World of KJ
http://worldofkj.com/forum/

Thursday Numbers (April 21)
http://worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=7196		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  xiayun [ Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Thursday Numbers (April 21)
1 THE AMITYVILLE HORROR (2005) $1,412,405 2.7% / $425 $29,608,734
2 SAHARA $892,851 4.3% / $283 $39,919,497
3 FEVER PITCH $649,852 11.5% / $198 $26,001,220
4 SIN CITY $551,000 (estimate) 1.7% / $184 $63,536,900
5 GUESS WHO $362,875 9.8% / $121 $58,875,089
6 ROBOTS $332,151 15.1% / $134 $116,868,207
7 MISS CONGENIALITY 2: ARMED AND FABULOUS $241,350 3.5% / $92 $42,585,035
8 BEAUTY SHOP $226,182 10.4% / $100 $32,080,903
9 THE PACIFIER $212,537 12.7% / $103 $104,460,975
10 THE UPSIDE OF ANGER $166,000 -- / $142 $15,746,672
Author:  xiayun [ Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:05 pm ]
Post subject: 
Good hold for The Amityville Horror. Now it only needs 148% increase to reach $3.5M for Friday. 11M weekend seems likely.
Author:  zingy [ Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
Nice for The Amityville Horror, finally. It shouldn't be below $10M this weekend.
Author:  BJ [ Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sin City had the lowest increase in the top ten :mad:
Author:  DP07 [ Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
The weekday numbers in general are high, so we are either looking at weak Friday increases, or a strong weekend for the holdovers. For example if Sin City increases just 150% it will have over 4m this weekend. With a similar increase Robots would get near 3m this weekend which would be a great hold.
Author:  zingy [ Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:10 pm ]
Post subject: 
Was there some type of holiday or special occasion yesterday?

If not, then I don't see why the movies can't have normal increases...
Author:  DP07 [ Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
Zingaling wrote:
Was there some type of holiday or special occasion yesterday?

If not, then I don't see why the movies can't have normal increases...


I'm not sure what effect spring break might have or whether there are still many on spring break, but the numbers do seem high to me.
Author:  BJ [ Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
DP07 wrote:
The weekday numbers in general are high, so we are either looking at weak Friday increases, or a strong weekend for the holdovers. For example if Sin City increases just 150% it will have over 4m this weekend. With a similar increase Robots would get near 3m this weekend which would be a great hold.


I hope it can ger to 4m :cool:
Author:  DP07 [ Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
BJ wrote:
DP07 wrote:
The weekday numbers in general are high, so we are either looking at weak Friday increases, or a strong weekend for the holdovers. For example if Sin City increases just 150% it will have over 4m this weekend. With a similar increase Robots would get near 3m this weekend which would be a great hold.


I hope it can ger to 4m :cool:


:D About time it levels off. I predicted 3.7, although the more the better.
Author:  Amos [ Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
Damn it - I'm sure Sin City's monday and tuesday numbers were higher before. This is the third straight week that they've overestimated it.

Moral: Don't trust anything. Even this moral.
Author:  BJ [ Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
DP07 wrote:
BJ wrote:
DP07 wrote:
The weekday numbers in general are high, so we are either looking at weak Friday increases, or a strong weekend for the holdovers. For example if Sin City increases just 150% it will have over 4m this weekend. With a similar increase Robots would get near 3m this weekend which would be a great hold.


I hope it can ger to 4m :cool:


:D About time it levels off. I predicted 3.7, although the more the better.


Yeah Im glad its finaly starting :smile: But it took to long :mad: Anyway :Drink: to another aweosme wknd for Sin City :cool:
Author:  BJ [ Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
Amos wrote:
Damn it - I'm sure Sin City's monday and tuesday numbers were higher before. This is the third straight week that they've overestimated it.

Moral: Don't trust anything. Even this moral.


Yeah BOM is starting to piss me off after doing it three wks in a row now :evil:
Author:  MikeQ. [ Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
BJ wrote:
Amos wrote:
Damn it - I'm sure Sin City's monday and tuesday numbers were higher before. This is the third straight week that they've overestimated it.

Moral: Don't trust anything. Even this moral.


Yeah BOM is starting to piss me off after doing it three wks in a row now :evil:


It is the studios fault when they don't track numbers and so actuals are not available, and thus numbers are estimated and often have to be revised.

PEACE, Mike ;)
Author:  BJ [ Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
MikeQ. wrote:
BJ wrote:
Amos wrote:
Damn it - I'm sure Sin City's monday and tuesday numbers were higher before. This is the third straight week that they've overestimated it.

Moral: Don't trust anything. Even this moral.




It is the studios fault when they don't track numbers and so actuals are not available, and thus numbers are estimated and often have to be revised.

PEACE, Mike ;)


OH I see.

Yeah The Studio is starting to piss me off after doing it three wks in a row now :evil:
Author:  STEVE ROGERS [ Fri Apr 22, 2005 7:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
BJ wrote:
MikeQ. wrote:
BJ wrote:
Amos wrote:
Damn it - I'm sure Sin City's monday and tuesday numbers were higher before. This is the third straight week that they've overestimated it.

Moral: Don't trust anything. Even this moral.




It is the studios fault when they don't track numbers and so actuals are not available, and thus numbers are estimated and often have to be revised.

PEACE, Mike ;)


OH I see.

Yeah The Studio is starting to piss me off after doing it three wks in a row now :evil:


I don't know why some of you are complaining about SIN CITY's drop??? I mean, you do realize that the novelty of this movie has worn off and that it has made more than it's $$$ and was a success, right?? :-k Who cares if it drops..
Author:  BJ [ Fri Apr 22, 2005 7:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
BKB_The_Man wrote:
BJ wrote:
MikeQ. wrote:
BJ wrote:
Amos wrote:
Damn it - I'm sure Sin City's monday and tuesday numbers were higher before. This is the third straight week that they've overestimated it.

Moral: Don't trust anything. Even this moral.




It is the studios fault when they don't track numbers and so actuals are not available, and thus numbers are estimated and often have to be revised.

PEACE, Mike ;)


OH I see.

Yeah The Studio is starting to piss me off after doing it three wks in a row now :evil:


I don't know why some of you are complaining about SIN CITY's drop??? I mean, you do realize that the novelty of this movie has worn off and that it has made more than it's $$$ and was a success, right?? :-k Who cares if it drops..


The novelty is still there becuase the film totaly rocked, and it has not made its $$$ yet because it has not yet reached 100m.
Author:  STEVE ROGERS [ Fri Apr 22, 2005 7:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
BJ wrote:
BKB_The_Man wrote:
BJ wrote:
MikeQ. wrote:
BJ wrote:
Amos wrote:
Damn it - I'm sure Sin City's monday and tuesday numbers were higher before. This is the third straight week that they've overestimated it.

Moral: Don't trust anything. Even this moral.




It is the studios fault when they don't track numbers and so actuals are not available, and thus numbers are estimated and often have to be revised.

PEACE, Mike ;)


OH I see.

Yeah The Studio is starting to piss me off after doing it three wks in a row now :evil:


I don't know why some of you are complaining about SIN CITY's drop??? I mean, you do realize that the novelty of this movie has worn off and that it has made more than it's $$$ and was a success, right?? :-k Who cares if it drops..


The novelty is still there becuase the film totaly rocked, and it has not made its $$$ yet because it has not yet reached 100m.


It only cost 40 Million to make and it's made what so far?? Over 60 Million?? Quit crying about this movie and be happy it's a hit.. I don't see this movie making 100 Million since it's already falling down the charts.. It's over..
Author:  Michael. [ Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think anyone who believes Sin City cost $40m to make is being niave ; regardless of what the studios pushing out.
Any film with that cast; regardless of how arty or whatnot it is, is looking at a $50m minimum budget.
Author:  MovieDude [ Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
Michael wrote:
I think anyone who believes Sin City cost $40m to make has issues; regardless of what the studios pushing out.
Any film with that cast; regardless of how arty or whatnot it is, is looking at a $50m minimum budget.


Well really, who in the cast would have that big of a paycheck, especially when there's only three with major roles. It's been widely reported that Bruce Willis took a major paycut for the role (20 million to 5-10), and neither Mickey Rourke or Clive Owen would cost much anything. Already we're down to the supporting roles. Jessica Alba, Elijah Wood, Rosario Dawson, Nick Stahl, Rutger Hauer, Jaime King, Michael Clarke Duncan, Devon Aoki, Josh Hartnett and Brittany Murphy all either had a. Small roles, b. Weren't big costy names to begin with, or c. Both a and b. Benicio del Toro may be a bigger actor, but he had a small role and is well known for often being in movies that he wants to do rather then for just the paycheck (21 Grams, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, etc). So aside from that, what's left to make it cost so much? The look? Well you can thank Rodreguez's skills with a digital camera for that - he's been very excited about how huge a money saver digital filming is, and part of the reason he had Tarantino film for a day was to show this off. So no, the only one that has issues is you for thinking Elektra cost 30 million. :lol:
Author:  BJ [ Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
MovieDude wrote:
Michael wrote:
I think anyone who believes Sin City cost $40m to make has issues; regardless of what the studios pushing out.
Any film with that cast; regardless of how arty or whatnot it is, is looking at a $50m minimum budget.


Well really, who in the cast would have that big of a paycheck, especially when there's only three with major roles. It's been widely reported that Bruce Willis took a major paycut for the role (20 million to 5-10), and neither Mickey Rourke or Clive Owen would cost much anything. Already we're down to the supporting roles. Jessica Alba, Elijah Wood, Rosario Dawson, Nick Stahl, Rutger Hauer, Jaime King, Michael Clarke Duncan, Devon Aoki, Josh Hartnett and Brittany Murphy all either had a. Small roles, b. Weren't big costy names to begin with, or c. Both a and b. Benicio del Toro may be a bigger actor, but he had a small role and is well known for often being in movies that he wants to do rather then for just the paycheck (21 Grams, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, etc). So aside from that, what's left to make it cost so much? The look? Well you can thank Rodreguez's skills with a digital camera for that - he's been very excited about how huge a money saver digital filming is, and part of the reason he had Tarantino film for a day was to show this off. So no, the only one that has issues is you for thinking Elektra cost 30 million. :lol:


I would liek to see how much they spent on marketing Sin City, my guess is 40m-45m
Author:  BJ [ Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
BKB_The_Man wrote:
BJ wrote:
BKB_The_Man wrote:
BJ wrote:
MikeQ. wrote:
BJ wrote:
Amos wrote:
Damn it - I'm sure Sin City's monday and tuesday numbers were higher before. This is the third straight week that they've overestimated it.

Moral: Don't trust anything. Even this moral.




It is the studios fault when they don't track numbers and so actuals are not available, and thus numbers are estimated and often have to be revised.

PEACE, Mike ;)


OH I see.

Yeah The Studio is starting to piss me off after doing it three wks in a row now :evil:


I don't know why some of you are complaining about SIN CITY's drop??? I mean, you do realize that the novelty of this movie has worn off and that it has made more than it's $$$ and was a success, right?? :-k Who cares if it drops..


The novelty is still there becuase the film totaly rocked, and it has not made its $$$ yet because it has not yet reached 100m.


It only cost 40 Million to make and it's made what so far?? Over 60 Million?? Quit crying about this movie and be happy it's a hit.. I don't see this movie making 100 Million since it's already falling down the charts.. It's over..


fine, the film is a hit. Im still dissapointed that it will not make over 100m
Author:  Joker's Thug #3 [ Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:51 pm ]
Post subject: 
BJ wrote:
MovieDude wrote:
Michael wrote:
I think anyone who believes Sin City cost $40m to make has issues; regardless of what the studios pushing out.
Any film with that cast; regardless of how arty or whatnot it is, is looking at a $50m minimum budget.


Well really, who in the cast would have that big of a paycheck, especially when there's only three with major roles. It's been widely reported that Bruce Willis took a major paycut for the role (20 million to 5-10), and neither Mickey Rourke or Clive Owen would cost much anything. Already we're down to the supporting roles. Jessica Alba, Elijah Wood, Rosario Dawson, Nick Stahl, Rutger Hauer, Jaime King, Michael Clarke Duncan, Devon Aoki, Josh Hartnett and Brittany Murphy all either had a. Small roles, b. Weren't big costy names to begin with, or c. Both a and b. Benicio del Toro may be a bigger actor, but he had a small role and is well known for often being in movies that he wants to do rather then for just the paycheck (21 Grams, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, etc). So aside from that, what's left to make it cost so much? The look? Well you can thank Rodreguez's skills with a digital camera for that - he's been very excited about how huge a money saver digital filming is, and part of the reason he had Tarantino film for a day was to show this off. So no, the only one that has issues is you for thinking Elektra cost 30 million. :lol:


I would liek to see how much they spent on marketing Sin City, my guess is 40m-45m
Well since theres barely any other movies that has shown its marketing cost this year yet, atleast at BOM, I checked last year and movies with 40-50 in marketing are I,Robot, DAT, Spider-Man 2, and Village.

Sin City's marketing went strong for about 2weeks, once it came out that came to a complete halt, barely any commercials even to say how it was the #1 movie and things of that matter. So I'd say more like 30-35m ( similar to Kill Bill ). Miramax doesnt seem like they would shell out HUGE blockbuster bucks for marketing, Spy Kids 3-D only cost 25m for marketing.
Author:  DP07 [ Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:42 am ]
Post subject: 
Killuminati510 wrote:
I would liek to see how much they spent on marketing Sin City, my guess is 40m-45m
Well since theres barely any other movies that has shown its marketing cost this year yet, atleast at BOM, I checked last year and movies with 40-50 in marketing are I,Robot, DAT, Spider-Man 2, and Village.[/quote]

Those marketing numbers generally do not come from the studios. They are usually educated guesses by BOM. I think they probably go too low on most blockbusters. Last year marketing costs were down, although the average for a wide release was still in the mid-30s (in 2003 the average was over 39m). I would think advertising costs will increase again this year, and in any case I'm pretty sure Sin City had a larger then average marketing campaign. So, I'd guess 40m.

For most blockbusters, I'm sure it's over 50m. You have to remember the average includes all the smaller films of the year.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/