Weekend Box Office by Klady – AvaFour
What more is there to say about Avatar? It’s the #2 film all-time internationally by a good amount… but still $340m behind Titanic… which is a lot at this stage. Domestically, it’s $174m behind Titanic… which is still a lot.
The estimated 32% drop is the best of all the wide releases… which is the most remarkable thing in a week of record-breaking weekday numbers. At a weekly 40% drop the rest of the way, ‘Tar is looking about $140m more at the domestic box office. Plenty enough to pass The Dark Knight, but still almost $40m short of Titanic‘s domestic number. But the big question is what the international numbers will be… that is the engine of mega-numbers in this era.
Only 6 of the 23 films to earn $800 million or more worldwide earned less than 60% of their revenue internationally and only one earned more at home than overseas, The Dark Knight. And TDK’s success if all the more incredible for it. (And there is good news for the next Nolan Batman film, as the first two Spider-Man movies were under the 54% mark overseas and #3 leapt up to 63%, as the domestic gross fell, but foreign continued to grow.) Conversely, 10 of those 23 films grossed more than 65% of box office revenue overseas.
The $217.3m domestic gross of the first Jason Lee Chipmunks movie is probably out of reach for Chippys 2, but $200 million is looking reachable… and whether it gets there or not, look for Chipmunks 3 for Christmas 2011. (Also, the first film did $143m internationally. The Squeakquel is at $105m as of last weekend. So that will be a process to watch as well.)
I have no real precedent to which I can compare Sherlock Holmes‘ performance. It’s a good number, but not a great one. It’s an expensive film, but not a problematically expensive one. And it’s overseas numbers are still not fully crunchable. It looks like a slightly better than breakeven movie. WB partnered with Village Roadshow on this one. I would expect a carefully budgeted sequel with the reasonable hopes that the pairing of Downey and Law, which seemed to be the major draw here, will become even more attractive. Personally, I would cut the budget by a third and ask Guy Ritchie to forget big effects and to focus on character. This could still be a terrific franchise.
Daybreakers did well, especially considering the delays in its arrival. It is not a dump. On the other hand, if it were a Screen Gems movie, they would consider this an underperformance, with $20m the target for these kinds of movies over there. (At least, it used to be.)
The disappearance of It’s Complicated from higher up on the leader board is kind of a surprise. It has a good amount of entertainment value, at least for over-50s and at least for an act and a half. But it is apparent that the Nancy Meyers franchise relies heavily on its stars to generate more than the $60 million or so that the “older” base offers. In this case, Streep was a good center figure, but Steve Martin isn’t playing a “Steve Martin character,” undermining his ability to draw. And Alec Baldwin is beloved and brilliant, but not box office. The reverse analysis of the film is that with this cast, a real duel for Streep between these two men, with Baldwin as the surprising good guy and Martin as the unexpected scumbag would have been a much bigger hit. But then again, that would be a Frank Oz film, not a Nancy Meyers.
On Up In The Air, I am wondering whether a shift to a more accurate marketing push might help at this point. Clooney fires people. Kendrick wants to fire them better and more efficiently. People are people, not machines. You would never know that this is a socially conscious dramedy from the ads. I would love to see the spot with Kendrick as the kid villain. I understand not starting there, but the audience who is coming out for the Gentle George rom-com is almost played out and the movie is still behind It’s Complicated.
$7m for Youth In Revolt is not thrilling, but someone needs to look at Michael Cera’s track record. Nick & Nora was kinda brilliantly sold to the music crowd… and still only opened to $11.3m. They were on the right track with Cera doing MTV interstitials with the cast of Jersey Shore, but it was too late in the cycle to become something bigger. A few more weeks… a fake publicized romance between Cera and Snooki… a lot more push on Portia Doubleday as a sex object for boys and a woman in sexual control for girls… that kind of thing. The pressure at Weinstein/Dimension is too intense for finesse these days. But Searchlight, I am convinced, could have opened this movie in the high teens, in no small part by being able to afford to take its time.
Nine is crushing to The Weinsteins. I’m sure they are still hoping they can revive it if it gets an Oscar nod for Best Picture. And I have to say, I still feel better about their chances than I did about Cold Mountain. But this is one of those cases where less than $20m at the box office is going to be deadly with awards voters… on top of people just not loving the movie.
The Weinsteins are an asset that someone should take hold of. Amazingly, one of the best fits would be Bob Iger’s Disney. Dimension fits like a glove. And Harvey’s side, with clear financial boundaries (which is to say, unlimited budgets if funded outside of Disney, very limited budgets if funded in any part by Disney), could be great for Disney. These guys are still brilliant salesmen and with the backbone of a studio, it would open them up to being creative first and financial worriers second again. If I were Paramount, I would be having that meeting too. Par’s marketing muscle and discipline could really help push Weinstein product out there. I don’t really see the other studios as good fits.
Any word from Brooks Barnes yet on whether this hold is “supernatural” enough for his liking?
Anybody remember when Baywatch was the #1 show in the world?…
I’m pretty sure this will seem utterly meaningless to most (if not all) of you, but I found it peculiar that the NYT never ran a review of Bollywood barn burner “3 Idiots.” They make a big deal out of covering every damn movie, no matter how trifling or insignificant it may seem to anyone but the directors’ parents. Yet “Idiots” somehow fell through the cracks. Maybe Rachel Saltz, their regular B’wood reviewer, was on vacation Xmas weekend. It still feels strange, though.
Not a particularly stellar per-screen average for the “Imaginarium” expansion, eh?
While I never expected “Avatar” grosses, I definitely thought it would do a helluva lot better than that.
Hell, “Up in the Air” posted a better p-s; and it was on 1600+ more screens…and in its third weekend of wide release.
This box office result of “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” expansion is respectful for the standard of Sony Pictures Classics’ nationwide expansion.
I think that the final US gross of “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” would not be huge for mainstream standard; some people are going to regard “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” as a huge box office flop in US. But I think this film’s final gross should be good enough to ensure success for Sony Pictures Worldwide Acquisitions Group (which bought this film’s US rights several months after this film played in Cannes).
Sorry but those numbers for Nine……….’yeesh’ i think is the appropriate expression.
A guy in indiewire also made a good point:
http://www.indiewire.com/article/box_office_crazy_flops_weinstein_woes_continue_with_youth
[Don
I’m as happy for “The Blind Side’s” success as anyone…but really sick of the stories calling it the first female-ledd film to cross 200 mil. Umm..”My Big Fat Greek Wedding?” So if it passes that mark I guess you can call it that…except for “Twister.” Yeah effects driven movie I guess but then what’s the top male led movie if you only account for effects? The Passion of the Christ? But that’s based off the best selling book of all time…?
I’m not so sure.
With its “name” cast, Gilliam’s cult rep and the whole
“Ledger Factor,” that’s still a pretty disappointing “Imaginarium” per-screen average no matter how you cut it. Maybe they should have waited a couple of weeks.
Do you really think “Squeakquel” won’t match “Chipmunks 1″‘s $217 domestic gross, Dave? It bagged another $16.5 million this weekend, and has already reached $178-million.
Seriously. $217-million seems not only possible but downright inevitable.
Plus, I don’t see a whole lot of kiddie competition in the ensuing weeks.
How much do you want to bet that “Chipmunks 3” is “Chipmunks 3-D”?
Any idea what the budget was on YOUTH? When I heard about it at TIFF, all I heard was Miguel Arteta and I assumed it was an indie movie. I guess, at the time, I didn’t realize it was a Weinstein film, but I can’t imagine it has a huge budget.
There also seems to be more than a bit of backlash against Cera at the moment, and he’s terrible in interviews.
As for The Weinsteins, I don’t see them selling out to Disney again, but Paramount would be an option. But wouldn’t that just make them Paramount Vantage Deux? Overpriced prestige films that can’t make money?
Also, PARNASSUS is a disappointing number, but it should turn into a cult hit, it’s certainly zany enough.
Because “Nine” is a flop “A Single Man” may not escape the arthouse ghetto. Harvey Weinstein knows how to buy awards, yet he doesn’t understand that star power helps sell movies. A Weinstein-Par tie-up would make sense as a_loco put it.
“Doctor Parnassus” was at the bare minimum for a semi-wide release … and it stiffed. See the trailer and you’ll understand why.
@marychan: At least Woody Allen makes sure his pics are not aimed at mouth-breathing a$$holes. Also, Sony needs to fold SPC promotion and SPC distribution into Columbia TriStar — you don’t get the megaplexes without it.
Here’s a question that someone may have an answer for in this space. So Sherlock Holmes is probably going to get a sequel. If it gets a sequel in say 2011. Where exactly does Warners put it? Do they continue to make it a Winter franchise, or do they try it out during the Summer?
Mutiny, I do remember such a time. Internationally, taste, is always up in the air :D!
IO – I’d be looking at late summer for a sequel. Make it a change-of pace, late season pleasure for adults and the kids alike. I think they lost a lot of the adult market with this film, but they can get it back and build the gross by 20% or more.
There is real Holmes nostalgia out there and next time, they should stop trying to be a CG machine movie and focus on those dank London streets and dark alleys and scary individuals, which were promising. In other words, more Raiders in Egypt, less Wild Wild West.
IO, I think Warner would be smart to keep Sherlock as a Christmastime franchise. It always seemed to me that Lord of the Rings proved that people could adopt a particular story as part of their holiday routine.
Best to space out the Downey franchise films, too. Saturation point would be reached when there’s an Iron Man / Avengers movie and a Holmes movie within a few months of each other.
Parnassus is a classic example of Safety First.
The investment is minimal, so any risk they take, they are adding to an already likely-profitable situation. If they saw it as a $30 million grosser, they would be spending more and distributing more aggressively. But the rewards of a $10 million grosser are not, to the studios, worth the financial risk they add.
This is why studios have been getting out of the “indie” business. The rewards and the risk don’t jibe and even though good managers – like SPC – can maintain a consistently profitable portfolio, 9 our of 10 good years will mean less than $50 million in profits. And a major studio spends that on domestic marketing for one movie a dozen times a year.
What they forget is that even a few million in profit a year, while still building a library, is a positive thing and well worth the effort.
This is why SPC is more valuable to Sony, Chucky, as a more independent division than it would if marketing and distribution was brought in-house. They are different business models and when the line gets blurred, that’s when you get Vantage or WIP.
Dave, what budget did you hear for HOLMES? I heard 80ish, which I took to mean that Downey is basically taking his paycheck from the till. But if 80 is the number, the film’s doing pretty well, right?
David, I don’t know how you can advocate any studio – or filmmaker for that matter – be in business with the Weinsteins. Aside from being despicable human beings (even more so than your average Hollywood douche bags), they are financially reckless and cavalier with promoting and releasing their slate. They shelve films unnecessarily, meddle with good films, reducing them to mediocre ones, play leapfrog on release dates which give their films the perception of being problematic and stale – and their marketing department is in the toilet. Quentin Tarantino could have made INGLORIOUS BASTERDS at any studio in town with Brad Pitt – the success of that film had nothing to do with Harvey. The fact that Harvey’s name is on it is a testament to Quentin’s loyalty to Harvey and nothing else. Quentin gets final cut (so Harvey can’t fuck with him) and he has a big hand in his own marketing campaign. What else have they successfully promoted and released in the last few years? I can name a number of quality films over the last three years that they’ve raped in post-production and/or kept on the shelf for several issues, causing those one hotly anticipated films to lose all luster. I’m not the biggest fan of THE ROAD, but they royally screwed the release of that one up. The film garnered some strong reviews and there was a decent wanna see factor. But they messed with it for so long in post and missed their 2008 window. Another film, HURRICANE SEASON, which tested in the 90s and had (I believe) Forest Whitaker’s first post Oscar winning performance was kept on the shelf for two years and just recently unceremoniously dumped to DVD. They hacked up CROSSING OVER while simultaneously managing to alienate the director and the entire cast, including Ford, who refused to do any publicity for the film, leading everyone else to opt out as well – then dumped the film in a handful of theaters. Even I could have marketed that film to a healthy opening weekend by going wide and promoting it as a Harrison Ford Jack Ryan type thriller. HALLOWEEN 2 underperformed for them – and was critically reviled. NINE, with an amazing cast, is struggling against poor box office and weak reviews (I actually think the film is pretty decent). Maybe Harvey should have told Rob Marshall that he already did the studio based musical numbers in Chicago and maybe he should change it up. That’s what a strong producer would have done. YOUTH IN REVOLT just had a less than impressive opening weekend (but I don’t think it was made for much – definitely under 20, maybe even under 15). These guys do not have their eye on the ball. They waste tons of cash by equivocating endlessly in post production. I would never want them to be spending my development dollars on their poor decision making and contempt for the creatives that work under and alongside them. I can’t think of a single studio or independent financier in town who would want to get into bed with them.
Yeah, the CGI seemed like a need to establish the world, but all of the extras made the world of Holmes more real than most period pieces ever seem to be. If they could focus on that aspect for the next film, then hopefully you get a few more butts in the seat. Let me also throw in my crazy theory that no one believes but me, but I believe it anyway. Holmes will have a good run on cable. It came across to me as a film that will be worth rewatching time and time again. Which could only help it’s future sequel.
AVATAR QUESTION… (and sorry if this has been discussed already)… I just saw it in 3D at the Grove and I’m curious if those glasses always make the screen appear as though I’m wearing a cheap pair of sunglasses, or was it the projection at the Grove? The trailers seemed a little dark to me, and then during the film I kept taking the glasses off and noticed that what was on the screen was a good deal more LIT. It took me out of the experience a bit. I’m curious if I see the film in “Real 3D” (what is that anyway?) will the image appear brighter? Also, I paid $13.50, not more, as many have been mentioning…
Finally caught Up in the Air. It was entertaining and I thoroughly enjoyed it, but it is not in my top 3 for best picture choices this year. I have to put my choices as follows:
1. Avatar
2. Precious
3. The Blind Side
I haven’t seen The Hurt Locker, but I hope to ASAP, and my choices could change. I hated (500) Days of Summer. I thought they were making a movie and going “Gosh, we’re so clever.” It was terribly boring. Avatar is my #1 because I was a skeptic and it totally blew me away and created a movie going experience that I felt wash over me with an emotion I have rarely experienced. I truly expected Precious to be my top choice this year, and it created a similar emotional response but Avatar is in my top 3 movies of all time now.
@DP: Fox Searchlight is the model for what SPC should be. Searchlight would have sent “Doctor Parnassus” into 800-1,000 theaters and gotten more mileage out of it.
I’m stunned that “Up In the Air” simultaneously ends up classified as a typical Clooney film, and a below averave Reitman film. Ooook….this film is going to end up being Clooney’s biggest in a decade outside of Oceans. So Clooney’s biggest non-Oceans movie in a decade is a failure..ooook.
Sometimes I feel like Im in an alternate universe btw where “Leap Years” effect on Universal is the same…aka Universal can endure disaster after catastrophe without consequenses. Yay!
On the other hand…Im a bit tired of the other kind of questions;)
I finally saw “Up in the Air” this week and have been haunted by its themes ever since. I thought it started out slowly and was thinking why I should care about this guy, then when it got going it was so good.
I think Clooney should be a shoo-in to win best actor based only on his expression when he was talking on the phone to Farmiga at the end of the picture. By far the best acting in his career and he didn’t even talk in that scene.
I can’t see Jeff Bridges losing to anyone. Period.
Speaking of Crazy Heart, where is the campaign for Maggie Gyllenhaal’s incredibly moving performance? If positioned as a Jennifer Connelly-style supporting actress who’s really a lead, she could be a threat to Mo’Nique.
@aris – the short version is RealD uses polarization (cutting out nearly 50% of the light) while Dolby3D uses wavelength (cutting out specific parts of the light). Both reduce the amount of light each eye sees, but with Dolby3D the reduction is (usually) much less noticeable.
On a side note, my dad mistook the RealD glasses for actual sunglasses and spent the day wearing them until we pointed out that they had “REALD 3D” written down the sides in large letters.
If you’re interested in some of the tech that’s coming out over the next 5 years, you can see one of the prototypes for Microsoft’s Project Natal here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw
you keep your glasses? at the cinemas here you just rent them for a couple bucks and give them back on exiting, whereby they are placed in a large dishwasher-like machine between shows to get the cooties off
Aris:
Saw it in 3D (at the Arclight), and it looked distractingly dark, exactly as if I was watching a properly lit movie through bad sunglasses.
One of the many reasons I (minority opinion) enjoyed it much more when I saw it a 2nd time, in 2D.
IO, weren’t you just saying a couple of weeks back that these numbers for Holmes were nigh on bad and that making a sequel would be to their own detriment. Now you’re saying it’ll do well on cable and that it’d be easy for them to get more butts on seat. Nevertheless I do agree that it’ll play well on cable/dvd. These sort of movies always do and I can imagine some people at least chose to see Avatar in cinemas and wait for DVD for Holmes. I do hope they make the sequel less CGI, but if they do does it stop feeling “BIG” for audiences? Hmmm.
Good numbers for Daybreakers. Always good to see aussie product doing so well.
@leah – if you’re talking about Readings, they use Dolby. The glasses for that are much more expensive which is why they don’t let you walk out with them. For RealD they cost like 20cents to make so there’s a recycle bin as you walk out but they already included the cost in the ticket price.
Camel, indeed, I pegged it wrong. Outside of Avatar, the Chipmunks seemed like the most reasonable killer of Sherlock Holmes. Oddly enough Holmes held, the Chipmunks held, and we should have sequels. Especially to Holmes because it seems more than accurate that people passed Holmes up, and will discover it later. Which is all well and good. Nevertheless, I was wrong, it happens, and there you go.
“Outside of Avatar, the Chipmunks seemed like the most reasonable killer of Sherlock Holmes.”
I may have missed something here, but they seem to have two very different audiences. Why would chipmunks damage holmes?
Bravo, David! You said very good points about SPC and Parnassus.
Chucky: Almost all of SPC’s films are foreign-language films and arthouse films; many of Fox Searchlight’s films are lower-budget mainstream films. It is the main reason why Fox Searchlight gets more money at box office. If SPC follows Fox Searchlight’s model, SPC would not release the films like “The Class”, “Lorna’s Silence”, “Coco Before Chanel”, “Lebanon”, “A Prophet” and even “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus”. (Terry Gilliam implied that Fox Searchlight did pass on “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus”)
Anyway, I think Fox Searchlight also opened “Whip it” too wide.
When it comes to release foreign-language films and arthouse films, other big studio specialty divisions tend to overspend while SPC can give tose films the kind of careful nurturing they need. While SPC clearly tries to spend as lower money as possible, it doesn’t means that they don’t care about their films; SPC really tried to release their films in as many markets as possible.
Here is a example: Focus Features’ “Thirst” and SPC’s “Lorna’s Silence” opened on the same day, “Thirst” had better opening weekend than “Lorna’s Silence”. But “Lorna’s Silence” eventually outgrossed “Thirst”.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=thirst.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=lornassilence.htm
(BTW, even Warner Bros lets Sony Pictures Classics to release two foreign-language films “Coco Before Chanel” and “Micmacs” for them.)
foamy: got it. i didn’t realise the realID lenses were so cheap
Foamy, all freakin holiday movies are vying for people. I figured that the folks would go for Avatar or go to the Chipmunks, and that would leave all sorts of adults who would never get around to seeing Holmes. If that makes any sense for you. There you go.
Ethan, if you are speaking to me about Up In The Air, it is certainly not a failure. Not close. But they were serious about winning The Oscar. And no question, they were hoping for a $100m movie. So on that basis, not what they hoped.
Still, a profitable, happy film.
Chucky – Easier said than done. It’s lovely that you want to make SPC into a different business model… and I am a fan of Parnassus… but SPC is fine being what it is and studios trying to become Searchlight have failed, one after another. Searchlight is a very integrated business with big Fox. SPC is much smaller and much more independent. Focus keeps trying to be Searchlight, in their way, and have steep highs and lows. Vantage and Miramax are dead. And WIP was never set on how it would grow and wilted as a result.
And by the way… if Searchlight wanted Parnassus, they could have had it for a song. They passed, like everyone else. They also passed on Hurt Locker, like everyone else but Summit. Nobody’s perfect.
Blue balls inspire blue balls: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.ca3bca4668285a1f68104f4a3ebd0fae.10e1&show_article=1
Devin – The production number I have heard is bigger, but yes, it’s doing okay… not sensationally… not big profits… but not a loser by any means. What the foreign numbers end up being is what will define the success level.
A movie like Holmes was made for cable. Fun, light, breezy, not a brain movie, not really great…the kind of pleasant movie you flip past and watch some of. Like Hellboy.
Here’s the thing with Avatar in it’s next life: the DVD/BD should look amazing, but I sure as fuck hope they do not include those horrible fucking 3D glasses I already have from different DVDS. If FOX wants to put their balls on the line and truly make Avatar a must buy. They should throw a REAL PAIR, no red/blue lens bullshit, of 3D glasses in with the DVD/BD. Seriously, they should try to maintain the 3D viewing experience as much as possible on the home entertainment end without those blasted red/blue lens bullshit glasses.
The problem IO is that most TVs can’t display a 3D image using non-anaglyphic (Red/Blue) technologies.
RealD is out because the display can’t produce the polarized light, and so is Dolby because they can’t produce the specific wavelengths required for filtering.
The closest they can get is using a similar technology to the Arclight, which uses alternate frames for each eye and then blutooth controlled glasses which shutout one eye at a time. There’s TV stations in Korea that do this already, but for it to work you need:
a) A screen capable of ~50fps (or about double of your regular TV to get the 20-30 fps required for each eye to see a continuous image). Computer screens can do this (most are 50-60) but a lot of regular TV screens can’t.
b) A top-box to synchronize the glasses with the screen.
So not only would it be fairly expensive to include the glasses/topbox, but there’d have to be a huge “Check your make/model” compatibility system to make sure their aren’t hordes of disgruntled consumers queueing up to return their copy.
Actually, a quick trip to wikipedia (which is NEVER wrong) reveals that the 3D-Ready TV screens need 120 fps/Hz
Sentences such as “and the movie is still behind It’s Complicated.” are meaningless when Complicated cost 80 million to make and Up in the Air cost 25 million.
@DP, @marychan: Fox Searchlight would have fought to keep “Broken Embraces” in the AMC Empire in Times Square for Christmas. Sony Pictures Classics did not.
It’s an open secret that SPC prefers small indie arthouses over chain-operated theaters. In most areas that’s not possible. You want to see “Doctor Parnassus” in the Lehigh Valley, you have to go to a Carmike.
Fox Searchlight would choose to pass on “Broken Embraces”; Foreign-language films aren’t the centet of Fox Searchlight’s business, and Pedro Almodovar’s films tends to not do fantastically well on video sales in US (comparing to their US box office takes).
And then, SPC is actually more and more willing to show their films chain-operated theaters. “Doctor Parnassus” is also being shown in the theaters of Regal, AMC and Carmike.
By the way, some films would indeed do better small indie arthouse theaters (since the theaters have the build-in arthouse audience)
i do admit i’ve felt a wee bit of post-pandora blues each time i’ve seen avatar, the world seemed grey and bland, but this is a bit scary:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html
(i really hope nobody actually tops themselves, wow)