World of KJ - View topic - Weekend Actuals

Page 2 of 2

[ 48 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2

Weekend Actuals

Author	Message
jb007 Veteran Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:47 pm Posts: 3917 Location: Las Vegas	Killuminati510 wrote: jb007 wrote: Killuminati510 wrote: That makes alot of sense, especially since it'll be over 350m WW :???: Generally movies get 50% of the WW gross. So the best it can do is $175M, which btw is probably less than the production, marketing and prints cost. It will make a profit in the ancillary market. lol, you're just adding everything up arent you? Lets do this with every single movie out right now, let's not get too technical when you dont know shit other then the budget of the film. I know this much. The prints and marketing cost is a lot more than $25M. The best WW net is about 50% of the gross and those are for movies like SW and LOTR. You are right. BB might get a lot less than 50% of the WW gross. _________________ Dr. RajKumar 4/24/1929 - 4/12/2006 The Greatest Actor Ever. Thanks for The Best Cinematic Memories of My Life.
Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:32 pm

Joker's Thug #3 Extraordinary Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 2:36 am Posts: 11130 Location: Waiting for the Dark Knight to kick my ass	jb007 wrote: Killuminati510 wrote: jb007 wrote: Killuminati510 wrote: That makes alot of sense, especially since it'll be over 350m WW :???: Generally movies get 50% of the WW gross. So the best it can do is $175M, which btw is probably less than the production, marketing and prints cost. It will make a profit in the ancillary market. lol, you're just adding everything up arent you? Lets do this with every single movie out right now, let's not get too technical when you dont know shit other then the budget of the film. I know this much. The prints and marketing cost is a lot more than $25M. The best WW net is about 50% of the gross and those are for movies like SW and LOTR. You are right. BB might get a lot less than 50% of the WW gross. Well if you'd like to look at it this way, lets not just look at BB, lets look at all the movies. F4, Smith, Charlie, and basically most movies out arent making any profit in theaters. So I think you should go look this up more, cause I dont think you know really what you're talking about. _________________ "People always want to tear you down when you're on top, like Napoleon back in the Roman Empire" - Dirk Diggler
Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:41 pm

Jeff Christian's #1 Fan Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 8:25 pm Posts: 28110 Location: Awaiting my fate	But they are cutting back the costs the studio needs to make back. DVD's account for a huge percentage of a film's profits now. _________________ See above.
Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:42 pm

El Maskado Arrrrrrrrrrgggghhhhhhhhhh! Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:17 pm Posts: 21572	jb007 wrote: Killuminati510 wrote: jb007 wrote: Killuminati510 wrote: That makes alot of sense, especially since it'll be over 350m WW :???: Generally movies get 50% of the WW gross. So the best it can do is $175M, which btw is probably less than the production, marketing and prints cost. It will make a profit in the ancillary market. lol, you're just adding everything up arent you? Lets do this with every single movie out right now, let's not get too technical when you dont know shit other then the budget of the film. I know this much. The prints and marketing cost is a lot more than $25M. The best WW net is about 50% of the gross and those are for movies like SW and LOTR. You are right. BB might get a lot less than 50% of the WW gross. Overseas theaters take more of the profits than the domestic ones, I cant quite remember the figure but I think it was a good extra 15-20% more. Domestically I heard it was slightly less than half but the formula is hard to figure, the longer a movie stays in theaters the more the theater managers pocket in the money. Its too complicated for me to calc and I dont want to hurt my brain
Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:45 pm

jb007 Veteran Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:47 pm Posts: 3917 Location: Las Vegas	Killuminati510 wrote: Well if you'd like to look at it this way, lets not just look at BB, lets look at all the movies. F4, Smith, Charlie, and basically most movies out arent making any profit in theaters. So I think you should go look this up more, cause I dont think you know really what you're talking about. And obviously you do. I am using the industry standard. They mentioned The Polar Express had to gross $500m to be profitable from WW gross and its Production, prints and marketing costs were at about $250M. Anyway, if you read my post it specifically states that this might be the first movie to gross over $200M domestic and not be profitable from theatrical gross alone. Smiths will get to $400M WW. So they will start to be profitable in WW theatrical gross alone. Charlie will be in the same boat as BB. Charlie will not make a lot overseas and will probably make the same amount as BB. This will not be profitable in WW gross either. This may be the second movie in history with that record. F4 will gross around $280M WW. This won't be profitable in theatrical gross either. _________________ Dr. RajKumar 4/24/1929 - 4/12/2006 The Greatest Actor Ever. Thanks for The Best Cinematic Memories of My Life.
Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:59 pm

STEVE ROGERS The Greatest Avenger EVER Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 18501	Re: Weekend Actuals Vincent wrote: torrino wrote: Star Wars... A New Hope's tenth weekend was more than 6 times bigger than Revenge of the Sith's tenth weekend, despite it coming out in 1977. You have no point with your Batman comparison. Very much agree. Besides, its not a fair comparison. Comic book movies weren't as common back in the 80's, and Batman was no doubt a huge phenomenon. Nowadays Comic Book movies are very common. I just don't think its a valid comparison. Uh, actually it is a very valid comparison, but one that many of you aren't wiling to admit and the fact of it is, is that the general audience feels that the 1989 BATMAN was far better on all sides than BATMAN BEGINS is or was and the hype and marketing for it was more memorable to, not to mention the fact that back then, WB didn't have to use a Sneek Preview of a movie to put BATMAN over at the box office to give it a certain gross like their doing with Must Love Dogs in attaching it to BEGINS to put it over 200 Million which is cheating and sad.... It's only a shame that WB has to once again rehash The JOKER instead of being a little more creative and orignal by going with a different villain.. Hell, you don't see SONY rehashing the same Vilains for SPIDERMAN do ya??
Mon Jul 25, 2005 11:25 pm

Jeff Christian's #1 Fan Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 8:25 pm Posts: 28110 Location: Awaiting my fate	Re: Weekend Actuals BKB_The_Man wrote: Uh, actually it is a very valid comparison, but one that many of you aren't wiling to admit and the fact of it is, is that the general audience feels that the 1989 BATMAN was far better on all sides than BATMAN BEGINS is or was and the hype and marketing for it was more memorable to, not to mention the fact that back then, WB didn't have to use a Sneek Preview of a movie to put BATMAN over at the box office to give it a certain gross like their doing with Must Love Dogs in attaching it to BEGINS to put it over 200 Million which is cheating and sad.... It's only a shame that WB has to once again rehash The JOKER instead of being a little more creative and orignal by going with a different villain.. Hell, you don't see SONY rehashing the same Vilains for SPIDERMAN do ya?? You realize none of that except the last two sentances make any coherant sense, right? _________________ See above.
Mon Jul 25, 2005 11:26 pm

STEVE ROGERS The Greatest Avenger EVER Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 18501	Re: Weekend Actuals RogueCommander wrote: BKB_The_Man wrote: Uh, actually it is a very valid comparison, but one that many of you aren't wiling to admit and the fact of it is, is that the general audience feels that the 1989 BATMAN was far better on all sides than BATMAN BEGINS is or was and the hype and marketing for it was more memorable to, not to mention the fact that back then, WB didn't have to use a Sneek Preview of a movie to put BATMAN over at the box office to give it a certain gross like their doing with Must Love Dogs in attaching it to BEGINS to put it over 200 Million which is cheating and sad.... It's only a shame that WB has to once again rehash The JOKER instead of being a little more creative and orignal by going with a different villain.. Hell, you don't see SONY rehashing the same Vilains for SPIDERMAN do ya?? You realize none of that except the last two sentances make any coherant sense, right? No, please explain cause once again, it falls on deaf ears like many around here who refuse to acknowledge that YES, The 1989 BATMAN was more of a Phenomenon than BEGINS is and WB knows this and they used a Sneak Preview of one of their upcoming movies to boost it's box office.. What the fuck is so hard about that for you and everyone to grasp?? This argument is tired and as Old as your old lady..
Mon Jul 25, 2005 11:31 pm

Jeff Christian's #1 Fan Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 8:25 pm Posts: 28110 Location: Awaiting my fate	Nobody is denying that the original had an amazing run, but to compare the movies is silly because the box office was very different back then. Take a look at the weekend grosses for the original, or for any other movie from that time. And second off, Must Love Dogs maybe added $500,000 to the films gross, so unless it tops out with $200,400,000, then there is no way you can say it didn't make $200,000,000 on its own merit. _________________ See above.
Mon Jul 25, 2005 11:33 pm

Chippy KJ's Leading Pundit Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:45 pm Posts: 63026 Location: Tonight... YOU!	Re: Weekend Actuals BKB_The_Man wrote: RogueCommander wrote: BKB_The_Man wrote: Uh, actually it is a very valid comparison, but one that many of you aren't wiling to admit and the fact of it is, is that the general audience feels that the 1989 BATMAN was far better on all sides than BATMAN BEGINS is or was and the hype and marketing for it was more memorable to, not to mention the fact that back then, WB didn't have to use a Sneek Preview of a movie to put BATMAN over at the box office to give it a certain gross like their doing with Must Love Dogs in attaching it to BEGINS to put it over 200 Million which is cheating and sad.... It's only a shame that WB has to once again rehash The JOKER instead of being a little more creative and orignal by going with a different villain.. Hell, you don't see SONY rehashing the same Vilains for SPIDERMAN do ya?? You realize none of that except the last two sentances make any coherant sense, right? No, please explain cause once again, it falls on deaf ears like many around here who refuse to acknowledge that YES, The 1989 BATMAN was more of a Phenomenon than BEGINS is and WB knows this and they used a Sneak Preview of one of their upcoming movies to boost it's box office.. What the fuck is so hard about that for you and everyone to grasp?? This argument is tired and as Old as your old lady.. Yes, the 1989 Batman was more of a phenomenon than Batman Begins, everyone knows this. And Must Love Dogs didn't even add $1 million to Batman Begins gross... it is doing amazing, why can't you see this? _________________ trixster wrote: shut the fuck up zwackerm, you're out of your fucking element trixster wrote: chippy is correct Rev wrote: Fuck Trump
Mon Jul 25, 2005 11:34 pm

The_Game_1 Star Trek XI Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 8:00 pm Posts: 343	Re: Weekend Actuals BKB_The_Man wrote: Vincent wrote: torrino wrote: Star Wars... A New Hope's tenth weekend was more than 6 times bigger than Revenge of the Sith's tenth weekend, despite it coming out in 1977. You have no point with your Batman comparison. Very much agree. Besides, its not a fair comparison. Comic book movies weren't as common back in the 80's, and Batman was no doubt a huge phenomenon. Nowadays Comic Book movies are very common. I just don't think its a valid comparison. Uh, actually it is a very valid comparison, but one that many of you aren't wiling to admit and the fact of it is, is that the general audience feels that the 1989 BATMAN was far better on all sides than BATMAN BEGINS is or was and the hype and marketing for it was more memorable to, not to mention the fact that back then, WB didn't have to use a Sneek Preview of a movie to put BATMAN over at the box office to give it a certain gross like their doing with Must Love Dogs in attaching it to BEGINS to put it over 200 Million which is cheating and sad.... It's only a shame that WB has to once again rehash The JOKER instead of being a little more creative and orignal by going with a different villain.. Hell, you don't see SONY rehashing the same Vilains for SPIDERMAN do ya?? WB is trying to get the word out on Must Love Dogs, what other movie can they attach it with? Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants and it's 158 theaters?
Mon Jul 25, 2005 11:36 pm

STEVE ROGERS The Greatest Avenger EVER Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 18501	Re: Weekend Actuals The_Game_1 wrote: BKB_The_Man wrote: Vincent wrote: torrino wrote: Star Wars... A New Hope's tenth weekend was more than 6 times bigger than Revenge of the Sith's tenth weekend, despite it coming out in 1977. You have no point with your Batman comparison. Very much agree. Besides, its not a fair comparison. Comic book movies weren't as common back in the 80's, and Batman was no doubt a huge phenomenon. Nowadays Comic Book movies are very common. I just don't think its a valid comparison. Uh, actually it is a very valid comparison, but one that many of you aren't wiling to admit and the fact of it is, is that the general audience feels that the 1989 BATMAN was far better on all sides than BATMAN BEGINS is or was and the hype and marketing for it was more memorable to, not to mention the fact that back then, WB didn't have to use a Sneek Preview of a movie to put BATMAN over at the box office to give it a certain gross like their doing with Must Love Dogs in attaching it to BEGINS to put it over 200 Million which is cheating and sad.... It's only a shame that WB has to once again rehash The JOKER instead of being a little more creative and orignal by going with a different villain.. Hell, you don't see SONY rehashing the same Vilains for SPIDERMAN do ya?? WB is trying to get the word out on Must Love Dogs, what other movie can they attach it with? Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants and it's 158 theaters? How about none of them and they just have a Sneek Preview of the movie as a standalone without attaching it to anything?? Of course, I suppose if they wanted, they could attch it to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory since it's not in anyway hurting for $$$ at the box office and it wouldn't make a difference, but they attach it to a movie that is clearly winding down and in jeopardy of crossing 200 Million without it's help and WB knew this and attached this Sneek Preview in an effort o boost BATMAN's box office to ensure it would cross 200 Million, otherwise, at the end of the summer, the Media would label it "Underwhelming" in not being able to top 200 Million when the bench is set now for this.. Folks here can deny it all they want, but it is true..
Mon Jul 25, 2005 11:40 pm

Jeff Christian's #1 Fan Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 8:25 pm Posts: 28110 Location: Awaiting my fate	Just a comparison to box office runs in that time. This is for Pretty Woman as it is one I thought of off the top of my head: [table][row]Weekend[col]Theaters[col]Gross[col]PTA[col]% Drop[col]Total[col]Chart Position[row]1[col]1325[col]$11,280,591[col]$8,514[col]NEW[col]$11,280,591[col]1[row]2[col]1538[col]$12,471,670[col]$8,109[col]10.56%[col]$28,337,395[col]2[row]3[col]1707[col]$11,270,218[col]$6,602[col]-9.63%[col]$44,297,551[col]2[row]4[col]1707[col]$10,117,891[col]$5,927[col]-10.22%[col]$59,293,180[col]2[row]5[col]1707[col]$8,323,687[col]$4,876[col]-17.73%[col]$71,725,472[col]2[row]6[col]1710[col]$7,150,551[col]$4,182[col]-14.09%[col]$81,325,487[col]1[row]7[col]1726[col]$6,810,883[col]$3,946[col]-4.75%[col]$90,643,957[col]1[row]8[col]1794[col]$7,594,012[col]$4,233[col]11.50%[col]$100,562,962[col]1[row]9[col]1811[col]$6,253,391[col]$3,453[col]-17.65%[col]$109,624,898[col]3[row]10[col]1803[col]$8,189,423[col]$4,542[col]30.96%[col]$120,230,612[col]3[row]11[col]1791[col]$4,755,105[col]$2,655[col]-41.94%[col]$126,741,424[col]4[row]12[col]1777[col]$4,480,347[col]$2,521[col]-5.78%[col]$133,324,214[col]5[row]13[col]1602[col]$3,327,354[col]$2,077[col]-25.73%[col]$138,778,393[col]6[row]14[col]1484[col]$3,371,780[col]$2,272[col]1.34%[col]$144,225,547[col]8[row]15[col]1305[col]$3,107,882[col]$2,382[col]-7.83%[col]$149,063,728[col]9[/table]This table brought to you by Excel2BB Converter. Created by Krem for World of KJ _________________ See above.
Mon Jul 25, 2005 11:42 pm

Jeff Christian's #1 Fan Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 8:25 pm Posts: 28110 Location: Awaiting my fate	Re: Weekend Actuals BKB_The_Man wrote: How about none of them and they just have a Sneek Preview of the movie as a standalone without attaching it to anything?? Of course, I suppose if they wanted, they could attch it to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory since it's not in anyway hurting for $$$ at the box office and it wouldn't make a difference, but they attach it to a movie that is clearly winding down and in jeopardy of crossing 200 Million without it's help and WB knew this and attached this Sneek Preview in an effort o boost BATMAN's box office to ensure it would cross 200 Million, otherwise, at the end of the summer, the Media would label it "Underwhelming" in not being able to top 200 Million when the bench is set now for this.. Folks here can deny it all they want, but it is true.. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory would have lost too much money by having one of its screenings made into a sneak preview. They are always attached to films that are winding down in box office gross. _________________ See above.
Mon Jul 25, 2005 11:44 pm

The_Game_1 Star Trek XI Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 8:00 pm Posts: 343	Re: Weekend Actuals BKB_The_Man wrote: The_Game_1 wrote: BKB_The_Man wrote: Vincent wrote: torrino wrote: Star Wars... A New Hope's tenth weekend was more than 6 times bigger than Revenge of the Sith's tenth weekend, despite it coming out in 1977. You have no point with your Batman comparison. Very much agree. Besides, its not a fair comparison. Comic book movies weren't as common back in the 80's, and Batman was no doubt a huge phenomenon. Nowadays Comic Book movies are very common. I just don't think its a valid comparison. Uh, actually it is a very valid comparison, but one that many of you aren't wiling to admit and the fact of it is, is that the general audience feels that the 1989 BATMAN was far better on all sides than BATMAN BEGINS is or was and the hype and marketing for it was more memorable to, not to mention the fact that back then, WB didn't have to use a Sneek Preview of a movie to put BATMAN over at the box office to give it a certain gross like their doing with Must Love Dogs in attaching it to BEGINS to put it over 200 Million which is cheating and sad.... It's only a shame that WB has to once again rehash The JOKER instead of being a little more creative and orignal by going with a different villain.. Hell, you don't see SONY rehashing the same Vilains for SPIDERMAN do ya?? WB is trying to get the word out on Must Love Dogs, what other movie can they attach it with? Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants and it's 158 theaters? How about none of them and they just have a Sneek Preview of the movie as a standalone without attaching it to anything?? Of course, I suppose if they wanted, they could attch it to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory since it's not in anyway hurting for $$$ at the box office and it wouldn't make a difference, but they attach it to a movie that is clearly winding down and in jeopardy of crossing 200 Million without it's help and WB knew this and attached this Sneek Preview in an effort o boost BATMAN's box office to ensure it would cross 200 Million, otherwise, at the end of the summer, the Media would label it "Underwhelming" in not being able to top 200 Million when the bench is set now for this.. Folks here can deny it all they want, but it is true.. A standalone sneak preview? Do you know what a sneak preview is? 1 showing, for 1 day, before the film is released. Every studio does this, BB is heading for $200m with or without the MLD previews. The media wouldn't single BB as underwhelming when the whole summer has been just that. The focus will be with The Island, Kingdom of Heaven and xXx: State of the Union.
Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:38 am

zingy College Boy Z Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:40 pm Posts: 36662	Looks like they're already talking about the slump again... Quote: Return of the Slump The box office returned to its slump over the weekend as two new films produced disappointing results and last week's top attraction dropped 50 percent. The biggest washout was DreamWorks/Warner Bros.' The Island, a film that cost $125 million to make but earned only $12.1 million in its opening weekend. It was director Michael Bay's first box office flop. "We can only hope the film finds its audience in the coming weeks," DreamWorks distribution chief Jim Tharp told the Wall Street Journal. "As to the whys of it, I'm not going to comment." Another failure was Paramount's Bad News Bears, which took in an estimated $11.5 million. Since it reportedly cost only $35 million to make, it will not set the studio back much money, if any at all by the time the DVDs go out. Remaining at the top spot, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory drew about $28.3 million. Close behind was last week's No. 2 film, Wedding Crashers, with $26.2 million, a drop of only 23 percent. OK results were recorded for Paramount Classics' Hustle & Flow, which grossed $8.1 million in 1,013 theaters to place seventh, and Lions Gate's The Devil's Rejects, which took in $7 million at 1,757 screens to place eighth. Making the most impressive showing was the documentary March of the Penguins, which expanded to 695 theaters and took in $4.3 million, putting it into the top 10 for the first time. The film is expected to expand to 1,200 screens next weekend.
Tue Jul 26, 2005 3:09 am

Harry Warden Orphan Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:47 pm Posts: 19747	'The Island' is a brilliant film (never thought I'd be saying that about a Michael Bay film) and the dreadful marketing campaign is to blame for the film's failure. I don't think DreamWorks could have devised a worse marketing campaign if they tried. Here's what they could have done if they were so fearful of showing the science fiction side of the storyline. Just had a voiceover or on-screen text detailing two fugitives who escaped from a top-secret compound and the people out to get them. The film would have most assuredly opened with 20 or so million with the much more simple strategy that I just detailed. It would look like a mainstream action film (not science fiction which needs stars to succeed) and thus would have drawn more of an audience. They could have even thrown in a few of the more romantic scenes in order to draw women to the film as the two fugitives fall in love. Boda-bing boda-boom: at least a mild hit me thinks with an opening around 20 million or more.
Tue Jul 26, 2005 3:46 am

Bodrul All Star Poster Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 4694 Location: Cambridge, England.	Re: Weekend Actuals BKB_The_Man wrote: ... It's only a shame that WB has to once again rehash The JOKER instead of being a little more creative and orignal by going with a different villain.. Hell, you don't see SONY rehashing the same Vilains for SPIDERMAN do ya?? Well yes sony are rehashing old villains aren't they? They're bringing back the Goblin. . . . . .
Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:53 am

bABA Commander and Chef Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 12:56 am Posts: 30505 Location: Tonight ... YOU!	Re: Weekend Actuals hans wrote: BKB_The_Man wrote: ... It's only a shame that WB has to once again rehash The JOKER instead of being a little more creative and orignal by going with a different villain.. Hell, you don't see SONY rehashing the same Vilains for SPIDERMAN do ya?? Well yes sony are rehashing old villains aren't they? They're bringing back the Goblin. . . . . . and they're STILL on the first franchise .. tsk tsk ...
Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:01 am

wanderer Star Trek XI Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 8:02 pm Posts: 340	There's two Goblins in the Spider-Man saga. One is Norman Osborn (Dafoe) and then his son Harry (Franco) goes crazy later on and dons his dad's duds (whew!) to become a different Goblin. That's in the comic books.
Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:34 am

FILMO The Original Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 10:19 am Posts: 9808 Location: Suisse	Just for the protocoll. The Joker in the next Batmovie will be (very likely) very different from the 1989 Joker. Jack was ok but fact is he played more Jack then the Joker. So the next Joker will be fresh. And another Green Goblin (perhaps they made him the Hobgoblin to have a change) Is ok to as long there will be other good villains. _________________ Libs wrote: FILMO, I'd rather have you eat chocolate syrup off my naked body than be a moderator here.
Tue Jul 26, 2005 9:52 am

bABA Commander and Chef Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 12:56 am Posts: 30505 Location: Tonight ... YOU!	wanderer wrote: There's two Goblins in the Spider-Man saga. One is Norman Osborn (Dafoe) and then his son Harry (Franco) goes crazy later on and dons his dad's duds (whew!) to become a different Goblin. That's in the comic books. it doesn't matter. its a complete rehash as far as i'm concerned. and to think only 5 years after the first movie was released. Tis sad.
Tue Jul 26, 2005 10:20 am

wanderer Star Trek XI Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 8:02 pm Posts: 340	What part of "two different characters" did you not understand ???
Tue Jul 26, 2005 10:35 am
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Page 2 of 2

[ 48 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2

Weekend Actuals

Who is online