The Official Box Office Thread

[Chairman Kaga]

My god, that means I am somehow posting replies by chance? I am not actually reading these threads.

[TheButcher]

Damn King Kong killed the Hulk!

Hulk 2 news:
http://latinoreview.com/news.php?id=122

While on an interview with Eric Bana promoting Munich, he recently told NY Newsday that their aren't any plans to do a sequl for The Hulk and that nobody is talking about it. Here is the clip from the interview.

Asked about his trajectory - going from sketch comedy to a Spielberg production in five years - Bana laughed. "You'd be insane, either insane or a genius," he said of the likelihood of planning such a path. "It's ridiculous in a way. It's what you dream, but you certainly don't think it's going to happen." He conceded that some projects have been less successful than others - "Hulk," for instance ("Nobody's talking about any sequel," he said). But he said he was just "trying to find great work."

[Ribbons]

Damn King Kong killed the Hulk!

Me confused.

[TheButcher]

I think Universal was waiting to greenlight a sequel based on Kongs performance. Since the movie isn't doing well they got scared and scrapped the Hulk.

[Ribbons]

Oh, okay. Hmmm, maybe. I hope they realize that there are a bunch of x-factors in there if that's the case.

[havocSchultz]

Since the movie isn't doing well they got scared and scrapped the Hulk.

hmmm - i just checked boxofficeguru today - and i think they said by the end of the week - kong should pass $400 mill worldwide - i still think that's not too bad... and i think the real reason there will be no hulk sequel is because the hulk wasn't that good - and dropped like 70% or so it's 2nd weekend...

[havocSchultz]

here ya go:

Boxofficeguru Wrote:

Overseas, Kong grabbed an additional $29M from 49 markets to boost its international tally to $222.5M. Universal expects the Peter Jackson film to break the $400M global mark by the end of Monday. The $207M-budgeted actioner should crash through the $500M barrier later this month.

[RogueScribner]

Kong has nothing to do with Hulk. There's probably not going to be a sequel to Hulk anytime soon because Universal probably didn't turn a profit on the movie until after it hit DVD, and even then, if they did go into the black, it probably wasn't by much. The movie underwhelmed the masses and for many people it has a stigma attached to it. The franchise isn't as dead as when Batman was run into the ground, but it's not too healthy either. When and if Universal greenlights a sequel, they have to be sure they're putting something out there that's not going to polarize people and, gasp, make money.

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

here ya go:

Boxofficeguru Wrote:

Overseas, Kong grabbed an additional $29M from 49 markets to boost its international tally to $222.5M. Universal expects the Peter Jackson film to break the $400M global mark by the end of Monday. The $207M-budgeted actioner should crash through the $500M barrier later this month.

$400m in the first month. Half a billion by the end of this one. And it will still be considered a flop until it domestically earns back it's budget

[havocSchultz]

here ya go:

Boxofficeguru Wrote:

Overseas, Kong grabbed an additional $29M from 49 markets to boost its international tally to $222.5M. Universal expects the Peter Jackson film to break the $400M global mark by the end of Monday. The $207M-budgeted actioner should crash through the $500M barrier later this month.

$400m in the first month. Half a billion by the end of this one. And it will still be considered a flop until it domestically earns back it's budget

give it another weekend or so and it should top the $200 mill domestic... i believe i remember hearing that it needed to make about $500 mill worldwide in order to turn a profit - so it should be ok...

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

i believe i remember hearing that it needed to make about $500 mill worldwide in order to turn a profit - so it should be ok...

my creative math is a bit fuzzy. I'm sure the Universal accountants will see that Kong's net point participants never see a dime but, how does a $250m movie need to earn $500m to turn a profit? At the $500m mark, doesn't that mean that it already has $250m in profit?

[havocSchultz]

i believe i remember hearing that it needed to make about $500 mill worldwide in order to turn a profit - so it should be ok...

my creative math is a bit fuzzy. I'm sure the Universal accountants will see that Kong's net point participants never see a dime but, how does a $207m movie need to earn $500m to turn a profit?

i just remember hearing something bout with all the people needing to be paid - and ad costs and what-not - apparentely for it to break even - that's roughly how much it needed to make...

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

i just remember hearing something bout with all the people needing to be paid - and ad costs and what-not - apparentely for it to break even - that's roughly how much it needed to make...

If you get a link, please post it. I'm really curious about the prints and advertising costs of movies as well as the toll gross participation has on it. I'm sure the biggest gross participant is PJ and when the film went over over budget, he split it with Universal. His end came out of his own pocket. As for other gross participants, I don't know. But most of the people that need to be paid, above and below the line, that money is already factored into the budget.

For instance, if it's true that PJ's paycheck was $30m for his work, that $30m comes out of the budget. As for prints and advertising, I believe UIP is distributing Kong overseas. That's Universal and Paramount's distribution company. So a lot of that money stays in house. At least all the advertising on NBC stays in house because NBC is Universal, now. I wouldn't be shocked if Universal started attributing the costs of some of their other films to Kong's budget. The film's already profitable, although won't be seen as such until it grosses $207m domestically.

Then there's ancilliary profits...

[BobGobbler]

I don't think there was ever a question of whether it would profit or not, the question was whether it would be a top grossing film of all time, which doesn't look realistic.

If Narnia wasn't around, Kong probably would have 25-30% more cash. I underestimated the power of the holiday season.

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

I don't think there was ever a question of whether it would profit or not,

That's still in question. Schultz heard somewhere that Kong has to gross $500m to profit. With the benefit of hindsight, these past three weeks, of course Kong won't be the top grossing film. But the possibility was there...

[Gheorghe Zamfir]

my creative math is a bit fuzzy. I'm sure the Universal accountants will see that Kong's net point participants never see a dime but, how does a $250m movie need to earn $500m to turn a profit? At the $500m mark, doesn't that mean that it already has $250m in profit?

I think its discussed a bit earlier in the thread, but generally speaking studios make back about half of what a film earns at that box office, so a $250 million dollar film, at the $500m mark, will presumably be at around the break even point, give or take a few million.

[Ribbons]

the question was whether it would be a top grossing film of all time, which doesn't look realistic.

Now don't take this the wrong way BobGobbler, but if this is the reason you're so pissed off about Peter Jackson, I think you need to take it easy. There aren't really that many people out there who thought that KONG was gonna outgross Titanic.

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

I think its discussed a bit earlier in the thread, but generally speaking studios make back about half of what a film earns at that box office, so a $250 million dollar film, at the $500m mark, will presumably be at around the break even point, give or take a few million.

I'm not saying this to be an ass but can that be cited? I think it makes sense that they split it 50/50 but am sure that can't be further from the truth. Othewise, theater chains would be more successful than studios since studios can't charge $10 for a drink.

Does anyone know for sure?

[Gheorghe Zamfir]

I'm not gonna dig for it, but somewhere in this thread I linked to an article that breaks down movie gross vs movie profit, and I believe in that article it does say that its about a 50/50 split.

Ok so I did dig for it, here it is:

Gross Misunderstanding

"The movie houses [theaters] take these sums and keep their share (or what they claim is their share)—which can amount to more than 50 percent of the original box-office total."

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

here's an article I found that explains where movie theaters make most of their money...can you guess:

http://tinyurl.com/btwfc

[Gheorghe Zamfir]

So if you take into consideration that the studio earns 35-80% of the ticket sales, plus other expenses (advertising, prints, taxes, insurance, etc), I think we're still on track that generally speaking a studio will make back about half of what a film earns at the box office.

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

So if you take into consideration that the studio earns 35-80% of the ticket sales, plus other expenses (advertising, prints, taxes, insurance, etc), I think we're still on track that generally speaking a studio will make back about half of what a film earns at the box office.

Sorry, but that article is such B.S. The guy's actually saying that a movie that grossed $242m only made $11m? How do studios stay in business? Below is a portion of the article...

First, the reported "grosses" are not those of the studios but those of the movie houses. The movie houses take these sums and keep their share (or what they claim is their share)—which can amount to more than 50 percent of the original box-office total. Consider, for example, Touchstone's Gone in 60 Seconds, which had a $242 million box-office gross. From this impressive haul, the theaters kept $129.8 million and remitted the balance to Disney's distribution arm, Buena Vista. After paying mandatory trade dues to the MPAA, Buena Vista was left with $101.6 million. From this amount, it repaid the marketing expenses that had been advanced—$13 million for prints so the film could open in thousands of theatres; $10.2 million for the insurance, local taxes, custom clearances, and other logistical expenses; and $67.4 million for advertising. What remained of the nearly quarter-billion-dollar "gross" was a paltry $11 million. (And that figure does not account for the $103.3 million that Disney had paid to make the movie in the first place.)

Why would a studio greenlight a film if it will only get back 4% of the gross and knowingly lose money? Because it knows it'll make it back in DVD? So every movie is basically made for the straight to video market? Not that many movies gross over $240m and if even that isn't enough to be successful, not only is Kong a bomb, but so is Narnia.

Under this logic, theater chains would be bigger than studios since they supposedly make 50% of the gross and concessions!

I'd love to see what other kinds of creative accounting is out there until there is something that is legit, I'll only be posting in terms of

what the industry pays to make a movie
what the movie grosses for the industry

The industry (not just Uni but PJ) paid $250m to make and release Kong and Kong has made $400m for the industry including theaters and distributon arms and insurrance and advertising and any other entity you'd like to tack on. That's $150m profit and still counting...

[RogueScribner]

I don't think there was ever a question of whether it would profit or not, the question was whether it would be a top grossing film of all time, which doesn't look realistic.

I liked Kong, but damn you gotta be smokin' some crack if you thought it'd supplant Titanic! Realistically, I never thought it'd break $300 million domestic and I look to probably be right. My WCS (worst case scenario) prediction was $80 million. I don't think any sane person realistically thought it'd pull in phenomenal numbers like Titanic or Spider-man. It's a three hour B-movie. You can only expect so much from it.

[Ribbons]

Speaking of smoking crack, "surplant"? "Reaslistically"? Are we making up words now?

[RogueScribner]

One was a I-need-to-go-to-bed-it's-late grammatical error, the other was a typo. Sue me.

[burlivesleftnut]

Maybe we will, RogueScribner. MAYBE WE WILL.

[Gheorghe Zamfir]

Sorry, but that article is such B.S. The guy's actually saying that a movie that grossed $242m only made $11m? How do studios stay in business? Below is a portion of the article.

The only issue I may take with that guys numbers is that he uses Gone in 60 Seconds, which was somewhat of a dissapointment (cost over $100 million and barely made that much domestically), so that movie doesn't quite deliver a fair example of the figures Hollywood would "expect" when they greenlight a blockbuster film. But it still provides a good illustration of the expenses involved in releasing a movie past simply the budget. Even the article you linked to said the theaters take in 20%-65% of the gross, and you have to figure by the end of it all that number find themselves somehwere in the middle of that rather than the extremes. And that's just one of the post-budget expenses, so I think even if you want to decide that article is not legit cause for whatever reason you don't agree with it, it still seems fairly clear that studio profit is not as simple as the box office grosses and what the industry paid.

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

The longer a film stays in the theater, the higher percentage it will get back from the studio. For most films that are gone within a month, even the really successful ones, the theater gets much less than 50%

I'm sure there are many expenses in releasing a film, probably more than that guy even lists, but they're probably much less than he listed.

I'll never be able to agree that theaters make more than studios until I see the books or read about them from a reliable source. As I understand, theaters live and die by concessions. Studios don't have that so theoretically they'd be out of business.

Until we have something firm as to how much the studios actually get back, and a firm budget as well as P&A budget, it will be impossible to tell, so I'm really speaking in terms of gross, not net.

I can tell you with a lot of confidence though that movies that gross $240m where the studio only ends up getting $11m is not a sound business plan. The exhibition industry would've turned into the straight to DVD industry years ago since it costs 300% of a films budget to release it.

Wouldn't Universal save millions and millions of dollars by releasing Kong straight to DVD? Cut the theaters out. Cut the prints cost out. Cut the insurrance and distribution out and many other factors.

Many of those businesses that get paid are still the industry. The exhibition and distribution arms of the industry need films like Kong and work closely with the studios. So I'm not sure what the updated numbers are but, the only thing that is solid is that

Kong cost $250m to make and release
Kong grossed over $400m

In the end, Kong will be one of the highest grossing movies of '05 and '06, a film the industry relies on to pay for the duds.

[Gheorghe Zamfir]

I'm sure there are many expenses in releasing a film, probably more than that guy even lists, but they're probably much less than he listed.

Well exactly which figures are you taking issue with? $13m for prints? $10.2m for insurance, local taxes, custom clearances, and other logistical expenses? $67.4m for advertising? These are all more than realistic expenses for a high profile, wide release blockbuster film (in actuality, for some films these days some of these costs may be as much as twice this).

I'll never be able to agree that theaters make more than studios until I see the books or read about them from a reliable source. As I understand, theaters live and die by concessions. Studios don't have that so theoretically they'd be out of business.

There's a difference between revenue and profit, so while yes, concessions play a large role in theaters profit margins, ticket sales still account for the majority of a theater's revenue. But revenue streams have changed, so while on its face it may seem like it makes sense to say, splitting movie tickets+concessions push theaters ahead, it doesn't come anywhere near working out like that. It ignores the costs of theaters as well as the money-making markets studios have available to them after a theatrical release, markets which account for the majority of a studio's revenue.

NY Times

This quote makes a little less sense out of context, the article is about DVDs changing the landscape, but I wanted to include it as it does point out a model for profitabilty if one were thinking in terms of box office alone, which is what we're doing.

"The old Hollywood model of needing to recoup three times the production cost at the box office to make a profit is long gone."

Money CNN

"Theater operators, meanwhile, pocket roughly half of all ticket sales and look to sales of popcorn and other concessions for their livelihood."

Slate.com

"Although every deal is different, the theaters and the studios generally wind up splitting the take from the box office roughly 50-50."

Though you're right, we can't know for sure for each movie, and I'm not suggesting anything hard and fast about the rule, I was answering with a general response to a general question. Why would a $250 million dollar film need to make $500 million before we could say it was in the black? Generally, box office has to make back twice what the film cost for it to become profitable in that arena. You're of course free to stick to your idea that profitability begins after the production budget is cleared, and with some movies that may even be the case, its just not useful as a general measuring stick.

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

fair enough

[Gheorghe Zamfir]

And just so the wrong idea isn't given, I don't think Kong is a bomb or going to not make a profit, I'm sure however it turns out in the box office its going to end up being a very profitable film, and it's crossed the $400 million line internationally ($414m), which is the benchmark for considering a film an international "blockbuster" ($200m is the line domestically, and I'm sure it'll cross that one as well).

[RogueScribner]

KK is sure to take in $500 million or more worldwide. Even if Universal spent $200 million on the movie and another $100 million on prints and advertising, any ancillary revenues is going to be pure gravy for them. KK isn't going to lose money. Not like Serenity did. *sniff*

[havocSchultz]

so a new weekend of box office battling is upon us - will kong and/or Narnia reign supreme - or will Hostel or BloodRayne or Grandma's Boy take the top spot - here's a looksee at some predictions by the boxofficeguru:

box office predictions january 6-8

whaddya guys think...?

[jgraphix]

I think Hostel will take in the most this weekend.. I'm going as well as a bunch of people I know and of the three flicks opening this weekend, Hostel has the most screens and of course BloodRayne will bomb and Grandmas Boy, well c'mon. Albeit Hostel is a horror/torture movie, this genre seems to be getting bigger and bigger. JMO

[havocSchultz]

ya - the only thing else that comes close to having some horror elements in it right now is Kong - (bloodRayne is just horrific... in a completely different way) - so i think Hostel will do well - probably won't hold too much afterwards - like alot of horror movies - cause all the fans go the first weekend - but either way - it was cheap to make - so if it has a good/#1 opening weekend - it's pretty much already a success... i guess the real question is who will be second - kong or narnia - kong will probably suffer more from Hostel's release than narnia - i don't see hostel getting over-flow attendance from most of the narnia crowd - but we'll see...

[DinoDeLaurentiis]

Albeit Hostel is a horror/torture movie, this genre seems to be getting bigger and bigger.

Any genre the whole a family can a enjoy is a the box office gold, no?

[havocSchultz]

Albeit Hostel is a horror/torture movie, this genre seems to be getting bigger and bigger.

Any genre the whole a family can a enjoy is a the box office gold, no?

and Hostel is a film the whole family can enjoy...albeit the manson family maybe... but still...

[jgraphix]

i guess the real question is who will be second - kong or narnia - kong will probably suffer more from Hostel's release than narnia - i don't see hostel getting over-flow attendance from most of the narnia crowd - but we'll see..

HaHa! I can just imagine.. "Hey kids! Narnia is sold out huh? Well you should tell your parents to take you to Hostel, eh?"

[havocSchultz]

i guess the real question is who will be second - kong or narnia - kong will probably suffer more from Hostel's release than narnia - i don't see hostel getting over-flow attendance from most of the narnia crowd - but we'll see..

HaHa! I can just imagine.. "Hey kids! Narnia is sold out huh? Well you should tell your parents to take you to Hostel, eh?"

that should part of their marketing - moreso than "Quentin Tarantino Presents" - it should say: "Narnia Sold Out - well - Tarantino says Fuck Narnia - see Hostel instead...The Best family movie he's seen all year"

[havocSchultz]

so here's an update for y'all in regards to this weekend's box office battle - looks like Hostel is gonna make quite an impact and looks like BloodRayne - was seen by about 6 people - go figure - who'd have thunk it...

here ya go:

Friday's Estimated Numbers

[Retardo_Montalban]

A few years ago, I watched this story on a news program. I think it was W5. It was about how theater chains make their profit. From the sounds of it, I don't think the chains get a whole lot out of a movie wether it's a success or not. The way it was explained on the program, was that the theater makes most of its profit out of concession. It even said that the theaters pay the studios a huge sum to begin with for their film reels. My memory of the program isn't crystal clear or anything, so I wouldn't take what I say as verbatim. I think the profits that a theater gets from ticket sales, pretty much only covers for the projection equipment and the theater itself. This is why concession is so damned expensive, because this is where the theater makes its money. It also makes more sense from a business stand point as well. The theater did nothing to create the movie, so why would they get a substantial percentage of the profit? The more successful a movie in a theater, the more the theater can get out of a reel and the more hungry, thirsty patrons it gets a day. If a theater made as much profit as those other articles say, I doubt I'd be getting frisked as often as I do for bringing in outside food.

[Gheorghe Zamfir]

If a theater made as much profit as those other articles say, I doubt I'd be getting frisked as often as I do for bringing in outside food.

They don't say that, in fact they both pretty much say exactly what you just said, which is that the ticket sales go more to covering expenses, while concessions account for profit. Again, there's a difference between revenue and profit.

And another one to add I just ran across, if you check out Mojo's box office chart, at the bottom they have this note, "Studios get on average 55 percent of the final gross."

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

theaters also make their money from advertising, the projection slide show, commercials, ads, etc. Not sure how they made that money before in theater advertising was popular. I'm also not sure why theaters don't get into the production side of the industry...oh wait...

[Retardo_Montalban]

If a theater made as much profit as those other articles say, I doubt I'd be getting frisked as often as I do for bringing in outside food.

They don't say that, in fact they both pretty much say exactly what you just said, which is that the ticket sales go more to covering expenses, while concessions account for profit. Again, there's a difference between revenue and profit.

And another one to add I just ran across, if you check out Mojo's box office chart, at the bottom they have this note, "Studios get on average 55 percent of the final gross."

So you're saying it costs all the theaters $100,000,000 dollars to screen King Kong???¿

[Gheorghe Zamfir]

No, I'm not saying that.

[Retardo_Montalban]

So where does all this money go? If the studio doesn't get it and the theaters don't get it, who gets it? I'm thinking maybe all these numbers being thrown around, are just averages of the whole movie industry and take into account the box office bombs. King Kong is probably raking in all kids of dough for the studios, which makes up for their crappy movies, allowing them to break even and maybe make a little profit.

[Gheorghe Zamfir]

Well as far as the split between studios and theaters, I don't think the law of averages really apples in that cause it's more percentages.

But if you're meaning in terms of where the theater's revenue from ticket sales goes to, you're probably right, the law of averages probably does effect this. Blockbuters will make a lot of profit while bombs may not even cover expenses, and it averages out to saying that much of the revenue from ticket sales goes to expenses, but on an individual, movie-by-movie basis, something like Kong probably does make a huge profit for theaters, which is a fair point, and precisely why I wasn't saying anything like blockbuster movies like Kong create $100m dollar expenses for theaters, obviously when a movie makes lot of money, it makes a lot of profit for the theater and the studio. Your initial post said something along the lines of the articles talking about how theaters are making all this profit from ticket sales, I only meant to point out that the articles weren't saying this at all, when they say that theaters take away about half of the ticket they aren't speaking towards profit, but revenue. I didn't mean to suggest that ticket sales didn't account for profit at all, or that a movie's gross is representative of how much a theater has to spend to run it, just that the movie side also accounts for a greater amount of expenses than the concessions side, which is why concessions play such an important role in a theater's profit margin.

[havocSchultz]

here's a quick look at how this weekend should stack up - Hostel takes number 1 - narnia number 2 - and kong 3 - but i think the real question is - where the fuck is BloodRayne...

Top 10 Weekend Estimate

[Gheorghe Zamfir]

That's why I like Mojo, they get a bit more comprehensive:

Weekend Box Office

Bloodrayne came in 19th with $1.2m, Bloodrayne was a bit cursed though cause, well in addition to being craptacular, apparently a ton of prints were sent to the wrong theaters, so it ended up opening on almost half the amount of screens it was supposed to.

[The Vicar]

In the category of WTF:

After three weeks out, we have this -

Cheaper by the Dozen2, 66.4 mil

Rumor Has It, 35.3 mil

Munich, 25.2 mil

It tells you a bit of what's wrong with the world when Cheaper by the Dozen2 is smoking Munich's ass in BO take. I realise that Munich is likely on less screens, but damn. It looks brutual on paper. ( or screen)