Posted on 11/26/2010 1:27:31 PM PST by Lazlo in PA
You’re failing to understand the difference in how arthouse movies work. This movie isn’t in a real national release, it’s only in 396 theaters. So it’s not necessarily going to peak this weekend. This isn’t like a big release, those need to hit hard and fast because their theater and screen counts just dwindle, every week out is less and less money. Arthouse movies meander around the country for months. Like I said earlier, this movie probably won’t even get to Tucson (where I live) until March, for us it’ll be new then.
Completely ignore the “standard Hollywood matrix”, this isn’t a Hollywood movie. Arthouse movies don’t slice up the revenues with the theater the same, they don’t spend as much on advertising, none of the math is the same. The math that counts is that this is the #1 revenue arthouse movie two weeks in a row, and looks like it’s going to hold the title for a third weekend. The fact that this arthouse movie actually managed to crack the top 10 is impressive.
Also remember that’s 3 to 4 million people in this country, and so far it’s doing matching revenue abroad. So if it pulls off $40 million in revenue here and continues its pattern that’ll be a total of $80 million. Even if the “standard Hollywood matrix” applied that would be +36 million dollars, not a bomb by any definition.
“REDs” was a great movie. I am sure you’ll like it.
John Malkovitch did a superb job in his role.
I saw Sean Penn bailing out his skiff at the time it happened. Even though I was very distressed about what was happening in New Orleans, I remember laughing my butt off over attention hog Penn’s troubles.
Thanks!
It’s another big lefty flop the only avenue left to make a dime is for all the lefty Pubic Librarians to buy a couple of copies.
Were you in the same theater as I was? Saw it, thought it stunk, loved RED.
Dollars to doughnuts it will still be nominated for Best Picture.
If you read my 2 posts again, you will see I was giving “REDs” a favorable review, and I did not and never will see the Plame movie.
We agree that “REDs” was a good movie.
My husband liked it, and I liked it, although I would have liked more explosions and gunfire.
: )
I love that picture. Liberalism in action!
A real yawner for sure destined for Loserville.
This film does not have an art house ad budget; it’s a standard studio release adult drama campaign, with plenty of thirty second ads on the broadcast networks during primetime.
Obviously there are differences between how art house films and “Transformers” movies are rolled out. And art house film exhibitors can get a bigger slice of the smaller pie. But that doesn’t translate to the film being profitable to the studio that made it.
There is no difference between how much box office revenue it takes an “art house” movie and a “Transformers” movie to go into profit: budget plus half again. Whether it makes it back on opening weekend or during a slow roll-out, this film must gross $54 million to start to make money.
$9 million in a month — there is nothing in the numbers to indicate this film will go on to make $80 million foreign and domestic. An Oscar nomination might nudge it upwards a little, but not into profit. Not in 2010 or 2011.
Sorry but you’re wrong. It’s an arthouse movie, with arthouse advertising. See a “normal” studio release campaign is national, but since this movie isn’t out national the ad campaign isn’t. I haven’t seen ad 1 for this movie yet, because it won’t be here for months. And I probably won’t see any ads for it because by the time the arthouse movies get to Tucson sized cities they’re pretty much relying entirely on word of mouth (they love the internet) and the theater’s own advertising (they also love the internet).
And arthouse exhibitors don’t always get a bigger slice, many get a smaller slice, many are non-profit organizations heavily supported by other local businesses so they don’t need as big a slice in the first place. And of course they don’t have the constant release pressure that the bigs have. Big theaters have to put up with a movie industry that averages 4 major releases a week, they need the big score now because they have no later. Arthouses get to show what they want whenever they get around to it. Tucson’s showed The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo for 3 solid months, of course on the other side they show things like Cropsey twice.
Every way you slice it your math is 100% NOT how thing work for this kind of movie. Which is why your estimate is problematic at best.
9 million in a month for a movie that will be in circulation for 6 to 9 months is really good. See you keep using “big” release math but that’s not how things work. For a big release the first month is 90% of the revenue the movie will make in domestic theaters. For an arthouse movie the first month is 10 to 20%, they have a much much longer shelf life.
I’ll keep watching the mojo on this one. You’ll see, sometime around March, when this movie finally gets to here (not that I’ll see it but it’ll be here) it’ll probably be over 40 or 50 mil, and solidly profitable. An arthouse movie that manages to squeeze into the top 10 on under 400 theaters is making solid money.
I have never seen Sean with a gun, that is pretty funny too.
When a studio advertises a film for thirty seconds on broadcast television in primetime (as they are for this film in both Pacific Standard Time and Eastern Standard Time, because the film is out at both ends of the country) — that is a studio release ad budget. It’s stage one of a national release campaign, just on a slower rollout getting to the rest of the country.
“Fair Game” is a mainstream studio film DISGUISED as an arthouse release, because it can’t compete with Harry Potter at the multiplex. If it were really a “small” film (it’s not; they’ve spent too much money on it) with growing “want to see” demand (there’s no evidence it’s going to do better in Tucson than it’s done in Los Angeles), the numbers might pencil out. But neither of these conditions has been met. So it’s tanking.
Agreed that arthouse releases can follow a slightly different trajectory to profitability — but the number that puts you in the black is the same for every picture with a marketing budget equal to the production budget, like “Fair Game.” Looks to me like the marketing costs have even exceeded production on this one.
I’m happy to revisit this debate in March, but “40 or 50 mil” will not be “solidly profitable.” “Fair Game” has to do $54 million just to recoup costs. At $60 million, I’ll agree that it’s comfortably in the black, and I’ll cheerfully take my hat off to you.
But they aren’t advertising this movie nationally on broadcast television. Like I said, I haven’t seen any ads for this. The might be buying in the local slots on broadcast where you are, remember a couple of slots in every break are reserved for stuff sold by the local affiliate, so just because the commercial is during Grey’s Anatomy doesn’t mean it’s part of a national campaign.
They’re releasing Fair Game on the arthouse circuit, through the standard small number of copies method.
You should really look at the latest numbers. While we were discussing this yesterday it hauled in half a million bucks domestically. Putting it’s domestic total at just under 5 million with foreign keeping pace. It’s now got almost 10 million in revenue with each weekend making more than before. It ain’t tanking at all. If it replicates yesterday today and tomorrow that’ll bring it close to 2 million for the 4 day weekend, or twice your estimate.
Again your “estimate” that it has to make 54 million to be profitable is based on the WRONG MATH. They haven’t, and won’t, spent anywhere near a normal Hollywood ad budget.
I have and I'm in Arkansas. I can't remember if it was television advertising or where I saw it but it wasn't in a movie theatre since I avoid those like the plague.
It might be near you. Could depend on what channels you watch too. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s being nationally advertised on the film nerd channels (Sundance, IFC, whatever else). I don’t watch those channel, not that much of a film nerd.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.