Looking For Excuses '10 – Box Office Edition
Why is it that when one or two movies underperform – especially in a year that has already produced a massively outsized hit – the Gloom & Doomers start throwing out theories as though there was some event happening?
Yeah… rhetorical question… they are just desperate for a story.
But dear lord, can’t they come up with a saner argument than “franchise fatigue?” This argument only brings up two options; willful disregard for the facts or ignorance of the facts.
Don’t get me wrong. I get sick of the lack of originality out there as well. But there is no arguing that franchises are still the clear road to bigger box office numbers. But Gloom & Doomers are always looking for some statistical angle to make an argument that really comes down to a taste issue, not a business issue.
There are seven $100m+ domestic movies so far this year. Two sequels (Iron Man & Shrek), a remake (Clash of the TItans), a celebrity filled spin-off of Love, American Style (Valentine’s Day), a Scorsese/DiCaprio thriller (Shutter Island), a DW Animation film, and the biggest of them all is the oldest and most worn of them all, Alice In Wonderland, made fresh and must-see by Tim Burton.
Of course, even more important than domestic box office these days is international… especially for franchises. Add Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief and Robin Hood to the list of 9-figure domestic grosses when you look at $200m+ worldwide grossers. Alice and Clash both did about double the domestic number overseas. And we are waiting on international grosses to define the success level of Shrek 4, S&TC2, and Prince of Persia, which is about to cross $100 million foreign (it opened in some large international markets a week earlier than it opened in the US).
But instead of looking at these undeniable numbers, excuses are being made about a franchise like Sex not winning the weekend… not grossing as much as the last time, etc. But it’s the wrong perspective. The question, at this time as much as any, is why the assumption that Sex 2 would improve on its first shocking gross would ever be made? Just what audience is the series going to expand to?
And even so… the story of Sex 1 was foreign, not domestic. Like The Simpsons Movie, had this TV show conversion not played overseas, it would have been a modest success, not a smash. It was that $263 million from the rest of the world that made Sex a cash machine for WB (which had passed on the film before Shaye & Lynne’s New Line decided to take on what seemed to be an absurdly inflated $65m budget).
Even The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, which is a franchise in the making and may have the first book in the series remade domestically, is a nice indie success in US with $7 million… and $92 million overseas.
Of course, that’s the kind of franchise that movie writers like… so that franchise is okay.
Summer 2010 always looked soft from a distance. Why? Because of a lack of sequels. No Spider-Man, Batman, Transformers, Bourne, or Harry Potter. But Pixar and The Karate Kid and Adam Sandler and Tom Cruise and Twilight and Angelina Jolie and a reboot of Predator and hopeful franchises The Last Airbender and The Sorcerer’s Apprentice are all on the way, amongst 3 more sequels, 2 remakes, Chris Nolan, Julia Roberts, Sly Stallone, and a Will Ferrell/Adam McKay comedy.
We’ve had eight wide releases so far this summer. Five of the eight have or will gross over $200m worldwide… and the other 3 were not released by majors (MacGruber technically was Universal… but it was a $10m Rogue property). The five? Three sequels, a video game, and Robin Hood.
Waa waa waa. Grow up and eat what’s in front of you.
(Edit, 2:15p – Left out a title.)
I was just thinking that this morning DP after reading someone talking about audiences being tired of sequels/franchises. But Iron Man 2 looks to be doing OK, and Shrek 4 appears to be holding well. Desperate for a story indeed. It’s amazing how one or two movies can represent some enormous pattern.
Well I’m incredibly tired of franchises and sequels but I’ve had franchise fatigue for about a decade so I’m a poor example of a trend.
Trying to make The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo an example of a franchise is a bit of a stretch, no?
You mention seven $100m+ films, but only list six of them, leaving out How to Train Your Dragon, which made more money than four of the films you did list.
Uh, yeah, DailyRich beat me to it. It’s oddities like this that fuel the misunderstanding that you have some hangup against the film.
“Waa waa waa. Grow up and eat what’s in front of you.”
David Poland: Rebel With A Blog
I was thinking more like The Why Everyone Else is Wrong and I’m Right Files: Episode 293846.
^^
“What a pair of assholes.”
— Quint, Benchley’s Jaws.
OK but is DP really wrong when he says that the doom and gloomers are jumping the gun a little based on one or two movies underperforming?
It’s an old newsroom joke:
Two facts + Reporter on deadline = Trend.
One reason why box-office might be a little softer than expected this Summer right here : AVATAR. Whatever you may think of it as a movie, you can’t deny that audiences got their rocks off watching that flick to such a degree that the post-Avatar slate starts to look a little blah. There was a comment on this blog on Iron Man 2’s opening weekend that i found telling – that of the audience member who’d bought a ticket to Iron Man 2 in IMAX. The guy was going around to all the staff demanding to know where the 3-D glasses were. How quickly times change.
Thinking back, it’s not like this kind of post-phenom dowturn is unprecedented. Summer ’98, the first Summer season after Titanic. Godzilla, Armageddon, Lethal 4 were all a little soft at the box-office(you may think those movies stink, but still.)
Let’s go back a little further – i was there on Jurassic Park’s opening weekend in June ’93. The first comment i heard going out the door? “Man, every movie from now on is screwed.” That Summer also brought us The Fugitive, The Firm, In the Line of Fire etc. So what happens come the Summer of ’94? The expected heavy hitters (Maverick, The Flintstones, True Lies etc.) are relative fizzles. It’s down to the surprise hits (Speed, Forrest Gump) to set matters to rights.
Or what about 1989? That year was, i would consider, ground zero for the modern blockbuster (the opening weekend record was broken three times in the space of a month then). Batman, Back to the Future 2, The Last Crusade, Ghostbuters 2, Lethal Weapon 2. Heck of a year to go to the movies. And a Summer later? Days of Thunder, Die Hard 2, Dick Tracy, Total Recall, Gremlins 2 all struggle.
Coincidence? You decide. All i’m saying is that the price of an amazing party is sometimes an equally amazing hangover.
Some of your examples are only disappointments in hindsight. Wasn’t Recall a box office high for Arnold at that point, Die Hard 2 was a large earner over the original, Maverick was a Mel Gibson comedy (and a western at that). I think the problem is that you can’t expect a Batman, Jurassic or Avatar every year.
And between Lion King and Gump the summer of 94 easily outgrossed 93.
And with another Twilight movie around the bend, Toy Story 3, Potter later in the year, as well as other potential blockbusters (Tron2 anyone?) and possibly other surprises, this could be a huge year, post Avatar hangover or not. DP’s right in that the summer looked down, but with Alice performing hugely, one more $300+ earner and this will be right in line with a typical year. It just might be that the really big movies opened at other times besides summer.
Krazy Eyes – The intention is to remake the first film in America and, indeed, to make it into a franchise.
DailyRich and Tofu… if that is your primary reaction, you’re showing a little bit of an obsession.
I don’t think a slow May has anything to do with Avatar or franchise fatigue or even – the stupidest argument of all – the quality of the films.
Iron Man 2 may not be as good as Iron Man, but it’s doing very similar business… still ahead, in fact.
The biggest film of the year so far, by far, is Alice in Wonderland… and while I think RT is overused as “proof,” 51% positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.
#3, How to Train Your Dragon, was well reviewed. But But #4, Clash of the Titans, was slaughtered.
This notion that audiences respond at the box office to quality when we are discussing big movies is STOOPID. It’s just not true.
Even Avatar, which I quite like… but do I think it’s THE BEST FILM EVER? Not even close. People went and had a great time, absolutely. I think it’s more complex than others do. But in the end, it is brilliant genre filmmaking and its box office domination doesn’t make it The Best Film anymore than a flop is The Worst Film.
And did I mention how dumb the argument that any of this has anything to do with ticket prices is? Was Sex & The City or Prince of Persia in 3D somewhere I didn’t hear about?
I HATE when one statistical fact is extrapolated to fit something that journalists feel like selling, even if it is untrue. HATE it.
If I have learned anything over all these years closely covering box office, it is that people show up for movies they think they want to see and don’t show up for movies they are not motivated to see. It is just that simple and just that complex.
There are word of mouth smashes and opening weekend events. They are different. “Quality” matters to that degree, but quality is a subjective idea.
Ironically, people who are unable to learn from history, like J-Mc, keep focusing on what they are obsessed with, not the facts. In J-Mc’s case, it’s me being wrong. In the media, it is often about trying to tout the end of theatrical… the relentless anger of people who really don’t like movies and who can’t be bothered with math.
BEST ATTENDANCE MARKS FOR MAY
#1 2003 158.5 million admissions ($955.8 million) Top Movie: “Finding Nemo”
#2 2002 158.1 million admissions ($917.1 million) Top Movie: “Spider-Man”
#3 2004 143.6 million admissions ($891.8 million) Top Movie: “Shrek 2”
#4 2009 135.8 million admissions ($1.018 billion) Top Movie: “Up”
#5 2007 134.5 million admissions ($925.7 million) Top Movie: “Spider-Man 3”
#6 2008 132.0 million admissions ($948.1 million) Top Movie: “Iron Man”
#7 2005 126.5 million admissions ($811.1 million) Top Movie: “Star Wars: Episode III- Revenge of the Sith”
#8 1999 120.8 million admissions ($613.7 million) Top Movie: “Star Wars: Episode I- The Phantom Menace”
#9 2006 119.6 million admissions ($781.6 million) Top Movie: “X-Men: The Last Stand”
#10 2010 118.9 million admissions ($904.8 million) Top Movie: “Iron Man 2”
#11 2000 118.0 million admissions ($637.4 million) Top Movie: “Mission: Impossible 2”
#12 1998 115.3 million admissions ($540.9 million) Top Movie: “Deep Impact”
#13 2001 108.7 million admissions ($614.2 million) Top Movie: “Shrek”
cue DP hissy fit. y’ll are welcome to reorder May by total $ amount, the figures are right there (and 2010 is sixth, I think) but with theatres having increased prices five or six dollars a ticket in 2010, I think admissions is an interesting metric where I usually wouldn’t bother. I’m not saying its a slump, but admissions are markedly down. I blame ticket prices and movies that do not generate as much excitement as some of the megablockbusters of the last ten years that won the month of may.
btw, after seeing shrek in 3d, I won’t be paying for 3d for any of the movies currently slated. And despite getting in an argument with a producer over the weekend who claimed that the fakeD on Titans was exactly the same 3D as used on Avatar (apparently having some 3d movies that are fake D coming out makes him sensitive to the claim that fake D is utter crap and not worth it). I’m already sick of his mantra “3d is 3d. It doesn’t matter if you do it in post or shoot it in stereo. It’s exactly the same thing.” I’m seeing Toy Story at a screening, but I would pay for it because I trust Pixar, other than that, I see no point as after Avatar all other 3d does nothing for me. Alice in Wonderland was especially disappointing as wearing sunglasses to watch a movie that is already Burton-gloomy in brightness was an actively unpleasant experience.
Ladies and gentlemen, the always angry movielocke…
Umm… just pointing out, May 08/09 both had 5 weekends, as opposed to 4. The next previous 4-weekend May (2007) had 3 of the top 25 worldwide movies of all time in one month (Spiderman 3, Shrek 3, POTC 3).
So, yeah. I’d kinda expect 2010 to be down over the last few years.
“with theatres having increased prices five or six dollars a ticket in 2010”
False.
I don’t need to have a hissy fit because you aren’t making much of a point. I don’t care if you think admissions are an interesting metric… especially when the metric is being misused.
Ticket prices have increased as usual… 25 cents or 50 cents. 3D premiums, combined with a number of very successful 3D movies, have upped the average price per ticket. As I have noted before, you can expect the “average ticket price” to drop in the second quarter because of the relative lack of 3D product.
And, of course, attendance figures are irrelevant.
But even if they were relevant, looking at them only in the context of May is just silly. Being picky, a little thing like you noting that Up was the #1 May movie last year. Well, it wasn’t. It was the #1 grosser that opened in May, but it generated “only” $68m domestic in May. That is the kind of minor blip that shows, to me, how narrowing the focus leads to bad stats.
This was the same crap around the slump. First the year was down. Then, people realized that The Passion had skewed things, so out came the week-to-week comparisons. Then when business started going back up, it became attendance figures. It’s not straight to change the statistic to fit your point (and I don’t mean you in particular, movielocke).
But you throw around stats like they should be convincing when they are only convincing about 3D and the danger of its proliferation. There is not a scintilla of evidence suggesting that Prince of Persia opened to the number it opened to because of 3D pricing.
You are 100% correct when you write, “movies that do not generate as much excitement as some of the megablockbusters of the last ten years that won the month of may.”
And I agree that Alice was disappointing… but that didn’t stop it from doing a billion in the spring.
Also… there seems to be no interest in this argument about how, say, last years, estimated attendance was achieved. To wit, major franchise disappointments in the domestic market with Angels & Demons, Night At The Museum 2, and Terminator Salvation… all off which did over $125m domestic… all of which were expensive underperformers saved by foreign.
This year’s Weekend 3 and 4 May movies – S&TC2, Prince of Persia, Shrek 4. So let’s say that Shrek 4 is in the weight class of last year’s 2nd half of May films. What about the other two?
This year’s sequels have outperformed last year’s sequels. But Robin Hood never carried the kind of expectations that Angels & Demons did, there was no attempt to launch a franchise from a videogame or anything so narrow last year, and more people have seen Shrek 4-3D this May than saw Up in May last year.
My point is that if you get past these statistical platitudes, it is a lot more complicated than “they are charging more for 3D movies, people are sick of franchises, they want quality, etc.”
If Prince of Persia was the next Iron Man or Star Trek, well, God bless it. But it isn’t.
Wow… S&TC2 is off $20 million from the first film after its first six days. Really? That’s a trend story?
Oy.
For clarity, 2010 had 4 and 2/3 weekends, losing a $58mil Friday 30 April to gain a $35mil Memorial Day Holiday Monday 31 May.
For whatever it’s worth, summer 2010 feels alot like summer 2003. It’s not a perfect match (I doubt the big-June entry – Toy Story 3 – will collapse as quickly as The Hulk), but it’s a similar vibe. Right or wrong, audiences just aren’t feeling the love right now, and June looks like a verifiable dead-zone with just one sure-fire huge opening right in the middle (Toy Story 3 = The Hulk). While Finding Nemo was quietly (?) breaking animated-film records, the general consensus was that the live-action fare wasn’t measuring up. I might not agree with those opinions (I loved X-Men 2 and Matrix 2, and I rather liked Hollywood Homicide and Terminator 3), but the feeling is there this summer like it was seven years ago.
Cue early July, where Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl completely surprised the hell out of everybody by absolutely delivering the goods, and it benefited both from its own quality (it still holds up), and the pent-up frustration that general audiences felt about the post-X2 summer films up to that point. If the pattern holds, Inception is in a place to take the ‘finally, a big movie that doesn’t suck and is quasi-original’ mantle and run with it for the rest of the summer. Just a gut feeling (yeah, I know, same gut feeling that said MacGruber was going to break out), but we’ll see…
Ahh well back in my midwest hometown Avatar in 3D was 11.50/ticket Alice in Wonderland in 3D was 15.50/ticket. Not a five dollar increase, but I was exaggerating. In march, they increased the base ticket price $2 and increased the 3d premium $2
I’m not saying that you are exaggerating the price of seeing 3D. $5 and more in some places is real for 3D IMAX.
All I am saying is that blaming the increase in prices to see Avatar or Alice in 3D doesn’t really explain why non-3D films didn’t do better in May.
This notion that audiences respond at the box office to quality when we are discussing big movies is STOOPID. It’s just not true.
How To Train Your Dragon is the exception. Hooha!
You look at the remaining schedule and I don’t see how this is NOT going to be a down summer.
Yes, Toy Story will be huge, but not enough to make the difference – hard to see it making much more than $400 million and last year, Tranny 2 made that much. June looks mixed – The A Team and The Karate Kid could both break out, but of course they are opening on the same weekend. Tom Cruise could have a huge comback, but his is coming on the same weekend as Adam Sandler/Kevin James – just bad scheduling all around.
Meanwhile, July looks pretty slim. Why is every one assuming that the new Twilight will be so huge? I have little doubt that New Moon was the peak and that it will be diminishing returns from this point on. I would love to see Inception break out, but just not seeing it. Maybe Salt? I don’t know.
And August just looks really weak – wow, Step Up 3D is the big first of August smash???? The Expendables and Scott Pilgrim are pure niche – yeah, I know a lot of people (myself) thought that was also going to be the case last August with District 9 and Inglorious Basterds, but let’s just accept that last August was a pure aberration from a quality level – hell, you had two Best Picture nominees.
When I think of the counter-programmers that were moved out of the summer, I see a lot of money left on the table – Morning Glory could have done very nicely in late July, maybe Julie & Julia numbers. I know Universal was thinking that the new Fockers just couldn’t open away from the holidays, but wow, it could have cleaned up as the last big comedy in late summer, as well. And why the hell did Prince of Persia open last weekend? Just a couple of weeks after Robin Hood and about six weeks after Clash of the Titans??? Some films just need more space – ‘Persia still would have underperformed in August, but at least it would have broken $100 million domestic.
Scheduling and placement is such an under-discussed aspect of box office, but it’s absolutely critical.
Geoff, this Twilight is the Twilight where a lot of awesome stuff happens. If you really see this as diminishing returns, you are missing the overall story in this film, and how much a lot of fans want to see Ed and Bella married on screen. That alone guarantees New Moon business, throw in that it’s summer, and you have a shot at a lot of money.
You also have a very weird tendency to forget about the 3D bump for films. Toy Story 3 in 3d. This film should hit 500 million easy. I could be crazy but the 3D prices are jacked up, Dragon and Alice made what they made thanks in no small part to the price hike, and the two Toy Story films are beloved pieces of cinema. If this film does not do a 100 million more than Trans 2 then there is something really screwy going on out there. Something really screwy indeed.
Again, as I stated a while back, there is money to be made out there. There are a few more 200m dollar earners and there will always be weirdness in August. You can consider Scott Pilgrim niche now Geoff but if the KIDS and their crazy SOCIAL NETWORKING pick up on that flick then it could easily make more money than most would expect. How anyone see the Expendables making less than 125m is beyond me because that film should have legs til October.
A big dumb action movie starring Sly has legs until October? I know the AICN crowd is creaming their shorts in anticipation, but who else is? Are 13 year-old boys telling their friends about how they can’t wait to see The Expendables? Scott Pilgrim probably doesn’t have to make a whole lot of money to make more than most expect.
Inception looks awesome and I have complete trust in Chris Nolan, but Pirates was on a whole ‘nother level. It was fun and new and had major charisma with Depp. And sure, Inception might also have those qualities (minus Depp) and if it did the Pirates number, that would be a shock indeed. I bet Warner’s is hoping this thing gets to $150-200M domestic. The more accurate comparison is Insomnia (with a bumb due to Leo and Nolan’s good-will earned with Bats).
That’s supposed to be “bump.”
After I typed that $150M number, I started wondering what the approximate production budget (+PA) is. Any ideas? A lot is unknown about the movie, but it has a bit of effects and I was wondering if $150M domestic might be on the low end needed for break-even. (Obviously, the unknwon is foreign, but I am conservatvely thinking a 50-50% split.)
Anyone think (or know) if production on this is $100M or lower?
Jason, I’m pretty sure I’ve read that the Inception budget is in the $200 million range. I could be wrong on that, but based on those rumblings I’d be surprised if it’s less than $150 million. The idea of an original $200 million Nolan sci-fi movie with that cast makes me giddy with anticipation, and also kind of nervous for Nolan. I guess this is his bonus for getting Dark Knight past the $500 million mark: Warners will indulge his desire to make a crazy expensive sci-fi movie that will have to outgross a ton of franchise movies to actually break even, presumably in exchange for Batman/Superman related cooperation.
I can see it making a surprising amount of money due to its timing, pedigree, and fucking awesome trailers… but it could also make a surprising amount of money and not turn a huge profit, or hit Pirates numbers, seems like. $200 million would be pretty fantastic for this type of movie, right?
If you don’t think there’s some kind of malaise out there, perhaps you just don’t have enough contacts in the non-industry world. I dropped by to visit a friend facing knee surgery and always ask her what her two sons (5th and 8th gragdes) think of current movies. None of them liked IRON MAN 2 that much and there was zero interest in PRINCE OF PERSIA.
These are kids who still get revved up about the next Transformers film. The youngest has seen (with mom in tow because of the rating) KICK ASS four times now.
But the part that should be scaring the shit out studio execs is that the lack of films this summer they really want to see doesn’t faze them: they’ll just play video games. They have the 3 most popular platforms (Wii, Xbox, Playstation) with each hooked up to separate television.
So while there might not be a “must-see” flick to catch, they are getting used to the idea that there is always a hot game or three to spend 80 hours with instead.
As to the box office, for a few of those hits, 3D premiums added a nice chunk to the total.
Oh, and in terms of outlook for the rest of the summer:
Toy Story will be huge, definitely. Probably $300 million, maybe 350. 400 seems less likely… but if any animated movie can do it, it’s this one. Since Toy Story 2 made $250 or so in ’99, we’ve had multiple Shreks break $300 million pretty much just based on a goodwill from the first one.
Grown-Ups will make Sandler’s usual $125-140. You just have to wonder if at some point, adding more actors who you have to pay at least a little (and in the case of Kevin James, probably at least five or six million, right?) doesn’t just hurt the profitability; suddenly a no-effects (aside from bad green screen, etc.) $50 million comedy costs 80 or 90.
Eclipse may not out-perform New Moon. The third Potter had a lull when it moved to summer, and from what I’ve read about these books, Eclipse sounds pretty uneventful/inessential. But whatever, this movie is doing $200 million minimum, and probably more.
Inception, as mentioned, I can see breaking out. Actually, I can see Sorcerer’s Apprentice doing well, too. Considering how ridiculous it looks, I feel like the trailers are surprisingly well-received. I wonder if this will be the Bruckheimer family hit that Persia was supposed to be.
Late July is really trouble, though. Obviously Salt will do pretty decent business, but otherwise 7/23 and 7/30 are pretty barren. In fact, 7/30 is scheduled more like a late-August or mid-September weekend.
In terms of 8/6, The Other Guys is well-positioned to clean up: Ferrell in a broad comedy (oddly, his best comedies, the stuff with McKay mostly, have done some of his best business), plus the action/cops angle, plus Wahlberg. If a transgressive and (hilariously) actively unpleasant a movie as Step Brothers can do $100 million, this should be able to top 125, and maybe get further.
And yeah, IO, you’re crazy RE: Expendables. Don’t get me wrong, I want to see it; in fact, I’m planning my bachelor party around it. But I can’t see it opening to more than 25 (at best) and grossing more than 80 (agian, at best).
Has Stallone grossed over a hundred million in the past quarter century?
“The question, at this time as much as any, is why the assumption that Sex 2 would improve on its first shocking gross would ever be made? Just what audience is the series going to expand to?”
Couldn’t that argument have been made for New Moon?
There was probably some of the older audience that waited and caught Twilight on video and then decided to see New Moon in theaters. Isn’t this what happened with Shrek, Bourne, and Pirates. People dismissed it the first time (even though Shrek and Pirates had huge attendance) but found it on video. SATC was already an existing property so the first movie could itself be considered a sequal and almost everyone already had an opinion on the franchise.
And I am also a huge Eternal Sunshine fan.
The truth about Box Office 2010 is somewhere in the middle.
Revenue year to date is still up 5% over last year…but attendance is still down about 5%.
This summer was always going to be soft because of the writers’ strike….but it’s still soft.
This weekend features a slew of releases that should not be considered as summer films….other than “Get Him to the Greek” which is tracking just eh. Lionsgate is going to lose a bundle on “Killers” if the production budget is really 75 million as reported…and Fox is going to lose money on “Marmaduke” though it can afford it.
There’s a guarenteed big loser in a couple weeks with “Jonah Hex…” and no one can really tell how “A-Team,” “Knight and Day” “Karate Kid” and “Grownups” will do…along with a couple surefire hits in Toy Story 3 and Twilight 3.
So agree it’s not time to panic yet…but May WAS softer than excepted despite the weak schedule.
If we’re only counting domestic grosses of movies where he was the star, the last Stallone $100m+ grosser was Rocky IV, 1985. Worldwide, though, the last Rambo movie got to that level.
Also overlooked as to why May was “softer than excepted” (sic): The arty side got its ass kicked again.
“Babies” was in and out of megaplexes in 2 weeks. “City Island” and “Harry Brown” were promoted as routine product. “Dragon Tattoo” is unrated, hence it’s not in the Cinemark chain (company policy) and not in other chains’ megaplexes as well. “Kites” is strictly Bollywood, remix or not. “Please Give” is staying in the arthouse ghetto — no megaplexes within 50 miles of me are picking it up.
Please Give is holding like a champ on its 50 screens, I was wrong about Babies and its doing fine as well. City Island and Dragon Tatoo are the biggest hits of their young distributor and both are probably making a good profit off it. The only thing between Dragon being a clear crossover hit is July 6th DVD date may keep any holdouts from theaters. You seem to confuse the ghetto and the gated community.
I think the $5 (or whatever, substantial) 3D bump that happened overnight really scared people away from going to the movies, period. I don’t believe people are thinking, ‘well, that’s only for IMAX or 3D, a regular movie should still be reasonable. Let’s get the kids and call the sitter and go!’ I think once people got ambushed like that, they’re gonna be way more selective even before they check for showtimes online.
You get jumped one time you start looking for a new way to walk home. Maybe later in the summer they’ll head back once a few people peek their heads in and see it’s safe. But I think once they’re gouged at say $18 for a premium priced one, even $13 for a regular priced ticket sounds like bs, too. Then start thinking of the $5 cokes or popcorn that’s more expensive as at the ballgame, whether they intended to get some or not, it just sounds like giant scam and they’ll just say no to the whole experience.
The perception of helping to fund millionaire actors & actresses and execs in convertible Mercedes lavish indulgence, while their in belt-tightening mode, will cause people to say enough. They know it
I kind of hope you’re right, Triple Option, even though I’m not sure everyone even thinks about the price bump that much (they might figure, oh, yeah, 3-D is more expensive, and not think about how much more, especially if they’re buying multiple tickets? I don’t know). As a more compulsive moviegoer, I often suffer (mildly) from the tastes of the masses and/or stupid business decisions trying to please people who go to the movies four or five times a year. So I’d love it if I could actually benefit from the general public deciding to say screw it, I don’t want to go to the movies if they’re going to be pointlessly 3-D and expensive.
That is, I’m not going to go to the movies (much) less based on price hikes (though I will seek out 2-D whenever possible; I’ll only see Toy Story 3 that way because most if not all of its biggest screens in Manhattan will be showing it that way). But it might benefit me if other, less dedicated moviegoers started feeling the pinch.
And maybe I’m feeling it too: whether it’s due to lackluster movies, surcharges, or a combination, I haven’t spent as much money on movies in the past few months. I’m more careful about using my frequent-moviegoer free tickets before they expire and I’m more likely to let less the interesting-looking stuff slide. If *I’m* spending less at the movies, I’ve gotta think that the “average” moviegoer must be participating in a downturn, too.
AP calculated the Memorial Day weekend box office and found that it was the slowest since 1993. Perhaps the mass audience is finally getting sick of all the comic book/franchise/game-based/remake/sequel/TV-based/name-checking/Academy Award Winner/Academy Award Nominee/Legion of Doom/fundie-friendly crap being hurled at them.
@hcat: If “Please Give” was “holding like a champ” it would be in the AMC Empire in Times Square. “Dragon Tattoo” would have pulled in plenty more money had it had an MPAA rating.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo did pretty good considering and here’s hoping it will bring the other two films over here. It’s not like they are not from a really huge selling international book selling or anything.
Oh yeah, again, Expendables has an audience out there. Trust me, it’s not just fanboys. Seriously, why does it always come down to the whole “fanboy” thing with some of you? The guys in those films usually make decent to solid coin. All of them together could lead to slightly more profitability.
That’s book series!!!!!!!!!!! Seriously David, if you read this, have you ever thought about using something with google or discus or something? An edit function could really spruce up the place!
You’re wrong on pretty much every count, Chucky. The year’s highest grossers in the US thus far have been Alice in Wonderland (name-checking Tim Burton), Iron Man 2 (comic book, sequel), How to Train Your Dragon (name-checks the studio), Valentine’s Day (from the director of Pretty Woman), Book of Eli (name-checks the Hughes Brothers), Robin Hood (from the director of Gladiator), Clash of the Titans (remake), Shrek Forever After (sequel), Shutter Island (name-checking), Percy Jackson & The Olympians (from the director of Harry Potter 1), Dear John (name-checks Nicholas Sparks), The Bounty Hunter (from the director of Hitch), The Last Song (also name-checks Nicholas Sparks), A Nightmare on Elm Street (remake), The Wolfman (remake), Sex and the City 2 (sequel), Why Did I Get Married Too? (sequel, name-checking Tyler Perry), and The Tooth Fairy (made by Walden Media).
Out of the top 20, the only movies to not commit your sins are Date Night and Diary of a Wimpy Kid, which are obviously the type of quality filmmaking you demand.
Since Wimpy Kid was based on a blog, I’d say that’s ineligible too.
And Date Night could count as ‘TV-based’.
Chucky, please note that I’m not defending all of these movies as quality cinema. Some are good (Shutter Island, Dragon) some are bad (Titans, Elm Street) and some I didn’t see, but the point is, there’s the fact-based world and there’s the world where one distorts facts to fit preconceived, iron-clad notions, and you’re firmly in the latter.
but hey, at least the legion of doom is back! yay
I’m sorry, but DOOM! can only be used with all caps and an exclamation mark.