Weekend Estimates by Turkey Hangover Klady
Moana has a solid, if not animation-world-beating start. Fantastic Beasts holds solidly. Doctor Strange still has a mystic hold over audiences. Allied gets out of the geat slow and anticipates big international returns. Arrival has the best hold on the big board. And Bad Santa 2 gets stuck in the chimney, along with Rules Don’t Apply. Muscular exclusive runs for Lion and Miss Sloane lead arthousers while Billy Lynn suffers a per-screen roughly equivalent to one ticket per show through the weekend in an agonizing expansion.
Disney may be going light on the Sunday estimate for Moana, but it still looks like a minimum $200m domestic, $600m worldwide movie any way you slice it. It ain’t Frozen, but it will be in the upper group of Walt Disney Animation movies and the #4 animated movie of 2016, behind Finding Dory, which ultimately passed Zootopia, and #3, The Secret Life of Pets, which will be just over $875m worldwide when it’s done. It’s a testament to Disney’s marketing power in this segment that it will go so high. Released by other studios, it would easily have done half its numbers.
As noted earlier, Fantastic Beasts is fine. It got to $150 million at the same pace as Potter #3 and a day faster than Potter #2. Clearly, it doesn’t have the dramatic heat of the first Potter nor the muscle of the films that came later in the series. But there is plenty to build on.
Doctor Strange lives in a similar place as Beasts. It is an undeniable success. But it’s “only” the seventh best first film of a Marvel character to date. This is going to be a big part of the ongoing discussion of comic book and other CG-driven movies moving forward. How much is enough? Sony was happy to give up on the Amazing Spider-Man version of the franchise after two films that each grossed over $700 million worldwide. I think they will look smart, as I think Spidey 3.0 will be a much bigger franchise. But still, how much is enough for these films?
The same issue will come up for Disney with the offshoots of Star Wars, which are sure to be massive… but not nearly as massive as the core franchise. It will be a few years before there is a real baseline of box office history to judge how annual Star Wars movies ebb and flow.
When you look at 2016, it counters arguments about comic book movie exhaustion, with 5 such films in the worldwide Top 9 right now… and 3 of them being the first films for Deadpool, Doctor Strange, and Suicide Squad. The only real trouble spot in the category this year was X-Men: Apocalypse, which still managed to do $545 million. Still, Marvel seems to be anticipating this problem with significant new character cameos in Civil War. DC also got on this, to some degree, with BvS, with the arrival of Wonder Woman and an ad for Justice League (that felt like an ad). Not quite as skillful, but definitely a trend line to keep in mind.
Allied did not have a great opening, dead in the middle between Zemeckis’ last two films, The Walk and Flight. The problem for this one is that it cost a lot more than Flight. On the other hand, Brad Pitt. He is a big reason why the film is more expensive and why it still has a legit chance at $150 million worldwide or more.
Paramount had happier news with its other “A” movie, Arrival, which dropped just 8% in its third weekend. The film is already pretty much guaranteed to be in profit in theatrical (including P&A… and in simple math, not studio contract math) and could get a big boost from the award season. It’s not like an awards movie that people will need to find after they hear about nominations. It is a well-liked, reasonably commercial film that will have another call to action if award nominations (and critics groups) go as expected.
Trolls continues to roll. It’s running a little behind The Croods, which is the #1 DreamWorks Animation film in the Fox distribution era. But a success any way you cook it. Fox has both DWA movies next year and in 2018, the post-Katzenberg DreamWorks Animation show moves to Universal.
Bad Santa 2 continues the trend of old franchises that people truly love that don’t perform as long-sitting sequels. In this case, it’s been 13 years. They added Kathy Bates, but didn’t give us much of a sense of what she added or why we should come see the reunion. Just for argument, it is a movie I am the prime audience for. I was one of the first raves for the original Bad Santa, seeing it in an early screening when Miramax wasn’t quite sure what they had. I love Kathy Bates. I love the idea of the kid being the same kid, 13 years later. I have been supportive of Broad Green. And I work with the company doing publicity for the film all the time. No discussion of doing anything for the movie. One e-mail the morning after Halloween with a screening time (which I just opened for the first time). Minimal push. Maybe the movie sucks and the team figured it was a write-off and this opening is what it had coming. Maybe Broad Green is tired of losing money and and alley-ooped it, though it is their widest opening and their second best opening as a distributor. Part of me hopes it is terrible because then I won’t feel bad that an opportunity was missed.
Hacksaw Ridge is not giving away its shot. It had the second best hold of the wide releases and could well break through into the award season. I also think the international could be significant.
Rules Don’t Apply is not a happy story. Why did they launch wide? I don’t know. Into a very busy Thanksgiving holiday weekend? I don’t know. With two wonderful young leads who have no opening power (yet) and a legendary star and writer-director who hasn’t been in the market in 15 years? This is a movie that could have had a weekend not unlike Miss Sloane or Lion, a few screens, a 5-figure per-screen, and something to build on.
The only opening Warren Beatty has ever had that was over $6 million was Dick Tracy. And this romantic period piece opened wider than any film he was ever in or wrote or directed. I don’t know whether this film would have been a hit under other release methods… but it wouldn’t be getting punched in the face on Drudge, which really sucks. Doesn’t deserve that. At all.
Speaking of smaller releases with happier stories, Loving (421 screens), Moonlight (618), and Manchester By The Sea (48) are clustered together right around Rules, each with between $1.2 million and $1.7 million coming in over the weekend.
The big per-screen winners for the weekend were Lion and Miss Sloane, with $31k on 4 and $21k on 3.
And the car wreck of the weekend was Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk, which is setting records for major studio futility in its second wide weekend. It’s brutal. Many bad decisions, aside from the movie itself. Ang Lee doesn’t deserve to be embarrassed like this and I suspect, because he is such a fine filmmaker and so likable, that it will quickly be forgotten (except by those who paid for it).
Here’s hoping that Hacksaw Ridge gets some Oscar love and bumps up that gross, would love to see it get to 80 or 100 million. As I always tell my friend though, its not all about box office. How many crappy terrible movies were huge hits (Suicide Squad).
My fave movie I saw in 2015 was Stop the Pounding Heart which made $3600.
Disney broke Universal’s all-time domestic record set last year, with a month to go in 2016. This thing isn’t getting broken next year, that’s for sure, in what figures to be a battle between UNI and WB for the top spot.
Offbeat box office/movie question….anyone seen YOUR NAME, the Japanese animated film? Wonder if it’s going to get an Oscar qualifying run here…looks magical, and is the top grossing Japanese production since SPIRITED AWAY in 2001.
Maybe if the marketing for Billy Lynn were clearer as to what the film is actually about, it wouldn’t be dead on arrival.
“Doesn’t deserve that at all.” I keep trying to figure out why industry types and critics are falling over themselves to defend “Rules Don’t Apply” as some misunderstood auteurist work, or simply an enjoyable trifle, rather than the botched, ill-conceived misfire that it plainly is. It played like death in the screening room when I saw it. Its terrible box-office performance should come as no surprise, regardless of whether one thinks Matt Drudge is a big meanie.
Ethan, Disney is probably going to top it next year. Episode VIII and Guardians, will help them a lot. Hell. If Cars 2 is an interesting movie, then that’s just going to bump things up as well.
That aside, what the fuck is Billy Lynn about? Seriously? A vet at a half time show, and he rethinks his life, as walking? WTF.
Finally, Bad Santa 2 is getting the same treatment, that the country received a couple of weeks ago. Millennials, have no idea what happened in the Bush area, and that goes for the movies that came out in those years as well.
@JS Partisan: Make that CARS 3. They already made CARS 2 in 2011, and it wasn’t an interesting movie, although it did do plenty of business. I will feel free to skip CARS 3.
@JS keep in mind they grossed over a billion from movies released before May and holdovers this year. With only BEAUTY AND THE BEAST (versus Zootpotia, Finest Hours and Jungle Book) and then ROGUE ONE holding over below Episode 7, they’ll be lucky to be $600 million behind this year’s pace pre-May. Then you have GUARDIANS vs CIVIL WAR, and CARS 3 vs DORY, which combined is a YOY loss. The only other movies before November to match the $225 million done by the minor Disney movies this year (Alice, Pete’s Dragon etc) are PIRATES 5, and….a STILL untitled Live-action fairy tale, and if that is somehow still happening at this late date, it can’t be a major production.
Then you have THOR 3 vs STRANGE, COCO vs MOANA and yes, Episode 8, but by that point you still have a $500 million+ deficit to make up. The only way they break the record next year is if the live-action adaptation is LION KING vs ALADDIN UNDER THE SEA WITH THE LITTLE MERMAID.
Also on Billy Lynn, it didn’t help that all the pre-release press had to do with the technical specs of the film (which was received mostly unfavorably), meaning that the film’s content wasn’t going to get any critical attention that it desperately needed.
I’m interested in it, completely because it is Ang Lee, but I clearly won’t be seeing it in the theater.
Josh, it was a typo, and have you watched the Cars 3 trailer? If that doesn’t make you the least bit interested in what the final product may be, then you must really detest cars with eyeballs.
Ethan, if everything over performs…
“But it’s “only” the seventh best first film of a Marvel character to date.”
Sixth, and that’s even if you count TAS which was a reboot, and Guardians as a character, which we shouldn’t. It’s the second best of the MCU behind Iron Man, and third if you again count Guardians. It’s doing better than the first Captain America and Thor films, characters far more well-known than Doctor Strange. Ant-Man came within an inch of Thor’s domestic gross.
Actually JS, upon looking it appears that the July 2017 movie is supposed to be MALEFICENT 2 or LIVE ACTION LITTLE MERMAID, and it isn’t happening…expected to shift into 2018 at any moment, meaning Disney has just four movies coming out from January to November. That means BEAUTY, CARS, PIRATES and GUARDIANS would all have to do $500 million apiece for it to happen. I doubt Mickey Mouse himself is that optimistic.
Looking to the future I’d bet on Disney to have a shot at breaking the record every year , and I expect them to absolutely destroy it in 2018, but with only 7 wide releases (SPIDERMAN grosses will be assigned to Sony) it isn’t happening in 2017.
2017 for Disney is a test case for something DP has been warning about for a long time….CARS 3 and PIRATES 5 are risky, which means the Mouse House is one movie away (say Beauty and the Beast performs below OZ) from fouling up their whole year.
“2017 for Disney is a test case for something DP has been warning about for a long time….CARS 3 and PIRATES 5 are risky, which means the Mouse House is one movie away (say Beauty and the Beast performs below OZ) from fouling up their whole year.”
Et I agree with you from a box office standpoint and Dave has been calling this for a the past couple of years….but are most of these Disney properties REALLY about box office?
Edgy wanna-be teaser trailer aside, I doubt that Car 3 is going to be that interesting and it’s probably going to get destroyed at the box office by Despicable Me 3 within its first two weeks…..but $10 billion plus in toy sales MIGHT be the actual driver for that one.
I doubt ‘Pirates 5 is going to even approach the domestic numbers of the original trilogy of films…..but Disney has new theme parks launching in Asia and I’m sure this won’t hurt promotion of those ‘Pirates rides.
Beauty & the Beast COULD be huge but I’m not sure given how weird the vibes are I’m getting from that latest trailer…..but the Mouse House will have been two years removed from the last sales driver (Cinderella 2015) for all princess-related gear, so I’m sure that will be a factor.
But you look at their slate in 2018….wow, it looks like a MAJOR cash-in spree for Disney IP – you literally have a big budget franchise/reboot/sequel/relaunch/remake scheduled EVERY month starting in February:
Black Panther
Wreck it Ralph 2
A Wrinkle in Time
Avengers To Infinity and Beyond….
Young Han Solo
Incredibles 2
Ant-Man 2
live-action Mulan
Mary Poppins sequel
If they don’t set box office records in 2018, then it won’t be for a lack of trying….
But sorry I just miss the Disney/Miramax/Touchstone conglomerate of the 90’s: the unwieldy group that gave us The Lion King, Pulp Fiction, Ed Wood, Quiz Show, The Ref, and The Santa Clause ALL within a six month period. Commerce AND art SORT of co-existing together, giving us big budget entertainments for the whole family right alongside edgier fare geared towards adults. I have more fondness for their dazzling ATTEMPTS at building comic book franchises from back in the day vs. their MCU successes in recent years: Dick Tracy, The Rocketeer, and Judge Dredd (well not really that last one). The time when Touchstone and Hollywood Pictures were trotting out balls-out action MOVIES for guys like Crimson Tide, The Rock, and Con Air…..and balls-out R-RATED comedies with middle aged former comedians letting their freak flags fly like Ruthless People, Tin Men, Good Morning Vietnam, Outrageous Fortune, and Stakeout. And during this time, they were putting out animated properties that would define the genre: Beauty & the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King, Toy Story. Sorry I guess I just miss the Katzenberg days….when they weren’t afraid to release R-rated fare.
I mean, if these things are bombs, the logic goes that ancillaries follow. I see tons of ICE AGE 5 toys at Family Dollar now, after the domestic collapse this summer.
Yeah, 2018 is a bonanza (they have a Jack and the Beanstalk Animated and one assumes Maleficent 2 or The Little Mermaid Live action as well) , and they are never going back to Touchstone. I just want them to leave Netflix alone please!
I don’t see how Cars 3 is risky. I still think that before the trailer you’re still looking at a low of $175 domestic and $500 worldwide. With that trailer that to me screamed that they are attempting to “right the ship” of their least liked franchise, if anyone can make a part 3 a commercial and critical success after a part 2 that was also a commercial success but a critical failure by their normal standards, its Pixar. After that trailer, I was interested.
Plus: toys. And: more toys.
I could see it coming in well below $175 million (140?), just if CAPTAIN UNDERPANTS has a kickass trailer and stays on-date. CARS is two weeks after it, and two weeks before DM3. Not saying it’ll happen, but stranger things have (not sure if there’s precedent for 3 animated tentpoles in the same month, but that alone seems crazy), and if you’re going to have a $200 million budget again, then you’re left with toys making up for an underperformer.
On the other hand, re: the CARS 3 trailer, I’ve checked out from Mater and Lightning McQueen for good, so I’m probably underselling if it looks like Oscar material. You’re also dealing with a franchise that has no exposure in China, so that’s an X factor that could help it as well…or not.
Who in the hell wants to see Maleficent 2? That’s my question.
And I agree with Geoff on the Touchstone days. Ruthless People is still funny as hell. They put out a lot of quality. Don’t forget Down & Out In Beverly Hills.
IMDB ratings are to be taken with a grain of salt, but MALEFICENT is rated only behind TJB among Disney’s live-action remakes, somehow had an A Cinemascore, and is #2 at the box office as well, so it has the cursory appearance of being well liked. Plus, the first one was about as profitable at the BO as GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, so they’re pretty much obligated to go forward.
I’m not one to defend Disney but the economics changed so they cant make things like Ruthless People, or Splash, or Three men and a Baby anymore. They specialized in taking familiar if not on top of their games names (Midler after Jinxed, Dreyfus after a few flops, Hanks, Long right from television and Williams after he had been plugging away without any luck for half a decade) throwing a few million at the project and reaping the rewards. But they dont make these any more than Paramount makes Tommy Boys or 48 Hours or WB would throw money at some tv comedian to be a pet detective onscreen. Since everything needs such a marketing investment there is no way to take the risks of these small comedies anymore. Touchstone actually tried longer than others trying to make Ilsa Fisher and Kristen Bell Box Office stars.
As for hard R action the final nails were Potter and Pirates. Once you pulled in the extra quadrants why would you risk funds on a Con Air over a National Treasure, or an R rated Die Hard sequel.
And there is very little prestige in the single and double market. Universal has been cleaning up there the past few years but looking at the perception of the still profitable Neighbors, Ted, and Ride Along sequels you can see how everyone has a hundred million or bust attitude when it comes to releasing films.
“I’m not one to defend Disney but the economics changed so they cant make things like Ruthless People, or Splash, or Three men and a Baby anymore. They specialized in taking familiar if not on top of their games names (Midler after Jinxed, Dreyfus after a few flops, Hanks, Long right from television and Williams after he had been plugging away without any luck for half a decade) throwing a few million at the project and reaping the rewards. But they dont make these any more than Paramount makes Tommy Boys or 48 Hours or WB would throw money at some tv comedian to be a pet detective onscreen. Since everything needs such a marketing investment there is no way to take the risks of these small comedies anymore. Touchstone actually tried longer than others trying to make Ilsa Fisher and Kristen Bell Box Office stars.”
I sort of get that the upside is probably higher with bigger tent-poles but I don’t get how the economics can’t work for films like Ruthless People anymore….I mean you’re telling me that Disney wouldn’t have been better off gambling on 6 to 8 Bad Moms-level comedies vs. ONE Alice Through the Looking Glass?? There are STILL star driven R-rated comedies out there in this vein – how much is Fox spending on Why Him for example? You’ve got the aging TV star (Bryan Cranston) smashed into a high concept…..they have to be spending MUCH less on that one than they did on Miss Pellegrew or Independence Day Resurgence.
I mean look at Sony – the ONLY movies that seem make money for them are the low or mid budget genre films lately. They bet the ranch on re-launching Ghostbusters and they’ll probably bet the ranch on re-launching Spider-man AGAIN….but they’re probably still making more profit from Seth Rogen comedies than either of those franchises.
Yeah I was just watching Rushmore for the first time in years tonight….movie’s better than I remembered, THAT was Touchstone taking a low budget flier on Wes Anderson the same year (1998) that they had to lavish $200 million plus on Michael Bay blowing up an asteroid – I don’t see how the economics have changed that these kind of projects can’t co-exist.
And regarding that Pet Detective observation, I don’t see that kind of low-risk strategy going away anytime soon…..just last April, we saw Warners throw a few sheckles at the big screen launch of Key & Peele and I don’t think it’s an accident that we’re seeing Kate McKinnon and Cecily Strong popping up in more and more big screen comedies. As long as there’s a farm system, there will ALWAYS be chances for TV comics to hit the big leagues….and just wait until the studios start throwing more easy money towards YouTube stars. 😉
Well a couple things but I want to begin with I really dislike the way things are now with the emphasis of IP over stars and bigger bigger bigger. And the majority of this is the marketing budgets, it doesnt matter if the film costs 5 to 10 million if you have to drop 30 to release it into theaters and get an audience there. The ancillary markets are significantly less than they were when Touchstone started. They could rely on home video rentals and cable rates that were much higher than they are today. Thats why outfits like Cannon and New World were able to last as long as they did, because your local video store was willing to pay 80 bucks for a copy of Firewalker to fill their shelves, and HBO was willing to give them 15% of the domestic gross to repeat it constantly on their channel. But there are a fraction of video stores left and they get their goods at a discount through Amazon like the rest of us. The sell through market is less than it once was, the ancillary windows of HBO/Showtime and then TNT/FX aren’t paying what they once were so there is less risk taking. Ruthless People was an inexpensive film with no proven stars. It was likely greenlit before D&O in Beverly Hills dropped so Midler was still a question mark, Devito and Rienhold were supporting actors coming off of hits and Slater had just taken part in a huge debacle. Films weren’t so front loaded so you didnt’ spend the entire marketing budget in the months prior to the release. You might spend 5 million on advertising and once you knew it wasnt going to tank add additional funds to keep it in the top ten for months on end. Now even at the same budget you have drop at lease 20 for a wide release so if you don’t hit 50 million you will likely lose money over the total course of its run.
Now Rushmore actually points to the sea change that happened. It was the same budget as Ruthless, but it was a limited release. Disney had a deal with blockbuster so they knew whatever title they released would be make X amount on the home video market, plus their Starz deal could be counted on to provide a portion as well. Hitting the specialty market they were able to rely on word of mouth and reviews and do a gradual release based on awards buzz. And even then it was still in the red when it left theaters.
Yes Sony got creamed on Ghostbusters. They almost always get killed on big budget films they need to stick to low brow comedies and based on the amazing true story dramas (they excel at these). But just like Universal with RIPD and 47 Ronin and Battleship and too many others to list they want to punch above their weight class and stray from the talents because of the promise of praise and riches. Nobody gets excited having a really strong ROI if none of the films make the top 20 of the year.
So this long rambling and I admit somewhat drunken post boils down to is. Movies play for much shorter times than they did in the eighties so all the marketing is amplified upfront which increases the investment with less payoff from the ancillary markets. Because of that studios are willing to spend 60 million on a Will Ferrell movie but not 7 million on someone who might be the next Will Ferrell.
To put it bluntly, why would Disney not take the model they are going with after producing 7 of the 10 (or 11) most profitable movies of the year? No studio in history has likely achieved this kind of domination. With ZOOTOPIA and MOANA’s success, you kick DA into 2 movies a year mode for sure on top of the 3+ live action adaptations/IP raids/Pixar movies. With LucasFilm looking at 2 a year starting in 2019, and Marvel now 3, there simply isn’t any room.
“To put it bluntly, why would Disney not take the model they are going with after producing 7 of the 10 (or 11) most profitable movies of the year? No studio in history has likely achieved this kind of domination. With ZOOTOPIA and MOANA’s success, you kick DA into 2 movies a year mode for sure on top of the 3+ live action adaptations/IP raids/Pixar movies. With LucasFilm looking at 2 a year starting in 2019, and Marvel now 3, there simply isn’t any room.”
No doubt that Disney is going to clean up the next couple of years but is that really sustainable for the long-term? I guess they really shouldn’t care at this point and ride the wave but unless they cut the costs a bit, I don’t see how they can be wildly profitable releasing 3 Marvel films and 2 Star Wars films within a given year. But hey it works for Disney and it’s working right now….why should they mess with it right? I guess I still see the other studios needing to do it differently: Fox, Universal, and Warner Bros all had their recent record-setting years with diversified slates, not just a half dozen PG to PG-13 big budget tentpoles.
In 2009, WB had Harry Potter 5 and Sherlock Holmes but also The Hangover, The Blind Side, and Gran Torino…..HUGELY profitable films some of which were R-rated.
In 2014, Fox had its highest grossing X-Men and Planet of the Apes but also had Gone Girl, The Fault In Our Stars, and The Maze Runner…..all very profitable and some very niche.
In 2015, Universal had Jurassic World and Furious 7 but also had Straight Outta Compton, Trainwreck, and Pitch Perfect 2….once again a mixture of tentpoles and more niche projects which are very profitable.
Sure Disney is about embedded with the entertainment media as you can get….with almost ALWAYS the positive headlines (and higher RT scores which has been discussed ad nauseam already) in the trades that WB and Sony can’t seem to get. But at the end of the day, they still have to run a profitable company and according to the ‘Street, Time Warner is still having a better year than Disney….though I’m wondering if the continuous Disney street concern about dropping ESPN subscribers is a bit overstated, some of you guys would know that better than I.
Regarding studio dominance, I’m not so sure that this is unprecedented – it’s hard to find actual aggregate studio stats that go that far back, but Paramount had some AMAZING runs in the 1980’s and with a diversified slate….completely different time I know but still impressive runs.
In 1983 Paramount had 3 of the 4 highest grossing films, 4 of the top 10 in 1984, and HALF of the top 10 in 1986 including the top 2 films (Top Gun, Crocodile Dundee). Diving further into Box Office Mojo….
’86 was also the coming out party for Touchstone – WOW they had a good breakout year: Ruthless People, The Color of Money, Down and Out in Beverly Hills. Then in ’87 they released Three Man and a Baby (which I have always been eh on), Good Morning Vietnam, Stakeout, Outrageous Fortune, Adventures in Babysitting, and Tin Men.
I guess Touchstone hit me at that impressionable age (early teens) when I was JUST getting old enough to watch R-rated films in theaters….nice runs with Bette Midler and Richard Dreyfess for sure.
Good points 🙂 And yeah there are probably some studios way back in history (RKO! MGM!) with a 25% gross share in a given year, but to do it nowadays….
Oh come now EtGuild – what are you 23?? 🙂 1986 was not THAT long ago….hell shouldn’t we hearing about a Crocodile Dundee re-boot by now?
Adventures in Babysitting! That’s one I remember fondly for Vincent D’Onofrio’s “Thor”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rnTpR4M1ZI
Amazing that it came out the same year as Full Metal Jacket.
I fell deeply in love with Elizabeth Shue due to the opening title sequence of Adventures In Babysitting.
The Touchstone years were also the time I was 16-17 and going to the movies every week. I had a good relationship with the owner of my hometown theater (the lamented Wintergarden Theater in Jamestown, NY) and she would let me into R rated movies all the time before I was 17. Saw Full Metal Jacket, The Big Easy (that’s a good one!), tons more. Also had a seminal viewing of Gremlins there in ’84. But ’86-’88 was great. I saw everything. I saw Raising Arizona having no idea what it was. Changed my life.
Yes that was a good time to be a young male adolescent going to the movies – you pretty much had the birth of the modern action film at that time, MOSTLY thanks to Joel Silver: Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Predator, and Aliens.
I got outvoted on the night at the movies as a teen and went to see my demon lover and then talked them into sneaking into Raising Arizona which along with Star Wars and Aliens was the greatest movie going experience of my life.
And Geoff you mentioned Why Him? Yes I was not saying that noone makes mid budget comedies anymore it is just that they are not cash cows. If you look at Fox’s Mike and Dave or Keeping Up with The Jones or Paramounts WTF and Zoolander sequel you can see how the midlevels can loose quite a bit of coin. As for Why Him? they are selling the premise more than the stars in the hope for hitting at least of half of Daddy’s Home take of last year. It is counter programming for the Christmas season, the tagline should be “Because your mom is not going to want to see Star Wars?
“And Geoff you mentioned Why Him? Yes I was not saying that noone makes mid budget comedies anymore it is just that they are not cash cows. If you look at Fox’s Mike and Dave or Keeping Up with The Jones or Paramounts WTF and Zoolander sequel you can see how the midlevels can loose quite a bit of coin. As for Why Him? they are selling the premise more than the stars in the hope for hitting at least of half of Daddy’s Home take of last year. It is counter programming for the Christmas season, the tagline should be “Because your mom is not going to want to see Star Wars?”
That’s a good point but they make profit more often than not – Mike & Dave made almost $80 million worldwide on a $32 million budget. And yes, it looks like Keeping Up with the Joneses lost money. But I think if you keep the costs reasonable, there’s no reason you can’t put these kind of movies out year-round. I just gleaned through Box Office Mojo and found that most big studio comedies were pretty profitable this year and strangely AFTER international grosses were added….especially sequels.
The Boss did $78 million on a $29m budget
Central Intelligence $216m on $50m budget
Bad Moms $180m on $20m budget
Ride Along 2 $124m on $40m budget
Neighbors 2 $108m on $40m budget
But my whole arguement is marketing budgets. You add the twenty to thirty million it costs on top of those budgets it’s a less rosy picture, half of those films won’t be in the black yet. And these are the success stories, with some of the steadiest stars around.
With mike and Dave add at least 20 to that 32 and figure they get half of the 80 back in rentals. And they are 12 million in the hole. They will make that up in ancillary markets but it’s more of a hit with pitch than a single or double
Hcat, I don’t pretend to know the exact economics of it all and you’re probably right about those numbers working against Mike and Dave because from what I remember, Fox marketed the shit out of that movie this past summer after it looked like Independence Day Regurgitate and X-Men both faded faster than expected…..but doesn’t the scale of the marketing costs also increase dramatically with the bigger budget tentpoles?
You look back at some of these big comic book releases from just this past year – WB had to spend to promote BVS over FOUR different Comic Cons, Fox did the most pervasive amount of outdoor for Deadpool that I can remember for any film in recent memory, and Disney/Marvel I know had to spend a pretty penny promoting and screening the hell out of ‘Civil War well over a month in advance of its domestic release while also doing easily at least two months of peak time prime time ad spots for Doctor Strange this past fall…..these properties have to be costing nine figures JUST to market! (Even Deadpool I suspect though it cost a lot less to produce than the others)
It hard to know for sure but wouldn’t a lot of the bigger budget tent-poles also have proportionally higher marketing costs as well?
STX promoted the hell out of Bad Moms no doubt but they didn’t need the obligatory expenditures for aggressive saturation TV advertising, six plus months of teaser trailers, nor have to roll out the red carpet for special convention events and premieres either. I would think it would balance out somewhat…and the upside for a lower cost property like that would be just as good.
Critics Choice noms are out. Any thoughts? Can we get a new BYOB for that Dave?