The Official Box Office Thread

[buster00]

Don't forget, Chanukkah starts this weekend too! Me, I'm loading my li'l nieces and nephews into the car to catch Munich at the earliest possible.

That Spielberg knows how to put together a real honest-to-God family crowd pleaser. Already, my heart is so fuckin' WARM I could sizzle bacon on my chest! I'll probably pull the car over and pick up some homeless people along the way, so that they may share the magic as well. That's what the spirit of the holiday season means to me.

Then we'll all meet back at my parents house, where my siblings and I will re-enact Tekken, only more drunk.

Anyway. #1 - Kong. #2 - Narnia. #3 - Dozen. #4 - Munich.

[DinoDeLaurentiis]

Narnia will be the big suprise winner of the season.

A winner surely, but a the SURPRISE? I donna think a so, eh? Iffa you look at a the States, this is a the country that took alla the little bambinos to see a the Jesus get a the Passion whipped right offa him, no?

[burlivesleftnut]

Don't forget, Chanukkah starts this weekend too! Me, I'm loading my li'l nieces and nephews into the car to catch Munich at the earliest possible.

That Spielberg knows how to put together a real honest-to-God family crowd pleaser. Already, my heart is so fuckin' WARM I could sizzle bacon on my chest! I'll probably pull the car over and pick up some homeless people along the way, so that they may share the magic as well. That's what the spirit of the holiday season means to me.

Then we'll all meet back at my parents house, where my siblings and I will re-enact Tekken, only more drunk.

Anyway. #1 - Kong. #2 - Narnia. #3 - Dozen. #4 - Munich.

This is THE quote of the holiday season.

[BobGobbler]

http://boxofficeguru.com/122205.htm

Narnia passed Kong today by about 100,000 bucks.

It looks like it may actually compete with Kong for the top spot this weekend.

[Adam Balm]

Man, this is like neck and neck. Thanks Bob.

[BobGobbler]

Even I am surprised by this.

Isn't this sort of a comeback almost unprecedented? Is Narnia really that stong???

[Cpt Kirks 2pay]

Lassie will own their asses at Christmas.

Accept it.

[Adam Balm]

Heading into the all-important Christmas holiday weekend, Narnia is showing more momentum increasing its daily gross each day this week while Kong has seen its grosses slip each day since Saturday.

[Pacino86845]

you may be on to something.

I think some of what you are saying may be so to an extent.


There is alot of kiddie'd down shit now

I find your ideas interesting and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

ISOMDILASH!!!!

[Neo Zeed]

ISOMDILASH!!!!

I'm sorry, but what does that phrase mean? Sadly, I'm not that hip.... But I'm willing to learn

[Gheorghe Zamfir]

I Sodomized One Mighty Dude In Loving Anal Style, HARD!

Gonna be a rought weekend, six new, fairly mainstream releases, Munich, Rumor Has It, The Ringer, Memoirs of a Geisha, Fun With Dick and Jane, & Cheaper By the Dozen II, plus Narnia, seems like the box office is gonna be spread pretty thin.

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

ISOMDILASH!!!!

I'm sorry, but what does that phrase mean? Sadly, I'm not that hip.... But I'm willing to learn

just some inside joke some feel proud to be in on

[BobGobbler]

No stats for Kong or FWD&J because Universal is on vacation.

Narnia jumped up 16% to 5.7 million yesterday.

I'm ready to say it now: Narnia will beat Kong this weekend. I don't think anyone expected this 2 weeks ago. Wow.

[DinoDeLaurentiis]

just some inside joke some feel proud to be in on

It's a not a the inside joke, eh? You act a like a that, anna we gonna to have a to call a you Party Poops Freshenmeyer, no?

It's a the variation onna the IPAMPILASH (I Piss A My Pants I Laugh A So Hard).

ISOMDILASH = I Spit Onna My Desk I Laugh A So Hard

[Adam Balm]

ICOSAHEDRONILASH!

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

just some inside joke some feel proud to be in on

It's a not a the inside joke, eh? You act a like a that, anna we gonna to have a to call a you Party Poops Freshenmeyer, no?

It's a the variation onna the IPAMPILASH (I Piss A My Pants I Laugh A So Hard).

ISOMDILASH = I Spit Onna My Desk I Laugh A So Hard

It's cool. It was kinda off putting to us newbies, no? Like imagine going on a site and every sixth post is just the word YJTTHAIJLKSN? I get it now. But it's a mouthful. Whenever friends IM "LOL" I hardly believe it. I have a feeling more people type LOL than actually do it. Me, if it's funny but I don't feel like laughing, I'll just go "ha" or something. If it's actually laugh out loud funny, I can go "wirl" as in "wow, I'm really laughing." Whatever happened to rofl?

[Adam Balm]

ISENTROPICLASH!!!

[Ribbons]

just some inside joke some feel proud to be in on

It's a not a the inside joke, eh? You act a like a that, anna we gonna to have a to call a you Party Poops Freshenmeyer, no?

It's a the variation onna the IPAMPILASH (I Piss A My Pants I Laugh A So Hard).

ISOMDILASH = I Spit Onna My Desk I Laugh A So Hard

It's cool. It was kinda off putting to us newbies, no? Like imagine going on a site and every sixth post is just the word YJTTHAIJLKSN? I get it now. But it's a mouthful. Whenever friends IM "LOL" I hardly believe it. I have a feeling more people type LOL than actually do it. Me, if it's funny but I don't feel like laughing, I'll just go "ha" or something. If it's actually laugh out loud funny, I can go "wirl" as in "wow, I'm really laughing." Whatever happened to rofl?

I actually type LOL entirely too often in IM conversations. Even when I don't really mean it. Sometimes even after whatever somebody said isn't all that funny. It's like, when somebody tells a funny little anecdote, I just say it to advance the conversation. Like "Mm-hmm" or "Oh, word?" or whatever. I need to set up one of those electroshock therapy deals or something.

[buster00]

Regarding IPAMPILASH, is that what led to the "Cliches" thread? It seems like I started seeing unecessary IPAMPILASHing when a simple LMAO or LOL would do, if that. I'm kinda new here, but, y'know...just observing.

I've taken to saying "LOL" out loud in my everyday life. If someone says something to me and it's kind of funny, but not that funny, I'll tell that person, "LOL," in a deep monotone voice. Usually without looking up from my keyboard. Try it. You'll find that people will leave you alone in a BIG fuckin' hurry.

[burlivesleftnut]

Regarding IPAMPILASH, is that what led to the "Cliches" thread? It seems like I started seeing unecessary IPAMPILASHing when a simple LMAO or LOL would do, if that. I'm kinda new here, but, y'know...just observing.

I've taken to saying "LOL" out loud in my everyday life. If someone says something to me and it's kind of funny, but not that funny, I'll tell that person, "LOL," in a deep monotone voice. Usually without looking up from my keyboard. Try it. You'll find that people will leave you alone in a BIG fuckin' hurry.

When irony runs amock. When someone tells me something that's moderately funny, I do something way stupid and actually laugh.

[buster00]

I used to work with a dude named "Lowell," so it got confusing. People asked me to stop.

After we agreed on a dollar amount, I did. LOL!

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

Regarding IPAMPILASH, is that what led to the "Cliches" thread?

Oh not at all. The AICN cliches thread was started after reading a review, I noticed the reviewer doing the old "if you think this, you totally missed the point" schtick. For some reason, I get really sensitive to cliches, on here, in movies, tv and real life.

Working at a theater once, a senior citizen couple ordered tickets to a movie, I told them the price, the guy used the standard "I need to mortgage my house to pay for these" joke. I don't know, maybe this is funny but it's the most overused customer stock joke there is. I just didn't laugh, didn't do anything and I can tell he was waiting for a reaction. Then his wife leans over and whispers into his ear "he must have no sense of humor." Ironic since it was my sense of humor that stopped me from laughing at that tired line. And I just noticed there were a lot of cliches on the main site, in the reviews and talkbacks so I thought I'd address it.

As for IMPAMPLISH, wirl is much easier for me to type. But up until I knew what it meant, it seemed like some old zoner inside joke used to out newbies. I was wrong. I don't think I can type IMPAMPLISH that much though. I'd really not be laughing anymore by the time I found all the letters on my keyboard.

Oh, btw, another cliche that's more an internet thing that on AICN, people laughing so hard that they spit up whatever they're drinking onto their monitors/keyboards. Does this really happen?

PS - one of my friends is a serial LOLer, but what's funny is that he always follows it with a "c'mon." So instead of always getting LOL, it's usually "LOL, c'mon." Which in a way is funny. I might start implementing it on here.

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

Not even 2 weeks yet and Kong made all it's money back, worldwide.

[Adam Balm]

Got a link? And I'm sure that doesn't include marketing and other expenditures.

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

Got a link? And I'm sure that doesn't include marketing and other expenditures.

http://tinyurl.com/bcck6

oh yeah, that's only in terms of gross/budget. The industry spent $207m on making Kong. The industry got back $216m as of now. The prints and advertising costs aren't listed. And I'm sure the studio's not getting the full $216 as it's splitting it with theaters.

But in terms of Gross over Budget, the movie's in the black. As for net profit, it'll probably forever be in the red. The creative accounting will always keep it in the red, probably to avoid paying net participants. I read net particpants of Batman have yet to see a dime cause on paper, that movie is still in the red, at least at the time "Hit and Run" was published.

[RogueScribner]

Studios generally make back half of what a movie grosses, sometimes more for movies that open big and fade fast (studios always want their cut first). Kong has a little ways to go before it starts turning a profit. When it does more than $400 million worldwide, then it should be making money for Universal. Of course, there are other revenue streams to consider, such as toys, games, merchandise, and the eventual video release(s).

[Cpt Kirks 2pay]

And Kong sex fetish outfits.

[BobGobbler]

Merry Christmas everyone!

A couple interesting updates:

Friday and Saturday estimates are in. These are the totals for those two days. Do they seem low to anyone else?:

Kong - 12,840,000
Narnia - 12,830,000

As you can see, this will come down to the Christmas Day numbers.

Another interesting number: Kong is trading at $147.65 million on HSX.com and Narnia is at $181.48 million. Good thing I shorted Kong at 190 million

[Adam Balm]

God, this is still neck and neck. One hell of a horse race to watch. Once again, thanks for the update Bob.

[Adam Balm]

Studios generally make back half of what a movie grosses, sometimes more for movies that open big and fade fast (studios always want their cut first). Kong has a little ways to go before it starts turning a profit. When it does more than $400 million worldwide, then it should be making money for Universal. Of course, there are other revenue streams to consider, such as toys, games, merchandise, and the eventual video release(s).

I believe the quoted figure is (for a standard blockbuster) that worldwide box office take is usually expected to be around 10% of the total profit. Licensing, merchandising, DVD and the ancillary tv rights make up the rest.

[RogueScribner]

How can box office only be 10% of total revenue? That doesn't make any sense.

[Adam Balm]

Because licensing, merchandising, DVD and the ancillary tv rights together make ten times as much money for a studio than what the box office makes.

[freak2thec0re]

yea, the initial theatre release is almost like advertising for everything else that makes the real money


so boxofficemojo has, in it's Saturday estimate, that Narnia just barely edged out King Kong for first place. Crazy . . .

[RogueScribner]

Sorry, but I find that hard to believe. I'm sure the studios make a good chunk of change in ancillary revenues, but theatrical box office still has to be a big piece of the overall pie, not just a tiny slice. If that were the case, then why would anyone care what a movie grossed or didn't gross? Why would publications declare one movie a bomb and another a blockbuster if box office didn't matter?

By your claim, while Batman Begins grossed $372 million worldwide, Warner Bros. will have pulled in nearly $4 billion in total revenue off that picture when all is said and done. That seems like an awfully high figure. I can see merchandising and other ancillary revenues matching or even doubling a theatrical take, but doing nearly ten times as much? That's insane. A figure like that should be the exception to the rule, not the rule.

Is there a link to some reputable publication that states this type of statistic? I'd be curious to read it.

[Gheorghe Zamfir]

Here's a good article on it:

http://www.slate.com/id/2118819/

Here's another one from the same site, worth mentioning I think for one particular stat:

http://www.slate.com/id/2123286/

In the first quarter of 2005 studios took in $870.2 million from the US box office, in that same quarter, the studios earned $5.67 billion dollars from DVD sales.

[Pacino86845]

Yeah, that was an interesting read, Gheorghe!

[DocBosch]

It's probably closer to 20% or so, though. This is now something that is being taught in the buisness portions of film schools.

We were asked to develope and budget a feature, and then the proffesor would give us a total domestic box-office amount. We entered the figure into a template provided by the text book that estimated the the earnings for international b.o., home video, broadcast, auxilery, etc, based on the dom. B.O. My project earned $185 Mil domestically (before negative), so the template calculated that it earned $448 Mil (before neg) through all the other channels combined ($633 total). Of course, after costs it only made $265 Mil in profits total, which is still great for a movie that (theoretically) cost $20 Mil to make.

The opening weekend box office is now seen as a kind of publicity. Having it be open at #1 just means more people will hear about it, and so it will sell more DVDs and international or broadcast rights can be sold for higher. It's like having a film win an Oscar. That's why studios are pushing to have smaller DVD release windows after the theatrical run. They feel that after all the money spent on advertising the domestic run, the goodwill should be spent quickly in order to sell as many DVDs as possible.

PS, accoriding to that template, my $185 Mil grossing movie made $270 Mil in DVDs alone.

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

re: Kong vs. Narnia

-Kong is an hour longer than Narnia; less showings a day, fewer people can commit to a 3 hour movie than can a 2 hour movie.

-Narnia is playing on 300 more screens than Kong; there's more access to Narnia

-Kong is PG-13, Narnia is PG; more kids can see Narnia than Kong

with those 3 factors, Narnia is just more accessible than Kong, with the lower rating, shorter running time and the higher number of screens. Despite all that, Kong still had a higher per screen average this weekend.

We were asked to develope and budget a feature, and then the proffesor would give us a total domestic box-office amount. We entered the figure into a template provided by the text book

what text book are you using?

[Adam Balm]

You know, as nasty as this thread started out, I have to hand it to everyone here for the mature, rational way everyone is carrying themselves now. This is probably one of the most fascinating and informative threads I've followed in a long time. Well done, all.

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

Looks like Kong outgrossed Narnia this Christmas, which is exciting considering it's an hour longer, a rating higher and on fewer screens.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

I can only assume this happened because:

A) Narnia's one week head start means more people have seen it than Kong so they were going for something new

and/or

B) Kong looks to be a better choice.

[RogueScribner]

Fine, studios generate the bulk of their money in post-theatrical release revenue streams. But you have to consider what that means. At any given point in the year, a studio has a huge library of titles generating revenue for them, most of them titles that haven't seen the inside of a movie theater in years. The studios have a limited slate in theatrical release at any given time, but virtually their entire library is generating cash for them via DVDs and TV everyday. So it stands to reason that their revenues from DVD and TV would be higher overall than their theatrical takes.

Given that, I still don't think it's accurate to say that a movie only grosses 10% of it's revenue potential for a studio in theatrical release. A studio may only make a certain percentage in theatrical releases each year, but that's not saying quite the same thing.

The best selling DVD of all time has sold what? 20 million or so copies? A studio would maybe get what? Ten to fifteen bucks a pop when they distribute to retailers? Let's figure fifteen. That's still only $300 million. I believe Finding Nemo sold 20 million DVDs (maybe more), and it grossed $340 million domestic. So it's DVD sales roughly matched its theatrical take.

Most movies sell 5 million or fewer DVDs. Studios aren't making mints off of every picture they ever release. They are making mints off the combined sales of every picture they have ever released. There's a difference.

I think a theatrical take for a movie is probably going to account for roughly half of what it earns for a studio. Maybe a third, but outside of some special cases, I can't see it being any lower than that.

[The Vicar]

Looks like Kong edges out Narnia by about 1.4 million for the crown over the Holiday-mas period. Considering the points Pops made re: Kongs running time, rating & all that jazz, this should hearten the Kong Camp some. But its going to take longer legs to get Kong up where so many think it belongs. Or where it deserves to be.

[Chairman Kaga]

Rogue I think this concept of the theatrical release accounting for 10% of the films gross take maybe only applies to "big" event films like Kong. Kong has toys, fast food tie ins, Books, video games etc. These are the minority of films released each year though. Small independent features and more "medium" sized films that make up the majority of releases don't have such tie ins. Thus this probably does not apply to them.

[havocSchultz]

and don't the theatres themselves get a big chunk of change from the initial theatrical run - or at least the first couple of week-ends - and how bout the back-end deals - doesn't that akk come off the theatrical gross (i guess depends on how it is set up) - but it makes sense that studios don't get much from theatrical - the theatrical is to pay for all the other stuff and get them some more "advertising" - then when they sell dvd's and merchandise and what-not - that's all profit for them - that's kind of how i always figured it... unless you're george lucas or mel gibson - then your studio only gets a small percentage to distribute - and the dudes get to roll around in the rest...

[RogueScribner]

Rogue I think this concept of the theatrical release accounting for 10% of the films gross take maybe only applies to "big" event films like Kong. Kong has toys, fast food tie ins, Books, video games etc. These are the minority of films released each year though. Small independent features and more "medium" sized films that make up the majority of releases don't have such tie ins. Thus this probably does not apply to them.

Okay, but Adam Balm said this goes for "standard blockbusters." He didn't differentiate between mega-event films and the standard slate Hollywood puts out. I can see where spending $200 million on a movie that grosses maybe $300 million would only return a small percentage of revenue back to the studio before accounting for DVD and merchandise sales. But as I said before, that 10% figure should be the exception to the rule, not the rule. For most movies, what they make in the theaters is probably what they'll make afterwards and the studio won't make much more beyond that. I think the determining factor is what a studio spent in getting the movie out in the market, not so much how much money it made. The more studios spend, the less they receive until the post-theatrical release revenues start coming in. So yeah, 10% may be accurate for studios that gambled too much money to begin with, but I don't think this equates for a "standard" anything. It's a gamble maybe made a dozen times a year versus the hundreds of safer bets released to the theaters.

Wedding Crashers is one of the biggest hits of the year, but it doesn't have much (if any) in the way of merchandising revenue coming back to the studio. However, it also didn't cost $100 million to make, so I'm sure the studio has already seen some return on their investment prior to it even hitting DVD, so it's all gravy for the studio at this point.

While post-theatrical release revenues can be lucrative, it's not a given, and I think it's wrong to assume that every hit movie is going to end up generating billions of dollars for their studios. Not every movie can have a vast array of merchandise tie-ins and not every movie is going to be a big hit on DVD, even if it made a decent sum in the theaters. The potential in the post-theatrical release market is greater (and more stable), but its not an automatic windfall of riches for every movie.

and don't the theatres themselves get a big chunk of change from the initial theatrical run - or at least the first couple of week-ends -

It's the other way around; studios get their biggest cut the first 2-3 weekends a movie is in the theaters (up to 70% of the box office in some cases) and then the longer the movies stay in the theaters the bigger the theater's take is. That's why this past summer theaters probably made more money off of March of the Penguins than they did ROTS or War of the Worlds.

[BobGobbler]

Kong dropped 57.3% from last weekend, 37.3 percent if you count Monday.

Narnia dropped 36% from last weekend and only 5.5% if you count Monday.

It is pretty obvious now that Kong is going to follow a traditional blockbuster track: two or three good weekends and then a rapid drop. It won't help that Narnia seems to have VERY stong legs.

All I want is the stupid Titanic comparisons to end, can we agree to that?

[Chairman Kaga]

All I want is the stupid Titanic comparisons to end, can we agree to that?

Who is comparing it that way? Variety?

[Adam Balm]

All I want is the stupid Titanic comparisons to end, can we agree to that?

Who is comparing it that way? Variety?

No one knows who started it, but it seemed like a lot of people were. Just like a lot of people were doing it before Attack of the Clones came out, and so forth.

And yes, I would definitely be happy with the comparisons ending.

[RogueScribner]

Titanic was a fluke of epic proportions. You can't compare anything to it.

[Lord Voldemoo]

I went to Narnia on Monday, still haven't seen Kong. I totally intend to see it, but haven't had the time with Christmas coming and all. Can't devote enough time to see that long of a movie. Maybe this week. I went to see Narnia over Kong because my brother and I were taking my mother, and she doesn't like giant monkeys. Also, my cousin went and she's not quite old enough to see Kong. I'm not sure how that analysis affects things in this thread, but there you have it. Many kids are too young for Kong, and mothers dislike giant monkeys. Questions answered.



Ladies and gentlemen, the most worthless post of all time. I've been off the board for a few days, need to get my swing back...