By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com
Weekend Ouch-stimates – May 7
There are all kinds of stats to play with and even an anonymous e-mail on a gossipy website claiming that Scientologists bought hundreds of tickets in bulk at The Arclight here in L.A., suggesting more sold elsewhere as a plot to raise the Mission: Impossible 3 gross. (There actually is a sane explanation, if the sighting is true
Who’s got the best punny headline concerning the “poor” BO number? How’s about “MI:III’s numbers self destruct over the weekend!”? These are going to be everywhere on Monday morning.
holy shit thats worse than 48 million — the movie is a bomb considering 4000 theatres and all the publicity hoopla and hype…
next week POSEIDON shits on it and takes #1…
$46 mill ain’t nothing to sneeze at…we all know Cruise never has been a solid 50 mill type on opening weekend…once or twice being the exception. It’ll make it over $100 million easily in domestic, and overseas will probably pick up the slack. Cruise has a family to be concerned about right now…he makes money no matter what.
it made 70 million internationally… that means it needs about $30 million to make back its production costs. It’s a disappointing US opening but like Kingdom of Heaven, it will be profitable.
they must have spent at least another $50 million on prints, advertising and marketing alone – judging by all the trailers, events, premieres round the world etc
Edouglas, not sure how you figure that. $70 mill foreign + 50 mill domestic = 120 mill worldwide, minus 30% (theaters get) = $85 mill. Movie cost $150 mill. to make, another $100 mill. to market worldwide. After opening weekend they’re still $165 in the hole, perhaps a bit more if there were profit-deals with actors/producers we’re not aware of. They will break even or a bit better after worldwide theatrical, and then make their money on DVD.
It looks like the Paramount head who had haggled with Cruise and wouldnt budget the film the way Wagner/Cruise prod wanted was wise in retrospect —
You think theatres are getting 30% for opening weekend? I’m sure that Paramount worked it out so they’d get less than that for this week. I’ve heard of movies where theatres only get 10% opening weekend and then more the longer it sticks around.
Doing some quick calcs, I can see it ending with between $300 and 350 in combined domestic and international, which would be around $100 million in profits before DVD, cable, etc.
We’re also forgetting Tom Cruise’s backend…which is probably first dollar gross.
ED… there is no more 90/10. 80/20. 70/30… that quietly ended years ago. It’s 55% flat to studios.
The film cost more than $100 million worldwide to market… as will all major movies this summer doing wordlwide openings.
The megotiations with Cruise didn’t reduce the budget, just Cruise’s day one gross percentage.
Breakeven in theatrical only for this movie is no less than $650 million worldwide.
Of course, Paramount didn’t make the movie expecting profit in theatrical. Breakeven for the studio, adding in all the other revenue sources, likely requires a worldwide gross of about $400 – $450 million.
Mr. Cruise makes a ton of cash either way… the film could lose $50 million – $100 million for Paramount and Cruise would still make roughly $75 million – $125 million for himself and his company.
And if the movie only does $350 million worldwide theatrical, ED, the film would, indeed, lose money for the studio. Absurd on its face, but true.
The most recent cover for Entertainment Weekly features a “big head closeup” of Tom Cruise’s beaming mug and this synopsis: “After a year in the spotlight, is Hollywood’s most bankable star now a $100 million gamble?”
Paramount can’t be happy with that article.
Dave, those numbers are even crazier than I thought. Makes you wonder how much coke it takes to greenlight a sequel to 2 medium-sized hits with a $650 mill. break-even. Makes me wonder even more how much coke it takes to greenlight Superman with a breakeven much higher than that. It’s a crazy business, and these are crazy business decisions.
Am I only the one who doesn’t think Poseidon taking number one next weekend is a lock? There are no big name stars (when was the last time Kurt Russell or Richard Dreyfuss opened at number one?) and the trailers haven’t been all that impressive. Not only that, I don’t see anything in the spots that are working to draw in female viewers. Not even the cache of a Tom Cruise-like tabloid fodder star.
A faceless cast in a quasi-Titanic disaster pic doesn’t scream number one to me.
“The megotiations with Cruise didn’t reduce the budget, just Cruise’s day one gross percentage.”
Dave, is that a typo or Freudian slip?
First… a little clarity… no one greelights these big movies anymore expecting profit in theatrical. So that $650m number is intructive more than serious.
Next… there is a reason why WB laid off half of Superman’s production costs to Legendary Pictures last year.
Thing is, Paramount needed/needs legitimacy and blokbusters tend to do that. Not going forward with M:I3 was impossible for them. And the assumption now is that sequels will improve on previous editions, not drop like in the old days.
On Superman, there was great pressure on WB to get its comic book franchises rolling again. It took a looooong time and by the time McG freaked out, pre-production was well under way. So the movie essentially ate about $25 million to $50 million adjusting to and waiting months for Bryan Singer. Likewise, Paramount ate more than $10 million on mis-starts on M:I3 before Brad Grey was even hired.
But yes, these numbers are nutty. And as we have seen in the last year, they can bring down a studio.
Then of course, we have people who are still bitch-slapping King Kong… which “only” did $550 million worldwide. It’s a funny world.
“Am I only the one who doesn’t think Poseidon taking number one next weekend is a lock? There are no big name stars (when was the last time Kurt Russell or Richard Dreyfuss opened at number one?)”
Warners is probably betting that the special effects are the stars of the film, montrealkid. The same philosophy was used by David Brown and Richard Zanuck when they produced Jaws. Anything to keep production costs down.
Also, actors in need of a paycheck are less likely to complain when the water cannons blast 100 gallons/second in their direction. Petersen is known as a tough director and brooks no complaining on the set.
If MI3 drops by about 50%, Poseidon only needs $23m to win next weekend, which it should be able to do fairly easily, unless people are _that_ uninterested in it.
FYI, Kurt Russell’s last #1 opening movie was Breakdown in 1997, but he did open Miracle to second place in 2004.
Richard Dreyfuss’ last #1 was, as far as I could find, What About Bob in 1991.
I’m not even sure what the Freudian slip would be, Wolfie.
I would correct it, but now that you have made issue of it, I guess I won’t.
Poseidon will do well. The advertising has been strong and is focused on the premise, not the stars. People will not expect as much from it and will be pleasantly surprised.
Just back from the Arclight… and I swear to god the clerk said there was no “middle middle” seats available and yet theater was only ten percent capacity (if even that!). That’s hilarious, Dave.
So I thought the film worked just fine. In fact it kinda wrung me out in a James Cameron way and about 2/3rds of the way in I felt there was enough going on to warrant a second viewing. Abrams never makes the geek director sin of showing off or the television director sin of moving too fast. Momentum seems the be his focus and we are all better for it. And this Maggie Q chick… I am a magnet, honey, and you are steel. Mother of Xenu!
It’ll be interesting to see what in the next few days will resonate for me. There’s always room for nitpicking, but yeah, thumbs up for now.
Poseidon will definitely do at least $30 mill. It may well be about as successful as Perfect Storm, with perhaps a bit less cause no Clooney/Wahlberg, but make up for it because it skews younger (which is good, right?). MI3 at $400 mill. worldwide seems about right to me, with profit from DVD. It’s funny how these tentpole movies are now about studio legitimacy, and not just about profits. Even funnier how they may potentially skew/mis-report foreign numbers in order to find a bright-side to report to the media outlets. It’s become a very complicated game with all this stuff.
Nope, no slump this year…we’re already up for the first third of the year and this weekend is up about 25% from last year. I think the weekend of Da Vinci might have trouble beating the same weekend with Star Wars, but next weekend should also be higher and probably Memorial Day, too.
Re: Poseidon, no Clooney, but it has 6 years of inflation and a larger theatre count. (and no Mel Gibson movie to steal away business)
According to Rolling Stone, MI3 cost $185 million (I doubt they included printing, advertising & distribution.)
Frankly, I don’t see where all the money went, especially considering Cruise wasn’t given a salary. Although it had a lot of locations, it still felt small compared to Brosnan’s Bond movies (which cost an average of 117), it had a terrible ending, and the stunts felt half-baked and they were terribly shot. When you think about it, the stunts were underwhelming compared to the ones in a Cameron movie, or the Die Hards (average budget 64), even the stunts in the Lethal Weapons were more satisfying (Remember the car chase in part 4?)
I think it might make 430 worldwide which is still impressive. Rhames mentioned that there will be a sequel. Let’s hope they get Ridley Scott, Greengrass, Fincher or even Martin Campbell to direct.
The preview for Casino Royale before MI3 started looked bigger, more exciting, and more intriguing than all of MI3.
Just my 2 cents.
Be interesting to see how Paramount budgets INDIANA JONES IV with back enders Lucas, Spielberg and Ford…
BTW I think the 98 minute POSEIDON will gross at least $38 million. It’s gonna be one of thsoe movies where people go ‘were surprised it opened this big, we didnt see the numbers in the tracking.’
The bigger the drop off from MI3 the more POSEIDON gains.
Kurt Russell is a good solid dependable B-lister like Dennis Quaid and Jeff Bridges – he’s a star but not a major one, but he’ll bring in the crowds – men and women find him an appealing leading actor (unlike Cruise who lost a lot of his lustre with both sexes).
I’m a bit shocked though at the Nikki Finch blog article claiming WB was pissed at Peterson for a too long rough cut and that they were done with him etc etc ..
Longer rough cut? The movie now is only 98 minutes long (the original was 117). What in the hell ended up on the cutting room floor?
What some of you are missing about POSEIDON is the fact that it has an amazing name-recognition factor going for it. Sequels and TV spin-offs rely on name-recognition for immediate marketability. If the remake of KING KONG had been called BIG APE, the connection for the audience would have lessened pretty significantly.
Just think, if a respectable director were to announce his/her connection to TOWERING INFERNO, would less-than-A-list stars keep audiences away? Very few, in my opinion.
And to only think, if King Kong had been renamed Monkey Business, they coulda equaled LOTR grosses!
Maybe the reason that MI:III underperformed were due to the complete overperformance of Woo’s MI:II. With the slo-mo, the doves and a complete overuse of the magic identity mask, I can’t come up a reason to ever see that film again. $48 million failures at opening weekend. Jesus…
Skeik… don’t read gossip as news….
Think think people are both overestimating and underestimating Tom Cruises box office appeal. His movies seldom open over 50 mil. But usually end up doing very well anyways. However, I do think people are burned out on him.He should just lay low and do a smaller picture to remind people he actully can be a decent actor.
Off Topic. (but Tom Cruise related)I just rewatched Minority Report last night. The last 20 or so minutes didn’t bug me as much as it did when I first saw it. I wonder if I’d feel the same way about A.I.
Also recall that [i]Minority Report[/i] was supposed to 200 million based on the Cruise/Spielberg names alone. Yes, it was released in the middle of June and faced competition in its opening weekend, but the movie still made less than 150 million domestic.
Poseidon is only 98 minutes? I didn’t think Wolfgang possessed such restraint!
And 10 minutes of that are probably end credits.
Hey–don’t forget who predicted $47 million on another thread! 🙂
Although in classic Price Is Right fashion, Aladdin Sane and Hopscotch were closest without going over, with $45m.
there’s so much talk and hyperbole on the subject, but the math never changes.
tentpole films cost more, and theyre making less. eventually, that means bad news.
Dave,
I thought your megotiation reference was in the general tone of today’s blog heading “Weekend Ouch-stimates – May 7.”
You wrote, Mr. Cruise makes a ton of cash either way… the film could lose $50 million – $100 million for Paramount and Cruise would still make roughly $75 million – $125 million for himself and his company.
I took that to mean Cruise (or his reps) make certain that he gets his share. Why Paramount execs cut this kind of deal is beyond me. For all of his well-reported risk-taking in front of the camera, Cruise assumes none of the burden if and when any of his films stumble at the box office.
Even Soderbergh is questioning the methods of talent compensation.
Welll, “stumble” is an odd word. And the tendency to go “disaster” on M:I3 is a but much.
Bascially Cruise gets paid for the gross and doesn’t have any real responsibility for the cost of the film. That is a bad deal, but its he studio’s fault for putting themselves in that position.
And it’s ironic that SS is questioning studio methods, when he has taken such smart advantage of them. Is he kicking back any money on Rumor Has It?
SS’s a smart guy, doesn’t mean he’s an honest guy.
it’s obvious the studios are starting to see the talent deals have gotten well out of hand.
remember 10 years ago when Carrey got 10 million bucks for Mask 2, and at the time it was one of the biggest paydays ever. In 10 years, the cost has increased to ludicrous levels. But again, the studios are agreeing to these idiotic demands. It makes the studios almost seem desperate.
“And it’s ironic that SS is questioning studio methods, when he has taken such smart advantage of them. Is he kicking back any money on Rumor Has It?”
The New York Times reported (Jan. 18, 2005) that Section Eight, Soderbergh’s and Clooney’s production company, declined to accept the $600,000 producer fee for Rumor Has It when that film nearly fell apart. That’s the only example on record. Whether it’s true or not I can’t say.
It’s Suri, not Sari, bitch!
Next time, if you want to make reference to any alien space baby, then at least do it correctly.
Well, just got back from a matinee performance of the underachiever of the summer. Theater was probably a third full. Lots and lots of empty seats…Lots of people got up to go to the washroom. Or was it the same person in front of me every twenty minutes? Parents! don’t buy your kids large drinks. Their bladders can’t handle it. Anyhow, onto the movie…it was pretty kinetic. I enjoyed it. I like how it started and it never really let up from there…And thankfully, only two rubber masks…
Abrams did good, relying on some old Alias tricks and whatnot. Good start to the summer as far as I’m concerned. I imagine it’s all down hill for the month of May.
“ED… there is no more 90/10. 80/20. 70/30… that quietly ended years ago. It’s 55% flat to studios.”
Really? I guess studios/exhibitors have been good at keeping that major change quiet, because I thought I remember hearing there being that sort of deal for Passion.
Good point about Minority Report.. I remember a lot of people (including myself) expecting an easy $50 million opening on that one. At least this one wasn’t *that* much below the opening of the 2nd movie six years ago. Maybe if it opened later in the summer, it would have done better.
MR was serious sci-fi, marketed at a more adult crowd. It was not made or sold for teens, it was never going to be a Men in Black blockbuster. People saw the Spielberg and Cruise names and expected hundreds of millions, but I’m not sure that the core crew and talent on that film ever expected it to do much more than it ended up doing.
Dave is wrong. Some distribs still settle rentals the old fashioned way instead of taking fixed. But most have switched, as he said.
Poseidon is not 98 minutes. It’s 88 minutes.
Which distributors, Wreck? As far as I know, not the case.
And Wolfy… SS was the one who fired Ted Griffin 8 days in… the whole spin on it “almost falling apart” was yet another examlpe of the NYT printing anything that anyone says on record, even if everyone in town knows it to be utter excrement.
BV
As to deals: some studios do “flat” terms (not always 55%; sometimes more, sometimes less) with some of the larger chains, but conventional descending deals starting as high as 70% are still quite common.
It depends on the film and it depends on the circuit. A flat deal with Regal makes sense…they control 50% of all screens. A mom and pop in podunk Alabama…not so much.
It depends on the film and it depends on the circuit. A flat deal with Regal makes sense…they control 50% of all screens. A mom and pop in podunk Alabama…not so much.
So, MI3 has just essentially opened to BATMAN BEGINS-numbers. Will it have similar legs, given the reasonably positive WOM? Or will it pull a VAN HELSING and fall quickly to $120 million or so?
I suspect a domestic gross of around $160-170… which will lead to a bunch of anxious hand-wringing, but isn’t that hideous a number (though it’s certainly less than most expected).
But one of the reasons for MI3’s failure I think was the burnout to do with advertising. I doubt WOM is gonna have that big of an impact on MI3’s gross because people just don’t seem like they want to see it. I predict $145mil total.
The thing with Poseidon’s short running time is that it can have a lot of showings. Which makes me think that first week will be quite big. $60mil+ perhaps? But then fall in the second. Poseidon though is in a position where it appeals to younger crowds (big action involving nature!) and older crowds (remake of classic! Stars from the last generation!). As I said yesterday, Poseidon just seems to neutral I don’t see how it could only make $30mil. It reminds me of Fantastic 4. It doesn’t look GREAT but it doesn’t look BAD either, and it doesn’t look ANNOYING (like MI3) and so on. I think it’ll be be a success.
At the top of the page, Aladdin said “$46 mill ain’t nothing to sneeze at…we all know Cruise never has been a solid 50 mill type on opening weekend…once or twice being the exception.”
One of those exceptions being MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 2… SIX YEARS AGO. That is why this opening is a big deal. It couldn’t even beat that with more cinemas, more advertising, positive reviews, etc.
Wrecktum check Variet, Hollywood Reporter, Rolling Stone reviews for POSEIDON and well as the Yahoo POSEIDON link – the film is listed at 98 minutes, in some cases 99 minutes.
I don’t know where you got the 88 minute figure mate.
“Wolfy… SS was the one who fired Ted Griffin 8 days in… the whole spin on it “almost falling apart” was yet another examlpe of the NYT printing anything that anyone says on record, even if everyone in town knows it to be utter excrement.”
Yeah, I was aware of that … because it was reported in the same NYT article. Why I wrote that Rumor Has It “nearly fell apart” is that the same article stated:
“On July 29, Mr. Clooney said, Warner executives visited his ‘Oceans Twelve’ trailer and told him and Mr. Soderbergh that they were considering pulling the plug.
“Mr. Clooney said he and Mr. Soderbergh told studio executives they should stop production and cut their losses – near $20 million. Instead, studio executives wanted to find a new director, in part because the studio would have had to bear the full cost of an abandoned project. The next day, Mr. Soderbergh fired Mr. Griffin.”
So, when a studio is “considering pulling the plug” on a movie 8 days into production, a reader may draw a conclusion that the project “nearly fell apart.” If anything is inaccurate about that reporting, hey, feel free to correct the record.
On another note, I do agree that too many analysts and critics are fetching shovels and digging MI:3‘s grave. I’d wait until this coming weekend when Poseidon opens.
Wow… Just think…
If MI:3 opened on Memorial Day Weekend (or on that Wednesday like the previous two) than it likely would’ve made the $65 million opening that would equal the $57 million MI:2 opened with after inflation.
And all of this ‘bomb’, ‘flop’, and other nonsense wouldn’t be around.
Timing is everything. I’m surprised to see X-Men & MI:3 didn’t switch places, since X2 opened summer 2003 big, and Mission Impossible needs a holiday weekend without a big fanbase. X3 needed all the time it could get, I see.
I blame MI:2 being terrible more than Tom Cruise doing XYZ. All of my friends were VERY surprised coming out of MI:3, after expecting the worst. This movie likely should’ve been out two years ago at the latest too. Six year gap with no fanbase (release ’66 & ’88 on DVD already) is damned dangerous.
To repeat, I’m just surprised every last report doesn’t take into account the first two MI movies opened on the Wednesday before Memorial Day weekend.
Come on. Advertise all you want, nothing beats a holiday opening slot.
For me, I think the more interesting story this weekend is “United 93”. Fell of by more than 50%. That’s bad for a well-reviewed movie. was it bad word of mouth? Don’t believe it. I’m curious what others think.
My screening didn’t have Casino Royale in front of it. Bummer. Superman Returns didn’t excite me, and X:Men sure as hell didn’t either.
United 93 simply never had an interested audience in the first place. The positive reviews gave it the audience it had, and Universal screws the pooch again by not releasing the feature into enough theaters. You either start small in a dozen select theaters, and then go 3000+ wide, or just go 3000+ wide. Munich (500) and United 93 (1700) aren’t going anywhere if you half-ass it.
Casino Royale won’t play in theaters until Sony’s DaVinci Code in two weeks.
Mojo has posted the weekend actuals for “M:I3” — $47,743,273.
OUCH!
That’s still a million higher than the estimate on this page.
“this weekend is “United 93″. Fell of by more than 50%. That’s bad for a well-reviewed movie. was it bad word of mouth? Don’t believe it. I’m curious what others think.”
I suspect it acted like a horror film (which i suppose it is) in that it had people who really wanted to see it straight away and many others who weren’t gonna go for the life of them.
You’re probably right, KCamel. It’ll pick up business on video, where people can see it and don’t have to be enveloped by its intensity and bad memories, in the comfort of their own homes.
Plus, they can cry in private. A lot of people won’t go to a movie if they know it’s going to be too emotional and they don’t wanna be wailing in the cinema.
I’m just surprised every last report doesn’t take into account the first two MI movies opened on the Wednesday before Memorial Day weekend.
Variety brought that point up in their weekend roundup. Too bad the Variety website is now subscription-required.