box office Tagged Articles at Cinematical
Are the A-List Actors Becoming an Endangered Species?
Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy », Box Office »
There was a time, not too long ago, when the dream was to be on the A-list in Hollywood. Being so high up on the ladder meant great roles, great movies, and box office success. It was a world raining money. Now, however, not only are times tough, but Hollywood is learning a valuable lesson: It's not all about the stars. (Something we wondered about three years ago.)Reuters reports that the movie town is rethinking the millions of dollars they spend to grab the big stars because big celebrity doesn't necessarily equal big box office. They cited the money brought in by The Hangover, District 9, Paranormal Activity, and the Twilight Saga, and the fact that none of these productions had big celebs leading the way. Meanwhile, the star extravaganzas like A Christmas Carol, Surrogates, Funny People, Land of the Lost, Imagine That, and Duplicity boasted big-name talent, but still flopped. Now insiders say that the stars used to big paychecks and gross profit deals are having a heck of a time getting their demands met. As Reuters says: "several films have shown that a great concept or story can trump star appeal when it comes to luring fans."
What a concept! A worthy story being more important than the actors who star? Crazy talk! Could we, dare I say, be headed towards a Hollywood where they don't just write a bunch of crap to have big names appear in (say, Sandra Bullock), and actually put some more effort into the story? Or will we just get greeted by the same crappy stories, but now with unknown names?
Dominate the Virtual Multiplex with 'FlickPicks'
Filed under: Box Office », Fandom »
As much as some people hate to talk about the box office side of the movie business, every film buff at least thinks about the opening haul at one point or another. There are those who idly glance at who landed in first place or who took third -- and then there are those who make financial predictions that require actual decimal placement. Regardless of which side you find yourself relating to, I at least guarantee that every single film geek has looked up showtimes at their local theater and groaned at the line-up, wondering why aren't they showing the new Indie X or how coming Blockbuster Y is still taking up two screens.
Well now there is a website that combines the fascination of what's popular with the frustration of trying to decide what's popular. It's called FlickPicks and it lets anyone who signs up become a virtual movie theater owner for free. It works a little like this: You have Monday through Thursday to choose what films you're going to show and how many screens each film is going to occupy. On Friday FlickPicks locks down your selections and then once the numbers roll in on over the weekend, invisible computer elves calculate how much money your hypothetical theater made and assign points accordingly.
Is the 'Avatar' Budget Approaching $500 Million?
Filed under: Action », Sci-Fi & Fantasy », Fandom », Distribution », Exhibition », 20th Century Fox »
Talking about film budgets is a tricky thing. Talking about the budget for Avatar is an even trickier thing. I recently mused about how Fox's huge gamble had caused four highly-anticipated films in China to flee from its shadow, poising the film on the precipice of a perfect storm of box office success in China that no previous film had been privy to. In doing so I invoked the ire of a good number of commenters, all of whom felt my budget-returning extrapolation from the news that Avatar is set to dominate in 80% of China's screens during its biggest blockbuster season wasn't just a wrong hypothetical, but downright ignorant.
While I still stand by the point of that post - that the hitherto unseen convergence of all the elements behind Avatar's release is going to see unprecedented box office in China - I'll concede that there is no chance that the film makes its budget back from China alone; not with the New York Times now claiming that the film's price tag is breaching the half-billion mark. As with all things budget, however, this number isn't as simple as it looks.
The $500 million is NYT's combination of the estimated $300 million it cost to actually produce the film, the approximately $150 million Fox plans to spend on global marketing alone, with the remaining $50 million being a cushion for the cumulative costs some of the film's partners have already ponied up (such as Avatar Day, whose bill was footed mostly by IMAX). However, even if their newly estimated number is accurate, that doesn't mean that Fox is on the line for the full half-billion.
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.
Does a Big Box Office Haul Really Indicate Audience Intelligence?
Filed under: Fandom », Fan Rant »
"Oh my God, it made $80 million at the box office! I have no faith in mass audiences!" So goes the Sunday night / Monday morning refrain across movie websites, Twitter, and podcasts worldwide. It's a saying that's started to make me bristle a bit. Sure, I wince when something like Paul Blart: Mall Cop rakes in an insane amount of money, week after week ... but how can you really blame audiences for putting something like X-Men Origins: Wolverine at the top of the box office?
The obvious answer would be "They should listen to critics, and avoid the film!" But that's a dicey thing when it comes to popcorn fare, because a lot of it doesn't receive stellar reviews from critics, but it's still an enjoyable, pulpy ride. I don't subscribe to the idea of turning one's brain off once you buy your ticket, but there's something to be said for watching a movie like Crank or Punisher: War Zone once in a while.
Audiences also don't know when they should listen to critics -- or who they should listen to. Sure, general audiences should find it in their mouse-fingers to seek out Rotten Tomatoes but a lot of people hear only the soundbites of Ben Lyons (or their local equivalent), or see the blandly 'It's stupid, but you'll probably like it" reviews in their newspapers. I know a lot of otherwise intelligent people who go see a bad summer flick because they'd read a good review in the newspaper or heard it on the radio.
The obvious answer would be "They should listen to critics, and avoid the film!" But that's a dicey thing when it comes to popcorn fare, because a lot of it doesn't receive stellar reviews from critics, but it's still an enjoyable, pulpy ride. I don't subscribe to the idea of turning one's brain off once you buy your ticket, but there's something to be said for watching a movie like Crank or Punisher: War Zone once in a while.
Audiences also don't know when they should listen to critics -- or who they should listen to. Sure, general audiences should find it in their mouse-fingers to seek out Rotten Tomatoes but a lot of people hear only the soundbites of Ben Lyons (or their local equivalent), or see the blandly 'It's stupid, but you'll probably like it" reviews in their newspapers. I know a lot of otherwise intelligent people who go see a bad summer flick because they'd read a good review in the newspaper or heard it on the radio.
Poll: How Much Will 'Star Trek' Make This Weekend?
Filed under: Sci-Fi & Fantasy », New Releases », Paramount », Remakes and Sequels », Box Office Predictions », Polls »
Will young people in space outperform a Canadian dude with claws? No one will know until J.J. Abrams' Star Trek begins screening to the general public tonight, but early reviews continue to be overwhelmingly positive and online advance ticket sales have been brisk, with Fandango claiming in a press release that the film is responsible for 91% of their daily ticket sales. Still, is it only geeks and cult fans who are excited about Star Trek this weekend?
"Let's be realistic: This is not a sure thing," says Logan Hill at Vulture, pointing to the lack of "bankable stars" and his opinion that "it's a reboot of a franchise that's become little more than a punch line to anyone over the age of 25, and simply isn't a firsthand reference for anyone younger." Also, heavy-duty advance online ticket sales were also reported for the R-rated Watchmen, which "underperformed estimates" by drawing (only) $55 million.
Of course, Star Trek is rated PG-13, and is shorter than Watchmen's 163-minute running time. Our own Matt Bradshaw predicted Star Trek would make $82 million this weekend, a few million less than Wolverine's gross last weekend. Other predictions so far have been more modest, ranging from $40 million (Box Office Prophets) to $65 million (Steve Mason at Big Hollywood) to $74 million (Box Office Guru). Variety, however, thinks it can top $100 million.
What do you think? Will Star Trek under perform, drawing only from its fan base? Or will it be an across-the-board, popular smash this weekend? Take our poll and let us know: Which estimate is most likely to be right?
Is 'Delgo' the Biggest Flop of All Time?
Filed under: New Releases », Box Office »
There's a story making the rounds -- originating, as best I can tell, with this post over at Yahoo! Movies -- making the case that this past weekend's minor computer-animated effort Delgo is, to paraphrase, the biggest wide-release bomb of all time. Is that right? As usual, it depends on how you look at it. If you limit your scope to films released in over 2000 theaters -- Delgo occupied 2,160 -- then the raw numbers back up this claim: Delgo's $237 weekend per-screen average and $511,920 gross easily top the chart of all-time worst openings in that category. On the other hand, just this September a quasi-documentary called Proud American opened on 750 screens and managed an even more impressive $128 per-screen average. And Delgo even has competition this December: just the week before, the Alan Rickman action comedy Nobel Son opened on 893 screens to a comparable $374 per-screen average.
Both Delgo and Nobel Son were distributed by Freestyle Releasing, an independent distributor-for-hire. Freestyle fared slightly better with The Haunting of Molly Hartley over Halloween and much better with this summer's limited-release Bottle Shock. The lesson here, I think, is that unless you've got something that's easy to market (e.g. the PG-13 horror of Molly Hartley) and the budget to market it, an independently-arranged wide (or semi-wide) release is a very dicey proposition. Trying to shove a low-profile animated family film into the marketplace during the holidays is even dicier.
Delgo may be the biggest wide-release flop of all time, but no one will remember its failure like they remember Cutthroat Island and Last Action Hero: not because Delgo was low-budget (it reportedly cost $40 million), but because it was, for all intents and purposes, set up to fail.
'Twilight' Has Monster Opening Weekend!
Filed under: Box Office », Fandom », Newsstand »
.jpg)
The numbers just rolled in, and it looks like Twilight has grabbed a whopping $70.5 million in its opening weekend, slightly above earlier estimates of $45-65 million. For a film catered more toward young female audiences, these numbers are pretty damn impressive -- especially since these sorts of openings are usually reserved for big-budgeted action/superhero blockbusters featuring big names and lots of explosions. Twilight, however, starred the relatively unknown indie hopper Kristen Stewart and equally-as-unknown Robert Pattinson -- both of whom will no doubt return for the sequel, which was officially announced yesterday. Despite the Twilight army, Disney's Bolt still managed to squeeze out $27 million for third place, while Quantum of Solace dropped to second place with $27.4 million.
We'll have a full box office report tomorrow morning. Let us ask you this, though: Are you surprised at Twilight's $70 million take, or did you expect the film to make more?
Random Facts: Woody Allen at the Box Office
Filed under: Comedy », Drama », Box Office », Fandom »
Woody Allen's latest film, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, has earned mostly rave reviews, and it's doing well at the box office -- or, that is, it's doing well for a Woody Allen film. It opened in 10th place for the weekend of Aug. 15-17, the first time an Allen film has cracked the top 10 at all (let alone opened there) since Small Time Crooks, eight years and eight movies ago. And Small Time Crooks was the first one since Husbands and Wives, eight years and eight movies before that. I wouldn't say there's ever been a time when Allen's films routinely made the top 10 -- he's always managed to release a total flop here and there to break up the streak -- but it certainly used to occur much more frequently than it does now. Manhattan opened at #1 in 1979, possibly the only Allen film ever to do so. (I can't find specific weekend data on Annie Hall, which is the only other likely candidate.) Various others have spent at least a couple weekends in the top 10. Still, no Allen film has ever been what you'd call a "blockbuster." His biggest hit, Hannah and Her Sisters (1986), made $40 million and never got higher than 5th place at the box office. Granted, if you adjust for inflation, Annie Hall's $38 million would be about $120 million today, and that would be considered fantastic for a low-budget indie. But it's still not commensurate with how beloved and acclaimed Allen is.
Consider this: Woody Allen has directed 38 theatrical features. The Dark Knight has made more money than all 38 of them combined. Isn't it strange that one of the most iconic American filmmakers of all time can barely scrape together a crowd to actually watch his movies?
Weekend Box Office: 'Sex and the City' Takes the Weekend; 'Strangers' Debuts Well
Filed under: New Releases », Box Office »
"Next week is all counterprogramming, with the only wide debuts being the R-rated Sex and the City and The Strangers. Expect Indy to hold on to the crown." - me, last MondayYeah, good work, Nostradamus. "Counterprogramming" -- can you believe this idiot? Who let him on here, anyway? Far from headlining mere counterprogramming, Carrie Bradshaw delivered a swift kick to Indiana Jones' man-crotch, winning the weekend with $55.7 million to Indy's $46. Sex and the City's bow is the 5th all-time best opening weekend for an R-rated film. I -- and, in my defense, many others -- obviously underestimated the size of the "niche" audience eager to watch the big-screen finale of the far-too-popular HBO show. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, meanwhile, fell a hefty but hardly uncommon 55% from its first weekend, and it looks likely to eventually overtake Iron Man. That film, in turn, continues to have remarkable legs, dropping only 32% and bringing its cume to $276.6 million. And, since I caught flak for not mentioning it last week, I'll say that What Happens in Vegas is also holding very well, despite sucking.
Rogue Pictures will be very pleased with the debut of The Strangers, a low-budget, R-rated horror film. $20.7 million is a very good number, matching that of the PG-13 Prom Night 8 weeks back. And a #3 turn in last weekend's marketplace is nothing to be ashamed of. Horror films tend to plummet pretty quickly after the first weekend, but word-of-mouth on this one might actually be okay; we'll see. A bit further down the chart, Tarsem's cult-ready The Fall performed unspectacularly in its first weekend of semi-wide release, taking in $361,000 on 108 screens.
Click through for the weekend's top 10, and a couple of very sheepish thoughts about next weekend.
Black Friday Movie Deals: Best Buy
Sex and Nudity Don't Draw You to the Movies?
What Makes a Real Vampire?
Robert Downey Jr. Wants to Retire?
Jaycee Dugard's Horrific Story to Get a Sleazy Adaptation
_thumbnail.jpg)
