The 65%+ International Club
With word that Disney’s Pirates 4: The Search For Where The Fun Went has passed the $900 million mark worldwide and is now the highest non-domestic/international grosser of all time at Disney, I decided to look into the phenomenon of films that seemed to be underperforming at home, yet slayed them overseas,
34 movies in modern box office history (international box office record keeping before the mid-70s is a bit iffy) have grossed over $450 million worldwide AND done at least 65% of that business overseas. Half of them are sequels. Of the 17 “originals,” 5 are animated, 2 each are from Jim Cameron and Roland Emmerich, 2 are remakes, and 2 are franchise starters that were made with the intention of spawning sequels. That leaves Mamma Mia!, Troy, and Inception.
The only title in the group before 2001 is Titanic.
The #2 international performer by percentage is Ice Age 3, whose domestic is very slightly ahead of #2, but whose domestic is $230m above any other film in the series.
Pirates 4 (currently #3, 76.7% and growing) will have the worst domestic performance of any Pirates film.
Angel & Demons (#7, 72.6%) did $85 million less domestically and $272m less worldwide.
The last two Bond films grew slightly here, but each grew international by more than 50% over the best previous grossers, putting Bond in the $400m international club after never having done better than $275m before.
No Potter film has done as much as the first one did domestically… but every one since the first has had a higher percentage of its total gross come from international tickets sold. (Though to be completely fair, the numbers are pretty consistent on Potter, both ways.)
It does seem to me that the international market is a bit slower to both catch onto franchises and to tire of franchises than the domestic market.
There certainly is also the fact that the international marketplace has expanded, in terms of screens and treaties (like China’s), while the US theatrical market has been pretty static for the last 7 or 8 years. But I’m just looking t the outliers here.
And if anyone cares, 8 of these 34 titles were released in 3D.
Lost in the clamor about the domestic 3-D backlash is the real reason for its existence: as an antidote to foreign piracy. 3-D, international “day and date” and a weakend dollar are the real reasons for the explosion in international numbers in the last few years. Looking at that chart is depressing, however, and leads one to think that foreign audiences have shitty taste and provides no incentive whatsoever for studios to improve the quality of their product.
“Tintin” is gonna shoot to the top of the pops on this before the year’s up.
interesting to note — not one Michael Bay film on the list, even The Island (his one and only domestic flop)
wait, just to clarify nikki’s reasoning, american moviegoers are paragons of good taste, while we ‘foreigners’ with our horrible taste are the reason american studios will continue to make shit flicks? classic
It’s something that gets brought up every so often – you take the Top X box office and point to the proportion of Rotten/Fresh as an indicator that the Moviegoing Public ™ gravitates to shit/quality. Same with Domestic/International.
The usual problem with that is that if you take the Top X+/-5 then the proportion flips the other way, which (to me) indicates that there’s something more than “quality” going on. Which, really, isn’t an original conclusion.
ETA – Getting back to purely proportions of Dom/Int, it’s been pointed out fairly often that the Chinese and Indian markets are growing at approximately twice the rate of the US. As far as I’m aware, at this point it’s unclear how much of this growth is organic and how much is US expansion into these markets. If the majority of the growth is from US “imports” then that makes foreign even more attractive, since a dollar invested in those markets could produce more than double the returns of a dollar invested in the US. However, given the heavy regulation in both China and India (my understanding is that the famous Bollywood Dance-off was invented due to kissing being censored a la Hays Code) a lot of product may simply get turned away at the door.
Only one Pixar movie just re-affirms that these movies really under-perform internationally. Just look at the worldwide numbers for Ice Age 3 compared to Up in 2009. Cars 2 is really pushing an international appeal based on the marketing. If it performs well overseas, this really supports Poland’s point that sequels catch on internationally better than originals do.
Leah: No, of course not. America is still the #1 country in the world for philistinism. What I meant was, in looking at that specific chart of movies that were apparently at least twice as successful overseas than they were in the U.S. and seeing how horribly wretched many of them are (2012, Pirates 4, Angels & Demons, Alice in Wonderland, Clash of the Titans and The Day After Tomorrow, in particular), it leads one to think that foreign audiences seemingly aren’t particularly discerning when it comes to their big spectacles (and, by “foreign,” I mean, specifically, “non-English speaking” as, perhaps, such niceties as non-groan-inducing dialogue and tone-deaf performances don’t matter as much when something is dubbed anyway) and the fact that many of these films, which were viewed as disappointments at home, wound up being so lucrative when all the foreign chips were eventually counted could presumably give studio execs empirical credence to say “quality truly doesn’t matter.” Thanks for making me have to spell it out, Ms. Literal.
Until Denzel gets the international dap he deserves. SHAME ON ALL THE FOREIGN BOX OFFICE :P!
That aside, I really find it continually puzzling that the Potter films have a cap in this country. It’s not like capping out at close to 300m is a bad thing but why haven’t these films had at least one 350m domestic grosser? You would think that were possible but jesus, they all get right to 300 or a little over, and then that’s it.
This leaves me wondering if DHpt2 can even come close to beating the Sorcerer’s Stone? Here’s hoping that 3D bump is enough!
The fall in the US dollar is partly responsible for higher international box office returns.
I have seen mention of Pirates4 setting records in Australia when the opposite is true. In Australian dollars the numbers are down. It is only after converting to $US that the numbers look bigger.
BO for first 4 weeks of all Pirates films in Australian dollars
$19,652,159 $32,340,472 $29,793,868 $24,901,474
Exchange Rate at release date $Aus1 =$US
0.64 0.74 0.83 1.06
BO for first 4 weeks after conversion to $US
$12,577,382 $23,931,949 $24,728,910 $26,395,562
I am quoting Australia because I know where to get the data but I would not be surprised if a similar result is occuring in other older movie markets. Newer expanding markets have their own story.
I have another observation, by my count only 3 of the 33 films listed are set in the USA (2012, The Day After Tomorrow and The Simpsons Movie). Maybe foreigners like a foreign setting more than Americans.
I’m surprised The Golden Compass isn’t on the list, as I think that film is one of the best recent examples of the phenomenon. It only made $70 domestically but ended up grossing $372 million worldwide. Shame a different studio (a British one, maybe) didn’t pick the franchise up.
Okay, so Golden Compass didn’t crack $400 million, but it’s still a curious case.
I must admit: I am shocked by the international gross for Tim Burton’s Alice. I knew it was successful — but I didn’t realize it was that successful.
Some people like to take their own taste in movies and paint a broad brush stroke, calling movies they dislike as “shitty.” I happened to enjoy POTC 4, and it looks like a lot of other people did, also. What a bunch of cranky critics say, has never been a benchmark of popular taste in movies. Thank goodness. The Black Swan, loved by critics, for me, was a horrible movie. No matter how many awards they threw at it, it made no difference to me. It’s one of the few movies I walked out on. Notice, I said it was horrible to ME. A lot of people liked it.. at least were told it was great, so they “liked” the film.
Now, because markets outside the U.S. are flocking to movies you disliked, they are ignorant? Oh wait…The Hangover #2 is a U.S. hit, as is the Transformers movies! Want to discuss taste in the U.S.??
I assume you are referring to the comments of others, Evan.
I want to be clear… I don’t think other countries are “ignorant.” I think there is a different schedule, in general, for much of this internationally. And there must be a dozen or more smaller reasons why that seems to be the case.
Evan, how dare you like Pirates 4 and hate the Transformers movie. Seriously, if you were an American, we would deport you, and send you to one of those countries that really really really liked 2012. We are Americans and there is just some shit we don’t stand for as a nation!
Joe, that’s the thing with Potter especially in comparison to something like Alice. How is one of, if not the most beloved book series of all time not have one BILLION DOLLAR GROSSING FILM? It just makes no sense that it’s never happened.
Probably because the books are so superior to the movies. Every time I see a Potter movie, even though I can recognize the effort that went into making the movie, I cannot help but find them lacking compared to the books. It always makes me wantto read the books again. Perhaps others are the same way.
I too am shocked at some of the numbers for the moors on this list. I always remember Ice Age 3, but even for something more recent such as Avatar – the foreign numbers are ungodly.
Jason, yeah… no. Those movies are streamlined to the essence of those books. Books that are wonderful to read, but are as overly inflated as a Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade balloon. It’s also such a snobby and dicky attitude and one of the reasons why I feel the way about fans like you as I do about Empire fans. You and Cameron are going to have a real fun time on the moon :D!
nikki: did you just call me ‘ms. literal’ as if i’m incapable of reading the fine figurative nuance in this statement?:
“Looking at that chart is depressing, however, and leads one to think that foreign audiences have shitty taste and provides no incentive whatsoever for studios to improve the quality of their product.”
i’m sorry, are you under the impression this sentiment is some figurative gem? i hope not, for your sake.
as for your explanation and “spelling out” said nonsense…non-discerning and “horribly wretched” my ass, like US audiences are any more discerning re: their blockbusters. those movies are no more ‘horribly wretched’ than top US box office earners rife with suspect acting or poor dialogue or whathaveyou/pick a flaw, ‘horribly wretched’ being a silly exaggeration of your subjective interpretation (stated as fact, of course, and way overstated at that); mediocre or even poor, perhaps, DEPENDING ON WHO YOU ASK, but ‘horribly wretched’ as a blanket description of the films you single out is ott nonsense in trying to make your poorly reasoned point.
eta: the point someone made above about most of the films on that list NOT being set in the US: good observation
Leah: It used to be that one could look at a list of top earning films of all time and there would be a correlation between the gross and the chord it struck in the zeitgeist, whether one liked the film or not. For instance, I’m not really a fan of AVATAR or TITANIC, but I “get” their popularity. Like, people genuinely loved those films and saw them again and again and talked about them for months. Same for DARK KNIGHT or the Burton BATMAN or the STAR WARS films or E.T. or JAWS or THE GODFATHER or JURASSIC PARK or the HARRY POTTER films or THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy (or even the PIRATES films, which had enormous goodwill from the first two installments and the iconic status of Depp’s performance), etc. It’s akin to those old samplers of hit pop songs from a given era. One could say: yes, I may not have cared for that particular song, but it was ubiquitous on the radio and was a definite touchstone of a certain moment in time. Without going into your typical “well, that’s all subjective” rant, find me the one person on Earth who feels that way or could make that claim about 2012 or ALICE IN WONDERLAND or ICE AGE: DAWN OF THE DINOSAURS and we can have a legitimate conversation.
JS, I just think the books are really good. Not being snobby, I just feel as you: with the books so popular why isn’t the box office higher? I can’t think of any other explanations. You have any?
How about the fact that there’s just a lot more money in the entire planet minus the United States (or North America, whichever it is) than just the United States? It probably isn’t so much that the foreign market is throwing ALL OF ITS MONEY at Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs. Are there any numbers breaking down foreign percentage of box office vs. domestic? Are these movies staying number one longer in those other countries?
Hallick: That chart IS a chart of foreign percentage vs. domestic. It’s not a list of all-time grossers, it’s a list of movies that had a worldwide cume of >$450M and made at least 2/3 of that money overseas. (That’s why the STAR WARS, THE DARK KNIGHT, TRANSFORMERS, most of the Pixar movies and first two PIRATES films are missing, for instance.) So the question becomes: what is it about THESE particular movies that made them so much more successful overseas in relation to their U.S. grosses?
Or conversely, why they were less successful in the US.
Dark Knight is actually a fascinating case. The only Batman movie to ever do more international than domestic was the Schwarzenegger one, Batman & Robin. Dark Knight expanded the gross both here and abroad… but still, “just” 47% overseas, #31 all-time (unadjusted dollars).
Alice did $220m more internationally than Dark Knight… that’s not just the 3D bump talking. Why? It’s a great number for Dark Knight too… but…
Transformers is also interesting. Up in both domestic and international on the second film… but a lot more growth at home than abroad. It’s within a couple of percent of being a 50/50 proposition (albeit a very big one). What will happen this time? Who knows?
good grief, alice in wonderland is a KIDS/FAMILY MOVIE, TDK is not (not to mention that much of the world doesn’t give a shit about batman). how is it some mystery how alice made more $ internationally?
i think hallick meant # of people going to the movies worldwide vs the # of US moviegoers proportionally (or not, just my impression)
and i’m sorry, nikki, are you the arbiter of what is a ‘legitimate conversation’ now and what isn’t, and i just don’t quite cut it as it currently stands? what a prat. you can’t understand why people went to see these movies, so they’re not worthy. i think you just explained it to yourself.
find you one person on earth, are you kidding? blech. i know several people personally who like ‘alice in wonderland’, thought it was a bit of an acid trip. there are a few hotbloggers who like it, can’t remember, maybe anghus (that might be wrong). lots of kids like it, a FAMILY MOVIE starring depp, who is a big international movie star, in a 3D offshoot of a beloved children’s novel. family movies often get WOM, from beleaguered parents to others looking for something to do with the tykes to shut them up for a few hours. and it depends a great deal on what is playing at the time.
ice age: dawn of the dinos: perfectly decent children’s movie – CHILDREN’S MOVIE – that was action packed and relatively amusing with familiar, charming characters that had pretty cool 3D when the craze was still fresh. kids LOVED it. FAMILY MOVIE. so ice age: dinos was in the cinemas at the time – perhaps one of few decent family flicks around – and people the world over took the kids to see it, BOO HOO. so americans didn’t flock to it for whatever reason, well it must be crap!
and maybe 2012 was one of few movies playing at the local cinema in buttfuck egypt or india or wherever for any length of time, people went to see the big, outrageous disaster movie on offer so cinemas kept playing it and it made $, i don’t know, so many reasons why a huge internationally-set disaster movie with ott effects might play well, plus FAMILY MOVIE. see above.
hope that’s the right fodder for a ‘legitimate conversation’ according to your discerning level of discourse, nikki, i suspect you don’t want to have a ‘conversation’ at all but rather you want to be snide about your precious subjective opinion about movies you don’t like and can’t understand how others could, so you can haughtily pooh-pooh other’s ‘bad taste’. stupid foreigners.
“much of the world doesn’t give a shit about batman”
Sure.
“good grief, alice in wonderland is a KIDS/FAMILY MOVIE, TDK is not”
Not so much. In a US movie culture that also benefits kid/family movies, Dark Knight outgrossed Alice by $200 million.
And honestly, Leah, you seem to be fighting just to be fighting over those 3 films. What N-Whisperer was saying was that these films had these HUGE numbers, but none were cultural touchstones for any time at all.
Do you disagree?
Leah: Again, I’m not talking about personal taste and I’m not saying that those movies shouldn’t have been hits — you list the very reasons they were successful. A lot of shitty movies make money, both in the U.S. and abroad. It’s the MIND-BLOWINGLY OUTSIZED MAGNITUDE of their success that is mystifying to me. The fact that ALICE, a movie that was literally out of theatres and on video within 10 weeks, is the 6th BIGGEST GROSSING MOVIE OF ALL TIME doesn’t seem out of whack to you vis a vis its place in the cultural zeitgeist? When you think of ALICE IN WONDERLAND do the phrases “universally beloved” and “passionate fanbase” and “repeat viewings” pop into your head? ICE AGE 4 is, indeed, a perfectly pleasant family film, but the fact that it’s presumably more popular and beloved than any animated family film ever made save TOY STORY 3 and SHREK 2 isn’t surprising to you somehow?
There’s something else at play here. Perhaps it’s partly a 3-D bump, made even stronger overseas by the weak U.S. dollar (a 20% bump multiplied by a 20% weaker dollar = a defacto 40% bump), perhaps it’s the explosion of the so-called BRIC economies (where piracy is rampant and 3-D provides an incentive to see it in the theatre), perhaps, yes, foreign audiences are less nit-picky and discerning about their spectacle and dubbing papers over some of the cracks in the movies (which is not the same as saying they are “stupid”).
But I guarantee you, even the studios in question were probably surprised by the outsized grosses of the films I mentioned and I wonder if the fact that movies can now achieve that level of success without being legitimate “zeitgeist” touchstones represents a new paradigm shift that is going to change how studios formulate their tentpole product in the future; marketing and spectacle have always been able to open a movie, but there used to have to be a certain level of exceptional crowd-pleasing “je ne sais quoi” to give a movie legs and take it to the stratosphere. Now that that seemingly is no longer the case and boxoffice figures give studios empirical grounds to say “good enough is good enough,” will films be even more cyncially conceived and executed as a result?
As for family movies, take into consideration that many American parents would rather skip the pricey movie night and wait for the DVD, which will be played over and over for years.
What was that again about Midnight in Paris shedding screens this week, Poland?
Get ready for the highest grossing Allen film ever. Internationally too.
oh, i’m fighting just to be fighting, DP? well of course, not because i might actually have a point, thanks for setting me straight, how silly of me.
americans care about batman, much of the rest of the word: not. how is this not clear.
sometimes movies just make a lot of money because of serendipity, influenced heavily by WHEN they happen to be playing and WHAT the competition is and how heavily they’re promoted even, PARTICULARLY in the case of family films, which all three films that i’m supposedly ‘fighting’ for – for no reason at all other than i just feel like it, apparently – are. i would guess it’s a case of right place, right time. “do you think the kids would like ‘alice in wonderland’ with johnny depp? that’s playing”…”yeah, phil said their lot liked it, let’s do that”.
most importantly: what other children’s/family movies were up against alice/2012/ice age dinos in cinemas around the world as competition? was it the school holidays in these locations (NOT the same as in the US in most places)? is the movie set in the US/blatantly american? the factors are many.
conversely, is it possible movies NOT set in the US/overtly american are not as popular for US audiences for cultural reasons?
and assuming that because a movie makes a lot of money worldwide it automatically has to be, or become, a cultural touchstone – or to assume it’s more ‘culturally beloved’ than another film simply by virtue of it having made more money internationally – does not follow AT ALL.
i hate to be the one to inform you, but the world outside the US is not a solid block, the international box office consists of multiple countries and the ‘foreign’ audience isn’t a single entity/country, it’s made up of many differnt nationalities, cultures and languages… so where do you presume ‘alice in wonderland’ or ‘ice age’ or 2012 is unduly culturally beloved so as to be an enigma to you? scotland? zambia? croatia? russia? china? mexico? madagascar? the assumption is, frankly, nonsensical. wasn’t 2012 a phenon in india? why don’t you ask some indians what that’s all about.
and as always, you operate under the america-centric assumption that if something is not culturally significant THERE, it’s not culturally significant.
also, aren’t movies commonly making more money internationally proportionate to the US in general, so these movies – while certainly huge successes – are in line with that international ‘trend’?
i can’t be bothered going on anymore, like newt says, it won’t make any difference, and i’m pooped.
but oh, this:
“perhaps, yes, foreign audiences are less nit-picky and discerning about their spectacle and dubbing papers over some of the cracks in the movies (which is not the same as saying they are “stupid”).”
americans are more nitpicky about their spectacle? YEAH, RIGHT. christ, what poppycock. you must work for a studio, the way you blather on about it.
How dare you have a contrary opinion Leah? HOW DARE YOU? Also, the Bat logo is one of the most recognizable on the planet, and Bats is huge the world wide. Never under estimate the BATS, LEAH! YOU JUST DON’T MIKE! YOU JUST DON’T DO IT! NEVER UNDER ESTIMATE THE BATS AND DEREK JETER, MIKE! YOU JUST DON’T DO IT!
i don’t know who derek jeter is, is he the baseball player who puched halle berry in the head and made her deaf in one ear? but hey, i’m a huge fan of the bat! i don’t think the caped crusader is nearly as big in most of the world as it is in the US tho, that’s probably fair to say, isn’t it?
You are really angry, Leah. And you make a ton more presumptions about what others think than I would ever dare.
Honestly, I don’t get the drama. Bit I have come to expect it. You’ve become the Archie Bunker of the blog lately.
I have always been glad you are here. But you respond to almost any thought outside of your predetermined idea of the world with accusations of bigotry or ignorance or American disinterest. And when called on it, you double down.
I don’t necessarily agree with the zeitgeist thing… but you were so anxious to bully the argument into “you fucking xenophobes” that I could only imagine you mistook what had been written.
Apparently not.
Bad news… I like and respect women, I have been pushing foreign box office as critical to analysis for more than a decade, I understand a good number of foreign market preferences (though not all, certainly), and I believe that while my opinion determines little more than my opinion, it is fair to take the temperature of a film, even if I end up being wrong.
Please. I beg. More of your opinions and fewer if your judgements of others. Your primary tool in fighting is to tell others what they think and why they think that way… and it’s offensive.
I may offend you as well, but I have to be here and you don’t. You can avoid me, but I can’t avoid you.
i am not angry IN THE SLIGHTEST. sorry to disappoint you.
fewer of my judgements of others? and what about all the judgements of me, those are a-okay? you are a massive hypocrite. but hey, ban me. or i’ll just post what i post and you can tell me to shut up.
sorry, i just re-read that above. what are you talking about?
You aren’t reading what you write or you write in a way that doesn’t reflect how you feel. But even your biggest fans in here must admit that you often seem ENRAGED.
actually what i write reflects exactly how i feel, the interpretation of RAGE is yours, or whoevers, i’ve always written this way and i’m virtually never angry, not sure what else to say. you accuse everybody who criticises you of rage so what’s new, and being critical of you has become quite a bit easier, as you’ve become a bit of a pompous windbag of late, so there’s that. and i really couldn’t care less, apart from when you insist that i’m angry and i have to tell you i’m not, which is a nuisance, but certainly not enraging. i think you don’t like being criticised, and i’m critical of you, therefore i’m angry. but no.
“Your primary tool in fighting is to tell others what they think and why they think that way… and it’s offensive. ”
btw, that is preposterous. and offensive. in the previous discussion, you are honestly saying that my argument is based on telling others what they think, that i haven’t made a shitload of points based on all sorts of other things that have nothing to do with telling someone how they think? if you seriously think that… that’s scary
(yikes typos galore)
I am happy to announce I read none of this argument. 😀
it was a debate, foamy, and don’t you forget it
i hate when you think of what you were going to say hours after the fact in the middle of something else entirely, but re: this concept of ‘telling people what they’re thinking’ levelled at me, i don’t know about anyone else but i’m not that psychic, so i go purely by interpreting what people SAY after they say it, i’m not attempting ESP.
particularly on a blog, interpreting other people’s posts CAN be fraught with misunderstanding, but interpreting people’s comments is all you can do on a blog, really, and obviously what one thinks is directly related to what one then says. interpreting what someone says is quite differnt from just blindly telling people what they think; extrapolating what someone is thinking from what one says is called language comprehension, isn’t it?
Leah is passionate, not angry. And yet I totally get what nikki is saying about the success of films like ICE AGE 4. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of unique movie hits these days versus days of yore when the top ten hits included JAWS, THE GODFATHER, E.T. or even HOME ALONE or JURASSIC PARK. I would argue that the rest of the “world” is no more collectively smarter or dumber in regards to our film output. But it’s interesting as an American to see how other nations easily accept some of our most soulless, cynical Film Product.
I can’t really judge the list. Like a third of it are Potter films which seem like a specific audience. It does seem that Hollywood is less able to produce films that “speak” to american culture in any kind of remarkable way. But why that is I don’t know. Could be the obsession with giving us different versions of the exact same juvenile boilerplate. Could be the fragmentation of the culture. Could be the changes in distribution. I remember when Forrest Gump was in theaters for months and everybody talked about it and it was a thing. Seems like studios don’t even want that anymore. They want 200 million+ in three weeks then they want to get on with putting it on DVD. So to do that movies have to be massively pre-branded and pre-sold and so the audience has no chance to claim a movie as its own. But this isn’t news to anyone.
When was Hollywood more able to speak to american culture in any kind of remarkable way on a sustained basis over a number of years rather than some fluke like say a 1994? And is that what you really want when a large portion of what’s succeeding in american culture lately is actually dreck like “Keeping Up With The Kardashians”, “Teen Mom” and “American Idol”?
Bread and circuses, folks.
Leah, Derek Jeter never did that to Halle Berry. Wesley Snipes did and how dare you TREAT DEREK JETER THAT WAY! THAT’S JUST NOT RIGHT THERE MIKE! THAT’S JUST NOT RIGHT AT ALL!
My late entry into this thread is almost guaranteed to make it completely irrelevant, but I have to ask:
Is there really all that much mystery here?
Exhibit A: Roland Emmerich. He’s the most successful European director since, like, Luc Besson, right? Haven’t his movies ALWAYS killed internationally? And isn’t it thrilling to watch the United States get destroyed over and over again?
Exhibit B: Johnny Depp. The biggest international star, no? Didn’t THE TOURIST also inexplicably become a big international B.O. hit? Throw in Penelope Cruz and 3D, not hard to see that one.
Exhibit C: Harry Potter. Those books got translated into every language in the world, and the cast features every working British actor ever — something for everyone.
Exhibit D: Tim Burton + Helena Bonham Carter. Burton’s films ALWAYS do better internationally. And I would argue that international audiences have been watching HBC since the Merchant-Ivory days. She’s in ALICE and POTTER, just saying. Throw in Depp and 3D…BOOM!!!
You could make similar arguments for Cameron, Hanks, even Daniel Craig.
The rest is animation. If anyone cares to set aside their animus toward Leah, she”s probably right about family-friendly animation. And nikki makes a good case about the 3D bump.
I have no clue how to explain the position of ICE AGE 3, however.
Someone may already have said this, but it may have helped internationally that only two of those titles are set in contemporary America, THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW and THE SIMPSONS MOVIE.
The trailer for ANONYMOUS is kind of hilarious – Shakespearean intrigue interrupted by giant INDEPENDENCE DAY/GODZILLA/2012 cg environment shots.
apologies to derek jeter, i was way off.
i think i missed the boat at the end here, but fwiw my point in this was family-friendly movies often with big international stars not set in america/or blatantly american (or watching it get destroyed, good point) can = big box office around the world, i was not specifically speaking to family ANIMATION as per NDB’s comment, just to clarify.
and speaking of animation, i must say i don’t get the animosity towards ‘ice age 3’ in this discussion.
have any of the people here so acerbically critical of the movie even SEEN it?
while it’s not a patch on the classic original, which is hilarious, it’s a lovely, well-animated amusing (3D) children’s adventure romp with beloved characters in their ongoing exploration of what constitutes ‘family’ and making sacrifices for those you love with some genuinely exciting and harrowing moments, set in an underground ‘land of the lost’ world – no, not the most original or unique children’s film ever made but certainly not worthy of the abject derision levelled at it here, esp sight unseen, which i hope is not the case. i took a bunch of younger kids to it, and they loved it, it was perfectly enjoyable.
all it takes to create a hit children’s/family movie around the world is for it to open in the school holidays (which ‘ice age 3’ definitely did here, and we wouldn’t be unique in that regard) with good word of mouth between parents looking for something ALL ages of children can do, with little or no competition at the cinema, and you’ve got a hit. then this serendipity replicates in multiple countries around the world, which is exactly what happened with ‘ice age 3’, cobble together all the profits from all those countries and voila, a global success. it’s not some conspiracy of bad taste, it’s good timing around the world. why didn’t it hit it america? who knows, maybe it had more competition, whathaveyou, but i’m skeptical of ‘more discerning’ as the reason.
the insinuation that because ‘ice age 3’ was a big hit internationally that foreigners are willing to accept america’s “most soulless, cynical film product” (sorry chritian, no offense you know i always appreciate your POV/support but that well-worded description is too good to pass up in the context of the point i’m trying to make) is in itself a cynical assumption, because for audiences it’s about the movie, which is not a horrible, soulless film, quite the contrary ‘ice age 3’ is a fun, charming, well-animated film, ESP for children.
just because people who comment on the film industry perceive ‘ice age 3’ as a soulless or cynical cash grab sequel doesn’t mean a thing to families/audiences who genuinely enjoyed the movie, THAT’S WHAT AUDIENCES CARE ABOUT, they don’t give a hoot if a bunch of people are grumpy about the movie as an unnecessary sequel if the movie itself delivers on its intent – which it does.
(i never thought i’d be mounting a defense of ‘ice age 3: dawn of the dinos’, life certainly is strange and unpredictable)
I’ve never met anybody, ever, who was REALLY into “Men in Black,” always thought it was something universally regarded as a VERY MINOR, 78-minute long 1.85 B-movie mini-movie, yet for years it was among the all-time top B.O. draws.
Men in Black isn’t one of my top 50 favorite movies, but I think it’s nearly perfect, in that it accomplishes exactly what it wants to accomplish. And that summer it just seemed like a breath of fresh air after junk like Batman & Robin and Speed 2.
Leah: Again, let me clarify my point, which seems to have been lost by looking at it in too binary a fashion. I understand that there is a huge demand for family films (as that list attests) and that, yes, timing of school vacations and what competing product is out there plays a role. I have never said that I don’t understand why any of the movies in question were HITS; I am not saying “those films are not in my wheelhouse, ergo anyone who likes them is wrong and an idiot;” I am not even attacking ICE AGE 4, which my kid enjoyed (but didn’t want to see multiple times the way she did other family films). My POINT is: their numbers suggest that they were much more than HITS and were actually genuine PHENOMENONS and that is where I’m puzzled by the disconnect. It’s the difference between, say, ICE AGE 4 doing $500M worldwide (which would be an incredibly healthy number suggesting it was a crowd-pleaser) as opposed to close to $800M, which puts it near the top 25 of ALL-TIME. Yes, a lot of people were probably eager to see ALICE once (the combination of Burton’s take on a classic, 3-D, wild visuals and Depp obviously seemed inviting on paper), but its numbers are so wildly huge as to suggest it garnered obsessive multiple viewings in the space of its shortened ancillary-window 10 week run, and I just don’t see that. Even anecdotally, I don’t know of anyone who LOVED the movie THAT much (it did better than all the HARRY POTTER and STAR WARS films and all but one of the LORD OF THE RINGS movies). The same goes for 2012 or, say, the DA VINCI CODE: hits, yes, I get it, but MAMMOTH BLOCKBUSTER JUGGERNAUTS? Numbers that high usually indicate repeat viewings and passion on the part of the audience; I find it hard to believe that people wanted to obsessively see those films 5-6 times, the same way they did other blockbusters. Emmerich’s GODZILLA, for instance, opened huge, but soon faded from sight as word got out about it being disappointing; 2012 isn’t appreciably better, so where did its legs come from? This is the question I’m asking. Why THESE films? Is it the films themselves, or is it the triumph of marketing and more efficient international release patterns? Or are there other factors at play?
nikki, not just to have a snipe but that was really hard to read in that huge block, i had to have a couple goes to make sure i got it all.
and i don’t really appreciate being told i’m reading your posts in a binary fashion, that is insulting. perhaps you should look at how you are wording your posts and how it can be interpreted rather than assuming it’s my comprehension skills at fault; i have my masters in developmental psychology and art history, and my reading comprehension is fairly good, thank you. i will remind you that your participation in this thread began with you saying, quite blatantly and simply, that “foreign audiences have shitty taste”. coming back from that requires lot of backpedaling, i’d think.
what i can say is this:
it think you are reading way too much into your presumption/perception of ‘phenom’. it is an assumption without basis.
i’ve said this several times, but for some reason it’s not sinking in so i’ll try again: ‘foreign’ box office is made up of not one country but multitudes; if it were just one country where ‘ice age’ (or alice, etc) did ASTRONOMICALLY well, then you’d have a case for cultural phenonm (such as 2012 in india: phenom). all the countries on the earth besides the US were not communicating with each other, or in collusion to make ‘ice age 3’ a big hit; ‘ice age 3’ did very well, likely due to timing and being a sweet kid’s movie, in many, many SEPERATE countries. you can not assume it was some cultural phenom here – nor dare i say in any of the other countries where it did good box office; it’s when the $ from all the countries on the planet where it did WELL are ADDED UP that it made a shitload of $. it did very good business across many countries, which equals huge international box office. that does not automatically equate to ‘cultural juggernaut’. i’m not sure why this is so hard to fathom or how it doesn’t make sense.
your anecdotal evidence means nothing. more importantly, your assumption re: big box office over many separate countries must mean multiple viewings for ‘alice’ or any of the others – therefore indicating a cultural phenom – is completely baseless. a SHITLOAD of families in many separate countries the world over went to a johny depp-starring tim burton-made version of a classic children’s tale, that’s what you can assume. you can’t assume multiple repeat viewing in all countries, how on earth do you justify that logically? to be blunt, your entire argument here is built on a flawed premise.
and then, you are extrapolating from your house of cards built on assumptions that ‘foreign’ countries are probably less discerning about their big flicks than american audiences, because these movies you don’t care for made bank outside the US, which is spurious to say the least. why did these movies apparently appeal more to international audiences the world over than US moviegoers? i think some good ideas have been explored in this thread, but because they’re ‘less discerning’ or ‘less picky’ is a bit rich.
plus, movies are opening WIDER in more countries than ever before – more $ to add up from around the world – which most certainly benefits the newer movies the likes of ice age 3 and alice and 2012 on that list.
re: my retort above, just had a quick look for the list of countries ‘alice’ played in. it’s not little. and boy, does it add up.
Country
(click to view weekend breakdown) Dist. Release
Date Opening
Wknd % of
Total Total Gross / As Of
FOREIGN TOTAL – 3/3/10 $94,000,000 13.6% $690,108,794 1/16/11
Argentina Disney 3/4/10 $1,668,739 20.4% $8,193,223 6/20/10
Australia Disney 3/4/10 $9,424,165 28.4% $33,234,316 5/16/10
Austria Disney 3/4/10 $1,425,319 25.3% $5,635,346 7/18/10
Belgium Disney 3/10/10 $1,423,808 22.8% $6,245,391 7/4/10
Bolivia Disney 3/4/10 $198,093 29.3% $676,994 6/6/10
Brazil Disney 4/23/10 $6,032,057 21.3% $28,360,362 10/24/10
Bulgaria Forum Films 3/5/10 $198,768 24.7% $804,133 5/16/10
Chile Disney 5/13/10 $911,845 29% $3,140,515 7/11/10
Colombia Disney 3/5/10 $1,182,994 17.5% $6,768,771 6/6/10
Croatia Disney 3/4/10 $57,621 17.1% $336,719 4/25/10
Czech Republic Falcon 3/4/10 $586,629 22.1% $2,650,680 6/27/10
Denmark Disney 3/4/10 $1,150,793 24.8% $4,631,884 6/6/10
East Africa Disney 3/5/10 $17,450 18.9% $92,105 5/23/10
Ecuador Disney 3/5/10 $493,099 21.2% $2,323,343 6/6/10
Egypt Disney 3/3/10 $75,635 15% $503,454 5/30/10
Estonia Disney 3/5/10 $96,760 22.2% $435,445 5/9/10
Finland Disney 3/12/10 $768,522 20.3% $3,794,730 7/18/10
France Disney 3/24/10 $15,380,327 33.5% $45,855,971 5/16/10
Germany Disney 3/4/10 $7,050,051 20.4% $34,638,318 6/27/10
Ghana Disney 3/5/10 $5,307 26% $20,391 3/28/10
Greece Disney 3/4/10 $1,025,343 34.3% $2,985,480 4/11/10
Hong Kong Disney 3/4/10 $1,902,019 33.5% $5,678,519 5/2/10
Hungary Forum Films 3/4/10 $414,223 26.4% $1,567,143 5/9/10
Iceland Disney 3/5/10 $57,668 26.7% $215,744 4/25/10
Indonesia Disney 3/4/10 $586,160 28.6% $2,047,959 6/13/10
Israel Disney 3/18/10 $875,747 17.8% $4,927,834 6/13/10
Italy Disney 3/3/10 $11,115,961 27.8% $39,952,697 5/2/10
Japan Disney 4/17/10 $14,032,610 10.5% $133,694,649 7/4/10
Latvia Baltic 3/5/10 $71,565 19.9% $359,905 7/4/10
Lebanon Disney 3/4/10 $83,271 19.3% $430,952 5/16/10
Lithuania Forum 3/5/10 $103,042 18.4% $559,730 6/5/11
Malaysia Disney 3/4/10 $973,901 27.2% $3,580,438 5/2/10
Mexico Disney 3/5/10 $7,620,403 24.3% $31,347,734 5/30/10
Netherlands Disney 3/10/10 $1,747,120 19.6% $8,910,059 6/13/10
New Zealand Disney 3/4/10 $804,405 22.2% $3,625,543 6/6/10
Nigeria – 3/5/10 $14,596 38.3% $38,106 3/21/10
Norway Disney 3/5/10 $1,025,794 24.2% $4,239,984 6/27/10
Peru Disney 3/4/10 $438,337 24% $1,825,228 5/9/10
Philippines Disney 3/4/10 $1,039,374 33.5% $3,099,108 5/2/10
Poland Forum Films 3/5/10 $2,006,542 25.3% $7,926,017 5/2/10
Portugal Disney 3/4/10 $1,120,015 31.8% $3,525,009 6/13/10
Romania Prooptiki 3/5/10 $306,772 23.2% $1,323,181 6/27/10
Russia – CIS Dis./Sony 3/4/10 $13,823,480 32.8% $42,114,337 6/13/10
Serbia & Montenegro Disney 3/4/10 $38,692 18.2% $212,062 6/13/10
Singapore Disney 3/4/10 $1,186,954 35.8% $3,319,768 4/25/10
Slovakia Saturn 3/11/10 $274,982 25.2% $1,093,280 5/9/10
Slovenia Disney 3/4/10 $22,767 13.3% $171,221 4/25/10
South Africa (Entire Region) Disney 3/5/10 $613,711 19.2% $3,188,348 5/2/10
South Korea Disney 3/4/10 $4,760,779 26.5% $17,954,373 5/16/10
Spain Disney 4/16/10 $10,283,762 35.7% $28,769,165 7/25/10
Sweden Disney 3/3/10 $1,400,636 21.6% $6,483,980 6/27/10
Taiwan Disney 3/6/10 $676,786 27.7% $2,442,366 4/18/10
Thailand Disney 3/4/10 $640,119 34.8% $1,837,230 4/11/10
Turkey UIP 3/5/10 $528,722 22% $2,399,846 5/30/10
Ukraine Disney 3/11/10 $1,289,584 37% $3,484,583 5/16/10
United Arab Emirates – 3/4/10 $571,771 24.1% $2,374,980 5/2/10
United Kingdom Disney 3/5/10 $15,983,555 24.8% $64,437,055 5/2/10
Uruguay Disney 3/5/10 $94,424 18.5% $509,177 6/6/10
Venezuela Disney 3/5/10 $628,604 14.5% $4,335,113 6/6/10
Leah… you have some ideas of value in there… wish they weren’t buried in defensive posturing.
Looking at your chart, note that only 11 countries grossed over $10 million and those 11 countries represent about $500 million of the $690 million total.
This is pretty normal. So analyzing the territories is not terribly difficult.
The same, by the way, is similarly true. There will be some variation from the top 20 markets and the rest of the country, but the figure is dominant and not irrelevant.
Japan is a big outlier and the numbers on Alice and Toy Story 3 there were pretty amazing. Not Avatar, but surprisingly close.
UK was strong, though #3 for last year.
Then, Spain, South Korea, Russia, Mexico, Italy, Germany, France, Brazil and Australia. (not in that order)
Anyway… not impenetrable mystery.
So, I take it your position is that Alice in Wonderland IS this generation’s Star Wars?
based on what? no, that not my position, why would it be, that’s preposterous. and i’m sick of your commentary about me personally, DP, well and truly, one-eyed jack. there is no “defensive posturing” above except IN YOUR MIND, i stated my case clearly and concisely.
i was looking earlier with my friend jinxy at a sampling of the current all-time top 20 grossing movies for japan, china, Uk, australia, germany, india, and out of the three movies we’ve primarily focused on – ‘alice’, 2012 and ice-age 3 – ‘alice’ doesn’t feature at all except for in japan and spain, ‘ice age 3’ only features in australia at no. 40, and 2012 doesn’t feature at all except huge in china (*see below), hardly inexplicable world-wide cultural phenoms, are they.
(and i actually just came to make a correction as i was informed ealier it’s CHINA, not india, where 2012 is a bona fide phenom and sure enough china it is, so my bad)
(oh and btw just looking over this thread, nikki w. has said “foreigners have shitty taste”; said foreigners are less discerning/picky about their big flicks than americans – which any way you slice it is demeaning; called several movies, most of which are merely mediocre “horribly wretched” in stating his opinion as fact; called me “ms literal” who needs ‘spelling out’ to, told me we could have a “legitimate discussion” so long as it suits his criteria/is on his terms; and finally, called my reading comprehension “binary”. but hey, nothing condescending in there or to be defensive about at all — but nikki whisperer doesn’t like the big bad finke and he agrees with you almost always, so of course it’s all me. i had virtually nothing to say to you re: this topic to begin with, but i see you’ve taken up the mantle)
cringing on the threepeat of shame but i’ll suck it up and do it anyway to say having made that box office comment re: the sampling of countries above from memory, and now having the actual bit of paper in my hand that the figures were noted on, a major adjustment (ftr jinxy got the figures because i’m a shocker, i even fucked up just the writing it down part because of course i misplaced the paper):
change this:
“sampling of the current all-time top 20 grossing movies for japan, china, Uk, australia, germany, india”
to the TOP 10 (not twenty), which then makes the rest of it read right (or better). for the sake of propriety and being anal, how it should have read:
“a sampling of the current all-time top 10 grossing movies for japan, china, Uk, australia, germany, india, and out of the three movies we’ve primarily focused on – ‘alice’, 2012 and ice-age 3 – ‘alice’ doesn’t feature with japan, austalia and the UK in the top 20 ranking in the teens, ‘ice age 3′ features in germany with spain in the top 20, and 2012 huge in china (plus i now remember when looking up germany that 2012 was big in france, tho we didn’t have france in the group)
so clearly figures and the top of my head memory don’t mix, i should have just waited till i had the paper to do it properly. skulking away now
Jumping back in for a sec – India and China tend to be HIGHLY variable due to regulation. Avatar is a notable example as it was embraced by the Chinese government to the point where they renamed a mountain, compared to PotC3 where censors removed entire scenes involving Chow Yun Fat. Similarly Da Vinci code was banned in 7 states in India, which represents the third largest film economy in the world behind US and Japan.
Just making the point it’s hard to attribute box office numbers purely to “cultural” factors, and I’m sure there’s issues with a more fractured theatre market as well that make the wide rollouts we’re used to in Western countries more difficult.
Watch this! She’s in pregnancy in 7th month!!