offices. Funny People could be like Wedding Crashers. You can't forget about New Moon *shudders*. Sherlock Holmes and Alivin and the Chipmunks 2 both could break 200. I think it will be a huge let down but you can't ignore James Cameron's Avatar.
Reply
6-06-2009 @ 5:01PM
TheCritic28 said...
As much as I hate saying this (and believe me, I do) I think Avatar is going to fail at the box office. Has anybody other then movie afficionado's even heard about it? Fox better do some heavy advertising if it hopes to get cash.
6-01-2009 @ 11:36AM
Riley Freeman said...
i think it has to do with 2009 films basically sucking.
wolverine while better than all the xmen movies put together. it wasnt anything special since wolverines story has been told about 2 billion times between comic books and cartoons. aside from superman and spider and batman i dont think anyone else has had his origin told more. it was a waste of a movie the way it was done. The way they SHOULD have done it is filmed 2 films back to back that way we dont have to wait 3 years (the normal delay between sequels) for a second movie. Hugh jackman isnt getting any younger i think they screwed this one up.
star trek was good. I am not a trekkie I didnt watch too much of William shatner era I was more into Jean-Luc Picard era. But I enjoyed the movie. I just found the final fight scene was anti-climatic. Kirk just got his ass beat the entire movie. I dont even think he hit the romulan the whole fight
Terminator wasnt a bad movie. I was entertained but i agree that it didnt make u care about the characters. U only really felt sorry for marcus. I thought it was completely ridiculous that they wasted so much fire power chasing marcus from their home base.
They made John Connor too cold i find. I would have preferred the ending where he finds out hes like marcus or to save his life they made him like marcus.
Reply
6-01-2009 @ 11:47AM
Riley Freeman said...
I hate twilight already. just off of what i did to the mtv movie awards last night.
every freakin category they won so annoying. i wasnt against watching the movie prior but now im just annoyed of it and that lead girl looks like a bit of a snob kristen whatever her name is.
Reply
6-01-2009 @ 12:03PM
Mike23 said...
Eric,
I think you are right with your assessment of 2009 in several ways you mentioned. Although I must add that in several ways 2009 has also been a 'weird' movie year. If we include movies from before the summer season, there are already 9 films that have crossed the $100 million mark. Who would have expected "Mall Cop" to gross 146 mill, or Taken to hit 144 mill, or Fast and Furious to blow April out of the water and make 153 million and still counting. While we've seen some disappointment with movies like Watchmen (107 mill) and some recent 'blockbusters'....those fluke movies from earlier in the year and essentially counterbalanced any disappointment from this summer.... which is part of the reason the year of 2009 is holding on well in comparison to prior years even with price inflation.
I agree with everyone else: i think we will see Transformers, HP6, and UP cross that 200 mill mark very easily and i still believe there is a push that all three will hit above 225 mill... with HP and Transformers crossing 300 million. So sure theyre might not be 5-8 movies making over 200 million this year... but if you look at movies crossing 100 million, it could very well be another record breaking year for that milestone in 2009. There already appears to be at least 10 movies falling around 130-160 million this years..... We'll just have to wait and see
Reply
6-01-2009 @ 12:10PM
David Cornelius said...
"May has lacked the major sequels and prequels that have usually been the biggest moneymakers"
Hasn't every weekend of May seen at least one franchise picture? Wolverine, Star Trek, Angels & Demons, Terminator, Night at the Museum. I'd call them all major sequels.
Reply
6-01-2009 @ 12:38PM
cablebfg said...
I agree David. Those should be considered sequels/prequels or at least part of the franchise of movies, which typically is a big draw. Fast and the Furious was released earlier this year, but it too was a part of a bigger franchise.
Depending on the rating of Avatar (which i havent heard anything about), it could easily pass 200 million. I think The Hangover might also have a big break out, though it passing 200 million might be a long shot considering none of the actors are household names.
This year will be interesting for movies.
6-01-2009 @ 1:32PM
Wanda said...
Star Trek was a good film. Plenty of action and bang for the buck. Night at the Museum2 is pretty good for a sequel, especially one appealing to kids. But the reality is that a lot of people are watching their entertainment dollars more carefully. If you have a family, even a small one, the ticket prices and snack prices can be prohibitive. some folks are waiting until the films make it to On Demand.
Reply
6-01-2009 @ 2:05PM
mcginty said...
everyone seems to be forgetting a tiny film called public enemies. surely im not the only person in the whole world to be busting to see two of the biggest and best actors of their generation face off aghainst a 1930s backdrop? is this not a contender for a huge pull?
Reply
6-01-2009 @ 2:49PM
Jim Dorey said...
AVATAR will count for at least 3 $200m movies, so rest easy lol.
Reply
6-01-2009 @ 7:40PM
Nifty said...
I'd like to suggest that a 2-weeks difference (between this year and previous years) is not THAT substantial a change. Especially given the fact that the country is gripped in a recession and we have some massive unemployment and fiscal drama going on. Kind of makes sense to me that the movie industry would be feeling the effects just a bit.
Reply
6-02-2009 @ 1:32AM
kbradsher said...
There is something different about this year that has not been mentioned and that some people are unaware of. Last year at ShoWest (the big shindig where theater owners and the studios get together every year) it was announced that starting this year the studios would make a gradual move away from the tentpole marketing startegies and start spreading the big releases out a lot more. Take a look at the release schedules and you will see that they are doing just that. Thats why there are many movies that broke the $100m mark before the summer even started. In fact, even though the first movie to break $200m took until June 1st to do it, the total ticket sales for the year are UP over 10% compared to last year.
Reply